Except the architecture they chose was pretty much limited to 640, so i don't buy your argument.
Sure, soon afterwards ways around it was found, and eventually broken completely but it was a HARD limit at one point and i don't give Bill credit for seeing beyond his nose due to his 'self importance' attitude, which has burnt him more then once ( but with billions in the bank, its easy to buy your way out of a mistake ).
It was also marketing spin against the competing motorola chips ( and systems ) which could address more. "you really don't need that extra headroom, stick with microsoft'
Start participating in this proposed 'P2P welfare' system for commercial companies auto updates in the background, and I bet that 250 goes fast even for the 'average user'. They wont even know its happening.
As far as my usage, why should i get a commercial contact when my contract now says 250? If they didn't intend on letting me use 250, then they shouldn't offer it. I paid for 250. You may think it excessive, but its in my contract, so lump it. ( just like the unlimited service, don't offer if you don't intend on letting people use it )
Original context was with the commercial companies where you have to buy the product up front. After *buying* the software I think its unreasonable to then ask you to in effect pay more to help other people get updates to your product.
I agree Canocial is commercial, but they are not demanding you pay up to get the product, and giving you the option to help out, on your terms. I see that as a far different, and reasonable request.
250g and you get cut off is a limitation in my book. If you don't want to use what you paid for, more power to you. I however, want to use what i purchase.
Furthermore, the OP was talking about commercial software companies ( like Microsoft ) hijacking *others* bandwidth to distribute updates for software you pay for, not ubuntu which relies on others generosity.
I disagree, as the Free + paid support model has worked well with Free/Open/Net BSD for longer then Linux has even been a concept.
Problem i see is that the linux world is too fractured for the same model to work. Everyone and their uncle are trying to get in the game to make a buck.
When they buy a box of software that doesn't say 'limited time only' they can reasonably and legally expect it to be around ( as purchased ) for as long as they want it to be.
Changing a boxed license after the fact to remove use rights would be an easy lose for the software company.
Now, if its a lease, then sure the rules can change, but lots do that too. Anyone that gets a MOLP from Microsoft is betting the company on it..
Why aren't any racketeering/trustbusting laws coming into play here? The actions of the RIAA/MPAA are increasingly resembling those of a band of criminals.
Because they have paid up their congressional protection fees.
As long as you don't have some online registration system to deal with, they can revoke your rights all they want, and you can just thumb your nose at them.
Sounds like they don't realize that you can have free AND legal content. Perpetuating the lies the RIAA is pushing that everything you get without paying is piracy.
Slashdot Mirror
So now you know who in your government was willing to sell out, and who wasn't ( or had a higher price then the industry was willing to pay ).
Doesn't mean all, so i don't see a problem with him using that statement.
Its all about how you define majority.. 51%? 60%? 90%?
Except the architecture they chose was pretty much limited to 640, so i don't buy your argument.
Sure, soon afterwards ways around it was found, and eventually broken completely but it was a HARD limit at one point and i don't give Bill credit for seeing beyond his nose due to his 'self importance' attitude, which has burnt him more then once ( but with billions in the bank, its easy to buy your way out of a mistake ).
It was also marketing spin against the competing motorola chips ( and systems ) which could address more. "you really don't need that extra headroom, stick with microsoft'
Unless you want to run the new interface, oh and antivirus, at the same time.
I have to disagree.. If i look for x or y, and its not there, i know something is up.
I hope you were being sarcastic, as many companies do that today with their enterprise agreements.
Those dark clouds i saw on the way home.
While he's a great actor, I don't think his personality would work. He's not 'aloof' enough.
Now, Ben Browder is just enough 'out of it' for it to work. ( except he's not british of course.. )
Start participating in this proposed 'P2P welfare' system for commercial companies auto updates in the background, and I bet that 250 goes fast even for the 'average user'. They wont even know its happening.
As far as my usage, why should i get a commercial contact when my contract now says 250? If they didn't intend on letting me use 250, then they shouldn't offer it. I paid for 250. You may think it excessive, but its in my contract, so lump it. ( just like the unlimited service, don't offer if you don't intend on letting people use it )
Original context was with the commercial companies where you have to buy the product up front. After *buying* the software I think its unreasonable to then ask you to in effect pay more to help other people get updates to your product.
I agree Canocial is commercial, but they are not demanding you pay up to get the product, and giving you the option to help out, on your terms. I see that as a far different, and reasonable request.
Hey, we all miss things at times :)
250g and you get cut off is a limitation in my book. If you don't want to use what you paid for, more power to you. I however, want to use what i purchase.
Furthermore, the OP was talking about commercial software companies ( like Microsoft ) hijacking *others* bandwidth to distribute updates for software you pay for, not ubuntu which relies on others generosity.
If i have 3 apples, ill eat 3. They are mine to eat.
Same with bandwidth.
It was more then just advertisements in practice. You could order items out of catalogs 'out of the box'.
Much more if you made some changes.
I disagree, as the Free + paid support model has worked well with Free/Open/Net BSD for longer then Linux has even been a concept.
Problem i see is that the linux world is too fractured for the same model to work. Everyone and their uncle are trying to get in the game to make a buck.
If you use comcast ( and others ) your monthly bandwidth is limited.
Are YOU going to share what you have left with others? Im not.
yes, i know there are direct downloads, i was commenting on the statement of 'using the power of p2p'.
What power? I don't want to share my now limited bandwidth for some commercial company to give out updates.
This isn't 2007. P2P Has been single handedly neutered by the likes of comcast.
Glad i got my copy before it was announced on here.
People have bee taking that bet for decades.
When they buy a box of software that doesn't say 'limited time only' they can reasonably and legally expect it to be around ( as purchased ) for as long as they want it to be.
Changing a boxed license after the fact to remove use rights would be an easy lose for the software company.
Now, if its a lease, then sure the rules can change, but lots do that too. Anyone that gets a MOLP from Microsoft is betting the company on it..
Its the stuff you want to run on top of it.
Not that it answers the question directly, but it does make it more accurate.
The DoJ or Supreme Court certainly could.
Why aren't any racketeering/trustbusting laws coming into play here? The actions of the RIAA/MPAA are increasingly resembling those of a band of criminals.
Because they have paid up their congressional protection fees.
Yup, except there are federal laws that come in to play if you reach a threshold, which is why i think they go for such ludicrous amounts.
But the point will all be moot soon anyway, as they are slowly buying the laws they need to shift it from civil to criminal.
As long as you don't have some online registration system to deal with, they can revoke your rights all they want, and you can just thumb your nose at them.
If they try to sue, i bet they lose.
Built wrong for whom? Those that demand cash for every bit or people that demand freedom of every bit?
Sounds like they don't realize that you can have free AND legal content. Perpetuating the lies the RIAA is pushing that everything you get without paying is piracy.