They're BOTH sleazy, no matter how much zealots of either camp whine. Apple has a looong history of screwing companies, developers, and customers over, and Lindows isn't off to any better of a start ripping off Apple's graphics and faking the comparison chart.
----------- no zealot ever *thinks* he's a zealot, he just believes far too strongly in his favorite product or company - often to the point of utter stupidity.
WOW!! GREAT IDEA!! Another Slashdot AC pimping Apple products, including a helpful link to their online store! Awesome! Couldn't take the time to log in, but you could manage a link that has done everything for me but click "Buy Now!". Just what I need, to find that my once favorite company has stooped even lower into the Microsoftian slime of astroturfing.
Dear Apple: Make some faster machines with better bus speeds and RAM, and stop astroturfing. You're becoming more like Microsoft than you think. The reason I bought a Mac was that you WEREN'T like Microsoft. Now that I can't tell the difference, why should I bother?
... for NOT cutting the funding on "pure" research.
I mean, Google's cool, but *peanut butter* was an accident as well, and I couldn't LIVE without my PB&J.
Who knows, maybe someone will stumble across the next peanut butter by accident while researching a cure for cancer or something - then I can die happy.
The article itself is run-of-the-mill Wired stuff, nothing interesting. Personally, the most trollish part to me is not the article, but how the submitter says, "Maybe I'll switch to Mac development, after all." WHAT? Sun isn't doing financially well *in an extended bear market and weak economy against very strong competitors*, so the solution is to *switch to Mac*? WTF? Have you seen *Apple's* income statement lately? Their market share dropped by 30% since OSX!!! Would ANY developer actually go from 200 million customers down to less than 10 million just because of Java?
That's retarded. This guy knew that adding a pro-Mac quip at the end of his post would get him brownie points with the heavily pro-Mac Slashdot editors. It wouldn't have made the front page except that it gets people thinking of "switching". I'm serious. Any story ending with "Maybe Macs ARE better after all!; Maybe it's time to switch!; Maybe I should take a second look!; Maybe Linux isn't as free as OSX after all!; Maybe Steve Jobs is right again!" tacked on the end makes the front page. There's no story here except the posters implied "let's all switch from one proprietary os to another, ignoring the obvious solution, which is perfecting the incredibly strong and open foundation we have with linux, which, due to its licensing, would kill all this corporate manipulation and BS once and for all and create a fair and level playing field for developers to compete."
Slashdot has been taken over by pro-Apple trolls. I'm not anti-Apple at all, I just can't see everybody pimping them to us so hard when really, going from Microsoft to Apple is like going from the frying pan to the fire. Switching to a Mac won't solve anything. Least of all stuff like this.
1. In the Windows directory, go to Application Data\Microsoft\WELCOME.
2. Create a shortcut for the file WELDATA.EXE by right-clicking the file and selecting Create Shortcut.
3. Right-click the newly created shortcut and select Properties.
4. In the shortcut tab, add the following at the end of the Target edit box: You_are_a_real_rascal. This causes the application WELDATA.EXE to be called with the argument You_are_a_real_rascal .
The Target edit box should have the following: C:\WINDOWS\Application\Data\Microsoft\ WELCOME\WELD ATA.EXE" You_are_a_real_rascal
5. In the Run combo box, select Minimized.
6. Click OK, double-click the shortcut, and enjoy!
If an operating system can get shipped with these hidden features embedded within the code that no one knew about (including testing and quality control), what other back doors exist? People now publicize easter eggs because they are fun, but if a developer put a back door in an operating system so he could get back in whenever he wanted, do you think he would publicize it? Probably not. Just remember, a network is only as secure as its weakest link, and because you do not have source code to validate commercial software, that very well could be your weakest link that an attacker uses to compromise your system. This example is for Windows98, but the Mac has Easter Eggs as well. Go to www.eeggs.com to see for yourself.
Unless the code is 100% open, any openness is futile because malicious code can be hidden elsewhere. Security is nothing to take lightly, especially in a corporate setting. And you recommend lying to your bosses and you get modded up to "insightful"? Incredible bias on the part of the Maccie mods here. Just incredible. You would lie to get your chosen OS into an office? I am ashamed of both you and the astroturfing mods here. Maybe Mac users ARE a cult.
Yeah, I saw Bob Saget on HBO, and he was RAUNCHY. That made his material twice as shocking, hearing it come from his "pristine mouth". Seriously, he's at least as sick and twisted as Chris Rock, Eddie Murphy, Robin Williams, etc. He just knows how his bread is buttered; "Mister Nice Guy".
But *on* the record, everything he's done outside of his sick standup SUCKS. I see that America's Stupidest Idiots show, or whatever the hell it's called, and I pray Osama Bin Laden's in the audience with an AK-47. I know I can trust Osama to do what needs to be done.
It's fast becoming a very scary world, with insanely huge and wealthy corporations pulling the shots politically as well as economically. Sadly, IBM can use their clout for evil as well as good.
