Would you like to put money on whether or not this results in any actual changes to the way the/. staff operate? Accountability? Appeals? Removing the pseudonames?
Complaining that someone else should change their behaviour when you (and your staff) are continuing to do exactly the same things with no intention of changing is hypocrisy, plain and simple.
I agree with you on the moral of the article. The kettle is black. However, the pot is black too, and doesn't seem to care much.
"The Editor I talked to had a nickname of something like 'CmdrTaco'. I found this disconcerting. If you were arrested by Officer ScuttleMonkey or found guilty by the honorable Judge CowboyNeal, it's hard to take that seriously."
I find it hard to take Taco's complaints seriously when he and the rest of the/. staff go about their business in exactly the same fashion that the WoW staff do. Feels different when it's someone else with the pseudonym, eh?
If I recall correctly, the karma cap was instituted as hard cap on increases only. Which meant that if you had 100 karma points prior to the cap, you had a 50-point "buffer" that you could lose points out of, but not increase.
I wonder if any of those ancient UIDs is still sporting above-the-cap karma. I know I'm sure not.:) Which is kinda weird, being considered a slashdot "old-timer"...
FreeBSD has had "official" CD sellers for a damn long time. Just flip through freebsdmall's history list and see how long they've been selling them for. Oh, and I hate to break it to you, but FreeBSD's been sold in chain-stores like CompUSA for quite a while too.
Now, had anybody (the original submitter, or the Slashdot staff) actually bothered to read this, they would've noticed that it said that this is Daemon News' first time carrying official FreeBSD CDs. Which isn't true either, based on the Daemon News online store, but hey. This is Slashdot. What do we care about actual fact?
I mean, geez. Come on, Slashdot staff, can't you actually take 30 seconds and read the @#$#ing article you're posting?
Satellites aren't my forte, but I think the flaws in this article were pretty blatant even to the uninitiated. I know *I* would be out of my job if I posted something like this about the servers where I work (which, btw, *are* secured and use encryption, thank you), and I don't work with multi-million dollar orbiting devices...
I mean, seriously. If you do work in "the satellite control industry" (that's a seperate industry from the satellite industry?) and are doing the work you claim to be, then you have several problems:
a) You should already know the answers to questions 1 and 2, and have enough of an understanding of 3 that removes the need to ask it. You should also already know, based on 1 1/2+ years here on the site, that this is *hardly* the forum for a real answer to that question.
b) You just divulged some fairly major security-vulnerability information on the internet equivelent of Prime Time television.
c) I would hope that nobody at your company gets wind of this posting, because it would not take a rocket scientist (*smirk*) to figure out who you are.
I'm really not trying to flame here, but this *really* seems like a horrible, horrible idea. From a security standpoint, if your systems are based on security through obscurity, the *last* thing you want is more attention being drawn to them, especially if the amount of attention being given to the subject matter is by nature usually small (how many people have satellite transmitters?) and prone to mass speculation (how many openly documented satellites are there?). Just by asking this on Slashdot, you've brought more attention on satellite-hacking as a whole, thereby astronomically increasing the chance that someone takes a more "active" interest in figuring out how to send your company's prized birds into a flaming death spiral.
Of course, all this assumes you are what you claim to be. You could very well be (as another poster suggested) a cleverly disguised troll.
I mean, geez. Shame on you for submitting, and shame on Cliff for posting it. Doesn't the/. crew think 5 minutes on a submitted article before posting?
(Moderators, feel free to mod this appropriately. I have more than enough Karma, thank you)
"Bullshit. You've fallen for the legal fiction that the software industry wants you to fall for. When you buy media containing a copy of the software in a fixed media (in the sense that copyright law speaks of expression being fixed in a media) you have certain rights already. You may utilize the software just as you may make use of a book. That in order to use the software means that you have to install it and make another copy and even make a third copy when you load it into RAM is inconsequential. That's how you use software."
Congratulations. You've fallen asleep while the UCITA was passed in several states, which turns most, if not all, of the "legal fiction" that major software manufacturers want people to believe into legal reality.
But regardless of the UCITA, I'm not talking about copying at all. I'm talking about distribution. If a friend gives you a copy of MS Windows 98 that he burned onto a cd, and gives you a copy of the CD Key, you have everything you need to use that software. Does it make it legal for you to have it? Hell no. That's fact, not fiction.
The same thing applies to books. If I break into a local bookstore and steal a copy of the new Steven King novel and then give it to you, it doesn't magically become legal for you to read it. Heck, it's not even legal for you to possess it. Why? It's stolen goods.
Now, try to follow along: If the only way to acquire a copy of the source code is via the terms of the GPL, and the GPL is ruled null and void in a court of law... Your license to have a copy of that software is no longer valid.
I'll repeat this again, for the sake of those that didn't get it the first time:
When you buy software, you're not "buying" the software. You don't own the software. You are not allowed to do whatever you want with it. If you buy Microsoft software from your local university, chances are you aren't even allowed to sell it to someone else.
Do you need a license to view software? No. Are software manufacturers (open-source and closed-source alike) satisfied with the distribution model provided by existing copyright law? No. Hence we have software licenses, with varying terms and conditions.
And, contrary to popular belief, EULAs are both good and bad. The GPL is a form of EULA, you know.
I'll tell you what. You go out, grab a few hundred copies of MS Windows from a university. One of the ones that carries the "no resale" clause in its EULA. Make a big public show of violating those "no resale" terms. Heck, do it in a state that hasn't passed the UCITA already. Would you like to take bets on how quickly you're served with a lawsuit by MS? And how about whether or not they'll win?
"While Microsoft's free equivalent didn't happen to be open source, it very easily could have been. (In fact, had Microsoft not been rich enough to bankroll its QEMM equivalent itself, it might have been the only practical way to go.) In any event, it always takes much less effort and money to develop a knock-off than the original, because Quarterdeck blazed the trail by developing the technology and feature set, solving all of the knotty technical problems, and dealing with the tradeoffs that are always inherent in new products."
Where to begin, where to begin...
1) You say that Microsoft's knockoff of QEMM wasn't open-source, but easily could have been. This handily ruins your entire argument: "Patents prevent the abuse of open source" by pointing out that it doesn't matter whether it's open-source or not. Patents prevent this type of competition.
Why do I say competition? Because that's what this represents. Two companies with similar (perhaps even identical?) products both attempting to sell said product to the consumer. This isn't an "abuse", this is the natural state of things prior to patent law stepping in and providing artificial walls to competition. I'll let others be the judge of whether that's a good or bad thing, but do not claim that this is "open-source abuse" when it is most certainly not.
2) You say that Quarterdeck blazed the trail and spent all the time and effort to work out the kinks and bugs, and then Microsoft had it easy because all that work had already been done.
