I'd argue that your method merely ensures that your "add-ons" are built-in! Thus they need to be carried regardless of whether you're carrying the laptop or not...
Perhaps the stereotype about the american obesity is right after all? But this puts method behind the madness:-)
Morally right? Perhaps. But they have no obligation to do that. By "agreeing" to the so-called EULA you have given up any right to demand that (assuming you had that right in the first place...)
Anyway: would you really in your wildest dreams expect MS to do the "morally right thing" if it is going to cost them money and set a bad precedent? Next you might want a partial refund because of bugs! Or security holes! Naaah....
France does not have obcessive desire to act as America's nemesis!
Get with it: France was one of the few countries to stand up for themselves in the run-up to the 2nd Iraq vs US war. Nothing obcessive about that.
I know this is an American forum (mostly) but surely it cannot have escaped your notice that not everybody likes the americans? And with good reason too.
They could have said that they wanted to become the USA of the 21st century... Now *that* would have been scary!
Well - they've got a point. We cannot expect e.g. RedHat to support custom code unless they specifically agree to it. Nothing new there.
But on Windows customers would not even be *allowed* to make such a modification, so the "problem" doesn't exist on Windows. Is that better? As a customer I'd prefer to have the choice at least...
Useless? As I read it, it is only useless to *you* because you don't agree with the philosophy - and hence not too keen on the GPL. Tough. If you feel that you get the advantages of the GPL "rammed down your throat" at every opportunity, isn't that because you're looking at a lot of GPL code? If you want to re-use other people's code, you'll have to abide by their licenses anyway - winging about it won't help...
D'oh... "Trusted Computing" does will not prevent people from reading "plain" (=created without TC stuff) documents... That would *really* make a migration difficult, wouldn't it?
It will have some effect the other way: Windows users will send documents to the rest of the world, but the rest of the world cannot read them because they run the "wrong" O/S.
Basically, we will be back to the old marketing trick of vendor lock-in, where your data is held hostage not only by a single-application file format, but encryption with laws to boot...
It's not a bonehead question. Rather it is a trade-off. You gain some performance and in return you make yourself dependent on the database vendor since you've just increased your migration cost...
You could argue that it is easier to manage dependencies if you use e.g. stored procedures, but architecture-wise they are no different from any other layer of application design...
Have a look at the Linux Professionals Institute: http://www.lpi.org/ At least they are vendor-independent. And their tests are pretty tough too. I know. I've been through a couple of them.
We HAVE standards. The most important if which is to give users choice: keep them free.
If giving users choice conflict with your development, then you're doing something wrong because they are not contradictory.
What is this dependency problem you talk about? If you want to distribute software that does not take advantage of the underlying packaging system then you're obviously going to have to sort the dependencies out in some other way. Or leave it to the users and handle the complaints somehow.
Users should not need to know anything about./configure! They should have no need to compile things themselves. Use that packaging system!
The author describes multilinking as something lacking and almost *necessary* (!?) I don't get that.
Looking at the implementation (yes: i use Firefox, but that's not important now) it's just a pop-up menu of clickable URLs!
Sorry guys, but I cannot see how this is better than "proper" links.
If I need to link to multiple places, multiple <a href="..."> tags will do the trick nicely. Since the links will go to different places, they deserve different textual descriptions and thus different <a> tags. Just giving the user a list of URLs is bad: it is also known as Mystery Meat Navigation [webpagesthatsuck.com]. You need to give people hints about where the link goes - stuff that will actually help in their decision of whether to click this link or some other link. Just the URLs isn't enough - 12 out of 10 people don't understand them anyway.
Using javascript for this is simply evil: It will make the user experience reliant on javascript and thus shut out a large number of viewers. And you have to deal with javascript incompatibilities between browsers too.
And then you suggest making a browser plugin too? Why why on earth why? Should our pages rely on that being installed too? Thank you, but NO thank you.
To cut a long story short (i know: it's a bit late now..) This just re-invents the wheel. badly.
The only possible use I can see for this is for listing mirrors or some primitive form of load balancing. And both of those uses has far better solutions available already...
