Sun was only intending on selling one copy of Solaris. *Prods your head, looking for brain activity* - how many copies have they sold? How much revenue? Now do you see why a figure of that amount is valid?
Oh, praise be to America. All of us in other countries have no freedom of speech, and suffer severely as a result. Such a second-rate country I must live in. What percentage have protection on freedom of speech? Quite a majority (Clue: you don't *need* a constitution for freedom of speech, much as most Americans would have us believe).
So much freedom in the US. So little elsewhere. Explain to me again why I can't legally download SecureCRT from the States?
Believe it or not, the world does not revolve around the US of A.
Wouldn't it be nice if the internet referred to the "International Net"? I'm not even sure the US has the majority of the world's traffic anymore - or its margin has been cut down severely.
Liberal may claim a 'mandate' but more votes were actually cast for Labour than Liberal, so in overall percentages, they don't. Stupid divisions of voting districts are what was responsible for Liberal still being in government, not a majority belief in what they're doing.
My bitter and twisted two cents. People get moderated for "bad bad rms. he's daydreaming"... how about this?
ObComment: why were they worried about videocard on server end - unless they were using X? I have yet to meet a video card that doesn't run under console mode in linux;)
I thought.org was for nonprofit organisations/entities, but NSI/InterNic seem to have forgot that rule, realising that companies are happy to register the other domains, and they are happy to pocket another $140(?) a year
Uh, sir? Causing an a computer system to fail under load doesn't actually damage it. If a crash were damage to property, Netscape Communicator would be illegal, now, wouldn't it?"
Simple, I remember mocking Microsoft a few years ago for their explanation of WinNuke:
"This attack does not do any actual damage to your data files. A reboot of the system will restore it to normal."
Err, huh?:) What if it was an NT Server, without 500 users with open files. No damage? I think not.
I'm generalising r.e. business, most things in the world revolve around money, and that makes most people act in certain ways.
As for the organism analogy, fair enough:) I just disliked the 'gloat' attidude.
There seem to be two schools of oldtimers... the ones who are willing to help... and those who mock....:)
As with the 'right way'... that is the way of business generally. I think they *approached* it the right way in some regards, but lost a lot of the human aspects, i.e. elementary human politeness. Ignoring all phone calls was rather immature of them.
But anyway, standard disclaimer - I just like being controversial...I should note explicityly when my tongue is not even slightly in my cheek!:)
I should have a standard disclaimer about my methods for stimulating debate, should they get read as flame!;-)
Business, sure... if he were doing that, why not? But I just think sometimes people (in general, not just here) like to apply rules selectively. But that's everyone... including me! *g*:)
I remember a huge barrage of flame when people were being told by NSI to register.net and.org as well as.com - howls of protest, "but but but, they're not!"
"They can't do that!" but yet, last I checked Theos was a singular person, Theos software a commercial entity, now who has more right to a.COMmercial domain?
This is absolutely pathetic. Some people here seem to be gloating over the fact that they are damaging other people's property. "Woohoo, how bout we slashdot these babies!"? Childish and immature are the two words that come to mind. Those who use IRC here complain about the 'good ol days' where there wasn't packetmonkeys / scriptkiddies to worry about constantly, and how immature they are to DoS a server for their own ends. But those same people seem to have no compunctions in doing it if it suits their cause.
Like it or not, it's a business world, and businesses are always going to be in dispute. That does not mean that people go out and deliberately attack servers, employees (voicemail etc) because they don't believe in something. The elitist, arrogant responses here only go to prove that point. "You're in my world now", "It's biology baby, we're gonna fight to keep you out" is the most appalling attitude I have ever heard. The `net isn't a community for those who think that they are somehow more elite powerful, on useless benchmarks such as "I was here a long time ago, play the way I do" etc etc.
I don't know that it'd be possible to sue slashdot, but there is such thing as incitement. I have absolutely no doubt, much as I *hate* to say it that some people did threaten/carry out on attacking servers maliciously, and yet others emailed their opinions. The attitude that "Well, they better have their mail servers ready if they're going to pull this kind of stunt" is not valid. What are some people smoking?