I don't agree with piracy, especially when there are excellent *free* alternatives available for almost everything we had in Windows, but neither do I agree with the government pushing through legislation like the DMCA, which limits the fair use of the products we, as consumers, buy. If I want to play DVD's on GNU/Linux, who are the movie studios to force me to use Windows instead? They don't have the right. They will NEVER have the right. But because they feel we're an unimportant market, they won't create a solution, and through legislation, they won't even allow private citizens to create solutions for themselves. I know there is LinDVD et al. *NOW*, but if the DVD code hadn't been cracked and widely distributed, what are the chances the industry would have ever willingly supported our chosen platform, or permitted others to support us? Not very bloody likely. The DeCSS FORCED them to allow it, since realistically, it was out there anyway. I'm just waiting for M$ to create and force a "new" standard for HTML, one that can't be read by other browsers, since it's encrypted for use with Internet Explorer XP2 only. To use another browser to decrypt the files made by the Microsoft faithful in FrontPage XP2 will be illegal, as it involves the decryption of "vitally important corporate intellectual property secret MS code".... Don't think it can't happen. The day it's legal is the day Microsoft will do it.
Sorry to rant, but I don't want to live in a police state, and unfortunately, that's the way we're going - FAST. It's stuff like IBM supporting this unjust and unbalanced law that will allow Orwell's worst nightmare to come to pass. But at least IBM can make a few bucks making the hardware to dominate, control and monitor the human race as our children unhappily slave their lives away under extreme duress.
This seems like an frighteningly easy way for the Feds to gather evidence linking individuals to certain anti-social computer-based actions; for example, "Sorry, Mister Gates, but those incriminating emails REALLY WERE written by you - we've got your fingerprints on your keyboard, and at the time the mail was sent, to boot!"
I'd be more worried about the fact that with the new "call home" systems, "they" can pin YOU down as the guy they're after for downloading MP3s or playing with crypto or using warez or whatever you're into. Having your prints kinda kills plausible deniability...
...and god forbid any of our *wives* should ever get their hands on these records... (*shudder*)
Of course, my wife is a finely-tuned 106 pounds, so this is all kinda irrelevant to me. My best advice? If you get a chance to get close to *any* woman, talking about weight is a short ride to hell.
Yeah, I know YOU'RE okay (judging from how similar your work area looks to mine, you may be a long-lost relative) but we need a rule that applies to everyone, from RMS to Microsoft. We have to draw the line someplace, otherwise we'll eventually end up with line-by-line licensing in order to give everyone credit who wants it (lines 31-147 are GPL, here's the code; lines 148-415 are proprietary, no code for you; lines 416-419 are BSD licensed, so here's the code, etc...)
If I put GPLed code into a product that also includes my own code, how can I respect the GPL guy's wishes to keep his work free when my desire is to release a proprietary product? Unless I contact the GPL guy and arrange some sort of dual-licensing arrangement, I can't see how his code is still under his original license.
Nice troll. If you don't like using GNU/Linux, then use BSD. If you don't like BSD, use Windows. A guy who contributes Lego code but whines about the STANDARD linux license is worse than not having Lego code at all. If you don't want to contribute, don't. If you don't want to use GPLed code, don't. If you don't want to use linux itself, don't. But don't assume that because I choose GNU/Linux and the GPL, that I am insane, uninformed, or stupid and in need of your guidance. *The GPL is right for me.* If it's not right for you, fine.
If you're using SOMEONE ELSE'S code in your work, you should damn well obey their wishes that it remain GPLed. You don't own it, and you're not doing THEM any favors by using their code; they're doing YOU a favor, all they ask in return is that you preserve their existing licensing wishes. If you wanna become the next Bill Gates, go ahead - but write your own damn code. "Free" doesn't mean "sucker". I'm not about to write the code to build you an empire with which to enslave my family. If you want to build an empire, ask Bill Gates if you can use HIS code, see what he says.
... is that the developer only has to understand the license he works with, but the users have to understand them all. The main question users have being, "Can I make copies of this?"
I wanted to burn my friend a copy of my RedHat 7.1 CDs, but I had to break a warning sticker when I first opened the 7.1 package, and there was a click-through EULA when I installed, so I'm assuming there's non-free stuff on there. I ended up *giving* him the CD's (I don't even know if THAT'S legal), Install Guide, even the receipt, and I swore allegiance to Debian GNU/Linux, and their "Use non-free software? [y][n]" during install. For me, as a user, the GPL is peace of mind. I don't have time to research the 2000 licenses out there, sorry. I know the GPL, I know the BSD, and I know the MS-proprietary licenses. I don't have time to learn the intricacies of all the other licenses, sorry. If you're close to GPL, I'll treat you like GPL. If you're like BSD, I'll treat you like BSD.
Multiple licenses are both a strength and a pain. What I mean by this, is that diversity is good, but it can interfere with order and progression if used improperly, or if it's diversity for diversity's sake. And *one* non-free piece of software on a distro can destroy the freedoms the others provide, if, for example, that license doesn't allow copying (can't legally burn my RedHat CD because of RealPlayer or whatever). And then we'll end up pirating stuff, just like we did when we were Windows users. And personally, I think that one reason Linux is superior *IS* the ethical factor built right in via the GPL. Ethical Software! Who woulda thunk it? Very cool.
