Thanks for the correction. It does make a difference, actually: so those industries choose to do what they do. I think, it points out why this kind of law can be useful... Though I'd accept correction on that, too. It's always good to be proved wrong when you're kind of pessimistic.:)
Just because you have written a book or two doesn't make you better than the average slashdot reader who might have something more interesting to say...
Yep, and that's what Slashdot is all about. Mildly interesting article with, more often than not, very interesting discussion/correction/digression by/. readers. Why do you think so many people keep reading it daily? Just for the articles, really?:)
I bet Microsoft is wishing they left those hotmail servers on BSD.
The sad part is, they probably don't. More likely, they're wishing it was illegal to be a programmer outside a regular, certified company. That way, those damn hackers couldn't exist, and only companies would produce software, for the only good reason there is to produce software, money.
And the worse is, I'm barely being satirical here. It's really what they corporate culture seems to promote, as has been proved too many times... Maybe I'm just being an overreacting idiot, but they've given me that impression so many times...
... is that according to the US laws, content entirely belongs to the producer, not the author. It's that braindead approach that's the cause of most so-called 'intellectual property' fuss from all BigCorps out there. You'll notice that (outside Metallica, okay *g*) it's the bean counters that are the damn thorn in our collective arse, not the authors, who more often than not, I'm told, get ass-raped as much as us for BigCorp's benefit.
I don't know for other countries, but in France, for example, while the commercial rights on the content belong to the producer, the intellectual rights belong to the author. There, a producer can't force an author to change the content in a way supposed to make it sell better if the author doesn't want to (alright, so that might explain a few things as well...:)).
Of course, slightly less stupid laws doesn't mean less stupid lawsuits, but that's still something worth pondering, I think, since those laws do extend to software authoring.
Indeed. I've not given Skipstone a try for quite a while, so thanks for reminding me. Last time I checked, it was a tad lacking feature-wise, but still very promising!:)
When I think that not that long ago, there were only two options: IE and Netscape... We've come such a long way, step after step.
Yep, and that is the great thing about Galeon. I wrote a post about it a few days ago, I'm not gonna repeat myself, but basically, Galeon is the same engine as Mozilla, in a nifty, fast GTK interface. Definitely worth a try!
Another thing is symptomatic of OSS: reuse of nifty things to make niftier things still.;)
Yeah, a lot of kiddies and black hats all around the world must have been thinking about that the second they read the article, but you can BET Microsoft will have thought of it: they'll ask for your id key, or worse, your Passport id, before letting you submit crash dumps and download stuff. The former would make sense, since it also contains info about your hardware. Anyway, in both cases, you'll have to auth yourself in a way that will let MS know who you are.
This could also be a way for them to check that you didn't crack the product activation key, for what we know... The sad thing is, it is actually a good idea they had, but they're severed their own reputation so badly over the years, that whenever they come up with something new, people all other the world immediately assume they'll use it for Evil Purposes. The SmartTags weren't that bad, in themselves, for example (go see a screenshot of them, they don't really deface sites); we just assumed they'd be put to their worse possible use. I don't know if we were right to do so. It's just not possible to trust Microsoft.
Ah well. I'm sure the aforementionned kiddies will find a way to exploit the update server anyway. I mean, it's such a big entry point for such a variety of data, there has to be a buffer overflow somewhere in there. And God bless XP users once the kiddies fiddle with the central driver database!:)
Actually, yes, I've been giving it a try too.
Well: it/rocks/.
What's funny is that Galeon points out both Mozilla's biggest strength and, IMHO, its biggest weakness. Its strength is a smart API, that you can use to embed Mozilla into applications. It's how Komodo works, for instance. If IE wasn't commingled (such a nice word...:)) into Windows as a widget control, you could probably replace the IE HTML engine with Mozilla's in that widget. It would be neat.
