Just make it so one company can't own more than one tld.
And where does that leave us? With.cars being owned by Ford, and.vehicles being owned by "The.Vehicles Consortium, a wholly owned subsidiary of Ford Motors", and.motorcars being owned by "The.motorcars Consortium, a wholly owned subsidiary of Ford Motors", and...
I personally don't see much of a difference between org.news and com.news, for that matter... TLDs as we know them have stopped making much sense a long time ago. How about starting to make them useful, for a change?
Every software protection eventually gets circumvented. If they implement some way to restrict multiple installs, it's a matter of days or weeks before the lock gets opened.
And don't underestimate users. Users crack shareware if they don't think it's worth the price. The reason commercial software doesn't have that many crack utilities is essencially lack of popular demand. But no code cracker will let go of a chance to prove they're "better than Microsoft" and find a way to go around any installation limitations imposed.
The reason they never did this to Windows yet is, simply, that they never needed it.
BTW, didn't Windows get popular by _allowing_ people to install it wherever they wanted to? Win 3x didn't even have serial numbers, AFAIK... Talk about "embrace and extend"...
Slashdot Mirror
And where does that leave us? With
I personally don't see much of a difference between org.news and com.news, for that matter... TLDs as we know them have stopped making much sense a long time ago. How about starting to make them useful, for a change?
>If there were a better coke, or a friendlier OS, would those monopolies be there?
"Friendly" ?? Drug dealers are friendly...
hmmm... will it?
Every software protection eventually gets circumvented. If they implement some way to restrict multiple installs, it's a matter of days or weeks before the lock gets opened.
And don't underestimate users. Users crack shareware if they don't think it's worth the price. The reason commercial software doesn't have that many crack utilities is essencially lack of popular demand. But no code cracker will let go of a chance to prove they're "better than Microsoft" and find a way to go around any installation limitations imposed.
The reason they never did this to Windows yet is, simply, that they never needed it.
BTW, didn't Windows get popular by _allowing_ people to install it wherever they wanted to? Win 3x didn't even have serial numbers, AFAIK... Talk about "embrace and extend"...