But for example, if Open Office had access to the complete office file specs we could start to see some real change. Also how about publishing the AD specs so Samba can be dropped in without any problems.
Uhh, right.
But for example, if Ford had access to the complete GM automobile line specs, we could start to see some real change. Also how about publishing the vehicle specs so that a Japanese engine can be dropped in without any problems. (don't get picky on details there; it's just an example, people!)
Not necessarily true. What do you define as 'IE'? I can delete iexplore.exe and my system will run fine, just no web browser. But if you delete the IE dependencies like shdocvw.dll and mshtml.dll, sure Windows will still run but Explorer can't. We need to define what exactly constitutes "Windows" here. Sure, you can consider "Linux" as just a kernel; likewise, you can't run the KDE graphical desktop without the KDE tarballs! Anyone knows that you can very easily replace the Windows shell; but without IE, there is no Windows shell, XP embedded or not.... Embedded systems don't have a start menu, buddy.
I have 0% microsoft OS on my webserver, and it never crashes:)
I have 100% microsoft OS on my webserver, and it never crashes either. Funny how these things work...:)
I think this "Modular Windows" is a bunch of crap anyway: what will it accomplish? You _KNOW_ it will sell for the same price as "regular Windows", if not making Regular Windows even more. Of course no (normal consumer) is going to buy "modular Windows" cause they want the apps, baby. When someone goes into the store and buys a Compaq Presario, they want to plug it in, click, and "Welcome to the internet, my friend!" They don't want to bother installing audio/video players, web browsers, et cetera --- they don't care. All they care is that it WORKS.
Great caching proxy server + firewall combo. Very tricky to set up, but allows auth on a per-user basis if needed. Also gets you a subscription to CyberPatrol to block "objectionable" sites if need be. The firewall is pretty good, just remember to turn off dynamic NAT or you're back to square one (duh).
Strictly speaking, no, it wasn't the Pre-DSL era. DSL was first developed in '89 for the purpose of Video on Demand.
That's still in the works. I recently saw a demo of HDTV VoD being pushed over DSL. Pretty cool, if you ask me, but also a bit ironic too... it seems that in the future, cable is going to be the way for broadband Internet; yet DSL, for video on demand. Odd considering how they started the opposite way around!
Apple sues Microsoft over "the close button in the upper corner of the window."
What's next, the icon? Are the tabs in Mozilla in violation? The concept of "tabs" in "windows" no matter if you call them "palettes" or not, was part of the Windows API as long as I can remember.
This is unfortunately falling back on my previous argument, but DR-DOS is not an app, it's an operating system. Name one application that MS has "engineered" Windows not to work with. That's stupid.
Windows is an OS and a GUI intricately laced together. Linux is not a fair comparison.
Let's time warp back to 1992. The web is young, and a man named Gates has an interface called "Windows 3.1." Now, let's say that IE was bundled/integrated with Win 3.1 --- which is NOT an operating system, and could be removed and replaced with an alternate desktop manager. Would this attorney's case hold water then? Just to give you an example of how volatile the subject of "so what, Konqueror is integrated into KDE" is, my sig mentioned that for about the last month or so. I received more replies to my sig than I did to my legitimate posts. Kind of a social experiment of mine. That means that all the MS-haters on here just show that they are after technicalities just as much as Microsoft, and are using the "uh, it's a desktop -- not an OS!" Well if you're after technicalities, just ask RMS, who thinks that Linux isn't an OS... it's "the GNU system, with Linux as one of its kernels."
Who cares if Windows comes with IE as long as one can install Mozilla?
About 95% of the world. Non-geek folks don't know/don't care/won't ever care about Mozilla. They want to plug in their computer, double click that "E" icon, and pull up Yahoo! Makes you wonder why the iMac was so damn successful.
Windows and Microsoft shouldn't go out of its way to make it more difficult for non-MS apps to work well.
They don't, that's just anti-MS FUD.
If it comes with IE, great, but Dell, should be able include Mozilla/Netscape if they'd like to.
