Well, it's all about trust - go ahead and give admin rights to the vendor if you feel comfortable with that.
Years ago I trusted Stratus not to abuse their remote service facility that involved uploading failure info from our machines to their support site without manual intervention.
I wish I could say the same for Microsoft, but the little practices already mentioned - making the auto updater a critical update in its own right, introducing new EULAs with what are ostensibly security updates, an undocumented profusion of call-home mechanisms in XP - mean that I don't feel comfortable adding this risk.
In fact, I find any shrink-wrap style license objectionable in a corporate context - a sys admin is not necessarily a corporate officer - this ridiculous trend should have been struck down years ago, and I sincerely hope that in the UK some test cases will soon do so.
Re:Did you see the .NET clause?
on
More MS EULA Fun
·
· Score: 2
As someone else has mentioned, there are some big WebLogic sites running on Win2K. In fact, one of the main reasons for BEA buying their own Java VM (JRockit) is to push the envelope for Java support on Intel - Intel including Windows and Linux, I hasten to add.
I just looked at this 'rebuttal'. Essentially, Palmer's quibble is that The American People are equated with various non-profit, mutual groups such as community garden managers and Alcoholics Anonymous, and that commons if anything is really a spectrum from individual benevolent ownership (e.g. Linux trademark) to global sharing (copyright of Alice in Wonderland).
So what? The point of the original article is that previously shared and non-profit assets are being privatized and protected. Any rebuttal must show how encroachment isn't happening to be considered conclusive, or even relevant.
You either are not aware of MS licensing practices or are being deliberately obtuse.
The 'tax' is an overhead imposed by MS on the vendor using unfair methods - for example, a requirement to pay for licenses on all machines shipped rather than all those shipped with Windows.
In being applied indiscriminately and without necessarily offering any benefit to the payer it very much resembles a tax - one of the better terms to describe MS economics, and one likely to gain in currency thanks to "Software Assurance" licensing - payment regardless of value conferred.
The need to manually reuse a pattern in programming is a good indication of an inflexible language - Gamma et al wouldn't need these props if they weren't stuck with Smalltalk and C++.
Programs are different from buildings because you can't reuse bricks. Alexander's work is valuable conceptually, as Richard Gabriel's book describes, but that doesn't mean that you have to spend the rest of your life retyping the skeletons of "Observers" and "Factories".
In 1945 Alan Turing pointed out that "any [programming] processes that are quite mechanical may be turned over to the machine itself". It's a pity that, outside academia, 57 years later we're still faced with systems that don't permit this.
Listen instead to the people promoting more academic languages like Scheme and ML. You can always pick up Java and its libraries later.
Yes, definitely overrated. A lot of the patterns in the GoF book are implicit in other programming languages, as Peter Norvig has pointed out.
I don't think Design Patterns is a good theoretical grounding, it really belongs to a much narrower field inhabited by C++ and Java programming. Even as practitioner's guide I have a lot of problems with it, but I don't know of anything better, though I like Martin Fowler's Refactoring book, I find it more useful and it has the advantage of not pretending to be particularly profound.
It is, at least, difficult in many situations to buy a computer without MS software. You will see that, for example, laptops from all leading brands (Toshiba, Sony, Dell) are impossible to buy without MS. As a result, I and many others have paid a tax since we paid for MS products but do not use them (I run SuSE 8).
Sure - I'll put an entry to a homepage in my/. details by the weekend, just need to get my ISP to create the domain name.
Well, yes, stuff must behave as advertised, definitely - isn't that common practice these days? Otherwise those Medicine Roadshow guys would still be around... Here's a summary of the UK Trades Descriptions Act anyway - an easy read, surprisingly.
Forgive the FU to my own post, but I've proudly become an activist and sent the following complaint to Sony (I actually bought a Vaio and had to take the thing back because a) it was ugly and b) the region protection couldn't be cracked).
This is a slightly different take on the region-coding problem, and possibly one that might be easier to make progress on:
On reading the product description (below) of the Sony VX71P laptop computer, I am given the clear impression that this product is designed for users who travel internationally and that its major features will function in multiple countries. However, on enquiring further I have been told that the DVD disk player hardware in this model has been deliberately and explicitly prevented from playing DVD disks from more than one country, if that country is in a different region and if the disk is region-coded, as most disks are. For example, I cannot set the device to play both a DVD disk I buy or rent while in the UK and one which I buy or rent while in the USA.
I therefore consider this product description seriously misleading and therefore illegal under the UK Trade Descriptions Act, 1968 (False Trade Description clause).
