and (!) your concept of right and wrong is not universal.
I couldn't agree more, there is no unviersal concept of right and wrong. That's the exact reason why we have laws, and whether you agree with it or not, is is illegal to pirate software.
Ah, so I've stolen from Id? Well, I believe they still have a copy Quake II in their possession.
So if you stole a car from Ford, they wouldn't have any more copies in their possession? Look at a car vs software. Adobe has a master copy of photoshop. Ford has a master design copy for a car. Adobe can make more copies of photoshop at will. Ford can make more cars at will. The only way to prevent adobe from being able to make more copies is to steal all copies and their master and backups. The only way to prevent ford from making more cars is to steal all their cars and their master design and backups.
It is absolutely not a violation of contract, because you have no contract with ID, having not agreed to the terms of the license.
Let me quote from my registered copy of Adobe Photoshop 5.
"Adobe grants you a nonexclusive license to use the Software and Documentation, provided that you agree to the terms of the license as descibed below."
...
"This software is owned by Adobe and its suppliers, and its structure, organization, and code are the valuable trade secrets of Adobe and it's suppliers."
The software is owned by adobe. The software is not the copy you posses, or any copy. It is the intellectual material that is protected by us intellectual property laws. If you disagree with these laws, that's a different issue. Software is not code. Anyone can write code. Software is not a physical copy either, anyone can make that as well. It is the structure, and the ideas, and the creativity of the developers. What you are stealing is the usage of these ideas without the manufacturers agreement.
Laws do not dictate morals. The government does not choose morals for anyone, they simply form rules for society to live by. The purpose of government is to provide a set of rules which people agree to uphold because it is in the best interest of personal security. This often comes at the cost of personal freedom. That's the premise of government, we exchange some personal freedom for the safety and protection of the government.
By selectively choosing which laws you want to obey, you are making a statement that laws are irrelevant and personal morality should dictate one's actions. This is very bad, because personal morality is each individuals decision. You say it's okay to pirate software because even though it's against the law, you don't feel it is wrong. Fine. Charles Manson's personal morality tells him that it's okay to kill people, so should that be ok?
Now, I know what you're thinking. Murder is a lot worse than software piracy, right? I agree. But what we need to understand is that our view on this stems from our own personal morality, which all people do not share. You cannot govern a society based on morality, because you cannot say you are any more right than anyone else. There needs to be a common consensus to govern a society and that is the law. This is where you have to take a stand. Either an individuals personal morality takes precedence over the law, or it doesn't. It's one way or the other, you can't say that it does for some cases or not for others. If that were the case, then what good is a law? Should there be laws dictating which laws can be broken?
So in summary, it does not matter if you think it is okay to pirate software, it is still illegal.
That's got to be one of the worst excuses I've ever heard. When is everyone going to understand that the physical copy of the software is not what is being stolen? It's a simple concept... I purchase Photoshop 5. I have paid for it. I do not own photoshop, I merely am granted permission to use a copy of the program by Adobe. When I loan it to a friend to install, he is not stealing from me. He can't, because I don't own it. However, he is stealing from Adobe. He is using something that belongs to them without their permission. That is theft, plain and simple. Stop thinking in terms of physical items, you are not stealing the copy of the program, you are stealing the usage of the program. The copy is irrelevant.
I didn't say I was stealing from you, that's a very egotistical way to think about it. If I copy Quake off of your machine, you have lost nothing. I have, however, stolen from ID. You do not own Quake, you are granted a license by ID to use it. The game quake is not your property, so of course I cannot steal it. When I copy that, however, I am using a program owned by ID that I have not paid for, which in my book constitutes theft.
If MS-Office had never been pirated, do you think it would be the de facto standard for documents in the workplace?
Think of it this way, does it matter? If I kill your brother, and you get a lot of money from his life insurance, does that make it okay for me to kill him?
Yes, it's an extreme case, but the point is that the consequences do not change the fact that it is illegal.
Nice rationalizing. I love the logic people use to justify theft. The plain and simple fact is, people do it because they can get away with it. And that's stupid. Just because the industry can sustain a 40% piracy rate doesn't mean that it's okay to do it.
For what it's worth, I have not been able to reproduce this on my OSXS box. When doing their script that is supposed to cause the crash, all that happens is that my machine spawns a bunch of processes and slows to a crawl. It does not freeze or lock up, merely runs low on resources and slows down. This is exactly what I would expect to happen on any other machine where a user program with a problem is invoked multiple times. And I only get this behaviour using apache bench, if I start up 32 cgi's on my own, no problems.
