The point is not that IBM won't enforce the patent. The point is that IBM could enforce the patent.
This is the same type of distinction that has us up in arms every time the FBI and Carnivore are mentioned.
We scream that the FBI could read our email. The opposition says, "The FBI won't read *your* email." Yet, we all froth at the mouth about the FBI being able to read our email.
In both cases, the assumption is that "it won't happen". I say that the fact that it can happen is reason enough to protest.
There seems to be some confusion about what a standard UNIX user expects and what a standard Macintosh or Windows user expects.
To make a very rough analogy, an.HQX file is normally treated like a smart.tgz file.
If I download a.tgz on a Unix box, I expect to decompress it twice, build it and install it. No smarts on the computer's part at all -- it's all with the me.
If I download an.HQX on a Mac, I expect that if it's a compressed application (.SIT) I'll end up with an executable on my desktop. If it's not an aplication (PDF file, text file -- whatever...think "file associations") I expect it to be decompressed and run by the appropriate app -- I'm assumed to be vaugely intelligent, but the computer picks up the technical slack.
If I download a.(WHATEVER) file on a Windows machine, I expect that something will happen -- but I'm not always sure what -- I'm expected to be happy with whatever the computer does.
UNIX users are expected to know what they're doing. Most of the time Mac users aren't expected to care what's going on as long as everything works for them. Windows users are expected to go along what the computer does (think "smart tags").
This seems to be an instance of developers forgetting that, even though this is a Microsoft product, it's being run on a UNIX machine by Macintosh users.
Sure there's a definite MTBF advantage in using a cisco versus a 486. Maybe schools where you and I live can afford a cisco 2501. The high shcool I graduated from still can't afford the kind of infrastructure that would need one. A school district supported by a population of 1,000 men, women and children needs all the help it can get.
You don't need to send your computers to Africa -- just drive a few hours out of the city.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is not that IBM won't enforce the patent. The point is that IBM could enforce the patent.
This is the same type of distinction that has us up in arms every time the FBI and Carnivore are mentioned.
We scream that the FBI could read our email. The opposition says, "The FBI won't read *your* email." Yet, we all froth at the mouth about the FBI being able to read our email.
In both cases, the assumption is that "it won't happen". I say that the fact that it can happen is reason enough to protest.
I watched this happen last Saturday. I'm over at a guy's home office setting up a FreeBSD web & mail server for him.
His phone rings. I watch him pick it up and say, "I'm sorry, Mr. Moreland passed away yesterday."
Then he says, "No, Mrs. Moreland is in custody as the prime suspect."
I nearly pissed myself.
There seems to be some confusion about what a standard UNIX user expects and what a standard Macintosh or Windows user expects.
.HQX file is normally treated like a smart .tgz file.
.tgz on a Unix box, I expect to decompress it twice, build it and install it. No smarts on the computer's part at all -- it's all with the me.
.HQX on a Mac, I expect that if it's a compressed application (.SIT) I'll end up with an executable on my desktop. If it's not an aplication (PDF file, text file -- whatever...think "file associations") I expect it to be decompressed and run by the appropriate app -- I'm assumed to be vaugely intelligent, but the computer picks up the technical slack.
.(WHATEVER) file on a Windows machine, I expect that something will happen -- but I'm not always sure what -- I'm expected to be happy with whatever the computer does.
To make a very rough analogy, an
If I download a
If I download an
If I download a
UNIX users are expected to know what they're doing. Most of the time Mac users aren't expected to care what's going on as long as everything works for them. Windows users are expected to go along what the computer does (think "smart tags").
This seems to be an instance of developers forgetting that, even though this is a Microsoft product, it's being run on a UNIX machine by Macintosh users.
Sure there's a definite MTBF advantage in using a cisco versus a 486. Maybe schools where you and I live can afford a cisco 2501. The high shcool I graduated from still can't afford the kind of infrastructure that would need one. A school district supported by a population of 1,000 men, women and children needs all the help it can get.
You don't need to send your computers to Africa -- just drive a few hours out of the city.