This will be a nightmare for Java and open source in general.
IBM will kill the following fantastic Sun projects:
Netbeans Glassfish
They won't kill OpenSolaris/zfs/Dtrace, but they'll probably close source enough of it. Same goes with MySql.
They'll scrap all of Sun's awesome documentation and replace it with their own cryptic documentation. They'll re-engineer Sun's products to generate cryptic error messages, like they do with DB2's wonderful error messages.
IBM makes horrible products. I should know, because my last two companies (including this one) have been IBM shops, and I have to use them every day.
What would be really neat, say 5 years down the road, would be a mobile device you could connect to a docking station with an LCD monitor (ex 24 inches).
Then all your mobile apps could switch away from "battery saving mode" and "3G network saving mode" and run with less restrictions, as well as well as run full-size, or something close to it with some combination of new features and resolution independence.
Full computers would be reserved for professions who really need the extra computing power.
The only issues would be storage and better access to the filesystem. Given 5 years, they could probably solve these issues.
This is my favourite new feature. I use the Notes app to jot down notes and was annoyed at not being able to sync those notes, as I was with my iPod. This is long overdue, but I'll be happy to have it.
I didn't RTFA, but this sounds absolutely insane, and it creates a dangerous precedent.
Basically, one could now commit a whole litany of crimes in plain view of the public, and as long as law enforcement doesn't become aware (or care) about these crimes, nobody would report those crimes, assuming that one had the financial means to sue them into submissions.
Also, journalism would cease to be a meaningful profession, as meaningful investigative reporting would be too legally risky for any news organization to allow.
Accusation and guilt are two entirely different things. The "three strikes" laws are based on three accusations of copyright infringement, not three findings of guilt in a court of law.
So, basically, all I need to do is accuse you of violating my copyright three times, and you'll be disconnected.
It seems like 3.1 has been stuck at beta 2 for several months. This is while Chrome and Safari have leapt ahead with the taps and top interface and other improvements.
I still prefer Firefox, but the difference in screen real estate between Firefox and Safari Beta 4 is jarring.
An operating system's installed base is not the same as the market share.
Market share is measurable because it's based on percentage of sales over a given period of time.
Installed base is difficult or impossible to measure, because it's the percentage share an operating system has over the entire population of computers. This means the market share of Macs and Linux machines is underestimated. Macs, because they last on average 2 years longer than Windows PC's. Linux, well, because hardly anybody pays for Linux since they can legally get it for free.
So, essentially, market share figures are highly inaccurate for estimated the installed base of any given operating system.
Even though you have a MAC you are not an island unto yourself and if you are like many of the people on here you publish content to the web and therefore care which browser base is the largest.
Did I say I didn't care? As a former web developer, I would just as soon see IE 6 disappear off the face of the Earth. It's companies like mine that will prevent that from happening, which is a real shame.
I work for a medium-sized bank that has strict and outdated IT policies. All Windows XP workstations are set up with non-admin accounts, including developers. IE 6 is installed and we're not allowed to update to IE 7.
I don't even have a Windows PC at home, but at work, I'm officially effectively forced to use IE 6 (even though I've found a way to install Firefox as a non-admin user).
It's employees in companies like mine that will not be able to convert to IE 7 or another browser, even if they really want to.
If you want me to keep two years of logs on my private WPA-encrypted wireless network that I occasionally let my girlfriend and friend use, then you had better damn well pay for the cost of the hardware and software to enable this, as well as support if anything goes wrong.
Of course, this will mean that they'll have to pay for said equipment and then the costs will balloon into the trillions.
More than likely though, this will be one of those laws that nobody plans to really enforce, but can nail you with if they decide to go on a fishing expedition.
1) The kind that people do care about, like the Sony Rootkit or Spore's DRM. That's the kind they take notice and take exception to.
2) The kind that people accept and don't really notice, like iTunes DRM.
Microsoft is banking that their new DRM will be 2), as long as they don't do anything overt, like disable users' MP3 collections.
Still, with Linux getting easier to use to the point where regular people are willing to try it, this DRM could be the final nail in the coffin for a lot of Windows users.
If the judge's analogy applies to listed but not unlisted numbers, then there's a simple solution:
Send a notarized letter to my ISP telling them that I wish my IP address to be kept private, and that I expect the same level of confidentiality as I would with an unlisted number.
This way, if they get my identity from my IP address without a warrant, the letter of intent will be on file, and I will thus be unaffected by this ruling.
Windows has IE. Macs have Safari. KDE has Konqueror.
How can any operating system not include a default browser?
In the past, Microsoft tried to use its operating system monopoly to create a browser monopoly to destroy open standards on the web. It almost succeeded. This type of behaviour should be discouraged and remedies need to be found for it.
However, it seems silly to require that Windows either not ship with a browser or ship with several. It would be a slippery slope where Macs would need to include Firefox as well as Safari.
I'm not sure what the solution is. I would prefer that all OEM ships machines with Linux/OpenSolaris/FreeBSD, as well as just Windows. This would result in far less market share for Windows and IE, and open standards becoming more prevalent.