Congratulations, you just described open-source software. Unfortunately, QEMM wasn't open-source, and thus Microsoft did not have Quarterdeck's work to build on, unless it engaged in industrial espionage and stole the work from Quarterdeck. Or licensed it in some fashion. In any event, with a closed-source program as the 'original', people attempting to "clone" its functionality still have no clue as to how to solve "all of the knotty technical problems". They know someone can do it, and that's it.
Now, if they were to go and reverse engineer the software, they might get some ideas. But guess what? Reverse engineering is costly and expensive, both in time and man-power. So don't assume making a "clone" of an existing software product is less costly.
Richard Stallman once told me, personally, that one of his motivations for opposing software patents is that they would make it more difficult for the FSF to "wipe out" (his words) commercial software. Stallman's statement underscores the danger.... And the need for software patents. We might argue about the optimal length of these patents (there are many merits to the argument that 20 years is too long), but few of us with a sense of justice and fairness would say that open source should be allowed to be used as a weapon in a malicious agenda.
Ah, the real meat. Couple an out-of-context quote of RMS with the claims of open-source software being "a weapon in a malicious agenda". Do I even need to point out how absolutely silly and inflammatory this is? Open-source software is no more a "weapon" than closed-source software is: I.e. It's not.
The argument over whether or not patents are even beneficial is a point of hotly contested debate, and you making inflammatory comments in support of patent law doesn't help things any. There have been more than enough examples in the past year that point towards patents not always being the Good Thing you make them out to be, regardless of the length of time they last for. BTW, did you know that you're using patented hyperlink technology on that webpage of yours? I hope you've paid your license fees.
"If, when lacking a license, you cannot use something, how can I read a book? I havn't yet seen a book (except for software manuals, books with CDs, etc) that has a license anywhere in it."
Welcome to the fundamental difference between "hard" copy and "soft" copy. When someone sells you a book, they're selling you a book. There are no license restrictions on said book. There is no implicit contract. You can sell said book to other people, read from it all you like, and even tear pages out of it to use as toilet paper. The author and distributor of the book don't care.
However, with software, when you purchase it (or acquire it via another means, such as downloading), you're not buying a physical thing. You're purchasing a "license" to "use" it. This places restrictions on your behaviour in most cases. It is literally the difference between owning and leasing: You "own" the book, but not the rights to the words inside it. You've "leased" the software, and thus have the ability to use it, but the fundamental ownership of the 'thing' still belongs to the software manufacturer.
It's an entirely different business and legal model.
The reason why you have an illegal copy of a GPL'd program if the GPL ceases to exist is because only the original author has the ability to distribute said software. And since you acquired your copy under terms that are impossible to fulfill (you must agree to the non-existant license in order to use the software. If said license doesn't exist, you cannot agree, therefore...), the author never granted you permission to have the copy you have.
Remember: It is the GPL that grants you the ability to use and distribute the code, not copyright law. The GPL is granting you priveleges you otherwise wouldn't have, and taking the GPL away takes those priveleges with it.
Of course, as is standard on/., IANAL, but hey, that's never stopped people from espousing opinions before.:)
"Don't scoff at it too quickly, now -- Those shrink-wrapped licenses stand on the same legal ground as the GPL! After all, neither is written on paper, and they rely on implicit acceptance through the actions of the end user."
I'm sure you meant well by posting this. However, while you're correct ins saying that this is the same legal ground as the GPL, you're _wrong_ in the relation you try to make between the 'standard' shrink-wrap licenses and the GPL.
If the GPL suddenly ceases to exist, you do not have a license to the that code _at all_. Which means you cannot distribute it. Or use it. Or do anything else with it. In fact, you have an illegally acquired copy of the code. Oops!
The danger lies in the GPL's terms being redefined in a court of law, not in it being completely broken. If a court of law uses a different definition of, say, "source code", than the FSF meant when drafting the GPL, then the GPL becomes open to abuse.
Remember folks. The default state when you're lacking a license is that you are not allowed to use or distribute the code/software/rhubarb pie in any way, shape, or form.
Isn't copyright law lovely?
Code forking is neither good nor bad. It just is.
on
MS VP Speech Online
·
· Score: 3
"I'm having trouble keeping track of this. Code forking used to be bad. Witness the reaction to the emacs/xemacs split a long time ago, and, more recently, to the general disapproval whenever someone tries to fork the Linux kernel.
But now Microsoft says code forking is bad, so that means it is really good?"
I realize it's hard to grasp. After all, this is Microsoft we're dealing with.
Code forking, by itself, is neither good nor bad. A code fork is a tool, nothing more. So, just like any tool, it can be used for both good and bad things. And just like tools, how they're used can be seen differently by different people. Someone forking code for frivolous reasons could be seen as making a "bad" code fork, whereas someone with strong technical reasons for forking the code could be seen as making a "good" code fork.
The fact that Microsoft says code forking is bad is meaningless. It's making a generalized statement. And, as you may be aware, generalizations are oftentimes either bad or outright irrelevant (this one included).
So, is code forking bad? No.
Is it good? No.
It simply is. It's the way that it's used that matters.
Now if the Reg had bothered to go to Hotmail itself, they might have found this:
And they might also have found _this_:
"Click on the link below for the terms and conditions which govern these additional Microsoft web sites and/or services:"
Guess what's in the list of links... You got it. "Microsoft Passport". This means that your spiffy Hotmail "account" isn't actually actually a Hotmail account. It's a Passport account that allows you access to the Hotmail "service". What's the impact here? That you are agreeing to the Passport TOS when you sign up for Hotmail.
Perhaps you should read your own quote when you say that they're "talking about forum posts and the like". "electronic mail postings" certainly aren't forum postings, and "other message or communication facilities designed to enable you to communicate with the public at large or with a group" sure as heck covers a _vast_ amount of territory. It's not "just" forums, folks.
And, you should look at the Hotmail TOS itself for evidence contrary to your claim that Hotmail prohibits that sort of behaviour:
Microsoft does not claim ownership of the materials you provide to Microsoft (including feedback and suggestions) or post, upload, input or submit to any MSN Site/Service or its associated services for review by the general public (each a "Submission" and collectively "Submissions"). However, by posting, uploading, inputting, providing or submitting your Submission you are granting Microsoft, its affiliated companies and necessary sublicensees permission to use your Submission in connection with the operation of their Internet businesses including, without limitation, the rights to: copy, distribute, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, reproduce, edit, translate and reformat your Submission; and to publish your name in connection with your Submission."
Of course "Hotmail" _says_ it would never invade your privacy in those manners. The problem is, they're not. You're explicitly giving up your privacy to Microsoft as part of this agreement. There's no such thing as "a user's private communications" on Hotmail, because you've already agreed to give up your rights to that information twice. Once when you signed up for the Passport account, and again when you used the Hotmail service to send it out.
Oops. As the Privacy Nazi might say... "NO PRIVACY FOR YOU!"
"Don't just nay-say Microsoft because it's the cool thing to do on Slashdot. Throw in a pinch of reality.