Also, I suggest that any similar product descriptions applying to portable equipment offered by Sony and capable of playing DVDs are also illegal under the Act.
I request that you amend all product descriptions available to or intended for the UK market to avoid any suggestion that DVD player functionality is supported in multiple regions.
I look forward to your prompt attention to this matter, and would appreciate written notice of how you intend to comply with the TDA via email or by post.
If I receive no satisfactory response to this request in 21 days (by 14 August 2002) I will send it to your registered office in the UK. If after this I receive no satisfactory response I will lodge a complaint with my local trading standards office and ensure that the matter receives the widest possible publicity.
The text of the VX71P product description follows:
"Set your own limits.
When you want to take on the world, you need a notebook which can meet every challenge all the time. Ultra-portable with an unrivalled battery life and a 14.1" screen, the VAIO VX71P is the perfect stylish go-getter to help you push boundaries wherever you are.
* Crystal clear 14.1" display
* Extra-long battery life up to 4h 20min
* Ultra-portable, slim-size notebook: weight 2kg
* Controls the ultimate power/performance balance with high-end battery and low-voltage components
* Burn CDs on the road with the included mobile i.LINKTM DVD/CDRW drive * Wide range of VAIO software pre-installed for video and audio applications"
It's relatively common to see region-free players advertised this side of the pond, e.g. at Richer Sounds.
The thing that annoys me are laptops with tightly locked-down DVD drives (e.g. Sony Vaios) - sold with PAL/NTSC output and 240V/110V power supplies so obviously intended to travel, but can only play DVDs in one region!
Bottom line is that I never buy region 2 disks - I'm sure I'm not alone.
Hmmm... apparently us Brits have the best dental health in Europe, y'know (well, yeah, I am a bit surprised too, given that it's not a completely free service these days). Not sure where the USA would fit, but it's hard to believe that below-average Joe can pony up for regular visits.
And don't start me on the mind-numbingly tedious Mike Myers - not worthy to lick the great Peter Wyngarde's boots... just see Peter in action.
Dotnet is not an open standard by any stretch of the imagination - only C Sharp is standardized, not the bulk of the APIs.
Dotnet is not required to build a Web Service client or server. Dotnet doesn't make it 'much easier' than, for example, WebLogic Workshop or a dozen free SOAP wrappers.
People are not criticising Miguel de Icaza for being influenced by Microsoft but for yielding control to Microsoft. Not only will MS define technical direction, but attempting to 'finish' Mono will require cloning proprietary and patented libraries.
We will see on Wednesday how much of Dotnet is being made available for non-Windows platforms. However much is offered, it's hard to see a convincing case for using it over already existing technologies.
I would have thought it well nigh impossible to fail to see that WebLogic 6.0 upwards uses and supports MBeans extensively, i.e. the JMX specification.
So... take this as a lesson on not taking anything at face value in the world of J2EE product comparisons!
You're claiming that Linux was threatened by MS in the same way as some (including me) believe Mono is now?
I guess I'm just not reading the right news sources! Feel free to clue me in as to where I can find stories like the following:
I really have trouble figuring out what Microsoft has to gain from allowing Linux to exist indefinitely.
They have plenty to gain from a sweeping, cross-plaform, bait-and-switch ploy [MS baiting with Linux?]
They can just wait until Linux is somewhat established, apps are built and deployed... then break it and wait patiently for the inevitable migration back to Windows.
Huh? Windows developers by definition target Windows - no VS user is going to install Red Hat just for the hell of it.
Mono allows Windows developers to embrace and extend Open Source written in C Sharp, traffic the other way is impeded by the fact that so many essential APIs in Dotnet are proprietary.
Boy, this is getting annoying. Any further posts that deliberately confuse the (standard) C Sharp language with the (proprietary) Dotnet platform should be modded down on principle IMHO.
How can it be superior if it doesn't have standard libraries? There are no standard GUI, database etc. libraries - you're thinking of Java (the platform).
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it's all about trust - go ahead and give admin rights to the vendor if you feel comfortable with that.
Years ago I trusted Stratus not to abuse their remote service facility that involved uploading failure info from our machines to their support site without manual intervention.
I wish I could say the same for Microsoft, but the little practices already mentioned - making the auto updater a critical update in its own right, introducing new EULAs with what are ostensibly security updates, an undocumented profusion of call-home mechanisms in XP - mean that I don't feel comfortable adding this risk.
In fact, I find any shrink-wrap style license objectionable in a corporate context - a sys admin is not necessarily a corporate officer - this ridiculous trend should have been struck down years ago, and I sincerely hope that in the UK some test cases will soon do so.
