If I format a floppy disc using FAT and send it out to a friend am I also using proprietaty and patented software in an illegal manner?
No, you paid for the patent by buying MS Windows (or DOS) in the first place, so you can use it. (I asume here that you paid for your MS system). However, if you do that from your Linux system, then you might be in trouble;-(
That's one of the reasons Linux is so much better than Windows in this area.
Because it can understand something that is patented, without paying the patent fee? Welcome in the patent world...
If MS want to enforce this they shold give manufaturers the opportunity to install a patent free filesystem seemlessly into Windows
This time you got it reversed. But you have a good point that this is probably abuse of monopoly...
If we place ourselves in the world where MS is not a monopoly: The point is (and that's how competition goes), they place whatever they want in their software. If you're not happy, don't use their product.
Of course, any manufacturer is free to develop its own filesystem and its own driver for Win/Mac/Linux...
If it can be shown that MS encouraged the use of FAT without demanding payment for years, then I think a good case can be made that FAT is now in the public domain
Certainly not (at least, I hope not). But it would certainly set free all existing implementation of FAT by third parties, and MS could charge only new implementations (implementations after that annoucement was made that they planned on licensing FAT).
I've worked with MICROSOFT on interaction with many of these products and been told by their support staff to use fat as a way to transfer data in cases
I guess (hope?) if you can prove that - or if you can make Microsoft agree that they told that to you, - you should be out of the licensing program.
Software patents are bad. Submarine patents are bad
So you're telling me that nobody knew that FAT was patented? Come on! Let's get serious over there. When you do something (even re-implement) something that was invented by such a big corp, methinks you should be warry of any patents.
Microsoft has allowed the fat file system to propogate for free until becoming a standard
Man, you really need to get over this issue. It has NEVER BEEN free! This has always been a patented filesystem! Find me a Microsoft document or annoucement in which they say "FAT is now Free"!
Why are people so blind to such a simple issue: You use something illegally (read: without permission from the patent/copyright owner) and you get caught. Big freaking deal! I say Go Microsoft on this one. Thay own it, people use it illegally, they get damage.
they shouldn't impose this on existing applications of the technology
And why not?
People and companies manufacturing these devices (using FAT) have use a patented filesystem. It's not like nobody knew about it. They have used a patented FS and haven't even contacted MS to see if they were allowed to do it. Who do they think they are? God? Thay can take anything from anyone?
Granted, it was soooooo easier to write the driver for Windows! So now laziness is a good enough reason to bypass patents?
If anything, Stallman's probably right: we should avoid all propietary software for exactly these underhanded reasons.
Well, I'd rather say we should avoid all propietary software that we didn't ask the permission for using or legally purchased
How does that sound?
This thing amazes me. All these people making devices using FAT are irresponsibly implementing a proprietary feature. Did they dare ask for a license or a permission? I don't think so, or this whole issue would be moot.
So in other words, people are using a proprietaty and patented file system (knowingly, it's not like the patent or owner did hide himself), then the patent owner wants payment, and you will say that the patent owner is evil? Man!
You gain revenue on what you can sell. Welcome to capitalism!
the value of FAT is artificial, and only valuable now *because* all were once free to use it
Man, you really need to get over this issue. It has NEVER BEEN free! This has always been a patented filesystem damnit! Why are people so blind to such a simple issue: You use something illegally (read: without permission from the patent owner) and you get caught! Big freaking deal! I say Go Microsoft on this one!
Don't try to let the ambient laziness about proprietary stuff blind you. If people use a proprietary technology without the written consent of the rights owner (copyrights or patents), they expose themselves to these kinds of problems. Thinking that you can use proprietary stuff for free is insane.
The fact that everyone is making the same mistake (hence leading to this feature becoming a de-facto standard) just proves that people think more like sheep than individuals. They should learn to think for thenselves instead of relying on "They did it so we must be ok doing the same thing".
People will eventually learn that proprietary stuff belong to their author/company. It will apparently be painful, but I am confident that they will learn. Until you have a written consent that you can use freely something (such as a letter, a GPL, anything) you can't. It is amazing how people take this step for granted.
Of course, they can also blame MS instead of thinking for themselves. That works fine.
Don't try to let the ambient laziness about proprietary stuff blind you. If you use a proprietary technology without the written consent of the rights owner (copyrights or patents), you expose yourself to these kinds of problems. The fact that everyone is making the same mistake just proves that people think more like sheep than individuals. You should learn to think for yourself instead of relying on "They did it so we must be ok doing the same thing".
Of course, you can also blame MS instead of thinking for yourself. That works fine.
