Plus I've had Microsoft hosted Exchange for almost 2 years now and can't remember a single outage.
I call bullshit. I have had BPOS with my company for almost a year and have experienced several outages (I am keeping track because this was upper managments call against the advice of IT):
"Because Comcast throttles BitTorrent, and the pirate kiddies can't tell the difference between the right to free speech and the ability to steal. It's pretty sad."
To which I replied "You were probably modded a troll because BitTorrent does not necessarily equate to piracy.".
Now your reply to mine:
"I never said it did. What I said was that some people think anti-piracy throttling is censorship, about which they're wrong. Please read what I said again - at no point did I make any such suggestion."
Now I agree with what you are saying, however you most certainly did insinuate that BitTorrent was only used by pirates in your first post. You just did it again in that post; "What I said was that some people think anti-piracy throttling.."Those committing the theft are not the only ones affected by this. In fact, why mention "pirate kiddies" and "the ability to steal" rather than just say "some people can't tell the difference between the right to free speech and QOS with regard to their internet service" or something along those lines? You made an inflammatory post, regardless of whether or not you were making fun of piracy, with regard to Bittorrent and piracy and were modded accordingly.
"Certainly enough for this service to have the potential to make a huge dent in DVD sales."
I wouldn't think this would have a lot of impact on DVD sales. Generally downloadable content such as this is hugely inferior to a DVD. Granted, South Park may not be the best example of this as the rudimentary animation used to make the show can be shrunk down quite a bit before it is really noticeable. Regardless, I am sure the quality available for download will not translate well to the size of your average TV.
Also, many people (myself included) prefer to own the DVDs. I have downloaded a lot of content however, contrary to what the MPAA/RIAA might say, I end up buying 90% of what I download. The other 10% is such complete crap that it gets deleted after the first (partial) viewing.
OK, this post is full of anecdote and supposition but in my limited experience I don't think DVD sales would be harmed much. I would have thought that TV broadcasts might be affected, however the publisher claims otherwise.
"Insulting people does not make you sound more authoritative. If you can't be polite, perhaps you should refrain from posting at all." - Point taken.
In my own defense, when I posted I was sure the original poster was trolling, but in retrospect I am not entirely sure. I parsed "...rewriting GPL code and keeping the product closed source is considered enough to cure a license violation." to mean "obfuscating the GPL'd code and keeping the product closed source..." and thought for sure that is no mistake. After re-reading the post several times, I can only conclude that the posters statement is very difficult to parse and could mean one of several things.
What I kept coming back to was this section, "...and keeping the product closed source is considered enough to cure a license violation.". I think you put it better than I that this could possibly solve future violations, but does nothing for past violations.
Can second, third, and fourth-hand distribution of unattributed but non-compliant formerly GPL'd work be prohibited?
Regarding the first part of your statement, it doesn't matter how many iterations of distribution there are. The *only* license that Asus has for distribution is the GPL. If Asus violates the GPL, they lose their right to distribute.
As for the second part of your statement, what makes you think this code is not attributed? In the kernel tree on my current machine (using kernel 2.6.23) the file drivers/acpi/asus_acpi.c has the following as the first 10 lines of code:
/*
* asus_acpi.c - Asus Laptop ACPI Extras
*
*
* Copyright (C) 2002-2005 Julien Lerouge, 2003-2006 Karol Kozimor
*
* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
* it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
* the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
* (at your option) any later version.
As far as compliance goes... compliance to what?
And lastly, and probably most importantly, how did you come to the conclusion that the code was "formerly" licensed under the GPL? That is the *only* license Asus has granting them the permission to redistribute.
I don't know if you honestly did not know this or if you are trolling. This really smells of troll to me though.
The problem is, as I see it, that their ToS is "fluid". In other words, the ToS can be changed at any time by the company. Whether or not this is in fact legal remains to be seen, but I suspect that it probably is (at least in the U.S. which is where I assume we are referring).
I cannot vouch for Fedora, but I have to agree with the problems you are referring to with regard to RedHat (well that, and I am still pissed about how they ended by support contract prematurely immediately following the release of RH9). That is why I use CentOS almost exclusively, with yum rather than up2date. As far as all those packages you are missing is concerned, I have had extremely good luck with the rpmforge repository.
Seriously, this is Why Linux is not liked by many, many people. (I really want to get off Windows!)
That is why there are distributions that are tailored to those people. Any first time Linux user who decides that Gentoo is the right distro for them has not researched their options at all. There are plenty of distros aimed at the first time user; Gentoo, almost by definition, is not one of those. The fact that you blanket all Linux distros with this statement leads me to believe you are trolling.
And that my friend is the beauty of open source software. Just because the distributor does not release patches any longer does not mean that you can't go find the latest version of the software and install that yourself. Chances are, if it is a mail server only, there are not too many patches that really need to be considered. Hell, if you don't have to worry about installing any future rpm packages, you can simply install from source rather than make the extra effort to build binaries. My point is, you still have many options whereas with proprietary systems you have none.
"2. I belive you can run IE7 without installing it. I've seen guides what you need to do make it work without actually installing it (just extracting files to your choosen folder, applying some patches on these files and it is it)."