Thing is, they don't want to. The world would revolt if they did. Mozilla is still beta software, complete with the "Debug" menu. Netscape 6 is keerap, Mozilla is so much better. But Moz can be broken, and it crashes often (IE 6 has yet to crash on me). Before Moz can be a commercial competitor (and I must say that the browser wars are over...), it must be less crash-prone than IE. I can't stand the people that bitch about standards, because how many people do you know that develop web pages to "standard" -- I'll tell you Slashdot isn't one of them. Just because IE has its own features and doesn't support stupid tags (I had some anti-MS troll once give me an example of some super-obscure tag, <link> I think) doesn't mean it's a bad browser.
If I have the right to run the installer, and I never accept any agreement which reduces my rights, then the implication is that I have the right to run the software that is installed by the installer.
Uh, no, that is soooo twisting the truth to fit what you think is right. The installer and what is installed are two distinct pieces of software. The installer doesn't require you to accept a EULA to use it... under your argument, you have to agree to a EULA before you use ANY software. Remember, installer != software installed.
Well, that sentence didn't come from the OEM EULA, so I don't know if it holds up. OTOH, it says "your place of purchase..." but you never purchased it; the OEM did. Therefore can you return it? Is it more of a transfer of license than anything else? One of those "sorry, no refunds" type of deals?
On that note here is the diary of some joker that thought he could pull this off with HP.
No you don't BUY software. You BUY a license and a copy of the media. The EULA is not a law but is protected by law:
17. APPLICABLE LAW. If you acquired this Product in the United States, this EULA is governed by the laws of the State of Washington. If you acquired this Product in Canada, unless expressly prohibited by local law, this EULA is governed by the laws in force in the Province of Ontario, Canada; and, in respect of any dispute which may arise hereunder, you consent to the jurisdiction of the federal and provincial courts sitting in Toronto, Ontario. If this Product was acquired outside the United States, then local law may apply.
Huh? What law is that? You are the owner of the copy. Not the owner of the copyright, but the owner of the copy.
Wrong. You own the license, not the copy.
Ahem, and I quote:
19. The Product is protected by copyright and other intellectual property laws and treaties. Microsoft or its suppliers own the title, copyright, and other intellectual property rights in the Product. The Product is licensed, not sold.
Catch that last sentence?
Also, to the original article poster: whatever your twisted interpretation of EULAs are, it's flat out wrong wrong wrong. Here, this is straight out of the WinXP EULA:
YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS EULA BY INSTALLING, COPYING, OR OTHERWISE USING THE PRODUCT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL OR USE THE PRODUCT; YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND.
If you don't agree... you can't just simply remove the EULA and say you don't agree -- you're still in violation!!! It's like I walked down the street, unbolted the "NO PARKING ANYTIME" sign from the post and say "well, I didn't agree to the sign, so I removed it, and now I can park here persuant to normal traffic laws!"
Thanks a lot to Microsoft for being responsible of the most annoying viruses so far.
Someone needs to realize that this only applies to older, unpatched versions of outlook and outlook express. The new versions make it a chore to infect yourself, short of opening, saving, and executing the exe yourself. I think what we need to target here is education. Teach people how to not open attachments. Also, we can place some of the blame on Exchange admins, because they have the power to configure all the Outlook installations to not allow EXE opening, for example. Outlook xp for non-Exchange use comes by default set to not allow opening/saving of ANY executable attachments. There is a little-known registry hack to allow access, but Microsoft's supported solution is "tell the sender to ZIP it." That's what we need... more "email education."
Actually to be completely honest, the XFree86 port is shit. I've tried it, and it had some issues in screen refreshing, even the startup "Welcome to Solaris" screen was often garbled. I switched to Exceed and all my problems were solved. Exceed comes with some other goodies too, and a _real nice_ window manager (I don't have to put up with TWM; it's from the stone age practically.)
That could probably moreso indicate Disney being concerned about piracy... I remember back in the day Disney's were the only home videos that were next to impossible to copy without special equipment... for, uh, "personal backup copies" of their VHS films, y'know... =)
Deathmatch? Tell me about it... I'd like to see the look on Hilary Rosen's face when she's locked in a padded room with an angry bull in mating season. Did I say that out loud?
"Well, I told Bill that if Sandra's going to listen to her headphones while she's filing, then I should be able to listen to the radio while I'm collating. So I don't see why I should... have to turn down the radio... because I enjoy listening at a reasonable volume from 9 to 11."
