Unacceptable. Richard Stallman is the point man for the GPL. I know RMS also founded the FSF and therefore Eben Moglen could be thought of as his spokesman.
More importantly (and more accurately), Eben Moglen "could be thought of" as the FSF's Legal Counsel. Why do you think that anyone cares whether you think RMS's actions are acceptable?
However this is RMS we're talking about here. He didn't just market the GPL, he rammed it down our throats.
Nobody rammed the GPL down my throat. Some people offered some software under a licence they selected. I chose to use the software. Occasionally I have redistributed this software, under the rights and conditions granted to me by the GPL.
There is a certain art in trolling. You have to stay just the right side of acting like an obnoxious idiot, otherwise you'll just get patronised by people who are cleverer than you are.
So I ask you, all of you, where is RMS!? Why is he so silent on the SCO issue? Why can he rant and rave for endless hours about most subjects but on this most precious subject of them all is he silent?
I think Stallman is being quiet because this offers the best possible contrast with SCO's approach to this farrago. Eben Moglen makes regular, measured, authoritative statements concerning SCO's claims. He is the appropriate conduit for the FSF's position in this case, IMHO.
You know, maybe there's a lesson for us all here. On second thoughts, maybe it's just a lesson for you.
Uhh, there's a big difference between "Windows could do this" and "Mandrake 9.2 does do this". The former is hypothetical, the latter (unfortunately) is not.
Unfortunately your post makes no sense. The point is that there is a bug in the firmware of the LG drives. If you try to execute one of two perfectly standard ATAPI commands on an LG drive of a certain type, you destroy the drive. It's not relevant that Mandrake was the first system to actually send one of these perfectly standard commands to an LG drive. The bug is not in Linux, it is in the drive. LG is happy to acknowledge this fact. Why can't you?
That office is expensive as hell. Where's that money coming from? VC's?
May I suggest that you RTFA instead of just looking at the pretty pictures? He says, "the build-out was done on budget and paid for almost entirely by the landlord."
(what a dichotomy for Microsoft haters, such as Sun!!! from one side they are against Microsoft, from the other they copy Microsoft!!!)
Perhaps it is other things about Microsoft that suck. For example: security, secret file formats, bloated and buggy applications etc.
By the way, Java is free. Why the Java Desktop is not free ? this is Linux, for Christ's sake.
Notwithstanding the non sequitur, Linux is free-as-in-speech, not free-as-in-beer. However, you can get Linux for free-as-in-beer if you just search for it on the web. It's perfectly simple to search for free linux downloads with google.
I think the point is that it has been built by a company that processes macadamia nuts. So they were producing the shells anyway. Now they are using the shells to power their plant and also to export power to the national grid. Seems very cool to me.
What's the point to an alternative? What need does this fill or what problem does this fix? The desktop OS is by and large a non-issue. It works and it works well.
There are two answers to this I think:
A lot of what you describe as "a non-issue" involves huge amounts of time fixing problems caused by SoBig and MSBlast type incidents. This sort of thing has become almost "invisible", because people just expect it with Windows. I believe however that incidents such as this are enormously expensive. There is a view (aided by the media's growing understanding of such issues) that these incidents are avoidable.
There is the upgrade cycle. There is a perception that Windows means frequent upgrades which are not strictly necessary. If you want to be in control of your upgrade strategy and the costs thereof, there might well be benefits in not being tied to an aggressive monopolist like Microsoft.
What is to stop SCO from claiming (after a suitable interval, of course) that an ex-employee has copied SCO's IP into a Damage Studios product? Since they've made such an accusation already and have declined to supply proof, how can Damage Studios be sure that it won't happen to them? Damage Studios is not IBM and they can't afford to fight off a crappy company like SCO becaue SCO have the Canopy Group behind them.
I think that Damage Studios are showing excellent foresight in this policy. I find it hard to see how they could reasonably act differently.
They have said forever that it is coming out on September 30th 2003. I would be very surprised if it didn't come out on September 30th since they have been making a big deal out of this (ie the fact that it will ship when they said it would ship) forever.
you can hate them all you want for that - but seeing as how the DRM is optional, and how office 2003 is the first version of office to support an open xml format for saving/loading documents - it's hard to not recommend the move to 2003.
XML doesn't say anything at all. It is a way of wrapping document formats. If Microsoft were to wrap an opaque binary format in XML, it would still be XML, but it would not be open. My guess is that this is what Microsoft will do.
Get rid of the whole regulation issue. Thats not necessary. It would be far better to make the software publisher liable for any faults or flaws in the software that led to an incident such as MSBlaster, Slammer or any other number of worms out there.
This wouldn't work because then no-one could use (eg) Debian Linux, as there is no one company behind it. The right way to prevent security problems is to make sure that there is fair and open competition in the OS market. This way a company whose products are proven over and over to be unreliable and insecure (naming no names) would simply be overtaken by its competitors. Once the company saw the writing on the wall, they might decide to focus properly on security, or run the risk of being driven out of the market. To achieve this, companies who sell OSs and applications should be forced to open up their secret protocols and file formats to ensure that competition is fair. This will have the additional effect of allowing a more varied ecosystem of OSes on the internet, making it far more difficult for virus and worm writers to hit a majority of machines.
