First topic - app stability... Which apps are currently not stable for use under Linux? Do these apps bring the _entire_system_ to its knees when they become unhappy? As for the initial assertion of app instability, I would present the anecdotal evidence that in the 3 years that I've been running Linux, I have yet to see a non-beta app actually crash. I have seen memory leaks and the like in things like netscape and KDE, but these are certainly not OS issues. And these _do_not_ bring the entire system down.
Next issue - costs of ownership - take a look in May's Wired. The research has been done. Linux is significantly less costly to own, run and administer. With the advent of 24x7 support at prices significantly less than Microsoft charges, this gulf will increase. With the work put in by the people developing various configuration tools, the costs of administering Linux boxes are decreasing without sacrificing the control and flexibility we have come to expect.
Next issue - PPP setup - 1 hour?!?! Come on! Using Slackware (without any of the cute little GUI tools that come with Red Hat), I had my first PPP connection up within 15 minutes, and had it scripted within another 15. My cable modem took me 15 minutes total on Linux (compared to 45 on Windows 98).
Look, I couldn't care less about 'world domination' - but if you're going to attack the choices I make with lies and FUD, I won't stand for it.
Free for use is the biggest load of double speak I've heard lately. It tries to coopt the term "free software" (in the FSF parlance) while completely opposing the spirit of this concept. Let's be honest. Real translation:
------------ Q: Will the work be Open Source?
A: Most of the work done for Microsoft will be released as Open Source, but some of it will be distributed only as proprietary Win32 binaries. Part of our business model is to sell proprietary components that only run on Win32. Everything that is not Win32 proprietary will naturally be distributed exactly under the same terms as Perl. (Because it has to be.)
The ActiveState installer for Perl and any other technologies that we develop and want to make money from, such as PerlScript and Perl for ISAPI, will continue to be proprietary Win32 only binaries.
In summary, some of the things we do will be Open Source, and the remaining things will continue to be proprietary Win32 only binaries. -----------
Look, fact is, yeah - ActiveState is attracting people to Perl. But at what cost?
You miss the fact that the non-M$ world doesn't (and shouldn't) live in a vacuum, completely separate from the M$ world.
Would you suggest that what M$ has done to Java with embrace and extend hasn't affected the non-M$ world? If so, you're living in a dream world. M$ is the major reason that Java is seen as exclusively a Web-oriented thing, and that the most exposure most people get to Java is applets on a web page.
Now, that said, Perl does have an advantage in that it is open source. Unfortunately, it's published under Artistic License which is significantly less restrictive on proprietary stuff than the GPL.
ActiveState should be condemned for going along with Microsoft's goal of proprietarizing (and trivializing) yet ANOTHER language. Microsoft ripped the soul out of Java, and now they're going after Perl.
While I would suggest that Demon is likely in the wrong here, in terms of deleting posts which contain references to the original article, I am concerned at the backlash against Demon and the UK Legal system for the removal of the initial post.
To those that oppose the court's decision to force Demon to remove the original posting --> go to deja.com and actually do your background research.
Clearly, not everyone here knows what really occurred. A quick visit to deja.com and a search on soc.culture.thai (past messages ~1997) should indicate precisely what happened. It was not a simple case of an individual posting nasty stuff about another individual. It was an individual impersonating another individual (with apparent malice), and saying some very inflammatory things.
Unfortunately, because that message has been cancelled, it no longer exists in its entirety (on Deja at least). As a result, we are not qualified to say where the message originated from. If it in fact was originally posted through the Demon USENET server, then it certainly is possible that Demon is liable by virtue of having contributed by failing to take adequate measures to ensure that forgeries are not permitted to their users. Further to the point, when Demon was informed that this message was indeed a forgery, they refused to remove it.
So let's consider a situation, shall we... Somebody posts a message to talk.religion.jewish.orthodox, claiming to be you - the headers look reasonably legit, and the message is Nazi propaganda - keep in mind that for all anybody knows, you are the one that posted this message - and everyone upset by this message has your email address. Let's say you say "Hey, that wasn't me, and _ask_your_sysadmin_ to cancel the post," and he refuses. What do you do? This is probably the closest analogy to this situation that has been posted on the subject.
