Crippling access to anything often denies legitimate uses of things and forces the employees to come up with outrageous work-arounds if they're smart enough. If they're not, then they just bother the IT staff to death with a million questions as to why they can't do the research needed, or recieve the.exe file that they need to complete their work.
I remember being in a school that had open internet access, then going to another school that had limited internet access and constantly being frustrated by the limitations imposed. I couldn't download the application I was working on and test it on a new machine, I couldn't go to a website talking about Middlesex county. There were a lot of legitimate things that I wished to do that I was blocked from, yet I could go to satanic websites, pro-life websites with all sorts of horrid imagery, and more.
Most attempts at controlling content end up being failures. Bring this to the attention of those seeking to control the information you recieve and you'll get a confused look, they'll pause and say "I don't know why you couldn't access that site. You should be able to."
I think it would be better to leave things open and dock the pay of any employee who violates "Guidelines". Let 'em hang themselves. Set up the "filters" not as filters that block the person but as flags that flag the IT staff regarding potential illegal use. The IT staff could then investiage and initiate a "three strikes" scenario. Strike one- warning, strike 2- docked pay, strike 3- no more internet access no way no how.
Reliable hardware? Hah. Macs have anything but. Haven't you heard of the high incidence of data corruption, motherboard death, and just plain old non-upgradeability? I should know, I've got a G3 of my own as well as quite a few other Macs that I "look after" as a Sysadmin. My mom has an emachine and as she's known to abuse hardware to death, it hasn't died on her yet but I'm happy to know that if it *DOES* die on her then I can replace pretty much any part in it for under a hundred dollars. Including the motherboard. A mac motherboard dies? Last time I looked for motherboards for the old beige G3s they were still over $200. And I'm not talking a long time ago. (3-4 months)
(Please note: I was a Mac person for 2 years. I loved OS 8-9 but repeated hardware problems and software issues drove me back to the x86. I am NOT coming at this from the stereotypical Windoze user who has never touched a Mac. Most of the computers I work with on a day-to-day basis *ARE* macs.)
As for OS X being easy, no. I "picked Linux up" much faster than it took me to learn OS X even coming from a Linux background. (I learned Linux while coming from a Windows/Mac background)I find the OS to be kludgy in how things are arranged and how it attempts to simultaneously limit control over things while having the amazing power of its BSD roots lurking in the background requiring the user to go out of the way to unlock them. Maybe I'm a bit blind, but I don't see how "Consumer" and "Unix" mix, or even how it's necessary. Weren't Mac users making fun of Windows not too long ago because it had a command line? Because it was basically a shell? Because it was hard to learn? Suddenly an about-face. I loved the old Mac OS for what it was, and don't see OS X taking its place for at least another year.
Now.. As for the rest of what you said, we're talking about cheap computers. Personally, I wouldn't use either the emachine or the 500 mhz blue iMac. I'd go for a workstation, and the benefits are even more dramatic for workstations. (Dual processor Athalon MP 1900+, 1.5 gigs of ECC Registered DDR RAM, Lian-Li case, ELSA/Gloria 64MB video card, 80 gig HD, 20 gig HD, 400 watt power supply, 24x CD-RW, CD-ROM, etc. For less than the price of the basic G4 workstation.)
No matter how you hack it, PC hardware is cheaper EVEN IF you go with the most reliable "premium" parts. There *are* benefits to the Mac, but right now they're few and far between.
The world doesn't quite work that way. Companies usually hire IT staff based on what products they know, as IT people seldom bother to learn more than a single platform and skillset. A company wants a quick way to scan through resumes and look for the skillset they need in an employee.
A "general certification" would be like looking through the yellowpages for an optometrist and only seeing row after row of "General practice" Yes, you can be sure that the "General practice" doctors will recognize pinkeye or some other eye problems but you're looking for someone who specializes. MS-based companies do not want someone who has some skills with MS software but whose main skillset lies elsewhere.
That said, I don't think that certification => experience and I think companies often make the mistake of hiring someone just because they have certification. Personally, I prefer platform-neutral people who are able to make informed reccomendations about what platform is best for a particular task, but that also are able to use the platform AVAILABLE whether or not it is optimal.
