I think a lot of the decision on which system (politics aside) comes down to whether or not you want to futz around with the OS or not.
I use Windows, also, and have found it to be very stable - but then again, I also don't experiment a lot with software, having figured out which stuff works for me AND I don't try to push the bleeding edge on hardware.
Windows is very stable, now. In common desktop usage, I daresay it can be as stable as Linux.
I used Linux for a while, but it lacked a lot of the software I needed to get my design work done.
Y'all are missing the point - the question is not whether or not SUN has superior or inferior hardware? The question is: does it justify staying in business?.
In short, no. If they're bleeding money and talent to other companies, then it's time to sell the company and let the chips fall where they may. They should not be kept on life support just because technically, they are perceived to be or are superior.
Ultimately, it isn't about technology, it's about money and the investors.
spent money on services that don't utilize DRM. Emusic, magnatunes, audio cds, etc
The problem is that every time you use one of these services, you directly or indirectly benefit a RIAA signatory company, and RIAA itself, through licensing fees, etc.
At least if you purchase from the artists themselves at concerts or from the band websites, you stand a better chance of the money going to the artists.
Sun is a commercial enterprise. Say it with me, commercial enterprise. That means they have to make money to stay afloat. They're not out there for your (the open source community) benefit, they're out there for Sun's benefit (and their shareholders). Anything beyond the requirements of the license that benefits the open source community is bonus.
You happen to produce something that Sun can leverage to make money to keep their business alive (for whatever that's worth). Hell, the GPL even allows it. If you don't want someone else to co-opt your precious, then come up with some other license.
Should you expect more from them? Idealistically, maybe. Realistically? No. This decision ain't about you - it's about their business.
This quote demonstrates to me that MS was focused on their sales, and not on their customers.
It demonstrates to me that they're not worried much about other file formats. Seriously, how many WP users are left out there that are producing files that have to be read on other systems?
I have a hard time imagining that it's a double-digit percentage of all word-processor users.
In that case, they'll ask you to reproduce the produce without the binary module loaded. If the problem doesn't happen, it's the vendor's problem, and not Linux's. And rightly so.
Then someone should explain that to the companies that write the drivers, preferably politely. Some argument over binary-only vs. source coded drivers is all well and good, but not all companies are going to go along with it. If they choose not to, then it's their problem.
This whole mess could have been settled with one or two well-written letters rather than all this vitriolic sound and fury on/.
I still maintain that you would have more effect by cutting off the source of publishers income by boycotting them entirely and anyone who associates with them.
1. It denies them the claim of piracy by not using the product in the first place. 2. It avoids the always tricky legal and ethical questions since a boycott is always legal (unless you're an Arab nation trying to boycott anything made in Israel - special case). 3. It forces the producer of the information to negotiate very quickly - drying up the revenue stream tends to force one to renegotiate terms. 4. Legitimate business using alternate revenue streams can arise, since the threat of boycott for those means already tried still exist.
I'm sorry, but if I work to collate or create or provide information or a creative work (even in digital format), I expect to be paid for that work or for the information, with real currency. Goodwill doesn't feed the cats and it has an expiration date.
If the information were something that was saving lives, then I *might* feel differently, but this movies and music. No one ever died because they couldn't listen to the latest Britney $pears album.
Perhaps because IBM hasn't gotten that far yet. It's a huge distance from "saying that they're connected to SCO" to "proving they're connected to SCO".
I think SCO is about to find out just what is really inside a can of whoop-ass. Along with a lot of other people.
Actually, the "Just Don't Use It" argument is perfectly sufficient. Consider:
You send an email to an acquaintance of some sort - that email is no longer yours, it's his to do with as he pleases, barring other arrangment. The two-sided nature of the internet is that while you may provide some sort of information, how I choose to read it is up to me, again, barring other arrangment.
The only expectation of privacy you have and should have when using the internet, is that of system or systems directly under your control. You have no control over your acquaintances systems or arrangments, save those made directly by you or your agents, therefore you should have no room to complain simply because he/she didn't meet your expectations.
