Just go to TrollTech and read up on their license requirements. One of the commercial license requirements states:
Build software whose source code you wish to keep private.
The GPL allows you to keep your source code private as long as you do not _distribute_ the application. For example, where I work we could take the Linux kernel and make tons of changes to it and never have to give out those changes as long as we do not distribute those changes outside of our organization.
I am not an expert on the QT commercial license. Howerver to me it appears TrollTech is saying that if you want to keep your code private, even within your own company, you need a commercial license. That sounds as if it is going against the GPL.
No. It isn't. You pay with obligation if you're not paying with money.
WTF? What are you talking about? The majority of Linux GUI toolkit are under the LGPL. That means that you can develop Open Source apps _OR_ closed source apps. Your choice, there are no strings attached. There are no "obligations", you don't have to give away your code, you can keep it "secret". That is the _whole_ point of the LGPL you ninny.
You also pay with time, because a lot of this stuff needs work, you have to pick and choose which one,
All right crack smoker, come back when you have actually used Linux for more than 30 seconds. You really don't have a clue to what you are talking about. Gnome and even KDE are very full featured desktop environments and have many features that MS windows users would love to have. If what you said was even remotely true, why on earth would professionals like Disney Animation migrate to Linux (Disney Shifting to Linux for Film Animation, I have tons more links)?
Look at putting the current GIMP on stock RH9, which is actually a very recent distribution if you think about it; yet, it simply won't go
Damn, you must have about three brain cells? Please tell me exactly _why_ the current Gimp won't work on RH9? Did you know you can download as many versions of GTK+ and Gimp you want, and install them all? The latest Gimp _will_ work on RH9. Even if the version of GTK+ on RH9 is not new enough, you can just install a newer version and Gimp will run.
My situation is that I have a complex, powerful product I'd like to bring to Linux. Every path we could find had significant roadblocks on it.
Please tell me what this "complex, powerful product" is exactly. Oh and what are these "significant roadblocks". Based on your previous responses, I am sure that I or another/. member can solve these "significant roadblocks" in about 30 seconds.
unacceptable source code obligations
Huh? You can pay a little money for QT (just as you would pay under MS for Visual Studio) and develop in a cross-platform environment, Linux, MS Windows and Mac OS X. Or, you can use a bunch of the other tool-kits that I already pointed out in a previous post such as GTK+ or wxWindows(x-platform, Linux, Mac, MS). These products have _no_ legal roadblocks. They are under the LGPL, which means you can develop your "super secret" closed source app and not had to worry about it. Please, tell me what your "unacceptable source code obligations" were? What tool-kit were you using that _required_ you to give away your code? I am going to have to say BS on your post.
What I think I know about Linux at this point in time is that to get our app ported in such a way as to work on the very largest set of machines without legal pitfalls and unacceptable source code obligations seems to require that we build our own widget set and incorporate it so that all we require from the OS is XWindows and basically fopen() and crew.
Damn, dude, you must be one piss-poor developer when it comes to Linux in that case. So what language is your "great" application written in? What tool-kit/API does it use? What tool-kit under Linux did you try to use that caused you such "burdens". I know you are talking FUD, since there are _NO_ source code obligations with Linux GUI tool-kits. You can keep your code closed as much as you like.
In very sharp contrast, when we looked at porting to the Mac, it all went smooth as butter. Standard GUI, standard API, dev tools all lined up and ready to go. So there is a significant difference here, much as you might not want to acknowledge it.
Nope, Linux has all this as well. Standard GUI? Check. Pick
You don't need to pay anything to have access to a very broad spectrum of OS widgets when developing for Windows (or the Mac), no matter if you are developing in a traditional commercial sense or using any other financial model.
And it is the _same_ under Linux. In fact, you have far greater access under Linux than under MS Window or Mac OS X. Can you get the source code to MS Windows or Mac OS X's GUI environment free of charge with no-strings attached? Nope. The only environment under Linux that has any type of screwed development model (requiring pay for proprietary development) is KDE with QT. That is why I personally do not use KDE/QT.
Under Linux XFree, you can use GTK+, fltk, wxWidgets, Java, C# w/Mono, or even straight xlib. Again, the only environment that has any type of stupid restrictions is KDE/QT, so stay away from KDE/QT if you don't want to pay a fee. Under Linux, GTK+ applications run just fine under any other desktop environment, including KDE/QT. I personally think the KDE team made a _huge_ mistake when they pick QT. To require a commercial license for native desktop tools is just stupid IMO. However, there are _plenty_ of other great toolkits like GTK+ that have none of those restrictions. With GTK+ you can develop OSS or closed, the choice is yours.
