I can only see one reason Valve feels they're in the right for doing this: Even if you purchased the game, you are still capable of piracy by using a no-cd crack. If you install then use the no-cd, you could then pass the game off to someone else for another install. Perhaps this causes an issue with Steam?
Aside from that, I'm with you. If Steam gets hacked, and keys get stolen, I can only imagine how many people will get banned. At the very least, Steam is beginning to sound more like Valve has no responsibility toward their customers; as soon as you deviate from their path, you lose.
Bah! My brother's already bought it, but I don't have to...
Then I think you would be doing yourself a disservice.
In spite of all the naysayers, I went to actually watch the movie prior to making any snap judgements. And I left the theater quite content. There are still a few questions left unanswered, but, for the most part, I felt it was worth my US$5 ( I caught the 4:45 matinee ).
Personally, I felt this one was a better movie than "The Matrix Reloaded," though there wasn't enough of Persephone to ogle at.;) Sure, the whole audience laughed at a couple of scenes, but watching Neo awaken to his full potential made this movie a fine ending to a nice trilogy.
Take the movie for what it is, entertainment. If completing the Matrix trilogy isn't your thing, so be it. Don't let reviewers talk you out of this one ( especially since this Washington Post review seems to be simply jumping on the bandwagon ) unless you're truly not interested. Most reviews I've read online take scenes out of context and bash them without thinking about what the scene portrays.
Things like this are great for Linux penetration, 'cause when someone rings their ISP saying "My computer won't start up properly, it states that ntoskrnl is missing, and I don't have the CD or windows key", rather than saying "too bad call back when you have the CD", the ISP support staff can prod these "Mom & Dad" users in the direction of Linux.
Not to nitpick, but if someone called about ntoskrnl missing, (s)he would probably be redirected to their OEM or Microsoft to get that fixed. ISPs don't mess with installation problems.
Standardising (across distros) things like the location of the pppd configuration would allow (again, for the sake of this example) ISPs to provide quick training to staff on how to support Linux users... Not possible when the ISPs position is that Linux can't be supported and staff who try are wasting company time.
Standardization would have been a huge help back when I worked with ISPs. However, at the ISPs I worked at, my previous co-workers had initiative.
At Mindspring, most of the help was located on a webserver, complete with links and images to simulate buttons and interfaces. They could "simulate" any version of Windows from 95 on ( since 3.11 wasn't supported ). This worked for Linux-based benefits: someone had created instructions on how to get PPP working with kppp and RH's ppp-config ( which I now forget the name of ) so a new user could connect to the dial-up servers. If you didn't have either, no worries, we could email ( if you had access via a friend ) or simply tell you the address for the PPP Howto.
At the other ISP I worked with, now shut down, Linux was supported by the NOC team. Since there was one present 24/7, any of the tech support folk could do their best ( most were Linux users ) at getting the customer online. Failing that, they'd call one of us, and we'd talk the customer through the process. Usually, by that point, it was less likely a PPP config error and more hardware related.
As to opening a bank account, every one I've opened required a photo ID. Getting a credit card doesn't. Neither does a driver's license, but that's because most states use the driver's license as your state issued ID card. Unless you have a previously issued state ID, you'll need some other form of identification to get a driver's license. In the case of my nephew, it was a simple notarized copy of his birth certificate.
What really bothers me are the security sheep that complain whenever I ask to see a photo ID when they make a charge on a credit card. At my previous place of employment, I was fortunate that every employee was like-security minded, so I received back-up from my fellow employees up to the lead manager. The common excuse:
"You can't ask to see my ID, that's an invasion of my privacy!"
My canned response: "I check photo IDs with every credit card transaction to help prevent credit card fraud by verifying the names and signatures on both cards and the photograph. It's also within the store's right to refuse method of payment; if you don't want to show a photo ID, I'll gladly accept cash..."
Granted, just looking at an ID is not 100%, but it's a small step in the right direction in my opinion. There have been many times where a spouse was using the other's card. Being a security freak, and seeing that the last names were the same but the first differed, I'd ask that the husband or wife come in to do the signing, since this wasn't their card to make purchases on. Most people had no problem with that. I'm still wavering on the whole copying driver's license information on check purchases issue. While it helps the store track the customer ( supposedly ), it'd just as likely help anyone who obtained the check as well.
