I don't want to wait an extra 3-10 seconds for the browser to open.
That happens because IE is *preloaded*! Even if you "uninstall" it. Sure, Netscape could preload too, but then you'd rightly object to waiting an extra 3-10 seconds for your computer to boot, or about having lost several MB of memory.
For someone moving from windows to linux (say like my dad) [...] it's a good reason to stay with windows
It's better for a non-server machine to be running as few services as possible - at most, only ssh should be neccessary. Get your Dad to pick a Linux distro that doesn't install lots of cruft by default. (I've heard that Red Hat is bad at this but I wouldn't know).
BTW is it possible to run BIND ok in a BSD jail? (jail is chroot's big brother)
Instead of bashing him as 'computer illiterate', we need to understand that these things are not obvious and accept the burden to explain them.
Yes, I chose my wording badly and I apologise to him for it. It's great that there's a competent lawyer working on the defence, and it's great that the team are listening.
it's not easy to say if he did get it wrong, or if something was lost in the transcription.
True. Also, understanding the technical issues is not the be-all and end-all of a defence case. If he's good at lawyering, that's probably the main thing.
Well it seems you have missed a point, Garbus is our man....:-)
No, I got that bit - I assumed from the questioning style that he was cross-examining a prosecution witness.
Unfortunately the MPAA can afford any lawyer they want. Unfortunately that can make a difference. It shouldn't be that way. It shouldn't be possible for *anyone* to be a really outstanding lawyer. There shouldn't be any room for someone to make a difference between being an adequate lawyer and a virtuoso lawyer. How can you pretend justice is being done, if one side might win purely as a result of having better lawyers? Sigh, what a world.
The lawyer Mr Garbus, keeps referring to "Linux BSD". Of course, that could just be the court reporters in error, but the following exchanges make me think not:
Q. CSS-auth we have agreed is a Linux BSD program written by the Livid group?
A. It is a Linux program written by Derek Fawcus. [...] Q. Do you know whether or not it is a Linux BSD program? A. Can you describe Linux BSD? You said previously that CSS-auth was a Linux BSD program. A. I belief I said CSS-auth was a Linux program.
Other bits make it sound like the he doesn't understand what he's talking about, technically. E.g., talking about when Robert Schumann (the witnes) tried out DeCSS:
Q. Are there any records that indicate what you did on that date with respect to the DeCSS?
A. I doubt I would have written a detailed log, to that level of detail. Q. I presume there is information on your computer that would indicate what you did and when you did it with respect to DeCSS; is that right? [...] Q. Isn't DeCSS designed to send the material to a permanent computer file or a computer's hard drive? A. That is the function it performs, yes. Q. So wouldn't you have that hard drive? A. Certainly. Q. where would that hard drive be? A. It would be in a computer in my office. MR GARBUS: Will you produce that? MR GOLD [defence lawyer]: The entire computer in his office? MR GARBUS: The hard drive. MR GOLD: You want the whole hard drive? MR GARBUS: Yes.
Mr Garbus seems to be unaware that the decrypted version of the DVD file can be deleted.
Other than that, it seems fairly conventional [to my limited experience, IANAL] The Mr Garbus is doing the usual trick of multi-threading several lines of questioning so that it's harder for the witness to work out what he's leading to.
Imagine how much more they could bog ya down if they integrated it into your OS.
The hope would be that, as a non-monopoly, it wouldn't be worth their while making buggy "integrated" software because nobody would use it.
OTOH I'm not quite convinced that the software world works like that. Quite likely, in a market in which Microsoft was not a monopoly, you'd end up with hundreds of mini-monopolies in different areas, e.g. Real Player, Netscape, Office, etc.. So maybe it would be a problem.
Ok, care to fill us in on the full quote then? It's clear Linus was joking. Let's here what Bill had to say. And preferably also the person from IBM who invented the 1MB limit which is still a problem to some people today.
While we're at it, I thought I'd point the above out. I remember calibrating delay loops by putting things like REM : REM : REM : REM : REM in. I mean, y'd expect it to cause a delay when running interpreted, but not in the compiled version. I suspect that VB "executable" files probably just had a stub at the beginning that loaded a DLL to interpret the (obfuscated?) code within the rest of the "executable".
I understand what you're saying, an interesting argument which implies that the GPL might not hold up in court for libraries (depending on the particular court).
But the problem here is the other way round - some people wrote GPLed apps, and the KDE people have linked derivative works to Qt. Troll may not be able to control what links to QT, but they certainly have legal control over how the library is distributed. The way they license this control is not free enough to be compatible with the GPL which the original app was placed under.
You're kidding me! That will bring down a windows box?
Not all of them. But certainly some that I've seen (and that's Win32 versions, not old 3.x versions). Dunno exactly what you need to do it, but I'd try IE3 and Win 9x at a guess.
