Actually, I have been working with HEYU, BlueLava and some X10 modules for some time now. I even wrote my own dynamic dns scripts to make sure my DNS server has the right address for the home.
Its easy to turn on any light, dim any light, etc. To control an AC would be pretty easy by using the X10 module to control a secondary relay/contactor (using a 120v/24v transformer) to turn it hard on/off. My goal for the AC was simply to turn it hard ON for half hour before I got home, regardless of temperature. Capturing the temp through another serial port would not be very hard.
This is a cool idea, but until we have a single standard to talk to, its kinda pointless. This is why I am hacking a system together using X10, which is at least ONE standard that is usuable if you route it through a server to capture other data from other sources. Oh, and HEYU and BlueLava are Free software. So is Linux, Perl, BIND and Apache, which work the back end.
It will be a while, but I absolutely expect to publish my own "howto" using this system with other people's free software, once it is more complete.
I hate to add to a somewhat flamey AC, but after reading just part of the article, I could not help but to ask "WTF?". Lots of rambling, offtopic, bouncing back and forth and non-sense. I gave up. And I LOVE Perl (the only language I can actually do some work with).
With all due respect to Larry (and much is due) I have personally made more sense after several cold ones. Still can't wait for Perl 6 tho.
You could have a period where the public are allowed to submit objections to the patent.
While your idea makes sense theoretically, in practice there are some serious problems. First, there will several groups that will simply object to every software patent because they are against them as a whole. Second, this means that the patent employee, who is already overburdened, now has to sift through 10 times the paperwork in order to issue a patent.
The net results would be 10 times the paperwork filed at the patent office, and it would be easier for Big Corporations to file extensive objections than it would for average users. This would make it harder for individuals to file patents, and easier for corporations.
It would be easier to simply not allow software patents in the first place, and use copyright law to protect them, but this isn't necessarily a great solution either.
I think you underestimate the public. Most people in America own stock, after all, in either a 401k/SEP/IRA and with after tax dollars. They are not massively educated about tech companies, but they are not nearly as blind as the average person was just 20 years ago.
I know tons of people who still make less than 30k yet own stock. This ain't the 80s anymore.
It is funny. Shouldn't they have been putting this out in their weekly press releases?
I would think not. They have been quiet about SCO allowing downloading of Linux until now, and now SCO has been distributing it for well over a year after they filed the original suit. This is more powerful than bringing it up 2 weeks into the suit. Also, they didn't want to bring it up until they had the other evidence, or rather, until it was shown that SCO had no evidence (which they knew would happen.)
Like comedy, good "lawyering" is a matter of timing. I don't pretend to understand the timing before the fact, but you have to admit, it appears the timing to release this info is pretty good. I have to trust their lawyers on this one.
What I think is more important that WHEN the case will be settled is the fact that IBM has contributed to settling the case in the public eye and discredited SCO's FUD machine. One year ago, many uneducated people assumed SCO was correct. I mean, IBM licensed Unix, SCO "owned" Unix, IBM put stuff in Linux, so it could have been Unix code, right? This is not so much the case anymore, as the general public is more aware of what derivitive products are, that SCO is not Santa Cruz, and of course, that Novell may actually own what SCO claims to own.
Nice vague comment, with nothing to back it up. There is higher demand for home computers than 25 years ago. Same for DVD players, MPG players, music CDs, etc. You know why? They didn't exist.
You can't judge future demand for products that do not exist yet. That is the point. Once again, the "glass is half empty" crowd predicts the demise of the human race because of terrible, horrible, job threatening productivity.
My guess is that had you lived 100 years ago, you would have been anti-refrigeration, since it means the end of the ice block industry. This would ignore, of course, how it increased the average lifespan more than any other product ever invented.
I think part of the problem is the expectation of people that space travel is more science than art, when this is not true. It requires more than crunching numbers, it requires a lot of guess work and estimation, as well as intuitive individuals to impliment the science in the safest way they know how.
Yes, the science makes it possible but there is no way to fully test theories until you put them into practice, thus there will always be significant risks with space travel. I think most people know this, and the crews that actually take the risks certainly do.
