It propagates the myth that there is such a thing as "international law" Now one of us has completely missed the point here.
The original poster stated clearly from the onset: Please don't use the word "illegal" in this context...
I took that to mean given the semantics noted and the spirit of the discussion that in this case when war breaks out, all hell breaks out with it. So even if technically speaking there is a law, a treaty, or a good ol'fashion gentlemans agreement before the situation it doesn't matter and if you plan to play by those rules you can count on being screwed every time by not considering every contingency; like someone doing something they were not suppose to. War is the forced exchange of ideas and in typical human fashion some people will do anything to avoid learning them.
You stated a background in introductory law that I do not have. You may be correct but again I believe the poster qualified his "perspective" again with the following:
"...Some tactics are prohibited by certain treaties. But that's not the same thing as saying that those tactics are illegal."
and the importance of why I am posting a response is because:
"I know this seems like a very small thing, but it's an important point."
And I think you missed it. So semantics aside, war is war.
If a malware author employed by some other search engine wrote some code that detected a Google Submit button-hit and launched pop-ups, how difficult would it be to persuade average people that it wasn't Google doing it?
Probably no more difficult than it would be to have a lawyer draft up a cease and desists order that would spell out dire consequences if persued in court; and have much more teeth than a SCO claim. That would be my thought.
True but you have to tag it that way or the Microsoft zealots will come along and try to correct you by labeling it as such. "My ad-hominen trumps your facts", blah blah blah...
3. Use this tactic, as a puppet of Microsoft*, to bury/stifle competition with legal drains which in this case are FSF/OSS; and anything associated with it.
</tinfoil hat mode>
* Or business partner, you decide. I do not know which term would apply to a convicted monopolist in this sense.
It may have something to do with why this got front page "news" worthiness?
You have to admit that the entire issue is something that could be resolved by a few minutes of thinking for ones' own self.
The geek community typically responds to questions like these with RTFM, STFW, or {GASP} google...and they always get remarked on as being caustic too.
Just my opinion though, I don't know what the guy was thinking anymore than why the original artical was such a lame question.
Why is this relevant? Somebody posted a valid fact about the license under which this code based was released to a community that is pervasively pro-GPL. Completely relevenant.
"Stop using Apache, Mozilla, gzip, etc. etc." I do not find this relevant but in the context of your post it is. Moving on.
"Your obvious argument "um, not that hot because it's not GPL compatible" is stupid, but I guess that's how our "community" works. If Microsoft released Office under the GPL tomorrow you'd find some way to bitch about it." Again in the context of the parent post this appears to be irrelevant but not in the context of your post.
The only one I see "bitching" in this context is you. Again, the parent poster simply posted a fact about the license compatibility that the WTL was released. Nobody bitched about it but you. Unlike a lot of other threads in this article this seemed worthy of the informative modding it got. No subjective comments, addititions to the facts - just a simple truth. Perhaps you meant to reply to any number of other posts in this article and not this parent? Understand I am not being critical of you. It does seem to be the popular thing to do is bitch around "here".
""um, not that hot because it's not GPL compatible" is stupid, but I guess that's how our "community" Now I am being critical of you. Yes - this is exactly how "our" community works and if this seems stupid or whatever I seriously question if you are really part of that community. It _IS_ the entire basis on which code contribution works. I am speaking as a coder, not an admin, not a PHB, but somebody that gives and gets from "our" community.
This is no more offtopic than the original parent post, and it got +5 Intersting.
Just because someone thinks ftp isn't convenient as an ISO download that gets an interesting modification? Someone tells them that GNU GPL doesn't mandate that it has to be an ISO in the same langauge they use it's off-topic?
Somebody give me +Informative modpoints for informing moderators how to mod correctly.
I do not run Windows in my home or work environment so the way they package their EULA does not affect me personally. Don't misunderstand me though. I agree with your post.
"Soon MS will be bitten by product worthiness issues, as almost all other for-sale products are."
But the truth is, to my knowledge anyway, that has not happened yet. Because of this I can see no reason why Microsofts obligations should not be to its shareholders and shareholders only. That was my point - no incentive to do otherwise.
"MS has an obligation to ensure that their products do not cause harm to others..."
Funny as the way I recall it seems the software industry in general through the power of EULA's require you to not hold them responsible for anything even though you are a paying consumer. One of the only industries that I am aware of that you can do this.
I believe the _only_ obligation is to its share holders. I may be wrong however...
I _would_ conceed to your point but I don't think you have made one. In fact, if anything, I think you have missed the point.
