He is correct. Microsoft uses IE libraries through out NT, 2000, XP OS's. So, if you remove IE you break windows.
You could accually remove IE as long as you replaced all of IE's DLLs that were used in other parts of the OS but what a pain and I'm not sure just how much of IE isn't being used by other parts of the OS. Microsoft has put a lot of effort into making sure each OS is more tightly integrated with their browser.
"I used to send them all my spam, but like you, I started wondering what they did with it."
Make a quilt maybe? hehe
Seriously, they are probably trying to gather data to support some kind of action or to get a better sense of what should be done.
Unfortunately you won't see a complete ban on spam. Likely there will be 'acceptable spam' defined.
I believe that they will adopt a 'honest email' policy. That is all email is okay if there is no deception. Truthful return address, subject line and an opt-out method that isn't used to gather the email addresses of 'the live ones.'
One State (I don't remember which.) is considering requiring all spams to contain some standard indicator in the header that would allow users to easily identify the email as spam. Like 'ADV.' Of course the spammers don't want their emails to be easily identified for what they really are. That would make it too easy for ISP's to bit bucket them.
I do feel however that we should be given the power to reliably identify spam. Opt-out strategies do not work. Obviously if your email address is being sold and traded by hundreds or thousands of spammers, you could spend a lot of time from now until hell freezes over opting out again and again and again.... If all legal spam carried 'ADV' in the header we could opt-out ourselves by filtering the junk. Spam that didn't carry the 'ADV' flag would have to be treated seriously and offenders fined, jailed or killed.:-)
"...C#, that has proved so popular in business and enthusiast circles alike..."
Really? I just attended a technical conference in which the.NET was introduced. The reaction from the group of software engineers was truly frightening. I thought for a while that we were going to have an old style lynching. I don't believe that.NET has proven very popular at all. Further, I believe that most programmers feel that Microsoft is trying to ram it down our throats.
I always find it amusing when I read a "Linux is dead" post. On the desktop or server it doesn't really matter the statement is flawed.
On the server Linux is plodding along taking more and more market share and slowly winning. On the desktop Linux has not really been born yet but it is plodding along getting better and better. Eventually it will start taking market share in that area as well. You see, Linux can't really be stopped. There is no way to buy it, crush it, intimidate it or otherwise derail it. Microsoft has tried all of there tricks but in the end there it is plodding along getting better and better.
No, Microsoft can't win against Tux. They can only delay the inevitable.
It is not an easy balancing act. On the one hand there may be legitimate reasons that a company will share their customer information with each other.
However I'm a bit on the cynical side. I believe that most of the time when people sell email addresses it is to make a profit via the sale. So, you see, I don't believe that they are doing it in my best interests.
There are several reasons that I purposed a complete ban on the sale of email addresses.
First, the most a egregious abuses of the email system comes from people who purchase mass mailing lists. These are neither opt-in addresses or targeted to a particular interest group. They are simply used for 'shotgun' style mailings.
Second, the judicial system needs some teeth for this issue. You may have seen SPAM with the note at the bottom stating something to the effect that 'you are receiving this email because you opted in.' Of course you never did and the spammer knows it, but if push comes to shove the judicial system would be forced to prove that you never opted in. This could be very hard or impossible to do.
I'm open to other ideas but I don't see any being effective.
Okay, so the web designer put the wrong message for the 'No mail' option. It was an embarrassment to the site and somewhat funny to the rest of us but not really all that news worthy.
Oh well, at least I went to there site and read an article that did have value. Apparently the Telecommunications Research and Action Center is asking the FTC to rule that unsolicited commercial email is "deceptive and therefore unlawful"
The email would have to meet certain criteria that are similar to the Washington State's anti-spamming law.
Email would be considered illegal if it:
Misrepresents the sender (in source or routing information) Misrepresents the subject or content of the email Fails to provide reliable contact information for the real party in interest Fails to provide a reliable opt-out system Is sent to an individual who has opted out or resigned from sender's list, or to whom sending unsolicited, commercial email is otherwise prohibited by law.
Laws like this are seen as being a balance between our rights to privacy and a companies rights to communicate. Unfortunately, with any 'opt-out' strategy, the victim is overwhelmed by SPAM because he/she can not opt out as fast as his or her name is sold.
We really need laws that make the selling of email addresses illegal.
I'm guessing that the subscription has something to do with automatic updates. I think Redhat already has something like that. You pay so much per month which gives you the right to connect to one of their fast servers and have security updates etc. automatically applied.