I hope you understand that by "standard" I meant "most widely used and accepted format." I guess you can say that Pepsi or Coke are the "standard" by the same logic --- it doesn't have to be approved by any organization, yet how many people do you see drink Coke vs. say, RC or Virgin Cola?
2) Word files are for the most part backwards compatible. Files created in Office xp, for example, can be opened in Office 97 (no one still runs Office 95, DO THEY?) w/o a problem. The only difference is that formatting applied in the newer versions of office, like say double-strike-squiggly-cool-flashing-green underlining format, that was unavailable in the earlier version, will be missing. But everything else will work fine, so that is FUD.
I think some people need to come to the realization that although you may absolutely HATE Word or Office, it IS the standard, whether you like it or not. Kind of reminds me of a class I took last year where the professor posted some of his materials in Word format. One of the "I use Linux but OpenOffice blows" idiots in the class thought he could raise beef with the professor and make his free software political statement, right there in front of us. Well, basically he was told to fuck off by the professor, and had to end up using Word anyway (Office is available to any registered student for $5). Pretty funny, actually.
Y'know, I always thought that MS Agent (the API that brings you all the talking characters) could use a BOFH character.
"Save there again and that's the last time you open THAT document."
"I've taken the liberty of password protecting all your Word documents with a random alphanumeric password. If you can't hack in to your own documents than you shouldn't be using Office in the first place...."
Re:For God's sake
on
PDAs For Kids
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
The last thing we need to do is geekify kids even more. It's a sad trend... what we need to do is give these kids members of the opposite sex. Let them have some old fashioned fun, instead of becoming attached to their computer, etc at age 4+ and never leaving the house (yes, that is a bad thing). WTF ever happened to lincoln logs?
Slashdot Mirror
But for example, if Open Office had access to the complete office file specs we could start to see some real change.
Also how about publishing the AD specs so Samba can be dropped in without any problems.
Uhh, right.
But for example, if Ford had access to the complete GM automobile line specs, we could start to see some real change.
Also how about publishing the vehicle specs so that a Japanese engine can be dropped in without any problems. (don't get picky on details there; it's just an example, people!)
Not necessarily true. What do you define as 'IE'? I can delete iexplore.exe and my system will run fine, just no web browser. But if you delete the IE dependencies like shdocvw.dll and mshtml.dll, sure Windows will still run but Explorer can't. We need to define what exactly constitutes "Windows" here. Sure, you can consider "Linux" as just a kernel; likewise, you can't run the KDE graphical desktop without the KDE tarballs! Anyone knows that you can very easily replace the Windows shell; but without IE, there is no Windows shell, XP embedded or not.... Embedded systems don't have a start menu, buddy.
I have 0% microsoft OS on my webserver, and it never crashes:)
:)
I have 100% microsoft OS on my webserver, and it never crashes either. Funny how these things work...
I think this "Modular Windows" is a bunch of crap anyway: what will it accomplish? You _KNOW_ it will sell for the same price as "regular Windows", if not making Regular Windows even more. Of course no (normal consumer) is going to buy "modular Windows" cause they want the apps, baby. When someone goes into the store and buys a Compaq Presario, they want to plug it in, click, and "Welcome to the internet, my friend!" They don't want to bother installing audio/video players, web browsers, et cetera --- they don't care. All they care is that it WORKS.
Great caching proxy server + firewall combo. Very tricky to set up, but allows auth on a per-user basis if needed. Also gets you a subscription to CyberPatrol to block "objectionable" sites if need be. The firewall is pretty good, just remember to turn off dynamic NAT or you're back to square one (duh).
The beauty of an open source operating system in an educational context is that the workings of the entire environment are open to inspection
You mean stuff like this?
void write_string_kernel_panic(char *str)
{
str[0] = 'A';
str[1] = 'i';
str[2] = 'e';
str[3] = 'e';
str[4] = '!';
str[5] = 32;
str[6] = 'K';
str[7] = 'e';
str[8] = 'r';
str[9] = 'n';
str[10] = 'e';
str[11] = 'l';
str[12] = 32;
str[13] = 'P';
str[14] = 'a';
str[15] = 'n';
str[16] = 'i';
str[17] = 'c';
str[18] = '!';
str[19] = '\0';
write_output_string(str);
}
Yeah, they're learning alright!