Although these ideas would be good for competition and good for security and good for the economy, they won't happen because that is not how democracies work any more. Certain companies will buy political influence to prevent this happening. We are already seeing Microsoft claiming that it's "impossible" to create a secure computing platform without secure hardware. This sort of madness is likely to be the result of government intervention.
Although Blair is desperate to get rid of the BBC or to change its mandate to make it advertiser-funded (in no small part because it criticises "New Labour") any change made to the way the BBC operates or is funded would spell the end of one of the greatest organisations anywhere in the world.
Slashdot Mirror
Another poster linked to his slides:d =84181&ci d=7352361
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?si
If you look at his talk, he calls it, '"homebuilt"' ie he has the word in quotes.
"Hee-hee-hee. He said 'Goto'. Snort."
More importantly (and more accurately), Eben Moglen "could be thought of" as the FSF's Legal Counsel. Why do you think that anyone cares whether you think RMS's actions are acceptable?
Nobody rammed the GPL down my throat. Some people offered some software under a licence they selected. I chose to use the software. Occasionally I have redistributed this software, under the rights and conditions granted to me by the GPL.
There is a certain art in trolling. You have to stay just the right side of acting like an obnoxious idiot, otherwise you'll just get patronised by people who are cleverer than you are.
I think Stallman is being quiet because this offers the best possible contrast with SCO's approach to this farrago. Eben Moglen makes regular, measured, authoritative statements concerning SCO's claims. He is the appropriate conduit for the FSF's position in this case, IMHO.
You know, maybe there's a lesson for us all here. On second thoughts, maybe it's just a lesson for you.
Unfortunately your post makes no sense. The point is that there is a bug in the firmware of the LG drives. If you try to execute one of two perfectly standard ATAPI commands on an LG drive of a certain type, you destroy the drive. It's not relevant that Mandrake was the first system to actually send one of these perfectly standard commands to an LG drive. The bug is not in Linux, it is in the drive. LG is happy to acknowledge this fact. Why can't you?
Aaaargh!! Even the list of mirrors is slashdotted! How unspeakably evil...
Tuesday is when the ion drive gets switched on for the first time.
Theres a report about the return of Doctor Who on the BBC.
May I suggest that you RTFA instead of just looking at the pretty pictures? He says, "the build-out was done on budget and paid for almost entirely by the landlord."
Why not? Why make an email system that allows an unskilled user to run an untrusted executable? Seems bizarre to me.
It is Sun's Linux distribution with their own Gnome-based desktop.
Perhaps it is other things about Microsoft that suck. For example: security, secret file formats, bloated and buggy applications etc.
Notwithstanding the non sequitur, Linux is free-as-in-speech, not free-as-in-beer. However, you can get Linux for free-as-in-beer if you just search for it on the web. It's perfectly simple to search for free linux downloads with google.
I think the point is that it has been built by a company that processes macadamia nuts. So they were producing the shells anyway. Now they are using the shells to power their plant and also to export power to the national grid. Seems very cool to me.
Because that's what most corporations want.
There are two answers to this I think:
I'm waiting for you to come back here and tell us what Linus misspelled. Just in case you were wondering, "bated" is correct!
What is to stop SCO from claiming (after a suitable interval, of course) that an ex-employee has copied SCO's IP into a Damage Studios product? Since they've made such an accusation already and have declined to supply proof, how can Damage Studios be sure that it won't happen to them? Damage Studios is not IBM and they can't afford to fight off a crappy company like SCO becaue SCO have the Canopy Group behind them.
I think that Damage Studios are showing excellent foresight in this policy. I find it hard to see how they could reasonably act differently.
They have said forever that it is coming out on September 30th 2003. I would be very surprised if it didn't come out on September 30th since they have been making a big deal out of this (ie the fact that it will ship when they said it would ship) forever.
"May I beg the court for a headwind?"
Why not redirect them to the OSI's position paper on the fiasco? No point offending some random researcher.
XML doesn't say anything at all. It is a way of wrapping document formats. If Microsoft were to wrap an opaque binary format in XML, it would still be XML, but it would not be open. My guess is that this is what Microsoft will do.
This wouldn't work because then no-one could use (eg) Debian Linux, as there is no one company behind it. The right way to prevent security problems is to make sure that there is fair and open competition in the OS market. This way a company whose products are proven over and over to be unreliable and insecure (naming no names) would simply be overtaken by its competitors. Once the company saw the writing on the wall, they might decide to focus properly on security, or run the risk of being driven out of the market. To achieve this, companies who sell OSs and applications should be forced to open up their secret protocols and file formats to ensure that competition is fair. This will have the additional effect of allowing a more varied ecosystem of OSes on the internet, making it far more difficult for virus and worm writers to hit a majority of machines.
Although these ideas would be good for competition and good for security and good for the economy, they won't happen because that is not how democracies work any more. Certain companies will buy political influence to prevent this happening. We are already seeing Microsoft claiming that it's "impossible" to create a secure computing platform without secure hardware. This sort of madness is likely to be the result of government intervention.
Please tell me that you are not a computing professional. Please tell me that the only computer you are responsible for is your own.
OK. You're guessing because you don't like Blair. That's what I thought.
Can you give any evidence for this?