Mandrake has an automatic update feature for which they do not charge but I'm thinking that they use 3rd party servers that may or may not be secure.
I wouldn't get too upset over the word subscription. It doesn't mean that they are going to stop abiding by the GPL. You'll still be able to get Redhat for free but with a subscription you'll get added value.
I think a giant air bag would be much more effective if used in conjunction with a planetary seat belt.
We could install planetary windshield wipers for the small asteroids. I mean there is no sense is wasting a perfectly good air bag on the small stuff. I think a planetary shoulder harness would be good also but I'm not sure where to fasten it. I figure that my town is the anus of the earth so that would put the shoulder somewhere in eastern Canada I figure.
If Bush is determined to go to war with Iraq we could use that area as our planetary ash tray.
I'm glad you are wearing your flameproof suit because I'm lighting up my flamethrower right now!:-)
The point is not just that Microsoft play's hardball. In business we expect some of that. The real issue is that Microsoft being a monopoly has to be careful to not break the law by abusing its monopoly power.
I hope that you see that including a broken version of Java in an OS that virtually everyone in the world would use knowing that this would undermine the competition is unfair and illegal.
If we sit back and say "well that's just the way the game is played" then anyone starting competing business with Microsoft may as well just give up and go on welfare because competing against an 800 pound gorilla is difficult even if the gorilla plays fair but impossible if it cheats.
"5 years ago Netscape was the king of the browsers -- nothing else came close. When MS released it's browser they out leaped Netscape by offering faster JVM and better compatibility."
Give me a break! Microsoft didn't just release it's own browser, they integrated it into the OS so that everyone had it, like it or not.
And their first browser wasn't better than Netscape's. As I recall, it really sucked out loud. I doubt that IE would have become the number one used browser if Microsoft hadn't abused their monopoly power.
Right, I'm obviously a "luser" because I replied to a post that may have come from a complete beginner. You of course are not a "luser" because you insulted me for trying to be helpful. You're not a luser just a complete jerk.
Well it looks like I'm going to be buying another book. I've been looking for a good way to document object-oriented programs for a LONG time. I've heard about UML and browsed a few web pages but just didn't really understand it well enough to see it's value. Maybe this book will get me through the learning curve.
Could someone who really understands UML tell me if it will handle documenting object-oriented programs that use third party objects? For example, if I code something using Borland's Kylix, I may not have the source code to some of the components that I'll be using. How does one effectively document in this situation?
"I think that's what I got out of the ref'd whitepaper, but also doesn't it say that you only have to release source upon request within 3 years? Or did I just misunderstand."
Well, if you mean by "within 3 years" that you can wait three years before turning over the source then I believe you misunderstand that part. The offer to turn over the source must be good for three years after you release the binaries. So if you get a request for the source the very next day after releasing the binaries you must honor that request within a reasonable time.
"Also, the linking, kern module, and other issues are an extremely big question mark, IMHO, even though the author cites precedent as answering the question for us, ie, the existence of binary only kernel drivers, and programs linking with GPL'd shared libs."
Yes, this also concerns me. I could see it going either way. I think that Linus should make it clear that for the kernel, statically linked hardware device drivers are acceptable.
We need to allow hardware vendors to support us and yet we must not allow some jerk to take GPL'd code and compile it into an "so" file on Linux or "DLL" on windows and feel that they don't have to follow the GPL license.
"One striking example is that the GPL'd games for Linux always tend to variations of Tetris, Boulder Dash, Missile Command, etc. You would expect the innovative games to be coming out for Linux: no pressure from marketing, free development tools, big community. But the games with spark, like The Sims and Grand Theft Auto 3 are coming from elsewhere."
I run Linux exclusively at home and it is true that popular big name games are few and far between but there are the exceptions. Look at Quake 3. The Linux version has better frame rates than the Windows version if you are using NVIDIA's OpenGL drivers.
Linux has been traveling a long road; uphill and against the wind. Microsoft has done everything to try to stop Linux but it can't be stopped. It can't be bought, bribed, threatened into submit ion, outlawed, or destroyed by FUD. In short, none of Microsoft's usual tools work against Linux.
Does this mean that Linux will be the most popular OS immediately?
No. Linux needs a critical mass of users before proprietary software companies will consider it a viable platform on which to develop products. It also needs a critical mass of products to draw in users. This is a classic 'Catch 22.'
I believe that we are approaching the critical mass of software. The visibility that companies like IBM, SUN, HP, Compaq and others are giving Linux is a big help. The fact that Linux is a great operating system with lots of great free software means nothing if no one hears about it.
