Well actually this is off the back of a 30 month campaign, 50,000 signature petition and many MPs backing the mother of a victim of a deranged murderer whoes pasttime was viewing violent porn on the internet of the exact manner in which he killed this womans daughter.
So... like... if one were to nail 'em to a cross and crucify someone... could we get posession of the Bible criminalized?
Actually, I don't consider Linux hard to use and see no reason to "hide" from people that are not smart enough to use it.
And I'm absolutely thrilled that for once... they have to pay for their stupidity by paying for an OS.
So, you can be happy that your computer will share it's printer to everyone that happens to be within spitting range of it's network... and I'll be happy mine won't give you the time of day.
I'd say it HAS come quite a long way in the last 15 years
I just have to wonder how those advances compare against Linux when compared on a dollars to develop per feature basis...
I personally think that when you compare the advances each OS has made over the years vs. the amount of $$ paid to create the product... MS starts looking like a bunch of amateurs. (Ironically, they are the one being paid... the "professionals")
MS may be great at generating a profit, but they suck at efficient software production.
IANAL, but it could be a legal liability, as the car owners might sue not only the owners of the robot-garage, but the vendor as well.
I'd think the lawsuit against the software vendor would be thrown out on the basis that they have no "relationship" with the car owner. This is a straight forwared contract dispute.
None of the car owners decided to use that vendor's software... they decided to use the parking structure of an entity that used the software.
The people that decided to use the proprietary software, and then not renew the license, are the ones to go after...
What if the only binaries whose cryptographic signature matches happen to be binaries that come out of Redmond?
Then everyone you know would be making fun of you for being so stupid as to buy a computer that doesn't do what you want it to do.
That is what I don't get about all of the responses in this thread.
Hello people... if all they are selling is shit... spend your money on something else.
Nobody is going to make you buy these things.
And no manufacturer that trades on a U.S. stock exchange will risk the value of their stock plummeting because everyone decided not to upgrade until something more palatable comes out.
It'd still be better than Windows if you could simply inspect the code... compile the code... and verify that the code you compiled matches the code they provided.
MS shows (some) people "the code"... but never enough to actually compile the whole darn thing and verify that what they showed you is what is actually being run.
Trusted computing is like a crappy old rope that you know is going to snap the minute you hold on to it
You thought it was a crappy old rope that would break instantly, but you realized it was actually a very new rope right after they slipped it around your neck and threw you over.
Admitting that our government spies on it's own citizens 'give adversaries of this country valuable insight into the government's intelligence activities'?
You have to remember that to this administration the democrats are "advesaries of this country".
Personally, I think that makes members of the administration "legitimate targets".
Again, my son had an iMac. Built in firewire and full Net. plugged directly into the cable modem out port.
Switching to the Mac mini - same basic firewire, same cable modem.
No perceptible difference.
Yeah, I got all that.
I'm saying that something is even slower than your old iMac... it isn't the worst part of the equation... if you didn't notice a difference.
Because, if the network connection can spit the data out fast enough... there is a huge difference between my oldest Mac and even a three year old system.
I'd have to throttle my network connection back quite a bit for my G4 TIBook to be as slow as my wife's G3.
In other words...
If your network connection can't deliver data faster than the slowest computer can render it, you won't see a significant difference with a faster computer. It is already being rendered as fast as it is being delivered.
That sounds like the situation *you* have... no significant difference between machines.
I, on the other hand, see quite a difference between machines. (and my G5 is noticeably faster than my TIBook... but not nearly as much so)
Slashdot Mirror
Because people have to have some place to put the little sticky with the password...
Close.
But you can make it even shorter...
DRM is what keeps you from doing everything you want to do.
End of story.
Well actually this is off the back of a 30 month campaign, 50,000 signature petition and many MPs backing the mother of a victim of a deranged murderer whoes pasttime was viewing violent porn on the internet of the exact manner in which he killed this womans daughter.
So... like... if one were to nail 'em to a cross and crucify someone... could we get posession of the Bible criminalized?
Sickos can get an idea from anywhere!
Actually, I don't consider Linux hard to use and see no reason to "hide" from people that are not smart enough to use it.
And I'm absolutely thrilled that for once... they have to pay for their stupidity by paying for an OS.
So, you can be happy that your computer will share it's printer to everyone that happens to be within spitting range of it's network... and I'll be happy mine won't give you the time of day.
Jesus Christ, under what circumstance would you build a desktop machine that powerful and use linux?
Seems like, if you are building a god box... you simply want the very best.
The real question is: which Linux.
;-)
Yes, this attitude is also shared by a lot of Linux developers. Nuff said.
It is also recognized by many people as the absolute best default state for any network device.
I'm not surprised that as a happy Win98 user you don't know this...