Space travel is similar to travel by submarine, being submersed in an atmosphere that is hostile and will kill you if you are exposed to it, where you are totally dependent on what you have on board to deal with any situation. With all the experience and science we have regarding submarines, we still have accidents and should expect no less with space travel, where you can't simply surface. There simply is not, and never will be, a 100% solution to guarantee total safety for either.
This is part of the reason I still awestruck by those who are willing to take this extreme risk.
Actually, the reboot is considered a feature. If it major crashes, it will reboot to restart all your services again. I personally leave it like that for that purpose.
My problem isn't BSOD, but I do notice that Windows will restart Explorer (blinking desktop, everything disappears, then reappears) all the time.
That said, I finally got the video file downloaded from the article, and it IS pretty darn cool, although it will be a while before we see any actual product that does this.
You Americans are just a bunch of selfish assholes (and I mean in general ok, I have American friends and I don't think everyone in the US is like this but it is a general sentiment)
Yea yea yea, get your own IBM. We already broke this one in, and it wasn't easy. With all the anti-trust suits in the 80s, the DOS boondogle that created Microsoft, lack of software for OS/2. Hell, we FINALLY got them house trained, and you want to take them away? It took half a century to get them here, embracing open source, contributing to the community, beating up SCO after it pushed us down in the school yard...
We loved them back when they were as evil as any other company, but its easy to love them now. So yes, we are selfish about it, for good reason. Maybe you should instead vote for your government to lower taxes and offer tax incentives for companies to be created and grow in your OWN country, instead of laying claim to our companies.;)
It's kinda odd, that when good news comes out, some people manage to find something bad about it. Totally focusing on the negative stuff, which may explain why so many are unemployed while their peers are getting hired. Seems to me that IBM adding thousands of new jobs is always good news. Your math is correct, but it doesn't even matter what the job scene was 5 years ago: It's moving in the right direction NOW. To any reasonable person, this is good news.
I have been toying with buying $700 worth of monopoly games, taking the money from them and sending the m-money in a box to sco asking for a license:)
Might as well print your own bogus money. You could even print a $699 bill. Put Darl's picture in the center. "In Laywers We Trust" or similar. That would cost you nothing, except time. If it's good enough, do a rear image, and save both as TIF files for sharing.
Well...if anything infringes on the GPL (basically SCO included anything GPL Licensed and didn't include source code) wouldn't the remedy be that SCO has to open source their software??? ooooh the delicious irony....
As I understand it(IANAL), any GPL software that they include must have the source available (but only to the people THEY distributed the binaries to) by any reasonable means (mail for cost of media+handling, ftp, http, etc) or they have no authority to distribute it. It would not effect their proprietary software.
If they refused to make source to the same people they made binaries available to, they would be in violation of the GPL, and would have to stop distributing those GPL packages. A judge would have to decide if their actions constitute infringement on the owners copyright in a case brought to the court by the actual copyright holder. At that point, a judge would issue an injuction, disallowing SCO from distributing the one (or more) packages named in that specific suit. Other damages may be awarded, theoretically, but rarely.
At any time (and possibly at the last minute) they could agree to allow access to their modified GPL source, and the case would be more or less moot. They would instantly be in compliance with the license. Still, it has no bearing on their own closed source applications.
IANAL, but I believe that most non-compete contracts, traditionally, have been unenforced in other states in most circumstances. Most non-competes that I am familiar with include a distance clause in addition to a time clause. ie: You go work for KRAP radio, you sign a non-compete to work in a radio station within 60 miles within 12 months. (I was asked to sign one for a radio station myself, many moons ago.)
Another form I am familiar with is when you sell a business, you typically sign a non-compete, so you can't move in next door and take all their business. Again, time and distance are the two variables.
I believe that most states have laws that limit the time to 12 or 24 months. You would think the "Full Faith and Credit" Right would indicate that it should be enforceable in *some* way but is usually not practical for most companies. If the clause did not have a distance listed, and the state he moves to *requires* a Non-Compete to specify the distance in the contract, then he may have a better chance.