However, I would not want to take away Microsoft's ability to include a default browser, because the next logical step would be to take away Apple's ability to include Safari and KDE's ability to include Konqueror as their default browsers.
They're selling a modified version of OS X, not keeping the modifications for themselves. They're not only distributing the modifications, but *selling* them without Apple's consent. This is clearly a violation of copyright law.
As for the GPL, your point is a non sequitur. I wasn't comparing it the EULA. I was using the point that *copyright law* applies to both OS X and the GPL. To say that copyright law doesn't apply to Apple's source code but does apply to Linux is pure hypocrisy.
I'm not sure how your post got modded up +5 insightful.
How is Psystar buying copies of OSX that Apple is (voluntarily) selling "forcing a company to operate in areas they deem unprofitable"?
Because Psystar modifies OS X (including the kernel) to install on BIOS (non-EFI) systems, and modifies the binaries of every OS update Apple distributes.
They are no selling OS X computers. They are selling computers with unauthorized distributed works of OS X, which is a clear violation of copyright law.
If you agree with this, then you agree with Microsoft using GPL code in Windows.
The only thing that would change if Psystar won, is that Apple couldn't stop anyone from installing a copy of OS X that they already own on other hardware. Apple would not have to provide a bit of support, change any code, or anything else.
Apple would be blamed if OS X didn't work with said hardware, or, even worse, was destabilized because of it.
You have to realize that most computer users don't understand *why* something doesn't work. They just blame whoever it is it's most convenient to blame.
If somebody writes a bad OS X hardware driver that destabilizes that particular OS X system (remember the AMD bug that forces Microsoft to delay XP SP3?), they will blame Apple for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Sun's folks created a GPL-incompatible license specifically to have some pieces that Linux doesn't have.
Wrong! The GNU folks created a license that was incompatible with other licenses. The CDDL is similar to the Mozilla, Apache and BSD licenses.
GPL 3 is compatible with the Apache license, but guess what? Linus and company don't like it.
So please explain to me why Sun must make the CDDL compatible with GPL 2, and not the other way around.
2- License ZFS under GPLv2
Why?
This will be a nightmare for Java and open source in general.
IBM will kill the following fantastic Sun projects:
Netbeans
Glassfish
They won't kill OpenSolaris/zfs/Dtrace, but they'll probably close source enough of it. Same goes with MySql.
They'll scrap all of Sun's awesome documentation and replace it with their own cryptic documentation. They'll re-engineer Sun's products to generate cryptic error messages, like they do with DB2's wonderful error messages.
IBM makes horrible products. I should know, because my last two companies (including this one) have been IBM shops, and I have to use them every day.
Please God don't let this be true!
Come on!
Sun has open sourced:
NFS
OpenOffice
GlassFish
Java
Java Enterprise Edition
Netbeans
What has IBM open sourced? Oh...uh...Eclipse
IBM has tons of closed source products:
Websphere
DB2
Rational
Lotus Notes
etc.....
Give me a break!
Interesting observation...
What would be really neat, say 5 years down the road, would be a mobile device you could connect to a docking station with an LCD monitor (ex 24 inches).
Then all your mobile apps could switch away from "battery saving mode" and "3G network saving mode" and run with less restrictions, as well as well as run full-size, or something close to it with some combination of new features and resolution independence.
Full computers would be reserved for professions who really need the extra computing power.
The only issues would be storage and better access to the filesystem. Given 5 years, they could probably solve these issues.
This is my favourite new feature. I use the Notes app to jot down notes and was annoyed at not being able to sync those notes, as I was with my iPod. This is long overdue, but I'll be happy to have it.
I didn't RTFA, but this sounds absolutely insane, and it creates a dangerous precedent.
Basically, one could now commit a whole litany of crimes in plain view of the public, and as long as law enforcement doesn't become aware (or care) about these crimes, nobody would report those crimes, assuming that one had the financial means to sue them into submissions.
Also, journalism would cease to be a meaningful profession, as meaningful investigative reporting would be too legally risky for any news organization to allow.
Accusation and guilt are two entirely different things. The "three strikes" laws are based on three accusations of copyright infringement, not three findings of guilt in a court of law.
So, basically, all I need to do is accuse you of violating my copyright three times, and you'll be disconnected.
Is that fair?
The idea sounds excellent in principle, but how do you tell a true open source developer apart from a poser looking to abuse this program?
It seems like 3.1 has been stuck at beta 2 for several months. This is while Chrome and Safari have leapt ahead with the taps and top interface and other improvements.
I still prefer Firefox, but the difference in screen real estate between Firefox and Safari Beta 4 is jarring.
An operating system's installed base is not the same as the market share.
Market share is measurable because it's based on percentage of sales over a given period of time.
Installed base is difficult or impossible to measure, because it's the percentage share an operating system has over the entire population of computers. This means the market share of Macs and Linux machines is underestimated. Macs, because they last on average 2 years longer than Windows PC's. Linux, well, because hardly anybody pays for Linux since they can legally get it for free.
