However, if someone sends you email that is restricted, will you have the courage to ask them to send an unrestricted copy or you will be forced to ignore the email?
Finally, I wonder how this will work at work. I wonder if companies will have policies against it, or if there will be a single key belong to the company and the company will require it (such that access can be restricted outside the company and/or only to those within the company who have the keys-- no more sending incriminating documents to yourself at home, that sort of thing). If it weren't political suicide, it would be amusing to restrict completely recipients from any reuse, printing, etc, of any email. That would be the best example of why this trend is so scary when they can't even forward jokes because of DRM on the email.
It merely provides the convenience of obtaining music in a user-friendly environment for use on a limited set of devices.
Huh? Either there is only one device, the iPod, or the range is unlimited because you can burn the file to a CD-- which then gives you all the same freedom you experience with other CDs. In fact, given the recent trend towards attempting to corrupt the CD standard to prevent ripping, the burned CD actually gives you more freedom than buying from a store in many cases.
All this said, I see no reason to support a proprietary software product from either Microsoft or Apple, no reason to buy music in a form that contains DRM, and no reason not to stick with my legal 60GB of mp3s obtained from ripping my private CD collection, ripping borrowed CDs from friends and the library (I should think this is legal, anyway-- if taping those CDs would be legal, then ripping to mp3 ought to be legal as well, no?) and emusic.com (RIP).
There's nothing to respond to! Very few of us can be considered "Linux Zealots" by the definitions Enderle gives... and it's obvious when you read through Slashdot discussions who those folks are. And Enderle seems to characterize them fairly well: angry, often unemployed, anti-establishment in any form (and I would add young to that list)-- he even makes the interesting case that these folks aren't really for Linux as they are against a whole mound of stuff. Linux just happens to be something they can latch onto. Most of what we would call zealots around here, Enderle calls "Linux Priests". To which the only decent response is: "Well, maybe a GNU/Linux Priest. And so what? The decision to use free software is a moral decision."
As far as I can tell both projects are well supported in terms of development and likely to continue to grow. Choosing one does not exclude using apps from the other. I am firmly in the GNOME camp-- in large part thanks to Masao Mutoh and the rest of the Ruby-GNOME2 hackers (there are no bindings that I know of for Qt/KDE in Ruby)-- but I'm using KMail for mail.
The question sounds more like flamebait to me than anything else. The idea that KDE has more "momentum" than GNOME is going to be a discussion of opinion more than anything. I could argue either way myself. Both environments have advantages and disadvantages. But choosing software based on "momentum"? That does not compute. I'm not sure what that even means. Is it asking if the software will be around and actively developed? Sure looks like both KDE and GNOME are here to stay. Does it mean the software has a growing user base? I'd guess that for each two new GNU/Linux users, one chooses KDE and one chooses GNOME.
Yeah, so how many integrated apps does evilwm include? My guess is none. KDE is more than just a set of pretty widgets.
And if your machine is crawling when you fire up a desktop, just wait until you start doing anything serious, like trying to play mp3s, transcoding video files, rendering 3d scenes, compiling software, or starting a Perl script. I've got a decent desktop and I doubt using bare X Windows would be enough to keep it from "crawling" when I get done reading email and Slashdot and actually put the machine to some use. And on that note: is there a kernel or compiler option I should be looking at to help minimize GUI lockup?
Agreed. I have to ask what this book adds in general that a book like "Pragmatic Programmers" doesn't already offer as general advice or that "Code Complete" doesn't cover in nitty-gritty detail. I'm guessing very little.
But there isn't any such difference. I think the concept you are looking for is feasibility, i.e. whether something is possible. And as to feasibility, gardeners have been doing something not unlike cloning for hundreds of years-- they call it "asexual propagation". So I don't know that the biological sciences community could not have conceived of doing this with "higher" life forms... just that their experiments would have been doomed to failure. Not that their experiments seem all that successful to me even now.
H.G. Wells wrote "Dr. Moreau" in the 1890s-- if that gives you any idea what was conceivable over a century ago. DNA was explained in the 50s. I think the idea of cloning/replicating/dupiclating a human being has been around for a while now. Whether it can or will be done any time soon is a whole other question, though.
Personally, I find this mock trial amusing, but only in a "we are pretending to play out the roles in Isaac Asimov stories" kind of way.
Interesting notion. Except that it's not really true. I spend as much time tinkering with Microsoft garbage at work to get it to work as desired as I do with GNU/Linux to get it running smoothly. In fact, using GNU/Linux I can usually achieve the desired result more quickly. But maybe that's because I'm not as willing to put in an effort on the MS side, I dunno.
