"We've had an issue, a problem that we've had to confront, which is because of the way the GPL (General Public License) works" There should be no problem as long as Microsoft keeps their hands out of the GPL cookie jar. If they believe their "ip" has been stolen and placed in the GPL cookie jar then they should specify their claim.
"the fact that that product uses our patented intellectual property is a problem for our shareholders" Hmm, that doesn't sound like interoperability, it sounds like Microsoft is asking for compensation for unspecified infringement
"Suse Linux is appropriately covered. There will be no patent issues. They've appropriately compensated Microsoft for our intellectual property" More unspecified claims of infringement and Suse is safe because they now pay Microsoft for the unspecified infringement.
"anybody who has got Linux in their data center today sort of has an undisclosed balance sheet liability, because it's not just Microsoft patents" Still no specifics, just a simple "everyone owes us", where have we heard that before.
"Novell said to us, 'Hey, look, if you're serious about this stuff, you better help us promote Suse Linux.' To which we said, 'You know we're trying to sell Windows, that's what we do for a living! Windows, Windows, Windows, baby! We don't do Linux that way here.'" Well duh, and here we were all thinking it was about interoperability, think again.
"there's so many customers who say, 'Hey look, we don't want problems. We don't want any intellectual property problem or anything else. There's just a variety of workloads where we, today, feel like we want to run Linux. Please help us Microsoft and please work with the distributors to solve this problem, don't come try to license this individually.' So customer push drove us to where we got." Ah, now it makes sense. Microsoft has been roughing up customers for their use of linux and some of them told Microsoft to piss off, so now they are going after linux distributors. Fortunately the most significant linux players have already told Microsoft to piss off.
Obviously the fuss isn't about a bunch of "FOSS zealots" improperly portraying these agreements, all the fuss is in response to a shake down.
Honestly I'm not concerned, this latest Microsoft FUD foray will likely be as fruitless as their paid for effort from The SCO Group and all their unfounded claims of linux infringement. The SuSE deal was a significant issue but the latest agreements are meaningless because the distributors they are working with are in no way significant contributors to linux.
the COPIES of the compiled binaries are not worth anything more than the media they're printed on. One can make infinite copies of software for virtually no cost.. If a software company sells 1,000 copies or a 1,000,000 copies, it is nearly the same cost to the developer depending the method of distribution. The copies have no intrinsic value. If they did have intrinsic value, they'd cost the developer per copy. But they don't. If Microsoft gives away a copy of software, it is no loss for Microsoft.
Perhaps it would make some sense if people would compare gross profit margins of companies like Microsoft versus a company that sells hardware. Microsoft has an 80% gross profit margin on their software, it would probably be even more if they dropped all the dead weight, while hardware manufacturers struggle to maintain 20% to 40%. From my experience a 20% margin is just enough to keep a company from deteriorating into eventual bankruptycy while 40% is a boom, 80% would be a miracle.
Instead people listen to and believe moronic statements like the proclomation from Gates back in 2004 that hardware would eventually be nearly free. I'm not sure who would be supplying all the resources and labor to make free hardware, but making a copy of Gates software is already just about free. And if you avoid Gates software and go with open source its even legal.
Will someone explain to me why, as a power user, I am expected to enjoy doing a lot of make-work whenever I install an OS?
I don't believe he is saying that a power user enjoys it, but it is expected that when the hand holding doesn't work you, as a power user, can work your way through it yourself. A beginner will be incapable of working their way through an install or maintenance when the hand holding fails.
I.E. I recently installed Ubuntu on a system with 4 SATA drives and 2 PATA drives setup with multiple RAID1 and LVM partitions. The Ubuntu installer choked on the number of drives and partitions and I ended up having to hold Ubuntu's hand and guide it through the install. Unfortunately even after helping the installer along the system would not boot because, although the/boot directory was on a basic non RAID partition, the root / was on a RAID partition and due to a bug in the Ubuntu init scripts the RAID drivers were not loaded before the/etc/ directory was needed so the boot would choke. Manually editing the init scripts was necessary to resolve the issue.
So much for the hand holding, the beginner wouldn't have even made it past the installers partitioning snafu.
AN Ubuntu future? You get a D+. This article contains nothing useful.
I have to agree, it seemed like alot of flag waving by a fan, but I will also admit that I am testing out Ubuntu because there is a perception that it will have a significant market presence. In the past I stuck with Fedora because it seems like a good community supported distro which is also a good starting point to Red Hat's enterprise accepted offerings. I ended up converting the file server project over to Fedora but I'll still try Ubuntu on something less complex.
Was it the same 400 developers surveyed? A 12% increase in Linux could mean more Linux developers or it could just mean less Windows developers. If I carefully pick my 400 to survey I could post a completely legit survey showing that OS2 is making a comeback.
Actually its not necessary to keep the same 400 developers for the survey, in fact the same arguement could be made that keeping the same 400 would squew the results because your not actually sampling the entire population. With a sample size of 400 they likely have a margin of error less than 5% and since the change from one survey to the next is more than 5 percentage points there is a significant difference which suggests there is a change in the number of developers targeting Windows.
If you pick the 400 respondents then you no longer have a statistically valid survey.
They're eliminating the fear that if their product is used, they, the customer, won't have to worry about the big bad MS coming after them.
