In my initial e-mail, I mentioned what operating system version I was running. In his reply the customer service agent asked me what operating system version I was running. In my reply, I told him again. Then he asked me again. This repeated a couple more times. In every single reply he would ask me about the version, and in every single reply I would answer him. This continued until I asked his supervisor to fire him, at which point they shipped me a replacement unit I didn't need.
You can't fire a perl script - and that's what it sounds like you were having an email conversation with...
Think about it - how much $$$ would they save if they could just replace low-level CSRs with a script that sends out human-sounding replies? They've run the numbers, done the nasty deed, and it looks like you got to be an early test case.
Most companies care not even the slightest bit for providing non-terrible customer service.
Bingo. Customer support is expensive, and usually carried out by a third party who have a vested interested in "processing" you as quickly as possible, regardless of whether or not it solves your problem.
Dell will just do a charge-back to their outsourced customer support company for your f$cked call...
Actually, you're wrong. For a criminal conviction, you need two separate things - the "actus reus" and the "mens rea". - the "guilty act" and the "guilty mind."
The "guilty act" is unathorized acces. However, intent also comes into it. If it can't be shown that you had criminal intent, not wrt the act, but wrt the results as well, you are not guilty of a criminal act.
Your way of looking at things, where a program's freedom doesn't matter and we should judge by function for a particular task,
No, what I'm saying is that putting restrictions on such information as instructions on how to repair a boot-loader so that some poor sucker can continue to use their dual-boot system because they haven't yet been able to migrate all the way to linux is both childish and churlish.
That being said, there is a place for proprietary software. I had gladly paid for many of Borlands' products, and if kylix had been any good, they would have gotten my money without a moments' hesitation.
However, I also believe that open software, in terms of both source code and use, is going to continue to win big - it's the only sane way to go for many products. Being open-source, and allowing redistribution under a license that promotes giving back to the community, is a very powerful development paradigm, and one I've tried to convince my boss to adopt.
Markets change. We're living through one such change. However, there will probably always be a market for proprietary software, since different people and groups and organizations have different motivations and needs.
The only thing that would happen is that the FSF wouldn't recommend that distro. One major point here is that the FSF has absolutely no power whatsoever, so they are in no power to censor anything
Look at the url that was posted in the story - it's from gnu.org, not the FSF. While they're pretty much one and the same, they decided to issue this as GNU policy, not FSF policy.
We list the free system distributions we know about on our links page. If you know about one that isn't listed there, please have the developers write to us at <gnu@gnu.org>. If you have questions or comments about these guidelines themselves, feel free to send those to <licensing@gnu.org>.
What part of "licensing@gnu.org" don't you get?
IOW, gnu.org policy is that including documentation telling others how to recover from a crash of their proprietary system in a dual-boot is a no-no.
Because updating the Saturn series to todays' technology would be just as or more expensive than Ares. You have to redesign all the hardware because recreating vacum tube manufacturing capability would be much more expensive than using current integrated circuit technology. That means re-designing all the software that runs on the now completely different architecture computers. We also have to re-do the physical design since weight is the biggest problem for space flight and there have been major changes in materials technology. Updating a 40+ year old design to current technology means a complete redesign, aka Ares.
That is so wrong on so many levels I don't know where to start. Take a look at spark plugs, lead-acid batteries, car engines, the house you live in, the bricks that make it up, the wiring in the walls, the plumbing, the toilet, your fridge or stove, pencils and pens, paper, etc. There's no shortage of examples where the design of products have been incrementally improved, taking into account more modern materials, rather than starting with a completely blank page.
The "pogo stick" problem is a good example of one that was solved in the Saturn V, but will have to be re-solved in any new design, rather than just rejiggered.
PJ and groklaw have done a lot of good, but somethimes she just doesn't "get it", and goes off the deep end. This is one of those times
FTFA:
If it respects this decision, I don't feel safe there. I didn't even want to visit its web site to try to find its terms of use. But according to this article, MySpace gets to be the one that decides if we've violated their terms:
MySpace users agree that the social networking site has the final say on deciding whether content posted by users violates a long list of regulations contained in the agreement.
There is no recourse. They make the law and if you mess up, you go to jail.
Since when doe web sites have the authority to jail anyone?