You are comparing things to what? Do closed source or in-house proprietary projects have any "open" resources in which a comparison _could_ be made? Does that mean that they do not exist or "*are* ill conceived and thrown together with little or no thought given to structure" in any less fashion? The fact of the matter is they are indeed suspect to the very same observation you have made. Prove me wrong with examples that are relevant. In the mean time I am going to stick with my empirical knowledge of both worlds since I have first hand knowledge of each.
Regardless nobody has reputed the fact that crap exists in either camp nor has anyone proved that closed source is a model to follow for development as oppposed to an open source model. What has been proven is that forethought and planning, even if only in the smallest detail is never a wasted effort. As with anything, moderation is the key no matter which side of line your lean towards; plan too much and your cutting edge R&D idea will stagnate before it starts to grow roots. But this isn't the issue I took insult too. It was the ignorant remark that "foo bar & qux" is the way _NOT_ to do it with absolutely no facts to base that on.
The real truth here is that open source, with all of its warts is open for inspection, not just source code. That fact alone leaves a strong debate that the old-fashioned "tried and true" way of closed source development is the best way of keeping up with the status quo. This may be stretch as I don't communicate the best way but closed source is just now coming around to having the end users more involved with the iterative development process. Open source has always been that way if you really think about it. (SARCASM ALERT) But yeah, Open Source is not the way to model development. (Again, this isn't directed to you, it's the parent I responded too)
As an aside I will commend you for at least making an attempt to qualify your perspective. That in and of itself is worth the informative and insightful modpoints the parent received instead as well as who my response was directed at. This also sums up my/. diatribe. Thanks for playing...
Care to point out a tiny sample of "most" Open Source that follows this norm?
In the interest of being taken seriously I will point out a few that I know of that seem rather well thought out: fltk FOX gcc Oh yeah, here and others
You were modded informative yet I see nothing informative in your post. Perhaps because I have contributed to some of these projects and I am jaded? Perhaps because more work gets done in these projects than the corporate arena of closed source that I used to work in and I might be close minded and missing your point? It's a possiblity but I will try to become openminded in case I missed the informative part of your post.
I am going to get modded and trolled to oblivion for this but oh well...
The thing they may seem to appear to be missing is not network admins find it easier to install, configure, manage, etc. The reason is IT mindshare amongst the actual competent IT people, as in IT developers, IT admins, IT users. It is a vastly superior platform for which to produce true innovative ideas and experimentation. Hell the "spirit" of the community promotes this at its core. It does not cater to the average joe of the world that has a job merely for the check they receive. So yeah, if someone knows how to whip up an Access database, analyze it in Excel and throw together VB code to meet the requirements of CEO's then they might just not ever "get it".
Linux may never dominate the masses. I don't think it will. If I am wrong or right what does it matter? Nothing. What does matter is that if you are one of the people I am describing you already made your choice anyway and in the end you will not care about markets, mindshare, or any other buzzword.
You only care about what is important to you.
Microsoft appears to miss the above statement in the eyes of the either party, it's a perspective thing, but that does not mean they are not getting it either. They seem to be doing what is important to them, like I just stated, but much better at convincing non-thinkers it is for their benefit. The biggest threat they have is misjudging how many people are educating themselves. The biggest advantage they have is ideas are a very fragile thing and a lot of people have a general tendency to dismiss ideas in favor of the status quo, so much so that they rather attack the person(s) delivering the ideas than to question if the norm is relevant like it once might have been and adapt to new frontiers. If you take my perspective at face value then Microsoft has a huge positive going for them more than a negative, but again, that is a perspective thing and depends heavily on context.
GNU/Linux nor Microsoft can change peoples mind, only a person who is open to new ideas can do that, and they do that for themselves. That sums up my/. ranting...
Slashdot Mirror
It propagates the myth that there is such a thing as "international law"
.
Now one of us has completely missed the point here.
The original poster stated clearly from the onset: Please don't use the word "illegal" in this context...
I took that to mean given the semantics noted and the spirit of the discussion that in this case when war breaks out, all hell breaks out with it. So even if technically speaking there is a law, a treaty, or a good ol'fashion gentlemans agreement before the situation it doesn't matter and if you plan to play by those rules you can count on being screwed every time by not considering every contingency; like someone doing something they were not suppose to. War is the forced exchange of ideas and in typical human fashion some people will do anything to avoid learning them.