But Mozilla also has a feature that can count as a weakness: it has its own interface toolkit. It doesn't use Qt nor GTK nor anything of the like: it comes with its own thing. Unless I got it completely wrong, of course, which is also a possibility.:) The good thing is that it looks the same everywhere. The bad thing, well, is that it makes it a more bloated piece of code. Gaelon, on the other hand, uses the Mozilla rendering engine in a GTK browser; it could be what makes it noticeably faster than Mozilla, and it's most probably what makes it lighter.
But enough ranting! I use Konqueror, Mozilla, Gaelon or w3m, all four of them, depending on my mood, and I've never been so happy about the freedom of choice that comes with free(-speech) software!:)
Alright, I have to admit I'm not entirely fair here; the whole C#/.NET thing is a little more than a ripoff of Java, but still.:)
Anyway, maybe we're just seeing a turning point in the history of compilation... Who knows, maybe in the future, we won't compile stuff for a given architecture, but for a given VM. That's the way Python, among others, was already headed with its Java implementation. Now it's also supported in.NET. Yep, there's in.NET's CLR native support for a lot of languages, which proves at least that MS means business, for real.
The big question is, I guess, will we be able to choose the VM we prefer, like we can currently do for Java? Knowing MS, that's unlikely. I suspect that there's a catch, and that the key components will remain in MS' possession, so that they don't give a darn about what OEMs install or don't install. Could a more MS-informed reader provide more information?
... Geeze, was that off-topic... Oh, to hell with it, it's only karma.
The Green Ostrich for VAX and Pink Shoe for Spectrum Linux distributions should be made available soon.
Microsoft's Blue Screen distribution is expected for later this year.
My bad. I really thought Smart Tags in the beta version of IE6 pointed to sport results and stock quotes on MSNBC, or something like that.
I didn't remember that STs were also disabled by default either, and that's a good point. Still, as another slashdotter remarked, even if disabled, you never know if the system won't sooner or later pop up a window suggesting you enable that "new exciting feature" or something, so that Joe Doe turns it on on his own. I can't see why they would make the meta-tag work on an opt-out basis if they don't specifically intend STs to be used by default. Maybe they're being stupid, or frighteningly arrogant, and not just evil, alright, but I'm not going to trust them like that. They kind of... have been known not to mind excessively aggressive practices, shall I say.:)
Oh -- as for email clients (-1; Offtopic), since security sounds like an important feature to me *g* I personally use either mutt, Netscape, which is not good at all (but my experience of it kind of makes up for it, or so I dare hope:)), or sometimes Sylpheed, but many guys at my (CS) school ended up choosing The Bat! and are very happy with it. Not anywhere as versatile as good old mutt, of course, but text-based things can be somewhat arid, alright. I've used Outlook on a couple of occasions, and just can't stand it, it's moronic design security-wise and its "I'm dumbed down client aimed at lowest-common-denominator masses" feel. Different tastes, I suppose.
It seems the/. editorial team still doesn't have a clue what Smart Tags actually are
Your post is interesting, but I still think you're missing an important point. Let's take an example: Outlook. It sucks, it's the worst virus haven ever, and yet most Windows users us it. Why? Because it's the default email client that comes with Windows. Ditto for IE.
Now, consider the default behavior of Smart Tags. They link to Microsoft sites or their partners, and the HTML tag controlling them is an opt-out tag, not an opt-in one. Trust me, 95% of all Windows users have never heard of API and SDK, and the default behavior of Smart Tags will most probably be the most common one among IE 6 users. And I'm willing to bet that Microsoft does count on it. It's a tactic they have already used several times in the past.
I'm sorry, but as much as you seem to like Smart Tags, I can't feel comfortable about them as long as they're controlled by a mere opt-out HTML tag.
Why is there this huge phobia about genetically engineering the human race? What is so wrong about seeking to be better than you are?
It is an interesting question. You're not the first one to ask it, actually, and the answer is rather obvious, when you think of it:
How do you know what 'better' is? Slimmer? Then you'll die during the next glaciation period. Able to live for 500 years? Don't worry, you and all the thousands of billions of other human beings would then starve to death when all food ressources are exhausted.