Yea, but if its common at IBM to not install patches until they are made to work with Microsoft's updates, you have to start asking:
Is Microsoft intentionally making the patches not play nicely with IBM software? It wouldn't be the first time, would it? No, I don't have a tinfoil hat on, but IF IBM gets cozier with Novell (or buys it) it will be positioned to be Microsoft's competition with SuSE, which is argueably the best distro for home users and the business desktop.
As an update to everyone, 24 hours later I have not received a reply. I didn't necessarily expect a personal reply this fast, but I hope Ziff-Davis will at least send a canned reply that clearly states their policy in a day or two. That's all we are asking for.
If it was your company's mistake, just admit it. It happens. Make it up to pocketpctools.com by doing it publicly. You allude to this, but just as the original story, I need an official statement before I can draw any conclusions. Never underestimate the power of an honest "I'm sorry, it won't happen again" to a group of geeks.
If it is the policy, then please clarify it, because this would seem to be contrary to what many of us would expect. Our possible reactions to this information is not relevant. As your customers of both web and print, we have a need and right to know your interpretation of the Fair Use Doctrine, as it applies to this situation in particular, and other websites in general.
I understand it takes a day or two and it has only been 24 hours, but I think most people would agree that 72 hours would be a reasonable time frame for a formal clarification. I am not sure how I would view a lack of communication after 72 hours.
I appreciate Matthew Rothenberg's quick update and reassurance, but I need something more substantial and binding. An official release from Ziff-Davis via email to everyone that asked for it, is a reasonable compromise. Matthew appears sincere, and seems to have the authority to make this happen, so at this stage I will give Ziff-Davis the benefit of the doubt.
My message was really saying the same thing as your first one. Except mine was a parody to show the ineffectiveness of it. Hence the funny mod.
It wasn't modded when I replied. Its not a reflection on you, obviously you have a sense of humor, but there are people who really believe what you said, hense the confusion. I stand corrected. Didn't even part my hair at the time. Welcome aboard;)
Good point. I don't think being 9.27% faster on a "Super Pi 2.0" benchmark justifies paying 243% of the price of an Athlon. But maybe I'm just old fashioned.
Not argueing your choice, but I have a problem with your math. You are only considering the cost of the CPU, not the system. An Intel system is not 2.43x the cost of an AMD system. The chip difference for comparable systems may be $2500 versus $3000 ($500 difference) where the actual difference means paying 20% more for a system with an Intel chip versus AMD chip (in the $2500-$3000 price range). Obviously, the more expensive the system, the less % difference the change to Intel becomes.
Most systems that use either chip are not exactly sub $1000 beige boxes. My choice of $2500-$3000 is pretty conservative. The cost difference is probably lower than 20% for a mid-line server, perhaps closer to 10% to 15%.
So, on a $5000 server (typical mid-line price minus software) it may be smart to spend an extra 10% to get 9.27% higher performance, if performance vs. price is your goal. It may just be a toss up. But it is not 243% more expensive, since most people buy systems, not chips.
Just wondering, anyone know if there is a way to ensure that the public access computer/terminal you're using while on vacation doesn't have a keylogger/spy program installed?
Good question. I vacation near relatives, and use their computers (usually mom's) AFTER I have done the maintenance on them. Normally, I would not login as root from a public library terminal, which (as you point out) is dangerous.
Simple. I am the corporate guy that reads those letters, and letters like you suggest would get thrown out immediately as some nut. The ones from intellegent and polite people WE read at the meeting. Its not my opinion, its reality.
Letters from illiterate, rude, hate filled people are never taken serious. You *DO* let them know, but when you are talking about getting 1000 people to write, its more effective if those letters are polite and not so easily dismissed.
One reason I am polite is that I DON'T have all the facts in this case, and experience tells me to not assume some website I just heard about 30 minutes ago is telling me the gospel truth. I am not going to go off the handle and start calling Ziff-Davis idiots, and then find out that the article was WRONG, and there was more to the story.
My goal is to persuade them to my point of view.