Of course, the implementation of the software costs money. I don't think anyone is trying to pretend that Free Software will somehow install and maintain itself. But do you really think it costs more to roll out? If so, please explain. Otherwise, I would assert that saving several hundred dollars per seat on software is a significant up-front savings... and that the process of getting that software up and running in-house is constant at worst and favors Free Software at best.
In any case, the call for "open standards" gets at the fundamental core of why Free Software is a better choice in most cases anyway. Imagine building a house and having to sign a contract for each component (ex: doors and door locks, plumbing, electrical, carpeting, etc) with a vendor... and not only do you pay them to install the component, but you have now agreed that unless you rip out that component entirely that the original vendor and only the original vendor will do any maintenance, improvements, or whatever to that component. That is exactly what you do when you set up a large system dependent on non-Free software.
What's worse is when your data gets locked into that format. Not only do you have to rip out the software entirely, but you have to hope and pray that your data can be ported to any new software. And there are lots of reasons you may need to switch vendors: scalability, incompatibility with some other component that is being upgraded or replaced, issues with the software that were not originally apparent, vendor goes out of business (sucks if you need to add users, but can't buy more licenses), vendor plays weird games with "activations" or "subscription" licensing that become unbearable, etc.
To me, these are much stronger arguments than the initial cost of the software, or the cost to install, or even the cost to maintain.
*sigh* yes, I'm really that dumb. Never mind that there is no "war" going on between Irish catholics and protestants either-- unless you count a few random bombings here and there. The only reason I mentioned those conflicts was to tie the spire rule comment into the off-topic discussion about Australia, Britain, and Irish beer.
True, a GPL'd solution could do this as well, but when we start saying that no commercial product will work, we start to look like zealots who's primary goal is to get Free Software out everywhere.
There is no conflict between Free Software and commercial products. In fact, it's very likely that any Free Software-based voting system would be a commercial product. The point here is that voting machines are a major component in the engine of democracy and that there is absolutely no reason why they should contain secret code or mechanics. Further, it's a horrible idea from a practical standpoint to allow a single vendor to have this sort of lock on that market. Just wait 'til Diebold has sold these machines to pretty much every precinct and then the machines start to require repairs. Can't wait to see those bills myself!
1) Guinness is an "Irish Stout"... one tends to think of such a brew as "Irish" in spirit, no matter where the actual brewing is done.
2) According to guinness.com, Guinness is originally from Dublin. In Ireland. They may have other breweries and bottling facilities, though. It's very common in the beverage industry to have more than one plant-- especially in the case of something with a large international consumer base.
3) This "architectural spire" rule is lamer than the war between the Irish protestants and catholics. Or the Brits and the Irish. Or any other war, for that matter. Pissing contests over buildings and religion are just plain stupid. I mean, what regular person is going to climb around all these buildings with a mile long tape measure anyway? That's as weird as the people who measure other erect things.
4) When I think of booze and babes, Australia rates right around Saudi Arabia and Nigeria on my list of world hot spots. And Britain (with the exception of Ireland) isn't rating much higher.
I'd say it sounds like you might want to look at Ruby and then reconsider some of your statements. It is extremely dynamic-- but it's probably one of the cleanest OO languages out there. And your comments about compiling are confusing. You make it sound like Perl doesn't go through a "compile" step when you start a script. Of course it does. The only difference to Java is the Perl virtual machine is not a separate component and the object code is not extractable into something like jar files (although it would seem that Perl 6 won't have this flaw).
Maybe your submission didn't contain enough errors-- like misspelling one of the most common male first names in the English language. Sheesh, people, it's Michael. How hard is that?:)
As if the only people who would not lust after Apple hardware were people too ignorant to know better? I call blind Apple zealotry on this one. I've used Macs heavily since about 1987. Just prior to their coming out with OS X I found that the only way to save my sanity after buying a Rev A iMac was to load Yellow Dog Linux on it. Since then I happened to recommend iMacs with OS X to a couple of non-techie folks in my life, and in one case I really regret it because the guy doesn't find it at all easy to use and my unfamiliarity with the new OS means that I haven't been much help.
If you wanted to give me an Apple laptop, I might be happy to load YDL on it so I'd have a useful machine to carry around with me... but other than that I couldn't be less interested in funneling any more of my hard-earned money into Steve Jobs wallet.
Yes. Because while it probably doesn't help sell products, it does help embed images and javascript into email messages, which can give the sender valuable information about recipients.
