"Just because they point to something as their justification does not mean it actually justifies said behavior."
I thought this is exactly what government does and legislation that has passed approval in 2 of the 3 branches, a.k.a. laws, are the thing they point to. Unless a law is amended or repealed altogether then it actually DOES justify the behavior when manipulated against your perceived interpretation.
I missed the part of this particular conversation where "..."pass by reference"...make it impossible to pass NULL..." and the use of typecast are the mechanism for proving the original assertion incorrect; the semantics of passing by reference instead of passing by pointer.
As an aside those are C-style typecast and use none of the C++ typecast semantics specifically made ass ugly in order to expose potentially dangerous characteristics.
"In C++ it's harder to shoot yourself in the foot, but when you do, you blow off your whole leg." - Bjarne Stroustrup
I suppose this is a solid example of why this quote exist.
I believe the point your are making can be succinctly made by Bush:
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again."
"First off, it only costs $1(us) at most to manufacture and ship a CD. Probably more like $0.50 or less, perhaps even $0.25. So they are likely making $11 to $11.75 for each CD after the physical costs of creating and moving them. "
Most insightful comment because we can completely ignore the production cost of producing the actual content that is the master copy to be created in mass. Obviously it does not factor into the equation. I suppose it is the same as producing a microchip for pennies even though the first one subsidizes the endeavor.
I am not defending the record industry however I am challenging that your opening statement was sufficient in me disregarding the rest or your opinion without reading further.
"I also don't work for a mega corporation that has entire brigades of lawyers to get paid to look at these very things. Google apparently didn't understand what it meant nor had any of the many lawyers who get paid to look at these types of things actually look at it."
I disagree. In fact, given the original language, I would say lawyers did examine it and did what lawyers do best in the best interest of their client. Think along the lines of "much easier to give something up than take something away" during litigation. Might as well claim the world up front rather than after the fact, no?
"...It has occurred to me that $(SOME_PET_PEEVE_SOFTWARE_ISSUE_OF_USER_GROUP_XYZ) on Linux is the one major entry barrier controlling acceptance of Linux as a viable desktop operating system..."
Your needs are vastly different than mine. Because you fail to understand this point you will never understand the "major entry barrier controlling acceptance of Linux as..." is actually you .
Par for the course because that is how politics work in a capitalistic society that feeds on its own. It is obscene that years of real American people participating in public outcry have yet to achieve so much as a footnote yet big money bends the ears of the scum that is now Washington.
Realizing the U.S. is a republic and not a democracy it is still pretty sad how the system works...For the ones that game it.
"Such as Novell would have to prove that anyone actually ever believed anything SCO claimed."
Rob Enderle can be quoted as such...
Rob Enderle - Where Are You Now?
on
SCO Loses
·
· Score: 1
I followed your advice and opinions because you told me the OSS zealots are foaming at the mouth crazy nut jobs with no grasp of reality. You told me you worked for IBM and knew first hand that they are evil reincarnate and time would vindicate SCO because they fight the noble cause much like you. You assured me you had no ax to grind and as a technology pundit you knew your stuff and to disregard industry insiders running counter to your perspective less I invite problems at my own peril.
I'm not one to get discouraged easily but it sure would be reassuring for you to shovel more shit opinions regarding this latest news. There is no way I would argue against your industry insight since you have managed to be spot on 100% wrong with every twist and turn of the SCO/IBM/Novell/Red Hat/OSS battle.
I don't have any to read, not a lawyer, nor do I feel like reading them either but I agree 110% - interesting to see if someone that is post something to the contrary. In the mean time I am with you.
My comment about litigation going both ways is in those extremely rare situations where a company legitimately avoids Microsoft products and partners and still get caught up in this mess...Something the tone of the original article seems to smell of while crying foul about Microsoft's latest strategy to increase revenue any way they can.