It's doing something else. It's saying "We run Windows applications better than Windows does. We do everything Windows does only better than Windows does. If you buy Lindows you don't need Windows" (Yes, it's not as blatant as that, but that's essentially the lure of Lindows.)
Part of the planned Lindows market is businesses/eductational institutions. If you tell me that the people running the IT department are smart enough to realize "Oh, this definitely isn't Windows even though it runs Windows programs and sounds a LOT like Windows and even mentions Windows a bunch in their literature and stuff..." then... You've got more faith in the average human being than I do. =]
I got "away" from talking about trademark law, I know. I repeatedly say that "Windows" cannot be a trademark no matter what MS says. However, I believe that Lindows' use of the name "Lindows" is dishonest and unfair to MS. (Yes, I believe little guys can be unfair to big guys.) I also believe that MS does not have a leg to stand on as far as that goes and that they shouldn't have allowed it to get as far as it has (attempting to bring Lindows to court for trademark issues)
My point is that much like the fake gucci handbags you see on the streets, 'Lindows' is attempting to take advantage of the 'Windows' reputation. Do you think the layman will look past "It runs your Windows programs better than Windows does... It's Lindows!" and see that the "Gucci handbag" on the street is, in fact, a rip-off? (BTW- Gucci is much like Windows in that it cannot trademark the term Gucci since it is a name.)
Yes, Lindows is saying "We're not Windows" but it's also saying "We do what Windows does only better".
Will "Lucci" handbags that look exactly the same as Gucci handbags slip past the law somehow? Even if their selling point is 'We're not Gucci, we hold your keys better'? They're still obviously attempting to take advantage o the reputation of Gucci.
Trademark law shouldn't have come into it, but some other part of the law should have.
Hm. I don't know about the legalities of it, but "riding piggyback" does seem a bit shady to me. MS Windows is an OS. Lindows is an OS that is trying to give people an alternative to Windows. The purpose of naming it "Lindows" is that it's combining LINux and winDOWS. I do not believe that there will be confusion between the two, however I believe that it is unfair business practice to purposefully use part of a better-known product's name in a product whose hope is to replace that better-known product in at least a handful of situations. I also believe that if trademark law doesn't cover that, it should. Windows, while it shouldn't be allowed to be a trademark it obviously has become part of the project's image as clearly as "Uh Oh" has become branded with Spaghettios and "Gimme a break" is branded with Kit-Kat. Both phrases have been around longer than the products... But if you see another candybar using "Gimme a break" then you're going to percieve it as a rip-off of the Kit-Kat.
If your company has "Product A", and another company attempts to create "Product B" to replace your product you're not going to be happy. If they name it with a name that is so similar to the name you use and you realize that most of your userbase (most people) are morons who are easy to confuse, and that "Product B" is going to market itself as being more stable than your product, yadda yadda yadda-- you're not going to want them to have a name that is similar to your product name because you've spent years branding it and you don't think Product B should come along and be able to take advantage of that.
Of course, you/we probably wouldn't be so stupid as to name it something generic. =]
Hm. I like the idea of faking a particular author, or easier- masking the author of origin by taking the language and translating it into a generic predetermined "pattern" somehow-- Like a program that would take a signature and convert it into arial size 12. Basically removing the authors signature style and replacing it with the signature style of the software/computer.
Sort of like writing in all block letters or typing letters into the computer- a raised level of anonomity. Not only would the handwriting be unrecognized but so would the flow.
Hm. Just playing devil's advocate here for a second.
1- "Windows", whether or not it's trademarkable is seldom called "Microsoft Windows" in the common household. It is "Windows" plain and simple. While this is MS's fault for choosing something that would *obviously* be shortened to "Windows" and thus be un-trademarkable, the public still associates "Windows" with MS.
2- Lindows is an operating system designed to take place of Windows by allowing you to run Windows apps without running Windows.
3- Lindows is an obvious play on the name "Windows", and it's unlikely that it was 'accidental' or based on something else such as "LinuxwINDOWSystem" or somesuch. Based on it's goal : Offer users the ability to run Windows apps in a Linux environment... Sorry, it's unlikely that they were NOT aware of it.
