The GPL exists to make sure users always have access to source code. Without copyright law, people could take GPL code and sell proprietary versions with closed source modifications, going against the whole point of the GPL's existence. Basically, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. It's no surprise you posted anonymously.
"Browser choice in operating systems?" You already had a choice, and nobody is stopping you from downloading Firefox. The EU's browser ballot decision is a bizarre decision to prop up products that have floundered in the marketplace (e.g., Opera). They're basically calling you, the consumer, too stupid to type "www.opera.com" into an Internet Explorer box. The EU stepping in to enforce how companies do business (such as telling them how to bill their customers, who are free to choose someone else if they don't like how they're billed) is socialist intervention that should not be happening.
Money is not "profane." Money is just an object. People, however, have the capability of being profane, and that does not require money, capitalism, nationality, or anything else other than simply being a person who decides to be selfish.
Hey, look. Another dorm room political expert who puts dollar signs in proper names, because corruption only occurs in the U.S.! What was all that stuff about the U.N.'s oil for food program? I only criticize the U$!
Yes, people complain about those all the time, generally because they're technically poor -- I've never seen someone complain about them because of their "levels of success in the market". You seem to be implying things like "Microsoft are evil because the xbox was a commercial failure", which not only have I never seen anyone say, but also doesn't even make sense.
People make the same complaints about Google. You just don't see those complaints on Slashdot, which was my point.
And irrelevant personal attacks come off as douchey:-P But hey, maybe I am an obnoxious 12-year-old girl, doesn't make my points any less valid~
Crap like "O_o" is annoying to read.
Their email service speaks IMAP and POP (not sure what hotmail does), their web pages are cross-browser HTML (whereas microsoft's have a history of not only being broken in non-IE browsers, but being *deliberately* broken), their chat network is the standardised XMPP (as opposed to the closed MSN with a history of locking out unofficial clients), and when they wanted to extend that they published specs for the extensions (as opposed to keeping extensions proprietary to lock in users and extinguish other clients), when they want a new protocol (eg wave) it comes with open specs and an open source server for reference... Really not sure how you can say that google and MS are acting the same here.
Where is the open source release of Google's server code? Did you know that the GPL doesn't require release of code for remotely accessed software, so Google keeps it all closed? Did you know Google Code won't even accept the GPL Affero license that closes that loophole?
All you listed was email, HTML, and XMPP. Those are standards that everyone already used, and Google wants its ads on what everyone is using. Google isn't doing all this out of the goodness of their hearts. They're an advertising company with an IPO. They're only open when it suits them--that's why the other stuff remains closed source and proprietary.
As long as it speaks standard protocols, the fact that their end is closed source isn't a problem -- open protocols means I'm free to choose what software (eg, browser) runs on my PC, and if I stop liking their search then I'm not locked to them, I can use any other server which speaks the standards.
"Speaks standard protocols?" Do you even understand what I'm talking about? Google's core product is closed source, just like Microsoft. I can't install my own Google search engine on a server at home.
As for the rest of the paragraph, you're getting into monopoly territory which wasn't the point I was making. My point was that Google does many of the things Microsoft is criticized for doing--trying to tie products together to create a giant advertising platform, putting out a bunch of non-core products that go nowhere, and collecting user data for its own money-making purposes.
They advertise their other products all the time, yes; I've never seen them say "you can only have product X if you first pay for unrelated product Y" though, or bundle two completely separate apps together with no option to have them individually, or push products which only speak closed protocols thus locking you to that product family forever, etc...
Then you're purposely not looking because you're a fanboy, which was my original point.
iTunes music no longer has DRM, and several other music services also no longer have DRM, so I think this isn't as big an issue as the Slashdot readership will no doubt make it in the comments that follow. This is another story intended let everyone blame the RIAA for their piracy, I guess, as if that's a valid reason.
This gives rise to particularly stupid things like the name of the "system" folder, where all the Windows libraries and programs are kept. In 16-bit Windows, it was called system. In 32-bit Windows, it was called system32. In 64-bit Windows it's called, er, system32 again. Because although there's an API call that programs can make to find out the name of the folder, there are enough programs that don't bother using it and just blindly assume that it's called system32 (even when compiled as 64-bit) that it was better for backwards compatibility to leave it, even though it's chock full of 64-bit files.
32-bit files in turn go into a directory named syswow64. Right, it has 64 in the name, because it contains 32-bit libraries. Make sense? Only in Redmond. All these strange behaviors and clumsy APIs that they've built up over the years have just been plonked wholesale into 64-bit Windows. There's no escape from them.
Any imperceptible performance tradeoffs are worth the improved security foundations Windows 7 provides over XP. You'd have to have some really good reasons to willingly run a nine year old version of Windows on a computer devoted to internet access.