Besides, there aren't good genes and bad genes. For example, the gene of immunity to malaria also causes serious anaemia. What is 'better' here? Yep, you get it right -- it depends on the environment. In the US nowadays, malaria isn't much of a threat, but the same isn't true everywhere. Hence the fundamental importance of diversity. There are lots of examples.
The idea behind eugenism is kind, but it just doesn't work. Sorry.
This said, preventing genetic diseases is another matter, and certainly suffices to make genetic research worth it, I'll grant you that much.:)
Yep, Simba/Kimba means 'lion' in Swahili. Big deal.
At least, it makes me think that the guy who chose the characters' names in the Lion King didn't know of the ripping-off, or he would have chosen something less Kimba-looking for the hero. Unless he was particularly dumb, of course.:)
What a ridiculous concept. The security of an infrastructure is far more the people and dedication to keeping on top of issues more than it's the operating system.
Yep. Precisely. Go read the article, and you'll see, right in the middle, a comment about open source systems admins being in average more experienced in their craft. As is very logical, since they often do it as a hobby to start with -- while I've never heard of Windows administration performed as a hobby.
Even if you leave aside the question of whether the Windows OS is as inherently secure as certain free alternatives, as long as it will be 'so user-friendly even a fool could use it', it will statistically be more likely to get compromised.
I find it amusing that Windows' main pro becomes a serious con in that light.
The good news is, a lot of those people are going to blame Microsoft for giving them shitty alternatives and turn to other codecs/software.
Precisely. Did you read the bit about XP shipping with support for MS's own proprietary format? People massively use Outlook Express, because "It's free and installed by default and looks good oh my". People may start using MS's codec for the same reason. They sure know their public... Let's just hope that Joe Averageuser acts a bit sensibly, for once. Not likely, but who knows... In the meanwhile, let's act sensibly, ourselves, and try to promote open formats such as Ogg Vorbis. If we can.
Now, that's actually an interesting marketing move. If they manage to keep the bloatware to a minimum, and if it keeps its promises (which is a big 'if', granted), XP should make Joe Newbie very happy. Fine with me as well, if I no longer have to spend days debugging my momma's computer.
The Net integration and MS Passport stuff might be a problem for non-Windows users -- MS's goal is to decommoditize protocols and apps, as they themselves state. But then -- those might not be protocols and apps we need. Hopefully. The whole integration and dumbing down thing could even turn the average tweaking user (gamer, or simply computer knowledgeable user) away from XP.
And that could be open source OSes such as Linux's chance. Linux, FreeBSD and their kin just don't compete in the same league. There is a big market for dumbed-down OSes, definitely. There is also a distinct market for tweakable and fun-to-use (which is different from easy-to-use!) OSes. And the distinction between those two specific markets is becoming much clearer with MS's last move; by moving away from the compromise between tweakability and easiness of use that Win9x was, MS might open an empty spot for, well, something else to fill.
In an hypothetical future, beginners and the vast market of people who don't want to be bothered with technical stuff will use XP. Excellent. More knowledgeable users will prefer one of the 'easy' Linux distros (Mandrake and the like). Hardcore users will always go on doing hardcore things, Linux-from-scratch and stuff, no matter how hypothetical the future.:)
Well -- what a nice utopia it would be. Cute, stupid OS for people who want just that, some free Unix-like for the average desktop user, with, hopefully, minimum open-source-provided interoperability between the two worlds. Too nice to be true, and not likely to happen that easily. But well, we can dream, can't we?:)
Check out Paul Thurrott's review at his WinSuperSite page: www.winsupersite.com.
Well, I hope that won't come accross as flamebait or troll or whipped cream-covered anvil, but when giving this site a quick look, I couldn't help thinking of this. Am I just a desperately paranoid geek of sorts who needs to get a life,:) or did someone else feel the same about it?
Thanks for the pointer anyway, Zico -- the site definitely looks worth reading, biased as it probably is!
The French court had the ability to regulate Yahoo because Yahoo has a branch that operates in France. If Yahoo was operating only in the USA the French court could not have done much.