Normally I'd say that the whole idea of trademarking a common name was absurd, but seeing as Lindows' target is *The MS Windows User*, I have to admit that using "Lindows" was both asking for trouble and attempting to profit off of the established image of another company whether or not the word used was trademarked by said company or not.
It is not impossible to prove that the emails were genuine. People have a "voice" in email just as they have in real life, and it's difficult to fake the 'voice' just as it's difficult to forge a signature.
Think about it. We all have the words we misspell frequently, the misplaced punctuation, the way of phrasing things, our capitalization or lack thereof, and words we unwittingly switch. (There-their, effects-affects) People have been 'caught' by their writing style before (I'm thinking Unibomber?)
If there are enough emails over a long enough period of time, then forgery becomes quite impossible. On the other hand- forgery is easy to fake--Simply alter your way of writing and avoid the things you usually say-- throw in a few mispelled words that you never would have 'accidentally' mispelled, misplace a few commas. Just randomly. It might throw someone off track if you say "Hey, that doesn't match my 'print'."
Of course there's still records from your ISP.
I think it would be easier to falsely claim a verbal contract.
I don't think the point is 'Quicktime is expensive' I think the point is 'Quicktime is not opensource' The appeal of Opensource is not "It's free", it's "I can look at the source, I can modify the source, I can tweak the source, I can port the source to the platform of my choice and not be tied to what some company wants me to use."
I'm not thinking of the cost of replacing the cards. I'm thinking of the end-user. Does the 'smartcard' make it apparent that it has self destructed, or will the owner go to do something with it- be it take a trip to another country or buy dinner at a restaurant... Something where it is necessary to use the smartcard and discover that something has happened that caused the card to self-destruct leaving the person unable to make the trip as planned or pay for the dinner they have just consumed?
And if the smartcard was being used solely for the purpose of establishing identity--such as a driver's license, are the police going to be understanding about "Oh my god the dog must have bitten it!" and won't it just open up a whole new can of worms where people are getting by security becuase their cards have self destructed and no one wants to second-guess them and deny them access?
I'm just wondering if it's all that smart to have self-destructing methods of identification or payment. Unless the self destruction is made immediately apparent then it could be quite a flawed way of dealing with things.
Regarding "Proprietary X" not being able to make the deadline, the scenario I outlined was in regards to "Proprietary Y" *INTERFERING* with the ability of "Opensource X" to purposefully push them past the deadline with the intention of purchasing the source code as the highest bidder. It is unlikely that "Opensource Y" would be able to sufficiently interfere with the deadlines of "Proprietary X".
The difference between Opensource and Proprietary software can be explained such as this: "Open source software makes the 'recipe' available to those who wish to bake their own, allowing them to modify the recipe. Proprietary programs only sell the pre-packaged baked goods." I explained it to my Grandmother who is still calling her mouse a rat. I think judges are intelligent enough to understand the concepts of "This makes this available for x amount of money while this makes this available PLUS the recipe for free."
Regarding the bug in PHP- you say it was just discovered 2 weeks ago? According to PHP as of Feb. 27th there is a fix. Either you're off about the date of the bug being 'discovered' or the response time is a phenomenon where the bug is fixed prior to being discovered.;) Either that or another bug has been discovered along the same lines and has not been announced. Remember, we're not discussing undiscovered bugs that exist in the software and asking that developers be able to predict everything. We're talking the discovery time:time to patch ratio. In the Opensource community it is habitually lower with patches coming out every time a bug is discovered and a patch made available. If you're wrong about the date that the bug was discovered and the bug has actually been common knowledge since PHP3 then yes, the OSS community is in error, however it is a VOLUNTEER effort and should not be required to follow any standards higher than notifying the public of the bug's existence so that they can take the necessary measures to disable problematic parts of the program or temporarily replace it with an alternative. Proprietary code often has no viable alternative--Are people able to pay a few hundred dollars to switch from an application they've already paid a few hundred dollars for to another one? The ability to switch mid-race to another opensource program is unimpeded by monetary concerns.