And exactly what is the Xandros product? Just an FYI, Xandros does not own linux, they distriute linux which is licensed to them by the owners of the copyrights under the GPL. The Novell and Xandros deals are BS because they are linux distributors and at best a small player in the development of linux.
From the base of the kernel source code I ran an egrep -ir "Xandros" * | egrep "Copyright" and came up with nothing, for Novell there was only one. If you try something like "Red Hat" or "IBM" or "Hewlett" you come up with a list of multiple copyrights.
So is Microsoft signing a deal with Xandros to not go after their customers for the services that Xandros provides? Its definitely not for any Xandros intellectual property.
wasn't this the exact same issue that kept folks from adopting Linux when the whole SCO thing was just getting started because they were afraid, and rightfully so, that SCO would come after them?
It is the same issue, both are based on posturing rather than facts, linux adoption did not stop, and there was no reason to fear The SCO Group unless you were a previous customer of the original SCO. The SCO Group professed loudly the same threats in the press but in the end they didn't go after a single linux user, they went after their own customers who did business with them in the past.
So if The SCO Group is any hint of what will happen its likely the people who are signing deals with Microsoft are the ones who will get screwed.
If Jim says he knows something, then let's at least give him the courtesy of taking him at his word.
This goes beyond courtesy, if this is true then we have finally found the one person on the planet who can put an end to the global suffering brought about by the culturally spawned antagonism of different beliefs.
The one man who knows god exists should share this wisdom with the world so we can all correct our beliefs with his knowledge of the truth. I'm sure the facts from which he derived this knowledge will end all the jihads, the inquisitions, the witch burning, and as a species man can finally stop wasting life and resources on all the falsehoods that belieger us and estrange us.
I'm sure, based on his conviction, that he is basing his knowing on solid and proveable facts and this one true knower will save us from the sufferance of belief.
But just in case it turns out he too is simply another believer I'll stick to my science for now.
Heh, my sentiment exactly when I read that line. If Gateway sends a lawyer to small claims court with "vast legal and financial resources" the judge is likely to put Gateway's lawyer into a world of hurt. As a small claims court judge its more likely that the judge will be unimpressed by big lawyer shenannigans in a common sense small claims court.
For most developers, protections against corporate profiteering preserve their personal ability to profit from their labor.
Well said. I swear the entire "Intellectual Property" movement is about the suits who cant do turning those who can into serfs. The internet has made marketing and distribution possible even for the smallest of organizations. But when you can't compete because the corporations own all your ideas then you have no choice but to work under them. "Intellectual Property" owners are the Robber Barons of the 21st century.
so long as it is in compliance with the BSD license
I think the only thing you'll need to check is the version of BSD license. If the project was released under the original BSD license that has the advertising clause then it is not compatible with the GPL and you not be able to legally convert the original code over to a GPL license. You'll have to rewrite from scratch.
there are two kinds of developers, the initial authors that pick the license, and the developers reusing that code under license. The second kind obviously would prefer to have as much freedom as possible to do what they want with the code, so if they got to choose, the license would be more permissive. On the other hand, the first group may not want the second group to take their code and sell it, or deploy it on a device like Tivo, so the GPLv3 might be exactly what they want.
Its not that simple.
In fact there were comments earlier from a developer who wanted to change the licensing on his original project code from GPL to BSD so he could take the modification of the secondary devleopers and implement them in his proprietary release of the software. The desire to screw developers works both ways. (and to think that developers are often portrayed as undesireables;)
If I had a philosophical problem with the GPL I'd use a BSD license instead. I think it's vital that both types of license are out there.
Same here. I have no idea what all the controversy is about concerning the GPL. If people don't like it then they shouldn't use it. There are open source licenses out there to fit everyones needs. And if a developer doesn't like what's out there they can make up their own. The only reason I can think of for all the attacks on the GPL is that there must be some desire to pull developers away from GPLed projects that compete with open source projects which are released under a permissive license which allow proprietary use of the code without giving anything back.
It's the users that can get annoyed when a package they could normally use can't after a license shift
I haven't noticed many users posting blog articles or sending letters to the U.S. Congress complaining about a software license. It appears to me that the GPL, due to its popularity and the massive amount of code released under it, has generated rants, propoganda campaigns, and even a letter from a CEO to the U.S. Congress explaining how it will be the end of the free world, and why? Before the arguement was always that it wasn't as free as it should be, at least in this latest rant the truth is used, because its not as permissive for businesses and software developers who would like to take the GPLed code, use it, and not have to give anything back.
I agree, developers are in control, and far from being idiots choosing a license under peer pressure and in dire need of direction from lawyers, CEOs, or even Congress, we use a license because it serves our needs.
if it wasn't for DRM, I wouldn't be able to download TV shows from various TV networks online
I think I understand what you are saying, DRM is not the technology that makes it possible to host TV shows on an internet server and make it possible for you to copy the content over the internet to your computer, but the false impression of control over the media content by the TV networks gives them a warm fuzzy feeling knowing that their content that is copied many millions of times off the internet is "protected" by DRM.