Rubbish. If I pay for something (indirectly) using my Tax Dollars (actually: in my case: Pounds Sterling), I want to be able to use it. If I have to pay a 2nd time, how is that better?
You seem to assume that OSS is outside "the normal free market" - I cannot see any basis for that assumption. OSS will not depend on state funding: If the state does *not* "buy" (for want of a better word) OSS, this does not mean the end of OSS. Rather the opposite appears to be the case: OSS operates in the same market as non-OSS software. And competition there is *good* isn't it?
Comparing farm subsidies with my tax money funding OSS development is a bad analogy - after all the state (i.e. all of us) get the end product. We're not talking about artificially lowering prices - just a more efficient manufacturing process...
And how on earth can that *lessen* personal freedoms? I'd be interested in seeing your arguments for that, as they seem to be missing completely from your post. Without those arguments, your doomsday predictions are worthless...
The GPL(v2 I assume) does not require you to label your changes, but it does require you to:... 2a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
so you only have to label WHICH files you have modified. And..... 2b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
So basically the license of the resulting work must be GPL-compatible
It's not really that complicated, is it?
As for documentation on the GPL, you probably want to look at the GNU project, for example: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
PS: IANAL (l=laywer, not lier). Not even a solicitor or legal person. If in doubt, get proper legal advice. BUT READ THE GPL YOURSELF FIRST - I doubt whether you will need legal advice after reading and understanding it...
Re:A plan and a profit, put to good use...
on
The Hundred-Buck PC
·
· Score: 1
Bad move... We all know what's going to happen: PCs sold for $100 in e.g. Asia will appear on the US/European shelves for e.g. 200 euros ( ~ $200).
Why? It's an easy way for them to make a profit and buy the things they *really* need..
The problem with the US patent office is that they don't search for prior art.
Why not change the system? (I know! - but hear me out!): Make it easier to challenge patents. Ensure that every time a patent is repealed the patent office and the patent holder gets fined?
Obviously the patent office needs encouragement to ensure that only valid patents are granted. That can only be ensured by giving them proper feedback - including the negative feedback...
Perhaps the insurance companies *as a group* (e.g. association of british insurers) would be against this for that reason.
But any *single* company would probably be all for it, because it can decrease the claim ratio. So the trick is to get that technology, and then *prevent* the competitors from using the same technology. And that is what the patent is for, isn't it?
I hate to point out the obvious here, but being able to order the CD via web page is not very useful for the poor punter who has just unwrapped their first PC... The circular dependency will blow their minds!
(a) Companies trying to cover their own back: Litigation is best avoided, so any responsibility will be pushed towards the customer - or at least away from the company.
(b) Profit: If they can "sneak in" terms that allow them to profit from *your* details, then they will try. Or at least, they don't want to be in a situation where they *cannot* do so, so they are better off asking for your concent first.
(c) Law Enforcement Agencies: Even if the agencies do not explicitly ask the providers for ease of tapping (perhaps they do? I dunno), they still think of voip as a telephone alternative, hence the same rules apply.
Really, this isn't so different from the EULAs from email providers, is it?
After all, if you want to keep things secret, ENCRYPT THEM : http://www.gnupg.org
Of course Mozilla hasn't taken over the browser market.
Mozilla is technically superior. But inferior when it comes to marketing and (especially) *access* to the market.
Nearly *everybody* gets IE pre-installed. The vast majority of PC users will happily go with what's installed already, rather than having to "open the bonnet and get their hands dirty". Most Windows users with a bit of experience will know that installing/removing software will tend break things.
Now... If some large OEM was to pre-install Firefox, then the picture would really start to change. But I doubt whether their contracts with Microsoft *allow* them to do that.
Remember: A *person* may well be intelligent, but *people* are stupid. All generalisations are false.
Slashdot Mirror
Rising to one's level of incompetence is also known as the Peter Principle.
Another important variety of this is the septi tank theory of organisation: According to this, "the biggest lumps float to the top"...
without having to carry any extra add-ons?
:-)
I'd argue that your method merely ensures that your "add-ons" are built-in! Thus they need to be carried regardless of whether you're carrying the laptop or not...