Finally- on the concept of "All or nothing", law is never "All or nothing". There are many shades of gray and different groups are treated differently. For example, Apple is allowed to get away with business practices that MS would find themselves back in court for. Apple has a smaller marketshare and thus is not considered to be violating antitrust laws even when they are using unfair business tactics. I do not think it's unfair for the law to recognize that the Opensource community has limited funding and cannot hire the extra manpower that it might take to make the patches, while 'Proprietary Company X' has charged for their software and has essentially promised them a service that it should be bound to deliver.
And who would obtain the rights to the license? Would the government sieze the license and auction it off to the highest bidder?
How, then, would we prevent someone such as... Microsoft? from interfering with the development of a variety of different opensource groups and purchasing the licenses to the software so as to have the ability to eliminate them from the competition? Scenario A: Microsoft repeatedly hires top developers (buying them off) from Linux Distribution X, resulting the failure of Linux Distribution X because bugs cannot be patched according to the timeline. Distribution X has no money to buy their developers back. Microsoft then bids on and wins the license to Distribution X... (Of course this couldn't work with Linux distro's since Distribution X isn't "Linux" or any of the underlying applications, so they'd actually have to exploit this 'law' across the several hundred pieces that make up Distribution X... But you get my point. =])
"Open source" is community. "Proprietary" is not. Releasing source to the public would allow them to repair the bug--proprietary groups can easily take opensource and fix the bug.
According to the Maya and XSI demo artists at Linuxworld NY (Jan) it sounded like "Major studios" are Linux-based and were responsible for the applications being ported to Linux. Apparently quite a few larger shops are using Linux, while mid-sized and smaller shops are using WinNT.
I thought paypal locked up paypal accounts (which only have money in them until the funds are transfered into the 'actual' bank.) I don't think Paypal can actually lock you out of your actual account at the bank. (Unless you spend every penny you have, but that's not paypal, that's you.)
Cool idea. Find an app you really like and then refuse to buy it until it goes out of business then try to get the owners of the source to donate it to the 'community' that put them out of business.;)
Let's see. Who do we want to put out of business today?
And what are the signs the card is being tampered with? What happens if you accidentally put the card through the laundry? (Lots of water, tumbling, chemicals, heat, and static electricity) I could see a dumb smart card getting confused.
Self-destruct features could be rather interesting if true to corporate form: poorly planned and badly implemented. I'm already anticipating a 'joke' email going around with gads of stories of smartcards committing suicide at inopportune times. Not to mention slashdot stories about people who have managed to come up with a device capable of telling all smartcards within a 10 mile radius that they are being tampered with.
I'm definitely not for "equal fines" that would force opensource developers to patch their work, which has been donated to the community. The only 'sanction' I'd wish placed on them would be public notification of known bugs on the primary site of distribution. This wouldn't be much of an issue seeing as it's already fairly common among opensource groups, and quite a few even allow you to sign up for a listserv notifying you of bugs and patches. I'm just saying that we cannot expect Opensource to be disincluded from all liability and that we need to be prepared with an alternate set of sanctions that are to a 'lesser degree' than those that will face the commercial software developers. If we walk into the situation saying "We don't want any rules to apply to us at all" then we'll walk out extremely unhappy as there WILL be rules that apply to us and they might be more strict than if we were to suggest *which* rules should apply. I see nothing wrong with an extremely limited liability for opensource groups. The initial effort is a volunteer effort, the patching is a volunteer effort, and the software is given out for free to benefit people. Liability should be limited to making known bugs available.
That said, the courts *love* precendent, and if there is any precendent of volunteer efforts being excused from liability then that could work to our benefit. If, on the other hand, there have been cases that rule that volunteers *are* liable, then... If there is nothing that might apply, then we will be responsible for establishing the initial rules. Is life really that perfect? =]
Are there any cases in which a judge has ruled that volunteers cannot be held liable for their volunteer efforts? Or that programmers cannot be held liable for their code?
Slashdot Mirror
Dear sir,
::wanders off to look for the coffee pot::
Please speak to my employer.
-Sara
[slashdot for mental health!]
Crippling access to anything often denies legitimate uses of things and forces the employees to come up with outrageous work-arounds if they're smart enough. If they're not, then they just bother the IT staff to death with a million questions as to why they can't do the research needed, or recieve the .exe file that they need to complete their work.