... is that the developer only has to understand the license he works with, but the users have to understand them all. The main question user's have being, "Can I make copies of this?"
I wanted to burn my friend a copy of my RedHat 7.1 CDs, but I had to break a warning sticker when I first opened the 7.1 package, and there was a click-through EULA when I installed, so I'm assuming there's non-free stuff on there. I ended up *giving* him the CD's (I don't even know if THAT'S legal), Install Guide, even the receipt, and I swore allegiance to Debian GNU/Linux, and their "Use non-free software? [y][n]" during install. For me, as a user, the GPL is peace of mind. I don't have time to research the 2000 licenses out there, sorry. I know the GPL, I know the BSD, and I know the MS-proprietary licenses. I don't have time to learn the intricacies of all the other licenses.
Multiple licenses are both a strength (diversity), and a pain (diversity). At least it's all available in English for me, linguistic diversity would be insane. What I mean by this, is that diversity is good, but it can interfere with order and progression if used improperly, or if it's diversity for diversity's sake. And *one* non-free piece of software on a distro can destroy the freedoms the others provide, if, for example, that license doesn't allow copying. And then we'll end up pirating stuff, just like we did when we were Windows users.
> I used to run win9x, if it's so insecure, how come I never did get infected?
How do you know you didn't?
With a good hack, the mark *never* knows. And with Win9x, it's still fairly difficult to confirm an intrusion when it's done creatively (ie. not a prepackaged kiddiot attack). I mean, the logging *sucks*, the 9x help files *suck*, there are very few tools included with 9x, and most of those are CLI, so the typical Windows user feels out of place using them in a GUI world, etc.
I don't really approve of the steeper learning curve of GNU/Linux, but it is better security than an OpenBSD firewall set up by Theo himself. The learning curve, and the linux community DIY ethic, FORCES new people to get on the net and learn about their system - and it's not too long before every newbie hits a webpage detailing security on their favorite distro. KNOWLEDGE is the only sure protection. Well, that and a.357 Magnum Colt Python...
But I have to go now, my MSN Messenger just automagically alerted me to a new Active X enabled Hotmail message coming from Russia! I'm excited to run that unscanned executable. It's big, so it must be good. Maybe it's pr0n.
I take lab viruses to mean "It's been submitted for addition to their database, but they have no reports of it being active "in the wild"".
It's a really common conspiracy theory that anti-virus companies write viruses; my friends and I have discussed this for years. And I can't disprove it, and simple economic principles lead me to believe that it actually happens. It's just "good business" to create a steady need for your product, you know - gotta keep up with the Gateses'!;-)
Re:This Article Offends My Professionalism
on
Software Aesthetics
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, that's a nice reg error, but the one I love is the one that says "There is not enough room on your hard drive to delete these files" or something to that effect. Brilliant. I can't make more room on my drive because it's too full. "Shoulda bought a Mac", I think to myself glumly.
And don't forget the difficulty the average sysadmin has deciphering "GG%$#g4wGRFWvfe34$%T43qg534wT" or something similar in the registry. Lines like this are all over in there (and they say *nix isn't user friendly!). Microsoft has seemingly encrypted stuff in the registry so we can't hurt ourselves (or fix the problems ourselves), which is a central difference in the attitudes of closed vs. open source (or free software) companies; one treats you as a customer, whose job it is to take what he's been given, the other treats you as a partner, whose job it is to modify what he's been given to his liking. Both views have strengths, but for the industrious sysadmin, the *nix DIY attitude is a great advantage open source software has over closed source/proprietary.
I agree that there are barriers to financial success with the GPL, but the goal of the GPL was never to make zillionaires, it was to make "really great software!" (to use a Gates-ism). To promote freedom, knowledge, ideas, source code, and to have fun doing it. Realistically, most private coders don't make anything off their stuff anyway, so why not be a nice guy and GPL it? We'll build up the free software community to the point where people CAN make money (hopefully us). It's hard to give your changes back to the community, but that's what makes the work worthwhile in the end. Everybody gives a little bit of themselves to the community, and we all grow from it. Giving back changes is just a respect thing for the guys who wrote the software originally. They like to keep up on what's happening with their "baby". They can't control what's happening (with the exception of knowing that it will remain free due to the GPL), but they all like to know what's going on.
Jeez, I sound like a Hare Krishna.
But it really does feel good to give something back to the community you love, and have all these hot babes adoring you for it, hanging off your every word, buying you drinks, dressing up in their little satiny penguin outfits, running their mice cables through your hair...[the rest has been censored by Cowboy Neal]
The GPL doesn't take any freedoms away from the developer, *save those he agrees to give up by using GPLed software in the first place*.