They can, like anyone else, decide whether you've violated their TOS. If they decide you have, then they either cancel your account or, if you've been doing something blatantly illegal, they can bring it to the attention of the fuzz. Same as YOU are the final authority to decide whether someone has violated YOUR rights - if you believe so, you can't send them to jail - but you CAN make a complaint to the police.
Like the whole "we must move to GPLv3 or we are doomed!" and "Novell is bad today because they made a deal with Microsoft over linux patents" when they didn't. (And don't bring up mono - nobody gives a f*ck about mono).
Additionally, the half-billion per shuttle launch was based on 8 missions a year. The shuttle doesn't do 8 missions a year - many years, it does ZERO.
The Saturn series is, by your own calculations, 1/3 the cost per pound.
Several AIAA papers delivered in recent years discuss reviving the
Saturn V. For example, AIAA paper 92-1546, "Launch Vehicles for the
Space Exploration Initiative". This paper concluded that a revived
Saturn V was actually cheaper than the NLS vehicle.
The shuttle costs have only increased since then.
Additionally, there were plans to upgrade the Saturn V to give it SRBs and an LEO capability of 1,100,000 pounds. - over 40x the capacity of the shuttle. In other words, 3 launches would have replaced the ENTIRE 118-launch space shuttle program.
From what I understand creators of distributions aren't being coerced in following these guidelines and end-users aren't coerced into using a distribution that follows these guidelines. Seems it's entirely voluntarily to me. So, what's the problem?
Camels' Nose Syndrome.
Simply put, their basic premise, that giving people information about non-free stuff is inherently "wrong" or somehow compromises free software values, is total bullshit, and should be denounced, so that they don't try to go further down that road...
Think of it - you could pack 5 space shuttle missions into 1 launch. Even more when you consider that some missions are devoted to assembling stuff that could have been pre-asembled with the Saturn V.
Plus, payload configurations (and sizes) would have been less compromised.
And you can always do a skylab - use the empty upper-stage booster as living space after venting out the H.
Actually, on a pound-to-earth-orbit basis, they were a LOT cheaper than the shuttle. Plus, a LOT more capacity, so you wouldn't need as many missions to assemble something - another cost saving, and another place where compromises have been forced.
So why not just bring back the Saturn series, with updates to todays' technology? It's not like the shuttle was really reusable, not when so much of it had to be rebuilt by hand after every flight.
All the documentation in a free system distribution must be released under an appropriate free license. Additionally, it must take care not to recommend nonfree software.
In general, something that helps people who already use nonfree software to use the free software better with it is acceptable, but something that encourages users of the free software to install nonfree software is harmful.
For example, a free system distribution may have documentation for users setting up dual boot systems. It could explain how to access filesystems of the proprietary operating system, import settings from it, and so on. That would be helping people install a free system distribution on a machine which already has proprietary software, which is good.
What would be unacceptable is for the documentation to give people instructions for installing a nonfree program on the system, or mention conveniences they might gain by doing so.
For a borderline case, a clear and serious exhortation not to use the nonfree program would clearly make it acceptable.
So if a user sets up a dual-boot system, you CANNOT include instructions for them to re-install their proprietary OS. If they're a n00b and they need both, their only option at that point is to nuke the machine. You can't tell them how to re-install just their proprietary crap - that's "unacceptable."
That's wrong. It's censorship because of the chilling effect it will have, esp. when you consider the source.
It's also unethical, because it has the effect of holding uses' data hostage
Except that, by saying "you can't talk about proprietary software", you're taking away freedom. It's called censorship.
except no one's saying that. they are however saying that you shouldn't promote non-free software.
You're wrong. They're saying that your status as a free/libre distro is in question (which ultimately means you can no longer distribute under the GPL). Follow the link...
Documentation
All the documentation in a free system distribution must be released under an appropriate free license. Additionally, it must take care not to recommend nonfree software.
In general, something that helps people who already use nonfree software to use the free software better with it is acceptable, but something that encourages users of the free software to install nonfree software is harmful.
For example, a free system distribution may have documentation for users setting up dual boot systems. It could explain how to access filesystems of the proprietary operating system, import settings from it, and so on. That would be helping people install a free system distribution on a machine which already has proprietary software, which is good.