Well, with one difference. Microsoft (in this case) own and developped the technology they want to license. That should make a different between the two issues, don't you think so?
People have been apparently blinded by Open Source Software, if they thought they could use a proprietary technology freely.
For once, Microsoft is doing what they should do. And still, the slashdot community is bashing them. I guess it is hopeless then.
You have seriously got to be kidding me, right? Microsoft invented, developped and maintained FAT for many many years. Why should they allow people to use it for free? You bloody well know that is not their business model right?
So now, because it is Microsoft (or should there be another reason), trying to license its own software/technology is evil right?
You guys need to get a life. Microsoft is evil, granted, but not any more than many big companies out there. In this specific case, they just happen to be right, and that seems to hurt you, doesn't it?
And for the lame argument that Windows cannot read another FS, it is just an issue of the laziness of the manufacturer to develop a decent driver for windows right? That should not have anything to do with Microsoft, come on!
I can't understand your point of view. I mean, Moore's law has stood up until now and there is nothing that could suggest it is not going to last forever. *When* it'll break, we'll see. Util then, it stands true.
Intel engineers are cretins if they think otherwise.
Given the number of root exploits discovered for Mac OS X, I'd say it is probably not the most secure OS out there either.
Could it be that the reason Mozilla doesn't have all that many exploits is that nobody uses it? And so it makes the point moot for a cracker to develop a virus getting through Mozilla (2%) and let it out in the wild?
All in all, I think it is not as simple as you describe it. Security is a complex issue and if all MS users switched to Mac tomorrow, probably the same number of exploits/virus/security issues would be the same for Mac OS than they are for Windows today... or very close.
This just point out that editors shouldn't let stories badly written make it to the first page. Granted I should RTFA, but there is no point in showing to me a 5-line summary that is not doing its job (summarizing, that is). Instead of "but unfortunately the consortium that owns it hadn't fixed an earlier problem, just off the U.S. coast.", I should have read: "but unfortunately the consortium that owns it hadn't had the time to fix an earlier problem, just off the U.S. coast."
So yes, I am guilty of relying on a poorly written and misleading story;-(. My bad.
From the story: Just shows how systems with build-in redundancy can still go badly wrong
Well, build-in redundancy is just there to let you some time to fix problems before disrupting activity. I mean, if I don't change HDD A on my RAID-1 Array when it is reported to be defective, there is no point in having a RAID-1 Array. The company in charge is responsible. The "build-in redundancy" did its job fine. They just shouldn't have installed a system with redundancy if they didn't plan on fixing non-disruptive problems.
Hopefully, if you have some structure in your engineering team, the guy that program the dialog box and the guy that write the message are two different persons. The guy writing the message might very well be in the US...
Netscape lost out to IE - Hmmm, even if the decisive phase of the winning was made by IE4, which was much better than NS4, IE3 still managed to steal a good 40% share to Netscape, even though it didn't bring anything (but for the fact that it was preinstalled) Apple lost out to Microsoft - Right AltaVista lost out to Google - Right WordPerfect lost out to Word - And what did Word brought to the field? The typewriter lost out to the computer - Hm. And Horse carriages lost to cars. Let's stay in the field of software please. Quark will eventually lose out to InDesign - Well Quark has successfully survived a Microsoft attempt. I remember the time when people predicted the death of Quark in 2 years, and - believe it or not - without releasing any new features, just resting, thay are still there. That makes it a bigger deal IMO, and I would certainly not pretict their end soon.
Linux is after all a much closer copy of and owes far more to Unix than MSDOS ever did to C/PM
Well, given that MS-DOS and CP/M were - at some point - one and the same software, I don't really see how Linux could be closer to Unix than that. At least, if it is true, then SCO has a case!
You know, with a good random number generator, you can get very precise numbers. Plus it has the good side effect of making you look impartial. I mean, what better option than saying one thing and the very opposite a few month later! you'll never look like you take one side over the other...
the sophistication and efficiency of the algorithms has also improved
That exactly because of this "improved algorithm" that Fritz lost the third game. Fritz believed that "moving the pawns in front of its king is bad". While this is true in 99% of the case, it is a bad idea to force the AI with such a blind rule. Maybe less complex algorithms with more horsepower would have won this game (Or lost less pitifully).
Slashdot Mirror
If I format a floppy disc using FAT and send it out to a friend am I also using proprietaty and patented software in an illegal manner?
;-(
No, you paid for the patent by buying MS Windows (or DOS) in the first place, so you can use it. (I asume here that you paid for your MS system). However, if you do that from your Linux system, then you might be in trouble
That's one of the reasons Linux is so much better than Windows in this area.