My goal is *NOT* to inform them that I think they are dicks.
You don't get very far persuading people or corporations when you treat them like crap or jump to conclusions when you don't have all the facts. Any idiot can write a hate letter that gets thrown away as soon as its opened. It takes a little more grace to have the letter actually get read by someone that matters.
I agree and you do make a point I usually follow. But under this circumstance, email is a decent second best, being that it is a tech company. They are used to most of their mail being email. But for most companies, I do, and you should, use snail mail. The format would still be the same, with a valid return route for the letter.
I think there is some twisted logic to your theory, and they just may be dumb enough to think in this way. But this is beyond cutting off your nose to spite your face.
This would be like SCO deciding no vendor can use Unix source code, even for a fee, so they will have all the source, all the power and be the only source for Unix. In the end, it only makes you irrelevent and bankrupt.
I think the key to a successful writing campaign is to be:
1) Polite 2) Respectful 3) Objective 4) To the point 5) Request a reply 6) Use your real name and city/state and send from the same email address they can reply to.
Name or quote your sources, express your concerns, DONT assume it is correct, GENTLY explain what you are considering in response to their actions if true, and give them the opportunity to explain. Remain objective and fair if you want a response, or at least to have your letter actually read by someone that matters. I am sure many can do a better job of writing this letter, but thats great: do it and send it.
I really DONT know if this article is true, so assuming would not serve anyone anyway, and just make me look like an ass for being wrong and loud. Fake articles HAVE happened before, after all. What matters is NOT "I will unsubscribe", but "I have reason to question your companies ethics or actions" since most people are not subscribers anyway. You should always act like you really WANT to hear their opinion or side of the story, even though it is unlikely you will get a reply. These are the letters that get read in the boardroom.
You will never know if your particular letter made "the" difference but it doesn't matter. The sheer volume of intellegent, thoughtful and concerned letters speak for themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I have been working with HEYU, BlueLava and some X10 modules for some time now. I even wrote my own dynamic dns scripts to make sure my DNS server has the right address for the home.
Its easy to turn on any light, dim any light, etc. To control an AC would be pretty easy by using the X10 module to control a secondary relay/contactor (using a 120v/24v transformer) to turn it hard on/off. My goal for the AC was simply to turn it hard ON for half hour before I got home, regardless of temperature. Capturing the temp through another serial port would not be very hard.
This is a cool idea, but until we have a single standard to talk to, its kinda pointless. This is why I am hacking a system together using X10, which is at least ONE standard that is usuable if you route it through a server to capture other data from other sources. Oh, and HEYU and BlueLava are Free software. So is Linux, Perl, BIND and Apache, which work the back end.
It will be a while, but I absolutely expect to publish my own "howto" using this system with other people's free software, once it is more complete.
I hate to add to a somewhat flamey AC, but after reading just part of the article, I could not help but to ask "WTF?". Lots of rambling, offtopic, bouncing back and forth and non-sense. I gave up. And I LOVE Perl (the only language I can actually do some work with).
With all due respect to Larry (and much is due) I have personally made more sense after several cold ones. Still can't wait for Perl 6 tho.
You could have a period where the public are allowed to submit objections to the patent.
While your idea makes sense theoretically, in practice there are some serious problems. First, there will several groups that will simply object to every software patent because they are against them as a whole. Second, this means that the patent employee, who is already overburdened, now has to sift through 10 times the paperwork in order to issue a patent.
The net results would be 10 times the paperwork filed at the patent office, and it would be easier for Big Corporations to file extensive objections than it would for average users. This would make it harder for individuals to file patents, and easier for corporations.
It would be easier to simply not allow software patents in the first place, and use copyright law to protect them, but this isn't necessarily a great solution either.
I think you underestimate the public. Most people in America own stock, after all, in either a 401k/SEP/IRA and with after tax dollars. They are not massively educated about tech companies, but they are not nearly as blind as the average person was just 20 years ago.
I know tons of people who still make less than 30k yet own stock. This ain't the 80s anymore.
It is funny. Shouldn't they have been putting this out in their weekly press releases?