If you don't want to contribute, that's fine. Nobody's forcing you. Don't use GPLed tools, don't borrow from GPLed code. Go do your proprietary thing. It's that simple.
Because if you borrow from the work of someone who *specifically intended* for his work (and work based on his work) to remain free, you must abide by his wishes, don't you think? Let's say I wrote those runtimes in order to help create a GPLed software pool to help the free software movement compete against the Redmond Giant. By using my work as the basis for your proprietary software, you are going against MY wishes for how it's to be used. How is this situation taking away from my rights as a developer and putting them into the hands of the user? The Original Coder puts his software under one license, and the freedom you're complaining about losing is the freedom to rely on his stuff to help the competition (proprietary software, in this case). You're taking rights from the original author and bestowing them upon yourself, the dependent, secondary author.
And yes, I do believe that proprietizing GPLed software is a "wrong decision". If the original author put his work under one license, how can abiding by his wishes be wrong?
Nice line about hacking the limbs off developers though. heh heh. I'll show this post to the guys at work.
There ARE Microsoft shills here. Guaranteed. So attributing some comments to MS shills is not unreasonable, especially when the previous poster's comments (yours?) were right out of the MS-FUD handbook. And if the poster wants to be respected and considered a member of the Slashdot community, he can stop posting anonymously, and stop using one-liners whose main selling point is "Yuh huh" to argue a complicated issue.
And I hate to tell you, but at the present time, not only are many Free Software/OpenSource (including BSD) firms having great financial difficulties, so are proprietary software firms. "It's the economy", from what I hear. And though I love OpenBSD, I don't think Theo's moving as many copies as the Gnu/Linux guys. I don't think BSD in general (with the exception of maybe Apple's cool new MacOS X, which gives no $$ to the BSDers anyway) is moving as much as Linux. Even so, it's not about the money! It's about freedom, and the protection of freedom.
And I don't see how you think the BSD license keeps the control in the hands of the developers, when their license is so laissez-faire, basically saying, "do what you wilt shall be the whole of the law"....
Rather, the GPL keeps the control in the hands of the developer, as it stipulates that once the Original Coder places code under the GPL, *his wishes* that it remain free for all forever are to be respected. The BSD license allows software to be ripped from the arms of the BSD faithful, proprietized, and released by Microsoft (Kerberos for example), with no benefits whatsoever coming back to the BSDers except that their product has a worse chance of survival, now that Microsoft has placed an easy to use version of their software on the market, complete with major incompatibilities that force the customers to choose between Microsoft's popular OS or that of the other guys. Why use BSD if Windows has all its' functionality, better compatibility with the rest of the world, and is easier to use? However, I choose Gnu/Linux because of the GPL license (ethical, philosophical, and moral reasons), but that won't draw me to BSD, since they believe in open source, BUT they also support proprietary software (It's hard for me to strongly believe in opposing philosophies at the same time).
And about the penguins, the BSD guys sell stuffed daemons, just like the GNU guys sell stuffed penguins. And what's more capitalistic than that? If there's a demand, they will supply. I thought you'd be happy for us.
And I use and enjoy OpenBSD, and have the HIGHEST respect for Theo and his AMAZING coding capabilities and great dedication to his work, but their license gives no protection to the coders or their god-given right to have access to their own software, and the changes made by others to it. The GPL does. It ensures that what is CREATED free STAYS free. Which is why Microsoft shills fight the GPL constantly with their witty "Yuh huh"'s, while simultaneously promoting the BSD license as an "Open" alternative.
> So, by your own admission, a license that is explicitely non-Free (GPL) ensures your software's Freedom? Yuh huh.
Depends on your definition of freedom, my little AC troll friend. If you had read my post without puking out a patented Microsoft FUD line first, you would notice that I explained exactly how this could be so. Think about this Zen Koan, if you can wrap your puny trollpunk mind around it. "Does the freedom to restrict freedom REALLY promote freedom?" Or, if my previous comments were too heavy for you, you master flamebaiter, maybe you should talk to your kindergarten teacher in class tomorrow, maybe after naptime, when your soft little brain has had time to recuperate from your late-night trolling habit.
Here, let me help in a language you can easily understand.
"Sometimes", says Benny, the Big Purple Dinosaur, "like pruning your garden, cutting back on certain freedoms can allow more freedom to grow. That's why the GPL is so important. It restricts bad people from abusing their freedom, and doing bad things to your mommy and daddy and the software which they rely on for everyday chores, like trying to get you adopted by a nice troll family in another faraway country."
Unfortunately, you made a pathetic, sad, impotent little comment, and are a very very weak troll. Microsoft should cut your wages. You're not astroturfing up to their normally high standards (Astroturfing being the only department at Microsoft that HAS high standards...).
Slashdot Mirror
They're BOTH sleazy, no matter how much zealots of either camp whine. Apple has a looong history of screwing companies, developers, and customers over, and Lindows isn't off to any better of a start ripping off Apple's graphics and faking the comparison chart.
-----------
no zealot ever *thinks* he's a zealot, he just believes far too strongly in his favorite product or company - often to the point of utter stupidity.