So, essentially, market share figures are highly inaccurate for estimated the installed base of any given operating system.
Sorry, but it's stupid to prevent developers from installing new tools. They get demoralized and leave.
I spent a month and a half doing nothing between projects. Instead of trying out new tools and improving my skills, I was left surfing Slashdot.
Hopefully, I'll be gone shortly to greener pastures.
Even though you have a MAC you are not an island unto yourself and if you are like many of the people on here you publish content to the web and therefore care which browser base is the largest.
Did I say I didn't care? As a former web developer, I would just as soon see IE 6 disappear off the face of the Earth. It's companies like mine that will prevent that from happening, which is a real shame.
I work for a medium-sized bank that has strict and outdated IT policies. All Windows XP workstations are set up with non-admin accounts, including developers. IE 6 is installed and we're not allowed to update to IE 7.
I don't even have a Windows PC at home, but at work, I'm officially effectively forced to use IE 6 (even though I've found a way to install Firefox as a non-admin user).
It's employees in companies like mine that will not be able to convert to IE 7 or another browser, even if they really want to.
If you want me to keep two years of logs on my private WPA-encrypted wireless network that I occasionally let my girlfriend and friend use, then you had better damn well pay for the cost of the hardware and software to enable this, as well as support if anything goes wrong.
Of course, this will mean that they'll have to pay for said equipment and then the costs will balloon into the trillions.
More than likely though, this will be one of those laws that nobody plans to really enforce, but can nail you with if they decide to go on a fishing expedition.
That's the question. There are two kinds of DRM:
1) The kind that people do care about, like the Sony Rootkit or Spore's DRM. That's the kind they take notice and take exception to.
2) The kind that people accept and don't really notice, like iTunes DRM.
Microsoft is banking that their new DRM will be 2), as long as they don't do anything overt, like disable users' MP3 collections.
Still, with Linux getting easier to use to the point where regular people are willing to try it, this DRM could be the final nail in the coffin for a lot of Windows users.
If the judge's analogy applies to listed but not unlisted numbers, then there's a simple solution:
Send a notarized letter to my ISP telling them that I wish my IP address to be kept private, and that I expect the same level of confidentiality as I would with an unlisted number.
This way, if they get my identity from my IP address without a warrant, the letter of intent will be on file, and I will thus be unaffected by this ruling.
The judge's analogy fails in several ways, but one is that I can ask the phone company for an unlisted phone number.
Obviously, there's no way to ask for an "unlisted" IP address.
Windows has IE.
Macs have Safari.
KDE has Konqueror.
How can any operating system not include a default browser?
In the past, Microsoft tried to use its operating system monopoly to create a browser monopoly to destroy open standards on the web. It almost succeeded. This type of behaviour should be discouraged and remedies need to be found for it.
However, it seems silly to require that Windows either not ship with a browser or ship with several. It would be a slippery slope where Macs would need to include Firefox as well as Safari.
I'm not sure what the solution is. I would prefer that all OEM ships machines with Linux/OpenSolaris/FreeBSD, as well as just Windows. This would result in far less market share for Windows and IE, and open standards becoming more prevalent.
However, I would not want to take away Microsoft's ability to include a default browser, because the next logical step would be to take away Apple's ability to include Safari and KDE's ability to include Konqueror as their default browsers.
They're selling a modified version of OS X, not keeping the modifications for themselves. They're not only distributing the modifications, but *selling* them without Apple's consent. This is clearly a violation of copyright law.
As for the GPL, your point is a non sequitur. I wasn't comparing it the EULA. I was using the point that *copyright law* applies to both OS X and the GPL. To say that copyright law doesn't apply to Apple's source code but does apply to Linux is pure hypocrisy.
I'm not sure how your post got modded up +5 insightful.
How is Psystar buying copies of OSX that Apple is (voluntarily) selling "forcing a company to operate in areas they deem unprofitable"?
Because Psystar modifies OS X (including the kernel) to install on BIOS (non-EFI) systems, and modifies the binaries of every OS update Apple distributes.
They are no selling OS X computers. They are selling computers with unauthorized distributed works of OS X, which is a clear violation of copyright law.
If you agree with this, then you agree with Microsoft using GPL code in Windows.
The only thing that would change if Psystar won, is that Apple couldn't stop anyone from installing a copy of OS X that they already own on other hardware. Apple would not have to provide a bit of support, change any code, or anything else.
Apple would be blamed if OS X didn't work with said hardware, or, even worse, was destabilized because of it.
You have to realize that most computer users don't understand *why* something doesn't work. They just blame whoever it is it's most convenient to blame.
If somebody writes a bad OS X hardware driver that destabilizes that particular OS X system (remember the AMD bug that forces Microsoft to delay XP SP3?), they will blame Apple for it.
How are they abusing copyright law?
If Pystar wins, OS X will no longer be sold retail. New versions will only be available via a paid online update.
Apple will then assert that it's impossible to install it on commodity hardware without stealing the source code outright.