This only serves to show how out of touch you are with the "real world." Mozilla and Netscape lost. Get over it.
Lost what? Mozilla is still around, and becoming more relevant every day, now that a most people who give it a good try like it as much as IE (which I don't think was true even 6 months ago).
If Microsoft decides to agressively add commercial and prorietary stuff to IE (which you know they want to do), they know they will lose a lot of people to mozilla quick. The fact that there is a good alternative means a LOT. They can't "control the internet" anywhere near the degree they'd like.
Anyway, so you think that just because microsoft is far ahead now, they will be forever? I mean, do you know how long forever is? The idea that there was a "war" that was "won" once and for all is just incredibly simplistic and silly.
If they cared about "branding" in the first place, they would have chosen a better name and logo the first time around.
Man, that doesn't even make sense. I mean, maybe they didn't care back then. So what? What does that have to do with now? Are you suggesting that just because something was done poorly in the past, you should just accept that that is the way you will do things till the end of time?
Who gives a crap whether or not an open source project has a good "brand"? It's not like people are trying to sell it. The ones who care, know about it already and aren't going to care whether or not it's a catchy name.
Many developers do care.
I know I am a lot more interested in contributing my limited free time to a project if lots of people are actually using the thing, so I don't feel like I've wasted my time making something that is more or less irrelevant outside my little geek circle. For me it is far more satisfying to develop things with wide usage.
And of course the other thing....a lot of the benefit of having mozilla out there is in helping keep micorsoft in check (as is the case with linux and other open source things). The more people using mozilla, the more effective it is.
I noticed lots of things on the interface are really slow, such as scrolling the browser window (my speakers are disconnected at the moment so i can't confirm what you say about skips). I think Steve Jobs is stretching things a bit to call it "the best windows app ever"....it looks like it could still use some optimization for the platform.
And make sure to hold onto that stable full of horses in case your car breaks down. And I hope you've got a well in your backyard in case the water supply stops working. Oh and might want to grow some crops too instead of relying on that newfangled supermarket.
. So this "feature" should have been implemented on client side if it was desired.
It it was really going to duplicate the functionality of sitefinder, it would need to contact a server which had a database of all doamin names.
The best way I can think would be to have sitefinder (or an alternative service) have a separate protocol, and your browser can query it to make suggestions as to what domain you wanted (and the browser doesn't have to query it if it doesn't want to). Also you should be able to query it even if the domain you searched for actually exists, but wasn't the site you were looking for, which sitefinder doesn't do.
Sitefinder is arguably useful, but no one company should have the exculsive right (or technical ability) to run such a service, for all the reasons you list.
But surely Verisign must know by now that playing hardball in this matter will simply result in the net working around the issue ("The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers":) ). If it has to be through changes to BIND, that's what it will be -- I'm sure the BIND people will get everything right eventually. Or the next generation of popup blockers will override sitefinder (maybe getting their suggestions while stripping the ads?). If nothing else, ISP's will run their own equivalent to sitefinder and just bypass verisign (not that that would make it so much better for the end user, but at least it wouldn't be done by a monopoly, and if you don't like it, you can change your isp).
This has gotten far more negative attention than Verisign ever anticipated, and at this point, I think there is little they can do other than run off with their tail between their legs to lick their wounds.
I got the impression they are just trying to save face...if there is anyone with a brain in that company they'll just let it quietly fade away and hope everyone will forget about it (without ever admitting it what a dumb thing to do it was).
Maybe its not about money now, but it certainly could be. (and actually I think there have been attempts to intrduce some capitalism into the concept...not sure where those attempts are now)
A company (say, a drug company) might want to pay people to provide them with computation. Probably not much, and maybe it would be done through the isp or something (get a couple bucks off your monthly fee if you run the program)....in which case looking at the economics of it makes a lot of sense.
Charity is great and all, but I think a lot of people are also fascinated with the concept way of exploiting an otherwise-wasted resource -- hence, the economic analysis.
No. The First Amendment to the Constitution only limits the actions of the Federal Government, not private institutions.
Well if the private institution tried to sue the guy for complaining about their policy on slashdot, it seems the first ammendment would apply (while the fact that there was some fine print would not).
Regardless of the 1st ammendment, it seemed the poster above was confusing the concept of "can't complain" with that of "wouldn't have a case in a court of law"....which are very different things.