Consider another situation... Consider that you are a very good programmer. Consider that you are about to release a great piece of software. Consider that somebody else releases a hideously buggy unacceptable piece of software, and claims that it was written by you, shooting your credibility as a coder to hell. What do you do?
The report only shows (claims?) that Mac OS X running Apache is faster than Solaris running Netscape Enterprise or NT running IIS.
I would suggest that this test shows nothing more than the relative speeds of Apache, IIS and Netscape Enterprise. If one wanted relevant speed comparisons for the OS's, one would most certainly hold the server as a control variable - that is to say that each of the machines would be running Apache.
Further, the Solaris test is an example of very poor science - a dual 200MHz SPARC is not necessarily comparable to a PII 400 MHz Intel or G3. You can't just multiply processor speed by number of processors.
Even worse, the "report" makes no mention whatsoever of configuration of the servers, the setup of the client machines, or any other variables that one would expect any HONEST test would control.
The only thing made clear in the test "report" is that this test says NOTHING about Linux's performance.
While I certainly accept your right to choose a Microsoft operating system, I can't say that I quite understand it.
You suggest that the reason you had to reboot the system the last time was because a WinAmp plugin started acting up. For myself, I would find it unacceptable to use an Operating System that ALLOWS such an application to do such a thing.
The reality is... I don't use Linux because I dislike Microsoft. I don't use Linux because I find Microsoft's business tactics reprehensible. I use Linux because It is reliable... It is fast even on my P120... It supports my hardware flawlessly (3Com ethernet/USR modem are better supported under Linux than under Win95)... It provides an ideal development environment... It is open source so problems are fixed quicker and cheaper... It has a rational method of dealing with shared libraries so that I don't need to reboot to install software... It's user interface is customizable and replaceable... It's modularly designed, separating interface from kernel... It supports well developed industry standards... It comes with most of what I need to do my job (I don't have to buy a separate compiler/web server/database/word processor/etc.)... It has all of the expected features of a modern operating system (including file level security, memory protection, preemptive multitasking, virtual memory)... It is compatible with numerous other operating systems in basic networking services (Samba,NFS,Appletalk,etc...)... It is compatible with numerous other operating systems' file systems (NTFS,HPFS,FAT16,FAT32,AFS,...)... Development and design direction is dictated by the users...
That said, I understand that to some people the most important feature of an operating system (or anything else for that matter) is market share. I don't share this view, but I will welcome and help you over to Linux when the time comes.
The thing that most users (who haven't looked at a line of code let alone written one) do not seem to understand is the sheer and utter complexity of the SYSTEM on which their games sit. They can't fathom the complexity of the jumble of hardware and software that they call a PC.
If we were talking about a Pinto exploding - great, it's clear where the fault is. If, however, we're talking about some game or some app, Is it flaky undocumented DirectX bugs, bugs in the API, bugs in OEM specific hardware driver, simple interaction with another (seemingly) unrelated piece of software, or is it the fault of the software that's acting up?
People do not realize that the software that exhibits the symptoms is not necessarily the one causing the problems.
As for what we can do as an industry to make this situation better... We simply can't turn back and kill all of the complexity in the system. We need to support models which separate these different layers of software. We need to support a model which seperates the GUI from the kernel, and which, within the kernel has a modular design. We need to support a model which standardizes interfaces and supports those standards fully. (as opposed to a certain OS that claims to be POSIX but doesn't even have a fork syscall) We need to support a model which deals with things like shared libraries in a rational well-defined manner. Most of all, we need to support a model which allows us to find out what problems are and fix them.
The reality is this. A government appointed regulatory body sitting around trying to point fingers can't do squat to fix the problems existing. A collaborative attempt must be made by computer professionals (and particularly open-source professionals) to define a model for understanding the interactions of different pieces of the system.
You suggest that market share does not indicate a monopoly, without providing any backing statements. What does define a monopoly?