The issue boils down to one of how the transaction between Google and the user is perceived, not what it actually is. Google provides the email service using some sort of TOS. Perhaps you view the TOS being offered as unfair, but you are forgetting the simplified nature of the contract negotiation: Google makes an offer at terms they feel they can live with; your side of the negotiation is either to accept or not accept their terms. If you do not accept it, then Google has lost out on whatever it is they felt they were risking by offering the terms - you've lost their service. If they feel that they're loosing too much business, then the onus is upon them to make changes based on input until they reach an acceptable limit of business.
What I see your argument boiling down to is a complaint about the oversimplification of negotiation on the web. One side makes an offer - take it or leave it. The other side has no room to bargain. This doesn't happen in the meat and fluids world. If you and I were to sit down and negotiate, then there would probably be some argle-bargle between the two of us and eventually we would reach a decision wherein we were both equally happy (or unhappy!), but we both would have some sort of input into the system.
The proposed TOS is Google's "price" for using their service - if you are not willing to pay it, then you have that choice. But nothing is forcing YOU to use it.
military who use it for facilitating their killing
That is what a military is for, in some sense. Better to blame the politicians in charge for their failures or directives. At least under the European style of government, the military does not take action (ie., start killing) until civilian governments order them to do so.
I find it impossible to blame the military as a whole for their actions. Bush, on the other hand, I can lay all sorts of blame on.
Yeah, well, he's actually a pretty decent guy, so I won't fault him for one mistake in judgement.
Plus, it's always good to have someone to run to if I ever get sued. I mean, I'm pretty inoffensive myself, but there's a lot of asshats out there who are just looking for trouble.
the DMCA protects the school from getting sued over what their students are sharing
Perhaps, but it doesn't protect them from litigation, or the threat of being sued, nor the bad publicity thereof.
Ask a lawyer. A friend of mine is a professional litigator, and I found out that most lawsuits are resolved before ever going to court because it's cheaper to end the claim in the discovery and litigation phase than it is to take it into court. It's not only the cost of the plaintiff's lawyers, but the defendant has to pay their own lawyers to do all sorts of legal hooha behind the scenes, as well. And those lawyer's ain't cheap either - if you've got cheap lawyers, you may get cheap (inadequate) defense. Basically, you have to hire as much lawyer as you can afford. If it means swatting a gnat with a nuclear missile, then at least you're protected when some other gnat has it's own nuclear missile.
In the end, it's probably easier to just go along with it, than it is to fight it. Remember, right and wrong have no place in the modern American courtroom.
(I'm not saying that this is right, just that it is what is.)
It's all fun and games until someone uses a rootkit to play with GPAs.
Any institution that maintains it's confidential grading records on the same network as academic computing (or even attached to the academic network in any way) deserves every lawsuit that such an action should engender.
This works all fine and well within a single homogenous community, but we now live in a world where people actively seek to break into computers and do harm because "Hey, it's Tuesday!". We can no longer trust that the faceless fifteen-year old entity two states over is not out to get us because he's trying to impress someone.
In some ways, the Internet has improved our lives (access to por^H^H^Hinformation, access to por^H^H^Hcommunities of like-minded individuals previously unreachable, etc.), but in a lot more ways we've left ourselves wide open to the random jerkwads out there.
Like it or not, we have to have security and I hope that Stallman realizes this, some day. We're all in the same boat and I'd prefer it not get overturned by some obnoxious brat.
It's hard as hell to get signed, and the artist has to eat.
Not if they're working with the enemy, they don't.
they are also looking out for the rights of the artists as a whole.
Horse-manure. They're looking out for the pocketbooks of the major labels. If RIAA was led by musicians, then your argument would have more weight, but it's not. It's controlled by the businessmen and women who make up the major labels. "Looking out for the artists" is a convenient excuse.
Slashdot Mirror
And how many artists on Emusic and magnatune are signed with RIAA companies?
Eventually, we'll have to destroy them as well.
I think a lot of the decision on which system (politics aside) comes down to whether or not you want to futz around with the OS or not.
I use Windows, also, and have found it to be very stable - but then again, I also don't experiment a lot with software, having figured out which stuff works for me AND I don't try to push the bleeding edge on hardware.
Windows is very stable, now. In common desktop usage, I daresay it can be as stable as Linux.
I used Linux for a while, but it lacked a lot of the software I needed to get my design work done.
Y'all are missing the point - the question is not whether or not SUN has superior or inferior hardware? The question is: does it justify staying in business?.