What would be unacceptable is for the documentation to give people instructions for installing a nonfree program on the system, or mention conveniences they might gain by doing so.
For a borderline case, a clear and serious exhortation not to use the nonfree program would clearly make it acceptable.
So it "would be unacceptable" - their words - for a distro to give instructions on how to recover the non-free OS on a dual-boot system without having to nuke everything and start from scratch. This is bullshit. It is FUD, since now you supposedly can't include instructions to help users who are making the switch if they fuck up, without risking your distros' status as free/libre? This is pure FUD. It's a damn shame. It's also wrong, in both the "free/libre" sense and on a purely ethical level.
Holding users' data hostage - which is one of the consequences - is just fucked up. Free/libre software doesn't have to, and should refrain from, stooping to that level.
BTW, this clause is also a breech of ethics for members of the order of professional engineers.
All the documentation in a free system distribution must be released under an appropriate free license. Additionally, it must take care not to recommend nonfree software.
In general, something that helps people who already use nonfree software to use the free software better with it is acceptable, but something that encourages users of the free software to install nonfree software is harmful.
For example, a free system distribution may have documentation for users setting up dual boot systems. It could explain how to access filesystems of the proprietary operating system, import settings from it, and so on. That would be helping people install a free system distribution on a machine which already has proprietary software, which is good.
What would be unacceptable is for the documentation to give people instructions for installing a nonfree program on the system, or mention conveniences they might gain by doing so.
For a borderline case, a clear and serious exhortation not to use the nonfree program would clearly make it acceptable.
This treats users like children who can't make their own informed choices... "tsk tsk, shouldn't talk about options"... I believe free/libre software can stand on its' own merits, and doesn't need to employ FUD, especially raising the FUD about how you might not be a free distro if you include instructions on how someone can reinstall their proprietary system w/o having to nuke their whole machine, including their free/libre OS, first. This isn't just a brain-fart on their part. It's out and out wrong.
They're the "keepers" of the GPL, and yet they have now issued "guidelines" about how you shouldn't talk about certain things, or you're not "free."
To say that a distro is still free/libre if it gives instructions for installing itself alongside a proprietary one is ok, but that same disto, with the same software, cannot really be considered free/libre if it gives instructions on how to install a proprietary os after it is installed, is totally against free as in "free as in beer." With beer, you're free to drink it or not, free to share it with friends of your choosing, free to piss it away, free to drink it alongside a good non-free meal, etc. The beer still has a cost, so we're not talking about $$$ here - just freedom.
Now they want to say "you shouldn't tell people how to install a proprietary OS." For the record, I the box I'm submitting this on doesn't have one... BUT - freedom means the freedom to choose, and if someone wants to install both free/libre and closed, that is their right, and they should be free to do so. To say "you shouldn't tell them how to", coming from them, will have a chilling effect if it is allowed to stand.
Let's take a realistic scenario. Someone installs Windows, then makes it a dual-boot installation with linux. All well and good - you're still considered "free/libre" if you tell them how to do that. Then one day, they need to do the inevitable reinstall of Windows. "Oh, you shouldn't provide instructions on how to do that - that's BAD!!!" Bullshit. The alternative is to NOT educate and inform them, so they end up nuking their machine. Their "free/libre" software experience now has a hidden price - since they don't know how to just reinstall the proprietary system, their only option is to nuke the whole machine and start over. Their data? Hope they had a backup...
That's not freedom. That's being an asshole.
Actually, I'll go further and say its' being a soup nazi. Fucking pitiful. The self-contradiction is incredible. That they don't see it gives one pause to wonder...
Except that, by saying "you can't talk about proprietary software", you're taking away freedom. It's called censorship.
Proponents of free / libre software shouldn't act like they're afraid of proprietary software. It just makes us look stupid and weak. The grandparent poster is exactly right. It's the same with the GPLv2 vs. GPLv3 wars - GPLv3 is "necessary" because of TiVO? Because of lard-arses who want to watch TV? Fuck that.
Freedom includes freedom of speech. If a free distro wants to include instructions on how to install a proprietary OS alongside it, that doesn't make them suddenly "non-free". Or are we now against "information wants to be free" this week?