Rockefeller held a lesser percentage of the market share of oil when he was prosecuted for anti-trust violations. He, at the time, owned the commodity for the time - when people thought of oil, they thought Rockefeller. Now, Microsoft owns the commodity for our time - INFORMATION - when people think of this, they think of MS. Where is the difference?
That said, holding a monopoly is not in and of itself illegal. Microsoft has, however engaged in illegal product tying (Sherman Act) in order to leverage their monopoly in one field (OS) into a monopoly in another. Caldera has also alleged that MS abused their monopoly in one field (OS) to obtain a monopoly in another (GUI) by illegally tying the Windows GUI to the DOS kernel.
Microsoft has continually attacked smaller upstarts with potentially competitive technology with tactics like vapourware and FUD. Do you remember who produced the first pen computing device? Hint- It wasn't MS and it wasn't 3Com.
Microsoft's maintenance of their monopolies is also concerning. Microsoft's strategy for corporate and business deployment requires an intense belief in the concept that homogeneous networks are the ONLY answer. When Sun came out with Java, Microsoft saw that position threatened. What did they do? They chose to completely undermine the Java standard. They decided to destroy the one major threat from Java - platform interoperability.
Microsoft's business practices are repugnant because they hold the indsutry back. Microsoft's business practices are illegal because they seek to obtan monopolies (the one MAJOR failing of the capitalist system).
In the beginning, there was a promise of true platform independance with Java. Microsoft saw this as a dangerous threat to their emerging server strategies. To see why, we have to examine the origins of Microsoft's server market...
Prior to NT (and even the NT-OS/2 debacle), Microsoft had wrapped up the desktop market. Every PHB, and most others had a Windows/DOS box on their desktop. Microsoft saw a lucrative server market that it wished to enter. Microsoft chose to play on fears of platform incompatibility to encourage blind adoption of homogeneous network solutions. This allowed them to leverage their massive desktop installed base to grow their server market.
There was a problem, however. Java came along. Java's not yet realized promise of true platform independance would kill the fear tactics supporting Microsoft's server business. Java would provide people with the option to choose heterogeneous computing environments. It would provide people with the option of choosing anb operating environment based on speed, reliability and security, instead of market share.
Rather than encouraging and nurturing a growing technology, Microsoft set out to destroy it. Microsoft attacked the true purpose of Java, undermining its fundamental underpinning - platform independance.
What the courts are saying today is this is not acceptable. It is not reasonable for us to require a trademark owner (Sun) to allow a licensed user (Microsoft) of that trademark (Java) to use that trademark in order to undermine that trademark.
Certainly, the GPL is filled with strict legalese... There are very strong restrictions on what you can and can't do with GPL'd code. Really, if you want to create a surviving standard, you have to have one of three things
1) Enforced Open source (Linux) 2) Installed Base (M$ Window$) 3) Strongly worded licenses (Java)
These are all strategies designed to stop people from killing your standard. M$ had some very strong business reasons to try to kill Java. As a result, Sun had some very good reasons to try to protect it - they just didn't do it the right way. Open Source ensures that your competitors can't steal the standard from under you, and twist it into something different, or kill it for reasons other than technical reasons.
That said, cryptography developed by Canadians would likely have a VERY strong case against export regulations in the courts... The Canadian Supreme Court typically taken a very broad view of expression. The range of what is deemed to be expression is significantly broader in Canada than in the U.S. Mind you, the Crown would likely raise a S. 1 issue if brought to trial...
I personally don't export software to an embargoed country. I do, however, have a problem with the United States meddling with the trade policies and other politics of sovereign nations in a hypocritical manner. The United States is and has been more than willing to support tyrannical dictatorial regimes (such as Batista's, Iraq, China in the early to mid '80s) if they suit their needs. It shocks me to see so many people of any nationality supporting this level of hypocrisy.
As for embassies, you must be confused... There have been a few protests at government buildings against the Serbian bombings, and the occasional protest at the American embassies. However, I'm unaware of any rioting, rock throwing or bombing related to this issue in this country.
