How would this be any different if Linux was top dog? I'm a bot net guy, I want to make a bot net, I'm going to cast the widest net possible.
That doesn't explain why web server exploits hit IIS much more then apache which STILL has more installations. The widest net possible idea is less important then building your OS' security foundation on shifting sand. Windows has had terrible security because it was built on a foundation of sand. It has taken them years and years to go back and build a secure foundation that the OS can rest on.
Here, a while ago "incidentally" all union workers of a certain large company were fired. Now, you'd assume that an union is rather well suited to stand up against that. No chance, still. Just throw in a few "innocent bystanders" in the lay off, keep a few unionists and nobody can claim it's been a strike against the union workers.
I guess that is less embarassing for the union workers than letting the union workers go on strike and just ignoring them. It is preferable to fire all the union workers at once than trying to break up the union by firing random members of the union. If the union has any strength behind it, they would be able to bring the company to a standstill by getting fired all at once (the same as a strike). Evidently, the union can't offer the protection to its member that they thought they could. Is that any worse then a Union forcing a worker (extorting) to pay "protection" money in order to work at a closed shop?
Or it could be a defect in the argument of the OP? Like how did Mozart manage to live while being an artist? Or how did Da Vinci pay for his tools and raw materials? Why doesn't that system scale?
Or maybe you posted as AC because you knew you were an idiot?
Wow, that is amazing when you put it like that! Three people over thousands of years created some works without copyright. Too bad it took thousands of years for human history to really start creating mass quantities of intangible property.
Liberals want to spend tax money by giving it away to everyone with his hand out. They want most criminals to be pampered, released early or not even jailed.
Do you have proof to back that up? Aren't republicans the ones that pushed for mandatory sentencing of drug crimes so now there is no room to lock up normal violent criminals? Doesn't violent crime have lesser sentences the drug crimes now?
Here in Amsterdam there is an unwritten law that forbids you to take pictures in the Red Light District. If you take a photograph of a prostitute you can be sure that someone will take your camera and break it. And the police won't be to eager to help you, as it is considered to be very disrespectfull to the woman working there.
What happens if you beat the shit out of the person trying to destroy your personal property? It sounds like "unwritten law" actually means "might makes right." It just means the person taking the picture has to be "mightier" then the criminals trying to break the camera. Or someone needs to make a pipe-bomb camera that explodes when someone "destroys" it.
I doubt you could do so without copying his methods though. As in, come up with the method on your own (or having someone help you by having them install Express).
It doesn't matter. I can use his methods. Why would i waste time coming up with different ones? I haven't agreed to any dubius EULA that says i can't overcome "technical limitations" however they decide to define them.
The fact remains VS is their product and they can sell it (or give it away) any way they like. Its their right, because its their product. You never address that.
No kidding. I don't have to address that because no one disagrees about that (unless you do). And it's their choice to stop selling it or giving it away if they want to.
Really? MS came in and stopped IBM from trying to do business? Interesting.
Who said that? You need to read more carefully. Are you suggesting that someone is stopping MS from doing business?
I guess that makes it a pretty lousy OS then huh?
No, that doesn't make it a pretty lousy OS. Lots of things don't fail without competition. Having something not fail is not an indication of it being lousy.
Ha, ha. my attempt to derail the thread? You brought up some sort of bomb threat scenario.
Disrupting an amicable agreement? please. OS warp would not have failed if it was the only choice you had. The fact that other people came into the market and "disrupted" people's business methods made OS Warp fail. You don't hear IBM blaming MS for their discontinuing of OS Warp. MS is trying to agressively segment the market so they "own" all of it but don't canablize their own sales. They've just done it so agressively that it is easy to add functionality that eats into their higher end IDEs.
If we want to remove all questions, I could use the methods he used to develop a plug-in for Express and MS wouldn't have a leg to stand on if i didn't agree to the Express EULA. So none of your other arguments hold water if he isn't found to be violating the EULA or if they find that he violated the EULA and so is simply no longer allowed to use Express.
Regardless of Jamie's position, this shows that there really is something in the Express edition that Jamie's work enabled. As I see it, that's a circumvention of a limitation put in place by Microsoft, and the EULA forbids you to do that.