WOW!! GREAT IDEA!! Another Slashdot AC pimping Apple products, including a helpful link to their online store! Awesome! Couldn't take the time to log in, but you could manage a link that has done everything for me but click "Buy Now!". Just what I need, to find that my once favorite company has stooped even lower into the Microsoftian slime of astroturfing.
Dear Apple: Make some faster machines with better bus speeds and RAM, and stop astroturfing. You're becoming more like Microsoft than you think. The reason I bought a Mac was that you WEREN'T like Microsoft. Now that I can't tell the difference, why should I bother?
... for NOT cutting the funding on "pure" research.
I mean, Google's cool, but *peanut butter* was an accident as well, and I couldn't LIVE without my PB&J.
Who knows, maybe someone will stumble across the next peanut butter by accident while researching a cure for cancer or something - then I can die happy.
Well, a cure for cancer would be good too.
The article itself is run-of-the-mill Wired stuff, nothing interesting. Personally, the most trollish part to me is not the article, but how the submitter says, "Maybe I'll switch to Mac development, after all." WHAT? Sun isn't doing financially well *in an extended bear market and weak economy against very strong competitors*, so the solution is to *switch to Mac*? WTF? Have you seen *Apple's* income statement lately? Their market share dropped by 30% since OSX!!! Would ANY developer actually go from 200 million customers down to less than 10 million just because of Java?
That's retarded. This guy knew that adding a pro-Mac quip at the end of his post would get him brownie points with the heavily pro-Mac Slashdot editors. It wouldn't have made the front page except that it gets people thinking of "switching". I'm serious. Any story ending with "Maybe Macs ARE better after all!; Maybe it's time to switch!; Maybe I should take a second look!; Maybe Linux isn't as free as OSX after all!; Maybe Steve Jobs is right again!" tacked on the end makes the front page. There's no story here except the posters implied "let's all switch from one proprietary os to another, ignoring the obvious solution, which is perfecting the incredibly strong and open foundation we have with linux, which, due to its licensing, would kill all this corporate manipulation and BS once and for all and create a fair and level playing field for developers to compete."
Slashdot has been taken over by pro-Apple trolls. I'm not anti-Apple at all, I just can't see everybody pimping them to us so hard when really, going from Microsoft to Apple is like going from the frying pan to the fire. Switching to a Mac won't solve anything. Least of all stuff like this.
1. In the Windows directory, go to Application Data\Microsoft\WELCOME.
\ WELCOME\WELD ATA.EXE" You_are_a_real_rascal
2. Create a shortcut for the file WELDATA.EXE by right-clicking the file and selecting Create Shortcut.
3. Right-click the newly created shortcut and select Properties.
4. In the shortcut tab, add the following at the end of the Target edit box: You_are_a_real_rascal. This causes the application WELDATA.EXE to be called with the argument You_are_a_real_rascal .
The Target edit box should have the following:
C:\WINDOWS\Application\Data\Microsoft
5. In the Run combo box, select Minimized.
6. Click OK, double-click the shortcut, and enjoy!
If an operating system can get shipped with these hidden features embedded within the code that no one knew about (including testing and quality control), what other back doors exist? People now publicize easter eggs because they are fun, but if a developer put a back door in an operating system so he could get back in whenever he wanted, do you think he would publicize it? Probably not. Just remember, a network is only as secure as its weakest link, and because you do not have source code to validate commercial software, that very well could be your weakest link that an attacker uses to compromise your system. This example is for Windows98, but the Mac has Easter Eggs as well. Go to www.eeggs.com to see for yourself.
Unless the code is 100% open, any openness is futile because malicious code can be hidden elsewhere. Security is nothing to take lightly, especially in a corporate setting. And you recommend lying to your bosses and you get modded up to "insightful"? Incredible bias on the part of the Maccie mods here. Just incredible. You would lie to get your chosen OS into an office? I am ashamed of both you and the astroturfing mods here. Maybe Mac users ARE a cult.
Yeah, I saw Bob Saget on HBO, and he was RAUNCHY. That made his material twice as shocking, hearing it come from his "pristine mouth". Seriously, he's at least as sick and twisted as Chris Rock, Eddie Murphy, Robin Williams, etc. He just knows how his bread is buttered; "Mister Nice Guy".
But *on* the record, everything he's done outside of his sick standup SUCKS. I see that America's Stupidest Idiots show, or whatever the hell it's called, and I pray Osama Bin Laden's in the audience with an AK-47. I know I can trust Osama to do what needs to be done.
I just wanted to say it.
And for God's sake, man, thanks for the Blalock link. You have made my life a better place.
Pix and Info
http://www.apple.com/ipod/
but this kind of thing doesn't make it easier.
It's fast becoming a very scary world, with insanely huge and wealthy corporations pulling the shots politically as well as economically. Sadly, IBM can use their clout for evil as well as good.