The point is - it's not for you, and it's not for your government to determine my morals. I have a hard enough time with my own government attempting to dictate morality. I DON'T want a government I'm not under the jurisdiction of to do the same damned thing.
that the Americans were screaming bloody murder when a private American plane was shot down in Cuban airspace because it refused to stop distributing American propaganda...
The United States has NO position of moral authority on this issue. This government has repeatedly supported oppressive dictatorships, so long as they were perceived as fascist rather than communist.
The American government suppressed information about the Holocaust and encouraged xenophobia until they absolutely had to become involved in WWII.
Do you really expect us to believe that the average Cuban would be better off if Batista (whom the Americans ardently supported) still held the reins of power in that country?
To suggest that the Americans are in ANY position to pass moral judgement on other nations is to ignore the history of this nation.
YOU may not legally be allowed to export it, but there are a number of distributors outside the US which are not bound by the stupid American export laws. So, worst comes to worst, if you can't (or don't wish to) jump through the hoops of obtaining an export permit for Linux, have somebody else export it to Iran.
(I am a proud Canadian who regularly, legally enjoys good Cuban cigars!)
Intriguing... quick fact finding mission... of the seven words, the following are registered, the others are listed as "ORDERED STATUS QUO ANTE...US District Court...":
Gore probly couldn't give a $#!% about the geek vote. The terms "Open Source", "Java" and "Linux have been sensationalized by the media, causing these terms to be fashionable in the rest of society.
He's using these words because they are buzzwords - the use of these words connotes intelligent and contemporary ideas. (at least to those who don't know what the words mean) Gore is simply trying to distance himself from those staid (Internet is bad! Save the children! censor, censor, censor!) old GOP candidates.
That said, is this an entirely bad thing? Yes, Gore is coopting our phrases inappropriately. Yes, Gore would appear to have little to no understanding of computers or computer culuture.
But he wants to know - he appears to understand that tech issues will cause the most important societal changes in the next millenium. He may not understand all the issues, he may not be drenched in the culture - but at least he understands the importance of the issues.
"If you install RedHat (or any other distribution) without paying attention to the security updates/alerts, you are basically asking crackers and script kiddies to invade your network."
As opposed to an NT installation, where the security updates/alerts are not quickly and obviously brought to your attention? The only reason that people see NT as more secure is that M$ doesn't publish security hole info so you can plug the hole.
Here's a clue: If you install any OS on a networked system without paying attention to the security updates/alerts, you are basically asking crackers and script kiddies to invade your network.
If you're clueless, you're gonna get screwed regardless of which OS you pick. If you're smart, you'll pick the OS that reduces your chances of getting screwed, by providing you with the information you need.
Incidentally, as for someone to sue... from the M$ EULA: LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT SHALL MICROSOFT OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF BUSINESS PROFITS, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, LOSS OF BUSINESS INFORMATION, OR ANY OTHER PECUNIARY LOSS) ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE SOFTWARE PRODUCT OR THE PROVISION OF OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT SERVICES, EVEN IF MICROSOFT HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. IN ANY CASE, MICROSOFT'S ENTIRE LIABILITY UNDER ANY PROVISION OF THIS EULA SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE GREATER OF THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY PAID BY YOU FOR THE SOFTWARE PRODUCT OR U.S.$5.00
With the release of W2K... As I understand it, the consent decree exempts descendants of NT (on the basis that it had not yet garnered a monopolistic control over the industry at large).
The consent decree was (and remains) a joke... It puts no practical limits or restraints on Microsoft's licensing that they can't step around or find a loophole.
Slashdot Mirror
First topic - app stability... Which apps are currently not stable for use under Linux? Do these apps bring the _entire_system_ to its knees when they become unhappy? As for the initial assertion of app instability, I would present the anecdotal evidence that in the 3 years that I've been running Linux, I have yet to see a non-beta app actually crash. I have seen memory leaks and the like in things like netscape and KDE, but these are certainly not OS issues. And these _do_not_ bring the entire system down.