I remember being in a school that had open internet access, then going to another school that had limited internet access and constantly being frustrated by the limitations imposed. I couldn't download the application I was working on and test it on a new machine, I couldn't go to a website talking about Middlesex county. There were a lot of legitimate things that I wished to do that I was blocked from, yet I could go to satanic websites, pro-life websites with all sorts of horrid imagery, and more.
Most attempts at controlling content end up being failures. Bring this to the attention of those seeking to control the information you recieve and you'll get a confused look, they'll pause and say "I don't know why you couldn't access that site. You should be able to."
I think it would be better to leave things open and dock the pay of any employee who violates "Guidelines". Let 'em hang themselves. Set up the "filters" not as filters that block the person but as flags that flag the IT staff regarding potential illegal use. The IT staff could then investiage and initiate a "three strikes" scenario. Strike one- warning, strike 2- docked pay, strike 3- no more internet access no way no how.
-Sara
Reliable hardware? Hah. Macs have anything but. Haven't you heard of the high incidence of data corruption, motherboard death, and just plain old non-upgradeability? I should know, I've got a G3 of my own as well as quite a few other Macs that I "look after" as a Sysadmin. My mom has an emachine and as she's known to abuse hardware to death, it hasn't died on her yet but I'm happy to know that if it *DOES* die on her then I can replace pretty much any part in it for under a hundred dollars. Including the motherboard. A mac motherboard dies? Last time I looked for motherboards for the old beige G3s they were still over $200. And I'm not talking a long time ago. (3-4 months)
(Please note: I was a Mac person for 2 years. I loved OS 8-9 but repeated hardware problems and software issues drove me back to the x86. I am NOT coming at this from the stereotypical Windoze user who has never touched a Mac. Most of the computers I work with on a day-to-day basis *ARE* macs.)
As for OS X being easy, no. I "picked Linux up" much faster than it took me to learn OS X even coming from a Linux background. (I learned Linux while coming from a Windows/Mac background)I find the OS to be kludgy in how things are arranged and how it attempts to simultaneously limit control over things while having the amazing power of its BSD roots lurking in the background requiring the user to go out of the way to unlock them. Maybe I'm a bit blind, but I don't see how "Consumer" and "Unix" mix, or even how it's necessary. Weren't Mac users making fun of Windows not too long ago because it had a command line? Because it was basically a shell? Because it was hard to learn? Suddenly an about-face. I loved the old Mac OS for what it was, and don't see OS X taking its place for at least another year.
Now.. As for the rest of what you said, we're talking about cheap computers. Personally, I wouldn't use either the emachine or the 500 mhz blue iMac. I'd go for a workstation, and the benefits are even more dramatic for workstations. (Dual processor Athalon MP 1900+, 1.5 gigs of ECC Registered DDR RAM, Lian-Li case, ELSA/Gloria 64MB video card, 80 gig HD, 20 gig HD, 400 watt power supply, 24x CD-RW, CD-ROM, etc. For less than the price of the basic G4 workstation.)
No matter how you hack it, PC hardware is cheaper EVEN IF you go with the most reliable "premium" parts. There *are* benefits to the Mac, but right now they're few and far between.
I await the expected lowering of my karma. *sigh*
-Sara
The world doesn't quite work that way. Companies usually hire IT staff based on what products they know, as IT people seldom bother to learn more than a single platform and skillset. A company wants a quick way to scan through resumes and look for the skillset they need in an employee.
A "general certification" would be like looking through the yellowpages for an optometrist and only seeing row after row of "General practice" Yes, you can be sure that the "General practice" doctors will recognize pinkeye or some other eye problems but you're looking for someone who specializes. MS-based companies do not want someone who has some skills with MS software but whose main skillset lies elsewhere.
That said, I don't think that certification => experience and I think companies often make the mistake of hiring someone just because they have certification. Personally, I prefer platform-neutral people who are able to make informed reccomendations about what platform is best for a particular task, but that also are able to use the platform AVAILABLE whether or not it is optimal.
-Sara
Is there a drive-in CompUSA so that we can get our free copies of Office for OS X?
It's doing something else. It's saying "We run Windows applications better than Windows does. We do everything Windows does only better than Windows does. If you buy Lindows you don't need Windows" (Yes, it's not as blatant as that, but that's essentially the lure of Lindows.)
