First sale doctrine still applies. No one is forcing the student to give back what they paid for if it is a physical disk.
I was referring to books -- the things with paper pages.
You have to agree to a EULA to get more than a shiny coaster from a software CD that you paid hundreds for, which sets the precedent for:
You have to agree to a (shrink-wrap) EULA to get more than a shiny coaster from a movie DVD that you paid for, which sets the precedent for:
You have to agree to a (shrink-wrap) EULA to get more than a shiny coaster from an e-book that you paid for, which sets the precedent for:
You have to agree to a (shrink-wrap) EULA to get more than a shiny coaster from a music CD that you paid for, which sets the precedent for:
You have to agree to a (shrink-wrap) EULA to get more than a doorstop from a paper book that yo paid for.
We're already well down the first three steps as case law in the USA. I await with fascination the progress down the rest of the way, which is doing the "boil the frog slowly" act. The content cartel is being cautious about getting too close to that last step because they're (perhaps rightly) afraid that if the courts start comparing movies and music to books too soon they won't support the lock-down of movies and music -- or even software.
They allow EULAs on shrink-wrapped software and shrink-wrapped DVDs already, what makes books any different?
I can't wait. The reason is that the US Federal courts have a long body of case law on the "first sale" doctrine. A publisher tried to put the equivalent of a EULA on a book back in the 19th century and got shot down, big time.
If someone makes the argument in court that they should be able to have a EULA on a book because they manifestly can on an e-book and there's no fundamental difference, the court is either going to have to twist itself into at least two additional dimensions to avoid either shooting down EULAs on e-books or overturning more than a century of fundamental copyright law.
If I understand the way copyright law works, this would be more than enough to let anyone with a registered copyright on part of the Linux kernel subpoena the source for LKP to check for infringement.
Should there in fact be apparently-infringing material there, then the copyright owner could get a preliminary injunction forcing SCOX to cease and desist immediately, and very likely an order recalling all licensed copies with infringing material.
Now, there would be a bond required but otherwise PI for infringement is dang near automatic. So a company with registered Linux kernel contributions and a bit of money could pretty much finish off SCOX as a software vendor by forcing their users to convert away.
I suppose that it's a good thing for SCOX that there aren't any companies like that who would be willing to go to court with them, now, isn't it?
This is an awful mixed metaphor. How does Slashdot expect its readers to navigate the treacherous IT seas with such poorly-seasoned and half-baked information?
It's easy when you're three sheets to the wind, even if you pepper your reply with editorial condiments. Anyway, the goose is sufficiently sauced to be worth a gander.
I hire any other sort of engineer, I expect a certain level of competence and a job done to agreed standards.
And if you hire any other sort of engineer, the standard you can demand depends on the engineer too. You're not going to be able to hire just any bloke who happens to have a BSEE and hand him the PCI-Express specification and then expect a low-BER implementation in a useful time frame.
Experience counts. Quality work requires skilled craftsmen.
Much more to the point, engineers are not cattle: you don't know everything you need just by counting heads in the herd.
The argument applies across the board with techies in the design end of things. Throwing bodies at a problem generally makes schedules slip even in the design state; what it does to the test and qualification stages is much worse.
My experience with this is in the IC design part of the world, but the rule remains: you're better off with half the people but good ones.
If you want to add bodies, let them do review work. It actually does contribute to quality, and has the added benefit of making better engineers out of the reviewers (and, IMNSOHO, of those who know that their work is going to be reviewed, too.)
After that you don't have a problem getting 20gigs over it... easy.
Size matters -- 20 Gb/s is a lot easier at 5 cm than at 30. However, a few of the big uglies about FR-4 are that it's:
anisotropic
hygroscopic
nonuniform
etc.
Yeah, you can spec "FR-4" with materials that mitigate a lot of that -- in which case you're most of the way to the cost of some of the cheaper alternatives.
Basically, it comes down to the fact that the cost of charging for access is greater than the access is worth to most customers.