Of course this is exactly what the posted article was explaining. The DRM protection scheme is as much a fallacy as the props in the old Star Trek episodes, yes thats right, technical sounding words, blinking colored lights, and hard bodies don't make it real.
surely the problem isn't DRM but the economic structures in place that requires DRM to be used
The economic structure that is in place never required DRM before it was created, its not needed now. The objective of DRM is to create a new economic structure where by new laws are passed to ensure that the masses follow sheepishly the economic demands of corporations. Ironically its like a cheasy sci-fi B-movie, as in HG Wells The Time Machine consumers are being conditioned through marketing to be docile and submissive to the demands of the Morlocks. And if you don't submit, there is always the DMCA.
The DRM in and of itself is no reason for concern because anyone who has a basic understanding of the technology knows it doesn't work. The problem with DRM are the laws that must be passed to ensure the DRM special effects work. That is the reason DRM should be an outrage to every consumer.
You mean just like the American missiles placed in Turkey at the time?
Absolutely. But we aren't talking about the U.S. placing an offensive missile system in Eastern Europe, are we.
In a classical MAD nuclear standoff all weapons systems are both offensive and defensive. If country A can stop missiles from hitting its territory (defensive) it can attack without relation (which makes it part of an offensive system). And vice versa.
Well, now were getting into another goofy non-sensical arguement.
The reason MAD is called MAD is because there is no defense, there is only deterrent. A defensive system would have the capability of thwarting an attack if it is launched, like the anti-missile defense system. A MAD system does not defend against an attack, it only ensures that both sides are severely pummeled.
If the U.S. was installing anti-missile defense systems in Eastern Europe AND had nuclear weapon bearing missiles in Turkey pointed at Russian targets, then we would have some serious issues to argue about.
I highly doubt the US would quietly accept a similar system being installed by the Russians in Cuba to protect them from the nefarious Jamaicans.
I see, and do you suppose that Cuba is now at risk of an imminent attack by the Jamaicans now that Russia has shut down the radar installation in Lourdes, Cuba which operated from 1964 to 2002? Or perhaps it was actually an offensive weapon to be used against the U.S.? Myself, I'm sure it was used for intelligence purposes in the on going cold war but I doubt it was used to kill anyone in the U.S.
You would think that investment in defensive systems would be welcome sanity after decades of MAD. I only hope that the leadership in some of the up and coming nuclear powers aren't as psychotic as they are portrayed by western media or that their own breed of religious nut jobs have any significant influence on the people with control of the weapons. Even with a defensive system it would be a sad day if there was a nuclear exchange anywhere in the world and the repercussions that would surely follow even if a nuclear attack were thwarted.
Just look at how the US responded in the Cuban missile crisis. It's typical American double standards all over again.
Far from it, its likely you already know this but just in case, the Cuban missile crisis arose because the installations in Cuba were not a defensive system, they were R-12 Dvina medium range missiles carrying mega-ton class nuclear warheads. The proximity of the installations presented a first strike capability with little to no warning for US civil defense plans and the objective of such a system is not defense but to kill as many U.S. civilians as possible if and when they decided to use the system.
Comparing the installation of an anti-missile defense system to a first strike attack installation is hardly grounds for a double standard arguement. If anyone should be concerned it is the Europeans as the fallout from any overhead anti-missile strike is likely to be above them.
He is the CEO of a company that is constantly involved in lawsuits
Just so we're clear on this, the company for which Steve Ballmer is the CEO was involved in much more than a lawsuit. The finding of facts from the Department of Justice Antitrust case against Microsoft provides insight into the character and ethics of the people running the corporation. There is a foundation for how many people think of Ballmer.
A full reading of the case would take some time but additional information may be had in the index.
'Whoever is strongest' can NOT 'pick up and keep for himself' for example, the NetBSD code base in any meaningful way that denies anybody else the right to do the same.
It is true that the "strongest" would not be able to directly deny access to the NetBSD code base but I prefer the GPL because the methods used by the "strongest" are not usually direct but are more subtle and indirect. Rather than denial of access to the open source code the methods involve denial of access to resources and markets.
If the licensing of the code does not require that contributions be given back to the project community then the community is lessened by keeping the skills and work implemented by the developers within their respective proprietary circles. It can also make it possible for a market dominant corporation to use the code to maintain market dominance and lessen the possibility of an open source project from utilizing that market to support the project.
As examples I'd ask how Microsoft has contributed to the NetBSD project for their use of the TCP/IP code or how they have contributed to the zlib project. Apple is another interesting example of which I believe there are contributions but even as late as Feb. 17th there was desire "to see Apple be more forthcoming" with their work with the FreeBSD code base.
So while "the strongest" would not have the ability to deny access to the original code base they can have a significant impact on the viability of open source code based on the method upon which that code is licensed. The question as to whether the BSD or GPL is more "free" is sixes IMO because depending on which license is used the level of freedom shifts between sides.
And how does this relate to the topic at hand, Tivo and GPL3? I'd say that Tivo's comments are based on the assumption that their business model is based on controlling how consumers utilize their service and I suspect is incorrect. As with many businesses making profits from GPLed software the value is in the service they provide not their control over software itself. IBM and Red Hat are making hundreds of millions to billions off GPLed software that anyone can download, modify, and use as they please because the value is in the service they provide. The same goes for Tivo so as long as they provide value in their service they have nothing to fear from GPL3.
it's not illegal to create backups of any of your owned media, DVDs included. Doing so is protected as Fair Use of the copyright of which you have purchased a license
I would add that even if they do enact laws to make it illegal, i.e. the DMCA, it does not mean that you should not do it. Sometimes it is necessary for people to engage in civil disobedience by breaking such laws. When the movie industry uses DRM to control the use of content you purchased/licensed and tries to force you and your children to watch obnoxious industry propaganda that equates stealing a car to copying data from a disk you should be compelled to copy the wanted media from the disk to your own home media server and strip the worthless DRM and propaganda.