Microsoft does NOT call it's incremental updates "new OSes." They call them service packs. They did not even call Win98SE a new OS, they called it a new version of the OS."
Don't nay-say the nay-sayers of Microsoft because it's the trollish thing to do on Slashdot.:P
I dislike Microsoft for many valid reasons. I don't nay-say them 100% of the time, but I _do_ nay-say them when its valid. This is one of those points.
Funny, though. For something that wasn't "a new OS" they certainly charged people the "new OS" price for it.
"Look, I have no love for Microsoft. I just get tired of hearing the same old lame arguments about Microsoft continually rolling out new versions and forcing the customer to upgrade. That's bull. If you are using Windows 95, there is no one forcing you to upgrade."
And your point? Of course you're not forced to upgrade. Nobody's holding a gun to your head.
HOWEVER. if you want security patches and upgrades, you sure as hell are forced to upgrade. Funny that we don't see security or bugfix announcements for your beloved Windows 95 anymore, huh?
Amusingly enough, this isn't the case in the Linux community. RedHat, for example (since it's also sharing the slashdot front page at the moment), is currently maintaining its distributions all the way back to 5.2. That's right, 5.2. For those non-historians among us, 5.2 was released in _1998_, and is currently _5_ versions behind the leading one. If you take into account that all of the 5.2 upgrades are perfectly applicable to 5.0 and 5.1, that number becomes _7_ versions and the date becomes November 1997.
Hmm, lets see, how many versions back does Microsoft support Windows 9x? How about NT/2000? Hmm... I leave the math to the reader, as I don't want to start a war over details. But no matter how you slice it, it certainly isn't 5, and 7 puts you back into the days of Windows 3.x...
"Sure, maybe Microsoft should slow down it's release of versions so that you won't feel the need to upgrade from Windows 95 to Win98 to Win98SE to WinME. That's FOUR versions release over the period of FIVE years. How many versions does the average Linux distribution go through in the same time period?
Hell, Mandrake and RedHat are fighting each other to see who can release the most version upgrades over the course of a single year. Why? TO MAKE MONEY. They are hoping that you and I won't have the bandwidth available to constantly download the latest version so that maybe, just maybe, we'll purchase a shrink-wrapped copy."
I don't know what software industry you live in, but I know that here at my job we like to get bugfixes and security updates promptly. "Promptly" seems to be missing from the Microsoft dictionary.
As for Mandrake and RedHat "fighting" each other, you really ought to do some brain-checking first. Exactly how many releases of Mandrake and RedHat have occurred so far this year? Oh, that's right. 1. Not much of a war, huh?
And as for the 4-to-6 month cycle time on distributions, I hate to break it to you, but that's the pace that the software industry moves at. New software is released all the time, and since your average Linux distribution is a _huge_ collection of software packages that _far_ exceeds the out-of-box content of any OS Microsoft has ever offered, I think a higher refresh time is perfectly valid. And as you said before, nobody is forcing you to upgrade. Only in this case, nobody's is forcing you to upgrade at all, even for security and bugfix releases. Funny thing, that open-source software stuff. It's so easy to get security fixes when the code's available for anyone to use...
"All the incremental updates from 98 to 98SE were free. There were, however, some new features added that could justify a new product."
Oh really? New features, huh? Name some. Please. I'd like to know what all these "New Features" are that justify an entirely new release of their operating system.
And no, bundling a newer version of IE with it by default does not count as a feature.:P
" By charging for incremental update services, Red Hat is implicitly admitting that it's business model has some serious flaws. Linux is explicitly free; anyone with a modem or a CD-burner can have Linux for the cost of some time and effort. Why would people pay for something that is -- by intention -- free?"
Simple, really. Businesses will happily pay through the nose to be able to have guaranteed access to the latest software updates and releases _right now_, rather than whenever the public ftp servers have a space free. And for 9.95/month, it's very much so within the budgetary reach of both small business and Sysadmins wishing to maintain their home systems.
What we are currently seeing is the cost of being a popular distribution. RedHat's public ftp servers are constantly operating at close to capacity, and all those bandwidth costs add up very, very quickly.
RedHat's not admitting to any business model flaws either. It's entire business model is based off of providing paid support for the software distributions it releases. I don't see how this either differs in any way from they're trying to do, or how it shows any flaws. RedHat is expanding its subscription service (in the direction they _told_ us at the outset it would go), and that's life. You're very likely to see more distributions doing things like this as they become more popular and come into more wide-spread use.
Once the MP3 passes a quick listen test, the MP3 would be approved. The MD5 is only there to verify that the server/user has not replaced the song with another one. While this is a costly means of control - and by no means foolproof, it is better than trying to filter based on filenames.
I agree it's better than trying to filter based on filenames. I think filtering based on filenames is doomed to failure, as the RIAA, Courts, and Napster are already demonstrating. However, the system you describe simply wouldn't be feasible, either in theory or in fact.
Napster is so popular, in part, due to the fact that it is so damn easy to use. Somebody in another comment mentioned that even his Uncle could do it. Requiring a submissions process for getting your uploads approved immediately destroys the ease-of-use that Napster currently has. Your standard "newbie" Napster user isn't going to have any idea what bitrates are or what an MD5 sum is. If you kill off the ease of use, you kill a lot of what makes Napster so popular. It's not popular because it has the best search algorithims, or the best network protocols... It's popular because it's easy!
Audibly listening to each mp3 submitted would be a nightmare as well. Lets say you listen to the first minute out of each mp3 submitted. That means, if you do _nothing_ but listen to mp3s one immediately after another, you can do 60 in an hour, per person. Except, you can't do that, because the listener also has to indicate whether it's acceptible for the system or not, and if it is, go through the process for approving it and contacting the user to let them know that it's been accepted and that they can start serving it.
Song approval would very, very quickly lag behind the number of requests being filed, and the cost of hiring more people to satisfy the approval requests would _far_ outweigh any potential revenue gains as a result. And it still doesn't solve the sticky question of bootleg music, which some bands allow for trade online. The Dave Matthews Band, for example, has a fairly liberal bootleg trading policy. What if I want to register my bootleg archive of several hundred bootleg DMB songs with the new system? There are bootleg collections out there that could occupy a single person for _days_ on end to ensure that they're all valid, and that doesn't even raise the issue of whether or not the system would allow bootleg recordings at all...
Song comparisons performed by humans, while being a fairly accurate means of determining whether a song is pirated copy or not, are far, far too costly and time-consuming to ever be used in the online music industry.
"Why couldn't Napster block all songs except songs on an approved list? Therefore, all of the Metallica songs would be blocked, but all of the independent artists that Slashdotters seems to care so much about could get their songs registered and promoted on Napster. It's very difficult to produce a filter based on every permutation of artist, album, track names, but it is quite easy to have an approved list. The approved list could have IP address and track name, plus possibly some MD5 signature attached to it. It also makes it easier to check for violations."