Sentence by sentence: Agree...Whole-heartedly at that. Agreed again. Not sure, but more curious why people accept it...Oh yeah, those damn license and contract agreements they enter into, that's why.
As stated in another post in this thread - I believe these situation really only apply to previous or existing Microsoft customers to begin with thus going a long way to enabling such activities. Instead of strong-arm alarmist stories I would rather see articles showing that Microsoft erroneously went after a company that was not actually in a violation of their agreement. Not saying they don't exist but just because it is possible does not mean it is happening. That is my point, those situation are much more newsworthy than this.
I hear what you are saying but to my knowledge Earnie Ball, of guitar string fame, is the only one that fell victim to such tactics. As a result they switched over to Linux, improved the bottom line, and have been a poster child of success for switching to OSS regardless of all the paid for TCO arguments. At the same time, that is only one example and more the exception than the rule.
As for your question - I would love to get a visit by the BSA and harassed by Microsoft. Trouble is right now that they call me ALL THE DAMN TIME trying to sell our company Microsoft products so it would be lovely just from a "different kind of annoyance" factor...And possible litigation when it was over. Never been harassed so I don't know just how illegal the whole thing really is but willing to test the situation. My bet, read as assumption, the real problem are the companies that are in actual violation of their contract agreements hence why the Earnie Ball incident is a rare one.
"Will MS compensate businesses for the time they have to spend proving that their copies are legal?"
A lawsuit works both ways. The plaintiff can become the defendant very easily if one is not careful. Will they compensate? Doubt it. Do they compensate for massive worm/trojan outbreaks that cripple businesses from coast to coast as a result of using their software? Why would they compensate in this case then when the scale is much, much lower on the visibility radar?
"...really don't see what the big deal is. Regardless of whatever ethical problems one may have with Microsoft, if a business is using illegal copies of software, that company should be sued."
This being/. with the sensationalism of anything painting Microsoft in a negative light to drive the masses to alternatives is what I'm reading. It's a well known formula for karma increases, potential stories being accepted, etc. Truth is, like you stated - If you are using illegal copies you should be sued. Pony up or seek an alternative. If the alternative isn't legal then prepare for the contingency of being caught and the consequences they bring. Not sure how this is news really.
"Oh Noes - Microsoft is being evil to the surfs. This will help Linux/Mac/BSD for sure...No, it failed? OH SNAP I've been duped yet again! There's always Linux Desktop in 2008 I guess"
Note: I don't run Microsoft products at work or at home - don't assume I'm a Microsoft fanboi over the point I raise above either...Far, far from it actually.
Where are their opinions on this matter now? Mr. Enderle was a very vocal person on this subject at one time for example. There were others of course but he stood out being one of the most vocal with how malicious OSS community is and how IBM has its days numbered if for no other reason than previous evils it has committed along with Groklaw being devoid of any substance or meaningful insight on this subject. Credibility is inversely proportional to actually being correct it would appear in this light, so why aren't these people talking now?
Oh c'mon and get real - good coding practices went out with C every since we learned we could blame the language instead of the application of it. You aren't trying to say this can affect all the latest languages as well? The mind boggles...
How so? If Microsoft actually forked Java rather than create something like, oh say, C# - any forks would have to be just as available. Myself I can't see Microsoft advancing a technology that will help competitors so the flip side would be to dilute the pool of choices with worse options. Either way the forks would be incorporated into other projects if they are of merit and have actual value or they would be dropped and "wither on the vine" so to speak.
Slashdot Mirror
"...How many times does this have to happen...do people have some inability to know who and what they are dealing with?"
I believe the saying goes, "A fool is born every minute."
"Just because they point to something as their justification does not mean it actually justifies said behavior."
I thought this is exactly what government does and legislation that has passed approval in 2 of the 3 branches, a.k.a. laws, are the thing they point to. Unless a law is amended or repealed altogether then it actually DOES justify the behavior when manipulated against your perceived interpretation.