If you had read the article for comprehension, you would have noticed that this is not the Israeli government saying that Microsoft isn't allowed to sell software in Israel. This is the Israeli government saying they are not going to buy any MS software themselves. There is a big difference.
Further, this isn't a case where Microsoft isn't supporting Hebrew at all. This only affects the Mac version of Office. So one might make the argument that by not supporting Hebrew on Mac, Microsoft is attempting to "force" Israeli users to buy Microsoft Windows and native Office applications.
Personally I think any government in the habit of buying operating systems and software should be avoiding Microsoft anyway... so I can support this move from Israel (which is rare for me). Unfortunately it doesn't sound like they'll be looking to move to GNU/Linux solutions as a wholesale replacement. Which is too bad. This is a prime example of why Free Software exists: to offer users freedom. In cases like this, where the users are even willing to pay to have the changes made, the unilateral control of software by a single firm is harmful to the users well-being. And in this case, looking for basic office functionality... well, let's just say there are probably any number of acceptable solutions already available as Free Software.
As far as I can tell, SCO's claims about the need for end users to license Linux from them are not based on either copyright or contract law, but rather pure fantasy.
But you need to separate their claims in court filings in their case with IBM from their many, many claims in the media and on their web sites and in their emails that Linux users are violating copyright law. While the former claims have more weight in many ways, it is the latter claims that are resonsible for any license purchases. They are using the threat of legal action to extort money-- a protection racket essentially.
The answers to your questions: No. Not in my opinion. Apparently. A number greater than zero probably-- but who cares? Such a patent would have expired over 250 years ago.
And for the record this MS patent does not talk about just any use of cookies.-- only the use of cookies in the context of allowing a user to customize a web page like those served up by portals. Furthermore, I am not aware of any lawsuits filed by Microsoft in their entire history in which they alleged patent infringement by respondents. However, they have been sued on a regular basis on this type of thing since the 80s. Until proven otherwise, I consider Microsoft patents to be completely defensive in nature. While I generally distrust and dislike the company, this is one area where we can afford to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you miss the part about this being optional?
However, if someone sends you email that is restricted, will you have the courage to ask them to send an unrestricted copy or you will be forced to ignore the email?
Finally, I wonder how this will work at work. I wonder if companies will have policies against it, or if there will be a single key belong to the company and the company will require it (such that access can be restricted outside the company and/or only to those within the company who have the keys-- no more sending incriminating documents to yourself at home, that sort of thing). If it weren't political suicide, it would be amusing to restrict completely recipients from any reuse, printing, etc, of any email. That would be the best example of why this trend is so scary when they can't even forward jokes because of DRM on the email.
It merely provides the convenience of obtaining music in a user-friendly environment for use on a limited set of devices.
Huh? Either there is only one device, the iPod, or the range is unlimited because you can burn the file to a CD-- which then gives you all the same freedom you experience with other CDs. In fact, given the recent trend towards attempting to corrupt the CD standard to prevent ripping, the burned CD actually gives you more freedom than buying from a store in many cases.
All this said, I see no reason to support a proprietary software product from either Microsoft or Apple, no reason to buy music in a form that contains DRM, and no reason not to stick with my legal 60GB of mp3s obtained from ripping my private CD collection, ripping borrowed CDs from friends and the library (I should think this is legal, anyway-- if taping those CDs would be legal, then ripping to mp3 ought to be legal as well, no?) and emusic.com (RIP).
There's nothing to respond to! Very few of us can be considered "Linux Zealots" by the definitions Enderle gives... and it's obvious when you read through Slashdot discussions who those folks are. And Enderle seems to characterize them fairly well: angry, often unemployed, anti-establishment in any form (and I would add young to that list)-- he even makes the interesting case that these folks aren't really for Linux as they are against a whole mound of stuff. Linux just happens to be something they can latch onto. Most of what we would call zealots around here, Enderle calls "Linux Priests". To which the only decent response is: "Well, maybe a GNU/Linux Priest. And so what? The decision to use free software is a moral decision."
Understood. :)
As far as I can tell both projects are well supported in terms of development and likely to continue to grow. Choosing one does not exclude using apps from the other. I am firmly in the GNOME camp-- in large part thanks to Masao Mutoh and the rest of the Ruby-GNOME2 hackers (there are no bindings that I know of for Qt/KDE in Ruby)-- but I'm using KMail for mail.