I don't agree with piracy, especially when there are excellent *free* alternatives available for almost everything we had in Windows, but neither do I agree with the government pushing through legislation like the DMCA, which limits the fair use of the products we, as consumers, buy. If I want to play DVD's on GNU/Linux, who are the movie studios to force me to use Windows instead? They don't have the right. They will NEVER have the right. But because they feel we're an unimportant market, they won't create a solution, and through legislation, they won't even allow private citizens to create solutions for themselves. I know there is LinDVD et al. *NOW*, but if the DVD code hadn't been cracked and widely distributed, what are the chances the industry would have ever willingly supported our chosen platform, or permitted others to support us? Not very bloody likely. The DeCSS FORCED them to allow it, since realistically, it was out there anyway. I'm just waiting for M$ to create and force a "new" standard for HTML, one that can't be read by other browsers, since it's encrypted for use with Internet Explorer XP2 only. To use another browser to decrypt the files made by the Microsoft faithful in FrontPage XP2 will be illegal, as it involves the decryption of "vitally important corporate intellectual property secret MS code".... Don't think it can't happen. The day it's legal is the day Microsoft will do it.
Sorry to rant, but I don't want to live in a police state, and unfortunately, that's the way we're going - FAST. It's stuff like IBM supporting this unjust and unbalanced law that will allow Orwell's worst nightmare to come to pass. But at least IBM can make a few bucks making the hardware to dominate, control and monitor the human race as our children unhappily slave their lives away under extreme duress.
masq
This seems like an frighteningly easy way for the Feds to gather evidence linking individuals to certain anti-social computer-based actions; for example, "Sorry, Mister Gates, but those incriminating emails REALLY WERE written by you - we've got your fingerprints on your keyboard, and at the time the mail was sent, to boot!"
I'd be more worried about the fact that with the new "call home" systems, "they" can pin YOU down as the guy they're after for downloading MP3s or playing with crypto or using warez or whatever you're into. Having your prints kinda kills plausible deniability...
...and god forbid any of our *wives* should ever get their hands on these records... (*shudder*)
Like a comedian on HBO said:
"BONES are for the dog,
MEAT is for the man..."
Of course, my wife is a finely-tuned 106 pounds, so this is all kinda irrelevant to me. My best advice? If you get a chance to get close to *any* woman, talking about weight is a short ride to hell.
I think it WAS called Personal Web Services, but now it's called "My Web Vulnerability" and has an icon of a ticking time bomb.
It DOES surprise me. Which projects, and where did you get your info?
Yeah, I know YOU'RE okay (judging from how similar your work area looks to mine, you may be a long-lost relative) but we need a rule that applies to everyone, from RMS to Microsoft. We have to draw the line someplace, otherwise we'll eventually end up with line-by-line licensing in order to give everyone credit who wants it (lines 31-147 are GPL, here's the code; lines 148-415 are proprietary, no code for you; lines 416-419 are BSD licensed, so here's the code, etc...)
If I put GPLed code into a product that also includes my own code, how can I respect the GPL guy's wishes to keep his work free when my desire is to release a proprietary product? Unless I contact the GPL guy and arrange some sort of dual-licensing arrangement, I can't see how his code is still under his original license.
Nice troll. If you don't like using GNU/Linux, then use BSD. If you don't like BSD, use Windows. A guy who contributes Lego code but whines about the STANDARD linux license is worse than not having Lego code at all. If you don't want to contribute, don't. If you don't want to use GPLed code, don't. If you don't want to use linux itself, don't. But don't assume that because I choose GNU/Linux and the GPL, that I am insane, uninformed, or stupid and in need of your guidance. *The GPL is right for me.* If it's not right for you, fine.
If you're using SOMEONE ELSE'S code in your work, you should damn well obey their wishes that it remain GPLed. You don't own it, and you're not doing THEM any favors by using their code; they're doing YOU a favor, all they ask in return is that you preserve their existing licensing wishes. If you wanna become the next Bill Gates, go ahead - but write your own damn code. "Free" doesn't mean "sucker". I'm not about to write the code to build you an empire with which to enslave my family. If you want to build an empire, ask Bill Gates if you can use HIS code, see what he says.
... is that the developer only has to understand the license he works with, but the users have to understand them all. The main question users have being, "Can I make copies of this?"
I wanted to burn my friend a copy of my RedHat 7.1 CDs, but I had to break a warning sticker when I first opened the 7.1 package, and there was a click-through EULA when I installed, so I'm assuming there's non-free stuff on there. I ended up *giving* him the CD's (I don't even know if THAT'S legal), Install Guide, even the receipt, and I swore allegiance to Debian GNU/Linux, and their "Use non-free software? [y][n]" during install. For me, as a user, the GPL is peace of mind. I don't have time to research the 2000 licenses out there, sorry. I know the GPL, I know the BSD, and I know the MS-proprietary licenses. I don't have time to learn the intricacies of all the other licenses, sorry. If you're close to GPL, I'll treat you like GPL. If you're like BSD, I'll treat you like BSD.