So, the growth has been slow but we are nearing those critical masses that will rocket Linux into the public consciousness.
Actually, everything he said was 99% true. Not eloquently stated but defiantly true.
If you create a piece of software that is based on another GPL'd software then your software must be covered by the original GPL license. You are not under any obligation to release the binaries or source. However, if you do release the binaries you must make the source available upon request.
This effectively prevents someone from making changes to a GPL'd product and then sell the changes for a high price. They could do it but the buyer would have the right to distribute the code for free thus killing the seller's market.
The only part that I disagree with is that because the programmer is being paid to product the product his employer would have the exclusive right to initially release the code. So unless the employer released to code to the programmer, the programmer couldn't release it to the general public.
If I am incorrect, perhaps you could point me to the paragraph in the GPL license that supports your position.
I see nothing but FUD in the "Redhat is the Redmond of Linux" bullshit. Under the GNU license I doubt that anyone can become another evil monopolistic empire.
"Why not? Look, they're competing with FREE trading networks..."
The "FREE" trading network you are talking about I assume is the file swapping going on with P2P programs. They are not "competing" with these. People who trade copyrighted material without the copyright holder's permission are not competing, they are breaking the law by infringing on those copyrights. And yes, I know that some trading is legal if done with the copyright holders blessings.
I'm not saying that it shouldn't be cheaper than a packaged product but definitely not dirt cheap. There will still be expenses and compensation to the artists and unfortunately to the RIAA.
Even if the early LEGAL file trading businesses are more expensive than CDs, once established as a viable and legitimate business, competition should drive prices down. The most important thing is that we bust up the RIAA. As long as they maintain a monopoly on music prices won't fall. These are the real middle men. They are not really interested in the artists or the consumer. They are a group of parasites that need to be eliminated.
Slashdot Mirror
He is correct. Microsoft uses IE libraries through out NT, 2000, XP OS's. So, if you remove IE you break windows.
You could accually remove IE as long as you replaced all of IE's DLLs that were used in other parts of the OS but what a pain and I'm not sure just how much of IE isn't being used by other parts of the OS. Microsoft has put a lot of effort into making sure each OS is more tightly integrated with their browser.
"Funny how you guys bitch about how insecure Windows is .. yet I note with interest that it is not mentioned a single time in this report."
:-)
By now I think it is just understood.
"I bet I could dig up a better qualifier for a Microsoft-laden article than "somewhat lengthy"."
But if you submitted it I'll bet it would _NEVER_ get posted.
"I used to send them all my spam, but like you, I started wondering what they did with it."
:-)
Make a quilt maybe? hehe
Seriously, they are probably trying to gather data to support some kind of action or to get a better sense of what should be done.
Unfortunately you won't see a complete ban on spam. Likely there will be 'acceptable spam' defined.
I believe that they will adopt a 'honest email' policy. That is all email is okay if there is no deception. Truthful return address, subject line and an opt-out method that isn't used to gather the email addresses of 'the live ones.'
One State (I don't remember which.) is considering requiring all spams to contain some standard indicator in the header that would allow users to easily identify the email as spam. Like 'ADV.' Of course the spammers don't want their emails to be easily identified for what they really are. That would make it too easy for ISP's to bit bucket them.
I do feel however that we should be given the power to reliably identify spam. Opt-out strategies do not work. Obviously if your email address is being sold and traded by hundreds or thousands of spammers, you could spend a lot of time from now until hell freezes over opting out again and again and again.... If all legal spam carried 'ADV' in the header we could opt-out ourselves by filtering the junk. Spam that didn't carry the 'ADV' flag would have to be treated seriously and offenders fined, jailed or killed.
"...C#, that has proved so popular in business and enthusiast circles alike ..."
.NET was introduced. The reaction from the group of software engineers was truly frightening. I thought for a while that we were going to have an old style lynching. I don't believe that .NET has proven very popular at all. Further, I believe that most programmers feel that Microsoft is trying to ram it down our throats.
Really? I just attended a technical conference in which the
I always find it amusing when I read a "Linux is dead" post. On the desktop or server it doesn't really matter the statement is flawed.
On the server Linux is plodding along taking more and more market share and slowly winning. On the desktop Linux has not really been born yet but it is plodding along getting better and better. Eventually it will start taking market share in that area as well. You see, Linux can't really be stopped. There is no way to buy it, crush it, intimidate it or otherwise derail it. Microsoft has tried all of there tricks but in the end there it is plodding along getting better and better.