If your application breaks when the user uses the basic interface functionality in their browsers (back button is the most obvious, but multiple windows/tabs is the other main example) then it's been built wrong - not unlike the way a Windows application that uses "right click and drag" to select text and "hold down enter and left click" to pop up a context menu is built wrong.
Proper session and form handling probably isn't built into your web framework. But that doesn't mean that doing it right is especially difficult. If there's a business rule that says that forms can't be double-submitted then assign a form key each time you display the form, and make sure that there are no duplicate form keys submitted. But constraining the user to always move forward on a single path through the application just makes you look incompetent.
The problem isn't there the problem is that we're using the wrong tool for the job - web browsers weren't supposed to be application clients. Part of the spec is that POST data is only supposed to be able to be submitted ONCE - to be consistent, browsers should disable the back button after a POST. They don't, which is an error in browser design breaking the spec.
It's too bad that Java is bloatware - it would be nice to get rid of the browser.
Sure, it makes the back button useless, but if you're going to make it so that even if the data is stolen, it can't be used, it's a nice trade-off.
No. No it's not. Cookies exist. There's no reason to break people's browser UI in an incompetent attempt to avoid using them.
Again, depends on the situation... if you're not dealing with a web app that needs to ensure, for the sake of consistency, that users don't hit the back button, then "breaking" the back button is a "Good Thing".
Even for stuff that isn't critical, it helps prevent "multiple dupe post syndrome."
It's the same thing with breast cancer. Most people think breast cancer is the #1 killer of women, but in fact, its' heart disease - 6x worse.
The real war should be on ignorance, but this is Carlton U we're talking about here...
I think (and this is just my opinion) that they'd be better off doing something that's not TOO related.
This way, they don't get a reputation as backstabbers, they don't burn their bridges behind them, and there's always the possibility that they can work out some sort of partnership deal later on.
If you're depending on an unchanging cookie for security, you're not nearly as secure as you can be, and a false sense of security is a bad thing. Your last cookie value should be valid for one request, and only for a limited time frame, preferably tied to one ip. The response should then return a new cookie value. Doing the same with a get parameter will also ensure that if someone cut-n-pastes the url, it won't work.
You're still vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks, but some malware stealing your cookies is going to be SOL.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't fire a perl script - and that's what it sounds like you were having an email conversation with ...
Think about it - how much $$$ would they save if they could just replace low-level CSRs with a script that sends out human-sounding replies? They've run the numbers, done the nasty deed, and it looks like you got to be an early test case.
Dell will just do a charge-back to their outsourced customer support company for your f$cked call ...
For the same reason we named our planet "Dirt" - self-esteem issues ...
Actually, you're wrong. For a criminal conviction, you need two separate things - the "actus reus" and the "mens rea". - the "guilty act" and the "guilty mind."
The "guilty act" is unathorized acces. However, intent also comes into it. If it can't be shown that you had criminal intent, not wrt the act, but wrt the results as well, you are not guilty of a criminal act.
No, what I'm saying is that putting restrictions on such information as instructions on how to repair a boot-loader so that some poor sucker can continue to use their dual-boot system because they haven't yet been able to migrate all the way to linux is both childish and churlish.
That being said, there is a place for proprietary software. I had gladly paid for many of Borlands' products, and if kylix had been any good, they would have gotten my money without a moments' hesitation.
However, I also believe that open software, in terms of both source code and use, is going to continue to win big - it's the only sane way to go for many products. Being open-source, and allowing redistribution under a license that promotes giving back to the community, is a very powerful development paradigm, and one I've tried to convince my boss to adopt.
Markets change. We're living through one such change. However, there will probably always be a market for proprietary software, since different people and groups and organizations have different motivations and needs.
Think "repair boot-loader" :-/
Look at the url that was posted in the story - it's from gnu.org, not the FSF. While they're pretty much one and the same, they decided to issue this as GNU policy, not FSF policy.
Here, I'll make it EASY for you: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html
This is more than just a FSF "policy statement."
What part of "licensing@gnu.org" don't you get?
IOW, gnu.org policy is that including documentation telling others how to recover from a crash of their proprietary system in a dual-boot is a no-no.