Well, whoever posted the original article was complaining about the policy on Slashdot, and he had a right to do so -- protected by the 1st ammendment here in the US. And he could complain to his company too if he didn't agree with the policy. That's not to say the company would have to do anything about it, but he sure could complain if he wanted.
My point is that people have the right to speak out if they disagree with something their company does, even if the company has legally protected themselves by some fine print somewhere. Being "legally ok" does not make them immune to complaints.
Wouldn't changing the Declaration be about like changing the Gettysburg Address? You can't change something from history. Once it was signed, sealed and delivered to the king, it's not really changeable. But you can change what students are asked to recite every day.
I don't get that....I mean, the US did what China is doing 40+ years ago....what, do we need to spend billions and billions more just for the sake of national pride, to show how far ahead of another country we are? Seems a bad reason to me.
Computers on the other hand are not exactly the sort of thing that people get worried about. You don't have kids going home and crying to his dad because some of the kids in school laughed at him because he didn't have some cool make of computer. (Well, geeks might, but we already know they're not the exact epitomy of coolness).
Well "cool" has differences in meanings....I can look at a mac and say "that's cool, I want one". But that's not because I think I will be rejected by my peers for owning an out-of-style computer, it's simply because the mac has a certain funkiness that appeals to me -- independent of what other people think of it, or of me for owning it. The word "cool" is very commonly used in that meaning.
I hate to play the devils advocate here, but just because "replace" is listed as a synonym, that doesn't mean that is the only usage. The other definitions better meet what SCO was trying to say.
Regardless, SCO's point is that when the GPL is used, it replaces or obsoletes, in a sense, the old way of copyrighting things. Obviously, it does not technically "replace" copyright law, since using the GPL does not invalidate other people's conventional copyrights on non-GPL'd things (duh...). And things that are GPL'd are still copyrighted, of course -- but it is certainly a different spin on the whole concept, even if still technically falling under the existing copyright law.
So when speaking of using the GPL where you might otherwise have used a conventional copyright, which is how I am sure they meant it, I think the word makes sense. It's pretty clear they didn't meant that the GPL would replace all copyright law for everything...I mean, they may be crazy and irrational, but come on.
I don't agree with SCO, I think they are a**holes from hell, but if you are going to argue them based on supposed incorrect usage of a word, I have to take their side. There are plenty of better arguments against what they are doing that won't weaken your case.
My version of trillian has jabber support (it's the pay version though, but I'm told that they will support jabber on future free versions). To me it is the best of both worlds....good connectivity to the main services, a nice interface, and a smooth migration path to jabber.
Only problem is I currently have exactly zero people on my jabber contact list...feel free be my first! (robbrown @ jabber.org)
Agree (in a perfect world), but reality is that early versions (alphas and betas) of most programs will crash here and there due to one bug or another. People report the crashes, they track down the bugs and fix them. With something like this, the bug slipped through because the thing that triggered it never happened till now.
Not saying that it *should* have happened, just saying that it isn't surprising that hard-to-test-for bugs can slip through.
I agree completely. Although you may not know it, Trillian *does* have a Jabber plug-in. It is only for the pro version now, but I there are indications they are going to put it in the free version soon.
I posted this to trillians message board the other day (I can't link to it directly because it is in the paid users only group), which suggests a way to transition people by getting ISP's invloved.
I do not believe your position is typical of the average IM user.
As IM becomes more and more an essential feature of people's internet experience (and not just teenagers), people seem to be getting much more sensitive to the issue. A lot of (non-geek)people are moving toward trillian for this very reason. It may take time, but interoperability is becoming important enough to enough people that that the closed proprietary services just won't last forever.
Trillian now includes Jabber plug in in the Pro version, and they supposedly will include it in their free version soon. That is a big start....people can still talk to their yaho/aim/msn buddies, but for their friends who also use trillian, they can use Jabber and be free of all this mess.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't think you might have missed the point....just a bit?
This only serves to show how out of touch you are with the "real world." Mozilla and Netscape lost. Get over it.
Lost what? Mozilla is still around, and becoming more relevant every day, now that a most people who give it a good try like it as much as IE (which I don't think was true even 6 months ago).
