Personally, I have no stake - I'm a late adopter, but not that late.:)
But I've worked with some very slow moving companies that would be unhappy to have their platform yanked early. It's not a matter of how long is reasonable - it's entirely about what they were promised and planned for.
If it was part of the OS, it's not fair to expect people to upgrade their OS early, not that I personally believe that line.
Microsofts support life cycle for an OS is known years in advance to it taking effect - for example, MS already publishes the fact that Vista transitions from Main Stream Support to Extended Support on 2012-04-20, and exits Extended Support on 2017-04-11.
This isn't some last minute rug-pulling carried out by Microsoft - its out there for all to plan around.
The financial institutions seemed to have cracked it with regard to verifiable, traceable, tamper-proof data exchange - why aren't VISA or MasterCard getting in on the act?
If IE6 was a critical part of the operating system, shouldn't it get critical updates for the life of the operating system?
IE6 is getting critical updates for the life of the operating system, but the problem is that the operating system is at its end of life. Microsoft have put it into extended support, where XP (and therefor IE6) gets security updates for the next 5 years.
Shouldn't corporate customers who bought in with the promise that they'd have a stable platform for however many years actually be able to use that platform, with all its knotholes, for that long?
By the time MS stops security patches for XP, they will have supported the platform for 13 years. How much longer do you want a stable platform?
Tom Tom did indeed blink first - they had been discussing licensing with Microsoft of several Tom Tom patents which they felt Microsoft had been infringing upon, and had threatened MS with litigation. When the licensing deal fell through, Microsoft simply pulled the gun first.
So why is no one trying very hard to invalidate Tom Toms patents in this case? From the sound of it they seem rather trivial -
There are over 50 airports in Madagascar, recognised by the ICAO and IATA, including three paved over 7000ft long which would be fine for landing large civil aircraft.
The big issue with the FunkWorks ruling is that train times are not facts, they are fiction. Complete and utter fiction. And therefor fully copyrightable:)
We just had a similar issue with 3Com switches - a range of their 48 ports have huge speed issues when communicating across the internal backplane which connects the two separate 24 port fronts to each other and the Gigabit uplinks, meaning your nice 100MBit port can only achieve 100Kbits or so, regardless of the rest of the traffic on the switch. Nice.
Turnitin have a private archive of your material - there is nothing to 'take down', as they are not distributing. They have a private archive of work, and as such can no more be infringing than my bookshelf at home can be.
No, the 4GB limit is not an integer issue in the Windows Server range of products - Windows Server Enterprise can happily use much more than the 4GB that Windows Server Standard can and the codebase is the same, its an artificial restriction based on the license key entered.
Have Windows Server Standard editions been cracked to handle more than 4GB ram yet? How about the Windows Home editions handling more than a set number of processors?
I'm sorry, are you entitled to any DLC? No, didn't think so. I lose count of the number of times Xbox360 owners have been 'shafted' because of exclusitivity agreements for the PS3...
Why should a third party have to ensure something exists for *you* in 150 years? You can always get your own private archival copy today, digitize it and just not publish it until the copyright has expired...
You have hit the nail on the head with regard to how they would do it - man in the middle proxy talking to both ends as each other, generating certs for the domains on the fly. With regard to it being illegal, that is something that the EU are currently contesting with the UK suggesting that it isnt.
Well, that is one option, but ideally because the IIS servers will be running.Net apps, it would be nice to actually load balance them, so they would both be 'live' in that situation. At the moment, I have to physically repoint the Apache2 proxy at the other server to fail over (or change IP addresses on the IIS box).
At the moment I have two OpenBSD servers acting as a single firewall infront of two IIS6 Windows 2003 R2 servers - the OpenBSD servers are acting as an Apache2 reverse proxy for IIS. Only one of the IIS6 servers is 'live' at any one time, the second is the spare.
Currently, the setup has an automatic failover for the OpenBSD servers via CARP, which works great. However, the IIS servers are currently limited to manual failover, they cant use MS Network Load Balancing because I need session based balancing, and not just IP based balancing.
Can anyone recommend an easy way to implement session based failover? I took a look at Nginx before settling on Apache simply because the Nginx documentation was terrible, and also very highly 'you already know the product' orientated.
If they have a top level certificate, they can generate all the domain certs they want on the fly - it would be no different at all to the cert you get from Verisign to run on your web server.
This is why ISPs should never be allowed to own a top level cert.
Except my original comment does not follow 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 or 2.5 at all - my original comment was a display to you that the EU were following the DoJs M.O. and going after foreign companies, the only issue with it is that I did not cherry pick examples as you did.
So no, my original argument was not a strawman. Yours, however, could be interpreted as a strawman because of your oversimplication through cherry picking examples.
And you have yet to present one shred of evidence that the EU is malicious in its actions.
Slashdot Mirror
Hahah, seems some anti-MS ranter didn't like the truth.
Guess what - something you say in public can have consequences. Fancy that!
Personally, I have no stake - I'm a late adopter, but not that late. :)
But I've worked with some very slow moving companies that would be unhappy to have their platform yanked early. It's not a matter of how long is reasonable - it's entirely about what they were promised and planned for.
If it was part of the OS, it's not fair to expect people to upgrade their OS early, not that I personally believe that line.
