It's pretty obvious that a lot of Apple buyers are going to be pretty pissed off, and moreover, Apple will be losing a lot of sales that would've been definite before. I think that the problem goes deepr though. There's something rotten in the state of Apple - They would never have done something this stupid a year ago...
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
The first article really hits it dead on. Mozilla M10 is really a decent browser. It's engine, at least, renders most pages as well as any other (yes, MSIE5 is still better, blah blah blah). The only issue I have with it (and this article) is the UI. The GTK interface is kludgy at best. I compiled it under OpenBSD with Lesstif support and I was suprised at how similar it was to Netscape. Stable too! I say the Mozilla team gives some careful thought to the GTK interface. Too many gadgets and gizmo-widgets spoils the application.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Well in all fairness to Redhat, you wouldn't get any support from CheapBytes. Of course, most slashdotters don't want/need support anyway. But that's what you're paying for when you shell out $29.95, right? Support.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
All of those comments had to do with things that Bill Gates said. Paxman was just telling the audience what Gates said in the interview. If you think Gates is lying, that's fine, but don't blame the interviewer. It's called objectivity of journalism - look into it.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
This post mentions that Bill Gates seems to think that MS is reponsible for the sucess of the personal computer. I've heard many times here at Slashdot (mostly in reference to the Mac and Windows) about how MS didn't do anything of the sort, and this article tends to enforce that point. People argue that everything that happened with PCs would have occured anyway, and that MS just got lucky. Or that MS just stood on the backs of others.
Some of this is justifiably true. In fact, the industry would still have flourished if MS didn't exist. The time had come for the PC revolution. However, I think MS does deserve some credit. Their marketing and programming helped to get PCs on the desks of every employee in most companies. Sure, another company could have done it, but they didn't - MS did. I think it would behoove us to recognize Microsoft's place in the history of desktop computing as being beneficial. Sure, Windows isn't the greatest platform in the world, but it beats the hell out of nothing. Of course Linux kicks the shit out of nothing, but that's another story altogether.
Flame me now if you want, but all this anti-microsoft stuff just gets under my skin.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
In the article they say that being online is now a prerequisite. Of course this is true in the tech fields, but I think that everyday is gets more so in others./.ers take it for granted, but there are a whole bunch of people out there that really aren't accessing the Internet and it's really kind of a shame. I think we'll be seing this number (60%) rising like mad in the next 5 years, but that sort of goes without saying.
This is sort of a question for "Ask Slashdot" but when do you guys think that we'll have near 100% of people in industrialized countries will be online? The Internet is getting so pervasive that this is inevitable, it's just a matter of time.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
I hear ya - Elvis Costello is such an incredible musician. It's funny, I hear songs that he wrote in the late 70s still being played on modern rock "Mix" stations. That really says something about both his staying power and the fact that he was so ahead of his time. I'd love to see him on the current tour.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Pretty obviously "Rob Malda cares". See, I know Roblimo posted this, but CmdrTaco would definitely have if he didn't. Everyone who's been on/. for awhile knows how much he loves the Who and guess what? It's his site - he can put whatever he wants up. Don't like it? Go somewhere else.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
To be clear: I was definitely not born into money. I don't have money now, and I probably never will (not the kind that we're talking about anyway). Having said that:
How can you make such a blanket statement about people who inherit money? Yeah, I'm sure they all really think they're better than you because they have more of it. Come on, that's just plain ignorant bias. Certainly their are people out there who feel this way, but I'd like to point out that there are probably just as many people out there who think they're better than you that don't have more money. They're just conceited. It happens - deal with it.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Um, that's not even close to a good metaphor. Visa broke the law by lending money for gambling. You'd be breaking the law by shooting people. Since, by illegally buying the gun, you'd be breaking the law, you would also be in default of a loan, leaving Visa blameless for your actions. However, in this woman's case, she didn't break the law by spending the money, since the gambling was legal. Visa broke the law, because lending money for gambling is illegal.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
No, the judge probably thinks she's to blame. Fortunately our legal system does not operate on how a judge feels. That would be idiotic. This judge was doing his job and following legal definitions. Actually Visa really is to blame, or at least their lawyers are. They did not look into the possible ramifications of lending money to gamblers in California. Their oversite == Their fault. The woman exploited them (and got away with it), so she can't be too stupid. Having said that, I think she should probably be euthanized:)
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Well yes and no - A credit card is actually a form of loan. And of course, a bank (which a credit card company is) does have the ability to regulate who they loan money to and what the money will be used for. So, if the uses are illegal, the loan itself is questionable. That said, this woman still got away with murder.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
I'm not sure how you figure that. In my mind this isn't much of a fight. Or, at least, it's a fight that we can't really lose in. Even if MS managed to grab 99% of the market it wouldn't affect Linux as a platform. Because, obviously, Linux can't "go out of business". The users who count, the people who really love Linux, and UNIX in general, will stick around. And that's all that matters.