How do you maintain that "approved" list when you're not checking the content of the files? My "Parody of Metallica" could just as easily be a pirated copy of a Metallica album as not, regardless of whether I'm part of the "registered" system or not. An "approved" list like that is effectively what's already in place (and being largely ignored). When you create a Napster account you're agreeing to their Terms of Service, which _explicitly_ state that trading pirated mp3s is not allowed. Your "approved" list doesn't do anything to prevent illegal mp3 trading, and is simply another barrier in the path freely and easily exchanging _legal_ mp3s online. Sure, you get their ip address and username, but they _already_ have that information. That's how Metallica was capable of dumping thousands of Napster users in the first place.
Also note that MD5 sums are useless in the mp3 world. Adding a fraction of a second's worth of dead air onto the end of the mp3 changes the MD5 sum. So does changing the ID3 tag information. MD5 sums are very, very easy to get around, and are only useful for verifying that the file you're looking really is, in fact, the file the person sending it claims it should be. The contents of the file are completely unknown.
The real problem here is not Napster's service. The problem here is that the recording industry is going after the people with money, rather than the people actually comitting the crime. I hope this gets appealed to Supreme Court, as it would be a very interesting and very pivotal case for the coming years in regards to Internet freedom.
I'm wondering, why is it necessary to encode song names? Since the vast majority of Slashdot are law abiding citizens who would only use Napster to trade non-copyrighted music this should be an issue.
Simple, really. The RIAA is not bothering to check the actual content of the files they're asking to have banned. They're simply requesting anything with, say, "Metallica" in it's name be banned.
Now, last I checked, it was perfectly reasonable (through fair-use and parody laws) for me to record my own single called "A Parody of Metallica". Why should it banned from Napster when I could quite legally be selling it from the street corner or playing it on the radio?
This is exactly what the purpose of the filename encryptors is. They allow you to use the service in both a) the manner in which it was intended and b) in full accordance with your rights as a US citizen (assuming you are, in fact one. Things gett messy in this area when you go internationl:).
I do find the DMCA references that places like Aimster are using an absolute hoot though. It would be both vastly amusing and incredibly interesting to see it tested in court against the RIAA...
Does this mean that Red Hat 7 is of lower quality than Red Hat 6.2? I think that is what the original poster was getting at. Not (just) that 7.0 is binary incompatible with 6.2. That is to be expected, as you pointed out.
The term "quality" is extremely subjective. What you consider a high quality distro might be considered a POS by someone else. Not everyone's standard of quality are the same.
RedHat 7.0 offers more software packages than 6.2 It offers a more updated system base. Better package optimizations, more fixed bugs, enhanced and improved tools, etc...
Imo, these improve the 'quality' of the distribution.
Now, what's the catch here? The catch is that since this is a new major version number, there are new packages that have not been in previous versions of RedHat. Ever.
In much the same way that you can compare two different major releases of kernels, you can compare two different major releases of RedHat. Was the 2.2.1 kernel a 'higher quality' kernel than, say, 2.0.34? It depends on who you ask.
Its a lot like comparing two different kinds of apples. Yes, they're both apples. Do they taste different? Sure. Different texture and qualities? Yup. But are they both apples? Of course.
well, i am a newbie still, and i sure do compile things, so i think you MAY want to reconsider that pretty stupid statement. i'm sure i'm not the only one.
You're not the only one who thinks they're a newbie when they really aren't. Your average "newbie" has never heard of the word "make", and doesn't know a think about this strange thing called "compiling". A "newbie" is a representative of the masses. You know, the ones currently responsible for the monopolistic market share Windows has in the PC world? A "newbie" is someone who's just been introduced to the big wide world of Linux, and much like Alice tumbling down the rabbit hole, has no clue where they've wound up, what to do, or how to go about doing it.
If you know how to compile things, you've moved beyond being a newbie and into the realm of being a "user". Are you a power user? Most likely not, but newbie, my friend, you are most certainly not.
So in summary RedHat seem to be saying that the 6.2 version is fine, but the 7.0 version enables people to use development sources... is this going to be clearly labaelled on their packaging? I bet not! If I walked in to a shop and saw RedHat 6.2 and RedHat 7.0 I'd (fairly reasonably) assume that RedHat 7.0 was the newer, better version. If I've understood the story correctly, RedHat 7.0 might actually pose *more* problems for a newbie!
Stop and think a moment. What problems are a "newbie" going to run into? A newbie doesn't compile things. A newbie doesn't upgrade from a previous version of RedHat. A newbie grabs the shiny new 7.0 cd, installs it, and has an easier time of things because of the improved graphics support, easier installation, and the significantly more secure packaging of various software.
RedHat 7.0 only poses a "problem" for those people interested in backwards compatibility. And I hate to break it to you folks, but backwards compatibility eventually goes the way of the dodo. It dies out. It goes away. And Linux far more strenuous about removing old cruft than Microsoft is. See going from 2.0.x kernels to 2.2.x kernels and libc5->libc6 as some recent, balatant examples. Going from good ole egcs to gcc is another step up the evolutionary ladder. It's not like the other distributions aren't going to move to it when it's released. RedHat is just leading the pack to adopt it, and will have support for it already in the distribution when it comes out. Along with support for 2.4.x. kernels waiting as well. All of these things benefit the newbie at the cost of backwards compatibility. The newbie gets to run the shiny apps. The newbie gets the spiffy performance figures. The newbie gets stuff that works because the newbie isn't trying to walk against the wind.
Yes, backwards compatibility is nice. It's wonderful. You just have to be willing to pay the price to get it.
Wow, you're defending Microsoft. And you're using selective quoting to do it, too.
This, actually, is bullshit. Windows 2000 is fully binary compatible with Windows 98 (and Windows 95). I build software on Windows 2000 all the time that runs perfectly fine on the 'lesser' Microsoft OSes. There are some APIs that by default are only shipped with 2000/NT, and there can be API differences (true 32-bit GDI in NT/2000 as opposed to 16-bit thunked), but Trohan is vastly overstating incompatibilities to cover for his company's boneheaded move.
Keep reading. You obviously missed this:
"Actually, C and Fortran code will probably be compatible, but code in other languages, most notably C++ due to incompatibilities in symbol encoding ('mangling'), the standard library and the application binary interface (ABI), is likely to fail in some way," Pfeifer clarified in the GCC announcement, "Static linking against C++ libraries may make a binary more portable, at the cost of increasing file size and memory use."
What's that Virginia? There is binary compatibility? Hell, if you cared you could have quoted earlier in the article where Troan (note the spelling. It's not Trohan.) talks about maintaining API compatibility as well. Your fabled Windows doesn't bother to do that, now does it?
"Users love low flat rates". Gee, what a shock. People like free almost anything but herpes. Of course they want it for free. I'd like my car to cost $50, too. So what?
Um, where exactly did the word 'free' come into play here? He never mentions how much the flat rate should be. Pricing specifics don't enter into the picture here. You're using the exact same tactics you accuse him of using (see below).