Microsofts support life cycle for an OS is known years in advance to it taking effect - for example, MS already publishes the fact that Vista transitions from Main Stream Support to Extended Support on 2012-04-20, and exits Extended Support on 2017-04-11.
This isn't some last minute rug-pulling carried out by Microsoft - its out there for all to plan around.
The financial institutions seemed to have cracked it with regard to verifiable, traceable, tamper-proof data exchange - why aren't VISA or MasterCard getting in on the act?
If IE6 was a critical part of the operating system, shouldn't it get critical updates for the life of the operating system?
IE6 is getting critical updates for the life of the operating system, but the problem is that the operating system is at its end of life. Microsoft have put it into extended support, where XP (and therefor IE6) gets security updates for the next 5 years.
Shouldn't corporate customers who bought in with the promise that they'd have a stable platform for however many years actually be able to use that platform, with all its knotholes, for that long?
By the time MS stops security patches for XP, they will have supported the platform for 13 years. How much longer do you want a stable platform?
Tom Tom did indeed blink first - they had been discussing licensing with Microsoft of several Tom Tom patents which they felt Microsoft had been infringing upon, and had threatened MS with litigation. When the licensing deal fell through, Microsoft simply pulled the gun first.
So why is no one trying very hard to invalidate Tom Toms patents in this case? From the sound of it they seem rather trivial -
Generating a maneuver at the intersection through a turn lane
Quick selection of destinations in an automobile navigation system
There is a third one which is not currently within the USPTO search engine.
Or is this just the usual 'hey its Microsoft, lets see if we can kick them' ferver?
And besides, three out of eight patents does not mean the case against Tom Tom goes away...
Theres a flash game? Seriously, theres a flash game? :)
There are over 50 airports in Madagascar, recognised by the ICAO and IATA, including three paved over 7000ft long which would be fine for landing large civil aircraft.
Your post makes it painfully obvious that you haven't actually used AD or Group Policies, and your entire post is a pack of lies.
The big issue with the FunkWorks ruling is that train times are not facts, they are fiction. Complete and utter fiction. And therefor fully copyrightable :)
We just had a similar issue with 3Com switches - a range of their 48 ports have huge speed issues when communicating across the internal backplane which connects the two separate 24 port fronts to each other and the Gigabit uplinks, meaning your nice 100MBit port can only achieve 100Kbits or so, regardless of the rest of the traffic on the switch. Nice.
You need to read the link you posted, as it doesn't mean what you think it means...
Sorry but thats life - Copyright law covers distribution, not private usage, and this is private usage.
Turnitin have a private archive of your material - there is nothing to 'take down', as they are not distributing. They have a private archive of work, and as such can no more be infringing than my bookshelf at home can be.
The students retain every IP right, but Turnitin is not doing anything wrong under copyright law - they never distribute the work.
No, the 4GB limit is not an integer issue in the Windows Server range of products - Windows Server Enterprise can happily use much more than the 4GB that Windows Server Standard can and the codebase is the same, its an artificial restriction based on the license key entered.
Have Windows Server Standard editions been cracked to handle more than 4GB ram yet? How about the Windows Home editions handling more than a set number of processors?
I'm sorry, are you entitled to any DLC? No, didn't think so. I lose count of the number of times Xbox360 owners have been 'shafted' because of exclusitivity agreements for the PS3...
Why should a third party have to ensure something exists for *you* in 150 years? You can always get your own private archival copy today, digitize it and just not publish it until the copyright has expired...
You have hit the nail on the head with regard to how they would do it - man in the middle proxy talking to both ends as each other, generating certs for the domains on the fly. With regard to it being illegal, that is something that the EU are currently contesting with the UK suggesting that it isnt.
Well, that is one option, but ideally because the IIS servers will be running .Net apps, it would be nice to actually load balance them, so they would both be 'live' in that situation. At the moment, I have to physically repoint the Apache2 proxy at the other server to fail over (or change IP addresses on the IIS box).
At the moment I have two OpenBSD servers acting as a single firewall infront of two IIS6 Windows 2003 R2 servers - the OpenBSD servers are acting as an Apache2 reverse proxy for IIS. Only one of the IIS6 servers is 'live' at any one time, the second is the spare.
Currently, the setup has an automatic failover for the OpenBSD servers via CARP, which works great. However, the IIS servers are currently limited to manual failover, they cant use MS Network Load Balancing because I need session based balancing, and not just IP based balancing.
Can anyone recommend an easy way to implement session based failover? I took a look at Nginx before settling on Apache simply because the Nginx documentation was terrible, and also very highly 'you already know the product' orientated.
If they have a top level certificate, they can generate all the domain certs they want on the fly - it would be no different at all to the cert you get from Verisign to run on your web server.
This is why ISPs should never be allowed to own a top level cert.
BT owns a top level cert, so they can do a man in the middle attack without any error messages popping up on your end.
Except my original comment does not follow 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 or 2.5 at all - my original comment was a display to you that the EU were following the DoJs M.O. and going after foreign companies, the only issue with it is that I did not cherry pick examples as you did.
So no, my original argument was not a strawman. Yours, however, could be interpreted as a strawman because of your oversimplication through cherry picking examples.
And you have yet to present one shred of evidence that the EU is malicious in its actions.