I missed the part of this particular conversation where "..."pass by reference"...make it impossible to pass NULL..." and the use of typecast are the mechanism for proving the original assertion incorrect; the semantics of passing by reference instead of passing by pointer.
As an aside those are C-style typecast and use none of the C++ typecast semantics specifically made ass ugly in order to expose potentially dangerous characteristics.
"In C++ it's harder to shoot yourself in the foot, but when you do, you blow off your whole leg." - Bjarne Stroustrup
I suppose this is a solid example of why this quote exist.
I believe the point your are making can be succinctly made by Bush:
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again."
"First off, it only costs $1(us) at most to manufacture and ship a CD. Probably more like $0.50 or less, perhaps even $0.25. So they are likely making $11 to $11.75 for each CD after the physical costs of creating and moving them. "
Most insightful comment because we can completely ignore the production cost of producing the actual content that is the master copy to be created in mass. Obviously it does not factor into the equation. I suppose it is the same as producing a microchip for pennies even though the first one subsidizes the endeavor.
I am not defending the record industry however I am challenging that your opening statement was sufficient in me disregarding the rest or your opinion without reading further.
"I also don't work for a mega corporation that has entire brigades of lawyers to get paid to look at these very things. Google apparently didn't understand what it meant nor had any of the many lawyers who get paid to look at these types of things actually look at it."
I disagree. In fact, given the original language, I would say lawyers did examine it and did what lawyers do best in the best interest of their client. Think along the lines of "much easier to give something up than take something away" during litigation. Might as well claim the world up front rather than after the fact, no?
"...It has occurred to me that $(SOME_PET_PEEVE_SOFTWARE_ISSUE_OF_USER_GROUP_XYZ) on Linux is the one major entry barrier controlling acceptance of Linux as a viable desktop operating system..."
Your needs are vastly different than mine. Because you fail to understand this point you will never understand the "major entry barrier controlling acceptance of Linux as..." is actually you .
Exactly.
"...listening first and foremost to feedback we hear from partners and customers about what makes sense based on their needs..."
Hearing Microsoft use the term partners and customers always strikes me as resellers and vendors not consumers of Microsoft products.
Par for the course because that is how politics work in a capitalistic society that feeds on its own. It is obscene that years of real American people participating in public outcry have yet to achieve so much as a footnote yet big money bends the ears of the scum that is now Washington.
Realizing the U.S. is a republic and not a democracy it is still pretty sad how the system works...For the ones that game it.
"Such as Novell would have to prove that anyone actually ever believed anything SCO claimed."
Rob Enderle can be quoted as such...
I followed your advice and opinions because you told me the OSS zealots are foaming at the mouth crazy nut jobs with no grasp of reality. You told me you worked for IBM and knew first hand that they are evil reincarnate and time would vindicate SCO because they fight the noble cause much like you. You assured me you had no ax to grind and as a technology pundit you knew your stuff and to disregard industry insiders running counter to your perspective less I invite problems at my own peril.
I'm not one to get discouraged easily but it sure would be reassuring for you to shovel more shit opinions regarding this latest news. There is no way I would argue against your industry insight since you have managed to be spot on 100% wrong with every twist and turn of the SCO/IBM/Novell/Red Hat/OSS battle.
"plz use cvr sheet 4 tps, also need u @ ofc sat"
Is this an IM or is this a typical upper management E-Mail without spell check?
This would be the one time I did not have mod points just waiting to expire.
I don't have any to read, not a lawyer, nor do I feel like reading them either but I agree 110% - interesting to see if someone that is post something to the contrary. In the mean time I am with you.
My comment about litigation going both ways is in those extremely rare situations where a company legitimately avoids Microsoft products and partners and still get caught up in this mess...Something the tone of the original article seems to smell of while crying foul about Microsoft's latest strategy to increase revenue any way they can.
Aack! You make a good point on your correction. I didn't catch that until you pointed it out...D'oh!