I have yet to understand why anyone thinks ease of administration is such a big bonus... Apache is not hard to configure... There are gui's, but anyone worth what they are getting paid has figured out how easy it is to edit a text file... Your reason for why IIS is good is my exact reason why it's bad. Anything that is flexible and powerful is not simple. it's a fact of life. Unix is difficult because of it's power and flexibility. With NT, microsoft gives everyone the impression that any idiot can run it, so companies hire some idiot. Then this person doesn't know what they're doing, and it's the company that's really loosing out. A system is only as good as the person who runs it. If your argument for IIS is that idots can run it, well, that should tell you something right there.
Everyone should go see trekkies, it was hilarious. They did it perfectly, so that if you're a star trek fanatic, you'll like it becuse the people in the movie are so cool. But if you're not a star trek fanatic, you'll have a great time luaghing at these people who take it a little too serious...
That's not true (see my response to this question), it's been in the main distro since 2.0 betas. I use it fine, get's better each release. With 2.0.4, you can actually change the NT password from the NT machine (no small feat...)
Actually, it is easy (no sneering:) I tried to figure it out months ago, it's not hard, but the problem is that there's just no step by step procedure outlines. So I made one. See http://socrates.mps.ohio-state.edu/~ccunning/samba .html. That simple procedure is all it took for me, can't guarantee results for everyone:) One word of caution though, access restrictions aren't really well implemented yet.
Netinfo should be available for linux shortly, as a result of Apple opening up Darwin. There are large projects under way to get all linux software running on darwing and all darwin stuff running on linux (see www.darwinlinux.com, just starting up). Someone told me that netinfo actually already was ported to linux, but I have yet to find it...
A good wysiwyg editor is not going to make you design a better website... I'd like to know how you came to the conclusion that wysiwyg created web pages look like, as the vast majority of web sites don't list what they used to create them
Ah, I see. So rather than use html tags, we should use CSS. Then the browsers that don't support CSS can just view a large blob of text with no formatting. Hell, why even use paragraph tags, that's formatting! Just run it all together! And let's just ignore the fact that the browsers that do support CSS all support it differently. Who cares? If they want my page to look good, they should be using amaya! Yeah, I get it. Screw designing for reality, let's design for a standard that isn't reliably implemented!
Well damn, if ESR says so, it must be true! That would explain why you can't naviate around a 600 page gnu manual... You should always provide a non frames version, but for things like long manuals, frames are good things. To think that all a user might want to do is go forward, back, or to the beginning is silly.
So, two types of people here.. First, those who say a wysiwyg editor is superior for all web design needs. Seconds, those who say the same thing about text editors. I think it depends on the goal. For a casual web designer, wysiwgy editors probably work fine. Scroll down for their reasons why. They personally won't work for me. It doesn't take me long to write out a web page. The majority of the time spent isn't writing html, it's writing the content and planning the layout. I downloaded dreamweaver to try, but it doesn't speed up my work at all.
Where wysiwyg editor really fail is when you move from making web pages to designing dynamic sites and web based applications. Every web page I make is spread through three files. One holds attributes such as fonts, colors, etc. The second holds a template layout. The third holds code. This method has a lot of advantages, namely I can change attributes of a web page, the layout of a web page, or the code, without affecting the other parts. For large sites, I would thing gui tools would be a nightmare to manage the site,e specially when more than one person is using it.
I don't think style has much to do with development tools... Here's the thing, pick your wysiwyg editor of choice, and I'll open up an arbitrary text editor. Pick a web page somewhere out there. Both of us will clone the look of that page without looking at the source code. Then we'll run both pages through w3's html validator and see what happens.
"Using a text editor to code HTML pages is like doing page layout in raw Postscript."
Uh...no. Using a text editor to code html is a like using latex to write technical papers as opposed to word... It may be more work, but it's a lot less hassle and things usually look a lot better.
Indeed. And even if I did have to do that hell, I wouldn't trust a wysiwyg editor to organize it all for multiple users. The only way I could imagine keeping that sane is to use a cvs system.
Personally, I haven't found one of these things that produces good html without mangling my php code. I tried Homesite once, but it was way too busy for my tastes. Dreamweaver looked cool, but it seemed a lot easier to me to just write the html than to try and figure out how to use drag and drop tools...
Depends... If the NT machine isn't connected to the net, it's pretty secure:) I would bet there's not a hugh difference, although I'd feel better with linux. In my opinion, though, anyone who puts an out of box setup live on the net, regardless of what os it is, is asking for trouble.
Slashdot Mirror
and (!) your concept of right and wrong is not universal.