The question sounds more like flamebait to me than anything else. The idea that KDE has more "momentum" than GNOME is going to be a discussion of opinion more than anything. I could argue either way myself. Both environments have advantages and disadvantages. But choosing software based on "momentum"? That does not compute. I'm not sure what that even means. Is it asking if the software will be around and actively developed? Sure looks like both KDE and GNOME are here to stay. Does it mean the software has a growing user base? I'd guess that for each two new GNU/Linux users, one chooses KDE and one chooses GNOME.
Yeah, so how many integrated apps does evilwm include? My guess is none. KDE is more than just a set of pretty widgets.
And if your machine is crawling when you fire up a desktop, just wait until you start doing anything serious, like trying to play mp3s, transcoding video files, rendering 3d scenes, compiling software, or starting a Perl script. I've got a decent desktop and I doubt using bare X Windows would be enough to keep it from "crawling" when I get done reading email and Slashdot and actually put the machine to some use. And on that note: is there a kernel or compiler option I should be looking at to help minimize GUI lockup?
Agreed. I have to ask what this book adds in general that a book like "Pragmatic Programmers" doesn't already offer as general advice or that "Code Complete" doesn't cover in nitty-gritty detail. I'm guessing very little.
But there isn't any such difference. I think the concept you are looking for is feasibility, i.e. whether something is possible. And as to feasibility, gardeners have been doing something not unlike cloning for hundreds of years-- they call it "asexual propagation". So I don't know that the biological sciences community could not have conceived of doing this with "higher" life forms... just that their experiments would have been doomed to failure. Not that their experiments seem all that successful to me even now.
Really? :)
H.G. Wells wrote "Dr. Moreau" in the 1890s-- if that gives you any idea what was conceivable over a century ago. DNA was explained in the 50s. I think the idea of cloning/replicating/dupiclating a human being has been around for a while now. Whether it can or will be done any time soon is a whole other question, though.
Personally, I find this mock trial amusing, but only in a "we are pretending to play out the roles in Isaac Asimov stories" kind of way.
Interesting notion. Except that it's not really true. I spend as much time tinkering with Microsoft garbage at work to get it to work as desired as I do with GNU/Linux to get it running smoothly. In fact, using GNU/Linux I can usually achieve the desired result more quickly. But maybe that's because I'm not as willing to put in an effort on the MS side, I dunno.
Of course, the implementation of the software costs money. I don't think anyone is trying to pretend that Free Software will somehow install and maintain itself. But do you really think it costs more to roll out? If so, please explain. Otherwise, I would assert that saving several hundred dollars per seat on software is a significant up-front savings... and that the process of getting that software up and running in-house is constant at worst and favors Free Software at best.
In any case, the call for "open standards" gets at the fundamental core of why Free Software is a better choice in most cases anyway. Imagine building a house and having to sign a contract for each component (ex: doors and door locks, plumbing, electrical, carpeting, etc) with a vendor... and not only do you pay them to install the component, but you have now agreed that unless you rip out that component entirely that the original vendor and only the original vendor will do any maintenance, improvements, or whatever to that component. That is exactly what you do when you set up a large system dependent on non-Free software.
What's worse is when your data gets locked into that format. Not only do you have to rip out the software entirely, but you have to hope and pray that your data can be ported to any new software. And there are lots of reasons you may need to switch vendors: scalability, incompatibility with some other component that is being upgraded or replaced, issues with the software that were not originally apparent, vendor goes out of business (sucks if you need to add users, but can't buy more licenses), vendor plays weird games with "activations" or "subscription" licensing that become unbearable, etc.
To me, these are much stronger arguments than the initial cost of the software, or the cost to install, or even the cost to maintain.
*sigh* yes, I'm really that dumb. Never mind that there is no "war" going on between Irish catholics and protestants either-- unless you count a few random bombings here and there. The only reason I mentioned those conflicts was to tie the spire rule comment into the off-topic discussion about Australia, Britain, and Irish beer.
Hmmm. So the British never invaded Ireland and the Irish have never waged civil wars in an attempt to assert independence?
Hey. At least I'm not the guy arguing that Guinness isn't Irish.
True, a GPL'd solution could do this as well, but when we start saying that no commercial product will work, we start to look like zealots who's primary goal is to get Free Software out everywhere.
There is no conflict between Free Software and commercial products. In fact, it's very likely that any Free Software-based voting system would be a commercial product. The point here is that voting machines are a major component in the engine of democracy and that there is absolutely no reason why they should contain secret code or mechanics. Further, it's a horrible idea from a practical standpoint to allow a single vendor to have this sort of lock on that market. Just wait 'til Diebold has sold these machines to pretty much every precinct and then the machines start to require repairs. Can't wait to see those bills myself!