After you select from the type of PC you are interested in from their home page you can get to the Ubuntu PCs using the drop down menus at the top of the page Desktop->Open-Source PCs or Notebooks->Open-Source PCs.
Its not as easy to find as I'd like but its better than in the past.
Ostensibly the "One Laptop Per Child" thing was meant to provide computing access to underprivileged youths. Now there's competition in the same market and somehow that's bad? If Intel strong-arms the OLPC project into oblivion but continues to provide the same "philanthropic", so to speak, service, don't the children still benefit?
The people who developed the OLPC have been working on this project for years and they have experimented extensively in 3rd world countries before designing their learning device to ensure success in achieving their goals, Intel's objective as stated on their classmatePC website is simply marketing.
I've been installing Linux on systems since the days of Redhat 8 (Ubuntu, Linspire, Mandrake, SUSE), and never had an problems recognizing hardware.
I started with Redhat 4.2 and back then there were hardware issues, learning a new OS was a hurdle, and the GUI while usable was not as polished as the offerings from Microsoft or Apple. By Redhat 8 linux was on par with any other GUI and exceeded Microsoft and Apple in security and performance. While Windows NT 4.0 was a huge improvement for Microsoft by the time Redhat 8 was out I had moved all my Windows and OS/2 Warp boxes to linux and I have never been sorry. The complaints today about hardware support are bogus because as you have noted even with the desktop market dominant Windows there are significant hardware issues. If you purchase a prebuilt box with Windows installed your okay but when you start adding and changing hardware the problems begin.
All you slashdotters that are planning to get a new Linux PC soon, get a Dell.
As long as they don't do something stupid with the pricing and make it so a Ubuntu Dell costs 10% more than a comparable Windows Dell I'll be on board. I primarily use Fedora these days but I've been planning to try Ubuntu as I suspect there will be market opportunities for Ubuntu as there is with Redhat with companies like Dell selling boxes pre installed.
Why is it that the average computer user still chooses to spend hundreds of dollars on Windows or Mac when there are countless Linux alternatives that they could download, install and make use of completely free of charge?
Because your average user is not capable of building their own white box PC and installing linux or Windows for that matter. If you buy a pre-manufactured PC your choices for an OS are Windows or... Windows. Go figure.
The PC market is extremely cut-throat. It has to be because consumers will go to great lengths to save a few bucks when buying their latest system.
Correction, the PC HARDWARE market is extremely cut-throat. The cost of proprietary software is outrageously expensive especially when you compare the manufacturing costs of hardware versus software.
there are plenty of users who would rather break the law and install pirated copies of Windows than go the legal route and install a Linux distro.
One word, games. Windows is a gaming OS, the majority of the games are for Windows, I suspect a majority of the pirated Windows installs are running games.
most people would rather spend the money on Windows (or Mac) than take the time to experiment with Linux.
Actually the Mac is in the same boat as linux, small market share and competing with a monopolist for the desktop market. If you focus "most people" on servers you find that linux has a significant portion of the market based on IDG world wide server market reports. Why is that, because Microsoft has not been able to achieve a monopolist position in the market.
1 - On the whole, users aren't all that dissatisfied with Windows
Every family member with a Windows PC has called multiple times with problems related to Windows insecurity. Often times it results in breaking down and reinstalling because recovery is virtually impossible. The only calls I get from family members I've given linux to is when they can't get a Windows game to run under wine. If there is no dissatisfaction its because users have been beaten into submission and accepted their fate of using a sub par OS.
2 - Too many distros
Hardly, I suppose consumers are also shell shocked by the overwhelming number of hardware and software options for the Windows PC and so they end up never buying, right. When major PC distributors start selling pre installed linux desktops the choice will be made, or as is my case I help make the decision because I provide support.
3 - People want certainty that hardware and software will work
Absolutely, and its hit and miss with Windows versions even when the box says it works. But as with Windows you will have a great machine if you choose the right hardware and software. It is also important to keep in mind that linux is not Windows so while there are obvious software alternatives in linux like Open Office or Firefox the more obscure solutions are there but will take some research to find. The open source projects don't have the massive marketing waste that proprietary solutions have but they still have solid solutions.
4 - As far as most people are concerned, the command line has gone the way of the dinosaur
So don't use, but what kind of idiot would propose that the most powerful user interface be dumped in the name of making clueless mouse jockeys happy. And comparing the DOS command line to linux or any *nix shows the ignorance of the writer. I have to laugh anytime I watch the Windows IT guys doing something as simple as comparing two ini files by opening them in notepad and doing a manual line by line comparison, how lame and archaic is that.
5 - Linux is still too geeky
As if the average user understands the inner workings of Wi
maybe a big media conglomerate will merge with AT&T to screw us all
It wont require a media company for companies like AT&T to screw us all. In fact I doubt that AT&T wants to be a media company but rather would like to take their existing infrastructure, dump the net neutrality, and become a competitor to cable companies via IPTV and continue to be a carrier rather than a provider.