Next issue - costs of ownership - take a look in May's Wired. The research has been done. Linux is significantly less costly to own, run and administer. With the advent of 24x7 support at prices significantly less than Microsoft charges, this gulf will increase. With the work put in by the people developing various configuration tools, the costs of administering Linux boxes are decreasing without sacrificing the control and flexibility we have come to expect.
Next issue - PPP setup - 1 hour?!?! Come on! Using Slackware (without any of the cute little GUI tools that come with Red Hat), I had my first PPP connection up within 15 minutes, and had it scripted within another 15. My cable modem took me 15 minutes total on Linux (compared to 45 on Windows 98).
Look, I couldn't care less about 'world domination' - but if you're going to attack the choices I make with lies and FUD, I won't stand for it.
Free for use is the biggest load of double speak I've heard lately. It tries to coopt the term "free software" (in the FSF parlance) while completely opposing the spirit of this concept. Let's be honest. Real translation:
------------
Q: Will the work be Open Source?
A: Most of the work done for Microsoft will be released as Open Source, but some of it will be distributed only as proprietary Win32 binaries. Part of our business model is to sell proprietary components that only run on Win32. Everything that is not Win32 proprietary will naturally be distributed exactly under the same terms as Perl. (Because it has to be.)
The ActiveState installer for Perl and any other technologies that we develop and want to make money from, such as PerlScript and Perl for ISAPI, will continue to be proprietary Win32 only binaries.
In summary, some of the things we do will be Open Source, and the remaining things will continue to be proprietary Win32 only binaries.
-----------
Look, fact is, yeah - ActiveState is attracting people to Perl. But at what cost?
You miss the fact that the non-M$ world doesn't (and shouldn't) live in a vacuum, completely separate from the M$ world.
Would you suggest that what M$ has done to Java with embrace and extend hasn't affected the non-M$ world? If so, you're living in a dream world. M$ is the major reason that Java is seen as exclusively a Web-oriented thing, and that the most exposure most people get to Java is applets on a web page.
Now, that said, Perl does have an advantage in that it is open source. Unfortunately, it's published under Artistic License which is significantly less restrictive on proprietary stuff than the GPL.
ActiveState should be condemned for going along with Microsoft's goal of proprietarizing (and trivializing) yet ANOTHER language. Microsoft ripped the soul out of Java, and now they're going after Perl.
While I would suggest that Demon is likely in the wrong here, in terms of deleting posts which contain references to the original article, I am concerned at the backlash against Demon and the UK Legal system for the removal of the initial post.
To those that oppose the court's decision to force Demon to remove the original posting --> go to deja.com and actually do your background research.
Clearly, not everyone here knows what really occurred. A quick visit to deja.com and a search on soc.culture.thai (past messages ~1997) should indicate precisely what happened. It was not a simple case of an individual posting nasty stuff about another individual. It was an individual impersonating another individual (with apparent malice), and saying some very inflammatory things.
Unfortunately, because that message has been cancelled, it no longer exists in its entirety (on Deja at least). As a result, we are not qualified to say where the message originated from. If it in fact was originally posted through the Demon USENET server, then it certainly is possible that Demon is liable by virtue of having contributed by failing to take adequate measures to ensure that forgeries are not permitted to their users. Further to the point, when Demon was informed that this message was indeed a forgery, they refused to remove it.
So let's consider a situation, shall we... Somebody posts a message to talk.religion.jewish.orthodox, claiming to be you - the headers look reasonably legit, and the message is Nazi propaganda - keep in mind that for all anybody knows, you are the one that posted this message - and everyone upset by this message has your email address. Let's say you say "Hey, that wasn't me, and _ask_your_sysadmin_ to cancel the post," and he refuses. What do you do? This is probably the closest analogy to this situation that has been posted on the subject.
Consider another situation... Consider that you are a very good programmer. Consider that you are about to release a great piece of software. Consider that somebody else releases a hideously buggy unacceptable piece of software, and claims that it was written by you, shooting your credibility as a coder to hell. What do you do?