Isn't anything you can add "working around" a technical limitation?
Oh the joys of using other people's licensed software! This is why Open Source is so appealing.
But he doesn't need to use their licensed software to build or distribute his program--it only applies to users of Express. Even open source is licensed software, though.
They can't ship the product they way they want to because of Jamie.
And OS-warp doesn't ship anymore because of MS. waaah! In a free market lots of people choose to not ship a product because it won't sell due to any number of reasons. But saying MS isn't doing the choosing is disengenious. Waah! Microsoft can't segment the market the way they want to. Cry more.
If some event were canceled because someone called in a bomb threat, you would not blame the organizers of the event would you?
So you think MS is protecting their end users from some threat or are they only protecting their self-interests?
If he had just released the product and it happened to work, he might have a point. He intentionally added code _specifically_ for the Express SKU to workaround the technical limitations. This is forbidden in the license.
So are you saying he no longer has a license to use their software now? It's forbidden for him to use their software and work around the technical limitations. It doesn't say he can't sell a product that someone else might install that will allow them to break their license.
he still produced something that removes a technical limitation of the free software package he was working on. Now as far as I can see {but I am not a lawyer} that is a violation of the EULA. And what's more, Microsoft really has a tangible interest in him not doing this.
It doesn't remove any technical limitations, ie: all plug-ins don't work with the software now. Who is to say what is a technical limitation? Doesn't anything you can possible add to the software "remove a technical limitation?" If you want to read it broadly there is nothing you can do with it then.
Express might dry up now because of Jamie (yes, it would be his fault).
At least put blame where it belongs. It might dry up because of MS. They make the ultimate choice on whether or not they will continue to ship it, so i think the blame is going to belong on their shoulders.
He could have made this never happen by not violating a license agreement that he entered into it...
Which part did he violate? And what does that have to do with distributing his software. So if he tells me how to make the plugin, then MS won't sue me because i never violated any license agreement?
"Linux is the default operating [system] on desktops and servers at major animation and visual effects studios, with maybe 98 percent [or more] penetration," CinePaint Project Manager Robin Rowe told LinuxInsider. "With the big dogs, there's nobody left to convert to Linux. Every studio is already on board."
No kidding! And they use thousands of dollars of non-opensource products to render animations.
Umm, OK. So maybe Microsoft should just terminate the Express line? How would Jamie like that, I wonder, being the one person responsible for ending availability of a product his customers apparently use?
Why? So microsoft can lose more users? You use a very curious form of the phrase "one person responsible." How is he the "one person responsible" if microsoft is the one that terminates it? Grow up and put responsibility where it belongs, on Microsoft. Like it's his fault MS decides they don't like that he can add value to their products.
I was under the impression we were discussing the OP which said:
The test you did is not conclusive by any means. You must also prove that the address was never exposed in any other way (stolen by malware on your machine, leaked through other communications, sold by a corrupt mail server administrator, etc), OR you need to find conclusive evidence that the leaked address came from the company's end.
Which I thought meant we are talking about the original article/post. I agree with him that it's not a 100% certainty, but I don't know if i could call it inconclusive.
I agree that most other forms of signing up with an email address are not secure. Which is why i run my own email server and use a unique email address for each company (ie: ameritrade@[mydomain].com and have a wildcard dump all *@[mydomain].com into a folder). This is how i know companies like microcenter.com and a cheap photo company i bought stuff from sold my email address. I know have serverside rules rejecting those emails. I don't trust any of those companies with my real email address. I ended up using my real email address for my emigrantdirect online savings account because i didn't want to miss any emails from them. I would expect online banks to NOT sell email address.
You are correct. They aren't worth trusting with your money. They are worth trusting with your credit card however, because you have limited liability with your credit card and get other protections.
But you didn't really want a real answer, since you are reduced to trolling at this point.
Slashdot Mirror
is relatively untweakable.
Are you using the same logwatch the rest of us are using?
How would this be any different if Linux was top dog? I'm a bot net guy, I want to make a bot net, I'm going to cast the widest net possible.