I know a lot of people look at it and say, "Oh, but he had good intentions, that makes it ok!" It's not really like that...we don't KNOW his real intentions at all, just what he SAYS his intentions are.
While I agree with the content of your post, I would wager that this would be treated like any other criminal charges. By reviewing his public track record at Security Focus most people investigating Mr. Lamo's public past would deduce that he probably wasn't doing anything vindictive or with ill intent. For example, as quoted from the previous link:
WorldCom is the latest target of a clean-cut 20-year-old hacker who's already drawn national attention discovering, exploiting, and then warning about serious security lapses at AOL, Excite@Home, Yahoo! and Microsoft. Like those other companies, security staff at the $20 billion communications giant might be surprised to learn they were compromised by a lone vagabond hacker who lives out of a weathered L.L. Bean backpack and does most of his work from Kinko's 'laptop stations,' using little more than a Web browser and his wits.
While it doesn't make his activities any less illegal, it lends evidence that he had no motive other than exposing a security flaw with the NYT. Provided that's what Mr. Lamo is actually being charged with.
Personally, I think people like Mr. Lamo make the world a better place. Sometimes, you don't know about an insecurity ( or don't care ) until someone actually does something to your information. Much like how I was raised to always lock doors and windows, but a lot of my friends don't seem to see the point. When their belongings go missing, I won't even bother saying, "I told you..."
HOW?!?! His writing FreeSoftware does not take anything away from anyone! If they want to use his software they can. If not, oh well. Oh, BTW he does have his own distro: http://www.gnu.org/order/deluxe.html
This I didn't know. I'll have to check it out.:)
http://www.koffice.org/ http://www.gnome.org/gnome-office/ http://www.openoffice.org/ (Yes, Sun opened it. But they did it because enough people said they would only use it if it was open.)
With regard to the office suites, if I recall correctly, the Office compatibility is implemented by using the Office 97 procedures as released by Microsoft, correct? If so, then that relied on non-free software to provide this compatibility.
http://xfree86.berlios.de/4.3.0/nv.4.html
I am not familiar with BerliOS, though I probably should be. You got me there.:)
http://dri.sourceforge.net/
If I remember this correctly, the 3dfx and ATI drivers were supplied, originally, by 3dfx and ATI. Closed and proprietary. A compromise was made... in this case, in Linux's favor. True.
http://www.mplayerhq.hu/
MPlayer provides playback of various forms of media, true. However, some of the playback, as in the case of WMAs and WMVs still require the use of windows based codecs, again proprietary and non-free.
http://swfdec.sourceforge.net/
This one I am not familiar with. Thanks for the info.:) If I understand correctly, this would be a GPL version of Flash that does not use the Macromedia proprietary codec?
And if RMS is against the use of non-free software, he should be speaking against Java, especially the gcc version. If I recall correctly, and correct me if I'm wrong, Java was originally released under a non-free license. Therefore, per his argument against Flash and Real, he should be taking a stance against Java period. No ifs, ands or buts about it. It's curious that the GNU project would support Java if this is still the case.
I see your point. Linux is making larger strides than I'm probably giving credit for. However, again, without the use of non-free sources, Linux would not be where it is today. As noted above, the Office suites came about to supply compatibility with Office 97, which, in turn, required a compromise - taking the Office 97 procedures and implementing them. In the case of Quicktime, WMAs and WMVs, Linux still require windows based dlls and codecs, another compromise.
If we went the "boycott all non-free software" route, we'd still be nowhere. As to the claim that I had apparently made that Free Software was causing harm, I may have been understood. RMS's statement that we should email non-GNU compliant websites and have them changed, for example, is where I think he's taking the wrong direction. Adopting current technologies and implementing them in Linux is what I'd rather see, not a boycott of non-GNU software as his stance seems to be.
Freedom benefits YOU, popularity only benefits you if ether, those people are helping with development, or they are paying you.
While this is a valid statement, I don't understand the point. Yes, freedom and choice benefits me. Popularity also benefits me. As Linux becomes more popular, more developers are presented with the opportunity to join the fray. As more developers join, more development occurs. I think the ultimate freedom with Linux comes in two parts: freedom of choice and freedom of software.
Of course RMS and all the other FreeSoftware developers want their software to be popular, more users means more improvements and more developers and more FreeSoftware that you can use.