For the record, I don't agree with what they did. But they did go about it reasonably the right way - I do remember a case of one large company (possibly MS, but not definitively) actually trying to submit domain-cancel forms on 'behalf' of a domain they didn't like, much to the owners surprise, when he got an automated email from InterNIC asking him to 'confirm his submission to cancel his domain'.
The point is, this is not our domain. Others have *AS MUCH* right to use it as we. Live with it, and don't act like playground bullies if you don't like things.
Give me the "Real Men Use Vi/Emacs/echo blah > index.html" line if you wish, but I have yet to see a decent WYSIWYG editor - the kind that are useful when you have a client looking over your shoulder.
DreamWeaver 2 ain't perfect (and I am guessing that's not what they used - it doesn't plaster ads for itself in META tags), but it's a damn site better than FrontPage 98 et al.
As you said, the difficulty has given a lot of protection, except when a company has the resources to throw at a project when (hopefully) other forces come into effect.
Okay, granted on that point (btw, I'm not deliberately singling out your posts!)... What about more 'conventional' authorship, particularly nonfiction. Copyright there is at least partically to do with preventing other people's legitimate efforts/research/et al being claimed as someone else's.
(FYI, I support most of the principles of Free Software... just see a need for other forms too - just trying to provoke debate - not flame!) Explain to me why it doesn't bind you? You could build a clone of that software (I won't get into that argument), but saying that you will use someone's efforts in direct contradiction to their licencing is a bit off. Find something else which suits you if that's the case. Linus said that the person who writes the software creates the licence. And if we are going to attack licences, you should also *respect* them, if not agree. "I disagree with what you say/write...":) Going out a bit more, society has chosen to make murder illegal. But that doesn't mean I have to treat it as such. Their decision doesn't have to bind me if I don't want it to. Sounds stupid? Perhaps. But software licencing is also a matter of law - just (much) more highly debated/disagreed with in circles such as this.
Slashdot Mirror
Sun was only intending on selling one copy of Solaris. *Prods your head, looking for brain activity* - how many copies have they sold? How much revenue? Now do you see why a figure of that amount is valid?
You mean you don't spy on us already using Pine Gap (US military installation in southcentral Australia)? :)
A 'good thing' if ever I saw it.
*COUGH*
So much freedom in the US. So little elsewhere. Explain to me again why I can't legally download SecureCRT from the States?
Wouldn't it be nice if the internet referred to the "International Net"? I'm not even sure the US has the majority of the world's traffic anymore - or its margin has been cut down severely.
Liberal may claim a 'mandate' but more votes were actually cast for Labour than Liberal, so in overall percentages, they don't. Stupid divisions of voting districts are what was responsible for Liberal still being in government, not a majority belief in what they're doing.
ObComment: why were they worried about videocard on server end - unless they were using X? I have yet to meet a video card that doesn't run under console mode in linux ;)
There have been much less 'nerdy' stories here before.
I thought .org was for nonprofit organisations/entities, but NSI/InterNic seem to have forgot that rule, realising that companies are happy to register the other domains, and they are happy to pocket another $140(?) a year
Simple, I remember mocking Microsoft a few years ago for their explanation of WinNuke:
"This attack does not do any actual damage to your data files. A reboot of the system will restore it to normal."
Err, huh? :) What if it was an NT Server, without 500 users with open files. No damage? I think not.
I think you can draw your own inference here.
I'm generalising r.e. business, most things in the world revolve around money, and that makes most people act in certain ways.
As for the organism analogy, fair enough :) I just disliked the 'gloat' attidude.
There seem to be two schools of oldtimers... the ones who are willing to help... and those who mock.... :)
As with the 'right way'... that is the way of business generally. I think they *approached* it the right way in some regards, but lost a lot of the human aspects, i.e. elementary human politeness. Ignoring all phone calls was rather immature of them.