Because it can understand something that is patented, without paying the patent fee? Welcome in the patent world...
If MS want to enforce this they shold give manufaturers the opportunity to install a patent free filesystem seemlessly into Windows
This time you got it reversed. But you have a good point that this is probably abuse of monopoly...
If we place ourselves in the world where MS is not a monopoly:
The point is (and that's how competition goes), they place whatever they want in their software. If you're not happy, don't use their product.
Of course, any manufacturer is free to develop its own filesystem and its own driver for Win/Mac/Linux...
If it can be shown that MS encouraged the use of FAT without demanding payment for years, then I think a good case can be made that FAT is now in the public domain
Certainly not (at least, I hope not). But it would certainly set free all existing implementation of FAT by third parties, and MS could charge only new implementations (implementations after that annoucement was made that they planned on licensing FAT).
I've worked with MICROSOFT on interaction with many of these products and been told by their support staff to use fat as a way to transfer data in cases
I guess (hope?) if you can prove that - or if you can make Microsoft agree that they told that to you, - you should be out of the licensing program.
Software patents are bad. Submarine patents are bad
So you're telling me that nobody knew that FAT was patented? Come on! Let's get serious over there. When you do something (even re-implement) something that was invented by such a big corp, methinks you should be warry of any patents.
Microsoft has allowed the fat file system to propogate for free until becoming a standard
Man, you really need to get over this issue. It has NEVER BEEN free! This has always been a patented filesystem! Find me a Microsoft document or annoucement in which they say "FAT is now Free"!
Why are people so blind to such a simple issue: You use something illegally (read: without permission from the patent/copyright owner) and you get caught. Big freaking deal! I say Go Microsoft on this one. Thay own it, people use it illegally, they get damage.
they shouldn't impose this on existing applications of the technology
And why not?
People and companies manufacturing these devices (using FAT) have use a patented filesystem. It's not like nobody knew about it. They have used a patented FS and haven't even contacted MS to see if they were allowed to do it. Who do they think they are? God? Thay can take anything from anyone?
Granted, it was soooooo easier to write the driver for Windows! So now laziness is a good enough reason to bypass patents?
If anything, Stallman's probably right: we should avoid all propietary software for exactly these underhanded reasons.
Well, I'd rather say we should avoid all propietary software that we didn't ask the permission for using or legally purchased
How does that sound?
This thing amazes me. All these people making devices using FAT are irresponsibly implementing a proprietary feature. Did they dare ask for a license or a permission? I don't think so, or this whole issue would be moot.
So in other words, people are using a proprietaty and patented file system (knowingly, it's not like the patent or owner did hide himself), then the patent owner wants payment, and you will say that the patent owner is evil? Man!
You gain revenue on what you can sell. Welcome to capitalism!
the value of FAT is artificial, and only valuable now *because* all were once free to use it
Man, you really need to get over this issue. It has NEVER BEEN free! This has always been a patented filesystem damnit! Why are people so blind to such a simple issue: You use something illegally (read: without permission from the patent owner) and you get caught! Big freaking deal! I say Go Microsoft on this one!
The portable player requires burned CDs
Maybe that is the reason his post's subject was "I'll rather burn CDs"
If it is an old tactic, why are people surprised?
Don't try to let the ambient laziness about proprietary stuff blind you. If people use a proprietary technology without the written consent of the rights owner (copyrights or patents), they expose themselves to these kinds of problems. Thinking that you can use proprietary stuff for free is insane.
The fact that everyone is making the same mistake (hence leading to this feature becoming a de-facto standard) just proves that people think more like sheep than individuals. They should learn to think for thenselves instead of relying on "They did it so we must be ok doing the same thing".
People will eventually learn that proprietary stuff belong to their author/company. It will apparently be painful, but I am confident that they will learn. Until you have a written consent that you can use freely something (such as a letter, a GPL, anything) you can't. It is amazing how people take this step for granted.
Of course, they can also blame MS instead of thinking for themselves. That works fine.
Don't try to let the ambient laziness about proprietary stuff blind you. If you use a proprietary technology without the written consent of the rights owner (copyrights or patents), you expose yourself to these kinds of problems. The fact that everyone is making the same mistake just proves that people think more like sheep than individuals. You should learn to think for yourself instead of relying on "They did it so we must be ok doing the same thing".
Of course, you can also blame MS instead of thinking for yourself. That works fine.
Well, with one difference. Microsoft (in this case) own and developped the technology they want to license. That should make a different between the two issues, don't you think so?
People have been apparently blinded by Open Source Software, if they thought they could use a proprietary technology freely.