Some people have a hard time with "giving (it) away" but when they try charging for (it) they end up spending a fortune on lockdown tools, auditing, system maintenance, cashier time, customer delays getting coffee, etc. Never mind the good/ill will issue, it's just difficult to justify at a basic cost-of-doing-business level.
If Intel's going to go through the trouble to assign developers to set up and maintain the project if they're going to purposely lock out Linux.
That doesn't parse, but I think I understand what you meant.
Anyway, I know from close contact that the left hand at Intel often doesn't know what the right hand is doing. Parts of the company don't even know that non-Microsoft systems exist. As a result, they aren't in the least concerned that they're creating a system that's open to abuse.
The scenario, as MS has pointed out, is that later MS operating systems refuse to boot on hardware that doesn't insist on signed software. Needless to say, the mobo makers comply.
Problem solved, since that narrows the field to Red Hat and Novell, maybe Mandriva. Official releases only. Anyone else either has to do development on custom hardware or forget about it -- no more custom kernel builds.
Voila! Microsoft knows how to deal with corporate entities. The future is bright.
There was never a question of whether Linux would support EFI; of course it can and will.
The question was whether EFI/DRM systems would allow Linux to boot and run. For the first acts in this drama, see Microsoft's efforts to prevent Linux and other "unapproved" software from running on the XBox.
The main hurdle for desktop linux has always been lack of seemless driver integration.
Funny, I always thought it was lack of applications.
As for "seamless driver integration" I don't see how a different BIOS is going to help when I plug in a USB device. Never mind that different operating systems have different driver semantics and will thus tend to use specialized drivers for all but the most trivial functions.
Funny, cause Intel, AMD, HP, and DELL are all four linux supporters. Seems to me that Microsoft is the only one that is anti-linux.
All five would be more than happy to have "Linux" be redefined as a cryptographically-signed binary supported by a "responsible" company such as Novell or Red Hat.
The first four, because it suits their corporate customers. Debian, Gentoo, etc. just divert efforts away from supporting the two major distributions that Really Matter.
Microsoft, of course, because they know how to "deal with" corporate entities.
From Microsoft's point of view, F/OSS really is like terrorism. Honest. Like national armies, they know how to wage war against similar entites with known addresses, but have a hard time getting traction against amorphous movements which won't stay put for the ICBM treatment.
You're not allowed to know that under the Patriot Act. In fact, even asking has identified you as a terrorist; the Department of Homeland Security has been notified.
Slashdot Mirror
I was referring to books -- the things with paper pages.
We're already well down the first three steps as case law in the USA. I await with fascination the progress down the rest of the way, which is doing the "boil the frog slowly" act. The content cartel is being cautious about getting too close to that last step because they're (perhaps rightly) afraid that if the courts start comparing movies and music to books too soon they won't support the lock-down of movies and music -- or even software.
Yeah, and most of that $3.2 million is Baen WebScriptions and has no DRM at all.
I can't wait. The reason is that the US Federal courts have a long body of case law on the "first sale" doctrine. A publisher tried to put the equivalent of a EULA on a book back in the 19th century and got shot down, big time.
If someone makes the argument in court that they should be able to have a EULA on a book because they manifestly can on an e-book and there's no fundamental difference, the court is either going to have to twist itself into at least two additional dimensions to avoid either shooting down EULAs on e-books or overturning more than a century of fundamental copyright law.
If I understand the way copyright law works, this would be more than enough to let anyone with a registered copyright on part of the Linux kernel subpoena the source for LKP to check for infringement.
Should there in fact be apparently-infringing material there, then the copyright owner could get a preliminary injunction forcing SCOX to cease and desist immediately, and very likely an order recalling all licensed copies with infringing material.
Now, there would be a bond required but otherwise PI for infringement is dang near automatic. So a company with registered Linux kernel contributions and a bit of money could pretty much finish off SCOX as a software vendor by forcing their users to convert away.
I suppose that it's a good thing for SCOX that there aren't any companies like that who would be willing to go to court with them, now, isn't it?