That is so wrong on so many levels I don't know where to start. Take a look at spark plugs, lead-acid batteries, car engines, the house you live in, the bricks that make it up, the wiring in the walls, the plumbing, the toilet, your fridge or stove, pencils and pens, paper, etc. There's no shortage of examples where the design of products have been incrementally improved, taking into account more modern materials, rather than starting with a completely blank page.
The "pogo stick" problem is a good example of one that was solved in the Saturn V, but will have to be re-solved in any new design, rather than just rejiggered.
PJ and groklaw have done a lot of good, but somethimes she just doesn't "get it", and goes off the deep end. This is one of those times
FTFA:
Since when doe web sites have the authority to jail anyone?
They can, like anyone else, decide whether you've violated their TOS. If they decide you have, then they either cancel your account or, if you've been doing something blatantly illegal, they can bring it to the attention of the fuzz. Same as YOU are the final authority to decide whether someone has violated YOUR rights - if you believe so, you can't send them to jail - but you CAN make a complaint to the police.
Like the whole "we must move to GPLv3 or we are doomed!" and "Novell is bad today because they made a deal with Microsoft over linux patents" when they didn't. (And don't bring up mono - nobody gives a f*ck about mono).
Development casts are "sunk costs" - but if yu include them, your shuttle missions come out to $1.5 billion per launch. - and that's in 1996 dollars.
Additionally, the half-billion per shuttle launch was based on 8 missions a year. The shuttle doesn't do 8 missions a year - many years, it does ZERO.
The Saturn series is, by your own calculations, 1/3 the cost per pound.
The shuttle costs have only increased since then.
Additionally, there were plans to upgrade the Saturn V to give it SRBs and an LEO capability of 1,100,000 pounds. - over 40x the capacity of the shuttle. In other words, 3 launches would have replaced the ENTIRE 118-launch space shuttle program.
The shuttle set NASA back 2 decades or more.
From what I understand creators of distributions aren't being coerced in following these guidelines and end-users aren't coerced into using a distribution that follows these guidelines. Seems it's entirely voluntarily to me. So, what's the problem?
Camels' Nose Syndrome.
Simply put, their basic premise, that giving people information about non-free stuff is inherently "wrong" or somehow compromises free software values, is total bullshit, and should be denounced, so that they don't try to go further down that road ...
Saturn V LEO capacity - 250,000 pounds
Space Shuttle LEO capacity - 50,000 pounds.
Think of it - you could pack 5 space shuttle missions into 1 launch. Even more when you consider that some missions are devoted to assembling stuff that could have been pre-asembled with the Saturn V.
Plus, payload configurations (and sizes) would have been less compromised.
And you can always do a skylab - use the empty upper-stage booster as living space after venting out the H.
Actually, on a pound-to-earth-orbit basis, they were a LOT cheaper than the shuttle. Plus, a LOT more capacity, so you wouldn't need as many missions to assemble something - another cost saving, and another place where compromises have been forced.
So why not just bring back the Saturn series, with updates to todays' technology? It's not like the shuttle was really reusable, not when so much of it had to be rebuilt by hand after every flight.
Maybe you should consider ALL the consequences ...
So if a user sets up a dual-boot system, you CANNOT include instructions for them to re-install their proprietary OS. If they're a n00b and they need both, their only option at that point is to nuke the machine. You can't tell them how to re-install just their proprietary crap - that's "unacceptable."
That's wrong. It's censorship because of the chilling effect it will have, esp. when you consider the source.
It's also unethical, because it has the effect of holding uses' data hostage
You're wrong. They're saying that your status as a free/libre distro is in question (which ultimately means you can no longer distribute under the GPL). Follow the link ...
So it "would be unacceptable" - their words - for a distro to give instructions on how to recover the non-free OS on a dual-boot system without having to nuke everything and start from scratch. This is bullshit. It is FUD, since now you supposedly can't include instructions to help users who are making the switch if they fuck up, without risking your distros' status as free/libre? This is pure FUD. It's a damn shame. It's also wrong, in both the "free/libre" sense and on a purely ethical level.
Holding users' data hostage - which is one of the consequences - is just fucked up. Free/libre software doesn't have to, and should refrain from, stooping to that level.
BTW, this clause is also a breech of ethics for members of the order of professional engineers.
... and follow the magic linky.