MS is a side-note that we sometimes get too wrapped up in. It doesn't have to be a personal battle though - Not hardly. Linux is a great platform for a huge array of uses. Let MS have their profits - we don't need them.
I use Linux and I am definitely not a zealot; I'm probably one of the most laid-back members of the Linux community. If MS wants to say that I am a zealot though, let them. I can take the hit. As much as I like what people like Perens and Raymond have done, we need developers more than we need enthusiasts. Let people who're in it for the money deal with that stuff - I just don't give a damn.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
No, no I know for a fact that they don't want to have a conversation about it. It's all marketing, of course. We all know that. And that's why it bugs me - we all know it. There's nobody who's been on slashdot for more than a week that doesn't understand the concept behind MS FUD. So, to go with your analogy, us harping on it is like people at a bible-study patting themselves on the back saying, "yep, we're going to heaven and, haha, all those other guys are dropping straight to hell!" It's just needless talking. Writing letters and complaining only goes so far. After a point it's just annoying and it's the exact reason that the Linux community has gotten pigeonholed as flamers and zealots.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Well to be honest, I couldn't care less about whether or not Linux gets market penetration. I've been using Linux since well before it became "viable" to businesses and if they get scared off I'll continue to use it. Moreover, if BSD should become a better choice, I'll switch to it in a second. I've already considered moving to OpenBSD, but Linux hasn't failed me yet. See, I have no particular attachment to Linux as an operating system and I've got no truck with leaving it for another UNIX system. It's the applications that are important. I think you'll find that most/.ers tend to feel this way - we all love Linux, but the applications come first. And, with this in mind, I want the GPL (which most of my apps are written under) to be tested now, before developers waste time and effort into writing more code under a bad license.
So if Linux doesn't get accepted by businesses? Fine, they can jump through hoops for all I care. Let them go back to NT or Solaris, but I'll stick with an OpenSource OS regardless. And I'll be damned if the code that I write, and the code that others write, will be taken advantage of down the road because the GPL was never put to task.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Nobody wants to ruin Corel - Corel's a pretty nifty company and they showed respect for developers in the manner they handled this issue. However, how can you say "Why?" to testing the GPL? Especially since you don't think it will hold up. Don't you think that we should know what about it isn't legally binding before we continue releasing software under it?
To your other point: BSD, of course, is not dead. BSD is just now picking up some very major momentum, as you've said. But they'd be a lot farther along now if they hadn't been put through so much legal crap with AT&T.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Difficult to "wright" alternatives, huh? Sorry, but that's sort of my point right there. Slashdot is basically a debate-forum, and there are certain characteristics of a good debate. One of them is defintely that it be well written (if it is, in fact, in written form). It's just laziness on the part of the debater to use this point-by-point style. Of course it's easier to cut-and-paste your points, but you lose quality in doing so.
My real beef with it is that breaking someone's argument into pieces and then arguing them individually is not really the same as arguing the piece as a whole. It's much easier to manipulate someone's words when you're doing the editing, wouldn't you say?
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
That's not a precedent. Well, it is, but it's only a precedent for Corel backing down. The kind of precedent we need is a legal one. A court (not just legal advice) decision saying that the GPL is indeed an enforceable copyright. That's a test, nothing else offers insurance.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Okay, is ANYONE else out there sick of/.'s lovely point-by-point rebuttals? If we're going to have an argument, at least do it in such a format to use your own words. Having said that:
You mistake me - Bruce had just about 100% support from/. (and me). I think what he did was very appropriate and he has my grattitude. I was simply saying that he did most of the work.
Are you trying to say that a fire department shouldn't be tested? If you can think of a way to test one without using fire, I'd be glad to hear it.
You are right, of course - I don't know that it wasn't intentional. I also don't know that it was. To be fair to Corel, I make the assumption that it wasn't and give them the benefit of the doubt.
You go on to say that when a company tries to test limits we push them back onto the "straight and narrow" - If a company isn't willing to cooperate then the only way to do that is through legal action. I am not suggesting that the OSS should've taken legal action against Corel. What I am saying is that we might have been better off if legal action had been necessary. Corel did the right thing - good for them. The GPL still hasn't been tested in court and that's something that needs to be done. Yes, I'm willing to set fire to my house - if only to keep the town from burning down.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
And yes, while it isn't a point-by-point rebuttal, it's still primarily there to dispute the accuracy of another article/story's claims. It just doesn't do it like most of the others do. Rather than arguing that the points don't make sense, it's arguing that the people making the points don't make sense. Not a huge difference in my mind.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
I really love Linux and the whole OSS community, but one thing I really am sick of seeing is articles/posts that "debunk" MS or some journalist's claims. It's not that I don't appreciate how offbase the articles are, but let's be honest - you could debunk the laws of gravity if you wanted to, and since gravity can't argue back, you aren't likely to get much of a fight doing so.