Under Windows, you also have the option of using an older, very much less expensive version of Visual Studio -- those are still 100% functional and produce fully functional applications under XP (and 95, 98, 2000, and NT) and I see no reason they won't remain so.
Sure, and you can also do the same under Linux _or_ you can freely download the latest IDE under Linux with no costs. The problem with the much older MS Visual studio IDE's is that they are not very good and certainly do not support the latest features of MS's development environment. None of those older environments support MS's.Net for example.
I think that if Linux ever matures enough to "come with" a standard, always-there, reasonably modern GUI-API such that software can be directly written to and for it
It sounds as if you have no clue about Linux or development under Linux. There are tons of standards under Linux. Pick the environment that works best for _you_. You don't have to be forced to only use the Win32 API. Use xlib if you want, use QT if you want under the GPL or pay a _very_ small fee for commercial development. Use GTK+ or any of the others that I listed above. Again, it is _your_ choice. As a developer I can say that I have never really liked the Win32 API and I certainly can't stand MFC. C# and.Net is the first really nice development environment that MS has put out IMO. The only current problem I have with C#/.Net under MS Windows is that compared to Win32 or MFC, it has a much slower startup time, a much bigger footprint and a slower runtime. Not to mention the 22MB+ download required to run it.
There is no single "utopia" OS or development environment. Trying to single out just Linux makes you sound naive, especially when the MS windows development environment has just as many quirks.
While I think a dual-license approach is the best way for OSS to get a foot-hold, I really don't see how you think the GPL is "forcing" companies to release code under the GPL?
Last time I check the laws, I never found one that said all companies _must_ use GPL and GPL only code. So how in the world is _any_ company "forced" to use GPL. If a company wants to use GPLed code and that code is not dual licensed and the company does not want to release their code under the GPL, than they are totally free to implement the code themselves. I have never heard of one case where a company was "forced" to _use_ GPLed code.
This is no different than MS. If I want to write a media player that uses MS Windows Media, then I have to adhere to the terms of MS. If MS requires a payment (which they do) to use MS Windows Media technology in a commercial environment, then guess what, I have to pay MS. Just as if MS states that I can not release my code that uses the MS Media framework under some license that MS does not agree with (which MS does, you cannot use most of their "open" code in any type of GPLed application).
Your whole argument is just silly. The GPL does nothing more then what all/most of the proprietary software companies do. However, the main difference between what the GPL does and what those proprietary companies do is that the GPL benefits the end-user while those other licenses from proprietary companies just try to take away more of your right than what is granted to you by Fair Use and/or Copyright.
So if no one agrees with you they are an OSS zealot? Please, I hope you have more brains than that. Imagine if you owned your own company, and you have 10 developers. 9 of them write commercial software in QT an you pay TrollTech for those licenses. However, you have one developer that does totally Open Source GPLed based development. According to QT, you must pay them anyways. I really don't see how that is fair and I especially don't see how that is legal under the GPL
Let us look at another example. You own your own small company. You use some GPL code to save costs and you do not distribute any code or even sell it. You just _use_ the code under the GPL. Well according to TrollTech, you owe them money. That is totally against the GPL and I hope someone takes them to court. If I use QT internally _only_ and _never_ distribute those changes, than according to the GPL I am fine since I am not distributing code and I am only an end-user. However, TrollTech still wants to try to force you to pay them money. From what I know of the GPL, that is not allowed, and again, I hope someone busts TrollTech on this issue.
It is not like I don't want to see companies make money from OSS, I just don't want to see companies make money by trying to break or side-step the GPL. In this case I don't see how TrollTech can charge me for making proprietary software based on GPL code that I keep internal and do not distribute, after all that is totally allowed with the GPL.
It works right after you set your pref in about:config, however it you restart your browser, it seems to be a bug in the Firefox startup code that doesn't look at enableIDN so the spoof works again. However, if you go in and reset enableIDN to false, the spoof is again blocked. Not a very good way to protect yourself from this spood, especially for Joe User, however, I bet the Firefox team will have an Auto-Update out in no time.
No, it wasn't cached. I cleared the cache in Firefox and also if you hold down shift and click Refresh, Firefox skips the cache and goes right to the server for the content. I think that the about:config interface correctly updated the enableIDN variable while the startup Firefox code doesn't look for the enableIDN settings in your user profile. To me that would explain why the settings take place immediately, yet fail to be set when you restart your browser.