Perhaps the stereotype about the american obesity is right after all? But this puts method behind the madness
Morally right? Perhaps. But they have no obligation to do that. By "agreeing" to the so-called EULA you have given up any right to demand that (assuming you had that right in the first place...)
Anyway: would you really in your wildest dreams expect MS to do the "morally right thing" if it is going to cost them money and set a bad precedent? Next you might want a partial refund because of bugs! Or security holes! Naaah....
France does not have obcessive desire to act as America's nemesis!
Get with it: France was one of the few countries to stand up for themselves in the run-up to the 2nd Iraq vs US war. Nothing obcessive about that.
I know this is an American forum (mostly) but surely it cannot have escaped your notice that not everybody likes the americans? And with good reason too.
They could have said that they wanted to become the USA of the 21st century... Now *that* would have been scary!
Well - they've got a point. We cannot expect e.g. RedHat to support custom code unless they specifically agree to it. Nothing new there.
But on Windows customers would not even be *allowed* to make such a modification, so the "problem" doesn't exist on Windows. Is that better? As a customer I'd prefer to have the choice at least...
Useless? As I read it, it is only useless to *you* because you don't agree with the philosophy - and hence not too keen on the GPL.
Tough.
If you feel that you get the advantages of the GPL "rammed down your throat" at every opportunity, isn't that because you're looking at a lot of GPL code?
If you want to re-use other people's code, you'll have to abide by their licenses anyway - winging about it won't help...
D'oh... "Trusted Computing" does will not prevent people from reading "plain" (=created without TC stuff) documents... That would *really* make a migration difficult, wouldn't it?
It will have some effect the other way: Windows users will send documents to the rest of the world, but the rest of the world cannot read them because they run the "wrong" O/S.
Basically, we will be back to the old marketing trick of vendor lock-in, where your data is held hostage not only by a single-application file format, but encryption with laws to boot...
It's not a bonehead question. Rather it is a trade-off. You gain some performance and in return you make yourself dependent on the database vendor since you've just increased your migration cost...
You could argue that it is easier to manage dependencies if you use e.g. stored procedures, but architecture-wise they are no different from any other layer of application design...
Have a look at the Linux Professionals Institute: http://www.lpi.org/
At least they are vendor-independent. And their tests are pretty tough too. I know. I've been through a couple of them.
We HAVE standards. The most important if which is to give users choice: keep them free.
./configure! They should have no need to compile things themselves. Use that packaging system!
If giving users choice conflict with your development, then you're doing something wrong because they are not contradictory.
What is this dependency problem you talk about? If you want to distribute software that does not take advantage of the underlying packaging system then you're obviously going to have to sort the dependencies out in some other way. Or leave it to the users and handle the complaints somehow.
Users should not need to know anything about
The author describes multilinking as something lacking and almost *necessary* (!?) I don't get that.
Looking at the implementation (yes: i use Firefox, but that's not important now) it's just a pop-up menu of clickable URLs!
Sorry guys, but I cannot see how this is better than "proper" links.
If I need to link to multiple places, multiple <a href="..."> tags will do the trick nicely. Since the links will go to different places, they deserve different textual descriptions and thus different <a> tags. Just giving the user a list of URLs is bad: it is also known as Mystery Meat Navigation [webpagesthatsuck.com]. You need to give people hints about where the link goes - stuff that will actually help in their decision of whether to click this link or some other link. Just the URLs isn't enough - 12 out of 10 people don't understand them anyway.
Using javascript for this is simply evil: It will make the user experience reliant on javascript and thus shut out a large number of viewers. And you have to deal with javascript incompatibilities between browsers too.
And then you suggest making a browser plugin too? Why why on earth why? Should our pages rely on that being installed too? Thank you, but NO thank you.
To cut a long story short (i know: it's a bit late now..) This just re-invents the wheel. badly.
The only possible use I can see for this is for listing mirrors or some primitive form of load balancing. And both of those uses has far better solutions available already...
Rubbish. If I pay for something (indirectly) using my Tax Dollars (actually: in my case: Pounds Sterling), I want to be able to use it. If I have to pay a 2nd time, how is that better?