Actually, I happened to ask about it to my law teacher (law classes in a CS school are a great thing). Her answer was that no French court could force Yahoo's American website to filter their content. Yahoo chose to comply, not to stir trouble, but they could have decided not to filter anything, on their American server at least, she said.
In short, founding a web-hosting company in Geneva could turn out to be an excellent idea, since more and more people are likely to be interested in an account in Switzerland.
If you work or have worked for one of these companies, please can you explain to me how they planned to make a profit?
Well, I happen to work for such a company, so I guess I'll throw my 2 cents in.
Your reasoning is valid, but it assumes that the only way to make money with software is to sell it. Maybe it was true in the past, when you would write a generic application, and sell it to whomever you could. Those were the good old days.
What the company I work for sells is service. Let me give you an example. You can build a powerful cluster 100% based on free software. Okay. That is, maybe you can. I personally can't, as I have no experience in that particular field, but some guys at my company can, and it's their knowledge we sell to clients who need a cluster. Same goes for securing a network, configuring a distributed email architecture, and so on.
I guess we're only called an 'open source' company because we use free software to answer our clients' needs, but that's about all the difference there is between us and your average service company. We do, however, release whatever code we write for our own needs as free software (and not just open source, which is not exactly the same thing).
So far, the company is still young and small, but it's not doing too bad. Maybe there's hope for business around free software after all.
Hmm, no offense intended, but there is a middle-term between 'automatic censorship' and 'actively shoving pr0n under our kids' noses'. Many very civilized countries aren't obsessive about hiding this kind of stuff from children, but it does NOT mean that they distribute adult content freely in libraries.
And I don't even mean it as your average libertarian rant, you know.:) I just don't understand why the concept of middle-term seems to be so difficult to grasp for some. It's not like things have to be either completely black or white, durnit...
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the correction. It does make a difference, actually: so those industries choose to do what they do. I think, it points out why this kind of law can be useful... Though I'd accept correction on that, too. It's always good to be proved wrong when you're kind of pessimistic. :)
Yep, and that's what Slashdot is all about. Mildly interesting article with, more often than not, very interesting discussion/correction/digression by
The sad part is, they probably don't. More likely, they're wishing it was illegal to be a programmer outside a regular, certified company. That way, those damn hackers couldn't exist, and only companies would produce software, for the only good reason there is to produce software, money.
And the worse is, I'm barely being satirical here. It's really what they corporate culture seems to promote, as has been proved too many times... Maybe I'm just being an overreacting idiot, but they've given me that impression so many times...
... is that according to the US laws, content entirely belongs to the producer, not the author. It's that braindead approach that's the cause of most so-called 'intellectual property' fuss from all BigCorps out there. You'll notice that (outside Metallica, okay *g*) it's the bean counters that are the damn thorn in our collective arse, not the authors, who more often than not, I'm told, get ass-raped as much as us for BigCorp's benefit.
:)).
I don't know for other countries, but in France, for example, while the commercial rights on the content belong to the producer, the intellectual rights belong to the author. There, a producer can't force an author to change the content in a way supposed to make it sell better if the author doesn't want to (alright, so that might explain a few things as well...
Of course, slightly less stupid laws doesn't mean less stupid lawsuits, but that's still something worth pondering, I think, since those laws do extend to software authoring.
Indeed. I've not given Skipstone a try for quite a while, so thanks for reminding me. Last time I checked, it was a tad lacking feature-wise, but still very promising! :)
When I think that not that long ago, there were only two options: IE and Netscape... We've come such a long way, step after step.
Yep, and that is the great thing about Galeon. I wrote a post about it a few days ago, I'm not gonna repeat myself, but basically, Galeon is the same engine as Mozilla, in a nifty, fast GTK interface. Definitely worth a try!
;)
Another thing is symptomatic of OSS: reuse of nifty things to make niftier things still.