My point is this: debunking a claim, amongst a group of people who already know how crappy the claim is, is sort of pointless. It just shows how easy we are to piss off. What you're really doing is arguing with someone who isn't there anymore. Write a letter, make a phone call, but these "debunks" are preaching to the choir.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Whenever I (and a great deal of other people) hear Jobs speak, it's pretty impressive. My market-speak radar goes off like crazy and saves me, but this is a man who could sell anything. Any salesman will tell you that it's just a matter of confidence and being able to reach your audience, but Jobs really makes it into an art.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Is it really a victory? I'm as glad as anyone that Corel saw the error in their ways and fixed it when we (read: Bruce) asked them nicely. But part of me thinks that a trial-by-fire would have been useful. We need the GPL to be tested. We need legal precedents to establish a secure position. Corel wasn't intentionally trying to steal rights, but what if a larger company tried something like this (not mentioning any names: Sun, AOL, MS) - maybe it would've been easier to take Corel to task.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
It's just a language. If it were the other way around I would probably give up English in exchange for, say, French or something else entirely. I have no attachment for the language I speak. I enjoy it, and it's quirks, but I don't kid myself - ever language is full of stuff like this and English is no different. Don't take this the wrong way: I have a great deal of respect for history and culture, but I don't feel that the language one speaks is necessarily reflective of their background. Who cares what you speak. The point it to communicate - that's it. If the world was suddenly moving towards Russian as the defacto tounge, I'd learn it, and speak it (at least, to those who understood it). Because I would rather be heard than be proud.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Slashdot Mirror
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Some of this is justifiably true. In fact, the industry would still have flourished if MS didn't exist. The time had come for the PC revolution. However, I think MS does deserve some credit. Their marketing and programming helped to get PCs on the desks of every employee in most companies. Sure, another company could have done it, but they didn't - MS did. I think it would behoove us to recognize Microsoft's place in the history of desktop computing as being beneficial. Sure, Windows isn't the greatest platform in the world, but it beats the hell out of nothing. Of course Linux kicks the shit out of nothing, but that's another story altogether.
Flame me now if you want, but all this anti-microsoft stuff just gets under my skin.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
This is sort of a question for "Ask Slashdot" but when do you guys think that we'll have near 100% of people in industrialized countries will be online? The Internet is getting so pervasive that this is inevitable, it's just a matter of time.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
How can you make such a blanket statement about people who inherit money? Yeah, I'm sure they all really think they're better than you because they have more of it. Come on, that's just plain ignorant bias. Certainly their are people out there who feel this way, but I'd like to point out that there are probably just as many people out there who think they're better than you that don't have more money. They're just conceited. It happens - deal with it.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
MS is a side-note that we sometimes get too wrapped up in. It doesn't have to be a personal battle though - Not hardly. Linux is a great platform for a huge array of uses. Let MS have their profits - we don't need them.
I use Linux and I am definitely not a zealot; I'm probably one of the most laid-back members of the Linux community. If MS wants to say that I am a zealot though, let them. I can take the hit. As much as I like what people like Perens and Raymond have done, we need developers more than we need enthusiasts. Let people who're in it for the money deal with that stuff - I just don't give a damn.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
So if Linux doesn't get accepted by businesses? Fine, they can jump through hoops for all I care. Let them go back to NT or Solaris, but I'll stick with an OpenSource OS regardless. And I'll be damned if the code that I write, and the code that others write, will be taken advantage of down the road because the GPL was never put to task.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
To your other point: BSD, of course, is not dead. BSD is just now picking up some very major momentum, as you've said. But they'd be a lot farther along now if they hadn't been put through so much legal crap with AT&T.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
My real beef with it is that breaking someone's argument into pieces and then arguing them individually is not really the same as arguing the piece as a whole. It's much easier to manipulate someone's words when you're doing the editing, wouldn't you say?
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
You mistake me - Bruce had just about 100% support from /. (and me). I think what he did was very appropriate and he has my grattitude. I was simply saying that he did most of the work.
Are you trying to say that a fire department shouldn't be tested? If you can think of a way to test one without using fire, I'd be glad to hear it.
You are right, of course - I don't know that it wasn't intentional. I also don't know that it was. To be fair to Corel, I make the assumption that it wasn't and give them the benefit of the doubt.
You go on to say that when a company tries to test limits we push them back onto the "straight and narrow" - If a company isn't willing to cooperate then the only way to do that is through legal action. I am not suggesting that the OSS should've taken legal action against Corel. What I am saying is that we might have been better off if legal action had been necessary. Corel did the right thing - good for them. The GPL still hasn't been tested in court and that's something that needs to be done. Yes, I'm willing to set fire to my house - if only to keep the town from burning down.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
My point is this: debunking a claim, amongst a group of people who already know how crappy the claim is, is sort of pointless. It just shows how easy we are to piss off. What you're really doing is arguing with someone who isn't there anymore. Write a letter, make a phone call, but these "debunks" are preaching to the choir.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."