Honest question; is this legal? I haven't taken the time to read the book that is IE7's EULA, but I suspect that this would violate the licensing to use IE7. Anyone able to clarify?
I do some freelance work for a hosting company in Chicago. Their network has more than enough bandwidth to serve all of their bandwidth-chuging clients... yet if they have 2Gbps (number out of the air) of bandwidth that customers have purchased, they are NEVER going to hit over say 1.25Gbps... it just doesn't work like that... and if everybody had gigabit lines on your block, it would be the same...
I think you are neglecting 2 very important factors: 1. Except under ideal conditions, it is virtually impossible to use 100% of any pipe. Yes you can do it in a very low-latency setting between 2 machines (such as is found on a LAN), however, once you introduce latency and a multitude of servers/clients sharing that bandwidth, the pipe will appear saturated at levels much lower than full capacity. I have personally witnessed this effect with utilization as low as 80% of a 100Mbps pipe. 2. ISPs oversell bandwidth. If I am a small ISP with 100Mbps to the internet I will sell 100 or more customers a 4Mbps line knowing that at any given moment only a fraction of those customers will actually be utilizing the full amount of what I have sold them.
Slashdot Mirror
Plus I've had Microsoft hosted Exchange for almost 2 years now and can't remember a single outage.
I call bullshit. I have had BPOS with my company for almost a year and have experienced several outages (I am keeping track because this was upper managments call against the advice of IT):
22 June 2011
http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/microsoft-confirms-bpos-cloud-outage
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/23/bpos_outage/
10-13 May 2011
http://www.katacinta.net/cinta/microsoft-online-outage-may-10/
http://www.techworld.com.au/article/386384/outage_hits_hosted_exchange_customers/
http://www.infoworld.com/d/cloud-computing/hosted-exchange-customers-hit-service-outages-981
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9216697/Microsoft_explains_recent_hosted_e_mail_outages
6 March 2011:
http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/onlineservicesexchange/thread/7017abf4-a9d9-4c08-85ac-f66912124493/
19 October 2010
http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/onlineservicesannouncements/thread/e72e8707-7457-4737-b246-2598769e54cf/
3 & 7 September 2010 & 23 Aug 2010
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/microsoft-bpos-down-for-90-minutes-second-outage-in-a-month/7302
http://mcpmag.com/articles/2010/09/10/microsoft-reports-major-bpos-outages-slas-affected.aspx
http://blogs.technet.com/b/msonline/archive/2010/09/08/meeting-your-and-our-own-expectations.aspx
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/microsoft-apologizes-for-spate-of-recent-online-services-outages/7337
Your original post:
"Because Comcast throttles BitTorrent, and the pirate kiddies can't tell the difference between the right to free speech and the ability to steal. It's pretty sad."
To which I replied "You were probably modded a troll because BitTorrent does not necessarily equate to piracy.".
Now your reply to mine:
"I never said it did. What I said was that some people think anti-piracy throttling is censorship, about which they're wrong. Please read what I said again - at no point did I make any such suggestion."
Now I agree with what you are saying, however you most certainly did insinuate that BitTorrent was only used by pirates in your first post. You just did it again in that post; "What I said was that some people think anti-piracy throttling.."Those committing the theft are not the only ones affected by this. In fact, why mention "pirate kiddies" and "the ability to steal" rather than just say "some people can't tell the difference between the right to free speech and QOS with regard to their internet service" or something along those lines? You made an inflammatory post, regardless of whether or not you were making fun of piracy, with regard to Bittorrent and piracy and were modded accordingly.
You were probably modded a troll because BitTorrent does not necessarily equate to piracy.
"Certainly enough for this service to have the potential to make a huge dent in DVD sales."
I wouldn't think this would have a lot of impact on DVD sales. Generally downloadable content such as this is hugely inferior to a DVD. Granted, South Park may not be the best example of this as the rudimentary animation used to make the show can be shrunk down quite a bit before it is really noticeable. Regardless, I am sure the quality available for download will not translate well to the size of your average TV.
Also, many people (myself included) prefer to own the DVDs. I have downloaded a lot of content however, contrary to what the MPAA/RIAA might say, I end up buying 90% of what I download. The other 10% is such complete crap that it gets deleted after the first (partial) viewing.
OK, this post is full of anecdote and supposition but in my limited experience I don't think DVD sales would be harmed much. I would have thought that TV broadcasts might be affected, however the publisher claims otherwise.
Why not just use the flamethrower for light?
"Insulting people does not make you sound more authoritative. If you can't be polite, perhaps you should refrain from posting at all." - Point taken.
In my own defense, when I posted I was sure the original poster was trolling, but in retrospect I am not entirely sure. I parsed "...rewriting GPL code and keeping the product closed source is considered enough to cure a license violation." to mean "obfuscating the GPL'd code and keeping the product closed source..." and thought for sure that is no mistake. After re-reading the post several times, I can only conclude that the posters statement is very difficult to parse and could mean one of several things.