Part of the planned Lindows market is businesses/eductational institutions. If you tell me that the people running the IT department are smart enough to realize "Oh, this definitely isn't Windows even though it runs Windows programs and sounds a LOT like Windows and even mentions Windows a bunch in their literature and stuff..." then... You've got more faith in the average human being than I do. =]
-Sara
I got "away" from talking about trademark law, I know. I repeatedly say that "Windows" cannot be a trademark no matter what MS says. However, I believe that Lindows' use of the name "Lindows" is dishonest and unfair to MS. (Yes, I believe little guys can be unfair to big guys.) I also believe that MS does not have a leg to stand on as far as that goes and that they shouldn't have allowed it to get as far as it has (attempting to bring Lindows to court for trademark issues)
My point is that much like the fake gucci handbags you see on the streets, 'Lindows' is attempting to take advantage of the 'Windows' reputation. Do you think the layman will look past "It runs your Windows programs better than Windows does... It's Lindows!" and see that the "Gucci handbag" on the street is, in fact, a rip-off? (BTW- Gucci is much like Windows in that it cannot trademark the term Gucci since it is a name.)
Yes, Lindows is saying "We're not Windows" but it's also saying "We do what Windows does only better".
Will "Lucci" handbags that look exactly the same as Gucci handbags slip past the law somehow? Even if their selling point is 'We're not Gucci, we hold your keys better'? They're still obviously attempting to take advantage o the reputation of Gucci.
Trademark law shouldn't have come into it, but some other part of the law should have.
-Sara
Hm. I don't know about the legalities of it, but "riding piggyback" does seem a bit shady to me. MS Windows is an OS. Lindows is an OS that is trying to give people an alternative to Windows. The purpose of naming it "Lindows" is that it's combining LINux and winDOWS. I do not believe that there will be confusion between the two, however I believe that it is unfair business practice to purposefully use part of a better-known product's name in a product whose hope is to replace that better-known product in at least a handful of situations. I also believe that if trademark law doesn't cover that, it should. Windows, while it shouldn't be allowed to be a trademark it obviously has become part of the project's image as clearly as "Uh Oh" has become branded with Spaghettios and "Gimme a break" is branded with Kit-Kat. Both phrases have been around longer than the products... But if you see another candybar using "Gimme a break" then you're going to percieve it as a rip-off of the Kit-Kat.
If your company has "Product A", and another company attempts to create "Product B" to replace your product you're not going to be happy. If they name it with a name that is so similar to the name you use and you realize that most of your userbase (most people) are morons who are easy to confuse, and that "Product B" is going to market itself as being more stable than your product, yadda yadda yadda-- you're not going to want them to have a name that is similar to your product name because you've spent years branding it and you don't think Product B should come along and be able to take advantage of that.
Of course, you/we probably wouldn't be so stupid as to name it something generic. =]
-Sara
Hm. I like the idea of faking a particular author, or easier- masking the author of origin by taking the language and translating it into a generic predetermined "pattern" somehow-- Like a program that would take a signature and convert it into arial size 12. Basically removing the authors signature style and replacing it with the signature style of the software/computer.
Sort of like writing in all block letters or typing letters into the computer- a raised level of anonomity. Not only would the handwriting be unrecognized but so would the flow.
-Sara
Hm. Just playing devil's advocate here for a second.
1- "Windows", whether or not it's trademarkable is seldom called "Microsoft Windows" in the common household. It is "Windows" plain and simple. While this is MS's fault for choosing something that would *obviously* be shortened to "Windows" and thus be un-trademarkable, the public still associates "Windows" with MS.
2- Lindows is an operating system designed to take place of Windows by allowing you to run Windows apps without running Windows.
3- Lindows is an obvious play on the name "Windows", and it's unlikely that it was 'accidental' or based on something else such as "LinuxwINDOWSystem" or somesuch. Based on it's goal : Offer users the ability to run Windows apps in a Linux environment... Sorry, it's unlikely that they were NOT aware of it.
Normally I'd say that the whole idea of trademarking a common name was absurd, but seeing as Lindows' target is *The MS Windows User*, I have to admit that using "Lindows" was both asking for trouble and attempting to profit off of the established image of another company whether or not the word used was trademarked by said company or not.