In short, no. If they're bleeding money and talent to other companies, then it's time to sell the company and let the chips fall where they may. They should not be kept on life support just because technically, they are perceived to be or are superior.
Ultimately, it isn't about technology, it's about money and the investors.
spent money on services that don't utilize DRM. Emusic, magnatunes, audio cds, etc
The problem is that every time you use one of these services, you directly or indirectly benefit a RIAA signatory company, and RIAA itself, through licensing fees, etc.
At least if you purchase from the artists themselves at concerts or from the band websites, you stand a better chance of the money going to the artists.
Sun is a commercial enterprise. Say it with me, commercial enterprise. That means they have to make money to stay afloat. They're not out there for your (the open source community) benefit, they're out there for Sun's benefit (and their shareholders). Anything beyond the requirements of the license that benefits the open source community is bonus.
/end rant
You happen to produce something that Sun can leverage to make money to keep their business alive (for whatever that's worth). Hell, the GPL even allows it. If you don't want someone else to co-opt your precious, then come up with some other license.
Should you expect more from them? Idealistically, maybe. Realistically? No. This decision ain't about you - it's about their business.
Nobody ever listens to the moderate voices (even the ones in their head).
This quote demonstrates to me that MS was focused on their sales, and not on their customers.
It demonstrates to me that they're not worried much about other file formats. Seriously, how many WP users are left out there that are producing files that have to be read on other systems?
I have a hard time imagining that it's a double-digit percentage of all word-processor users.
In that case, they'll ask you to reproduce the produce without the binary module loaded. If the problem doesn't happen, it's the vendor's problem, and not Linux's. And rightly so.
/.
Then someone should explain that to the companies that write the drivers, preferably politely. Some argument over binary-only vs. source coded drivers is all well and good, but not all companies are going to go along with it. If they choose not to, then it's their problem.
This whole mess could have been settled with one or two well-written letters rather than all this vitriolic sound and fury on
They bought the software for that UI from Pixo.
Which, unfortunately, has been bought by Sun, so you can pretty much forget about them ever producing anything decent again.
Ahem, cough *Cobalt* cough.
It all reads like "bork bork bork" to me ...
I still maintain that you would have more effect by cutting off the source of publishers income by boycotting them entirely and anyone who associates with them.
1. It denies them the claim of piracy by not using the product in the first place.
2. It avoids the always tricky legal and ethical questions since a boycott is always legal (unless you're an Arab nation trying to boycott anything made in Israel - special case).
3. It forces the producer of the information to negotiate very quickly - drying up the revenue stream tends to force one to renegotiate terms.
4. Legitimate business using alternate revenue streams can arise, since the threat of boycott for those means already tried still exist.
I'm sorry, but if I work to collate or create or provide information or a creative work (even in digital format), I expect to be paid for that work or for the information, with real currency. Goodwill doesn't feed the cats and it has an expiration date.
If the information were something that was saving lives, then I *might* feel differently, but this movies and music. No one ever died because they couldn't listen to the latest Britney $pears album.
Why not Baystar, RBC and Microsoft?"
Perhaps because IBM hasn't gotten that far yet. It's a huge distance from "saying that they're connected to SCO" to "proving they're connected to SCO".
I think SCO is about to find out just what is really inside a can of whoop-ass. Along with a lot of other people.
Yeah, and even more disappointing - it's not to scale. I mean, jeez, what's the point?
/kidding
Actually, the "Just Don't Use It" argument is perfectly sufficient. Consider:
You send an email to an acquaintance of some sort - that email is no longer yours, it's his to do with as he pleases, barring other arrangment. The two-sided nature of the internet is that while you may provide some sort of information, how I choose to read it is up to me, again, barring other arrangment.
The only expectation of privacy you have and should have when using the internet, is that of system or systems directly under your control. You have no control over your acquaintances systems or arrangments, save those made directly by you or your agents, therefore you should have no room to complain simply because he/she didn't meet your expectations.
The issue boils down to one of how the transaction between Google and the user is perceived, not what it actually is. Google provides the email service using some sort of TOS. Perhaps you view the TOS being offered as unfair, but you are forgetting the simplified nature of the contract negotiation: Google makes an offer at terms they feel they can live with; your side of the negotiation is either to accept or not accept their terms. If you do not accept it, then Google has lost out on whatever it is they felt they were risking by offering the terms - you've lost their service. If they feel that they're loosing too much business, then the onus is upon them to make changes based on input until they reach an acceptable limit of business.