The way in which carriers like AT&T are going to screw us all is by discriminating network traffic so they can force both the end user and the provider to pay twice for the traffic that traverses their network. If we keep net neutrality then the end user can select whoever they want for their streaming video thus making it difficult for the carrier to provide "value" to providers they wish to charge for access to their "market" of customers. And God forbid, with net netrality it would even be possible for the end users to stream video to one another using the broadband connections they already paid for, then the world will really come to an end.
All the telecoms need to screw us is to achieve complicity from our governments.
The Classmate PC is competing to be the leader in emerging markets by providing a cheap Wintel platform but lacks the design insight which is backing the OLPC. The Classmate PC relys on existing Windows educational software with the false assumption that just by providing Wintel laptops and software education will improve.
The OLPC is an end to end solution which happens to use a laptop with hardware and software specially designed to achieve a goal which is not to compete in emerging markets but to improve education and learning in developing countries.
If you can only afford one phone (or only wish to afford one phone) the mobile is infinitely more flexible.
The flexibility is hardly inifite. Cell phones are over priced and the service is crap. Yesterday afternoon I was sitting in a break room with vendors and co-workers and they were complaining about cell phone reception inside the factory, I simply pointed out the two seperate phones/lines hanging on the walls in the room.
Cell phones obviously are much more flexible than a landline but cell people seem to have no clue to the idea that people have been using phones away from their homes for decades. There are land lines available in most of the places most people go.
I don't have a cell phone but I'm sure one day I will have one, it will likely be when I decide that I actually need the extra little convenience or when they stop the massive profit margin price gouging due to the hippness of having the latest gadgetry and goofy services is overcome by a stable market and competative pricing.
When you need an affordable and reliable means of communication a land line is still the way to go.
Slashdot Mirror
What's all the fuss about? Well lets see what the CEO of Microsoft has to say about the deal:
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/arch
"our job has got to be to help our customers get interoperability"
Sounds reasonable
"We've had an issue, a problem that we've had to confront, which is because of the way the GPL (General Public License) works"
There should be no problem as long as Microsoft keeps their hands out of the GPL cookie jar. If they believe their "ip" has been stolen and placed in the GPL cookie jar then they should specify their claim.
"the fact that that product uses our patented intellectual property is a problem for our shareholders"
Hmm, that doesn't sound like interoperability, it sounds like Microsoft is asking for compensation for unspecified infringement
"Suse Linux is appropriately covered. There will be no patent issues. They've appropriately compensated Microsoft for our intellectual property"
More unspecified claims of infringement and Suse is safe because they now pay Microsoft for the unspecified infringement.
"anybody who has got Linux in their data center today sort of has an undisclosed balance sheet liability, because it's not just Microsoft patents"
Still no specifics, just a simple "everyone owes us", where have we heard that before.
"Novell said to us, 'Hey, look, if you're serious about this stuff, you better help us promote Suse Linux.' To which we said, 'You know we're trying to sell Windows, that's what we do for a living! Windows, Windows, Windows, baby! We don't do Linux that way here.'"
Well duh, and here we were all thinking it was about interoperability, think again.
"there's so many customers who say, 'Hey look, we don't want problems. We don't want any intellectual property problem or anything else. There's just a variety of workloads where we, today, feel like we want to run Linux. Please help us Microsoft and please work with the distributors to solve this problem, don't come try to license this individually.' So customer push drove us to where we got."
Ah, now it makes sense. Microsoft has been roughing up customers for their use of linux and some of them told Microsoft to piss off, so now they are going after linux distributors. Fortunately the most significant linux players have already told Microsoft to piss off.
Obviously the fuss isn't about a bunch of "FOSS zealots" improperly portraying these agreements, all the fuss is in response to a shake down.
Honestly I'm not concerned, this latest Microsoft FUD foray will likely be as fruitless as their paid for effort from The SCO Group and all their unfounded claims of linux infringement. The SuSE deal was a significant issue but the latest agreements are meaningless because the distributors they are working with are in no way significant contributors to linux.
Perhaps it would make some sense if people would compare gross profit margins of companies like Microsoft versus a company that sells hardware. Microsoft has an 80% gross profit margin on their software, it would probably be even more if they dropped all the dead weight, while hardware manufacturers struggle to maintain 20% to 40%. From my experience a 20% margin is just enough to keep a company from deteriorating into eventual bankruptycy while 40% is a boom, 80% would be a miracle.
Instead people listen to and believe moronic statements like the proclomation from Gates back in 2004 that hardware would eventually be nearly free. I'm not sure who would be supplying all the resources and labor to make free hardware, but making a copy of Gates software is already just about free. And if you avoid Gates software and go with open source its even legal.
I don't believe he is saying that a power user enjoys it, but it is expected that when the hand holding doesn't work you, as a power user, can work your way through it yourself. A beginner will be incapable of working their way through an install or maintenance when the hand holding fails.
I.E. I recently installed Ubuntu on a system with 4 SATA drives and 2 PATA drives setup with multiple RAID1 and LVM partitions. The Ubuntu installer choked on the number of drives and partitions and I ended up having to hold Ubuntu's hand and guide it through the install. Unfortunately even after helping the installer along the system would not boot because, although the
So much for the hand holding, the beginner wouldn't have even made it past the installers partitioning snafu.