What I kept coming back to was this section, "...and keeping the product closed source is considered enough to cure a license violation.". I think you put it better than I that this could possibly solve future violations, but does nothing for past violations.
...in other words, it was formerly distributed under the GPL and is now just a warez thing.
Ok, I can see that. Thanks for the clarification.
Can second, third, and fourth-hand distribution of unattributed but non-compliant formerly GPL'd work be prohibited?
/*
Regarding the first part of your statement, it doesn't matter how many iterations of distribution there are. The *only* license that Asus has for distribution is the GPL. If Asus violates the GPL, they lose their right to distribute.
As for the second part of your statement, what makes you think this code is not attributed? In the kernel tree on my current machine (using kernel 2.6.23) the file drivers/acpi/asus_acpi.c has the following as the first 10 lines of code:
* asus_acpi.c - Asus Laptop ACPI Extras
*
*
* Copyright (C) 2002-2005 Julien Lerouge, 2003-2006 Karol Kozimor
*
* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
* it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
* the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
* (at your option) any later version.
As far as compliance goes... compliance to what?
And lastly, and probably most importantly, how did you come to the conclusion that the code was "formerly" licensed under the GPL? That is the *only* license Asus has granting them the permission to redistribute.
I don't know if you honestly did not know this or if you are trolling. This really smells of troll to me though.
"NT has had robust security since it was designed in 1992,"
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHHA... breath breathe... hahahahahhahaha -- that is the funniest thing I have heard on a long long time.
...Windows Live mortuary...
I just know there is an oxymoron there...
I don't like turning blue and falling to the floor...
:)
Clearly you don't frequent the same clubs that I do.
The problem is, as I see it, that their ToS is "fluid". In other words, the ToS can be changed at any time by the company. Whether or not this is in fact legal remains to be seen, but I suspect that it probably is (at least in the U.S. which is where I assume we are referring).
I cannot vouch for Fedora, but I have to agree with the problems you are referring to with regard to RedHat (well that, and I am still pissed about how they ended by support contract prematurely immediately following the release of RH9). That is why I use CentOS almost exclusively, with yum rather than up2date. As far as all those packages you are missing is concerned, I have had extremely good luck with the rpmforge repository.
echo "Commenting to undo my accidental positive moderation. You're an idiot. That is all. -ldspartan" | wc -m
:)
95
hmmm... that could almost make a new sig
Seriously, this is Why Linux is not liked by many, many people. (I really want to get off Windows!)
That is why there are distributions that are tailored to those people. Any first time Linux user who decides that Gentoo is the right distro for them has not researched their options at all. There are plenty of distros aimed at the first time user; Gentoo, almost by definition, is not one of those. The fact that you blanket all Linux distros with this statement leads me to believe you are trolling.
Is it really my job as the consumer to figure out exactly who's screwing me?
If it is not your job, whose is it?
No, he'll just buy them and integrate them into the next version of Windows.
So that is how they plan to combat piracy?
I wish CentOS had an RHN-like feature, but I guess I'll have to build one or see if someone already did.
Do you mean like yum?
What do you do for security patches?
And that my friend is the beauty of open source software. Just because the distributor does not release patches any longer does not mean that you can't go find the latest version of the software and install that yourself. Chances are, if it is a mail server only, there are not too many patches that really need to be considered. Hell, if you don't have to worry about installing any future rpm packages, you can simply install from source rather than make the extra effort to build binaries. My point is, you still have many options whereas with proprietary systems you have none.
"So much for anonymity. You know exactly where everyone goes."
Yea, but *who* went there?
"2. I belive you can run IE7 without installing it. I've seen guides what you need to do make it work without actually installing it (just extracting files to your choosen folder, applying some patches on these files and it is it)."
Honest question; is this legal? I haven't taken the time to read the book that is IE7's EULA, but I suspect that this would violate the licensing to use IE7. Anyone able to clarify?
..."it's about time we had a new superpower to keep the US under thumb."
Be careful of what you wish for my friend.
And please don't forget the "Device Manager". Do you remember installing drivers on NT4? *cringes*
I do some freelance work for a hosting company in Chicago. Their network has more than enough bandwidth to serve all of their bandwidth-chuging clients... yet if they have 2Gbps (number out of the air) of bandwidth that customers have purchased, they are NEVER going to hit over say 1.25Gbps... it just doesn't work like that... and if everybody had gigabit lines on your block, it would be the same...
I think you are neglecting 2 very important factors:
1. Except under ideal conditions, it is virtually impossible to use 100% of any pipe. Yes you can do it in a very low-latency setting between 2 machines (such as is found on a LAN), however, once you introduce latency and a multitude of servers/clients sharing that bandwidth, the pipe will appear saturated at levels much lower than full capacity. I have personally witnessed this effect with utilization as low as 80% of a 100Mbps pipe.
2. ISPs oversell bandwidth. If I am a small ISP with 100Mbps to the internet I will sell 100 or more customers a 4Mbps line knowing that at any given moment only a fraction of those customers will actually be utilizing the full amount of what I have sold them.
You can pry my bandwidth from my cold dead hands!
:)
Your proposal is acceptable.
My apologies to MIB