So we're agreed on this point.
Advocating your "compromises" is essentially advocating that they relent of their philosophy, for what? Money? Fame? more proprietary software?
I'm not suggesting RMS do anything. The whole premise of my post was that I feel RMS is trying to lead Linux in the wrong direction. Backward. If RMS wants to implement a version of Linux that is completely free and uses absolutely nothing else, then he is creating a barrier. Plain and simple. That's the beauty of Linux, he can talk all he wants, and I agree with his ultimate goal, but, as it stands in the real world, he's spinning his wheels. If there had never been a compromise with the proprietary software market, Linux would not be where it is today. No Office support. No nvidia support. No ATI support. No Realplayer. No Flash. No Java.
By advocating that they do this, you are making it clear that not only do you not agree with their philosophy, but you apparently don't see how they can believe it themselves.
No. I merely don't agree with their philosophy. I can see how they believe it. I can understand what they want to accomplish. I still don't agree with it. I believe popularity will help Linux not the other way around.
If you want to write software Free/Non-Free that enables FreeSoftware to be more compatable with non-free software, then go for it. (It's not like anyone is going out of their way to make it hard.) Just don't expect FreeSoftware idealists to spend any time helping you, as they have nothing to gain.
And I never would have asked.:) If I develop whatever type of software, I would accept any help offered. I, however, would never ask RMS for any help at all...
Sometimes you can't take compromises, specially if the compromise means to bend your principles.
Why so meany people fail to grasp this? I am not saying people should agree to these principles, they are of course debatable, what amazes me is how so many people fail to grasp the basic idea that somebody may have principles and be willing to live by them.
I, for one, don't fail to grasp this. Living in accordance with principles is a good thing. You live by principles; you live by consequences. You make a choice:
Do you believe Linux should be shared? Or do you believe Linux should stick to the shadows?
If you believe as I do, that Linux is an operating system with enough potential to become an actual desktop contender, then compromises must be made. Why? Because the average end user could care less about SMP. They could care less about the low latency kernel patch. They care about something that works with what they have. Tell me something, before Linux compromised and obtained office suites that were, in part, Office 97 compatible, would you recommend Linux as an office solution?
If you believe that Linux should stay in the shadows and evermore be the underdog, that's fine. I'll probably end up using Linux anyway since it was, first and foremost, a hobby OS. Getting things to work is always kind of cool. But, I would be much happier if Linux became a viable, alternative operating system for the masses. Not because I'm a Linux fanatic, but because I simply enjoy Linux.
Living by principle makes for a great religion. Living by compromise makes for a better reality.
In all seriousness, I think RMS has a good concept. Free software is a great idea. However, implementing free software would require changing the thoughts of every person in the entire world so they see that free software is a good thing. Take the following, for example:
TRB: One difficult thing for end users is proprietary codecs and plugins. Two examples that seem especially prevalent are Macromedia Flash and Real Networks' RealMedia files. Without these technologies, a lot of interesting content becomes unavailable. What do you think the short-term solution for this problem is?
RMS: I think we should modify browsers to encourage and help users to send messages of complaint to those sites, to pressure them to change.
Why? Media-types think flash and real media are a great technology. RMS is suggesting taking a step backward through this suggestion. What purpose could it possibly serve? Unless you can change the mindset of the folk at Real and Macromedia, you're stuck. Comply and remain interoperable or just don't view it.
By this same argument, folk should quit using Quicktime, WMV and WMA. Does anyone see thing happening anytime soon? I think not. People will go where their technology takes them, be it a Mac, Windows, *nix or *BSD user.
The key, at this point, isn't to subjugate the masses and foisting Linux on them. It's to make Linux interoperable with the other operating systems first. After Linux has gained, say, 50% of the market, then Linux can make demands. As it stands, if every Linux user were to send a letter of complaint to every site that used Flash, RealMedia, Quicktime or WM*s, people will probably more or less laugh. What purpose does it serve to suggest alternatives when there is no reason for said people to switch?
Linux is great. But it isn't so great that it will inspire change in the mind of everyone in the world. At least, not yet.;)
If I remember right, ISOnews.com was also shut down in 2000 because they had posted links to Dreamcast ISOs. While the claim was made that there weren't any ISOs on the site itself, the site was taken and given back under the provision that links to any pirated ISOs would not be posted on this website. I can only guess that this would be the final straw.