The primary reason for using Windows 7 would be the improved security. Anything else is a bonus, like superior multicore processing and other foundation improvements accrued in the nine years since XP was released.
Aaaaand here come the Google fanbois to the rescue. Microsoft is evil, but Google is okay!
1. They don't charge for those side products, if you don't like them don't use them. Unlike overpriced software you're forced to deal with because it truly does have a monopoly on office software.
Google has a search monopoly and is already under investigation, as reported on Slashdot. Google DOES charge for those side products--they charge advertisers. Google is an advertising company, so the expenses of their software development are made up by charging for ad views and data collection. They're not giving away software for free from the goodness of their hearts.
2. The first step to anything google is to manually go to google.com. Microsoft comes installed into almost every premade computer, with it's own software like IE and Outlook pre installed as defaults and using their services as default.
So what? Microsoft is free to add value to Windows by including an email client and a web browser. You guys are the ones who bash them for it, and I'm saying you don't bash Google for doing the same thing. You think Chrome OS is going to include the option for using Bing or Silverlight?
3. Google gives a very clear policy [google.com] on what information they save and why.
This is exactly what I was mocking. You guys don't trust anything Microsoft says, but you trust everything Google says. Google knows more about you than the NSA does, and they've given into government requests for information in the past. They're collecting data on you in order to make money and sell advertising. You only defend Google because they get hyped up by Slashdot as a Linux-using company that's taking on Microsoft.
Why don't you look up some of the stories about Google closing AdSense accounts for no reason or warning and not returning the money? How about the infamous cookie they store on your computer? Did you know Gmail parses all your email to deliver relevant ads and stores your messages indefinitely? Did you know Privacy International ranked Google "Hostile to Privacy" in 2007, the lowest rating available and the only company to receive that rating? What about censoring its search results to meet foreign demands?
All of this is stuff you'd criticize other companies for--especially Microsoft--but for some reason Google gets your praise.
I can't say I've ever even seen anyone complain about either company doing this o_O What are you talking about, and why is this supposed to be a problem?:S
Are we visiting the same site? People mock Microsoft for MSN Search/Bing, Windows Mobile, Silverlight, the Xbox, all the research lab projects it announces that never go anywhere, and more, which have all had varying levels of success in the market.
By the way, those smilies come off as an obnoxious 12-year-old girl.
Having a large platform is fine, if it's based on open standards, and people using third party clients and servers aren't shunned
Google only uses "open standards" when it suits it. They haven't open sourced their search engine, have they? Google is an advertising company that makes money through ads and data collection, and they leverage their hugeness as a search company all the time to push other products that contribute to their revenue.
It's interesting how people side with Google on this site, even though they're guilty of many of the things people complain about Microsoft doing, such as putting out lots of side products that have little to moderate success, attempting to tie branded products together to create one giant platform, and collecting data on users. Merely suggesting a competitor could actually make Google worry about something is even labeled rabble rousing.
Oh, geez, not the ridiculous "free advertising" argument again. Let's throw out the other Slashdot cliches too, like "obsolete business model," "cultural revolution," and "MAFIAA."
I like how both the article and the Slashdot submission completely ignore that file-sharing has dropped in the UK, especially among teens. Though I know this was posted on Slashdot to give pro-pirates the idea that sales are thriving in spite of piracy, this story doesn't disprove the effect piracy has on sales--if anything, it bolsters the idea that sales go up when piracy goes down.
And you Democrat voters want more of this, not less?
According to the polls, Congress and Obama are plummeting in the polls even among their previous supporters. And so the pendulum swings back once again...
The original lengths of copyrights were created in a time when the media wasn't as widely connected. Now because of television, movies, and digital formats, someone can make money off of their creation for a longer period of time, so the law was modified to deal with the change in the situation, as it should be.
I've never really understood why the Copyright Term Extension Act is such a huge issue for some people. Clearly, Disney still makes money off Mickey Mouse, and there's no valid reason they should be forced to relinquish that to the public domain simply because Mickey Mouse was created a long time ago.
Not to mention, I fail to see how extending the copyright on stuff they already own falls into the category of "stealing" our culture.
Why shouldn't Microsoft be able to put their browser as the first choice? Windows is their product, and Internet Explorer adds value to it. This whole idea is stupidly socialist. Nobody is forcing you to use Internet Explorer--you can download Opera yourself the moment Windows boots up using the very browser that is conveniently bundled with it.
Forcing a company to ship its competitors with its own product is ridiculous and anti-capitalism. Microsoft isn't forcing anyone to use Internet Explorer. People are free to download Opera on their own, and if Opera's CTO wants more people to know about Opera, they should do what a business is supposed to do and get the word out about their product, not plead to the government for assistance. If that still doesn't get more people using Opera, then that's just life.