1) Guinness is an "Irish Stout"... one tends to think of such a brew as "Irish" in spirit, no matter where the actual brewing is done.
2) According to guinness.com, Guinness is originally from Dublin. In Ireland. They may have other breweries and bottling facilities, though. It's very common in the beverage industry to have more than one plant-- especially in the case of something with a large international consumer base.
3) This "architectural spire" rule is lamer than the war between the Irish protestants and catholics. Or the Brits and the Irish. Or any other war, for that matter. Pissing contests over buildings and religion are just plain stupid. I mean, what regular person is going to climb around all these buildings with a mile long tape measure anyway? That's as weird as the people who measure other erect things.
4) When I think of booze and babes, Australia rates right around Saudi Arabia and Nigeria on my list of world hot spots. And Britain (with the exception of Ireland) isn't rating much higher.
I'd say it sounds like you might want to look at Ruby and then reconsider some of your statements. It is extremely dynamic-- but it's probably one of the cleanest OO languages out there. And your comments about compiling are confusing. You make it sound like Perl doesn't go through a "compile" step when you start a script. Of course it does. The only difference to Java is the Perl virtual machine is not a separate component and the object code is not extractable into something like jar files (although it would seem that Perl 6 won't have this flaw).
Why would NVidia pay Linux developers to rewrite their drivers? Doesn't NVidia already release a proprietary NVidia driver for Linux?
Plus, book burnings. Not as much fun with digital books. `rm -rf /usr/local/share/banned_books` just doesn't have that bonfire drama does it?
Maybe your submission didn't contain enough errors-- like misspelling one of the most common male first names in the English language. Sheesh, people, it's Michael. How hard is that? :)
As if the only people who would not lust after Apple hardware were people too ignorant to know better? I call blind Apple zealotry on this one. I've used Macs heavily since about 1987. Just prior to their coming out with OS X I found that the only way to save my sanity after buying a Rev A iMac was to load Yellow Dog Linux on it. Since then I happened to recommend iMacs with OS X to a couple of non-techie folks in my life, and in one case I really regret it because the guy doesn't find it at all easy to use and my unfamiliarity with the new OS means that I haven't been much help.
If you wanted to give me an Apple laptop, I might be happy to load YDL on it so I'd have a useful machine to carry around with me... but other than that I couldn't be less interested in funneling any more of my hard-earned money into Steve Jobs wallet.
Yes. Because while it probably doesn't help sell products, it does help embed images and javascript into email messages, which can give the sender valuable information about recipients.
If you had read the article for comprehension, you would have noticed that this is not the Israeli government saying that Microsoft isn't allowed to sell software in Israel. This is the Israeli government saying they are not going to buy any MS software themselves. There is a big difference.
Further, this isn't a case where Microsoft isn't supporting Hebrew at all. This only affects the Mac version of Office. So one might make the argument that by not supporting Hebrew on Mac, Microsoft is attempting to "force" Israeli users to buy Microsoft Windows and native Office applications.
Personally I think any government in the habit of buying operating systems and software should be avoiding Microsoft anyway... so I can support this move from Israel (which is rare for me). Unfortunately it doesn't sound like they'll be looking to move to GNU/Linux solutions as a wholesale replacement. Which is too bad. This is a prime example of why Free Software exists: to offer users freedom. In cases like this, where the users are even willing to pay to have the changes made, the unilateral control of software by a single firm is harmful to the users well-being. And in this case, looking for basic office functionality... well, let's just say there are probably any number of acceptable solutions already available as Free Software.
As far as I can tell, SCO's claims about the need for end users to license Linux from them are not based on either copyright or contract law, but rather pure fantasy.
But you need to separate their claims in court filings in their case with IBM from their many, many claims in the media and on their web sites and in their emails that Linux users are violating copyright law. While the former claims have more weight in many ways, it is the latter claims that are resonsible for any license purchases. They are using the threat of legal action to extort money-- a protection racket essentially.
The answers to your questions: No. Not in my opinion. Apparently. A number greater than zero probably-- but who cares? Such a patent would have expired over 250 years ago.
And for the record this MS patent does not talk about just any use of cookies.-- only the use of cookies in the context of allowing a user to customize a web page like those served up by portals. Furthermore, I am not aware of any lawsuits filed by Microsoft in their entire history in which they alleged patent infringement by respondents. However, they have been sued on a regular basis on this type of thing since the 80s. Until proven otherwise, I consider Microsoft patents to be completely defensive in nature. While I generally distrust and dislike the company, this is one area where we can afford to give them the benefit of the doubt.