I would think not. They have been quiet about SCO allowing downloading of Linux until now, and now SCO has been distributing it for well over a year after they filed the original suit. This is more powerful than bringing it up 2 weeks into the suit. Also, they didn't want to bring it up until they had the other evidence, or rather, until it was shown that SCO had no evidence (which they knew would happen.)
Like comedy, good "lawyering" is a matter of timing. I don't pretend to understand the timing before the fact, but you have to admit, it appears the timing to release this info is pretty good. I have to trust their lawyers on this one.
What I think is more important that WHEN the case will be settled is the fact that IBM has contributed to settling the case in the public eye and discredited SCO's FUD machine. One year ago, many uneducated people assumed SCO was correct. I mean, IBM licensed Unix, SCO "owned" Unix, IBM put stuff in Linux, so it could have been Unix code, right? This is not so much the case anymore, as the general public is more aware of what derivitive products are, that SCO is not Santa Cruz, and of course, that Novell may actually own what SCO claims to own.
Nice vague comment, with nothing to back it up. There is higher demand for home computers than 25 years ago. Same for DVD players, MPG players, music CDs, etc. You know why? They didn't exist.
You can't judge future demand for products that do not exist yet. That is the point. Once again, the "glass is half empty" crowd predicts the demise of the human race because of terrible, horrible, job threatening productivity.
My guess is that had you lived 100 years ago, you would have been anti-refrigeration, since it means the end of the ice block industry. This would ignore, of course, how it increased the average lifespan more than any other product ever invented.
I think part of the problem is the expectation of people that space travel is more science than art, when this is not true. It requires more than crunching numbers, it requires a lot of guess work and estimation, as well as intuitive individuals to impliment the science in the safest way they know how.
Yes, the science makes it possible but there is no way to fully test theories until you put them into practice, thus there will always be significant risks with space travel. I think most people know this, and the crews that actually take the risks certainly do.
Space travel is similar to travel by submarine, being submersed in an atmosphere that is hostile and will kill you if you are exposed to it, where you are totally dependent on what you have on board to deal with any situation. With all the experience and science we have regarding submarines, we still have accidents and should expect no less with space travel, where you can't simply surface. There simply is not, and never will be, a 100% solution to guarantee total safety for either.
This is part of the reason I still awestruck by those who are willing to take this extreme risk.
Actually, the reboot is considered a feature. If it major crashes, it will reboot to restart all your services again. I personally leave it like that for that purpose.
My problem isn't BSOD, but I do notice that Windows will restart Explorer (blinking desktop, everything disappears, then reappears) all the time.
That said, I finally got the video file downloaded from the article, and it IS pretty darn cool, although it will be a while before we see any actual product that does this.
You Americans are just a bunch of selfish assholes (and I mean in general ok, I have American friends and I don't think everyone in the US is like this but it is a general sentiment)
;)
Yea yea yea, get your own IBM. We already broke this one in, and it wasn't easy. With all the anti-trust suits in the 80s, the DOS boondogle that created Microsoft, lack of software for OS/2. Hell, we FINALLY got them house trained, and you want to take them away? It took half a century to get them here, embracing open source, contributing to the community, beating up SCO after it pushed us down in the school yard...
We loved them back when they were as evil as any other company, but its easy to love them now. So yes, we are selfish about it, for good reason. Maybe you should instead vote for your government to lower taxes and offer tax incentives for companies to be created and grow in your OWN country, instead of laying claim to our companies.
It's kinda odd, that when good news comes out, some people manage to find something bad about it. Totally focusing on the negative stuff, which may explain why so many are unemployed while their peers are getting hired. Seems to me that IBM adding thousands of new jobs is always good news. Your math is correct, but it doesn't even matter what the job scene was 5 years ago: It's moving in the right direction NOW. To any reasonable person, this is good news.
I have been toying with buying $700 worth of monopoly games, taking the money from them and sending the m-money in a box to sco asking for a license :)
Might as well print your own bogus money. You could even print a $699 bill. Put Darl's picture in the center. "In Laywers We Trust" or similar. That would cost you nothing, except time. If it's good enough, do a rear image, and save both as TIF files for sharing.