First off, after reading the books and watching the film, I would have to give the movie an overall rating of C+. Just slightly above average, and that's only due to the portrayal of Professor Snape by Alan Rickman. I admit, I went to the movie with a small degree of expectation, and I left feeling slightly disappointed:
The kids are dead on. Harry, Ron, and Hermione are almost exactly what I'd expect.
I seriously disagree with CmdrTaco on this point. Harry is not Harry at all. In the movie, as pointed out by a few others, Harry is a re-actor. Something happens, and Harry responds. In the book, Harry has initiative. Though they tried portraying this in the film, I felt they failed. Ron was a lot like the character I would expect, and Hermione had a lot less screentime than I thought was necessary for her character. The movie made her out to be like some kind of token geek girl ( ala Willow and Fred ) and not an important character.
And then there was the disjointed nature of the movie. It felt more like an incorrectly done highlight of Harry Potter's 1st year:
Norbert got only, like, one minute of screentime and then mysteriously vanishes. In the book, at least, the sub-plot regarding Norbert included an introduction with Charlie Weasley via mail, which kind of lent the atmosphere of how widespread, and networked, wizards and witches are.
The "traps" set to guard the Sorceror's Stone were not done right, but, for those that haven't seen the movie, I won't spoil it for you. I'm not complaining about CG; I just figured that there were some relevant details about the cooperative nature of the traps that made the overall plot of the film weak.
And where was Peeves?!
Come to think of it, I don't remember seeing Professor Sprout, either. While not an entirely important character, it does relate to the traps comment I make above.
As noted above, the movie is, severely, disjointed. Instead of having smooth transitions, A->B->C, then X->Y->Z, it felt more like A->B, C->D, get to X->Y and then Z.
For those that read the books and then watch the film, you aren't wasting your money... but, like most movie adaptations, I felt it fell short. For those that haven't read the books and want to see the movie first, you'll probably enjoy it but be left with enough questions that you may have wanted to read the books first.
Slashdot Mirror
I can only see one reason Valve feels they're in the right for doing this: Even if you purchased the game, you are still capable of piracy by using a no-cd crack. If you install then use the no-cd, you could then pass the game off to someone else for another install. Perhaps this causes an issue with Steam?
Aside from that, I'm with you. If Steam gets hacked, and keys get stolen, I can only imagine how many people will get banned. At the very least, Steam is beginning to sound more like Valve has no responsibility toward their customers; as soon as you deviate from their path, you lose.
Bah! My brother's already bought it, but I don't have to...
Then I think you would be doing yourself a disservice.
;) Sure, the whole audience laughed at a couple of scenes, but watching Neo awaken to his full potential made this movie a fine ending to a nice trilogy.
In spite of all the naysayers, I went to actually watch the movie prior to making any snap judgements. And I left the theater quite content. There are still a few questions left unanswered, but, for the most part, I felt it was worth my US$5 ( I caught the 4:45 matinee ).
Personally, I felt this one was a better movie than "The Matrix Reloaded," though there wasn't enough of Persephone to ogle at.
Take the movie for what it is, entertainment. If completing the Matrix trilogy isn't your thing, so be it. Don't let reviewers talk you out of this one ( especially since this Washington Post review seems to be simply jumping on the bandwagon ) unless you're truly not interested. Most reviews I've read online take scenes out of context and bash them without thinking about what the scene portrays.
Things like this are great for Linux penetration, 'cause when someone rings their ISP saying "My computer won't start up properly, it states that ntoskrnl is missing, and I don't have the CD or windows key", rather than saying "too bad call back when you have the CD", the ISP support staff can prod these "Mom & Dad" users in the direction of Linux.
Not to nitpick, but if someone called about ntoskrnl missing, (s)he would probably be redirected to their OEM or Microsoft to get that fixed. ISPs don't mess with installation problems.
Standardising (across distros) things like the location of the pppd configuration would allow (again, for the sake of this example) ISPs to provide quick training to staff on how to support Linux users ... Not possible when the ISPs position is that Linux can't be supported and staff who try are wasting company time.
Standardization would have been a huge help back when I worked with ISPs. However, at the ISPs I worked at, my previous co-workers had initiative.