The report only shows (claims?) that Mac OS X running Apache is faster than Solaris running Netscape Enterprise or NT running IIS.
I would suggest that this test shows nothing more than the relative speeds of Apache, IIS and Netscape Enterprise. If one wanted relevant speed comparisons for the OS's, one would most certainly hold the server as a control variable - that is to say that each of the machines would be running Apache.
Further, the Solaris test is an example of very poor science - a dual 200MHz SPARC is not necessarily comparable to a PII 400 MHz Intel or G3. You can't just multiply processor speed by number of processors.
Even worse, the "report" makes no mention whatsoever of configuration of the servers, the setup of the client machines, or any other variables that one would expect any HONEST test would control.
The only thing made clear in the test "report" is that this test says NOTHING about Linux's performance.
While I certainly accept your right to choose a Microsoft operating system, I can't say that I quite understand it.
You suggest that the reason you had to reboot the system the last time was because a WinAmp plugin started acting up. For myself, I would find it unacceptable to use an Operating System that ALLOWS such an application to do such a thing.
The reality is... I don't use Linux because I dislike Microsoft. I don't use Linux because I find Microsoft's business tactics reprehensible. I use Linux because It is reliable... It is fast even on my P120... It supports my hardware flawlessly (3Com ethernet/USR modem are better supported under Linux than under Win95)... It provides an ideal development environment... It is open source so problems are fixed quicker and cheaper... It has a rational method of dealing with shared libraries so that I don't need to reboot to install software... It's user interface is customizable and replaceable... It's modularly designed, separating interface from kernel... It supports well developed industry standards... It comes with most of what I need to do my job (I don't have to buy a separate compiler/web server/database/word processor/etc.)... It has all of the expected features of a modern operating system (including file level security, memory protection, preemptive multitasking, virtual memory)... It is compatible with numerous other operating systems in basic networking services (Samba,NFS,Appletalk,etc...)... It is compatible with numerous other operating systems' file systems (NTFS,HPFS,FAT16,FAT32,AFS,...)... Development and design direction is dictated by the users...
That said, I understand that to some people the most important feature of an operating system (or anything else for that matter) is market share. I don't share this view, but I will welcome and help you over to Linux when the time comes.
The thing that most users (who haven't looked at a line of code let alone written one) do not seem to understand is the sheer and utter complexity of the SYSTEM on which their games sit. They can't fathom the complexity of the jumble of hardware and software that they call a PC.
;-)
If we were talking about a Pinto exploding - great, it's clear where the fault is. If, however, we're talking about some game or some app, Is it flaky undocumented DirectX bugs, bugs in the API, bugs in OEM specific hardware driver, simple interaction with another (seemingly) unrelated piece of software, or is it the fault of the software that's acting up?
People do not realize that the software that exhibits the symptoms is not necessarily the one causing the problems.
As for what we can do as an industry to make this situation better... We simply can't turn back and kill all of the complexity in the system. We need to support models which separate these different layers of software. We need to support a model which seperates the GUI from the kernel, and which, within the kernel has a modular design. We need to support a model which standardizes interfaces and supports those standards fully. (as opposed to a certain OS that claims to be POSIX but doesn't even have a fork syscall) We need to support a model which deals with things like shared libraries in a rational well-defined manner. Most of all, we need to support a model which allows us to find out what problems are and fix them.
The reality is this. A government appointed regulatory body sitting around trying to point fingers can't do squat to fix the problems existing. A collaborative attempt must be made by computer professionals (and particularly open-source professionals) to define a model for understanding the interactions of different pieces of the system.
K, so that's my gobbledygook for the day
You suggest that market share does not indicate a monopoly, without providing any backing statements. What does define a monopoly?
Rockefeller held a lesser percentage of the market share of oil when he was prosecuted for anti-trust violations. He, at the time, owned the commodity for the time - when people thought of oil, they thought Rockefeller. Now, Microsoft owns the commodity for our time - INFORMATION - when people think of this, they think of MS. Where is the difference?