All I know is, I'm gonna hurry up and get a bunch of licenses now, before the price goes up...
Well...if anything infringes on the GPL (basically SCO included anything GPL Licensed and didn't include source code) wouldn't the remedy be that SCO has to open source their software??? ooooh the delicious irony....
No. See the actual license This is far from what would happen.
As I understand it(IANAL), any GPL software that they include must have the source available (but only to the people THEY distributed the binaries to) by any reasonable means (mail for cost of media+handling, ftp, http, etc) or they have no authority to distribute it. It would not effect their proprietary software.
If they refused to make source to the same people they made binaries available to, they would be in violation of the GPL, and would have to stop distributing those GPL packages. A judge would have to decide if their actions constitute infringement on the owners copyright in a case brought to the court by the actual copyright holder. At that point, a judge would issue an injuction, disallowing SCO from distributing the one (or more) packages named in that specific suit. Other damages may be awarded, theoretically, but rarely.
At any time (and possibly at the last minute) they could agree to allow access to their modified GPL source, and the case would be more or less moot. They would instantly be in compliance with the license. Still, it has no bearing on their own closed source applications.
IANAL, but I believe that most non-compete contracts, traditionally, have been unenforced in other states in most circumstances. Most non-competes that I am familiar with include a distance clause in addition to a time clause. ie: You go work for KRAP radio, you sign a non-compete to work in a radio station within 60 miles within 12 months. (I was asked to sign one for a radio station myself, many moons ago.)
Another form I am familiar with is when you sell a business, you typically sign a non-compete, so you can't move in next door and take all their business. Again, time and distance are the two variables.
I believe that most states have laws that limit the time to 12 or 24 months. You would think the "Full Faith and Credit" Right would indicate that it should be enforceable in *some* way but is usually not practical for most companies. If the clause did not have a distance listed, and the state he moves to *requires* a Non-Compete to specify the distance in the contract, then he may have a better chance.
Yea, but if its common at IBM to not install patches until they are made to work with Microsoft's updates, you have to start asking:
Is Microsoft intentionally making the patches not play nicely with IBM software? It wouldn't be the first time, would it? No, I don't have a tinfoil hat on, but IF IBM gets cozier with Novell (or buys it) it will be positioned to be Microsoft's competition with SuSE, which is argueably the best distro for home users and the business desktop.
As an update to everyone, 24 hours later I have not received a reply. I didn't necessarily expect a personal reply this fast, but I hope Ziff-Davis will at least send a canned reply that clearly states their policy in a day or two. That's all we are asking for.
If it was your company's mistake, just admit it. It happens. Make it up to pocketpctools.com by doing it publicly. You allude to this, but just as the original story, I need an official statement before I can draw any conclusions. Never underestimate the power of an honest "I'm sorry, it won't happen again" to a group of geeks.
If it is the policy, then please clarify it, because this would seem to be contrary to what many of us would expect. Our possible reactions to this information is not relevant. As your customers of both web and print, we have a need and right to know your interpretation of the Fair Use Doctrine, as it applies to this situation in particular, and other websites in general.
I understand it takes a day or two and it has only been 24 hours, but I think most people would agree that 72 hours would be a reasonable time frame for a formal clarification. I am not sure how I would view a lack of communication after 72 hours.
I appreciate Matthew Rothenberg's quick update and reassurance, but I need something more substantial and binding. An official release from Ziff-Davis via email to everyone that asked for it, is a reasonable compromise. Matthew appears sincere, and seems to have the authority to make this happen, so at this stage I will give Ziff-Davis the benefit of the doubt.
Thanks in advance.
My message was really saying the same thing as your first one. Except mine was a parody to show the ineffectiveness of it. Hence the funny mod.
;)
It wasn't modded when I replied. Its not a reflection on you, obviously you have a sense of humor, but there are people who really believe what you said, hense the confusion. I stand corrected. Didn't even part my hair at the time. Welcome aboard
Good point. I don't think being 9.27% faster on a "Super Pi 2.0" benchmark justifies paying 243% of the price of an Athlon. But maybe I'm just old fashioned.