At Mindspring, most of the help was located on a webserver, complete with links and images to simulate buttons and interfaces. They could "simulate" any version of Windows from 95 on ( since 3.11 wasn't supported ). This worked for Linux-based benefits: someone had created instructions on how to get PPP working with kppp and RH's ppp-config ( which I now forget the name of ) so a new user could connect to the dial-up servers. If you didn't have either, no worries, we could email ( if you had access via a friend ) or simply tell you the address for the PPP Howto.
At the other ISP I worked with, now shut down, Linux was supported by the NOC team. Since there was one present 24/7, any of the tech support folk could do their best ( most were Linux users ) at getting the customer online. Failing that, they'd call one of us, and we'd talk the customer through the process. Usually, by that point, it was less likely a PPP config error and more hardware related.
As to opening a bank account, every one I've opened required a photo ID. Getting a credit card doesn't. Neither does a driver's license, but that's because most states use the driver's license as your state issued ID card. Unless you have a previously issued state ID, you'll need some other form of identification to get a driver's license. In the case of my nephew, it was a simple notarized copy of his birth certificate.
What really bothers me are the security sheep that complain whenever I ask to see a photo ID when they make a charge on a credit card. At my previous place of employment, I was fortunate that every employee was like-security minded, so I received back-up from my fellow employees up to the lead manager. The common excuse:
"You can't ask to see my ID, that's an invasion of my privacy!"
My canned response: "I check photo IDs with every credit card transaction to help prevent credit card fraud by verifying the names and signatures on both cards and the photograph. It's also within the store's right to refuse method of payment; if you don't want to show a photo ID, I'll gladly accept cash..."
Granted, just looking at an ID is not 100%, but it's a small step in the right direction in my opinion. There have been many times where a spouse was using the other's card. Being a security freak, and seeing that the last names were the same but the first differed, I'd ask that the husband or wife come in to do the signing, since this wasn't their card to make purchases on. Most people had no problem with that. I'm still wavering on the whole copying driver's license information on check purchases issue. While it helps the store track the customer ( supposedly ), it'd just as likely help anyone who obtained the check as well.
I know a lot of people look at it and say, "Oh, but he had good intentions, that makes it ok!" It's not really like that...we don't KNOW his real intentions at all, just what he SAYS his intentions are.
While I agree with the content of your post, I would wager that this would be treated like any other criminal charges. By reviewing his public track record at Security Focus most people investigating Mr. Lamo's public past would deduce that he probably wasn't doing anything vindictive or with ill intent. For example, as quoted from the previous link:
WorldCom is the latest target of a clean-cut 20-year-old hacker who's already drawn national attention discovering, exploiting, and then warning about serious security lapses at AOL, Excite@Home, Yahoo! and Microsoft. Like those other companies, security staff at the $20 billion communications giant might be surprised to learn they were compromised by a lone vagabond hacker who lives out of a weathered L.L. Bean backpack and does most of his work from Kinko's 'laptop stations,' using little more than a Web browser and his wits.
While it doesn't make his activities any less illegal, it lends evidence that he had no motive other than exposing a security flaw with the NYT. Provided that's what Mr. Lamo is actually being charged with.
Personally, I think people like Mr. Lamo make the world a better place. Sometimes, you don't know about an insecurity ( or don't care ) until someone actually does something to your information. Much like how I was raised to always lock doors and windows, but a lot of my friends don't seem to see the point. When their belongings go missing, I won't even bother saying, "I told you..."
HOW?!?! His writing FreeSoftware does not take anything away from anyone! If they want to use his software they can. If not, oh well. Oh, BTW he does have his own distro: http://www.gnu.org/order/deluxe.html
This I didn't know. I'll have to check it out. :)
http://www.koffice.org/
http://www.gnome.org/gnome-office/
http://www.openoffice.org/ (Yes, Sun opened it. But they did it because enough people said they would only use it if it was open.)