It's easy when you're three sheets to the wind, even if you pepper your reply with editorial condiments. Anyway, the goose is sufficiently sauced to be worth a gander.
No, the posting (at least tried to) implies that IBM is changing the rules on the search game.
Chum are the bait that you throw to sharks to get them fighting each other.
So you're proposing that space launches be made from near Andrews AFB from now on?
Some of the work on high-tensile fiber is headed there now.
And if you hire any other sort of engineer, the standard you can demand depends on the engineer too. You're not going to be able to hire just any bloke who happens to have a BSEE and hand him the PCI-Express specification and then expect a low-BER implementation in a useful time frame.
Experience counts. Quality work requires skilled craftsmen.
Much more to the point, engineers are not cattle: you don't know everything you need just by counting heads in the herd.
My experience with this is in the IC design part of the world, but the rule remains: you're better off with half the people but good ones.
If you want to add bodies, let them do review work. It actually does contribute to quality, and has the added benefit of making better engineers out of the reviewers (and, IMNSOHO, of those who know that their work is going to be reviewed, too.)
Size matters -- 20 Gb/s is a lot easier at 5 cm than at 30. However, a few of the big uglies about FR-4 are that it's:
Yeah, you can spec "FR-4" with materials that mitigate a lot of that -- in which case you're most of the way to the cost of some of the cheaper alternatives.
Did I mention that power is an issue?
Some people have a hard time with "giving (it) away" but when they try charging for (it) they end up spending a fortune on lockdown tools, auditing, system maintenance, cashier time, customer delays getting coffee, etc. Never mind the good/ill will issue, it's just difficult to justify at a basic cost-of-doing-business level.
Never mind that -- one stroke is all you ever get?
I read that book a long time ago.
Personally, I prefer an end-to-end architecture.
That doesn't parse, but I think I understand what you meant.
Anyway, I know from close contact that the left hand at Intel often doesn't know what the right hand is doing. Parts of the company don't even know that non-Microsoft systems exist. As a result, they aren't in the least concerned that they're creating a system that's open to abuse.
The scenario, as MS has pointed out, is that later MS operating systems refuse to boot on hardware that doesn't insist on signed software. Needless to say, the mobo makers comply.
Problem solved, since that narrows the field to Red Hat and Novell, maybe Mandriva. Official releases only. Anyone else either has to do development on custom hardware or forget about it -- no more custom kernel builds.
Voila! Microsoft knows how to deal with corporate entities. The future is bright.
From reliable reports, it's epidemically infective in offices that have never encountered it before.
Sort of like when the Europeans introduced smallpox to the Western Hemisphere, there's no resistance.
Well, there's this
Use MSN to see where you grew up before the freeway went through.
Intel and Microsoft told them to.
There was never a question of whether Linux would support EFI; of course it can and will.
The question was whether EFI/DRM systems would allow Linux to boot and run. For the first acts in this drama, see Microsoft's efforts to prevent Linux and other "unapproved" software from running on the XBox.
Funny, I always thought it was lack of applications.
As for "seamless driver integration" I don't see how a different BIOS is going to help when I plug in a USB device. Never mind that different operating systems have different driver semantics and will thus tend to use specialized drivers for all but the most trivial functions.
All five would be more than happy to have "Linux" be redefined as a cryptographically-signed binary supported by a "responsible" company such as Novell or Red Hat.
The first four, because it suits their corporate customers. Debian, Gentoo, etc. just divert efforts away from supporting the two major distributions that Really Matter.
Microsoft, of course, because they know how to "deal with" corporate entities.
From Microsoft's point of view, F/OSS really is like terrorism. Honest. Like national armies, they know how to wage war against similar entites with known addresses, but have a hard time getting traction against amorphous movements which won't stay put for the ICBM treatment.
/me goes to wall. Remebers last drywall repair bill. Resists.
I can see how in a moment of weakness it could happen.You're not allowed to know that under the Patriot Act. In fact, even asking has identified you as a terrorist; the Department of Homeland Security has been notified.