This treats users like children who can't make their own informed choices ... "tsk tsk, shouldn't talk about options" ... I believe free/libre software can stand on its' own merits, and doesn't need to employ FUD, especially raising the FUD about how you might not be a free distro if you include instructions on how someone can reinstall their proprietary system w/o having to nuke their whole machine, including their free/libre OS, first. This isn't just a brain-fart on their part. It's out and out wrong.
Fucking soup nazis are everywhere ...
They're the "keepers" of the GPL, and yet they have now issued "guidelines" about how you shouldn't talk about certain things, or you're not "free."
To say that a distro is still free/libre if it gives instructions for installing itself alongside a proprietary one is ok, but that same disto, with the same software, cannot really be considered free/libre if it gives instructions on how to install a proprietary os after it is installed, is totally against free as in "free as in beer." With beer, you're free to drink it or not, free to share it with friends of your choosing, free to piss it away, free to drink it alongside a good non-free meal, etc. The beer still has a cost, so we're not talking about $$$ here - just freedom.
Now they want to say "you shouldn't tell people how to install a proprietary OS." For the record, I the box I'm submitting this on doesn't have one ... BUT - freedom means the freedom to choose, and if someone wants to install both free/libre and closed, that is their right, and they should be free to do so. To say "you shouldn't tell them how to", coming from them, will have a chilling effect if it is allowed to stand.
Let's take a realistic scenario. Someone installs Windows, then makes it a dual-boot installation with linux. All well and good - you're still considered "free/libre" if you tell them how to do that. Then one day, they need to do the inevitable reinstall of Windows. "Oh, you shouldn't provide instructions on how to do that - that's BAD!!!" Bullshit. The alternative is to NOT educate and inform them, so they end up nuking their machine. Their "free/libre" software experience now has a hidden price - since they don't know how to just reinstall the proprietary system, their only option is to nuke the whole machine and start over. Their data? Hope they had a backup ...
That's not freedom. That's being an asshole.
Actually, I'll go further and say its' being a soup nazi. Fucking pitiful. The self-contradiction is incredible. That they don't see it gives one pause to wonder ...
Except that, by saying "you can't talk about proprietary software", you're taking away freedom. It's called censorship.
Proponents of free / libre software shouldn't act like they're afraid of proprietary software. It just makes us look stupid and weak. The grandparent poster is exactly right. It's the same with the GPLv2 vs. GPLv3 wars - GPLv3 is "necessary" because of TiVO? Because of lard-arses who want to watch TV? Fuck that.
Freedom includes freedom of speech. If a free distro wants to include instructions on how to install a proprietary OS alongside it, that doesn't make them suddenly "non-free". Or are we now against "information wants to be free" this week?
The problem isn't there the problem is that we're using the wrong tool for the job - web browsers weren't supposed to be application clients. Part of the spec is that POST data is only supposed to be able to be submitted ONCE - to be consistent, browsers should disable the back button after a POST. They don't, which is an error in browser design breaking the spec.
It's too bad that Java is bloatware - it would be nice to get rid of the browser.
Again, depends on the situation ... if you're not dealing with a web app that needs to ensure, for the sake of consistency, that users don't hit the back button, then "breaking" the back button is a "Good Thing".
Even for stuff that isn't critical, it helps prevent "multiple dupe post syndrome."
It's the same thing with breast cancer. Most people think breast cancer is the #1 killer of women, but in fact, its' heart disease - 6x worse. The real war should be on ignorance, but this is Carlton U we're talking about here ...
The last person who tried to speak perl sprained their jaw, bit their tongue off, and almost choked to death. Now they can only speak brainfuck.
I see your point :-)
I think (and this is just my opinion) that they'd be better off doing something that's not TOO related.
This way, they don't get a reputation as backstabbers, they don't burn their bridges behind them, and there's always the possibility that they can work out some sort of partnership deal later on.
If you're depending on an unchanging cookie for security, you're not nearly as secure as you can be, and a false sense of security is a bad thing. Your last cookie value should be valid for one request, and only for a limited time frame, preferably tied to one ip. The response should then return a new cookie value. Doing the same with a get parameter will also ensure that if someone cut-n-pastes the url, it won't work.
You're still vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks, but some malware stealing your cookies is going to be SOL.