I agree, the link's mean (although I reckon it'd be OK if it explicitly said "click here to crash IE"). People should backup, backup, backup, but it's not cool to tie their shoelaces together if they don't.
Normally I try to ignore Linux kids as being loudmouths who are hell-bent on bucking the system
And what a great system they're bucking, that can be crashed with a single link. Please don't tarnish all linux users as theives, just because one of them walked in through the open window and trashed your living room.
Ask some true lawyers (not some license-crack-pots from debian) and you'll get the answer that permission to link against QT is implicitly given by just creating code that is obviously meant to be linked against QT.
This is true for stuff written *for* KDE. But for pre-existing GPLed stuff which the KDE people borrowed, there is no such implicit permission.
Please don't dismiss people as "license crackpots" unless you are sure you understand what they are saying.
David Faure may not speak English as a first language, but didn't the interviewer either?
"I run the CVS version of KDE2, and I remember seeing an IRC thread in one of packages regarding not running a mail composer within Konqueror, but a mail viewer, so will the composing of documents mainly be launched by an external viewer?"
I agree this is hard to read. I got the gist of it, but it took a couple of rereadings, and a non-English speaker may not have understood.
"In terms of KOffice, what parts of KOffice are you working on?"
I think that's a perfectly acceptable colloquialism. Ok, it's got redundant information in, but so has "look at that pen of David's" (double genitive).
I hereby volunteer for a job as a sub-editor so no-one else has to read this kind of stuff...
If you get the job, I'm sure you'll do a great job of weeding out ambiguous, messy collections of words like the first example. But please don't kill off valid colloquial phrases! There's more to English than writing formal letters, and there's no reason why linuxuk.co.uk articles should have to be formal.
Companies don't want OS's they have to pay someone to tweak!
No, they want someone to sell them computers with preinstalled Windows but without a backup CD, so they can't reinstall! They want OS licensing which means they have to buy a new copy of Windows if they upgrade the network card! God bless innovation and may he strike down the government heathen who dare to suggest that Microsoft's actions are the actions of a monopolist!
MS provided a demonstration tape that involved two different PCs
Yep, and the guy who was supposedly in charge of the demo testified repeatedly that it was the same computer. Until Boies pointed out that the icons suddenly changed - at which point he said he wasn't there when the demo was being recorded.
It's not so much that the court pointed out that it wasn't good evidence - the MS employee made *false* claims about the evidence, under oath. You may think it was a mistake; you may think it was a lie. But it was a lot more serious than the court merely saying "it's not very strong evidence".
Oh, come on, any big group of people has a few people with unaverage views who make a lot of noise. Don't believe that those are the views of the silent majority of Debian developers.
Splitting the company isn't intrusive. It's just a bureaucratic structure.
There's one big difference. If they are two separate companies, then the heads of each company are legally obliged to try to maximise *their* company's profit (even if at the expense of the other one). Knowingly not doing this would be a criminal offence. The people high up in MS may have a lot of money but I doubt they want to end up in jail for fraud.
It was clear from the start that Judge Jackson was out to get Microsoft
I don't think it was. The first time I remember thinking that MS might really lose was when he reacted to their fake videotape. Not that he went over the top - he didn't accuse them of intentionally faking it - but it shattered their aura of invincibility.
Jackson's finding of fact was meticulous IMHO. It proved its claims beyond reasonable argument and didn't try to say anything which wasn't 100% well-founded.
Slashdot Mirror
That happens because IE is *preloaded*! Even if you "uninstall" it. Sure, Netscape could preload too, but then you'd rightly object to waiting an extra 3-10 seconds for your computer to boot, or about having lost several MB of memory.
It's better for a non-server machine to be running as few services as possible - at most, only ssh should be neccessary. Get your Dad to pick a Linux distro that doesn't install lots of cruft by default. (I've heard that Red Hat is bad at this but I wouldn't know).
BTW is it possible to run BIND ok in a BSD jail? (jail is chroot's big brother)
BTW you can do for loops in DOS:
"for %a in (*.zip) do pkunzip %a" is the right sort of thing.
Yes, I chose my wording badly and I apologise to him for it. It's great that there's a competent lawyer working on the defence, and it's great that the team are listening.
True. Also, understanding the technical issues is not the be-all and end-all of a defence case. If he's good at lawyering, that's probably the main thing.
No intention of taking the piss. I said "inquisitor" cos I took it to be a cross-examination of the other side's witness.
No, I got that bit - I assumed from the questioning style that he was cross-examining a prosecution witness.