"...nearly all users pay flat rates regardless of their usage..." Not exactly. Dialup has an absolute bandwidth limit, there is only so much I can download over a 56k per month. ISDN has a higher limit, cable higher still, DSL, T1, T3, and up to OC48 (I suppose something exists beyond that). The rate I pay per month determines a ceiling on my usage.
Thank you for having missed the boat completely. The point here is to let the _technology_ determine you bandwidth technology, and to charge equally across the board for it. Thus, for (pulling a number out of a hat) 29.95 a month, you get all the bandwidth your DSL line can handle. Just like a phone line and local calls. The whole point is to argue for the removal of arbitrarily-induced bandwidth limits.
"...metering would fly in the face of hundreds of years of history..." like metered mail (or stamps), pay by minute for long-distance telephone calls, and that is in the communications arena alone. We still have metered gas, electricity, and so on. Sounds like history is on the metering.
No. You've again demonstrated that you've missed the point. There are things that *have* to be metered. Electricity and gas are one of them, because the costs associated with allowing a flat-rate fee for these services is astronomical. This is not true with bandwidth.
"Price discrimination..." way to coin a phrase that will automatically bias you against metering! Maybe he should have just used "Nazi Price Fixing" and been a little less subtle.
You've just used the same tactics by pointing out the "Nazi Price Fixing" comment. Also see above, where you begin dragging the concept of "free" bandwidth into a discussion that had nothing to do with things being "free".
"...residential telephone users can get flat rate plans with free local calls..." Said flat rate varies wildly. How much you want to bet that if everyone got on the phone and began babbling 24/7, our "flat rates" would suddenly undergo an upwards shift?
And how exactly were you expecting "flat rates" to be determined? This is how "flat rates" are currently determined in the world at large, and it's the same "flat rate" that is being discussed in the article. Were you under some mistaken assumption that a "flat rate" is a price that never changes, even if associated costs rise?
"...one can add extra fiber capacity without limit..." conveniently ignoring the cost of the fiber, installation, repeaters, etc. That money has to come from somewhere. Until Slashdot posts a nice biotech story on trees engineered to grow fiberop, I won't be holding my breath on adding fiber for free.
Um, yes, have you been paying attention? The money comes from the flat rate fees that this paper is all about. If you set your fees properly, the number of users it takes to saturate a unit of bandwidth (like a T-3 for example) should pay for the bandwidth itself. If you have priced your flat-rate fees so that they do not pay for the resources they consume, you have priced yourself at a loss, and it's your own fault when your network can't survive an increase in load.
"...When necessary, ISPs can discourage camping via monthly caps, limits on session length, or limits on peak time usage..." Oh, I see. So, instead of having the amount of time you spend on the net affecting the cost, you're going to use the cost limit the amount of time you have. Sounds a lot like metering to me.
No, it's nothing like metering. There is no distinction between service levels. All users are affected by these caps. They don't pay a different price to be able to ignore them, or to be less affected by them. It's a hard limit, whereas metering represents a "soft" limit.
We simply cannot take the current backbone, give everyone an OC48, and have them load up as much as they like. We will run out of our finite resource, the backbone (which is more like a backweb, I guess, given the multiple spines). All of these things cost. Adding new capacity costs. Lines can be saturated. It's just like bread... it costs to make, and only so many can use it before it is all gone.
And who the heck said anything about giving people OC48s?? The point is to charge people a flat rate fee. Nowhere either the article by John Levine or the associated research papers by Andrew Odlyzko. If we charge a flat-rate fee for those OC48s that covers their costs to produce, there's no reason at all we can't give everyone one of them. As long as they pay for themselves, there's not an issue. The backbone is perfectly capable of growing as demand requires it, as it continues to do on a practically daily basis.
Just because we would like a free meal doesn't mean that the universe is obliged to give us one.
Perhaps you should start the "free bandwidth fund". Nobody's mentioned free meals here but you.
It's not about the amount you have to pay. They could just as easily insert a clause specifying 500,000 dollars as 5.
The fact is that they can do this now, and have specific Federal Law addressing this eventuality and backing them up.
Would you rather it be an agreement to transfer the entire contents of your bank account to Microsoft? Or how about a contractual agreement were you agree to work for Microsoft at minimum wage for the next 5 years?
The potential for abuse here is simply far, far too high.
Slashdot Mirror
Would you like to put money on whether or not this results in any actual changes to the way the /. staff operate? Accountability? Appeals? Removing the pseudonames?
Complaining that someone else should change their behaviour when you (and your staff) are continuing to do exactly the same things with no intention of changing is hypocrisy, plain and simple.
I agree with you on the moral of the article. The kettle is black. However, the pot is black too, and doesn't seem to care much.
"The Editor I talked to had a nickname of something like 'CmdrTaco'. I found this disconcerting. If you were arrested by Officer ScuttleMonkey or found guilty by the honorable Judge CowboyNeal, it's hard to take that seriously."
/. staff go about their business in exactly the same fashion that the WoW staff do. Feels different when it's someone else with the pseudonym, eh?
I find it hard to take Taco's complaints seriously when he and the rest of the
If I recall correctly, the karma cap was instituted as hard cap on increases only. Which meant that if you had 100 karma points prior to the cap, you had a 50-point "buffer" that you could lose points out of, but not increase.
:) Which is kinda weird, being considered a slashdot "old-timer"...
I wonder if any of those ancient UIDs is still sporting above-the-cap karma. I know I'm sure not.
FreeBSD has had "official" CD sellers for a damn long time. Just flip through freebsdmall's history list and see how long they've been selling them for. Oh, and I hate to break it to you, but FreeBSD's been sold in chain-stores like CompUSA for quite a while too.
Now, had anybody (the original submitter, or the Slashdot staff) actually bothered to read this, they would've noticed that it said that this is Daemon News' first time carrying official FreeBSD CDs. Which isn't true either, based on the Daemon News online store, but hey. This is Slashdot. What do we care about actual fact?
I mean, geez. Come on, Slashdot staff, can't you actually take 30 seconds and read the @#$#ing article you're posting?
See? I learn something new every day. :)
Satellites aren't my forte, but I think the flaws in this article were pretty blatant even to the uninitiated. I know *I* would be out of my job if I posted something like this about the servers where I work (which, btw, *are* secured and use encryption, thank you), and I don't work with multi-million dollar orbiting devices...
I mean, seriously. If you do work in "the satellite control industry" (that's a seperate industry from the satellite industry?) and are doing the work you claim to be, then you have several problems:
/. crew think 5 minutes on a submitted article before posting?
a) You should already know the answers to questions 1 and 2, and have enough of an understanding of 3 that removes the need to ask it. You should also already know, based on 1 1/2+ years here on the site, that this is *hardly* the forum for a real answer to that question.
b) You just divulged some fairly major security-vulnerability information on the internet equivelent of Prime Time television.
c) I would hope that nobody at your company gets wind of this posting, because it would not take a rocket scientist (*smirk*) to figure out who you are.