No, Microsoft can't win against Tux. They can only delay the inevitable.
You mean fixed by adopting a "white list?"
I'm all for it.
"New products like this make me feel like I'm not keeping up fast enough. I bought a 100GB drive last spring and it's not even half full yet!"
Oh stop bragging! My MOBO won't even take any drive bigger than 30Gb!
It is not an easy balancing act. On the one hand there may be legitimate reasons that a company will share their customer information with each other.
However I'm a bit on the cynical side. I believe that most of the time when people sell email addresses it is to make a profit via the sale. So, you see, I don't believe that they are doing it in my best interests.
There are several reasons that I purposed a complete ban on the sale of email addresses.
First, the most a egregious abuses of the email system comes from people who purchase mass mailing lists. These are neither opt-in addresses or targeted to a particular interest group. They are simply used for 'shotgun' style mailings.
Second, the judicial system needs some teeth for this issue. You may have seen SPAM with the note at the bottom stating something to the effect that 'you are receiving this email because you opted in.' Of course you never did and the spammer knows it, but if push comes to shove the judicial system would be forced to prove that you never opted in. This could be very hard or impossible to do.
I'm open to other ideas but I don't see any being effective.
Okay, so the web designer put the wrong message for the 'No mail' option. It was an embarrassment to the site and somewhat funny to the rest of us but not really all that news worthy.
Oh well, at least I went to there site and read an article that did have value. Apparently the Telecommunications Research and Action Center is asking the FTC to rule that unsolicited commercial email is "deceptive and therefore unlawful"
The email would have to meet certain criteria that are similar to the Washington State's anti-spamming law.
Email would be considered illegal if it:
Misrepresents the sender (in source or routing information)
Misrepresents the subject or content of the email
Fails to provide reliable contact information for the real party in interest
Fails to provide a reliable opt-out system
Is sent to an individual who has opted out or resigned from sender's list, or to whom sending unsolicited, commercial email is otherwise prohibited by law.
Laws like this are seen as being a balance between our rights to privacy and a companies rights to communicate. Unfortunately, with any 'opt-out' strategy, the victim is overwhelmed by SPAM because he/she can not opt out as fast as his or her name is sold.
We really need laws that make the selling of email addresses illegal.
I'm guessing that the subscription has something to do with automatic updates. I think Redhat already has something like that. You pay so much per month which gives you the right to connect to one of their fast servers and have security updates etc. automatically applied.
Mandrake has an automatic update feature for which they do not charge but I'm thinking that they use 3rd party servers that may or may not be secure.
I wouldn't get too upset over the word subscription. It doesn't mean that they are going to stop abiding by the GPL. You'll still be able to get Redhat for free but with a subscription you'll get added value.
I think a giant air bag would be much more effective if used in conjunction with a planetary seat belt.
We could install planetary windshield wipers for the small asteroids. I mean there is no sense is wasting a perfectly good air bag on the small stuff. I think a planetary shoulder harness would be good also but I'm not sure where to fasten it. I figure that my town is the anus of the earth so that would put the shoulder somewhere in eastern Canada I figure.
If Bush is determined to go to war with Iraq we could use that area as our planetary ash tray.
I'm glad you are wearing your flameproof suit because I'm lighting up my flamethrower right now! :-)
The point is not just that Microsoft play's hardball. In business we expect some of that. The real issue is that Microsoft being a monopoly has to be careful to not break the law by abusing its monopoly power.
I hope that you see that including a broken version of Java in an OS that virtually everyone in the world would use knowing that this would undermine the competition is unfair and illegal.
If we sit back and say "well that's just the way the game is played" then anyone starting competing business with Microsoft may as well just give up and go on welfare because competing against an 800 pound gorilla is difficult even if the gorilla plays fair but impossible if it cheats.
"5 years ago Netscape was the king of the browsers -- nothing else came close. When MS released it's browser they out leaped Netscape by offering faster JVM and better compatibility."
Give me a break! Microsoft didn't just release it's own browser, they integrated it into the OS so that everyone had it, like it or not.
And their first browser wasn't better than Netscape's. As I recall, it really sucked out loud. I doubt that IE would have become the number one used browser if Microsoft hadn't abused their monopoly power.
Right, I'm obviously a "luser" because I replied to a post that may have come from a complete beginner. You of course are not a "luser" because you insulted me for trying to be helpful. You're not a luser just a complete jerk.
Well it looks like I'm going to be buying another book. I've been looking for a good way to document object-oriented programs for a LONG time. I've heard about UML and browsed a few web pages but just didn't really understand it well enough to see it's value. Maybe this book will get me through the learning curve.