Yeah, a lot of kiddies and black hats all around the world must have been thinking about that the second they read the article, but you can BET Microsoft will have thought of it: they'll ask for your id key, or worse, your Passport id, before letting you submit crash dumps and download stuff. The former would make sense, since it also contains info about your hardware. Anyway, in both cases, you'll have to auth yourself in a way that will let MS know who you are. :)
This could also be a way for them to check that you didn't crack the product activation key, for what we know... The sad thing is, it is actually a good idea they had, but they're severed their own reputation so badly over the years, that whenever they come up with something new, people all other the world immediately assume they'll use it for Evil Purposes. The SmartTags weren't that bad, in themselves, for example (go see a screenshot of them, they don't really deface sites); we just assumed they'd be put to their worse possible use. I don't know if we were right to do so. It's just not possible to trust Microsoft.
Ah well. I'm sure the aforementionned kiddies will find a way to exploit the update server anyway. I mean, it's such a big entry point for such a variety of data, there has to be a buffer overflow somewhere in there. And God bless XP users once the kiddies fiddle with the central driver database!
Did I get it right?
Actually, yes, I've been giving it a try too. /rocks/. :)) into Windows as a widget control, you could probably replace the IE HTML engine with Mozilla's in that widget. It would be neat. :) The good thing is that it looks the same everywhere. The bad thing, well, is that it makes it a more bloated piece of code. Gaelon, on the other hand, uses the Mozilla rendering engine in a GTK browser; it could be what makes it noticeably faster than Mozilla, and it's most probably what makes it lighter. :)
Well: it
What's funny is that Galeon points out both Mozilla's biggest strength and, IMHO, its biggest weakness. Its strength is a smart API, that you can use to embed Mozilla into applications. It's how Komodo works, for instance. If IE wasn't commingled (such a nice word...
But Mozilla also has a feature that can count as a weakness: it has its own interface toolkit. It doesn't use Qt nor GTK nor anything of the like: it comes with its own thing. Unless I got it completely wrong, of course, which is also a possibility.
But enough ranting! I use Konqueror, Mozilla, Gaelon or w3m, all four of them, depending on my mood, and I've never been so happy about the freedom of choice that comes with free(-speech) software!
Well, alright, MS won't ship XP with their proprietary VM based on Sun's Java.
:)
.NET. Yep, there's in .NET's CLR native support for a lot of languages, which proves at least that MS means business, for real.
... Geeze, was that off-topic... Oh, to hell with it, it's only karma.
Instead, they'll ship it with their proprietary VM inspired from Sun's Java.
Alright, I have to admit I'm not entirely fair here; the whole C#/.NET thing is a little more than a ripoff of Java, but still.
Anyway, maybe we're just seeing a turning point in the history of compilation... Who knows, maybe in the future, we won't compile stuff for a given architecture, but for a given VM. That's the way Python, among others, was already headed with its Java implementation. Now it's also supported in
The big question is, I guess, will we be able to choose the VM we prefer, like we can currently do for Java? Knowing MS, that's unlikely. I suspect that there's a catch, and that the key components will remain in MS' possession, so that they don't give a darn about what OEMs install or don't install. Could a more MS-informed reader provide more information?
-- B.
The Green Ostrich for VAX and Pink Shoe for Spectrum Linux distributions should be made available soon.
Microsoft's Blue Screen distribution is expected for later this year.
-- B.
... to bring up on a 4th of July. Dontcha think? ;)
-- B.
My bad. I really thought Smart Tags in the beta version of IE6 pointed to sport results and stock quotes on MSNBC, or something like that.
:)
:)), or sometimes Sylpheed, but many guys at my (CS) school ended up choosing The Bat! and are very happy with it. Not anywhere as versatile as good old mutt, of course, but text-based things can be somewhat arid, alright. I've used Outlook on a couple of occasions, and just can't stand it, it's moronic design security-wise and its "I'm dumbed down client aimed at lowest-common-denominator masses" feel. Different tastes, I suppose.