Unfortunately the MPAA can afford any lawyer they want. Unfortunately that can make a difference. It shouldn't be that way. It shouldn't be possible for *anyone* to be a really outstanding lawyer. There shouldn't be any room for someone to make a difference between being an adequate lawyer and a virtuoso lawyer. How can you pretend justice is being done, if one side might win purely as a result of having better lawyers? Sigh, what a world.
Other bits make it sound like the he doesn't understand what he's talking about, technically. E.g., talking about when Robert Schumann (the witnes) tried out DeCSS:
Mr Garbus seems to be unaware that the decrypted version of the DVD file can be deleted.
Other than that, it seems fairly conventional [to my limited experience, IANAL] The Mr Garbus is doing the usual trick of multi-threading several lines of questioning so that it's harder for the witness to work out what he's leading to.
The hope would be that, as a non-monopoly, it wouldn't be worth their while making buggy "integrated" software because nobody would use it.
OTOH I'm not quite convinced that the software world works like that. Quite likely, in a market in which Microsoft was not a monopoly, you'd end up with hundreds of mini-monopolies in different areas, e.g. Real Player, Netscape, Office, etc.. So maybe it would be a problem.
There's stuff there mentioning a Windows version. So I guess they're still in business.
Ok, care to fill us in on the full quote then? It's clear Linus was joking. Let's here what Bill had to say. And preferably also the person from IBM who invented the 1MB limit which is still a problem to some people today.
While we're at it, I thought I'd point the above out. I remember calibrating delay loops by putting things like REM : REM : REM : REM : REM in. I mean, y'd expect it to cause a delay when running interpreted, but not in the compiled version. I suspect that VB "executable" files probably just had a stub at the beginning that loaded a DLL to interpret the (obfuscated?) code within the rest of the "executable".
I understand what you're saying, an interesting argument which implies that the GPL might not hold up in court for libraries (depending on the particular court).
But the problem here is the other way round - some people wrote GPLed apps, and the KDE people have linked derivative works to Qt. Troll may not be able to control what links to QT, but they certainly have legal control over how the library is distributed. The way they license this control is not free enough to be compatible with the GPL which the original app was placed under.
Not all of them. But certainly some that I've seen (and that's Win32 versions, not old 3.x versions). Dunno exactly what you need to do it, but I'd try IE3 and Win 9x at a guess.
pine doesn't allow distribution of binaries [possibly excepting ones built from unmodified source?].
And what a great system they're bucking, that can be crashed with a single link. Please don't tarnish all linux users as theives, just because one of them walked in through the open window and trashed your living room.
This is true for stuff written *for* KDE. But for pre-existing GPLed stuff which the KDE people borrowed, there is no such implicit permission.
Please don't dismiss people as "license crackpots" unless you are sure you understand what they are saying.
While that is certainly true, I meant to say "non-native English speaker".
I agree this is hard to read. I got the gist of it, but it took a couple of rereadings, and a non-English speaker may not have understood.
I think that's a perfectly acceptable colloquialism. Ok, it's got redundant information in, but so has "look at that pen of David's" (double genitive).If you get the job, I'm sure you'll do a great job of weeding out ambiguous, messy collections of words like the first example. But please don't kill off valid colloquial phrases! There's more to English than writing formal letters, and there's no reason why linuxuk.co.uk articles should have to be formal.
No, they want someone to sell them computers with preinstalled Windows but without a backup CD, so they can't reinstall! They want OS licensing which means they have to buy a new copy of Windows if they upgrade the network card! God bless innovation and may he strike down the government heathen who dare to suggest that Microsoft's actions are the actions of a monopolist!
Yep, and the guy who was supposedly in charge of the demo testified repeatedly that it was the same computer. Until Boies pointed out that the icons suddenly changed - at which point he said he wasn't there when the demo was being recorded.
It's not so much that the court pointed out that it wasn't good evidence - the MS employee made *false* claims about the evidence, under oath. You may think it was a mistake; you may think it was a lie. But it was a lot more serious than the court merely saying "it's not very strong evidence".
Oh, come on, any big group of people has a few people with unaverage views who make a lot of noise. Don't believe that those are the views of the silent majority of Debian developers.
There's one big difference. If they are two separate companies, then the heads of each company are legally obliged to try to maximise *their* company's profit (even if at the expense of the other one). Knowingly not doing this would be a criminal offence. The people high up in MS may have a lot of money but I doubt they want to end up in jail for fraud.
Anyone know how to patch [any released version of] COMMAND.COM to do this? (I realise it'd break command-line switches on most apps)
I don't think it was. The first time I remember thinking that MS might really lose was when he reacted to their fake videotape. Not that he went over the top - he didn't accuse them of intentionally faking it - but it shattered their aura of invincibility.
Jackson's finding of fact was meticulous IMHO. It proved its claims beyond reasonable argument and didn't try to say anything which wasn't 100% well-founded.