For once, Microsoft is doing what they should do. And still, the slashdot community is bashing them. I guess it is hopeless then.
You have seriously got to be kidding me, right? Microsoft invented, developped and maintained FAT for many many years. Why should they allow people to use it for free? You bloody well know that is not their business model right?
So now, because it is Microsoft (or should there be another reason), trying to license its own software/technology is evil right?
You guys need to get a life. Microsoft is evil, granted, but not any more than many big companies out there. In this specific case, they just happen to be right, and that seems to hurt you, doesn't it?
And for the lame argument that Windows cannot read another FS, it is just an issue of the laziness of the manufacturer to develop a decent driver for windows right? That should not have anything to do with Microsoft, come on!
I can't understand your point of view. I mean, Moore's law has stood up until now and there is nothing that could suggest it is not going to last forever. *When* it'll break, we'll see. Util then, it stands true.
Intel engineers are cretins if they think otherwise.
Given the number of root exploits discovered for Mac OS X, I'd say it is probably not the most secure OS out there either.
Could it be that the reason Mozilla doesn't have all that many exploits is that nobody uses it? And so it makes the point moot for a cracker to develop a virus getting through Mozilla (2%) and let it out in the wild?
All in all, I think it is not as simple as you describe it. Security is a complex issue and if all MS users switched to Mac tomorrow, probably the same number of exploits/virus/security issues would be the same for Mac OS than they are for Windows today... or very close.
So McBride has shot himself in the foot again.
SCO is not anymore a software company. They didn't shoot themselves in the foot as software doesn't matter to them anymore.
This just point out that editors shouldn't let stories badly written make it to the first page. Granted I should RTFA, but there is no point in showing to me a 5-line summary that is not doing its job (summarizing, that is).
;-(. My bad.
Instead of "but unfortunately the consortium that owns it hadn't fixed an earlier problem, just off the U.S. coast.", I should have read:
"but unfortunately the consortium that owns it hadn't had the time to fix an earlier problem, just off the U.S. coast."
So yes, I am guilty of relying on a poorly written and misleading story
From the story: Just shows how systems with build-in redundancy can still go badly wrong
Well, build-in redundancy is just there to let you some time to fix problems before disrupting activity. I mean, if I don't change HDD A on my RAID-1 Array when it is reported to be defective, there is no point in having a RAID-1 Array. The company in charge is responsible. The "build-in redundancy" did its job fine. They just shouldn't have installed a system with redundancy if they didn't plan on fixing non-disruptive problems.
Well, from what I remember, QuarkXPress was there, PageMaker came and tried to take the spot. Do I have it reversed?
Hopefully, if you have some structure in your engineering team, the guy that program the dialog box and the guy that write the message are two different persons. The guy writing the message might very well be in the US...
I thought Microsoft discouraged people to run their crapola on mission critical systems? And now they push people to install XP on ATM machines!!?!?!
;-)
Oh well, there might be a good side effects to us nerds: Once someone will find an exploit, we'll have cash for free
You are right, I got confused. Adobe PageMaker tried to take them down, not Microsoft...
Netscape lost out to IE - Hmmm, even if the decisive phase of the winning was made by IE4, which was much better than NS4, IE3 still managed to steal a good 40% share to Netscape, even though it didn't bring anything (but for the fact that it was preinstalled)
Apple lost out to Microsoft - Right
AltaVista lost out to Google - Right
WordPerfect lost out to Word - And what did Word brought to the field?
The typewriter lost out to the computer - Hm. And Horse carriages lost to cars. Let's stay in the field of software please.
Quark will eventually lose out to InDesign - Well Quark has successfully survived a Microsoft attempt. I remember the time when people predicted the death of Quark in 2 years, and - believe it or not - without releasing any new features, just resting, thay are still there. That makes it a bigger deal IMO, and I would certainly not pretict their end soon.
Linux is after all a much closer copy of and owes far more to Unix than MSDOS ever did to C/PM
Well, given that MS-DOS and CP/M were - at some point - one and the same software, I don't really see how Linux could be closer to Unix than that. At least, if it is true, then SCO has a case!
You know, with a good random number generator, you can get very precise numbers. Plus it has the good side effect of making you look impartial. I mean, what better option than saying one thing and the very opposite a few month later! you'll never look like you take one side over the other...
You forgot Nixon in your examples.
the sophistication and efficiency of the algorithms has also improved
That exactly because of this "improved algorithm" that Fritz lost the third game. Fritz believed that "moving the pawns in front of its king is bad". While this is true in 99% of the case, it is a bad idea to force the AI with such a blind rule. Maybe less complex algorithms with more horsepower would have won this game (Or lost less pitifully).