-Sara
It is not impossible to prove that the emails were genuine. People have a "voice" in email just as they have in real life, and it's difficult to fake the 'voice' just as it's difficult to forge a signature.
Think about it. We all have the words we misspell frequently, the misplaced punctuation, the way of phrasing things, our capitalization or lack thereof, and words we unwittingly switch. (There-their, effects-affects) People have been 'caught' by their writing style before (I'm thinking Unibomber?)
If there are enough emails over a long enough period of time, then forgery becomes quite impossible. On the other hand- forgery is easy to fake--Simply alter your way of writing and avoid the things you usually say-- throw in a few mispelled words that you never would have 'accidentally' mispelled, misplace a few commas. Just randomly. It might throw someone off track if you say "Hey, that doesn't match my 'print'."
Of course there's still records from your ISP. I think it would be easier to falsely claim a verbal contract.
-Sara
I was talking about Quicktime *authoring*, not Darwin Streaming Server. =]
I don't think the point is 'Quicktime is expensive' I think the point is 'Quicktime is not opensource' The appeal of Opensource is not "It's free", it's "I can look at the source, I can modify the source, I can tweak the source, I can port the source to the platform of my choice and not be tied to what some company wants me to use."
-Sara
I'm not thinking of the cost of replacing the cards. I'm thinking of the end-user. Does the 'smartcard' make it apparent that it has self destructed, or will the owner go to do something with it- be it take a trip to another country or buy dinner at a restaurant... Something where it is necessary to use the smartcard and discover that something has happened that caused the card to self-destruct leaving the person unable to make the trip as planned or pay for the dinner they have just consumed?
And if the smartcard was being used solely for the purpose of establishing identity--such as a driver's license, are the police going to be understanding about "Oh my god the dog must have bitten it!" and won't it just open up a whole new can of worms where people are getting by security becuase their cards have self destructed and no one wants to second-guess them and deny them access?
I'm just wondering if it's all that smart to have self-destructing methods of identification or payment. Unless the self destruction is made immediately apparent then it could be quite a flawed way of dealing with things.
-Sara
Regarding "Proprietary X" not being able to make the deadline, the scenario I outlined was in regards to "Proprietary Y" *INTERFERING* with the ability of "Opensource X" to purposefully push them past the deadline with the intention of purchasing the source code as the highest bidder. It is unlikely that "Opensource Y" would be able to sufficiently interfere with the deadlines of "Proprietary X".
;) Either that or another bug has been discovered along the same lines and has not been announced. Remember, we're not discussing undiscovered bugs that exist in the software and asking that developers be able to predict everything. We're talking the discovery time:time to patch ratio. In the Opensource community it is habitually lower with patches coming out every time a bug is discovered and a patch made available. If you're wrong about the date that the bug was discovered and the bug has actually been common knowledge since PHP3 then yes, the OSS community is in error, however it is a VOLUNTEER effort and should not be required to follow any standards higher than notifying the public of the bug's existence so that they can take the necessary measures to disable problematic parts of the program or temporarily replace it with an alternative. Proprietary code often has no viable alternative--Are people able to pay a few hundred dollars to switch from an application they've already paid a few hundred dollars for to another one? The ability to switch mid-race to another opensource program is unimpeded by monetary concerns.
The difference between Opensource and Proprietary software can be explained such as this: "Open source software makes the 'recipe' available to those who wish to bake their own, allowing them to modify the recipe. Proprietary programs only sell the pre-packaged baked goods." I explained it to my Grandmother who is still calling her mouse a rat. I think judges are intelligent enough to understand the concepts of "This makes this available for x amount of money while this makes this available PLUS the recipe for free."
Regarding the bug in PHP- you say it was just discovered 2 weeks ago? According to PHP as of Feb. 27th there is a fix. Either you're off about the date of the bug being 'discovered' or the response time is a phenomenon where the bug is fixed prior to being discovered.