Could someone who really understands UML tell me if it will handle documenting object-oriented programs that use third party objects? For example, if I code something using Borland's Kylix, I may not have the source code to some of the components that I'll be using. How does one effectively document in this situation?
UML = Unified Modeling Language
oops, I said statically linked and I meant dynamically linked. (Linked at run time.)
"I think that's what I got out of the ref'd whitepaper, but also doesn't it say that you only have to release source upon request within 3 years? Or did I just misunderstand."
Well, if you mean by "within 3 years" that you can wait three years before turning over the source then I believe you misunderstand that part. The offer to turn over the source must be good for three years after you release the binaries. So if you get a request for the source the very next day after releasing the binaries you must honor that request within a reasonable time.
"Also, the linking, kern module, and other issues are an extremely big question mark, IMHO, even though the author cites precedent as answering the question for us, ie, the existence of binary only kernel drivers, and programs linking with GPL'd shared libs."
Yes, this also concerns me. I could see it going either way. I think that Linus should make it clear that for the kernel, statically linked hardware device drivers are acceptable.
We need to allow hardware vendors to support us and yet we must not allow some jerk to take GPL'd code and compile it into an "so" file on Linux or "DLL" on windows and feel that they don't have to follow the GPL license.
"One striking example is that the GPL'd games for Linux always tend to variations of Tetris, Boulder Dash, Missile Command, etc. You would expect the innovative games to be coming out for Linux: no pressure from marketing, free development tools, big community. But the games with spark, like The Sims and Grand Theft Auto 3 are coming from elsewhere."
I run Linux exclusively at home and it is true that popular big name games are few and far between but there are the exceptions. Look at Quake 3. The Linux version has better frame rates than the Windows version if you are using NVIDIA's OpenGL drivers.
Linux has been traveling a long road; uphill and against the wind. Microsoft has done everything to try to stop Linux but it can't be stopped. It can't be bought, bribed, threatened into submit ion, outlawed, or destroyed by FUD. In short, none of Microsoft's usual tools work against Linux.
Does this mean that Linux will be the most popular OS immediately?
No. Linux needs a critical mass of users before proprietary software companies will consider it a viable platform on which to develop products. It also needs a critical mass of products to draw in users. This is a classic 'Catch 22.'
I believe that we are approaching the critical mass of software. The visibility that companies like IBM, SUN, HP, Compaq and others are giving Linux is a big help. The fact that Linux is a great operating system with lots of great free software means nothing if no one hears about it.
So, the growth has been slow but we are nearing those critical masses that will rocket Linux into the public consciousness.
Actually, everything he said was 99% true. Not eloquently stated but defiantly true.
If you create a piece of software that is based on another GPL'd software then your software must be covered by the original GPL license. You are not under any obligation to release the binaries or source. However, if you do release the binaries you must make the source available upon request.
This effectively prevents someone from making changes to a GPL'd product and then sell the changes for a high price. They could do it but the buyer would have the right to distribute the code for free thus killing the seller's market.
The only part that I disagree with is that because the programmer is being paid to product the product his employer would have the exclusive right to initially release the code. So unless the employer released to code to the programmer, the programmer couldn't release it to the general public.
If I am incorrect, perhaps you could point me to the paragraph in the GPL license that supports your position.
"... I'd say that not only do I have a better idea what the RIAA is and what it does, I have a much greater understanding of the music industry."
Apparently not.
You really don't have a clue about what the RIAA really is do you?
I see nothing but FUD in the "Redhat is the Redmond of Linux" bullshit. Under the GNU license I doubt that anyone can become another evil monopolistic empire.
"Why not? Look, they're competing with FREE trading networks..."
The "FREE" trading network you are talking about I assume is the file swapping going on with P2P programs. They are not "competing" with these. People who trade copyrighted material without the copyright holder's permission are not competing, they are breaking the law by infringing on those copyrights. And yes, I know that some trading is legal if done with the copyright holders blessings.
I'm not saying that it shouldn't be cheaper than a packaged product but definitely not dirt cheap. There will still be expenses and compensation to the artists and unfortunately to the RIAA.
Even if the early LEGAL file trading businesses are more expensive than CDs, once established as a viable and legitimate business, competition should drive prices down. The most important thing is that we bust up the RIAA. As long as they maintain a monopoly on music prices won't fall. These are the real middle men. They are not really interested in the artists or the consumer. They are a group of parasites that need to be eliminated.