With regard to the office suites, if I recall correctly, the Office compatibility is implemented by using the Office 97 procedures as released by Microsoft, correct? If so, then that relied on non-free software to provide this compatibility.
http://xfree86.berlios.de/4.3.0/nv.4.html
I am not familiar with BerliOS, though I probably should be. You got me there. :)
http://dri.sourceforge.net/
If I remember this correctly, the 3dfx and ATI drivers were supplied, originally, by 3dfx and ATI. Closed and proprietary. A compromise was made ... in this case, in Linux's favor. True.
http://www.mplayerhq.hu/
MPlayer provides playback of various forms of media, true. However, some of the playback, as in the case of WMAs and WMVs still require the use of windows based codecs, again proprietary and non-free.
http://swfdec.sourceforge.net/
This one I am not familiar with. Thanks for the info. :) If I understand correctly, this would be a GPL version of Flash that does not use the Macromedia proprietary codec?
http://www.kaffe.org/u rce/jikes/
http://gcc.gnu.org/java/
http://oss.software.ibm.com/developerworks/openso
And if RMS is against the use of non-free software, he should be speaking against Java, especially the gcc version. If I recall correctly, and correct me if I'm wrong, Java was originally released under a non-free license. Therefore, per his argument against Flash and Real, he should be taking a stance against Java period. No ifs, ands or buts about it. It's curious that the GNU project would support Java if this is still the case.
I see your point. Linux is making larger strides than I'm probably giving credit for. However, again, without the use of non-free sources, Linux would not be where it is today. As noted above, the Office suites came about to supply compatibility with Office 97, which, in turn, required a compromise - taking the Office 97 procedures and implementing them. In the case of Quicktime, WMAs and WMVs, Linux still require windows based dlls and codecs, another compromise.
If we went the "boycott all non-free software" route, we'd still be nowhere. As to the claim that I had apparently made that Free Software was causing harm, I may have been understood. RMS's statement that we should email non-GNU compliant websites and have them changed, for example, is where I think he's taking the wrong direction. Adopting current technologies and implementing them in Linux is what I'd rather see, not a boycott of non-GNU software as his stance seems to be.
Freedom benefits YOU, popularity only benefits you if ether, those people are helping with development, or they are paying you.
While this is a valid statement, I don't understand the point. Yes, freedom and choice benefits me. Popularity also benefits me. As Linux becomes more popular, more developers are presented with the opportunity to join the fray. As more developers join, more development occurs. I think the ultimate freedom with Linux comes in two parts: freedom of choice and freedom of software.
Of course RMS and all the other FreeSoftware developers want their software to be popular, more users means more improvements and more developers and more FreeSoftware that you can use.
So we're agreed on this point.
Advocating your "compromises" is essentially advocating that they relent of their philosophy, for what? Money? Fame? more proprietary software?
I'm not suggesting RMS do anything. The whole premise of my post was that I feel RMS is trying to lead Linux in the wrong direction. Backward. If RMS wants to implement a version of Linux that is completely free and uses absolutely nothing else, then he is creating a barrier. Plain and simple. That's the beauty of Linux, he can talk all he wants, and I agree with his ultimate goal, but, as it stands in the real world, he's spinning his wheels. If there had never been a compromise with the proprietary software market, Linux would not be where it is today. No Office support. No nvidia support. No ATI support. No Realplayer. No Flash. No Java.
By advocating that they do this, you are making it clear that not only do you not agree with their philosophy, but you apparently don't see how they can believe it themselves.
No. I merely don't agree with their philosophy. I can see how they believe it. I can understand what they want to accomplish. I still don't agree with it. I believe popularity will help Linux not the other way around.
If you want to write software Free/Non-Free that enables FreeSoftware to be more compatable with non-free software, then go for it. (It's not like anyone is going out of their way to make it hard.) Just don't expect FreeSoftware idealists to spend any time helping you, as they have nothing to gain.
And I never would have asked. :) If I develop whatever type of software, I would accept any help offered. I, however, would never ask RMS for any help at all...
Sometimes you can't take compromises, specially if the compromise means to bend your principles.
Why so meany people fail to grasp this? I am not saying people should agree to these principles, they are of course debatable, what amazes me is how so many people fail to grasp the basic idea that somebody may have principles and be willing to live by them.
I, for one, don't fail to grasp this. Living in accordance with principles is a good thing. You live by principles; you live by consequences. You make a choice:
Do you believe Linux should be shared? Or do you believe Linux should stick to the shadows?
If you believe as I do, that Linux is an operating system with enough potential to become an actual desktop contender, then compromises must be made. Why? Because the average end user could care less about SMP. They could care less about the low latency kernel patch. They care about something that works with what they have. Tell me something, before Linux compromised and obtained office suites that were, in part, Office 97 compatible, would you recommend Linux as an office solution?