But anyway, standard disclaimer - I just like being controversial...I should note explicityly when my tongue is not even slightly in my cheek! :)
I should have a standard disclaimer about my methods for stimulating debate, should they get read as flame! ;-)
Business, sure... if he were doing that, why not? But I just think sometimes people (in general, not just here) like to apply rules selectively. But that's everyone... including me! *g* :)
"They can't do that!" but yet, last I checked Theos was a singular person, Theos software a commercial entity, now who has more right to a .COMmercial domain?
Hypocrisy here is stunning, sometimes.
I never realise he was a commercial, for profit entity. If it's his personal domain, shouldn't it be something else?
Like it or not, it's a business world, and businesses are always going to be in dispute. That does not mean that people go out and deliberately attack servers, employees (voicemail etc) because they don't believe in something. The elitist, arrogant responses here only go to prove that point. "You're in my world now", "It's biology baby, we're gonna fight to keep you out" is the most appalling attitude I have ever heard. The `net isn't a community for those who think that they are somehow more elite powerful, on useless benchmarks such as "I was here a long time ago, play the way I do" etc etc.
I don't know that it'd be possible to sue slashdot, but there is such thing as incitement. I have absolutely no doubt, much as I *hate* to say it that some people did threaten/carry out on attacking servers maliciously, and yet others emailed their opinions. The attitude that "Well, they better have their mail servers ready if they're going to pull this kind of stunt" is not valid. What are some people smoking?
For the record, I don't agree with what they did. But they did go about it reasonably the right way - I do remember a case of one large company (possibly MS, but not definitively) actually trying to submit domain-cancel forms on 'behalf' of a domain they didn't like, much to the owners surprise, when he got an automated email from InterNIC asking him to 'confirm his submission to cancel his domain'.
The point is, this is not our domain. Others have *AS MUCH* right to use it as we. Live with it, and don't act like playground bullies if you don't like things.
The enthusiast market, myself included, would... and we would want Linux... I can't see myself with any compelling need for DU...
Point duly noted
There's a lot more money to be made licensing Digital Unix than Linux (be it RedHat or whatever)...
I don't think it's clearcut...
Old news probably... but I've seen Duff Beer for sale... (I think 20thC Fox had it pulled?) in .AU
DreamWeaver 2 ain't perfect (and I am guessing that's not what they used - it doesn't plaster ads for itself in META tags), but it's a damn site better than FrontPage 98 et al.
I have a company with 30% of the market. Two companies have 20% each - their share is bigger than mine. (Say the other 30% is minor players).
Don't I still have the biggest market share? It might not be a majority market share, but still is the largest. :)
I should also point out that I'm in Australia
As you said, the difficulty has given a lot of protection, except when a company has the resources to throw at a project when (hopefully) other forces come into effect.
Okay, granted on that point (btw, I'm not deliberately singling out your posts!)... What about more 'conventional' authorship, particularly nonfiction. Copyright there is at least partically to do with preventing other people's legitimate efforts/research/et al being claimed as someone else's.
(FYI, I support most of the principles of Free Software... just see a need for other forms too - just trying to provoke debate - not flame!) Explain to me why it doesn't bind you? You could build a clone of that software (I won't get into that argument), but saying that you will use someone's efforts in direct contradiction to their licencing is a bit off. Find something else which suits you if that's the case. Linus said that the person who writes the software creates the licence. And if we are going to attack licences, you should also *respect* them, if not agree. "I disagree with what you say/write..." :) Going out a bit more, society has chosen to make murder illegal. But that doesn't mean I have to treat it as such. Their decision doesn't have to bind me if I don't want it to. Sounds stupid? Perhaps. But software licencing is also a matter of law - just (much) more highly debated/disagreed with in circles such as this.
In any given market someone *HAS* to have the 'biggest part' of market share...
Unfortunately, whilst your 'ideology' may believe this, most societies of the world don't.