I'm really not trying to flame here, but this *really* seems like a horrible, horrible idea. From a security standpoint, if your systems are based on security through obscurity, the *last* thing you want is more attention being drawn to them, especially if the amount of attention being given to the subject matter is by nature usually small (how many people have satellite transmitters?) and prone to mass speculation (how many openly documented satellites are there?). Just by asking this on Slashdot, you've brought more attention on satellite-hacking as a whole, thereby astronomically increasing the chance that someone takes a more "active" interest in figuring out how to send your company's prized birds into a flaming death spiral.
Of course, all this assumes you are what you claim to be. You could very well be (as another poster suggested) a cleverly disguised troll.
I mean, geez. Shame on you for submitting, and shame on Cliff for posting it. Doesn't the
(Moderators, feel free to mod this appropriately. I have more than enough Karma, thank you)
Congratulations. You've fallen asleep while the UCITA was passed in several states, which turns most, if not all, of the "legal fiction" that major software manufacturers want people to believe into legal reality.
But regardless of the UCITA, I'm not talking about copying at all. I'm talking about distribution. If a friend gives you a copy of MS Windows 98 that he burned onto a cd, and gives you a copy of the CD Key, you have everything you need to use that software. Does it make it legal for you to have it? Hell no. That's fact, not fiction.
The same thing applies to books. If I break into a local bookstore and steal a copy of the new Steven King novel and then give it to you, it doesn't magically become legal for you to read it. Heck, it's not even legal for you to possess it. Why? It's stolen goods.
Now, try to follow along: If the only way to acquire a copy of the source code is via the terms of the GPL, and the GPL is ruled null and void in a court of law... Your license to have a copy of that software is no longer valid.
I'll repeat this again, for the sake of those that didn't get it the first time:
When you buy software, you're not "buying" the software. You don't own the software. You are not allowed to do whatever you want with it. If you buy Microsoft software from your local university, chances are you aren't even allowed to sell it to someone else.
Do you need a license to view software? No. Are software manufacturers (open-source and closed-source alike) satisfied with the distribution model provided by existing copyright law? No. Hence we have software licenses, with varying terms and conditions.
And, contrary to popular belief, EULAs are both good and bad. The GPL is a form of EULA, you know.
I'll tell you what. You go out, grab a few hundred copies of MS Windows from a university. One of the ones that carries the "no resale" clause in its EULA. Make a big public show of violating those "no resale" terms. Heck, do it in a state that hasn't passed the UCITA already. Would you like to take bets on how quickly you're served with a lawsuit by MS? And how about whether or not they'll win?
Where to begin, where to begin...
1) You say that Microsoft's knockoff of QEMM wasn't open-source, but easily could have been. This handily ruins your entire argument: "Patents prevent the abuse of open source" by pointing out that it doesn't matter whether it's open-source or not. Patents prevent this type of competition.
Why do I say competition? Because that's what this represents. Two companies with similar (perhaps even identical?) products both attempting to sell said product to the consumer. This isn't an "abuse", this is the natural state of things prior to patent law stepping in and providing artificial walls to competition. I'll let others be the judge of whether that's a good or bad thing, but do not claim that this is "open-source abuse" when it is most certainly not.
2) You say that Quarterdeck blazed the trail and spent all the time and effort to work out the kinks and bugs, and then Microsoft had it easy because all that work had already been done.
Congratulations, you just described open-source software. Unfortunately, QEMM wasn't open-source, and thus Microsoft did not have Quarterdeck's work to build on, unless it engaged in industrial espionage and stole the work from Quarterdeck. Or licensed it in some fashion. In any event, with a closed-source program as the 'original', people attempting to "clone" its functionality still have no clue as to how to solve "all of the knotty technical problems". They know someone can do it, and that's it.
Now, if they were to go and reverse engineer the software, they might get some ideas. But guess what? Reverse engineering is costly and expensive, both in time and man-power. So don't assume making a "clone" of an existing software product is less costly.
Ah, the real meat. Couple an out-of-context quote of RMS with the claims of open-source software being "a weapon in a malicious agenda". Do I even need to point out how absolutely silly and inflammatory this is? Open-source software is no more a "weapon" than closed-source software is: I.e. It's not.
The argument over whether or not patents are even beneficial is a point of hotly contested debate, and you making inflammatory comments in support of patent law doesn't help things any. There have been more than enough examples in the past year that point towards patents not always being the Good Thing you make them out to be, regardless of the length of time they last for. BTW, did you know that you're using patented hyperlink technology on that webpage of yours? I hope you've paid your license fees.
Welcome to the fundamental difference between "hard" copy and "soft" copy. When someone sells you a book, they're selling you a book. There are no license restrictions on said book. There is no implicit contract. You can sell said book to other people, read from it all you like, and even tear pages out of it to use as toilet paper. The author and distributor of the book don't care.
However, with software, when you purchase it (or acquire it via another means, such as downloading), you're not buying a physical thing. You're purchasing a "license" to "use" it. This places restrictions on your behaviour in most cases. It is literally the difference between owning and leasing: You "own" the book, but not the rights to the words inside it. You've "leased" the software, and thus have the ability to use it, but the fundamental ownership of the 'thing' still belongs to the software manufacturer.
It's an entirely different business and legal model.
The reason why you have an illegal copy of a GPL'd program if the GPL ceases to exist is because only the original author has the ability to distribute said software. And since you acquired your copy under terms that are impossible to fulfill (you must agree to the non-existant license in order to use the software. If said license doesn't exist, you cannot agree, therefore...), the author never granted you permission to have the copy you have.
Remember: It is the GPL that grants you the ability to use and distribute the code, not copyright law. The GPL is granting you priveleges you otherwise wouldn't have, and taking the GPL away takes those priveleges with it.
Of course, as is standard on
I'm sure you meant well by posting this. However, while you're correct ins saying that this is the same legal ground as the GPL, you're _wrong_ in the relation you try to make between the 'standard' shrink-wrap licenses and the GPL.
If the GPL suddenly ceases to exist, you do not have a license to the that code _at all_. Which means you cannot distribute it. Or use it. Or do anything else with it. In fact, you have an illegally acquired copy of the code. Oops!
The danger lies in the GPL's terms being redefined in a court of law, not in it being completely broken. If a court of law uses a different definition of, say, "source code", than the FSF meant when drafting the GPL, then the GPL becomes open to abuse.
Remember folks. The default state when you're lacking a license is that you are not allowed to use or distribute the code/software/rhubarb pie in any way, shape, or form.
Isn't copyright law lovely?
I realize it's hard to grasp. After all, this is Microsoft we're dealing with.