If you believe that Linux should stay in the shadows and evermore be the underdog, that's fine. I'll probably end up using Linux anyway since it was, first and foremost, a hobby OS. Getting things to work is always kind of cool. But, I would be much happier if Linux became a viable, alternative operating system for the masses. Not because I'm a Linux fanatic, but because I simply enjoy Linux.
Living by principle makes for a great religion. Living by compromise makes for a better reality.
In all seriousness, I think RMS has a good concept. Free software is a great idea. However, implementing free software would require changing the thoughts of every person in the entire world so they see that free software is a good thing. Take the following, for example:
TRB: One difficult thing for end users is proprietary codecs and plugins. Two examples that seem especially prevalent are Macromedia Flash and Real Networks' RealMedia files. Without these technologies, a lot of interesting content becomes unavailable. What do you think the short-term solution for this problem is?
RMS: I think we should modify browsers to encourage and help users to send messages of complaint to those sites, to pressure them to change.
Why? Media-types think flash and real media are a great technology. RMS is suggesting taking a step backward through this suggestion. What purpose could it possibly serve? Unless you can change the mindset of the folk at Real and Macromedia, you're stuck. Comply and remain interoperable or just don't view it.
By this same argument, folk should quit using Quicktime, WMV and WMA. Does anyone see thing happening anytime soon? I think not. People will go where their technology takes them, be it a Mac, Windows, *nix or *BSD user.
The key, at this point, isn't to subjugate the masses and foisting Linux on them. It's to make Linux interoperable with the other operating systems first. After Linux has gained, say, 50% of the market, then Linux can make demands. As it stands, if every Linux user were to send a letter of complaint to every site that used Flash, RealMedia, Quicktime or WM*s, people will probably more or less laugh. What purpose does it serve to suggest alternatives when there is no reason for said people to switch?
Linux is great. But it isn't so great that it will inspire change in the mind of everyone in the world. At least, not yet. ;)
I can't find any additional information on the website, but I thought that XandrOS [ www.xandros.com ] was the successor to Corel Linux?
If I remember right, ISOnews.com was also shut down in 2000 because they had posted links to Dreamcast ISOs. While the claim was made that there weren't any ISOs on the site itself, the site was taken and given back under the provision that links to any pirated ISOs would not be posted on this website. I can only guess that this would be the final straw.
First off, after reading the books and watching the film, I would have to give the movie an overall rating of C+. Just slightly above average, and that's only due to the portrayal of Professor Snape by Alan Rickman. I admit, I went to the movie with a small degree of expectation, and I left feeling slightly disappointed:
The kids are dead on. Harry, Ron, and Hermione are almost exactly what I'd expect.I seriously disagree with CmdrTaco on this point. Harry is not Harry at all. In the movie, as pointed out by a few others, Harry is a re-actor. Something happens, and Harry responds. In the book, Harry has initiative. Though they tried portraying this in the film, I felt they failed. Ron was a lot like the character I would expect, and Hermione had a lot less screentime than I thought was necessary for her character. The movie made her out to be like some kind of token geek girl ( ala Willow and Fred ) and not an important character.
And then there was the disjointed nature of the movie. It felt more like an incorrectly done highlight of Harry Potter's 1st year:
Norbert got only, like, one minute of screentime and then mysteriously vanishes. In the book, at least, the sub-plot regarding Norbert included an introduction with Charlie Weasley via mail, which kind of lent the atmosphere of how widespread, and networked, wizards and witches are.
The "traps" set to guard the Sorceror's Stone were not done right, but, for those that haven't seen the movie, I won't spoil it for you. I'm not complaining about CG; I just figured that there were some relevant details about the cooperative nature of the traps that made the overall plot of the film weak.
And where was Peeves?!
Come to think of it, I don't remember seeing Professor Sprout, either. While not an entirely important character, it does relate to the traps comment I make above.
As noted above, the movie is, severely, disjointed. Instead of having smooth transitions, A->B->C, then X->Y->Z, it felt more like A->B, C->D, get to X->Y and then Z.
For those that read the books and then watch the film, you aren't wasting your money ... but, like most movie adaptations, I felt it fell short. For those that haven't read the books and want to see the movie first, you'll probably enjoy it but be left with enough questions that you may have wanted to read the books first.