Oh Noes!!! I suck - FTW
Sentence by sentence: Agree...Whole-heartedly at that. Agreed again. Not sure, but more curious why people accept it...Oh yeah, those damn license and contract agreements they enter into, that's why.
As stated in another post in this thread - I believe these situation really only apply to previous or existing Microsoft customers to begin with thus going a long way to enabling such activities. Instead of strong-arm alarmist stories I would rather see articles showing that Microsoft erroneously went after a company that was not actually in a violation of their agreement. Not saying they don't exist but just because it is possible does not mean it is happening. That is my point, those situation are much more newsworthy than this.
I hear what you are saying but to my knowledge Earnie Ball, of guitar string fame, is the only one that fell victim to such tactics. As a result they switched over to Linux, improved the bottom line, and have been a poster child of success for switching to OSS regardless of all the paid for TCO arguments. At the same time, that is only one example and more the exception than the rule.
As for your question - I would love to get a visit by the BSA and harassed by Microsoft. Trouble is right now that they call me ALL THE DAMN TIME trying to sell our company Microsoft products so it would be lovely just from a "different kind of annoyance" factor...And possible litigation when it was over. Never been harassed so I don't know just how illegal the whole thing really is but willing to test the situation. My bet, read as assumption, the real problem are the companies that are in actual violation of their contract agreements hence why the Earnie Ball incident is a rare one.
Just saying, not arguing against your retort.
"Will MS compensate businesses for the time they have to spend proving that their copies are legal?"
A lawsuit works both ways. The plaintiff can become the defendant very easily if one is not careful.
Will they compensate? Doubt it. Do they compensate for massive worm/trojan outbreaks that cripple businesses from coast to coast as a result of using their software? Why would they compensate in this case then when the scale is much, much lower on the visibility radar?
"...really don't see what the big deal is. Regardless of whatever ethical problems one may have with Microsoft, if a business is using illegal copies of software, that company should be sued."
/. with the sensationalism of anything painting Microsoft in a negative light to drive the masses to alternatives is what I'm reading. It's a well known formula for karma increases, potential stories being accepted, etc. Truth is, like you stated - If you are using illegal copies you should be sued. Pony up or seek an alternative. If the alternative isn't legal then prepare for the contingency of being caught and the consequences they bring. Not sure how this is news really.
This being
"Oh Noes - Microsoft is being evil to the surfs. This will help Linux/Mac/BSD for sure...No, it failed? OH SNAP I've been duped yet again! There's always Linux Desktop in 2008 I guess"
Note: I don't run Microsoft products at work or at home - don't assume I'm a Microsoft fanboi over the point I raise above either...Far, far from it actually.
Like the poster before me and as an added bonus:
Koders tends to be of use to me when I use it from time to time.
Where are their opinions on this matter now? Mr. Enderle was a very vocal person on this subject at one time for example. There were others of course but he stood out being one of the most vocal with how malicious OSS community is and how IBM has its days numbered if for no other reason than previous evils it has committed along with Groklaw being devoid of any substance or meaningful insight on this subject. Credibility is inversely proportional to actually being correct it would appear in this light, so why aren't these people talking now?
Oh c'mon and get real - good coding practices went out with C every since we learned we could blame the language instead of the application of it. You aren't trying to say this can affect all the latest languages as well? The mind boggles...
/sarcasm
How so? If Microsoft actually forked Java rather than create something like, oh say, C# - any forks would have to be just as available. Myself I can't see Microsoft advancing a technology that will help competitors so the flip side would be to dilute the pool of choices with worse options. Either way the forks would be incorporated into other projects if they are of merit and have actual value or they would be dropped and "wither on the vine" so to speak.
"...Have you read the EULA? Well, neither have I actually..."
Are you this person by chance?
Look People, this is a multi-million dollar installation, okay? AcidLacedPenguN can't make that kind of decision, he's just a grunt!