If Microsoft decides to agressively add commercial and prorietary stuff to IE (which you know they want to do), they know they will lose a lot of people to mozilla quick. The fact that there is a good alternative means a LOT. They can't "control the internet" anywhere near the degree they'd like.
Anyway, so you think that just because microsoft is far ahead now, they will be forever? I mean, do you know how long forever is? The idea that there was a "war" that was "won" once and for all is just incredibly simplistic and silly.
If they cared about "branding" in the first place, they would have chosen a better name and logo the first time around.
Man, that doesn't even make sense. I mean, maybe they didn't care back then. So what? What does that have to do with now? Are you suggesting that just because something was done poorly in the past, you should just accept that that is the way you will do things till the end of time?
Who gives a crap whether or not an open source project has a good "brand"? It's not like people are trying to sell it. The ones who care, know about it already and aren't going to care whether or not it's a catchy name.
Many developers do care.
I know I am a lot more interested in contributing my limited free time to a project if lots of people are actually using the thing, so I don't feel like I've wasted my time making something that is more or less irrelevant outside my little geek circle. For me it is far more satisfying to develop things with wide usage.
And of course the other thing....a lot of the benefit of having mozilla out there is in helping keep micorsoft in check (as is the case with linux and other open source things). The more people using mozilla, the more effective it is.
I noticed lots of things on the interface are really slow, such as scrolling the browser window (my speakers are disconnected at the moment so i can't confirm what you say about skips). I think Steve Jobs is stretching things a bit to call it "the best windows app ever"....it looks like it could still use some optimization for the platform.
And make sure to hold onto that stable full of horses in case your car breaks down. And I hope you've got a well in your backyard in case the water supply stops working. Oh and might want to grow some crops too instead of relying on that newfangled supermarket.
. So this "feature" should have been implemented on client side if it was desired.
It it was really going to duplicate the functionality of sitefinder, it would need to contact a server which had a database of all doamin names.
The best way I can think would be to have sitefinder (or an alternative service) have a separate protocol, and your browser can query it to make suggestions as to what domain you wanted (and the browser doesn't have to query it if it doesn't want to). Also you should be able to query it even if the domain you searched for actually exists, but wasn't the site you were looking for, which sitefinder doesn't do.
Sitefinder is arguably useful, but no one company should have the exculsive right (or technical ability) to run such a service, for all the reasons you list.
Same with Google toolbar, if you happen to run IE.
But surely Verisign must know by now that playing hardball in this matter will simply result in the net working around the issue ("The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers" :) ). If it has to be through changes to BIND, that's what it will be -- I'm sure the BIND people will get everything right eventually. Or the next generation of popup blockers will override sitefinder (maybe getting their suggestions while stripping the ads?). If nothing else, ISP's will run their own equivalent to sitefinder and just bypass verisign (not that that would make it so much better for the end user, but at least it wouldn't be done by a monopoly, and if you don't like it, you can change your isp).
This has gotten far more negative attention than Verisign ever anticipated, and at this point, I think there is little they can do other than run off with their tail between their legs to lick their wounds.
I got the impression they are just trying to save face...if there is anyone with a brain in that company they'll just let it quietly fade away and hope everyone will forget about it (without ever admitting it what a dumb thing to do it was).
Maybe its not about money now, but it certainly could be. (and actually I think there have been attempts to intrduce some capitalism into the concept...not sure where those attempts are now)
A company (say, a drug company) might want to pay people to provide them with computation. Probably not much, and maybe it would be done through the isp or something (get a couple bucks off your monthly fee if you run the program)....in which case looking at the economics of it makes a lot of sense.
Charity is great and all, but I think a lot of people are also fascinated with the concept way of exploiting an otherwise-wasted resource -- hence, the economic analysis.
I thought sitefinder was dead
No. The First Amendment to the Constitution only limits the actions of the Federal Government, not private institutions.
Well if the private institution tried to sue the guy for complaining about their policy on slashdot, it seems the first ammendment would apply (while the fact that there was some fine print would not).
Regardless of the 1st ammendment, it seemed the poster above was confusing the concept of "can't complain" with that of "wouldn't have a case in a court of law"....which are very different things.