I have to agree, it seemed like alot of flag waving by a fan, but I will also admit that I am testing out Ubuntu because there is a perception that it will have a significant market presence. In the past I stuck with Fedora because it seems like a good community supported distro which is also a good starting point to Red Hat's enterprise accepted offerings. I ended up converting the file server project over to Fedora but I'll still try Ubuntu on something less complex.
Actually its not necessary to keep the same 400 developers for the survey, in fact the same arguement could be made that keeping the same 400 would squew the results because your not actually sampling the entire population. With a sample size of 400 they likely have a margin of error less than 5% and since the change from one survey to the next is more than 5 percentage points there is a significant difference which suggests there is a change in the number of developers targeting Windows.
If you pick the 400 respondents then you no longer have a statistically valid survey.
And exactly what is the Xandros product? Just an FYI, Xandros does not own linux, they distriute linux which is licensed to them by the owners of the copyrights under the GPL. The Novell and Xandros deals are BS because they are linux distributors and at best a small player in the development of linux.
From the base of the kernel source code I ran an egrep -ir "Xandros" * | egrep "Copyright" and came up with nothing, for Novell there was only one. If you try something like "Red Hat" or "IBM" or "Hewlett" you come up with a list of multiple copyrights.
So is Microsoft signing a deal with Xandros to not go after their customers for the services that Xandros provides? Its definitely not for any Xandros intellectual property.
It is the same issue, both are based on posturing rather than facts, linux adoption did not stop, and there was no reason to fear The SCO Group unless you were a previous customer of the original SCO. The SCO Group professed loudly the same threats in the press but in the end they didn't go after a single linux user, they went after their own customers who did business with them in the past.
So if The SCO Group is any hint of what will happen its likely the people who are signing deals with Microsoft are the ones who will get screwed.
This goes beyond courtesy, if this is true then we have finally found the one person on the planet who can put an end to the global suffering brought about by the culturally spawned antagonism of different beliefs.
The one man who knows god exists should share this wisdom with the world so we can all correct our beliefs with his knowledge of the truth. I'm sure the facts from which he derived this knowledge will end all the jihads, the inquisitions, the witch burning, and as a species man can finally stop wasting life and resources on all the falsehoods that belieger us and estrange us.
I'm sure, based on his conviction, that he is basing his knowing on solid and proveable facts and this one true knower will save us from the sufferance of belief.
But just in case it turns out he too is simply another believer I'll stick to my science for now.
Heh, my sentiment exactly when I read that line. If Gateway sends a lawyer to small claims court with "vast legal and financial resources" the judge is likely to put Gateway's lawyer into a world of hurt. As a small claims court judge its more likely that the judge will be unimpressed by big lawyer shenannigans in a common sense small claims court.
Well said. I swear the entire "Intellectual Property" movement is about the suits who cant do turning those who can into serfs. The internet has made marketing and distribution possible even for the smallest of organizations. But when you can't compete because the corporations own all your ideas then you have no choice but to work under them. "Intellectual Property" owners are the Robber Barons of the 21st century.
I think the only thing you'll need to check is the version of BSD license. If the project was released under the original BSD license that has the advertising clause then it is not compatible with the GPL and you not be able to legally convert the original code over to a GPL license. You'll have to rewrite from scratch.
Its not that simple.
In fact there were comments earlier from a developer who wanted to change the licensing on his original project code from GPL to BSD so he could take the modification of the secondary devleopers and implement them in his proprietary release of the software. The desire to screw developers works both ways. (and to think that developers are often portrayed as undesireables;)
Same here. I have no idea what all the controversy is about concerning the GPL. If people don't like it then they shouldn't use it. There are open source licenses out there to fit everyones needs. And if a developer doesn't like what's out there they can make up their own. The only reason I can think of for all the attacks on the GPL is that there must be some desire to pull developers away from GPLed projects that compete with open source projects which are released under a permissive license which allow proprietary use of the code without giving anything back.
I haven't noticed many users posting blog articles or sending letters to the U.S. Congress complaining about a software license. It appears to me that the GPL, due to its popularity and the massive amount of code released under it, has generated rants, propoganda campaigns, and even a letter from a CEO to the U.S. Congress explaining how it will be the end of the free world, and why? Before the arguement was always that it wasn't as free as it should be, at least in this latest rant the truth is used, because its not as permissive for businesses and software developers who would like to take the GPLed code, use it, and not have to give anything back.
I agree, developers are in control, and far from being idiots choosing a license under peer pressure and in dire need of direction from lawyers, CEOs, or even Congress, we use a license because it serves our needs.
I think I understand what you are saying, DRM is not the technology that makes it possible to host TV shows on an internet server and make it possible for you to copy the content over the internet to your computer, but the false impression of control over the media content by the TV networks gives them a warm fuzzy feeling knowing that their content that is copied many millions of times off the internet is "protected" by DRM.
Of course this is exactly what the posted article was explaining. The DRM protection scheme is as much a fallacy as the props in the old Star Trek episodes, yes thats right, technical sounding words, blinking colored lights, and hard bodies don't make it real.
The economic structure that is in place never required DRM before it was created, its not needed now. The objective of DRM is to create a new economic structure where by new laws are passed to ensure that the masses follow sheepishly the economic demands of corporations. Ironically its like a cheasy sci-fi B-movie, as in HG Wells The Time Machine consumers are being conditioned through marketing to be docile and submissive to the demands of the Morlocks. And if you don't submit, there is always the DMCA.