As someone else has mentioned, there are some big WebLogic sites running on Win2K. In fact, one of the main reasons for BEA buying their own Java VM (JRockit) is to push the envelope for Java support on Intel - Intel including Windows and Linux, I hasten to add.
I just looked at this 'rebuttal'. Essentially, Palmer's quibble is that The American People are equated with various non-profit, mutual groups such as community garden managers and Alcoholics Anonymous, and that commons if anything is really a spectrum from individual benevolent ownership (e.g. Linux trademark) to global sharing (copyright of Alice in Wonderland).
So what? The point of the original article is that previously shared and non-profit assets are being privatized and protected. Any rebuttal must show how encroachment isn't happening to be considered conclusive, or even relevant.
You either are not aware of MS licensing practices or are being deliberately obtuse.
The 'tax' is an overhead imposed by MS on the vendor using unfair methods - for example, a requirement to pay for licenses on all machines shipped rather than all those shipped with Windows.
In being applied indiscriminately and without necessarily offering any benefit to the payer it very much resembles a tax - one of the better terms to describe MS economics, and one likely to gain in currency thanks to "Software Assurance" licensing - payment regardless of value conferred.
Why?
The need to manually reuse a pattern in programming is a good indication of an inflexible language - Gamma et al wouldn't need these props if they weren't stuck with Smalltalk and C++.
Programs are different from buildings because you can't reuse bricks. Alexander's work is valuable conceptually, as Richard Gabriel's book describes, but that doesn't mean that you have to spend the rest of your life retyping the skeletons of "Observers" and "Factories".
In 1945 Alan Turing pointed out that "any [programming] processes that are quite mechanical may be turned over to the machine itself". It's a pity that, outside academia, 57 years later we're still faced with systems that don't permit this.
Listen instead to the people promoting more academic languages like Scheme and ML. You can always pick up Java and its libraries later.
Yes, definitely overrated. A lot of the patterns in the GoF book are implicit in other programming languages, as Peter Norvig has pointed out.
I don't think Design Patterns is a good theoretical grounding, it really belongs to a much narrower field inhabited by C++ and Java programming. Even as practitioner's guide I have a lot of problems with it, but I don't know of anything better, though I like Martin Fowler's Refactoring book, I find it more useful and it has the advantage of not pretending to be particularly profound.
It is, at least, difficult in many situations to buy a computer without MS software. You will see that, for example, laptops from all leading brands (Toshiba, Sony, Dell) are impossible to buy without MS. As a result, I and many others have paid a tax since we paid for MS products but do not use them (I run SuSE 8).
Coming up, promise - check my /. bio on Saturday and there should be a pointer. Fingers crossed eh?
Sure - I'll put an entry to a homepage in my /. details by the weekend, just need to get my ISP to create the domain name.
Well, yes, stuff must behave as advertised, definitely - isn't that common practice these days? Otherwise those Medicine Roadshow guys would still be around... Here's a summary of the UK Trades Descriptions Act anyway - an easy read, surprisingly.
Forgive the FU to my own post, but I've proudly become an activist and sent the following complaint to Sony (I actually bought a Vaio and had to take the thing back because a) it was ugly and b) the region protection couldn't be cracked).
This is a slightly different take on the region-coding problem, and possibly one that might be easier to make progress on:
On reading the product description (below) of the Sony VX71P laptop computer, I am given the clear impression that this product is designed for users who travel internationally and that its major features will function in multiple countries. However, on enquiring further I have been told that the DVD disk player hardware in this model has been deliberately and explicitly prevented from playing DVD disks from more than one country, if that country is in a different region and if the disk is region-coded, as most disks are. For example, I cannot set the device to play both a DVD disk I buy or rent while in the UK and one which I buy or rent while in the USA.
I therefore consider this product description seriously misleading and therefore illegal under the UK Trade Descriptions Act, 1968 (False Trade Description clause).
Also, I suggest that any similar product descriptions applying to portable equipment offered by Sony and capable of playing DVDs are also illegal under the Act.
I request that you amend all product descriptions available to or intended for the UK market to avoid any suggestion that DVD player functionality is supported in multiple regions.
I look forward to your prompt attention to this matter, and would appreciate written notice of how you intend to comply with the TDA via email or by post.
If I receive no satisfactory response to this request in 21 days (by 14 August 2002) I will send it to your registered office in the UK. If after this I receive no satisfactory response I will lodge a complaint with my local trading standards office and ensure that the matter receives the widest possible publicity.