You stated a background in introductory law that I do not have. You may be correct but again I believe the poster qualified his "perspective" again with the following:
"...Some tactics are prohibited by certain treaties. But that's not the same thing as saying that those tactics are illegal."
and the importance of why I am posting a response is because:
"I know this seems like a very small thing, but it's an important point."
And I think you missed it. So semantics aside, war is war
1. generate a password using some word algorithm: I was born on a Monday = "IwboaM"
That's what I do with all my passwords, for example:
People Always Suspect Secret Words Or Random Dates
Wait a minute, D'oh!
If a malware author employed by some other search engine wrote some code that detected a Google Submit button-hit and launched pop-ups, how difficult would it be to persuade average people that it wasn't Google doing it?
Probably no more difficult than it would be to have a lawyer draft up a cease and desists order that would spell out dire consequences if persued in court; and have much more teeth than a SCO claim. That would be my thought.
True but you have to tag it that way or the Microsoft zealots will come along and try to correct you by labeling it as such. "My ad-hominen trumps your facts", blah blah blah...
Thought I would beat them to the punch.
Nice!
If they're not doing their job, can't someone oversee them?
I see somebody here is a staunch supporter of big business and big government with that attitude.
I think the ideal thing to do is replace "them" with something that actually works, not oversee "them". Just a thought.
Nope - that's my point really. ;-)
True enough. Excuse my lack of clarity because the commentary was not on the original poster's use of the term...
I thought the International Space Station only allows a limited number of countries. It's the whole "No girls allowed in this club house." concept.
Well that does explain the whole International naming convention...
uhm.. the guy who paid x thousand dollars to have it trained?
Naw, I quit getting upset at government wasting my taxes.
But I thought the punch line was "There are some things that even a rat won't do."
I guess saving lives is one of them rather than ruining them...
It may have something to do with why this got front page "news" worthiness?
You have to admit that the entire issue is something that could be resolved by a few minutes of thinking for ones' own self.
The geek community typically responds to questions like these with RTFM, STFW, or {GASP} google...and they always get remarked on as being caustic too.
Just my opinion though, I don't know what the guy was thinking anymore than why the original artical was such a lame question.
You _ARE_ my trolling hero!
Nice touch regurgitating the article and getting modded up. Combined with this I say you are unstoppable!
Good form.
The irony of your post in context of what this about. Absolutely hilarious!!!
This almost overshadows Sarojin's entertainment. (If you a truly this clueless, follow the links; all of them)
You are indeed an excellent troll.
Kudos to you and how you offset your trolling habits with karma whoring.
Examples:
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here
and here
I am actually quiet impressed with how you fool the moderators. Skillfull indeed you are with your time. Quiet funny actually.
Why is this relevant?
Somebody posted a valid fact about the license under which this code based was released to a community that is pervasively pro-GPL. Completely relevenant.
"Stop using Apache, Mozilla, gzip, etc. etc."
I do not find this relevant but in the context of your post it is. Moving on.
"Your obvious argument "um, not that hot because it's not GPL compatible" is stupid, but I guess that's how our "community" works. If Microsoft released Office under the GPL tomorrow you'd find some way to bitch about it."
Again in the context of the parent post this appears to be irrelevant but not in the context of your post.
The only one I see "bitching" in this context is you. Again, the parent poster simply posted a fact about the license compatibility that the WTL was released. Nobody bitched about it but you. Unlike a lot of other threads in this article this seemed worthy of the informative modding it got. No subjective comments, addititions to the facts - just a simple truth. Perhaps you meant to reply to any number of other posts in this article and not this parent? Understand I am not being critical of you. It does seem to be the popular thing to do is bitch around "here".
""um, not that hot because it's not GPL compatible" is stupid, but I guess that's how our "community"
Now I am being critical of you. Yes - this is exactly how "our" community works and if this seems stupid or whatever I seriously question if you are really part of that community. It _IS_ the entire basis on which code contribution works. I am speaking as a coder, not an admin, not a PHB, but somebody that gives and gets from "our" community.
This is no more offtopic than the original parent post, and it got +5 Intersting.
Just because someone thinks ftp isn't convenient as an ISO download that gets an interesting modification? Someone tells them that GNU GPL doesn't mandate that it has to be an ISO in the same langauge they use it's off-topic?
Somebody give me +Informative modpoints for informing moderators how to mod correctly.
I do not run Windows in my home or work environment so the way they package their EULA does not affect me personally. Don't misunderstand me though. I agree with your post.
"Soon MS will be bitten by product worthiness issues, as almost all other for-sale products are."