I didn't remember that STs were also disabled by default either, and that's a good point. Still, as another slashdotter remarked, even if disabled, you never know if the system won't sooner or later pop up a window suggesting you enable that "new exciting feature" or something, so that Joe Doe turns it on on his own. I can't see why they would make the meta-tag work on an opt-out basis if they don't specifically intend STs to be used by default. Maybe they're being stupid, or frighteningly arrogant, and not just evil, alright, but I'm not going to trust them like that. They kind of... have been known not to mind excessively aggressive practices, shall I say.
Oh -- as for email clients (-1; Offtopic), since security sounds like an important feature to me *g* I personally use either mutt, Netscape, which is not good at all (but my experience of it kind of makes up for it, or so I dare hope
-- B.
It seems the /. editorial team still doesn't have a clue what Smart Tags actually are
Your post is interesting, but I still think you're missing an important point. Let's take an example: Outlook. It sucks, it's the worst virus haven ever, and yet most Windows users us it. Why? Because it's the default email client that comes with Windows. Ditto for IE.
Now, consider the default behavior of Smart Tags. They link to Microsoft sites or their partners, and the HTML tag controlling them is an opt-out tag, not an opt-in one. Trust me, 95% of all Windows users have never heard of API and SDK, and the default behavior of Smart Tags will most probably be the most common one among IE 6 users. And I'm willing to bet that Microsoft does count on it. It's a tactic they have already used several times in the past.
I'm sorry, but as much as you seem to like Smart Tags, I can't feel comfortable about them as long as they're controlled by a mere opt-out HTML tag.
-- B.
Why is there this huge phobia about genetically engineering the human race? What is so wrong about seeking to be better than you are?
:)
It is an interesting question. You're not the first one to ask it, actually, and the answer is rather obvious, when you think of it:
How do you know what 'better' is? Slimmer? Then you'll die during the next glaciation period. Able to live for 500 years? Don't worry, you and all the thousands of billions of other human beings would then starve to death when all food ressources are exhausted.
Besides, there aren't good genes and bad genes. For example, the gene of immunity to malaria also causes serious anaemia. What is 'better' here? Yep, you get it right -- it depends on the environment. In the US nowadays, malaria isn't much of a threat, but the same isn't true everywhere. Hence the fundamental importance of diversity. There are lots of examples.
The idea behind eugenism is kind, but it just doesn't work. Sorry.
This said, preventing genetic diseases is another matter, and certainly suffices to make genetic research worth it, I'll grant you that much.
-- B.
Yep, Simba/Kimba means 'lion' in Swahili. Big deal. :)
At least, it makes me think that the guy who chose the characters' names in the Lion King didn't know of the ripping-off, or he would have chosen something less Kimba-looking for the hero. Unless he was particularly dumb, of course.
-- B.
Yeah, they say so much good about rings, they give them away, and it's all great until you discover there's a catch. :)
-- B.
What a ridiculous concept. The security of an infrastructure is far more the people and dedication to keeping on top of issues more than it's the operating system.
Yep. Precisely. Go read the article, and you'll see, right in the middle, a comment about open source systems admins being in average more experienced in their craft. As is very logical, since they often do it as a hobby to start with -- while I've never heard of Windows administration performed as a hobby.
Even if you leave aside the question of whether the Windows OS is as inherently secure as certain free alternatives, as long as it will be 'so user-friendly even a fool could use it', it will statistically be more likely to get compromised.
I find it amusing that Windows' main pro becomes a serious con in that light.
-- B.
It's here.
Didn't see it already posted, so I thought I'd share.
-- B.
The good news is, a lot of those people are going to blame Microsoft for giving them shitty alternatives and turn to other codecs/software.
Precisely. Did you read the bit about XP shipping with support for MS's own proprietary format? People massively use Outlook Express, because "It's free and installed by default and looks good oh my". People may start using MS's codec for the same reason. They sure know their public... Let's just hope that Joe Averageuser acts a bit sensibly, for once. Not likely, but who knows... In the meanwhile, let's act sensibly, ourselves, and try to promote open formats such as Ogg Vorbis. If we can.