That doesn't explain why web server exploits hit IIS much more then apache which STILL has more installations. The widest net possible idea is less important then building your OS' security foundation on shifting sand. Windows has had terrible security because it was built on a foundation of sand. It has taken them years and years to go back and build a secure foundation that the OS can rest on.
Are you saying that if i stream music that i own the copyright to that i have to pay royalties to SoundExchange?
If not, then it seems one could work out licensing to stream other people's music.
Here, a while ago "incidentally" all union workers of a certain large company were fired. Now, you'd assume that an union is rather well suited to stand up against that. No chance, still. Just throw in a few "innocent bystanders" in the lay off, keep a few unionists and nobody can claim it's been a strike against the union workers.
I guess that is less embarassing for the union workers than letting the union workers go on strike and just ignoring them. It is preferable to fire all the union workers at once than trying to break up the union by firing random members of the union. If the union has any strength behind it, they would be able to bring the company to a standstill by getting fired all at once (the same as a strike). Evidently, the union can't offer the protection to its member that they thought they could. Is that any worse then a Union forcing a worker (extorting) to pay "protection" money in order to work at a closed shop?
Or it could be a defect in the argument of the OP? Like how did Mozart manage to live while being an artist? Or how did Da Vinci pay for his tools and raw materials? Why doesn't that system scale?
Or maybe you posted as AC because you knew you were an idiot?
Wow, that is amazing when you put it like that! Three people over thousands of years created some works without copyright. Too bad it took thousands of years for human history to really start creating mass quantities of intangible property.
it's really a disengenous argument.
People remember that? When was that again?
Liberals want to spend tax money by giving it away to everyone with his hand out. They want most criminals to be pampered, released early or not even jailed.
Do you have proof to back that up? Aren't republicans the ones that pushed for mandatory sentencing of drug crimes so now there is no room to lock up normal violent criminals? Doesn't violent crime have lesser sentences the drug crimes now?
Here in Amsterdam there is an unwritten law that forbids you to take pictures in the Red Light District. If you take a photograph of a prostitute you can be sure that someone will take your camera and break it. And the police won't be to eager to help you, as it is considered to be very disrespectfull to the woman working there.
What happens if you beat the shit out of the person trying to destroy your personal property? It sounds like "unwritten law" actually means "might makes right." It just means the person taking the picture has to be "mightier" then the criminals trying to break the camera. Or someone needs to make a pipe-bomb camera that explodes when someone "destroys" it.
So Canada has stupid laws too? I was getting worried that Canada might be awesome after seeing all the "Candian Girls Rock" shirts.
Funny. Except that most people don't plan on changing platforms when it comes to sex...and if they did they only have to worry about 2 platforms.
it is clear as the mid-day sun in Arizona
Does that include the smog from LA?
I doubt you could do so without copying his methods though. As in, come up with the method on your own (or having someone help you by having them install Express).
It doesn't matter. I can use his methods. Why would i waste time coming up with different ones? I haven't agreed to any dubius EULA that says i can't overcome "technical limitations" however they decide to define them.
The fact remains VS is their product and they can sell it (or give it away) any way they like. Its their right, because its their product. You never address that.
No kidding. I don't have to address that because no one disagrees about that (unless you do). And it's their choice to stop selling it or giving it away if they want to.
Really? MS came in and stopped IBM from trying to do business? Interesting.
Who said that? You need to read more carefully. Are you suggesting that someone is stopping MS from doing business?
I guess that makes it a pretty lousy OS then huh?
No, that doesn't make it a pretty lousy OS. Lots of things don't fail without competition. Having something not fail is not an indication of it being lousy.
Ha, ha. my attempt to derail the thread? You brought up some sort of bomb threat scenario.
Disrupting an amicable agreement? please. OS warp would not have failed if it was the only choice you had. The fact that other people came into the market and "disrupted" people's business methods made OS Warp fail. You don't hear IBM blaming MS for their discontinuing of OS Warp. MS is trying to agressively segment the market so they "own" all of it but don't canablize their own sales. They've just done it so agressively that it is easy to add functionality that eats into their higher end IDEs.
If we want to remove all questions, I could use the methods he used to develop a plug-in for Express and MS wouldn't have a leg to stand on if i didn't agree to the Express EULA. So none of your other arguments hold water if he isn't found to be violating the EULA or if they find that he violated the EULA and so is simply no longer allowed to use Express.