Strictly speaking, no, it wasn't the Pre-DSL era. DSL was first developed in '89 for the purpose of Video on Demand.
That's still in the works. I recently saw a demo of HDTV VoD being pushed over DSL. Pretty cool, if you ask me, but also a bit ironic too... it seems that in the future, cable is going to be the way for broadband Internet; yet DSL, for video on demand. Odd considering how they started the opposite way around!
British Telecom has already sued over this... ;-)
Apple sues Microsoft over "the close button in the upper corner of the window."
What's next, the icon? Are the tabs in Mozilla in violation? The concept of "tabs" in "windows" no matter if you call them "palettes" or not, was part of the Windows API as long as I can remember.
This is unfortunately falling back on my previous argument, but DR-DOS is not an app, it's an operating system. Name one application that MS has "engineered" Windows not to work with. That's stupid.
Windows is an OS and a GUI intricately laced together. Linux is not a fair comparison.
... it's "the GNU system, with Linux as one of its kernels."
Let's time warp back to 1992. The web is young, and a man named Gates has an interface called "Windows 3.1." Now, let's say that IE was bundled/integrated with Win 3.1 --- which is NOT an operating system, and could be removed and replaced with an alternate desktop manager. Would this attorney's case hold water then? Just to give you an example of how volatile the subject of "so what, Konqueror is integrated into KDE" is, my sig mentioned that for about the last month or so. I received more replies to my sig than I did to my legitimate posts. Kind of a social experiment of mine. That means that all the MS-haters on here just show that they are after technicalities just as much as Microsoft, and are using the "uh, it's a desktop -- not an OS!" Well if you're after technicalities, just ask RMS, who thinks that Linux isn't an OS
Who cares if Windows comes with IE as long as one can install Mozilla?
About 95% of the world. Non-geek folks don't know/don't care/won't ever care about Mozilla. They want to plug in their computer, double click that "E" icon, and pull up Yahoo! Makes you wonder why the iMac was so damn successful.
Windows and Microsoft shouldn't go out of its way to make it more difficult for non-MS apps to work well.
They don't, that's just anti-MS FUD.
If it comes with IE, great, but Dell, should be able include Mozilla/Netscape if they'd like to.
Thing is, they don't want to. The world would revolt if they did. Mozilla is still beta software, complete with the "Debug" menu. Netscape 6 is keerap, Mozilla is so much better. But Moz can be broken, and it crashes often (IE 6 has yet to crash on me). Before Moz can be a commercial competitor (and I must say that the browser wars are over...), it must be less crash-prone than IE. I can't stand the people that bitch about standards, because how many people do you know that develop web pages to "standard" -- I'll tell you Slashdot isn't one of them. Just because IE has its own features and doesn't support stupid tags (I had some anti-MS troll once give me an example of some super-obscure tag, <link> I think) doesn't mean it's a bad browser.
If I have the right to run the installer, and I never accept any agreement which reduces my rights, then the implication is that I have the right to run the software that is installed by the installer.
Uh, no, that is soooo twisting the truth to fit what you think is right. The installer and what is installed are two distinct pieces of software. The installer doesn't require you to accept a EULA to use it... under your argument, you have to agree to a EULA before you use ANY software. Remember, installer != software installed.
Someone forgot a
Well, that sentence didn't come from the OEM EULA, so I don't know if it holds up. OTOH, it says "your place of purchase..." but you never purchased it; the OEM did. Therefore can you return it? Is it more of a transfer of license than anything else? One of those "sorry, no refunds" type of deals?
On that note here is the diary of some joker that thought he could pull this off with HP.
No you don't BUY software. You BUY a license and a copy of the media. The EULA is not a law but is protected by law:
17. APPLICABLE LAW. If you acquired this Product in the United States, this EULA is governed by the laws of the State of Washington. If you acquired this Product in Canada, unless expressly prohibited by local law, this EULA is governed by the laws in force in the Province of Ontario, Canada; and, in respect of any dispute which may arise hereunder, you consent to the jurisdiction of the federal and provincial courts sitting in Toronto, Ontario. If this Product was acquired outside the United States, then local law may apply.
Boucher's one of the smart ones.
I guess Hemos didn't see "The Waterboy."