The DRM in and of itself is no reason for concern because anyone who has a basic understanding of the technology knows it doesn't work. The problem with DRM are the laws that must be passed to ensure the DRM special effects work. That is the reason DRM should be an outrage to every consumer.
Absolutely. But we aren't talking about the U.S. placing an offensive missile system in Eastern Europe, are we.
Well, now were getting into another goofy non-sensical arguement.
The reason MAD is called MAD is because there is no defense, there is only deterrent. A defensive system would have the capability of thwarting an attack if it is launched, like the anti-missile defense system. A MAD system does not defend against an attack, it only ensures that both sides are severely pummeled.
If the U.S. was installing anti-missile defense systems in Eastern Europe AND had nuclear weapon bearing missiles in Turkey pointed at Russian targets, then we would have some serious issues to argue about.
I see, and do you suppose that Cuba is now at risk of an imminent attack by the Jamaicans now that Russia has shut down the radar installation in Lourdes, Cuba which operated from 1964 to 2002? Or perhaps it was actually an offensive weapon to be used against the U.S.? Myself, I'm sure it was used for intelligence purposes in the on going cold war but I doubt it was used to kill anyone in the U.S.
You would think that investment in defensive systems would be welcome sanity after decades of MAD. I only hope that the leadership in some of the up and coming nuclear powers aren't as psychotic as they are portrayed by western media or that their own breed of religious nut jobs have any significant influence on the people with control of the weapons. Even with a defensive system it would be a sad day if there was a nuclear exchange anywhere in the world and the repercussions that would surely follow even if a nuclear attack were thwarted.
Far from it, its likely you already know this but just in case, the Cuban missile crisis arose because the installations in Cuba were not a defensive system, they were R-12 Dvina medium range missiles carrying mega-ton class nuclear warheads. The proximity of the installations presented a first strike capability with little to no warning for US civil defense plans and the objective of such a system is not defense but to kill as many U.S. civilians as possible if and when they decided to use the system.
Comparing the installation of an anti-missile defense system to a first strike attack installation is hardly grounds for a double standard arguement. If anyone should be concerned it is the Europeans as the fallout from any overhead anti-missile strike is likely to be above them.
Just so we're clear on this, the company for which Steve Ballmer is the CEO was involved in much more than a lawsuit. The finding of facts from the Department of Justice Antitrust case against Microsoft provides insight into the character and ethics of the people running the corporation. There is a foundation for how many people think of Ballmer.
A full reading of the case would take some time but additional information may be had in the index.
It is true that the "strongest" would not be able to directly deny access to the NetBSD code base but I prefer the GPL because the methods used by the "strongest" are not usually direct but are more subtle and indirect. Rather than denial of access to the open source code the methods involve denial of access to resources and markets.
If the licensing of the code does not require that contributions be given back to the project community then the community is lessened by keeping the skills and work implemented by the developers within their respective proprietary circles. It can also make it possible for a market dominant corporation to use the code to maintain market dominance and lessen the possibility of an open source project from utilizing that market to support the project.
As examples I'd ask how Microsoft has contributed to the NetBSD project for their use of the TCP/IP code or how they have contributed to the zlib project. Apple is another interesting example of which I believe there are contributions but even as late as Feb. 17th there was desire "to see Apple be more forthcoming" with their work with the FreeBSD code base.
So while "the strongest" would not have the ability to deny access to the original code base they can have a significant impact on the viability of open source code based on the method upon which that code is licensed. The question as to whether the BSD or GPL is more "free" is sixes IMO because depending on which license is used the level of freedom shifts between sides.
And how does this relate to the topic at hand, Tivo and GPL3? I'd say that Tivo's comments are based on the assumption that their business model is based on controlling how consumers utilize their service and I suspect is incorrect. As with many businesses making profits from GPLed software the value is in the service they provide not their control over software itself. IBM and Red Hat are making hundreds of millions to billions off GPLed software that anyone can download, modify, and use as they please because the value is in the service they provide. The same goes for Tivo so as long as they provide value in their service they have nothing to fear from GPL3.
I would add that even if they do enact laws to make it illegal, i.e. the DMCA, it does not mean that you should not do it. Sometimes it is necessary for people to engage in civil disobedience by breaking such laws. When the movie industry uses DRM to control the use of content you purchased/licensed and tries to force you and your children to watch obnoxious industry propaganda that equates stealing a car to copying data from a disk you should be compelled to copy the wanted media from the disk to your own home media server and strip the worthless DRM and propaganda.
After you select from the type of PC you are interested in from their home page you can get to the Ubuntu PCs using the drop down menus at the top of the page Desktop->Open-Source PCs or Notebooks->Open-Source PCs.
Its not as easy to find as I'd like but its better than in the past.
The OLPC is not about providing computing access to underprivileged youths its about "children around the world with new opportunities to explore, experiment and express themselves." The market droids are doing a good job of twisting this nonprofit educational project into a competition for "emerging markets"
The people who developed the OLPC have been working on this project for years and they have experimented extensively in 3rd world countries before designing their learning device to ensure success in achieving their goals, Intel's objective as stated on their classmatePC website is simply marketing.
So you see, it is predatory, not competition.