Regardless of Jamie's position, this shows that there really is something in the Express edition that Jamie's work enabled. As I see it, that's a circumvention of a limitation put in place by Microsoft, and the EULA forbids you to do that.
Isn't anything you can add "working around" a technical limitation?
Oh the joys of using other people's licensed software! This is why Open Source is so appealing.
But he doesn't need to use their licensed software to build or distribute his program--it only applies to users of Express. Even open source is licensed software, though.
They can't ship the product they way they want to because of Jamie.
And OS-warp doesn't ship anymore because of MS. waaah! In a free market lots of people choose to not ship a product because it won't sell due to any number of reasons. But saying MS isn't doing the choosing is disengenious. Waah! Microsoft can't segment the market the way they want to. Cry more.
If some event were canceled because someone called in a bomb threat, you would not blame the organizers of the event would you?
So you think MS is protecting their end users from some threat or are they only protecting their self-interests?
If he had just released the product and it happened to work, he might have a point. He intentionally added code _specifically_ for the Express SKU to workaround the technical limitations. This is forbidden in the license.
So are you saying he no longer has a license to use their software now? It's forbidden for him to use their software and work around the technical limitations. It doesn't say he can't sell a product that someone else might install that will allow them to break their license.
he still produced something that removes a technical limitation of the free software package he was working on. Now as far as I can see {but I am not a lawyer} that is a violation of the EULA. And what's more, Microsoft really has a tangible interest in him not doing this.
It doesn't remove any technical limitations, ie: all plug-ins don't work with the software now. Who is to say what is a technical limitation? Doesn't anything you can possible add to the software "remove a technical limitation?" If you want to read it broadly there is nothing you can do with it then.
Express might dry up now because of Jamie (yes, it would be his fault).
At least put blame where it belongs. It might dry up because of MS. They make the ultimate choice on whether or not they will continue to ship it, so i think the blame is going to belong on their shoulders.
He could have made this never happen by not violating a license agreement that he entered into it...
Which part did he violate? And what does that have to do with distributing his software. So if he tells me how to make the plugin, then MS won't sue me because i never violated any license agreement?
"Linux is the default operating [system] on desktops and servers at major animation and visual effects studios, with maybe 98 percent [or more] penetration," CinePaint Project Manager Robin Rowe told LinuxInsider. "With the big dogs, there's nobody left to convert to Linux. Every studio is already on board."
No kidding! And they use thousands of dollars of non-opensource products to render animations.
What does this have to do with GIMP?
Too bad #1 is Public Domain not BSD.
Umm, OK. So maybe Microsoft should just terminate the Express line? How would Jamie like that, I wonder, being the one person responsible for ending availability of a product his customers apparently use?
Why? So microsoft can lose more users? You use a very curious form of the phrase "one person responsible." How is he the "one person responsible" if microsoft is the one that terminates it? Grow up and put responsibility where it belongs, on Microsoft. Like it's his fault MS decides they don't like that he can add value to their products.
I was under the impression we were discussing the OP which said:
The test you did is not conclusive by any means. You must also prove that the address was never exposed in any other way (stolen by malware on your machine, leaked through other communications, sold by a corrupt mail server administrator, etc), OR you need to find conclusive evidence that the leaked address came from the company's end.
Which I thought meant we are talking about the original article/post. I agree with him that it's not a 100% certainty, but I don't know if i could call it inconclusive.
I agree that most other forms of signing up with an email address are not secure. Which is why i run my own email server and use a unique email address for each company (ie: ameritrade@[mydomain].com and have a wildcard dump all *@[mydomain].com into a folder). This is how i know companies like microcenter.com and a cheap photo company i bought stuff from sold my email address. I know have serverside rules rejecting those emails. I don't trust any of those companies with my real email address. I ended up using my real email address for my emigrantdirect online savings account because i didn't want to miss any emails from them. I would expect online banks to NOT sell email address.
You are correct. They aren't worth trusting with your money. They are worth trusting with your credit card however, because you have limited liability with your credit card and get other protections.
But you didn't really want a real answer, since you are reduced to trolling at this point.