Huh? What law is that? You are the owner of the copy. Not the owner of the copyright, but the owner of the copy.
Wrong. You own the license, not the copy.
Ahem, and I quote:
19. The Product is protected by copyright and other intellectual property laws and treaties. Microsoft or its suppliers own the title, copyright, and other intellectual property rights in the Product. The Product is licensed, not sold.
Catch that last sentence?
Also, to the original article poster: whatever your twisted interpretation of EULAs are, it's flat out wrong wrong wrong. Here, this is straight out of the WinXP EULA:
YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS EULA BY INSTALLING, COPYING, OR OTHERWISE USING THE PRODUCT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL OR USE THE PRODUCT; YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND.
If you don't agree... you can't just simply remove the EULA and say you don't agree -- you're still in violation!!! It's like I walked down the street, unbolted the "NO PARKING ANYTIME" sign from the post and say "well, I didn't agree to the sign, so I removed it, and now I can park here persuant to normal traffic laws!"
Thanks a lot to Microsoft for being responsible of the most annoying viruses so far.
... more "email education."
Someone needs to realize that this only applies to older, unpatched versions of outlook and outlook express. The new versions make it a chore to infect yourself, short of opening, saving, and executing the exe yourself. I think what we need to target here is education. Teach people how to not open attachments. Also, we can place some of the blame on Exchange admins, because they have the power to configure all the Outlook installations to not allow EXE opening, for example. Outlook xp for non-Exchange use comes by default set to not allow opening/saving of ANY executable attachments. There is a little-known registry hack to allow access, but Microsoft's supported solution is "tell the sender to ZIP it." That's what we need
Actually to be completely honest, the XFree86 port is shit. I've tried it, and it had some issues in screen refreshing, even the startup "Welcome to Solaris" screen was often garbled. I switched to Exceed and all my problems were solved. Exceed comes with some other goodies too, and a _real nice_ window manager (I don't have to put up with TWM; it's from the stone age practically.)
That could probably moreso indicate Disney being concerned about piracy... I remember back in the day Disney's were the only home videos that were next to impossible to copy without special equipment... for, uh, "personal backup copies" of their VHS films, y'know... =)
Deathmatch? Tell me about it... I'd like to see the look on Hilary Rosen's face when she's locked in a padded room with an angry bull in mating season. Did I say that out loud?
"Well, I told Bill that if Sandra's going to listen to her headphones while she's filing, then I should be able to listen to the radio while I'm collating. So I don't see why I should... have to turn down the radio... because I enjoy listening at a reasonable volume from 9 to 11."
I hope you understand that by "standard" I meant "most widely used and accepted format." I guess you can say that Pepsi or Coke are the "standard" by the same logic --- it doesn't have to be approved by any organization, yet how many people do you see drink Coke vs. say, RC or Virgin Cola?
Two things:
1) RTF is actually a stripped-down DOC format.
2) Word files are for the most part backwards compatible. Files created in Office xp, for example, can be opened in Office 97 (no one still runs Office 95, DO THEY?) w/o a problem. The only difference is that formatting applied in the newer versions of office, like say double-strike-squiggly-cool-flashing-green underlining format, that was unavailable in the earlier version, will be missing. But everything else will work fine, so that is FUD.
I think some people need to come to the realization that although you may absolutely HATE Word or Office, it IS the standard, whether you like it or not. Kind of reminds me of a class I took last year where the professor posted some of his materials in Word format. One of the "I use Linux but OpenOffice blows" idiots in the class thought he could raise beef with the professor and make his free software political statement, right there in front of us. Well, basically he was told to fuck off by the professor, and had to end up using Word anyway (Office is available to any registered student for $5). Pretty funny, actually.
Y'know, I always thought that MS Agent (the API that brings you all the talking characters) could use a BOFH character.
"Save there again and that's the last time you open THAT document."
"I've taken the liberty of password protecting all your Word documents with a random alphanumeric password. If you can't hack in to your own documents than you shouldn't be using Office in the first place...."
The last thing we need to do is geekify kids even more. It's a sad trend... what we need to do is give these kids members of the opposite sex. Let them have some old fashioned fun, instead of becoming attached to their computer, etc at age 4+ and never leaving the house (yes, that is a bad thing). WTF ever happened to lincoln logs?