Restart you browser and then try again. I thought it was working until a restart of Firefox and it appears that the Firefox startup code doesn't properly set enableIDN based on your profile settings. As soon as you restart, the spoof works again. However, go into about:config and you will see that enableIDN is still set to false, so toggle it to true and then false again and the spoof won't work. Rinse, repeat.
Hmm, I stand corrected. Setting enableIDN and then testing worked right away for me. Until I restarted my browser. About:config still shows enableIDN set to false, but the spoof works again. However, if I go back into about:config and reset enableIDN to false, it again stops the spoof.
Maybe it is a problem in the Firefox startup code not setting enableIDN properly.
One: the setting of enableIDN to false appears to have NO effect.
Are you using Firefox 1.0? I set enableIDN to false and now if I click any of the spoof links, I instantly get a "www.paypal.com could not be found" alert.
The about:config workaround is a very simple fix and I wouldn't be surprised if Firefox sends down a temporary quick-fix.
One other big giveaway for me is if you view page info and then click on security and click view. The _true_ PayPal site has a cert issued to www.paypal.com while the spoofed site has a cert issued to www.xn--pypal-4ve.com. I always check the cert if I am doing banking or anything with money. However, I really doubt most Joe Users will put that much effort into it, so I do hope the Firefox team at least pushes down an Auto-Update that sets network.enableIDN to false until the team gets a permanent fix.
That sounds like typical Socialist mentality to me.
It is really sad that "socialists" think it is OK to keep knowledge hidden because they think it is the _knowledge_ that is bad.
Well, I am here to tell you that it is not the knowledge. What if I were to post right now how to make a _very_ simple explosive. Would that mean that anyone that read this post would be "bad" or "potentially bad"?
To all you socialists out there... repeat after me IT IS NOT KNOWLEDGE THAT MAKES SOMETHING BAD! IT IS THE PERSON _WITH_ THAT KNOWLEDGE THAT DOES SOMETHING BAD.
Basically if _every_ computer user in the world knew how to send millions of anonymous spam mails every day, that knowledge of how to do that is _not_ bad. It is the person exploiting that knowledge that is bad.
To put it in simple cave-man language:
Guns not bad, Bad people with guns bad.
Drugs not bad, Bad people on drugs bad.
Cracking program not bad, Bad people exploiting crack in program bad.
Knowledge NEVER bad, Bad person taking advantage of knowledge bad.
Over
70% of current spam comes from proxies (PCs infected with viruses/trojans). Since the release of Sobig, the first commercial spam virus designed by spammers to infect PCs turning them into networks of proxies through which spammers then send millions of spams anonymously, spammers have released countless virus variants, mostly variations of the original Sobig code, and have been infecting an estimated 80,000-100,000 new PCs every week.
So what I want to know is when is MS going to get off their butt and make their desktops more secure and resistant to these _simple_ types of attacks? There really should be no reason for a simple email or web browser exploit to be able to take over a users _entire_ system and exploit it like this. Hell, at least Linux and Mac OS X run normal users as NON ADMIN USERS and prompt for a password for admin activity. Why can't MS do this? And No the runas command doesn't even come close to the ease of use of having a dialog just pop up and ask for a root password when needed. Heck, Linux is Open Source, MS can look at how the major Linux distros do it if MS is not certain about how to go about it.
A few simple changes on the part of MS and the majority (70%+) of spam can be stopped.
I know that a ton of MS Windows applications die if they are not run from a user with Admin rights. However, all MS needs to do is implement a system like Linux or Mac has done and make _every_ user a non-admin user by default instead of making _every_ user in the Administrator group out-of-the-box. Then you will be running an MS Windows desktop as a non-privileged user. Now if you run one of those MS Windows applications that need Administrator access, MS Windows just prompts you for the Admin password. How hard could that be? This small change will allow all those "we need admin" programs to still run, however, it should prevent most of these email/web browser types of attacks from taking over a users system without their knowledge. For example, with this new system, an MS user using an exploited IE goes to a site, the next thing the user knows is that a site prompts for the admin password, the user clicks cancel and no-harm done. It is much easier to teach Joe User to _never_ put in his admin password for any web site than it is to teach Joe User to go out and spen money on an Anti-Virus program and _true_ two-way firewall program (MS's firewall is only one-way) and install them both and keep them updated.
while the costs of building a new scope and launching it are wild-ass guesses.
I agree with you about the cost of repair missions. For the most part we know that a Space Shuttle launch is about $1 Billion USD. However, we _also_ now know from experience with the Hubble about building a space telescope. NASA has a lot more experience now building space telescopes thanks to Hubble. Also, there is another space telescope in the works James Webb Space Telescope (formerly known as the Next Generation Space Telescope) scheduled to launch in 2010. So NASA does have places to look for experience about space telescopes that would keep any new efforts, including the one in the article from being "wild-ass guesses".
Smathers used another employee's account to steal the data, and sold it to a Vegas-based online casino operator.
So this guy sold this information and is getting in trouble for it? Well that sounds fair. However, what about the Vegas company that purchased the "goods"? Are any legal proceedings taking place against them? Or is anything a corporation does "OK" with the government and the DA's office?
I haven't heard anything against the Vegas company that purchased this information. Why is it OK for a company to carry out these acts but if a citizen does the same acts, he/she is fined a few hundred grand and sent to jail for a year or two?
Huh? Do you know how many billions of pages Google indexes vs how many MSN indexes? Here are the results of some searches you can try for your self.
Goog: Results 1 - 10 of about 225,000,000 for Linux MSN: 1-7 of 98,551,576 containing Linux
Goog: Results 1 - 10 of about 289,000,000 for Windows MSN: 1-9 of 151,361,156 containing windows
Goog: Results 1 - 10 of about 7,770,000 for britney spears MSN: 1-9 of 5,434,239 containing britney spears
Goog: Results 1 - 10 of about 87,100,000 for Bush MSN: 1-10 of 39,266,547 containing Bush
Goog: Results 1 - 10 of about 10,900,000 for C# MSN: 1-9 of 2,319,704 containing C#
Goog: Results 1 - 10 of about 68,400,000 for Iraq MSN: 1-10 of 27,547,517 containing Iraq
Goog: Results 1 - 10 of about 1,860,000 for Toa MSN: 1-9 of 1,262,374 containing Toa
Goog: Results 1 - 10 of about 10,100,000 for abortion MSN: 1-10 of 6,810,987 containing abortion
Goog: Results 1 - 10 of about 225,000,000 for war MSN: 1-10 of 130,275,677 containing war
Goog: Results 1 - 10 of about 59,700 for CreateWindow MSN: 1-10 of 42,091 containing CreateWindow
Goog: Results 1 - 10 of about 17,900,000 for San Hill MSN: 1-10 of 6,227,729 containing San Hill
Goog: Results 1 - 10 of about 15,500,000 for SQL Server MSN: 1-10 of 13,248,838 containing SQL Server
Goog: Results 1 - 10 of about 14,600 for windows 98 Registry ACLs MSN: 1-10 of 10,724 containing windows 98 Registry ACLs
Goog: Searching 8,058,044,651 web pages (that is BILLONS of web pages!) MSN: Searching ??? web pages
So Google clearly beats MSN in every search by a long-shot and Google clearly has indexed far more pages than MSN. So do you work for MS or did they pay you to post your FUD on/.?
Can you please post a search string to back up your FUD?
I do agree. Google really needs to start to push Linux and Mac OS X. Google should really brand their own version of Firefox and push that as an MS Windows, Linux and Mac OS X browser.
The problem with most hits to Google coming from MS IE, is that MS can easily change that to go to MSN.
I personally have not understood the recent actions of Google. Take a look at Google Labs. Most of the stuff they are doing is MS ONLY. Not a _very_ smart move for Google, IMO. It is pretty dumb of Google to be totally dependent on their competitor. Basically, everything Google does other than being a search engine _requires_ MS. That sounds like a pretty bad business model to me. Especially when Google's biggest competitor is MS. IMO, Google should really be making some standards compliant and most importantly, cross-platform software. Google has certainly hired enough talented programmers to do the job. I just am stumped as to why Google is still playing the "we need MS game". If Google continues down its current path, they will be taken over by MS in market share. MS has already setup the _millions_ of home computers to default to going to MSN. A pretty monopolistic tactic IMO, but it obviously has been allowed and Google is just acting like a sitting duck. The only other efforts that Google has made beside the great Google search has _all_ been MS ONLY.
Maybe I should put on my tin-foil hat and start some conspiracies? Maybe MS secretly _owns_ Google's top execs and MS is paying them to make it look like MS has some competition? Maybe after a few years Google is supposed to make a bunch of stupid business decisions and then MS come in for the kill? I don't know if this sounds like conspiracy or not. But I, as a long time Google fan, am starting to really question the motives of Google. Most of Google's moves don't seem to be very smart, and the release of all their non-search applications only working on MS just seems really stupid to me. Of course Google's applications need to support MS Windows since MS Windows is the dominant OS. However, by Google _only_ supporting MS Windows OSes, it just helps seals MS's desktop monopoly.
If you crush the life out of your competition such that in the future you'll be able to get their market and prevent them from moving into yours
But MS has not even come close to crushing Sony and the Playstation. Your argument may make sense when talking about IE and Netscape, however the GP was talking about the XBox which just this year got out of the red. From a business standpoint, taking a product and getting into the black is a big achievement, however MS has a _very_ long way to go to ever challenge the Playstation.
I personally don't think MS will ever take over the playstation. I think the two products will continue to compete and offer exclusive games that make gamers want both systems.
No it doesn't. I have it loading right now as I am writing this. I disable the Adobe Plugin and have Firefox open PDF files directly in Adobe itself. I hate having a PDF open in my web browser, be it IE or Firefox. (Go to Tools -> Options -> Downloads then click the Plug-Ins button and uncheck any Adobe item) I personally hate having most content open in a browser other than embedded movies like you see on Apple Trailers.
I always hated how IE would open up MS Word and MS Excel files in IE. You get a hacked down menu of options. IMO it is much better for a web browser just to be a web browser and fire off the application that is supposed to handle non-browser content. The only exceptions to this IMO should be Java applets, Flash and embedded movies.
But surely Apple could do it at a competitive price? The Neuros costs less than the iPod and can record from FM, Mic and Line-In to MP3 or wav. I really don't see why Apple would not be able to handle simple MP3 recording. My dog-old Archos Jukebox 20 can do real-time MP3 recording without a hitch, and it is only running at 12MHz with crappy MP3 decoding/enocoding hardware. The iPod surely has much newer and faster hardware than the my old Archos.
If Archos could enable real-time encoding way back when and the current Nueros can enable now for less price, I really don't see why Apple doesn't offer it.
You have a USB2 dongle? Wow, I must have a really old version. Mine just connects with a USB cable is is USB 1.1 only. Dog slow to transfer a lot of MP3 files. I just start the transfer at night and go to bed. However, it is built like a tank. I dropped the thing a ton of times and it "takes a licken and keeps on ticken" as Timex would say.
And where in my post did I suggest that people should "care" what I do? I stated why I personally would not buy an iPod. I don't want a device that doesn't work on Linux and more importantly I don't want a device that doesnsn't let me record. I never understood why the iPod doesn't have a line-in for recording, it just seems brain-dead to me for Apple to not included such a simple feature.
Besides, they probably make as much if not more money from Apple users than they do from Windows users because of the price of MSO:Mac and VPC
Do you know how to count? All the sales of MS software to Apple users doesn't even touch the sales of MS software to non-Apple users. Seriously, do some _basic_ math. Apple accounts for maybe 3% of all computer users while MS is at least 95% of computer users. Exactly how can 3% of the users account for more in gross sales than 95% of the computer users? MS's biggest cash cows are their OS which, last I checked, is not sold with a new Mac, and their Office suite. Corporate clients account for the majority of the MS Office suite sales.
You seem to really over emphasize MSO. Yes it is the dominate office suite on the PC, however there are other compatible alternatives. OpenOffice can handle a ton of MS Office docs and it will only get better. Apple just came out with some very impressive Office-type applications that can easily handle the office suite needs of the Apple community.
As far as _you_ needing MS Access, I would say you are not the majority. The Majority of home users I know need a word processor and that is about it. Apple has that covered either with Apples own new product or with OpenOffice. I am a senior programmer for a fortune 500 with 140,000+ employees. I can tell you from experience that a very, _very_ small fraction of our employees need Access for anything. The majority use Word and Excel, and once in a while PowerPoint. We actually discourage Access usage, since it is far easier for our DBA's to create a database and us programmers to put together a webapp to handle any database needs of the masses. Non of our important systems are allowed to be based on MS Access. Now, MS Access may be used by a single "power-user", however when more than two people need an application that access data, a real data base is used. Currently where I work we have Oracle for mission critical data and MS SQL Server for departmental type applications.
While many called your post funny, I don't really see the Mac Mini as the "nextgen" DVD player. You can currently buy a DVD at Walmart for $30! Yes, it is crap, but it plays a DVD just fine. You can get a good DVD player for maybe $70-$80. That is far less than $500 for a Mac Mini. I don't think a Mac Mini will replace a standard DVD player anytime soon. Oh, and I am not busting on the Mac Mini, I think they are great little computers. However, they won't replace a typical DVD unless Apple can sell them for less than $100.
Yes, but that doesn't mean it is unconstitutional. IANAL, so I am not sure on this point. It would be interesting to see an employee fight this in a "right to work" states. I don't see how an employee has a right over what you do during your personal time.
Just because a state has a law does not mean that law is not unconstitutional. I personally would love to see people challenge these types of laws at a federal level.
Slashdot Mirror
Build software whose source code you wish to keep private.
The GPL allows you to keep your source code private as long as you do not _distribute_ the application. For example, where I work we could take the Linux kernel and make tons of changes to it and never have to give out those changes as long as we do not distribute those changes outside of our organization.
I am not an expert on the QT commercial license. Howerver to me it appears TrollTech is saying that if you want to keep your code private, even within your own company, you need a commercial license. That sounds as if it is going against the GPL.
WTF? What are you talking about? The majority of Linux GUI toolkit are under the LGPL. That means that you can develop Open Source apps _OR_ closed source apps. Your choice, there are no strings attached. There are no "obligations", you don't have to give away your code, you can keep it "secret". That is the _whole_ point of the LGPL you ninny.
All right crack smoker, come back when you have actually used Linux for more than 30 seconds. You really don't have a clue to what you are talking about. Gnome and even KDE are very full featured desktop environments and have many features that MS windows users would love to have. If what you said was even remotely true, why on earth would professionals like Disney Animation migrate to Linux (Disney Shifting to Linux for Film Animation, I have tons more links)?
Damn, you must have about three brain cells? Please tell me exactly _why_ the current Gimp won't work on RH9? Did you know you can download as many versions of GTK+ and Gimp you want, and install them all? The latest Gimp _will_ work on RH9. Even if the version of GTK+ on RH9 is not new enough, you can just install a newer version and Gimp will run.
Please tell me what this "complex, powerful product" is exactly. Oh and what are these "significant roadblocks". Based on your previous responses, I am sure that I or another /. member can solve these "significant roadblocks" in about 30 seconds.
Huh? You can pay a little money for QT (just as you would pay under MS for Visual Studio) and develop in a cross-platform environment, Linux, MS Windows and Mac OS X. Or, you can use a bunch of the other tool-kits that I already pointed out in a previous post such as GTK+ or wxWindows(x-platform, Linux, Mac, MS). These products have _no_ legal roadblocks. They are under the LGPL, which means you can develop your "super secret" closed source app and not had to worry about it. Please, tell me what your "unacceptable source code obligations" were? What tool-kit were you using that _required_ you to give away your code? I am going to have to say BS on your post.
Damn, dude, you must be one piss-poor developer when it comes to Linux in that case. So what language is your "great" application written in? What tool-kit/API does it use? What tool-kit under Linux did you try to use that caused you such "burdens". I know you are talking FUD, since there are _NO_ source code obligations with Linux GUI tool-kits. You can keep your code closed as much as you like.
Nope, Linux has all this as well. Standard GUI? Check. Pick
Under Linux XFree, you can use GTK+, fltk, wxWidgets, Java, C# w/Mono, or even straight xlib. Again, the only environment that has any type of stupid restrictions is KDE/QT, so stay away from KDE/QT if you don't want to pay a fee. Under Linux, GTK+ applications run just fine under any other desktop environment, including KDE/QT. I personally think the KDE team made a _huge_ mistake when they pick QT. To require a commercial license for native desktop tools is just stupid IMO. However, there are _plenty_ of other great toolkits like GTK+ that have none of those restrictions. With GTK+ you can develop OSS or closed, the choice is yours.
Sure, and you can also do the same under Linux _or_ you can freely download the latest IDE under Linux with no costs. The problem with the much older MS Visual studio IDE's is that they are not very good and certainly do not support the latest features of MS's development environment. None of those older environments support MS'sThere is no single "utopia" OS or development environment. Trying to single out just Linux makes you sound naive, especially when the MS windows development environment has just as many quirks.
Last time I check the laws, I never found one that said all companies _must_ use GPL and GPL only code. So how in the world is _any_ company "forced" to use GPL. If a company wants to use GPLed code and that code is not dual licensed and the company does not want to release their code under the GPL, than they are totally free to implement the code themselves. I have never heard of one case where a company was "forced" to _use_ GPLed code.
This is no different than MS. If I want to write a media player that uses MS Windows Media, then I have to adhere to the terms of MS. If MS requires a payment (which they do) to use MS Windows Media technology in a commercial environment, then guess what, I have to pay MS. Just as if MS states that I can not release my code that uses the MS Media framework under some license that MS does not agree with (which MS does, you cannot use most of their "open" code in any type of GPLed application).
Your whole argument is just silly. The GPL does nothing more then what all/most of the proprietary software companies do. However, the main difference between what the GPL does and what those proprietary companies do is that the GPL benefits the end-user while those other licenses from proprietary companies just try to take away more of your right than what is granted to you by Fair Use and/or Copyright.
Let us look at another example. You own your own small company. You use some GPL code to save costs and you do not distribute any code or even sell it. You just _use_ the code under the GPL. Well according to TrollTech, you owe them money. That is totally against the GPL and I hope someone takes them to court. If I use QT internally _only_ and _never_ distribute those changes, than according to the GPL I am fine since I am not distributing code and I am only an end-user. However, TrollTech still wants to try to force you to pay them money. From what I know of the GPL, that is not allowed, and again, I hope someone busts TrollTech on this issue.
It is not like I don't want to see companies make money from OSS, I just don't want to see companies make money by trying to break or side-step the GPL. In this case I don't see how TrollTech can charge me for making proprietary software based on GPL code that I keep internal and do not distribute, after all that is totally allowed with the GPL.
It works right after you set your pref in about:config, however it you restart your browser, it seems to be a bug in the Firefox startup code that doesn't look at enableIDN so the spoof works again. However, if you go in and reset enableIDN to false, the spoof is again blocked. Not a very good way to protect yourself from this spood, especially for Joe User, however, I bet the Firefox team will have an Auto-Update out in no time.
Restart you browser and then try again. I thought it was working until a restart of Firefox and it appears that the Firefox startup code doesn't properly set enableIDN based on your profile settings. As soon as you restart, the spoof works again. However, go into about:config and you will see that enableIDN is still set to false, so toggle it to true and then false again and the spoof won't work. Rinse, repeat.
Maybe it is a problem in the Firefox startup code not setting enableIDN properly.
One other big giveaway for me is if you view page info and then click on security and click view. The _true_ PayPal site has a cert issued to www.paypal.com while the spoofed site has a cert issued to www.xn--pypal-4ve.com. I always check the cert if I am doing banking or anything with money. However, I really doubt most Joe Users will put that much effort into it, so I do hope the Firefox team at least pushes down an Auto-Update that sets network.enableIDN to false until the team gets a permanent fix.
It is really sad that "socialists" think it is OK to keep knowledge hidden because they think it is the _knowledge_ that is bad.
Well, I am here to tell you that it is not the knowledge. What if I were to post right now how to make a _very_ simple explosive. Would that mean that anyone that read this post would be "bad" or "potentially bad"?
To all you socialists out there... repeat after me
IT IS NOT KNOWLEDGE THAT MAKES SOMETHING BAD! IT IS THE PERSON _WITH_ THAT KNOWLEDGE THAT DOES SOMETHING BAD.
Basically if _every_ computer user in the world knew how to send millions of anonymous spam mails every day, that knowledge of how to do that is _not_ bad. It is the person exploiting that knowledge that is bad.
To put it in simple cave-man language:
So what I want to know is when is MS going to get off their butt and make their desktops more secure and resistant to these _simple_ types of attacks? There really should be no reason for a simple email or web browser exploit to be able to take over a users _entire_ system and exploit it like this. Hell, at least Linux and Mac OS X run normal users as NON ADMIN USERS and prompt for a password for admin activity. Why can't MS do this? And No the runas command doesn't even come close to the ease of use of having a dialog just pop up and ask for a root password when needed. Heck, Linux is Open Source, MS can look at how the major Linux distros do it if MS is not certain about how to go about it.
A few simple changes on the part of MS and the majority (70%+) of spam can be stopped.
I know that a ton of MS Windows applications die if they are not run from a user with Admin rights. However, all MS needs to do is implement a system like Linux or Mac has done and make _every_ user a non-admin user by default instead of making _every_ user in the Administrator group out-of-the-box. Then you will be running an MS Windows desktop as a non-privileged user. Now if you run one of those MS Windows applications that need Administrator access, MS Windows just prompts you for the Admin password. How hard could that be? This small change will allow all those "we need admin" programs to still run, however, it should prevent most of these email/web browser types of attacks from taking over a users system without their knowledge. For example, with this new system, an MS user using an exploited IE goes to a site, the next thing the user knows is that a site prompts for the admin password, the user clicks cancel and no-harm done. It is much easier to teach Joe User to _never_ put in his admin password for any web site than it is to teach Joe User to go out and spen money on an Anti-Virus program and _true_ two-way firewall program (MS's firewall is only one-way) and install them both and keep them updated.
I haven't heard anything against the Vegas company that purchased this information. Why is it OK for a company to carry out these acts but if a citizen does the same acts, he/she is fined a few hundred grand and sent to jail for a year or two?
Can you please post a search string to back up your FUD?
The problem with most hits to Google coming from MS IE, is that MS can easily change that to go to MSN.
I personally have not understood the recent actions of Google. Take a look at Google Labs. Most of the stuff they are doing is MS ONLY. Not a _very_ smart move for Google, IMO. It is pretty dumb of Google to be totally dependent on their competitor. Basically, everything Google does other than being a search engine _requires_ MS. That sounds like a pretty bad business model to me. Especially when Google's biggest competitor is MS. IMO, Google should really be making some standards compliant and most importantly, cross-platform software. Google has certainly hired enough talented programmers to do the job. I just am stumped as to why Google is still playing the "we need MS game". If Google continues down its current path, they will be taken over by MS in market share. MS has already setup the _millions_ of home computers to default to going to MSN. A pretty monopolistic tactic IMO, but it obviously has been allowed and Google is just acting like a sitting duck. The only other efforts that Google has made beside the great Google search has _all_ been MS ONLY.
Maybe I should put on my tin-foil hat and start some conspiracies? Maybe MS secretly _owns_ Google's top execs and MS is paying them to make it look like MS has some competition? Maybe after a few years Google is supposed to make a bunch of stupid business decisions and then MS come in for the kill? I don't know if this sounds like conspiracy or not. But I, as a long time Google fan, am starting to really question the motives of Google. Most of Google's moves don't seem to be very smart, and the release of all their non-search applications only working on MS just seems really stupid to me. Of course Google's applications need to support MS Windows since MS Windows is the dominant OS. However, by Google _only_ supporting MS Windows OSes, it just helps seals MS's desktop monopoly.
I personally don't think MS will ever take over the playstation. I think the two products will continue to compete and offer exclusive games that make gamers want both systems.
I always hated how IE would open up MS Word and MS Excel files in IE. You get a hacked down menu of options. IMO it is much better for a web browser just to be a web browser and fire off the application that is supposed to handle non-browser content. The only exceptions to this IMO should be Java applets, Flash and embedded movies.
If Archos could enable real-time encoding way back when and the current Nueros can enable now for less price, I really don't see why Apple doesn't offer it.
You have a USB2 dongle? Wow, I must have a really old version. Mine just connects with a USB cable is is USB 1.1 only. Dog slow to transfer a lot of MP3 files. I just start the transfer at night and go to bed. However, it is built like a tank. I dropped the thing a ton of times and it "takes a licken and keeps on ticken" as Timex would say.
You seem to really over emphasize MSO. Yes it is the dominate office suite on the PC, however there are other compatible alternatives. OpenOffice can handle a ton of MS Office docs and it will only get better. Apple just came out with some very impressive Office-type applications that can easily handle the office suite needs of the Apple community.
As far as _you_ needing MS Access, I would say you are not the majority. The Majority of home users I know need a word processor and that is about it. Apple has that covered either with Apples own new product or with OpenOffice. I am a senior programmer for a fortune 500 with 140,000+ employees. I can tell you from experience that a very, _very_ small fraction of our employees need Access for anything. The majority use Word and Excel, and once in a while PowerPoint. We actually discourage Access usage, since it is far easier for our DBA's to create a database and us programmers to put together a webapp to handle any database needs of the masses. Non of our important systems are allowed to be based on MS Access. Now, MS Access may be used by a single "power-user", however when more than two people need an application that access data, a real data base is used. Currently where I work we have Oracle for mission critical data and MS SQL Server for departmental type applications.
While many called your post funny, I don't really see the Mac Mini as the "nextgen" DVD player. You can currently buy a DVD at Walmart for $30! Yes, it is crap, but it plays a DVD just fine. You can get a good DVD player for maybe $70-$80. That is far less than $500 for a Mac Mini. I don't think a Mac Mini will replace a standard DVD player anytime soon. Oh, and I am not busting on the Mac Mini, I think they are great little computers. However, they won't replace a typical DVD unless Apple can sell them for less than $100.
Just because a state has a law does not mean that law is not unconstitutional. I personally would love to see people challenge these types of laws at a federal level.