What I see your argument boiling down to is a complaint about the oversimplification of negotiation on the web. One side makes an offer - take it or leave it. The other side has no room to bargain. This doesn't happen in the meat and fluids world. If you and I were to sit down and negotiate, then there would probably be some argle-bargle between the two of us and eventually we would reach a decision wherein we were both equally happy (or unhappy!), but we both would have some sort of input into the system.
The proposed TOS is Google's "price" for using their service - if you are not willing to pay it, then you have that choice. But nothing is forcing YOU to use it.
they had taken one of those robotic arm storage systems and used it to conquer a planet. Now THAT'S a misuse of techology!
I was including the US in that. Our system of government is derived from a European style of goverment, primarily British.
Besides, it's only the CIA that wakes up one morning and decides to invade. And Bush - mustn't forget him.
military who use it for facilitating their killing
That is what a military is for, in some sense. Better to blame the politicians in charge for their failures or directives. At least under the European style of government, the military does not take action (ie., start killing) until civilian governments order them to do so.
I find it impossible to blame the military as a whole for their actions. Bush, on the other hand, I can lay all sorts of blame on.
Yeah, well, he's actually a pretty decent guy, so I won't fault him for one mistake in judgement.
Plus, it's always good to have someone to run to if I ever get sued. I mean, I'm pretty inoffensive myself, but there's a lot of asshats out there who are just looking for trouble.
the DMCA protects the school from getting sued over what their students are sharing
Perhaps, but it doesn't protect them from litigation, or the threat of being sued, nor the bad publicity thereof.
Ask a lawyer. A friend of mine is a professional litigator, and I found out that most lawsuits are resolved before ever going to court because it's cheaper to end the claim in the discovery and litigation phase than it is to take it into court. It's not only the cost of the plaintiff's lawyers, but the defendant has to pay their own lawyers to do all sorts of legal hooha behind the scenes, as well. And those lawyer's ain't cheap either - if you've got cheap lawyers, you may get cheap (inadequate) defense. Basically, you have to hire as much lawyer as you can afford. If it means swatting a gnat with a nuclear missile, then at least you're protected when some other gnat has it's own nuclear missile.
In the end, it's probably easier to just go along with it, than it is to fight it. Remember, right and wrong have no place in the modern American courtroom.
(I'm not saying that this is right, just that it is what is.)
If it's Open-Source, I want to see the source. (Not that I can do anything intelligent with it, but on principle).
Someone really should have trademarked the term "Open-Source". It would lend a little bit of weight for going after those who abuse the term.
I'd mod you up, but I'll get modded down.
Plus, now that I've responded, I can't mod.
Catch-22.
It's all fun and games until someone uses a rootkit to play with GPAs.
Any institution that maintains it's confidential grading records on the same network as academic computing (or even attached to the academic network in any way) deserves every lawsuit that such an action should engender.
This works all fine and well within a single homogenous community, but we now live in a world where people actively seek to break into computers and do harm because "Hey, it's Tuesday!". We can no longer trust that the faceless fifteen-year old entity two states over is not out to get us because he's trying to impress someone.
In some ways, the Internet has improved our lives (access to por^H^H^Hinformation, access to por^H^H^Hcommunities of like-minded individuals previously unreachable, etc.), but in a lot more ways we've left ourselves wide open to the random jerkwads out there.
Like it or not, we have to have security and I hope that Stallman realizes this, some day. We're all in the same boat and I'd prefer it not get overturned by some obnoxious brat.
It's hard as hell to get signed, and the artist has to eat.
Not if they're working with the enemy, they don't.
they are also looking out for the rights of the artists as a whole.
Horse-manure. They're looking out for the pocketbooks of the major labels. If RIAA was led by musicians, then your argument would have more weight, but it's not. It's controlled by the businessmen and women who make up the major labels. "Looking out for the artists" is a convenient excuse.
Ahahahah! I forgot to mention, I live in Texas. You know, the one that wants to execute the mentally retarded and anyone over the age of 12?
We don't have representation here. We've got Tom DeLay.