You seem to assume that OSS is outside "the normal free market" - I cannot see any basis for that assumption. OSS will not depend on state funding: If the state does *not* "buy" (for want of a better word) OSS, this does not mean the end of OSS. Rather the opposite appears to be the case: OSS operates in the same market as non-OSS software. And competition there is *good* isn't it?
Comparing farm subsidies with my tax money funding OSS development is a bad analogy - after all the state (i.e. all of us) get the end product. We're not talking about artificially lowering prices - just a more efficient manufacturing process...
And how on earth can that *lessen* personal freedoms? I'd be interested in seeing your arguments for that, as they seem to be missing completely from your post. Without those arguments, your doomsday predictions are worthless...
The GPL(v2 I assume) does not require you to label your changes, but it does require you to: ... 2a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
... 2b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
so you only have to label WHICH files you have modified. And..
So basically the license of the resulting work must be GPL-compatible
It's not really that complicated, is it?
As for documentation on the GPL, you probably want to look at the GNU project, for example: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
PS: IANAL (l=laywer, not lier). Not even a solicitor or legal person. If in doubt, get proper legal advice. BUT READ THE GPL YOURSELF FIRST - I doubt whether you will need legal advice after reading and understanding it...
Bad move... We all know what's going to happen: PCs sold for $100 in e.g. Asia will appear on the US/European shelves for e.g. 200 euros ( ~ $200).
Why? It's an easy way for them to make a profit and buy the things they *really* need..
Why not change the system? (I know! - but hear me out!): Make it easier to challenge patents. Ensure that every time a patent is repealed the patent office and the patent holder gets fined?
Obviously the patent office needs encouragement to ensure that only valid patents are granted. That can only be ensured by giving them proper feedback - including the negative feedback...
Perhaps the insurance companies *as a group* (e.g. association of british insurers) would be against this for that reason.
But any *single* company would probably be all for it, because it can decrease the claim ratio. So the trick is to get that technology, and then *prevent* the competitors from using the same technology. And that is what the patent is for, isn't it?
Not necessarily evil, just selfish...
I hate to point out the obvious here, but being able to order the CD via web page is not very useful for the poor punter who has just unwrapped their first PC... The circular dependency will blow their minds!
Isn't this just a result of:
(a) Companies trying to cover their own back: Litigation is best avoided, so any responsibility will be pushed towards the customer - or at least away from the company.
(b) Profit: If they can "sneak in" terms that allow them to profit from *your* details, then they will try. Or at least, they don't want to be in a situation where they *cannot* do so, so they are better off asking for your concent first.
(c) Law Enforcement Agencies: Even if the agencies do not explicitly ask the providers for ease of tapping (perhaps they do? I dunno), they still think of voip as a telephone alternative, hence the same rules apply.
Really, this isn't so different from the EULAs from email providers, is it?
After all, if you want to keep things secret, ENCRYPT THEM : http://www.gnupg.org
Just my 2p...
Your bank supports non-IE browsers!?
ye Gods!
Isn't there where you should mention the name of the bank? (don't worry about account numbers though)
I'm sure that others would be interested in using that bank!
Of course Mozilla hasn't taken over the browser market.
Mozilla is technically superior. But inferior when it comes to marketing and (especially) *access* to the market.
Nearly *everybody* gets IE pre-installed. The vast majority of PC users will happily go with what's installed already, rather than having to "open the bonnet and get their hands dirty". Most Windows users with a bit of experience will know that installing/removing software will tend break things.
Now... If some large OEM was to pre-install Firefox, then the picture would really start to change. But I doubt whether their contracts with Microsoft *allow* them to do that.
Remember: A *person* may well be intelligent, but *people* are stupid. All generalisations are false.
most debian packages manage config file changes by the user, and try to merge them" !?
In fact, NOT doing so is considered a grave bug...
Not new. And definitely obvious "to those trained in the art".
There's a saying that every country has the laws it deserve.... I'm about to feel pity on the population over there...
I dont know what I should find most worrying:
- the darpa fantasy land
- or using (what appears like) racism to argue for it?
If you insist on:
Then you should be ashamed.
We all know that there are alternatives out there. With free as in freedom. We all make our choices - you can guess what I chose in my company.
Remember: A person may well be intelligent, but people are generally stupid...
If people used common sense ...
and therein lies your mistakes: