Why? On the Mplayer Download Page, they have all the codecs you will ever need. I have yet to run into an audio/video file I was not able to play in Linux with Mplayer. Just download the Mplayer coded DLL files and put them all in/usr/lib/win32, and now Xine, Totem and Mplayer will play _everything_ you throw at them.
There are pros and cons to each method. I think a global place to place jars and classes would be great. For example, in.Net when you compile an app, all the libs it uses go with an application and put in a/bin directory. So each application will have it's own copy of libs. This is good to prevent apps from installing their newer libs and breaking older apps. Though.Net does offer a global place to install.Net assemblies so that all applications can use them. As I said, there are pros and cons to each method. What I don't want to have to do with Java is have 5 different JVM's on my system, one for each app.
Re:You're being a bit harsh on OS/X, don't you thi
on
Enlightenment Lives
·
· Score: 1
but Apple has a very realistic chance to make significant inroads on the corporate desktop.
I disagree. Apple has no corporate mind share. I have been a developer for 3 fortune 500 companies and never heard Apple mentioned for any reason. Windows, Linux and Solaris I hear about, but never Mac OS. There is no compelling reason for a corporation to switch from mostly MS WIndows based desktops to Mac OS based desktops. The costs per unit for the systems would go up and you lose the large application support. Also, if Mac's made any big gain on corporate desktops, you could be certain that the MS Office suite would suffer under the Mac OS platform. MS would slow development to a crawl for the Mac OS version.
If Apple makes sure they take care of security, I see no reason why a business manager wouldn't prefer an Apple solution to generic Linux. It gets most of the benefits plus full vendor support and a moderate/growing product support catalog.
I don't see that happening. At the end of the day, the per unit cost of a comparable Mac is more then your comparable x86. Linux can leverage the x86 commodity market while a Mac cannot. There is also the lock in. One of the big reasons in the corporate world to look for alternative is the single vendor lock-in from MS. Going to Apple wouldn't change anything. It would make it worse because now your OS _and_ your hardware is from one source. Apple is not big enough to handle the corporate hardware requirements. They couldn't handle the consumer iPod demand, how would they manage to be the _only_ Mac hardware vendor? They also do not offer much in the server space. Do they have any 4-way boxes? I know we have plenty of 4-way x86 servers where I work, anything bigger is usually Sparc. Most companies want to get their desktops and servers from one vendor to get cost savings. We use HP/Compaq for all desktops and almost all servers, and helps us get good deals. Again, Apple just doesn't have a big enough hardware stack for most US corps.
The biggest two things holding back Apple in the corporate world is the single vendor lock-in with hardware/software and cost. Where I work we have 130,000+ employees. Now the majority of them do not get computers, but 1,000's do. We just got good development boxes from HP with 3.0 GHz P4 (HT), 1GB RAM, 80GB HD, DVD-ROM/CD-RW drives. They were maybe $1,200 each or so. A comparable system speedwise from Apple would be at least $2,0000. So that is a good $800 more per employee/per desktop. $800 * 300 developers = $240,000 more for the Apple solution.
For a corporate desktop user that doesn't need MS Windows, again I don't see Apple turning heads. You can get a good, usable x86 desktop for $500. You cannot touch anything new from Apple in that range. The best you could do would be to get an _older_ G4 that just doesn't keep up with modern x86 desktops. On the software side, the only place mac has n advantage over Linux is with MS Office.
While MS Office has a strangle hold on the corporate office suite, Mac and Linux don't have much of a chance for the typical office desktop (I am not talking servers). There is no cost advantage to switch from MS Windows/MS Office/x86 to Mac OS X/MS Office/PPC. Now for specialty type desktops like for helpdesk or desktops to just run custom corporate software, Linux could have a market, but I don't see any for Mac because of costs. You could stick a bunch of $700 x86 Linux desktops in front of your help desk running a GUI or web-based help deskapp app and save costs. Your not going to touch anything in that price range from Apple.
Holy crap Batman! What idiots modded this "Insightful". It is just _all_ wrong!
most home 'nix users just run as root
What!!!! Where do you get that crap from? I know tons of Linux users and don't know anyone that runs as root. All distros have you create a non-root user at install, except for Lindows/Lindros, which has a small percentage of users. Most *nix home users are technical and know not to run as root and just use su or sudo to handle things as root.
an inherent drawback of 'nix (with the exception of Hurd) is that programs cannot elevate themselves to su and drop access rights again whilst running
What the HELL are you talking about? Apache starts as root to bind to port 80, then changes its EUID to some other user, say www or apache or whatever user you tell it to. So apache is running as a non-priveleged user and only switches to root when needed. This technique is used by many *nix applications. Any application that has the potential for a security risk should be started as root and not a normal user. If you don't want to start as root, you could make the executable SUID root.
The workaround has always been to use scripts because a script can elevate itself to su rights
Huh? In Linux, a script cannot be SUID root. And a script cannot elevate it priveleges to root if ran by a non root user you idiot. A script is nothing special. It is just another process (ran by your shell such as bash) and it is a process that needs to be able to elevate its priveleges. If the process running the script (your shell) cannot change to root, the script cannot "elevate itself to su rights".
Where did you get you *nix knowledge? From the MS handbook of Unix?
"At no point in your rambling, did you even come close to an intelligent thought. I award you no points, may God have mercy on your soul."
Re:I'd like to see it use the latest X stuff
on
Enlightenment Lives
·
· Score: 1
So there is no hardware excelleration for Solaris, HPUX, etc? If not, then I don't think it would matter that a desktop WM supports hardware excelleration. Basically, it means that those OSes are only good for a server, which is basically how it is now. Solaris and HPUX are _not_ very good on modern (read commodity x86 hardware) for a desktop.
But why is it? All the X-WMs look shabby, slapdash and incomplete compared to MacOSX and even, dare I say it... WinXP.
To be fair, I thing E does better than most... more attuned to my taste than KDE or GNOME. But why must we have hundreds of hours of development hours go into something which is inferior to the two market leaders? Sure there are Lunix/BSD vs Windows/Mac arguments/fests all time time, but no Linux/BSD WM looks or functions as polished as WinXP/MacOSX (note I am walking WM/GUI here, not OS in general).
You are obviously stating your opinion, so why not make it sound that way? I think the default WinXP desktop is childish, though the Classic desktop on WinXP is nice and usable. As for Mac OS X, I have used it far too much, and don't like the GUI at all. I am dead tired of the over done theme, and can't stand every menu bar being at the top. I will take Gnome over Mac OS X any day, though that is _my opinion_.
which is inferior to the two market leaders?
Huh? What crack are you smoking? Max OS X is _not_ a market leader. There are some sources showing Linux desktop having a higher percentage then Max OS X as of December 2003. While others show Linux at around 1% or so and Mac OS X around 3%. No matter what source you take as gospel, Neither Linux nor Mac OS X are a _leader_ when it comes to the desktop. MS has that sealed. Now if you want to talk server. Well, Mac OS X is no where on the radar, while Linux is a _very_ strong second with MS in first, percentage-wise. Linux in fact has been the fastest growning server OS for the past 4 years or so, growing faster then any other OS, including MS Windows. So please don't call Mac OS X a "market leader" in any field, since Mac OS/X has always been and always will be a niche market.
I agree, it would be perfect if there was a standard location for jar files and class files by platform.
As far as distributing your apps, you can use a self-contained jar file that has everything it needs and execute that. I have ran plenty of Java apps that were just a single jar with all needed class libraries and the manifest file.
other word processors already can parse these documents, because the format is documented
Huh? Where are you getting your information? The MS Office file formats are closed and proprietary. The only reason other software can parse and render them is because of reverse engineering.
1) The stupid $CLASSPATH. Since I don't do a lot of Java work, I don't actually set this stuff up in.profile or.cshrc or anything, but any time I want to try to compile it's a matter of mucking around in/usr/java/ trying to figure out what the classpath needs to be. Then, naturally, I'll be using some shell other than CSH and forget how to set the local var;).
Huh? Have you ever compiled C/C++? -I/usr/include/foo -L/usr/lib/foo, etc. There is just as much cruft to compile a C/C++ app. Real C/C++ apps will use a build system like Make/autoconf. Just as real Java apps will use an IDE that handles the CLASSPATH for compiling or a great Java build tool like Apache-Ant (and most IDE's will export ant build scripts for you. Also, any good Java Server or GUI app will be packaged into a jar file with a manifest that will handle everything for you.
Why not just drop all the jars into your/usr/lib/java/ directory? Your/etc/profile can then just do a simple for loop and add all of them to the $CLASSPATH
for JAR in/usr/lib/java/*.jar; do CLASSPATH=$CLASSPATH:$JAR; done export $CLASSPATH
BS. I have been building.Net and Java apps for the past two years and they both have about the same runtime performance and memory foot print..Net GUI apps seem to have a slightly faster startup performance over swing GUI apps but not over SWT GUI apps. Also JSP/Servlets vs. ASP.Net are both on par with performance from my experience with the two for web apps..Net GUI apps probably have a little startup performance gain over Java because more of the MS DLL's/etc are loaded by the OS, where Java apps are usually a full cold-start.
That is just FUD. Some programmer(s) at MS _had_ to write the code that knows how to open an MS.doc file and display it. Even if the written documentation at MS for the MS Office formats are not complete, it would not cost much to have a few programmers go through the code and document it fully and release that to the public.
You can't put a corporation in charge of OSS projects, because the second a corporation sees profit in closing the source they will do so.
Not if the license prevents that. For example, Red Hat and Novell/SuSE. They cannot just take all the GNU/Linux code and close it. So if MS _were_ serious they would do a few thing IMO.
Use a FreeSoftware approved license that does not allow MS to take away the contributions of the community and which allows the community control of the code, for example to fork the code if they do not agree with the direction the project is taking.
Use and support Open standards and formats in their open and non-open applications
Use more Open Source software within their OS, similar to what Apple is doing with Perl, Apache, Samba, etc.
because even deep in the bowels of Microsoft they have no complete documentation of the file format
Sure they do. Some programmer(s) at MS _had_ to write the code that knows how to open an MS.doc file and display it. Even if the written documentation at MS for the MS Office formats are not complete, it would not cost much to have a few programmers document it fully and release that to the public.
Because large corporations do not think that way. It is "how can we expand and maximize share holder profits". Ethics comes last. Large corps want to grow, gain more "market domination", etc. MS will never just "stick to what they do well".
AT&T was broken up for much less then MS. There is nothing "violent" about breaking up a monopoly company. In fact, it is more "violent" to the market as a whole to let that monopoly exist.
Huh? You can get _all_ of the code that Red Hat or any other Linux distro uses and go to town. There are plenty of groups that have done this such as White Box Linux.
The main difference with Linux/*BSD and other OSS software is that _all_ user contributions such as coding, graphical work, documentation, etc goes back to the community so that _anyone_ can use it. With MS, any work you do for them is just working for free since MS will keep all rights to the work and just resell it. If I am going to spend my time to help others for free, I want to help a community and not a corporation. I get paid for my work by a corporation.
Look at these two open source projects from MS so far. They are both very outdated and not very useful. VC++ is not the MS development platform of the week. It is now.Net. Why release VC++ stuff and not some.Net stuff under a real FreeSoftware license? How useful is that WIC installer? There are tons of good installer out there including commercial and free such as Inno Setup.
If MS wants to win the trust of the OSS community, they will need to put out something more significant and not some old unimportant code.
At the end of the day, MS is a closed/proprietary company. They are not going to do anything significant within the Free/OSS communities. The most I would ever expect from MS is Open-but-not-Free software such as Java. You can look at the code, but you cannot do anything with it. That type of code doesn't build a community of contributors.
Yum and apt are pretty much equal feature-wise, however _not_ performance-wise. apt-get is just soooo much faster. For one or two update you probably won't notice much. However, get 10+ updates and yum take ages to work out dependencies. I tried yum with about 100 updates and after a good 8 minutes or so _before_ yum even started installing, I killed it and did the same update with apt-get. apt-get was installing in less then a minute (these times do not included download times which would be equal between apt-get and yum).
Um, the default Fedora update includes 3,500+ core applications and all security update out-of-the-box. There is no editing of repositories to get updates to the OS and those 3,500+ core applications. There is no command line required (unless you want to), there is a simple GUI to check for updates to ALL of those 3,500+ core applications including security. For an end-user who is a little more advanced, he/she can easily add repositories to increase that number of 3,500+ core applications and add thousands more.
Oh, and the little MS windows update _only_ handles core ms windows applications. Good luck hearing about other security or update versions to all the other software you purchased. Even MS Office requires an end-user to go to a different site to check for updates then for the OS. Not very end-user friendly IMO. This is probably why the average MS Windows desktop is so much more open and insecure/vulnerable then your typical OSS desktop. SP 2 won't fix this either. It may help to get MS OS fixes down faster, but it won't do anything for all the other software that end-users are using, even other MS software.
or Apple will code something in to stop the third party client from working with their software.
Huh? And exactly how long would that last? If Apple can manipulate bits, so can any other geek and undo or work around what Apple "wants". This is a good thing (tm) to me. Why should apple say how you can share your music and with what platform? Anything apple tries will be undone by geeks.
Some idiot AC says no, and a few mods believe him/her? Wow! Anyway, it _would_ be Apple abusing their position, trying not to have competiton. It doesn't matter though, because as history has shown, anything Apple or any other $BIG_COMPANY tries to do, there is someone or some group out there that can undo it or work around it. So even if Apple tries to stop this, it will only be a matter of time until someone figures it out. When will the PHB's/CEO's learn? If Apple, MS or any other $BIG_COMPANY can manipulate bits to lock in customers or prevent competiton, so can some other geek manipulate bits to undo or work around what $BIG_COMPANY was trying to accomplish.
Neither Microsoft nor any other company is the enemy, except when they are actively promoting software patentability.
MS is always promotting software patentability and the legal protection if "IP".
The real enemies are the corrupt, incompetent or short-sighted politicians and legislators who make and administrate the laws
Who do you think are funding these laws? That is right, these big companies. Microsoft has dumped millions USD into the hands of the politicians. MS helped create this broken US legal system, and I hope they get a little payback by losing this UC/Eolas case. The only thing that will wake up $BIG_COMPANIES is losing money. Most $BIG_COMPANIES just cross-license their crap, so I hope to see many, many small and medium sized companies hitting the $BIG_COMPANIES where it hurts, in the wallet, through litigation of patent disputes.
The bigger question is: should algorithms be patentable. There is probably a stronger case for patenting algorithms than there is for patenting chemical compounds...
The problem with that is already apparent. The algorithms will become generic and lock out competition. For example:
I hereby patent an algorithm that accepts two dates and subtracts them, returning the difference.
I hereby patent an algorithm that accepts two character arrays and returns a new concatenated character array.
I hereby patent an algorithm that accepts two numbers and adds them and returns the sum.
I hereby patent an algorithm that accepts an image file as an array of bytes and an x and y coordinate. The algorithm will return the pixel color of those coordinates.
etc, etc. etc.
Can you see how silly it becomes. Basically, you will no longer be able to program a computer with out paying $BIG_COMPANY fees for all the patents. The only companies that are safe are $BIG_COMPANIES, since they will cross license their patent hoards.
Sure there would. It would be called copyright and you would not be allow you to put someone elses copyrighted code into your code without permission. So basically, you would need to get permission from ever developer of said code before you could put it in your own, unless of course the GPL _is_ valid, which I do not see how it can not be. I don't see any judge claiming the GPL as a whole to be invalid. _Maybe_ a judge might have issue with a certain clause and seek clarification, but I don't think much more then that. The GPL has been reviewed by tons of lawyers, I am sure we would have heard strong evidence by now to any of the GPL's legal flaws.
What are you smoking? Linux is used as a database server, email server, web server, file server DNS server, router, etc, etc. Many more uses then just a web server.
There is no point in arguing about desktop percentages. Max OS X and Linux are both very small and don't even touch MS's 95%+ of the desktop market. However, if you want to be pedantic, I have seen stats that show Linux as the #2 desktop as of December 2003 (it was even on/.), and I also see stats showing Mac OS with a small lead. On the desktop, Linux and Mac OS still have no pull.
On the server however, Linux is a strong #2 and has been the fastest growing server OS for the last 4 years or so. MS does not enjoy the same monopoly on the server as they do on the desktop, though they still have plenty of lock-ins to help push their server numbers up. The server area is the only area where MS is seeing any competition and that only competition is coming from GNU/Linux.
Re:Where do you draw the line?
on
The Spyware Inferno
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
An EULA is different. Most software EULA are _only_ readable after you purchase the software. That would be like me selling you a house and getting payment and then showing you the terms that I wasn't _really_ selling it to you, just leasing it and I can take it away at any time. Now, if I did something like that, a judge would throw it out without question. However, would a judge be just as willing to throw out an EULA? I would hope so, but you never know with the US justice system.
I cannot see a judge holding up an EULA that you only got to read _after_ the purchase. I don't think any of those EULA would be enforceable.
Slashdot Mirror
Why? On the Mplayer Download Page, they have all the codecs you will ever need. I have yet to run into an audio/video file I was not able to play in Linux with Mplayer. Just download the Mplayer coded DLL files and put them all in /usr/lib/win32, and now Xine, Totem and Mplayer will play _everything_ you throw at them.
There are pros and cons to each method. I think a global place to place jars and classes would be great. For example, in .Net when you compile an app, all the libs it uses go with an application and put in a /bin directory. So each application will have it's own copy of libs. This is good to prevent apps from installing their newer libs and breaking older apps. Though .Net does offer a global place to install .Net assemblies so that all applications can use them. As I said, there are pros and cons to each method. What I don't want to have to do with Java is have 5 different JVM's on my system, one for each app.
The biggest two things holding back Apple in the corporate world is the single vendor lock-in with hardware/software and cost. Where I work we have 130,000+ employees. Now the majority of them do not get computers, but 1,000's do. We just got good development boxes from HP with 3.0 GHz P4 (HT), 1GB RAM, 80GB HD, DVD-ROM/CD-RW drives. They were maybe $1,200 each or so. A comparable system speedwise from Apple would be at least $2,0000. So that is a good $800 more per employee/per desktop. $800 * 300 developers = $240,000 more for the Apple solution.
For a corporate desktop user that doesn't need MS Windows, again I don't see Apple turning heads. You can get a good, usable x86 desktop for $500. You cannot touch anything new from Apple in that range. The best you could do would be to get an _older_ G4 that just doesn't keep up with modern x86 desktops. On the software side, the only place mac has n advantage over Linux is with MS Office.
While MS Office has a strangle hold on the corporate office suite, Mac and Linux don't have much of a chance for the typical office desktop (I am not talking servers). There is no cost advantage to switch from MS Windows/MS Office/x86 to Mac OS X/MS Office/PPC. Now for specialty type desktops like for helpdesk or desktops to just run custom corporate software, Linux could have a market, but I don't see any for Mac because of costs. You could stick a bunch of $700 x86 Linux desktops in front of your help desk running a GUI or web-based help deskapp app and save costs. Your not going to touch anything in that price range from Apple.
Where did you get you *nix knowledge? From the MS handbook of Unix?
"At no point in your rambling, did you even come close to an intelligent thought. I award you no points, may God have mercy on your soul."
So there is no hardware excelleration for Solaris, HPUX, etc? If not, then I don't think it would matter that a desktop WM supports hardware excelleration. Basically, it means that those OSes are only good for a server, which is basically how it is now. Solaris and HPUX are _not_ very good on modern (read commodity x86 hardware) for a desktop.
As far as distributing your apps, you can use a self-contained jar file that has everything it needs and execute that. I have ran plenty of Java apps that were just a single jar with all needed class libraries and the manifest file.
BS. I have been building .Net and Java apps for the past two years and they both have about the same runtime performance and memory foot print. .Net GUI apps seem to have a slightly faster startup performance over swing GUI apps but not over SWT GUI apps. Also JSP/Servlets vs. ASP.Net are both on par with performance from my experience with the two for web apps. .Net GUI apps probably have a little startup performance gain over Java because more of the MS DLL's/etc are loaded by the OS, where Java apps are usually a full cold-start.
That is just FUD. Some programmer(s) at MS _had_ to write the code that knows how to open an MS .doc file and display it. Even if the written documentation at MS for the MS Office formats are not complete, it would not cost much to have a few programmers go through the code and document it fully and release that to the public.
Use a FreeSoftware approved license that does not allow MS to take away the contributions of the community and which allows the community control of the code, for example to fork the code if they do not agree with the direction the project is taking.
Use and support Open standards and formats in their open and non-open applications
Use more Open Source software within their OS, similar to what Apple is doing with Perl, Apache, Samba, etc.
Stop being so evil as a corporation.
AT&T was broken up for much less then MS. There is nothing "violent" about breaking up a monopoly company. In fact, it is more "violent" to the market as a whole to let that monopoly exist.
The main difference with Linux/*BSD and other OSS software is that _all_ user contributions such as coding, graphical work, documentation, etc goes back to the community so that _anyone_ can use it. With MS, any work you do for them is just working for free since MS will keep all rights to the work and just resell it. If I am going to spend my time to help others for free, I want to help a community and not a corporation. I get paid for my work by a corporation.
Look at these two open source projects from MS so far. They are both very outdated and not very useful. VC++ is not the MS development platform of the week. It is now .Net. Why release VC++ stuff and not some .Net stuff under a real FreeSoftware license? How useful is that WIC installer? There are tons of good installer out there including commercial and free such as Inno Setup.
If MS wants to win the trust of the OSS community, they will need to put out something more significant and not some old unimportant code.
At the end of the day, MS is a closed/proprietary company. They are not going to do anything significant within the Free/OSS communities. The most I would ever expect from MS is Open-but-not-Free software such as Java. You can look at the code, but you cannot do anything with it. That type of code doesn't build a community of contributors.
Yum and apt are pretty much equal feature-wise, however _not_ performance-wise. apt-get is just soooo much faster. For one or two update you probably won't notice much. However, get 10+ updates and yum take ages to work out dependencies. I tried yum with about 100 updates and after a good 8 minutes or so _before_ yum even started installing, I killed it and did the same update with apt-get. apt-get was installing in less then a minute (these times do not included download times which would be equal between apt-get and yum).
Oh, and the little MS windows update _only_ handles core ms windows applications. Good luck hearing about other security or update versions to all the other software you purchased. Even MS Office requires an end-user to go to a different site to check for updates then for the OS. Not very end-user friendly IMO. This is probably why the average MS Windows desktop is so much more open and insecure/vulnerable then your typical OSS desktop. SP 2 won't fix this either. It may help to get MS OS fixes down faster, but it won't do anything for all the other software that end-users are using, even other MS software.
Some idiot AC says no, and a few mods believe him/her? Wow! Anyway, it _would_ be Apple abusing their position, trying not to have competiton. It doesn't matter though, because as history has shown, anything Apple or any other $BIG_COMPANY tries to do, there is someone or some group out there that can undo it or work around it. So even if Apple tries to stop this, it will only be a matter of time until someone figures it out. When will the PHB's/CEO's learn? If Apple, MS or any other $BIG_COMPANY can manipulate bits to lock in customers or prevent competiton, so can some other geek manipulate bits to undo or work around what $BIG_COMPANY was trying to accomplish.
I hereby patent an algorithm that accepts two dates and subtracts them, returning the difference.
I hereby patent an algorithm that accepts two character arrays and returns a new concatenated character array.
I hereby patent an algorithm that accepts two numbers and adds them and returns the sum.
I hereby patent an algorithm that accepts an image file as an array of bytes and an x and y coordinate. The algorithm will return the pixel color of those coordinates.
etc, etc. etc.
Can you see how silly it becomes. Basically, you will no longer be able to program a computer with out paying $BIG_COMPANY fees for all the patents. The only companies that are safe are $BIG_COMPANIES, since they will cross license their patent hoards.
Sure there would. It would be called copyright and you would not be allow you to put someone elses copyrighted code into your code without permission. So basically, you would need to get permission from ever developer of said code before you could put it in your own, unless of course the GPL _is_ valid, which I do not see how it can not be. I don't see any judge claiming the GPL as a whole to be invalid. _Maybe_ a judge might have issue with a certain clause and seek clarification, but I don't think much more then that. The GPL has been reviewed by tons of lawyers, I am sure we would have heard strong evidence by now to any of the GPL's legal flaws.
There is no point in arguing about desktop percentages. Max OS X and Linux are both very small and don't even touch MS's 95%+ of the desktop market. However, if you want to be pedantic, I have seen stats that show Linux as the #2 desktop as of December 2003 (it was even on /.), and I also see stats showing Mac OS with a small lead. On the desktop, Linux and Mac OS still have no pull.
On the server however, Linux is a strong #2 and has been the fastest growing server OS for the last 4 years or so. MS does not enjoy the same monopoly on the server as they do on the desktop, though they still have plenty of lock-ins to help push their server numbers up. The server area is the only area where MS is seeing any competition and that only competition is coming from GNU/Linux.
I cannot see a judge holding up an EULA that you only got to read _after_ the purchase. I don't think any of those EULA would be enforceable.