Finally- on the concept of "All or nothing", law is never "All or nothing". There are many shades of gray and different groups are treated differently. For example, Apple is allowed to get away with business practices that MS would find themselves back in court for. Apple has a smaller marketshare and thus is not considered to be violating antitrust laws even when they are using unfair business tactics. I do not think it's unfair for the law to recognize that the Opensource community has limited funding and cannot hire the extra manpower that it might take to make the patches, while 'Proprietary Company X' has charged for their software and has essentially promised them a service that it should be bound to deliver.
-Sara
And who would obtain the rights to the license? Would the government sieze the license and auction it off to the highest bidder?
How, then, would we prevent someone such as... Microsoft? from interfering with the development of a variety of different opensource groups and purchasing the licenses to the software so as to have the ability to eliminate them from the competition? Scenario A: Microsoft repeatedly hires top developers (buying them off) from Linux Distribution X, resulting the failure of Linux Distribution X because bugs cannot be patched according to the timeline. Distribution X has no money to buy their developers back. Microsoft then bids on and wins the license to Distribution X... (Of course this couldn't work with Linux distro's since Distribution X isn't "Linux" or any of the underlying applications, so they'd actually have to exploit this 'law' across the several hundred pieces that make up Distribution X... But you get my point. =])
"Open source" is community. "Proprietary" is not. Releasing source to the public would allow them to repair the bug--proprietary groups can easily take opensource and fix the bug.
-Sara
According to the Maya and XSI demo artists at Linuxworld NY (Jan) it sounded like "Major studios" are Linux-based and were responsible for the applications being ported to Linux. Apparently quite a few larger shops are using Linux, while mid-sized and smaller shops are using WinNT.
-Sara
Then sue them for breach of contract? =] Class action suit? Sue 'em for the source if that's what was promised.
-Sara
I thought paypal locked up paypal accounts (which only have money in them until the funds are transfered into the 'actual' bank.) I don't think Paypal can actually lock you out of your actual account at the bank. (Unless you spend every penny you have, but that's not paypal, that's you.)
-Sara
XSI (Softimage) also runs on Linux. I saw 'em at Linuxworld NY. Neither Maya nor XSI are free/opensource though.
-Sara
Cool idea. Find an app you really like and then refuse to buy it until it goes out of business then try to get the owners of the source to donate it to the 'community' that put them out of business. ;)
Let's see. Who do we want to put out of business today?
-Sara
oh god. A self-destructing smartcard?
And what are the signs the card is being tampered with? What happens if you accidentally put the card through the laundry? (Lots of water, tumbling, chemicals, heat, and static electricity) I could see a dumb smart card getting confused.
Self-destruct features could be rather interesting if true to corporate form: poorly planned and badly implemented. I'm already anticipating a 'joke' email going around with gads of stories of smartcards committing suicide at inopportune times. Not to mention slashdot stories about people who have managed to come up with a device capable of telling all smartcards within a 10 mile radius that they are being tampered with.
-Sara
I'm definitely not for "equal fines" that would force opensource developers to patch their work, which has been donated to the community. The only 'sanction' I'd wish placed on them would be public notification of known bugs on the primary site of distribution. This wouldn't be much of an issue seeing as it's already fairly common among opensource groups, and quite a few even allow you to sign up for a listserv notifying you of bugs and patches. I'm just saying that we cannot expect Opensource to be disincluded from all liability and that we need to be prepared with an alternate set of sanctions that are to a 'lesser degree' than those that will face the commercial software developers. If we walk into the situation saying "We don't want any rules to apply to us at all" then we'll walk out extremely unhappy as there WILL be rules that apply to us and they might be more strict than if we were to suggest *which* rules should apply. I see nothing wrong with an extremely limited liability for opensource groups. The initial effort is a volunteer effort, the patching is a volunteer effort, and the software is given out for free to benefit people. Liability should be limited to making known bugs available.
That said, the courts *love* precendent, and if there is any precendent of volunteer efforts being excused from liability then that could work to our benefit. If, on the other hand, there have been cases that rule that volunteers *are* liable, then... If there is nothing that might apply, then we will be responsible for establishing the initial rules. Is life really that perfect? =]
Are there any cases in which a judge has ruled that volunteers cannot be held liable for their volunteer efforts? Or that programmers cannot be held liable for their code?
-Sara
Geeks have wives?
unless.... Free beer! What strikes closer to the heart of a slashdotter? Except, perhaps, free hardware?