Some people have adopted this crazy idea that there is supposed to be balanced competition at all times, enforceable by the government. The point of competition is that someone is going to end up on top, and the others have to fight to compete. The government should only be stepping in when the competitor on top is illegally affecting the market in some way, but that's not the case here. You can download Opera the moment you start up your Windows PC for the first time.
A large majority of the Linux movement does, in fact, depend on people uniting around hatred of Microsoft. It's one of the defining differences between the Linux and BSD communities.
Any GPL code would lose its protected status, which would apply to most of the free software you use. The whole point of the GPL is to give users access to source indefinitely, and that's why it's amusing when Slashdot's readership adopts all these anti-copyright positions that would end up invalidating the GPL, because the GPL is a license that copyrights the source code. Without GPL protection (aka, copyright protection), proprietary vendors could do whatever they wanted with your code.
It really gives one the impression that Slashdot's readers just accept whichever position is most self-serving--ranting about the evils of copyrights in a pro-piracy article (because they want free stuff from P2P networks), and ranting about the evils of commercial corporations in a GPL violation article (because they want free GPL software). You can't have it both ways.
Slashdot Mirror
The GPL exists to make sure users always have access to source code. Without copyright law, people could take GPL code and sell proprietary versions with closed source modifications, going against the whole point of the GPL's existence. Basically, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. It's no surprise you posted anonymously.
"Browser choice in operating systems?" You already had a choice, and nobody is stopping you from downloading Firefox. The EU's browser ballot decision is a bizarre decision to prop up products that have floundered in the marketplace (e.g., Opera). They're basically calling you, the consumer, too stupid to type "www.opera.com" into an Internet Explorer box. The EU stepping in to enforce how companies do business (such as telling them how to bill their customers, who are free to choose someone else if they don't like how they're billed) is socialist intervention that should not be happening.
There are plenty of really stupid EU decisions and criticisms from Europeans . You just need to step outside of Slashdot once in a while.
Money is not "profane." Money is just an object. People, however, have the capability of being profane, and that does not require money, capitalism, nationality, or anything else other than simply being a person who decides to be selfish.
Hey, look. Another dorm room political expert who puts dollar signs in proper names, because corruption only occurs in the U.S.! What was all that stuff about the U.N.'s oil for food program? I only criticize the U$!
Wow, what a kiss-ass comment intended to get cheap upmods.
People make the same complaints about Google. You just don't see those complaints on Slashdot, which was my point.
Crap like "O_o" is annoying to read.
Where is the open source release of Google's server code? Did you know that the GPL doesn't require release of code for remotely accessed software, so Google keeps it all closed? Did you know Google Code won't even accept the GPL Affero license that closes that loophole?
All you listed was email, HTML, and XMPP. Those are standards that everyone already used, and Google wants its ads on what everyone is using. Google isn't doing all this out of the goodness of their hearts. They're an advertising company with an IPO. They're only open when it suits them--that's why the other stuff remains closed source and proprietary.
"Speaks standard protocols?" Do you even understand what I'm talking about? Google's core product is closed source, just like Microsoft. I can't install my own Google search engine on a server at home.
As for the rest of the paragraph, you're getting into monopoly territory which wasn't the point I was making. My point was that Google does many of the things Microsoft is criticized for doing--trying to tie products together to create a giant advertising platform, putting out a bunch of non-core products that go nowhere, and collecting user data for its own money-making purposes.
Then you're purposely not looking because you're a fanboy, which was my original point.
iTunes music no longer has DRM, and several other music services also no longer have DRM, so I think this isn't as big an issue as the Slashdot readership will no doubt make it in the comments that follow. This is another story intended let everyone blame the RIAA for their piracy, I guess, as if that's a valid reason.
Arstechnica has an amusing fact about Microsoft's devotion to backwards compatibility:
Any imperceptible performance tradeoffs are worth the improved security foundations Windows 7 provides over XP. You'd have to have some really good reasons to willingly run a nine year old version of Windows on a computer devoted to internet access.
The primary reason for using Windows 7 would be the improved security. Anything else is a bonus, like superior multicore processing and other foundation improvements accrued in the nine years since XP was released.
Aaaaand here come the Google fanbois to the rescue. Microsoft is evil, but Google is okay!
Google has a search monopoly and is already under investigation, as reported on Slashdot. Google DOES charge for those side products--they charge advertisers. Google is an advertising company, so the expenses of their software development are made up by charging for ad views and data collection. They're not giving away software for free from the goodness of their hearts.
So what? Microsoft is free to add value to Windows by including an email client and a web browser. You guys are the ones who bash them for it, and I'm saying you don't bash Google for doing the same thing. You think Chrome OS is going to include the option for using Bing or Silverlight?