Multiple licenses are both a strength and a pain. What I mean by this, is that diversity is good, but it can interfere with order and progression if used improperly, or if it's diversity for diversity's sake. And *one* non-free piece of software on a distro can destroy the freedoms the others provide, if, for example, that license doesn't allow copying (can't legally burn my RedHat CD because of RealPlayer or whatever). And then we'll end up pirating stuff, just like we did when we were Windows users. And personally, I think that one reason Linux is superior *IS* the ethical factor built right in via the GPL. Ethical Software! Who woulda thunk it? Very cool.
... is that the developer only has to understand the license he works with, but the users have to understand them all. The main question user's have being, "Can I make copies of this?"
I wanted to burn my friend a copy of my RedHat 7.1 CDs, but I had to break a warning sticker when I first opened the 7.1 package, and there was a click-through EULA when I installed, so I'm assuming there's non-free stuff on there. I ended up *giving* him the CD's (I don't even know if THAT'S legal), Install Guide, even the receipt, and I swore allegiance to Debian GNU/Linux, and their "Use non-free software? [y][n]" during install. For me, as a user, the GPL is peace of mind. I don't have time to research the 2000 licenses out there, sorry. I know the GPL, I know the BSD, and I know the MS-proprietary licenses. I don't have time to learn the intricacies of all the other licenses.
Multiple licenses are both a strength (diversity), and a pain (diversity). At least it's all available in English for me, linguistic diversity would be insane. What I mean by this, is that diversity is good, but it can interfere with order and progression if used improperly, or if it's diversity for diversity's sake. And *one* non-free piece of software on a distro can destroy the freedoms the others provide, if, for example, that license doesn't allow copying. And then we'll end up pirating stuff, just like we did when we were Windows users.
> I used to run win9x, if it's so insecure, how come I never did get infected?
.357 Magnum Colt Python...
How do you know you didn't?
With a good hack, the mark *never* knows. And with Win9x, it's still fairly difficult to confirm an intrusion when it's done creatively (ie. not a prepackaged kiddiot attack). I mean, the logging *sucks*, the 9x help files *suck*, there are very few tools included with 9x, and most of those are CLI, so the typical Windows user feels out of place using them in a GUI world, etc.
I don't really approve of the steeper learning curve of GNU/Linux, but it is better security than an OpenBSD firewall set up by Theo himself. The learning curve, and the linux community DIY ethic, FORCES new people to get on the net and learn about their system - and it's not too long before every newbie hits a webpage detailing security on their favorite distro. KNOWLEDGE is the only sure protection. Well, that and a
But I have to go now, my MSN Messenger just automagically alerted me to a new Active X enabled Hotmail message coming from Russia! I'm excited to run that unscanned executable. It's big, so it must be good. Maybe it's pr0n.
I take lab viruses to mean "It's been submitted for addition to their database, but they have no reports of it being active "in the wild"".
;-)
It's a really common conspiracy theory that anti-virus companies write viruses; my friends and I have discussed this for years. And I can't disprove it, and simple economic principles lead me to believe that it actually happens. It's just "good business" to create a steady need for your product, you know - gotta keep up with the Gateses'!
> ....you linux guys are at 5% of the market
Yes, we are - and it's the *TOP* five percent.
Yeah, that's a nice reg error, but the one I love is the one that says "There is not enough room on your hard drive to delete these files" or something to that effect. Brilliant. I can't make more room on my drive because it's too full. "Shoulda bought a Mac", I think to myself glumly.
And don't forget the difficulty the average sysadmin has deciphering "GG%$#g4wGRFWvfe34$%T43qg534wT" or something similar in the registry. Lines like this are all over in there (and they say *nix isn't user friendly!). Microsoft has seemingly encrypted stuff in the registry so we can't hurt ourselves (or fix the problems ourselves), which is a central difference in the attitudes of closed vs. open source (or free software) companies; one treats you as a customer, whose job it is to take what he's been given, the other treats you as a partner, whose job it is to modify what he's been given to his liking. Both views have strengths, but for the industrious sysadmin, the *nix DIY attitude is a great advantage open source software has over closed source/proprietary.
Hey, Evil MS-Shill, I like your post. Good logic.
I agree that there are barriers to financial success with the GPL, but the goal of the GPL was never to make zillionaires, it was to make "really great software!" (to use a Gates-ism). To promote freedom, knowledge, ideas, source code, and to have fun doing it. Realistically, most private coders don't make anything off their stuff anyway, so why not be a nice guy and GPL it? We'll build up the free software community to the point where people CAN make money (hopefully us). It's hard to give your changes back to the community, but that's what makes the work worthwhile in the end. Everybody gives a little bit of themselves to the community, and we all grow from it. Giving back changes is just a respect thing for the guys who wrote the software originally. They like to keep up on what's happening with their "baby". They can't control what's happening (with the exception of knowing that it will remain free due to the GPL), but they all like to know what's going on.
Jeez, I sound like a Hare Krishna.