That said, holding a monopoly is not in and of itself illegal. Microsoft has, however engaged in illegal product tying (Sherman Act) in order to leverage their monopoly in one field (OS) into a monopoly in another. Caldera has also alleged that MS abused their monopoly in one field (OS) to obtain a monopoly in another (GUI) by illegally tying the Windows GUI to the DOS kernel.
Microsoft has continually attacked smaller upstarts with potentially competitive technology with tactics like vapourware and FUD. Do you remember who produced the first pen computing device? Hint- It wasn't MS and it wasn't 3Com.
Microsoft's maintenance of their monopolies is also concerning. Microsoft's strategy for corporate and business deployment requires an intense belief in the concept that homogeneous networks are the ONLY answer. When Sun came out with Java, Microsoft saw that position threatened. What did they do? They chose to completely undermine the Java standard. They decided to destroy the one major threat from Java - platform interoperability.
Microsoft's business practices are repugnant because they hold the indsutry back. Microsoft's business practices are illegal because they seek to obtan monopolies (the one MAJOR failing of the capitalist system).
"what webmaster in their right mind would dileberately exclude non-MS users?"
Unfortunately, a number have already adopted MS only features... VBScript, ASP, etc...
"Java will remain strong for web-based programming."
Not good enough. Java's promise was not web programming. Java's promise was true platform independance in a heterogeneous world.
"However, I do acknolege the need to provide some kind of monitoring system that will prevent young children from viewing such material."
Yeah. It's called parental guidance and involvement.
Big win for Sun/Java.
In the beginning, there was a promise of true platform independance with Java. Microsoft saw this as a dangerous threat to their emerging server strategies. To see why, we have to examine the origins of Microsoft's server market...
Prior to NT (and even the NT-OS/2 debacle), Microsoft had wrapped up the desktop market. Every PHB, and most others had a Windows/DOS box on their desktop. Microsoft saw a lucrative server market that it wished to enter. Microsoft chose to play on fears of platform incompatibility to encourage blind adoption of homogeneous network solutions. This allowed them to leverage their massive desktop installed base to grow their server market.
There was a problem, however. Java came along. Java's not yet realized promise of true platform independance would kill the fear tactics supporting Microsoft's server business. Java would provide people with the option to choose heterogeneous computing environments. It would provide people with the option of choosing anb operating environment based on speed, reliability and security, instead of market share.
Rather than encouraging and nurturing a growing technology, Microsoft set out to destroy it. Microsoft attacked the true purpose of Java, undermining its fundamental underpinning - platform independance.
What the courts are saying today is this is not acceptable. It is not reasonable for us to require a trademark owner (Sun) to allow a licensed user (Microsoft) of that trademark (Java) to use that trademark in order to undermine that trademark.
Certainly, the GPL is filled with strict legalese... There are very strong restrictions on what you can and can't do with GPL'd code. Really, if you want to create a surviving standard, you have to have one of three things
1) Enforced Open source (Linux)
2) Installed Base (M$ Window$)
3) Strongly worded licenses (Java)
These are all strategies designed to stop people from killing your standard. M$ had some very strong business reasons to try to kill Java. As a result, Sun had some very good reasons to try to protect it - they just didn't do it the right way. Open Source ensures that your competitors can't steal the standard from under you, and twist it into something different, or kill it for reasons other than technical reasons.
That said, cryptography developed by Canadians would likely have a VERY strong case against export regulations in the courts... The Canadian Supreme Court typically taken a very broad view of expression. The range of what is deemed to be expression is significantly broader in Canada than in the U.S. Mind you, the Crown would likely raise a S. 1 issue if brought to trial...
I personally don't export software to an embargoed country. I do, however, have a problem with the United States meddling with the trade policies and other politics of sovereign nations in a hypocritical manner. The United States is and has been more than willing to support tyrannical dictatorial regimes (such as Batista's, Iraq, China in the early to mid '80s) if they suit their needs. It shocks me to see so many people of any nationality supporting this level of hypocrisy.
As for embassies, you must be confused... There have been a few protests at government buildings against the Serbian bombings, and the occasional protest at the American embassies. However, I'm unaware of any rioting, rock throwing or bombing related to this issue in this country.