I couldn't agree more, there is no unviersal concept of right and wrong. That's the exact reason why we have laws, and whether you agree with it or not, is is illegal to pirate software.
Ah, so I've stolen from Id? Well, I believe they still have a copy Quake II in their possession.
So if you stole a car from Ford, they wouldn't have any more copies in their possession? Look at a car vs software. Adobe has a master copy of photoshop. Ford has a master design copy for a car. Adobe can make more copies of photoshop at will. Ford can make more cars at will. The only way to prevent adobe from being able to make more copies is to steal all copies and their master and backups. The only way to prevent ford from making more cars is to steal all their cars and their master design and backups.
It is absolutely not a violation of contract, because you have no contract with ID, having not agreed to the terms of the license.
Let me quote from my registered copy of Adobe Photoshop 5.
"Adobe grants you a nonexclusive license to use the Software and Documentation, provided that you agree to the terms of the license as descibed below."
...
"This software is owned by Adobe and its suppliers, and its structure, organization, and code are the valuable trade secrets of Adobe and it's suppliers."
The software is owned by adobe. The software is not the copy you posses, or any copy. It is the intellectual material that is protected by us intellectual property laws. If you disagree with these laws, that's a different issue. Software is not code. Anyone can write code. Software is not a physical copy either, anyone can make that as well. It is the structure, and the ideas, and the creativity of the developers. What you are stealing is the usage of these ideas without the manufacturers agreement.
Laws do not dictate morals. The government does not choose morals for anyone, they simply form rules for society to live by. The purpose of government is to provide a set of rules which people agree to uphold because it is in the best interest of personal security. This often comes at the cost of personal freedom. That's the premise of government, we exchange some personal freedom for the safety and protection of the government.
By selectively choosing which laws you want to obey, you are making a statement that laws are irrelevant and personal morality should dictate one's actions. This is very bad, because personal morality is each individuals decision. You say it's okay to pirate software because even though it's against the law, you don't feel it is wrong. Fine. Charles Manson's personal morality tells him that it's okay to kill people, so should that be ok?
Now, I know what you're thinking. Murder is a lot worse than software piracy, right? I agree. But what we need to understand is that our view on this stems from our own personal morality, which all people do not share. You cannot govern a society based on morality, because you cannot say you are any more right than anyone else. There needs to be a common consensus to govern a society and that is the law. This is where you have to take a stand. Either an individuals personal morality takes precedence over the law, or it doesn't. It's one way or the other, you can't say that it does for some cases or not for others. If that were the case, then what good is a law? Should there be laws dictating which laws can be broken?
So in summary, it does not matter if you think it is okay to pirate software, it is still illegal.
That's got to be one of the worst excuses I've ever heard. When is everyone going to understand that the physical copy of the software is not what is being stolen? It's a simple concept... I purchase Photoshop 5. I have paid for it. I do not own photoshop, I merely am granted permission to use a copy of the program by Adobe. When I loan it to a friend to install, he is not stealing from me. He can't, because I don't own it. However, he is stealing from Adobe. He is using something that belongs to them without their permission. That is theft, plain and simple. Stop thinking in terms of physical items, you are not stealing the copy of the program, you are stealing the usage of the program. The copy is irrelevant.
I didn't say I was stealing from you, that's a very egotistical way to think about it. If I copy Quake off of your machine, you have lost nothing. I have, however, stolen from ID. You do not own Quake, you are granted a license by ID to use it. The game quake is not your property, so of course I cannot steal it. When I copy that, however, I am using a program owned by ID that I have not paid for, which in my book constitutes theft.
If MS-Office had never been pirated, do you think it would be the de facto standard for documents in the workplace?
Think of it this way, does it matter? If I kill your brother, and you get a lot of money from his life insurance, does that make it okay for me to kill him?
Yes, it's an extreme case, but the point is that the consequences do not change the fact that it is illegal.
Nice rationalizing. I love the logic people use to justify theft. The plain and simple fact is, people do it because they can get away with it. And that's stupid. Just because the industry can sustain a 40% piracy rate doesn't mean that it's okay to do it.
For what it's worth, I have not been able to reproduce this on my OSXS box. When doing their script that is supposed to cause the crash, all that happens is that my machine spawns a bunch of processes and slows to a crawl. It does not freeze or lock up, merely runs low on resources and slows down. This is exactly what I would expect to happen on any other machine where a user program with a problem is invoked multiple times. And I only get this behaviour using apache bench, if I start up 32 cgi's on my own, no problems.