I started with Redhat 4.2 and back then there were hardware issues, learning a new OS was a hurdle, and the GUI while usable was not as polished as the offerings from Microsoft or Apple. By Redhat 8 linux was on par with any other GUI and exceeded Microsoft and Apple in security and performance. While Windows NT 4.0 was a huge improvement for Microsoft by the time Redhat 8 was out I had moved all my Windows and OS/2 Warp boxes to linux and I have never been sorry. The complaints today about hardware support are bogus because as you have noted even with the desktop market dominant Windows there are significant hardware issues. If you purchase a prebuilt box with Windows installed your okay but when you start adding and changing hardware the problems begin.
As long as they don't do something stupid with the pricing and make it so a Ubuntu Dell costs 10% more than a comparable Windows Dell I'll be on board. I primarily use Fedora these days but I've been planning to try Ubuntu as I suspect there will be market opportunities for Ubuntu as there is with Redhat with companies like Dell selling boxes pre installed.
Because your average user is not capable of building their own white box PC and installing linux or Windows for that matter. If you buy a pre-manufactured PC your choices for an OS are Windows or ... Windows. Go figure.
Correction, the PC HARDWARE market is extremely cut-throat. The cost of proprietary software is outrageously expensive especially when you compare the manufacturing costs of hardware versus software.
One word, games. Windows is a gaming OS, the majority of the games are for Windows, I suspect a majority of the pirated Windows installs are running games.
Actually the Mac is in the same boat as linux, small market share and competing with a monopolist for the desktop market. If you focus "most people" on servers you find that linux has a significant portion of the market based on IDG world wide server market reports. Why is that, because Microsoft has not been able to achieve a monopolist position in the market.
Every family member with a Windows PC has called multiple times with problems related to Windows insecurity. Often times it results in breaking down and reinstalling because recovery is virtually impossible. The only calls I get from family members I've given linux to is when they can't get a Windows game to run under wine. If there is no dissatisfaction its because users have been beaten into submission and accepted their fate of using a sub par OS.
Hardly, I suppose consumers are also shell shocked by the overwhelming number of hardware and software options for the Windows PC and so they end up never buying, right. When major PC distributors start selling pre installed linux desktops the choice will be made, or as is my case I help make the decision because I provide support.
Absolutely, and its hit and miss with Windows versions even when the box says it works. But as with Windows you will have a great machine if you choose the right hardware and software. It is also important to keep in mind that linux is not Windows so while there are obvious software alternatives in linux like Open Office or Firefox the more obscure solutions are there but will take some research to find. The open source projects don't have the massive marketing waste that proprietary solutions have but they still have solid solutions.
So don't use, but what kind of idiot would propose that the most powerful user interface be dumped in the name of making clueless mouse jockeys happy. And comparing the DOS command line to linux or any *nix shows the ignorance of the writer. I have to laugh anytime I watch the Windows IT guys doing something as simple as comparing two ini files by opening them in notepad and doing a manual line by line comparison, how lame and archaic is that.
As if the average user understands the inner workings of Wi
It wont require a media company for companies like AT&T to screw us all. In fact I doubt that AT&T wants to be a media company but rather would like to take their existing infrastructure, dump the net neutrality, and become a competitor to cable companies via IPTV and continue to be a carrier rather than a provider.
The way in which carriers like AT&T are going to screw us all is by discriminating network traffic so they can force both the end user and the provider to pay twice for the traffic that traverses their network. If we keep net neutrality then the end user can select whoever they want for their streaming video thus making it difficult for the carrier to provide "value" to providers they wish to charge for access to their "market" of customers. And God forbid, with net netrality it would even be possible for the end users to stream video to one another using the broadband connections they already paid for, then the world will really come to an end.
All the telecoms need to screw us is to achieve complicity from our governments.
Actually that is the reason the Classmate PC is such a joke and Intel's actions are absurd. They are not designed to do basically the same thing.
The Classmate PC is "specially developed for students in emerging markets" where as "OLPC is a non-profit organization providing a means to an end--an end that sees children in even the most remote regions of the globe being given the opportunity to tap into their own potential, to be exposed to a whole world of ideas, and to contribute to a more productive and saner world community"
The Classmate PC is competing to be the leader in emerging markets by providing a cheap Wintel platform but lacks the design insight which is backing the OLPC. The Classmate PC relys on existing Windows educational software with the false assumption that just by providing Wintel laptops and software education will improve.
The OLPC is an end to end solution which happens to use a laptop with hardware and software specially designed to achieve a goal which is not to compete in emerging markets but to improve education and learning in developing countries.
Intel should be ashamed.
The flexibility is hardly inifite. Cell phones are over priced and the service is crap. Yesterday afternoon I was sitting in a break room with vendors and co-workers and they were complaining about cell phone reception inside the factory, I simply pointed out the two seperate phones/lines hanging on the walls in the room.
Cell phones obviously are much more flexible than a landline but cell people seem to have no clue to the idea that people have been using phones away from their homes for decades. There are land lines available in most of the places most people go.
I don't have a cell phone but I'm sure one day I will have one, it will likely be when I decide that I actually need the extra little convenience or when they stop the massive profit margin price gouging due to the hippness of having the latest gadgetry and goofy services is overcome by a stable market and competative pricing.
When you need an affordable and reliable means of communication a land line is still the way to go.
burnin