Not argueing your choice, but I have a problem with your math. You are only considering the cost of the CPU, not the system. An Intel system is not 2.43x the cost of an AMD system. The chip difference for comparable systems may be $2500 versus $3000 ($500 difference) where the actual difference means paying 20% more for a system with an Intel chip versus AMD chip (in the $2500-$3000 price range). Obviously, the more expensive the system, the less % difference the change to Intel becomes.
Most systems that use either chip are not exactly sub $1000 beige boxes. My choice of $2500-$3000 is pretty conservative. The cost difference is probably lower than 20% for a mid-line server, perhaps closer to 10% to 15%.
So, on a $5000 server (typical mid-line price minus software) it may be smart to spend an extra 10% to get 9.27% higher performance, if performance vs. price is your goal. It may just be a toss up. But it is not 243% more expensive, since most people buy systems, not chips.
Just wondering, anyone know if there is a way to ensure that the public access computer/terminal you're using while on vacation doesn't have a keylogger/spy program installed?
Good question. I vacation near relatives, and use their computers (usually mom's) AFTER I have done the maintenance on them. Normally, I would not login as root from a public library terminal, which (as you point out) is dangerous.
Simple. I am the corporate guy that reads those letters, and letters like you suggest would get thrown out immediately as some nut. The ones from intellegent and polite people WE read at the meeting. Its not my opinion, its reality.
Letters from illiterate, rude, hate filled people are never taken serious. You *DO* let them know, but when you are talking about getting 1000 people to write, its more effective if those letters are polite and not so easily dismissed.
One reason I am polite is that I DON'T have all the facts in this case, and experience tells me to not assume some website I just heard about 30 minutes ago is telling me the gospel truth. I am not going to go off the handle and start calling Ziff-Davis idiots, and then find out that the article was WRONG, and there was more to the story.
My goal is to persuade them to my point of view.
My goal is *NOT* to inform them that I think they are dicks.
You don't get very far persuading people or corporations when you treat them like crap or jump to conclusions when you don't have all the facts. Any idiot can write a hate letter that gets thrown away as soon as its opened. It takes a little more grace to have the letter actually get read by someone that matters.
I agree and you do make a point I usually follow. But under this circumstance, email is a decent second best, being that it is a tech company. They are used to most of their mail being email. But for most companies, I do, and you should, use snail mail. The format would still be the same, with a valid return route for the letter.
Simple, we are talking about "Free as in speech" not "Free as in beer". So it makes a huge difference.
Nothing is created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another. Never more true, especially with Free software.
I think there is some twisted logic to your theory, and they just may be dumb enough to think in this way. But this is beyond cutting off your nose to spite your face.
This would be like SCO deciding no vendor can use Unix source code, even for a fee, so they will have all the source, all the power and be the only source for Unix. In the end, it only makes you irrelevent and bankrupt.
I think the key to a successful writing campaign is to be:
1) Polite
2) Respectful
3) Objective
4) To the point
5) Request a reply
6) Use your real name and city/state and send from the same email address they can reply to.
Name or quote your sources, express your concerns, DONT assume it is correct, GENTLY explain what you are considering in response to their actions if true, and give them the opportunity to explain. Remain objective and fair if you want a response, or at least to have your letter actually read by someone that matters. I am sure many can do a better job of writing this letter, but thats great: do it and send it.
I really DONT know if this article is true, so assuming would not serve anyone anyway, and just make me look like an ass for being wrong and loud. Fake articles HAVE happened before, after all. What matters is NOT "I will unsubscribe", but "I have reason to question your companies ethics or actions" since most people are not subscribers anyway. You should always act like you really WANT to hear their opinion or side of the story, even though it is unlikely you will get a reply. These are the letters that get read in the boardroom.
You will never know if your particular letter made "the" difference but it doesn't matter. The sheer volume of intellegent, thoughtful and concerned letters speak for themselves.