Well, whoever posted the original article was complaining about the policy on Slashdot, and he had a right to do so -- protected by the 1st ammendment here in the US. And he could complain to his company too if he didn't agree with the policy. That's not to say the company would have to do anything about it, but he sure could complain if he wanted.
My point is that people have the right to speak out if they disagree with something their company does, even if the company has legally protected themselves by some fine print somewhere. Being "legally ok" does not make them immune to complaints.
Wouldn't changing the Declaration be about like changing the Gettysburg Address? You can't change something from history. Once it was signed, sealed and delivered to the king, it's not really changeable. But you can change what students are asked to recite every day.
I don't get that....I mean, the US did what China is doing 40+ years ago....what, do we need to spend billions and billions more just for the sake of national pride, to show how far ahead of another country we are? Seems a bad reason to me.
(btw, congratulations China!)
if the company informs you of this ....then you can't complain about this.
Really? Wouldn't there also need to be some kind of a "first ammendment override" clause?
Would you call this a motor than?
Computers on the other hand are not exactly the sort of thing that people get worried about. You don't have kids going home and crying to his dad because some of the kids in school laughed at him because he didn't have some cool make of computer. (Well, geeks might, but we already know they're not the exact epitomy of coolness).
Well "cool" has differences in meanings....I can look at a mac and say "that's cool, I want one". But that's not because I think I will be rejected by my peers for owning an out-of-style computer, it's simply because the mac has a certain funkiness that appeals to me -- independent of what other people think of it, or of me for owning it. The word "cool" is very commonly used in that meaning.
I hate to play the devils advocate here, but just because "replace" is listed as a synonym, that doesn't mean that is the only usage. The other definitions better meet what SCO was trying to say.
Regardless, SCO's point is that when the GPL is used, it replaces or obsoletes, in a sense, the old way of copyrighting things. Obviously, it does not technically "replace" copyright law, since using the GPL does not invalidate other people's conventional copyrights on non-GPL'd things (duh...). And things that are GPL'd are still copyrighted, of course -- but it is certainly a different spin on the whole concept, even if still technically falling under the existing copyright law.
So when speaking of using the GPL where you might otherwise have used a conventional copyright, which is how I am sure they meant it, I think the word makes sense. It's pretty clear they didn't meant that the GPL would replace all copyright law for everything...I mean, they may be crazy and irrational, but come on.
I don't agree with SCO, I think they are a**holes from hell, but if you are going to argue them based on supposed incorrect usage of a word, I have to take their side. There are plenty of better arguments against what they are doing that won't weaken your case.
I remember Venn diagrams quite well, but I should would have gotten his point a lot quicker if he just said "those two statements are contradictory".
My version of trillian has jabber support (it's the pay version though, but I'm told that they will support jabber on future free versions). To me it is the best of both worlds....good connectivity to the main services, a nice interface, and a smooth migration path to jabber.
Only problem is I currently have exactly zero people on my jabber contact list...feel free be my first! (robbrown @ jabber.org)
Agree (in a perfect world), but reality is that early versions (alphas and betas) of most programs will crash here and there due to one bug or another. People report the crashes, they track down the bugs and fix them. With something like this, the bug slipped through because the thing that triggered it never happened till now.
Not saying that it *should* have happened, just saying that it isn't surprising that hard-to-test-for bugs can slip through.
Nice to have an alternative available that *I* control, end to end.
Well, I guess if you have that much control over all your contacts (and your wife), you are alright.
I find I generally have to talk to my contacts on the medium they already use.
I agree completely. Although you may not know it, Trillian *does* have a Jabber plug-in. It is only for the pro version now, but I there are indications they are going to put it in the free version soon.
I posted this to trillians message board the other day (I can't link to it directly because it is in the paid users only group), which suggests a way to transition people by getting ISP's invloved.
I do not believe your position is typical of the average IM user.
As IM becomes more and more an essential feature of people's internet experience (and not just teenagers), people seem to be getting much more sensitive to the issue. A lot of (non-geek)people are moving toward trillian for this very reason. It may take time, but interoperability is becoming important enough to enough people that that the closed proprietary services just won't last forever.
Trillian now includes Jabber plug in in the Pro version, and they supposedly will include it in their free version soon. That is a big start....people can still talk to their yaho/aim/msn buddies, but for their friends who also use trillian, they can use Jabber and be free of all this mess.