The text of the VX71P product description follows:
"Set your own limits.
When you want to take on the world, you need a notebook which can meet every challenge all the time. Ultra-portable with an unrivalled battery life and a 14.1" screen, the VAIO VX71P is the perfect stylish go-getter to help you push boundaries wherever you are.
* Crystal clear 14.1" display
* Extra-long battery life up to 4h 20min
* Ultra-portable, slim-size notebook: weight 2kg
* Controls the ultimate power/performance balance with high-end battery and low-voltage components
* Burn CDs on the road with the included mobile i.LINKTM DVD/CDRW drive
* Wide range of VAIO software pre-installed for video and audio applications"
It's relatively common to see region-free players advertised this side of the pond, e.g. at Richer Sounds.
The thing that annoys me are laptops with tightly locked-down DVD drives (e.g. Sony Vaios) - sold with PAL/NTSC output and 240V/110V power supplies so obviously intended to travel, but can only play DVDs in one region!
Bottom line is that I never buy region 2 disks - I'm sure I'm not alone.
Hmmm... apparently us Brits have the best dental health in Europe, y'know (well, yeah, I am a bit surprised too, given that it's not a completely free service these days). Not sure where the USA would fit, but it's hard to believe that below-average Joe can pony up for regular visits.
And don't start me on the mind-numbingly tedious Mike Myers - not worthy to lick the great Peter Wyngarde's boots... just see Peter in action.
How many times have you seen violence in the middle east or northern ireland?
I know, pesky reruns!
or
Let's have some violence elsewhere, I know just the place!
or
Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it
--
I'm feeling creative today Rhonda, trundle me!
I'll call you very confused.
Dotnet is not an open standard by any stretch of the imagination - only C Sharp is standardized, not the bulk of the APIs.
Dotnet is not required to build a Web Service client or server. Dotnet doesn't make it 'much easier' than, for example, WebLogic Workshop or a dozen free SOAP wrappers.
People are not criticising Miguel de Icaza for being influenced by Microsoft but for yielding control to Microsoft. Not only will MS define technical direction, but attempting to 'finish' Mono will require cloning proprietary and patented libraries.
We will see on Wednesday how much of Dotnet is being made available for non-Windows platforms. However much is offered, it's hard to see a convincing case for using it over already existing technologies.
I would have thought it well nigh impossible to fail to see that WebLogic 6.0 upwards uses and supports MBeans extensively, i.e. the JMX specification.
So... take this as a lesson on not taking anything at face value in the world of J2EE product comparisons!
I can't seem to find the Windows Forms API in that download - can you help me out?
Or perhaps you meant:
complete Dotnet development enviroment, except for the 90% of classes that are only available on Windows?
Let me get this straight:
You're claiming that Linux was threatened by MS in the same way as some (including me) believe Mono is now?
I guess I'm just not reading the right news sources! Feel free to clue me in as to where I can find stories like the following:
I really have trouble figuring out what Microsoft has to gain from allowing Linux to exist indefinitely.
They have plenty to gain from a sweeping, cross-plaform, bait-and-switch ploy [MS baiting with Linux?]
They can just wait until Linux is somewhat established, apps are built and deployed... then break it and wait patiently for the inevitable migration back to Windows.
A great new 'way to develop'? What exactly are you driving at here?
As a matter of interest, what do you think the chances of a cross-platform (Mono, Dotnet) version of Photoshop are?
Huh? Windows developers by definition target Windows - no VS user is going to install Red Hat just for the hell of it.
Mono allows Windows developers to embrace and extend Open Source written in C Sharp, traffic the other way is impeded by the fact that so many essential APIs in Dotnet are proprietary.
Presumably the person that modded this as Insightful reads every discussion from the bottom up?
Or would the parent poster care to share some insight into the standardization status of Dotnet APIs like Windows Forms and ADO.NET?
FYI 'the framework part' of Dotnet is not the CLI - frameworks are component libraries not interpreters/compilers.
.NET Framework Essentials, Thai & Lam, pub. O'Reilly.
See
This sort of nonsense just plays into the 'Dotnet is a standard' myth.
Worth at least one point, surely?
Boy, this is getting annoying. Any further posts that deliberately confuse the (standard) C Sharp language with the (proprietary) Dotnet platform should be modded down on principle IMHO.
How can it be superior if it doesn't have standard libraries? There are no standard GUI, database etc. libraries - you're thinking of Java (the platform).
They already have extended 'it', if we mean Dotnet rather than C Sharp. Fussing about the language is a red herring.