Code forking, by itself, is neither good nor bad. A code fork is a tool, nothing more. So, just like any tool, it can be used for both good and bad things. And just like tools, how they're used can be seen differently by different people. Someone forking code for frivolous reasons could be seen as making a "bad" code fork, whereas someone with strong technical reasons for forking the code could be seen as making a "good" code fork.
The fact that Microsoft says code forking is bad is meaningless. It's making a generalized statement. And, as you may be aware, generalizations are oftentimes either bad or outright irrelevant (this one included).
So, is code forking bad? No.
Is it good? No.
It simply is. It's the way that it's used that matters.
And they might also have found _this_:
Guess what's in the list of links... You got it. "Microsoft Passport". This means that your spiffy Hotmail "account" isn't actually actually a Hotmail account. It's a Passport account that allows you access to the Hotmail "service". What's the impact here? That you are agreeing to the Passport TOS when you sign up for Hotmail.
Perhaps you should read your own quote when you say that they're "talking about forum posts and the like". "electronic mail postings" certainly aren't forum postings, and "other message or communication facilities designed to enable you to communicate with the public at large or with a group" sure as heck covers a _vast_ amount of territory. It's not "just" forums, folks.
And, you should look at the Hotmail TOS itself for evidence contrary to your claim that Hotmail prohibits that sort of behaviour:
Of course "Hotmail" _says_ it would never invade your privacy in those manners. The problem is, they're not. You're explicitly giving up your privacy to Microsoft as part of this agreement. There's no such thing as "a user's private communications" on Hotmail, because you've already agreed to give up your rights to that information twice. Once when you signed up for the Passport account, and again when you used the Hotmail service to send it out.
Oops. As the Privacy Nazi might say... "NO PRIVACY FOR YOU!"
Don't nay-say the nay-sayers of Microsoft because it's the trollish thing to do on Slashdot.
I dislike Microsoft for many valid reasons. I don't nay-say them 100% of the time, but I _do_ nay-say them when its valid. This is one of those points.
Funny, though. For something that wasn't "a new OS" they certainly charged people the "new OS" price for it.
And your point? Of course you're not forced to upgrade. Nobody's holding a gun to your head.
HOWEVER. if you want security patches and upgrades, you sure as hell are forced to upgrade. Funny that we don't see security or bugfix announcements for your beloved Windows 95 anymore, huh?
Amusingly enough, this isn't the case in the Linux community. RedHat, for example (since it's also sharing the slashdot front page at the moment), is currently maintaining its distributions all the way back to 5.2. That's right, 5.2. For those non-historians among us, 5.2 was released in _1998_, and is currently _5_ versions behind the leading one. If you take into account that all of the 5.2 upgrades are perfectly applicable to 5.0 and 5.1, that number becomes _7_ versions and the date becomes November 1997.
Hmm, lets see, how many versions back does Microsoft support Windows 9x? How about NT/2000? Hmm... I leave the math to the reader, as I don't want to start a war over details. But no matter how you slice it, it certainly isn't 5, and 7 puts you back into the days of Windows 3.x...
I don't know what software industry you live in, but I know that here at my job we like to get bugfixes and security updates promptly. "Promptly" seems to be missing from the Microsoft dictionary.
As for Mandrake and RedHat "fighting" each other, you really ought to do some brain-checking first. Exactly how many releases of Mandrake and RedHat have occurred so far this year? Oh, that's right. 1. Not much of a war, huh?
And as for the 4-to-6 month cycle time on distributions, I hate to break it to you, but that's the pace that the software industry moves at. New software is released all the time, and since your average Linux distribution is a _huge_ collection of software packages that _far_ exceeds the out-of-box content of any OS Microsoft has ever offered, I think a higher refresh time is perfectly valid. And as you said before, nobody is forcing you to upgrade. Only in this case, nobody's is forcing you to upgrade at all, even for security and bugfix releases. Funny thing, that open-source software stuff. It's so easy to get security fixes when the code's available for anyone to use...
Oh really? New features, huh? Name some. Please. I'd like to know what all these "New Features" are that justify an entirely new release of their operating system.
And no, bundling a newer version of IE with it by default does not count as a feature.
Simple, really. Businesses will happily pay through the nose to be able to have guaranteed access to the latest software updates and releases _right now_, rather than whenever the public ftp servers have a space free. And for 9.95/month, it's very much so within the budgetary reach of both small business and Sysadmins wishing to maintain their home systems.
What we are currently seeing is the cost of being a popular distribution. RedHat's public ftp servers are constantly operating at close to capacity, and all those bandwidth costs add up very, very quickly.
RedHat's not admitting to any business model flaws either. It's entire business model is based off of providing paid support for the software distributions it releases. I don't see how this either differs in any way from they're trying to do, or how it shows any flaws. RedHat is expanding its subscription service (in the direction they _told_ us at the outset it would go), and that's life. You're very likely to see more distributions doing things like this as they become more popular and come into more wide-spread use.
Sure it does. It just calls them new OSes. What do you think Windows 98 SE was?
I agree it's better than trying to filter based on filenames. I think filtering based on filenames is doomed to failure, as the RIAA, Courts, and Napster are already demonstrating. However, the system you describe simply wouldn't be feasible, either in theory or in fact.
Napster is so popular, in part, due to the fact that it is so damn easy to use. Somebody in another comment mentioned that even his Uncle could do it. Requiring a submissions process for getting your uploads approved immediately destroys the ease-of-use that Napster currently has. Your standard "newbie" Napster user isn't going to have any idea what bitrates are or what an MD5 sum is. If you kill off the ease of use, you kill a lot of what makes Napster so popular. It's not popular because it has the best search algorithims, or the best network protocols... It's popular because it's easy!
Audibly listening to each mp3 submitted would be a nightmare as well. Lets say you listen to the first minute out of each mp3 submitted. That means, if you do _nothing_ but listen to mp3s one immediately after another, you can do 60 in an hour, per person. Except, you can't do that, because the listener also has to indicate whether it's acceptible for the system or not, and if it is, go through the process for approving it and contacting the user to let them know that it's been accepted and that they can start serving it.
Song approval would very, very quickly lag behind the number of requests being filed, and the cost of hiring more people to satisfy the approval requests would _far_ outweigh any potential revenue gains as a result. And it still doesn't solve the sticky question of bootleg music, which some bands allow for trade online. The Dave Matthews Band, for example, has a fairly liberal bootleg trading policy. What if I want to register my bootleg archive of several hundred bootleg DMB songs with the new system? There are bootleg collections out there that could occupy a single person for _days_ on end to ensure that they're all valid, and that doesn't even raise the issue of whether or not the system would allow bootleg recordings at all...
Song comparisons performed by humans, while being a fairly accurate means of determining whether a song is pirated copy or not, are far, far too costly and time-consuming to ever be used in the online music industry.