But it really does feel good to give something back to the community you love, and have all these hot babes adoring you for it, hanging off your every word, buying you drinks, dressing up in their little satiny penguin outfits, running their mice cables through your hair...[the rest has been censored by Cowboy Neal]
The GPL doesn't take any freedoms away from the developer, *save those he agrees to give up by using GPLed software in the first place*.
If you don't want to contribute, that's fine. Nobody's forcing you. Don't use GPLed tools, don't borrow from GPLed code. Go do your proprietary thing. It's that simple.
Because if you borrow from the work of someone who *specifically intended* for his work (and work based on his work) to remain free, you must abide by his wishes, don't you think? Let's say I wrote those runtimes in order to help create a GPLed software pool to help the free software movement compete against the Redmond Giant. By using my work as the basis for your proprietary software, you are going against MY wishes for how it's to be used. How is this situation taking away from my rights as a developer and putting them into the hands of the user? The Original Coder puts his software under one license, and the freedom you're complaining about losing is the freedom to rely on his stuff to help the competition (proprietary software, in this case). You're taking rights from the original author and bestowing them upon yourself, the dependent, secondary author.
And yes, I do believe that proprietizing GPLed software is a "wrong decision". If the original author put his work under one license, how can abiding by his wishes be wrong?
Nice line about hacking the limbs off developers though. heh heh. I'll show this post to the guys at work.
P.S. You don't need Kylix if you got Emacs.
There ARE Microsoft shills here. Guaranteed. So attributing some comments to MS shills is not unreasonable, especially when the previous poster's comments (yours?) were right out of the MS-FUD handbook. And if the poster wants to be respected and considered a member of the Slashdot community, he can stop posting anonymously, and stop using one-liners whose main selling point is "Yuh huh" to argue a complicated issue.
And I hate to tell you, but at the present time, not only are many Free Software/OpenSource (including BSD) firms having great financial difficulties, so are proprietary software firms. "It's the economy", from what I hear. And though I love OpenBSD, I don't think Theo's moving as many copies as the Gnu/Linux guys. I don't think BSD in general (with the exception of maybe Apple's cool new MacOS X, which gives no $$ to the BSDers anyway) is moving as much as Linux. Even so, it's not about the money! It's about freedom, and the protection of freedom.
And I don't see how you think the BSD license keeps the control in the hands of the developers, when their license is so laissez-faire, basically saying, "do what you wilt shall be the whole of the law"....
Rather, the GPL keeps the control in the hands of the developer, as it stipulates that once the Original Coder places code under the GPL, *his wishes* that it remain free for all forever are to be respected. The BSD license allows software to be ripped from the arms of the BSD faithful, proprietized, and released by Microsoft (Kerberos for example), with no benefits whatsoever coming back to the BSDers except that their product has a worse chance of survival, now that Microsoft has placed an easy to use version of their software on the market, complete with major incompatibilities that force the customers to choose between Microsoft's popular OS or that of the other guys. Why use BSD if Windows has all its' functionality, better compatibility with the rest of the world, and is easier to use? However, I choose Gnu/Linux because of the GPL license (ethical, philosophical, and moral reasons), but that won't draw me to BSD, since they believe in open source, BUT they also support proprietary software (It's hard for me to strongly believe in opposing philosophies at the same time).
And about the penguins, the BSD guys sell stuffed daemons, just like the GNU guys sell stuffed penguins. And what's more capitalistic than that? If there's a demand, they will supply. I thought you'd be happy for us.
And I use and enjoy OpenBSD, and have the HIGHEST respect for Theo and his AMAZING coding capabilities and great dedication to his work, but their license gives no protection to the coders or their god-given right to have access to their own software, and the changes made by others to it. The GPL does. It ensures that what is CREATED free STAYS free. Which is why Microsoft shills fight the GPL constantly with their witty "Yuh huh"'s, while simultaneously promoting the BSD license as an "Open" alternative.
> So, by your own admission, a license that is explicitely non-Free (GPL) ensures your software's Freedom? Yuh huh.
Depends on your definition of freedom, my little AC troll friend. If you had read my post without puking out a patented Microsoft FUD line first, you would notice that I explained exactly how this could be so. Think about this Zen Koan, if you can wrap your puny trollpunk mind around it. "Does the freedom to restrict freedom REALLY promote freedom?" Or, if my previous comments were too heavy for you, you master flamebaiter, maybe you should talk to your kindergarten teacher in class tomorrow, maybe after naptime, when your soft little brain has had time to recuperate from your late-night trolling habit.
Here, let me help in a language you can easily understand.
"Sometimes", says Benny, the Big Purple Dinosaur, "like pruning your garden, cutting back on certain freedoms can allow more freedom to grow. That's why the GPL is so important. It restricts bad people from abusing their freedom, and doing bad things to your mommy and daddy and the software which they rely on for everyday chores, like trying to get you adopted by a nice troll family in another faraway country."
Unfortunately, you made a pathetic, sad, impotent little comment, and are a very very weak troll. Microsoft should cut your wages. You're not astroturfing up to their normally high standards (Astroturfing being the only department at Microsoft that HAS high standards...).