I have yet to understand why anyone thinks ease of administration is such a big bonus... Apache is not hard to configure... There are gui's, but anyone worth what they are getting paid has figured out how easy it is to edit a text file... Your reason for why IIS is good is my exact reason why it's bad. Anything that is flexible and powerful is not simple. it's a fact of life. Unix is difficult because of it's power and flexibility. With NT, microsoft gives everyone the impression that any idiot can run it, so companies hire some idiot. Then this person doesn't know what they're doing, and it's the company that's really loosing out. A system is only as good as the person who runs it. If your argument for IIS is that idots can run it, well, that should tell you something right there.
Everyone should go see trekkies, it was hilarious. They did it perfectly, so that if you're a star trek fanatic, you'll like it becuse the people in the movie are so cool. But if you're not a star trek fanatic, you'll have a great time luaghing at these people who take it a little too serious...
That's not true (see my response to this question), it's been in the main distro since 2.0 betas. I use it fine, get's better each release. With 2.0.4, you can actually change the NT password from the NT machine (no small feat...)
Actually, it is easy (no sneering :) I tried to figure it out months ago, it's not hard, but the problem is that there's just no step by step procedure outlines. So I made one. See http://socrates.mps.ohio-state.edu/~ccunning/samba .html. That simple procedure is all it took for me, can't guarantee results for everyone :) One word of caution though, access restrictions aren't really well implemented yet.
Netinfo should be available for linux shortly, as a result of Apple opening up Darwin. There are large projects under way to get all linux software running on darwing and all darwin stuff running on linux (see www.darwinlinux.com, just starting up). Someone told me that netinfo actually already was ported to linux, but I have yet to find it...
A good wysiwyg editor is not going to make you design a better website... I'd like to know how you came to the conclusion that wysiwyg created web pages look like, as the vast majority of web sites don't list what they used to create them
I think every story get's at least on "Free beer, not free speech" response. I think someone out there has a perl script posting it....
Ah, I see. So rather than use html tags, we should use CSS. Then the browsers that don't support CSS can just view a large blob of text with no formatting. Hell, why even use paragraph tags, that's formatting! Just run it all together! And let's just ignore the fact that the browsers that do support CSS all support it differently. Who cares? If they want my page to look good, they should be using amaya! Yeah, I get it. Screw designing for reality, let's design for a standard that isn't reliably implemented!
Well damn, if ESR says so, it must be true! That would explain why you can't naviate around a 600 page gnu manual... You should always provide a non frames version, but for things like long manuals, frames are good things. To think that all a user might want to do is go forward, back, or to the beginning is silly.
So, two types of people here.. First, those who say a wysiwyg editor is superior for all web design needs. Seconds, those who say the same thing about text editors. I think it depends on the goal. For a casual web designer, wysiwgy editors probably work fine. Scroll down for their reasons why. They personally won't work for me. It doesn't take me long to write out a web page. The majority of the time spent isn't writing html, it's writing the content and planning the layout. I downloaded dreamweaver to try, but it doesn't speed up my work at all.
Where wysiwyg editor really fail is when you move from making web pages to designing dynamic sites and web based applications. Every web page I make is spread through three files. One holds attributes such as fonts, colors, etc. The second holds a template layout. The third holds code. This method has a lot of advantages, namely I can change attributes of a web page, the layout of a web page, or the code, without affecting the other parts. For large sites, I would thing gui tools would be a nightmare to manage the site,e specially when more than one person is using it.
I don't think style has much to do with development tools... Here's the thing, pick your wysiwyg editor of choice, and I'll open up an arbitrary text editor. Pick a web page somewhere out there. Both of us will clone the look of that page without looking at the source code. Then we'll run both pages through w3's html validator and see what happens.
"Using a text editor to code HTML pages is like doing page layout in raw Postscript."
Uh...no. Using a text editor to code html is a like using latex to write technical papers as opposed to word... It may be more work, but it's a lot less hassle and things usually look a lot better.
Indeed. And even if I did have to do that hell, I wouldn't trust a wysiwyg editor to organize it all for multiple users. The only way I could imagine keeping that sane is to use a cvs system.
Personally, I haven't found one of these things that produces good html without mangling my php code. I tried Homesite once, but it was way too busy for my tastes. Dreamweaver looked cool, but it seemed a lot easier to me to just write the html than to try and figure out how to use drag and drop tools...
Depends on what you mean by many people. According to my server log, lynx is "good enough" for less than .1% of people.
Depends... If the NT machine isn't connected to the net, it's pretty secure :) I would bet there's not a hugh difference, although I'd feel better with linux. In my opinion, though, anyone who puts an out of box setup live on the net, regardless of what os it is, is asking for trouble.
Sorry, I'm not good with internet acronyms...