The point is - it's not for you, and it's not for your government to determine my morals. I have a hard enough time with my own government attempting to dictate morality. I DON'T want a government I'm not under the jurisdiction of to do the same damned thing.
that the Americans were screaming bloody murder when a private American plane was shot down in Cuban airspace because it refused to stop distributing American propaganda...
The author retains copyright to his work, and licenses others to use it, distribute it and modify it under certain conditions.
The United States has NO position of moral authority on this issue. This government has repeatedly supported oppressive dictatorships, so long as they were perceived as fascist rather than communist.
The American government suppressed information about the Holocaust and encouraged xenophobia until they absolutely had to become involved in WWII.
Do you really expect us to believe that the average Cuban would be better off if Batista (whom the Americans ardently supported) still held the reins of power in that country?
To suggest that the Americans are in ANY position to pass moral judgement on other nations is to ignore the history of this nation.
YOU may not legally be allowed to export it, but there are a number of distributors outside the US which are not bound by the stupid American export laws. So, worst comes to worst, if you can't (or don't wish to) jump through the hoops of obtaining an export permit for Linux, have somebody else export it to Iran.
(I am a proud Canadian who regularly, legally enjoys good Cuban cigars!)
I've seen far more Alpha's loaded with NT or VMS than Tru64...
Intriguing... quick fact finding mission... of the seven words, the following are registered, the others are listed as "ORDERED STATUS QUO ANTE...US District Court...":
shit.com
piss.com
tits.com
Gore probly couldn't give a $#!% about the geek vote. The terms "Open Source", "Java" and "Linux have been sensationalized by the media, causing these terms to be fashionable in the rest of society.
He's using these words because they are buzzwords - the use of these words connotes intelligent and contemporary ideas. (at least to those who don't know what the words mean) Gore is simply trying to distance himself from those staid (Internet is bad! Save the children! censor, censor, censor!) old GOP candidates.
That said, is this an entirely bad thing? Yes, Gore is coopting our phrases inappropriately. Yes, Gore would appear to have little to no understanding of computers or computer culuture.
But he wants to know - he appears to understand that tech issues will cause the most important societal changes in the next millenium. He may not understand all the issues, he may not be drenched in the culture - but at least he understands the importance of the issues.
I would prefer to also have one or all of the following choices:
- 42
- +INF
- -INF
- 3.14159265359
- 45i + 42
"If you install RedHat (or any other distribution) without paying attention to the security updates/alerts, you are basically asking crackers and script kiddies to invade your network."
As opposed to an NT installation, where the security updates/alerts are not quickly and obviously brought to your attention? The only reason that people see NT as more secure is that M$ doesn't publish security hole info so you can plug the hole.
Here's a clue: If you install any OS on a networked system without paying attention to the security updates/alerts, you are basically asking crackers and script kiddies to invade your network.
If you're clueless, you're gonna get screwed regardless of which OS you pick. If you're smart, you'll pick the OS that reduces your chances of getting screwed, by providing you with the information you need.
Incidentally, as for someone to sue...
from the M$ EULA:
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT SHALL MICROSOFT OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF BUSINESS PROFITS, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, LOSS OF BUSINESS INFORMATION, OR ANY OTHER PECUNIARY LOSS) ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE SOFTWARE PRODUCT OR THE PROVISION OF OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT SERVICES, EVEN IF MICROSOFT HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. IN ANY CASE, MICROSOFT'S ENTIRE LIABILITY UNDER ANY PROVISION OF THIS EULA SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE GREATER OF THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY PAID BY YOU FOR THE SOFTWARE PRODUCT OR U.S.$5.00
With the release of W2K... As I understand it, the consent decree exempts descendants of NT (on the basis that it had not yet garnered a monopolistic control over the industry at large).
The consent decree was (and remains) a joke... It puts no practical limits or restraints on Microsoft's licensing that they can't step around or find a loophole.
Keep in mind that many of eBay's members are NOT American. Cuban cigars are not illegal for us.