This is exactly what I was mocking. You guys don't trust anything Microsoft says, but you trust everything Google says. Google knows more about you than the NSA does, and they've given into government requests for information in the past. They're collecting data on you in order to make money and sell advertising. You only defend Google because they get hyped up by Slashdot as a Linux-using company that's taking on Microsoft.
Why don't you look up some of the stories about Google closing AdSense accounts for no reason or warning and not returning the money? How about the infamous cookie they store on your computer? Did you know Gmail parses all your email to deliver relevant ads and stores your messages indefinitely? Did you know Privacy International ranked Google "Hostile to Privacy" in 2007, the lowest rating available and the only company to receive that rating? What about censoring its search results to meet foreign demands?
All of this is stuff you'd criticize other companies for--especially Microsoft--but for some reason Google gets your praise.
Are we visiting the same site? People mock Microsoft for MSN Search/Bing, Windows Mobile, Silverlight, the Xbox, all the research lab projects it announces that never go anywhere, and more, which have all had varying levels of success in the market.
By the way, those smilies come off as an obnoxious 12-year-old girl.
Google only uses "open standards" when it suits it. They haven't open sourced their search engine, have they? Google is an advertising company that makes money through ads and data collection, and they leverage their hugeness as a search company all the time to push other products that contribute to their revenue.
It's interesting how people side with Google on this site, even though they're guilty of many of the things people complain about Microsoft doing, such as putting out lots of side products that have little to moderate success, attempting to tie branded products together to create one giant platform, and collecting data on users. Merely suggesting a competitor could actually make Google worry about something is even labeled rabble rousing.
Oh, geez, not the ridiculous "free advertising" argument again. Let's throw out the other Slashdot cliches too, like "obsolete business model," "cultural revolution," and "MAFIAA."
I like how both the article and the Slashdot submission completely ignore that file-sharing has dropped in the UK, especially among teens. Though I know this was posted on Slashdot to give pro-pirates the idea that sales are thriving in spite of piracy, this story doesn't disprove the effect piracy has on sales--if anything, it bolsters the idea that sales go up when piracy goes down.
According to the polls, Congress and Obama are plummeting in the polls even among their previous supporters. And so the pendulum swings back once again...
The original lengths of copyrights were created in a time when the media wasn't as widely connected. Now because of television, movies, and digital formats, someone can make money off of their creation for a longer period of time, so the law was modified to deal with the change in the situation, as it should be.
I've never really understood why the Copyright Term Extension Act is such a huge issue for some people. Clearly, Disney still makes money off Mickey Mouse, and there's no valid reason they should be forced to relinquish that to the public domain simply because Mickey Mouse was created a long time ago.
Not to mention, I fail to see how extending the copyright on stuff they already own falls into the category of "stealing" our culture.
No, you did--the BSD community existed before Linux. They're united because they like UNIX.
Why shouldn't Microsoft be able to put their browser as the first choice? Windows is their product, and Internet Explorer adds value to it. This whole idea is stupidly socialist. Nobody is forcing you to use Internet Explorer--you can download Opera yourself the moment Windows boots up using the very browser that is conveniently bundled with it.
Forcing a company to ship its competitors with its own product is ridiculous and anti-capitalism. Microsoft isn't forcing anyone to use Internet Explorer. People are free to download Opera on their own, and if Opera's CTO wants more people to know about Opera, they should do what a business is supposed to do and get the word out about their product, not plead to the government for assistance. If that still doesn't get more people using Opera, then that's just life.
Some people have adopted this crazy idea that there is supposed to be balanced competition at all times, enforceable by the government. The point of competition is that someone is going to end up on top, and the others have to fight to compete. The government should only be stepping in when the competitor on top is illegally affecting the market in some way, but that's not the case here. You can download Opera the moment you start up your Windows PC for the first time.
You may be interested to know that BSD existed before Linux.
A large majority of the Linux movement does, in fact, depend on people uniting around hatred of Microsoft. It's one of the defining differences between the Linux and BSD communities.
If you actually experience the emotion of hatred against a software company, you need to get some perspective and get a life.
Any GPL code would lose its protected status, which would apply to most of the free software you use. The whole point of the GPL is to give users access to source indefinitely, and that's why it's amusing when Slashdot's readership adopts all these anti-copyright positions that would end up invalidating the GPL, because the GPL is a license that copyrights the source code. Without GPL protection (aka, copyright protection), proprietary vendors could do whatever they wanted with your code.
It really gives one the impression that Slashdot's readers just accept whichever position is most self-serving--ranting about the evils of copyrights in a pro-piracy article (because they want free stuff from P2P networks), and ranting about the evils of commercial corporations in a GPL violation article (because they want free GPL software). You can't have it both ways.
So it's a copyright license. The FSF website even says "the GPL assures copyright of the software." But I thought Slashdot was against copyrights?