How do you maintain that "approved" list when you're not checking the content of the files? My "Parody of Metallica" could just as easily be a pirated copy of a Metallica album as not, regardless of whether I'm part of the "registered" system or not. An "approved" list like that is effectively what's already in place (and being largely ignored). When you create a Napster account you're agreeing to their Terms of Service, which _explicitly_ state that trading pirated mp3s is not allowed. Your "approved" list doesn't do anything to prevent illegal mp3 trading, and is simply another barrier in the path freely and easily exchanging _legal_ mp3s online. Sure, you get their ip address and username, but they _already_ have that information. That's how Metallica was capable of dumping thousands of Napster users in the first place.
Also note that MD5 sums are useless in the mp3 world. Adding a fraction of a second's worth of dead air onto the end of the mp3 changes the MD5 sum. So does changing the ID3 tag information. MD5 sums are very, very easy to get around, and are only useful for verifying that the file you're looking really is, in fact, the file the person sending it claims it should be. The contents of the file are completely unknown.
The real problem here is not Napster's service. The problem here is that the recording industry is going after the people with money, rather than the people actually comitting the crime. I hope this gets appealed to Supreme Court, as it would be a very interesting and very pivotal case for the coming years in regards to Internet freedom.
Simple, really. The RIAA is not bothering to check the actual content of the files they're asking to have banned. They're simply requesting anything with, say, "Metallica" in it's name be banned.
Now, last I checked, it was perfectly reasonable (through fair-use and parody laws) for me to record my own single called "A Parody of Metallica". Why should it banned from Napster when I could quite legally be selling it from the street corner or playing it on the radio?
This is exactly what the purpose of the filename encryptors is. They allow you to use the service in both a) the manner in which it was intended and b) in full accordance with your rights as a US citizen (assuming you are, in fact one. Things gett messy in this area when you go internationl
I do find the DMCA references that places like Aimster are using an absolute hoot though. It would be both vastly amusing and incredibly interesting to see it tested in court against the RIAA...
RedHat 7.0 offers more software packages than 6.2 It offers a more updated system base. Better package optimizations, more fixed bugs, enhanced and improved tools, etc...
Imo, these improve the 'quality' of the distribution.
Now, what's the catch here? The catch is that since this is a new major version number, there are new packages that have not been in previous versions of RedHat. Ever.
In much the same way that you can compare two different major releases of kernels, you can compare two different major releases of RedHat. Was the 2.2.1 kernel a 'higher quality' kernel than, say, 2.0.34? It depends on who you ask.
Its a lot like comparing two different kinds of apples. Yes, they're both apples. Do they taste different? Sure. Different texture and qualities? Yup. But are they both apples? Of course.
You're not the only one who thinks they're a newbie when they really aren't. Your average "newbie" has never heard of the word "make", and doesn't know a think about this strange thing called "compiling". A "newbie" is a representative of the masses. You know, the ones currently responsible for the monopolistic market share Windows has in the PC world? A "newbie" is someone who's just been introduced to the big wide world of Linux, and much like Alice tumbling down the rabbit hole, has no clue where they've wound up, what to do, or how to go about doing it.
If you know how to compile things, you've moved beyond being a newbie and into the realm of being a "user". Are you a power user? Most likely not, but newbie, my friend, you are most certainly not.
RedHat 7.0 only poses a "problem" for those people interested in backwards compatibility. And I hate to break it to you folks, but backwards compatibility eventually goes the way of the dodo. It dies out. It goes away. And Linux far more strenuous about removing old cruft than Microsoft is. See going from 2.0.x kernels to 2.2.x kernels and libc5->libc6 as some recent, balatant examples. Going from good ole egcs to gcc is another step up the evolutionary ladder. It's not like the other distributions aren't going to move to it when it's released. RedHat is just leading the pack to adopt it, and will have support for it already in the distribution when it comes out. Along with support for 2.4.x. kernels waiting as well. All of these things benefit the newbie at the cost of backwards compatibility. The newbie gets to run the shiny apps. The newbie gets the spiffy performance figures. The newbie gets stuff that works because the newbie isn't trying to walk against the wind.
Yes, backwards compatibility is nice. It's wonderful. You just have to be willing to pay the price to get it.
Keep reading. You obviously missed this:
What's that Virginia? There is binary compatibility? Hell, if you cared you could have quoted earlier in the article where Troan (note the spelling. It's not Trohan.) talks about maintaining API compatibility as well. Your fabled Windows doesn't bother to do that, now does it?
Um, where exactly did the word 'free' come into play here? He never mentions how much the flat rate should be. Pricing specifics don't enter into the picture here. You're using the exact same tactics you accuse him of using (see below).
Thank you for having missed the boat completely. The point here is to let the _technology_ determine you bandwidth technology, and to charge equally across the board for it. Thus, for (pulling a number out of a hat) 29.95 a month, you get all the bandwidth your DSL line can handle. Just like a phone line and local calls. The whole point is to argue for the removal of arbitrarily-induced bandwidth limits.
No. You've again demonstrated that you've missed the point. There are things that *have* to be metered. Electricity and gas are one of them, because the costs associated with allowing a flat-rate fee for these services is astronomical. This is not true with bandwidth.
You've just used the same tactics by pointing out the "Nazi Price Fixing" comment. Also see above, where you begin dragging the concept of "free" bandwidth into a discussion that had nothing to do with things being "free".
And how exactly were you expecting "flat rates" to be determined? This is how "flat rates" are currently determined in the world at large, and it's the same "flat rate" that is being discussed in the article. Were you under some mistaken assumption that a "flat rate" is a price that never changes, even if associated costs rise?
Um, yes, have you been paying attention? The money comes from the flat rate fees that this paper is all about. If you set your fees properly, the number of users it takes to saturate a unit of bandwidth (like a T-3 for example) should pay for the bandwidth itself. If you have priced your flat-rate fees so that they do not pay for the resources they consume, you have priced yourself at a loss, and it's your own fault when your network can't survive an increase in load.
No, it's nothing like metering. There is no distinction between service levels. All users are affected by these caps. They don't pay a different price to be able to ignore them, or to be less affected by them. It's a hard limit, whereas metering represents a "soft" limit.
And who the heck said anything about giving people OC48s?? The point is to charge people a flat rate fee. Nowhere either the article by John Levine or the associated research papers by Andrew Odlyzko. If we charge a flat-rate fee for those OC48s that covers their costs to produce, there's no reason at all we can't give everyone one of them. As long as they pay for themselves, there's not an issue. The backbone is perfectly capable of growing as demand requires it, as it continues to do on a practically daily basis.
Perhaps you should start the "free bandwidth fund". Nobody's mentioned free meals here but you.
You're missing the point.
It's not about the amount you have to pay. They could just as easily insert a clause specifying 500,000 dollars as 5.
The fact is that they can do this now, and have specific Federal Law addressing this eventuality and backing them up.
Would you rather it be an agreement to transfer the entire contents of your bank account to Microsoft? Or how about a contractual agreement were you agree to work for Microsoft at minimum wage for the next 5 years?
The potential for abuse here is simply far, far too high.