What does any of this have to do withWhich was the *entire* point?
In Win98 I can share a printer or a folder with my workgroup peers with minimal configuration and NO master server that has to be up all the time.
And with Linux you don't have to worry about that staying up all the time part... it... just... stays... up.
P.S. I consider the share anything with anyone easily "feature" to be a bug. Then again, my default policy is "go the fsck away" (deny all).
I'd say it HAS come quite a long way in the last 15 years
I just have to wonder how those advances compare against Linux when compared on a dollars to develop per feature basis...
I personally think that when you compare the advances each OS has made over the years vs. the amount of $$ paid to create the product... MS starts looking like a bunch of amateurs. (Ironically, they are the one being paid... the "professionals")
MS may be great at generating a profit, but they suck at efficient software production.
And what would you recommend?
Realizing who the real terrorist are.
And...
Understanding the context of a few thousand people dieing because of terrorism. We easily put up with much worse things in life.
Terrorism rates extremely low on the probability scale when it comes to how you will die.
Just for a start...
Oh yeah, I'd also recommend stop being such a chicken shit.
Depends on where you work.
But... I definitely want one!
This seems to be a relatively straightfoward contract dispute...
It is.
It is a contract dispute based on the fact that the copyright holder can control the use of the copyrighted material...
Copyright was the leverage the software vendor used to get the contract signed.
IANAL, but it could be a legal liability, as the car owners might sue not only the owners of the robot-garage, but the vendor as well.
I'd think the lawsuit against the software vendor would be thrown out on the basis that they have no "relationship" with the car owner. This is a straight forwared contract dispute.
None of the car owners decided to use that vendor's software... they decided to use the parking structure of an entity that used the software.
The people that decided to use the proprietary software, and then not renew the license, are the ones to go after...
What if the only binaries whose cryptographic signature matches happen to be binaries that come out of Redmond?
Then everyone you know would be making fun of you for being so stupid as to buy a computer that doesn't do what you want it to do.
That is what I don't get about all of the responses in this thread.
Hello people... if all they are selling is shit... spend your money on something else.
Nobody is going to make you buy these things.
And no manufacturer that trades on a U.S. stock exchange will risk the value of their stock plummeting because everyone decided not to upgrade until something more palatable comes out.
He's into Linux for the engineering, not to Free the software world.
Actually, I think he is being very consistent.
As a programmer he wants to be able to do exactly what he wants with software he writes. And he believes all programmers should be able to do that.
So, if a programmer wants to close his source... that is fine. It is the programmer's software.
And, hardware is treated the same way. The "person" that creates it gets to set the rules on how it is used.
Live or die by that choice.
I am curious about why he chose the GPL and not something BSD-ish for Linux.
Because his choice of payment for using his code was sharing your modifications to his code. BSD like licenses do not compel reciprocation.
Manufacturers should be able to go out of business in any method they desire.
Slightly off topic, but...
It'd still be better than Windows if you could simply inspect the code... compile the code... and verify that the code you compiled matches the code they provided.
MS shows (some) people "the code"... but never enough to actually compile the whole darn thing and verify that what they showed you is what is actually being run.
The Army can do what it feels it must do to protect its own security.
Wonder how long it will take them to figure out that from a TPM standpoint they are the user. Not the one in control of the computer...
Trusted computing is like a crappy old rope that you know is going to snap the minute you hold on to it
You thought it was a crappy old rope that would break instantly, but you realized it was actually a very new rope right after they slipped it around your neck and threw you over.
To bad you didn't get to think much after that...
At least, that's how it works for other software.
How does "other software" keep me from tweaking the registry?
Admitting that our government spies on it's own citizens 'give adversaries of this country valuable insight into the government's intelligence activities'?
You have to remember that to this administration the democrats are "advesaries of this country".
Personally, I think that makes members of the administration "legitimate targets".
It appears that I got lost in the thread somewhere... (must have been trying to work)
Thanks for putting me back on track!
You should patent that idea... I'm almost sure it would fly in the U.S.
Unfortunately...
You have firefox on a server?
I'm saying that something is even slower than your old iMac... it isn't the worst part of the equation... if you didn't notice a difference.
Because, if the network connection can spit the data out fast enough... there is a huge difference between my oldest Mac and even a three year old system.
I'd have to throttle my network connection back quite a bit for my G4 TIBook to be as slow as my wife's G3.
In other words...
If your network connection can't deliver data faster than the slowest computer can render it, you won't see a significant difference with a faster computer. It is already being rendered as fast as it is being delivered.
That sounds like the situation *you* have... no significant difference between machines.
I, on the other hand, see quite a difference between machines. (and my G5 is noticeably faster than my TIBook... but not nearly as much so)