But the truth is, to my knowledge anyway, that has not happened yet. Because of this I can see no reason why Microsofts obligations should not be to its shareholders and shareholders only. That was my point - no incentive to do otherwise.
"MS has an obligation to ensure that their products do not cause harm to others..."
Funny as the way I recall it seems the software industry in general through the power of EULA's require you to not hold them responsible for anything even though you are a paying consumer. One of the only industries that I am aware of that you can do this.
I believe the _only_ obligation is to its share holders. I may be wrong however...
Where to begin:
/. diatribe. Thanks for playing...
I _would_ conceed to your point but I don't think you have made one. In fact, if anything, I think you have missed the point.
You are comparing things to what? Do closed source or in-house proprietary projects have any "open" resources in which a comparison _could_ be made? Does that mean that they do not exist or "*are* ill conceived and thrown together with little or no thought given to structure" in any less fashion? The fact of the matter is they are indeed suspect to the very same observation you have made. Prove me wrong with examples that are relevant. In the mean time I am going to stick with my empirical knowledge of both worlds since I have first hand knowledge of each.
Regardless nobody has reputed the fact that crap exists in either camp nor has anyone proved that closed source is a model to follow for development as oppposed to an open source model. What has been proven is that forethought and planning, even if only in the smallest detail is never a wasted effort. As with anything, moderation is the key no matter which side of line your lean towards; plan too much and your cutting edge R&D idea will stagnate before it starts to grow roots. But this isn't the issue I took insult too. It was the ignorant remark that "foo bar & qux" is the way _NOT_ to do it with absolutely no facts to base that on.
The real truth here is that open source, with all of its warts is open for inspection, not just source code. That fact alone leaves a strong debate that the old-fashioned "tried and true" way of closed source development is the best way of keeping up with the status quo. This may be stretch as I don't communicate the best way but closed source is just now coming around to having the end users more involved with the iterative development process. Open source has always been that way if you really think about it. (SARCASM ALERT) But yeah, Open Source is not the way to model development. (Again, this isn't directed to you, it's the parent I responded too)
As an aside I will commend you for at least making an attempt to qualify your perspective. That in and of itself is worth the informative and insightful modpoints the parent received instead as well as who my response was directed at. This also sums up my
Well said. I could not agree with you more. Of all the days I don't have mod points...
Now something not well thought out was my HTML hyperlinking skillz - D'oh!
FOX
(Geesh, I set myself up on that one...)
Seriously not trolling.
Care to point out a tiny sample of "most" Open Source that follows this norm?
In the interest of being taken seriously I will point out a few that I know of that seem rather well thought out:
fltk
FOX
gcc
Oh yeah, here
and others
You were modded informative yet I see nothing informative in your post. Perhaps because I have contributed to some of these projects and I am jaded? Perhaps because more work gets done in these projects than the corporate arena of closed source that I used to work in and I might be close minded and missing your point? It's a possiblity but I will try to become openminded in case I missed the informative part of your post.
I am going to get modded and trolled to oblivion for this but oh well...
/. ranting...
The thing they may seem to appear to be missing is not network admins find it easier to install, configure, manage, etc. The reason is IT mindshare amongst the actual competent IT people, as in IT developers, IT admins, IT users. It is a vastly superior platform for which to produce true innovative ideas and experimentation. Hell the "spirit" of the community promotes this at its core. It does not cater to the average joe of the world that has a job merely for the check they receive. So yeah, if someone knows how to whip up an Access database, analyze it in Excel and throw together VB code to meet the requirements of CEO's then they might just not ever "get it".
Linux may never dominate the masses. I don't think it will. If I am wrong or right what does it matter? Nothing. What does matter is that if you are one of the people I am describing you already made your choice anyway and in the end you will not care about markets, mindshare, or any other buzzword.
You only care about what is important to you.
Microsoft appears to miss the above statement in the eyes of the either party, it's a perspective thing, but that does not mean they are not getting it either. They seem to be doing what is important to them, like I just stated, but much better at convincing non-thinkers it is for their benefit. The biggest threat they have is misjudging how many people are educating themselves. The biggest advantage they have is ideas are a very fragile thing and a lot of people have a general tendency to dismiss ideas in favor of the status quo, so much so that they rather attack the person(s) delivering the ideas than to question if the norm is relevant like it once might have been and adapt to new frontiers. If you take my perspective at face value then Microsoft has a huge positive going for them more than a negative, but again, that is a perspective thing and depends heavily on context.
GNU/Linux nor Microsoft can change peoples mind, only a person who is open to new ideas can do that, and they do that for themselves. That sums up my