Now, that's actually an interesting marketing move. If they manage to keep the bloatware to a minimum, and if it keeps its promises (which is a big 'if', granted), XP should make Joe Newbie very happy. Fine with me as well, if I no longer have to spend days debugging my momma's computer.
:)
:)
The Net integration and MS Passport stuff might be a problem for non-Windows users -- MS's goal is to decommoditize protocols and apps, as they themselves state. But then -- those might not be protocols and apps we need. Hopefully. The whole integration and dumbing down thing could even turn the average tweaking user (gamer, or simply computer knowledgeable user) away from XP.
And that could be open source OSes such as Linux's chance. Linux, FreeBSD and their kin just don't compete in the same league. There is a big market for dumbed-down OSes, definitely. There is also a distinct market for tweakable and fun-to-use (which is different from easy-to-use!) OSes. And the distinction between those two specific markets is becoming much clearer with MS's last move; by moving away from the compromise between tweakability and easiness of use that Win9x was, MS might open an empty spot for, well, something else to fill.
In an hypothetical future, beginners and the vast market of people who don't want to be bothered with technical stuff will use XP. Excellent. More knowledgeable users will prefer one of the 'easy' Linux distros (Mandrake and the like). Hardcore users will always go on doing hardcore things, Linux-from-scratch and stuff, no matter how hypothetical the future.
Well -- what a nice utopia it would be. Cute, stupid OS for people who want just that, some free Unix-like for the average desktop user, with, hopefully, minimum open-source-provided interoperability between the two worlds. Too nice to be true, and not likely to happen that easily. But well, we can dream, can't we?
Check out Paul Thurrott's review at his WinSuperSite page: www.winsupersite.com.
:) or did someone else feel the same about it?
Well, I hope that won't come accross as flamebait or troll or whipped cream-covered anvil, but when giving this site a quick look, I couldn't help thinking of this. Am I just a desperately paranoid geek of sorts who needs to get a life,
Thanks for the pointer anyway, Zico -- the site definitely looks worth reading, biased as it probably is!
The French court had the ability to regulate Yahoo because Yahoo has a branch that operates in France. If Yahoo was operating only in the USA the French court could not have done much.
Actually, I happened to ask about it to my law teacher (law classes in a CS school are a great thing). Her answer was that no French court could force Yahoo's American website to filter their content. Yahoo chose to comply, not to stir trouble, but they could have decided not to filter anything, on their American server at least, she said.
In short, founding a web-hosting company in Geneva could turn out to be an excellent idea, since more and more people are likely to be interested in an account in Switzerland.
If you work or have worked for one of these companies, please can you explain to me how they planned to make a profit?
Well, I happen to work for such a company, so I guess I'll throw my 2 cents in.
Your reasoning is valid, but it assumes that the only way to make money with software is to sell it. Maybe it was true in the past, when you would write a generic application, and sell it to whomever you could. Those were the good old days.
What the company I work for sells is service. Let me give you an example. You can build a powerful cluster 100% based on free software. Okay. That is, maybe you can. I personally can't, as I have no experience in that particular field, but some guys at my company can, and it's their knowledge we sell to clients who need a cluster. Same goes for securing a network, configuring a distributed email architecture, and so on.
I guess we're only called an 'open source' company because we use free software to answer our clients' needs, but that's about all the difference there is between us and your average service company. We do, however, release whatever code we write for our own needs as free software (and not just open source, which is not exactly the same thing).
So far, the company is still young and small, but it's not doing too bad. Maybe there's hope for business around free software after all.
Hmm, no offense intended, but there is a middle-term between 'automatic censorship' and 'actively shoving pr0n under our kids' noses'. Many very civilized countries aren't obsessive about hiding this kind of stuff from children, but it does NOT mean that they distribute adult content freely in libraries. :) I just don't understand why the concept of middle-term seems to be so difficult to grasp for some. It's not like things have to be either completely black or white, durnit...
And I don't even mean it as your average libertarian rant, you know.