So Apple behave like a proprietary software/hardware company and try and control information. Big deal. They are not a charity or a co-operative, but a company.
Sorry, folks - he may be a bit freaky, but RMS is right - proprietary software and hardware hurts us all.
No, this is not a flame. It is a reminder. This is how companies behave. This is how they are supposed to behave. And this is why free software/OSS (I don't buy into the theology, just the liberation) exists.
This, if I may be so bold, is total garbage. Consoles may not have much hardware, but what they do have smashes all those crappy ia32 machines - armed with a hardware mindset that even Bill Gates was moved to call "brain dead" a decade and half ago (well, almost - 12, 15, who's counting?) - that we are all using into outer space.
$50 buys you a Dreamcast - better graphics than a PCI graphics card for the same price.
The zx80 keyboard? Well, it had no keys at all, really - just patches of plastic you had to run your finger over to get the characters to appear on the screen.
Thene there was the zxspectrum keyboard - memorably described as having the texture of the flesh of a dead fish.
My keyboard is full of button (HP internet extensions) which Linux seems unable to use properly - I have tried avrious solutions, but none works well. There is a specific driver for this keyboard too, but it doesn't seem to drive the extra keys AFAICS.
...don't the Linux vendors (especially IBM) flog this issue for all it's worth? I really think this is where the fight for market share should be.
However, the fact that it isn't makes me think that the vendors aren't entirely confident with the Linux security offer.
Perhaps it's too technical - there are plenty of security patches for GNU/GPL/Linux - I use that title advisedly, as they are rarely in the kernel (at least one a week AFAICS) - but they are generally on a faster turnaround than MS. But it's still not brilliant....hmmmm. Must think about this some more.
The real power of these devices will be seen if the potential of wireless networking to be a community resource that takes internetworking out of the hands of the mega-corporates.
So these have a lot more potential than a GPRS phone.
This is not a Government Bill - so has no real chance of getting passed - especially as it has been introduced so late in the session. I don't think it's even had a 2nd Reading debate.
Nice try, guys. But you need to update yourselves on the UK constitution.
...because I am one of those people trying to seriously encourage community wireless and if that activity is seen to be some sort of cracker plot it will be damaged.
I want the local computer users near me to buy wireless cards and log into my node, they aren't going to buy the cards if they think somebody is going to use them to steal their data.
It means you are using a lame encryption method that hackers are definately gonna want to break in to.
Actually it means Wire Equivalent Privacy or something like that, it's a MAC level security system. But it's busted.
Lots of things contributed to public access to the internet - it's not simply a question of business versus state.
But there is a wider question here So what if business built the internet. We - the people - are sovereign, not the CEOs. If we decide we want the internet to change or we wnat to restrict business activities in favour of community activities then that is our right.
"Business" is not sacred - why else do the mafia refer to their work as "business" after all?
Err, no. This will never happen because when some engineer on the Moon knocks the antenna out of alignment, the beam will frag New York or cause the Atlantic to boil.
The really depressing thing about all these browser statistics is that they punch through the geek bubble and remind you just how few people are using 'nix based systems.
Granted, some of the IE users will be on OS X, but not many.
And the majority of Netscape and Opera users will be on Windows and quite possibly the majority of Mozilla users too.
I love Linux, I would never dream of giving it up now. But clearly, I am eccentric in that regard.
Hell, even now I am posting this off IE5 and NT4 (not my system).
A lot of good points, but the Cathedral/Bazaar point is still a good one.
The argument here seems to be people make free-as-in-beer software because its cheap. But they may also do it because it produces better software (therefore reducing the TOC for the other products).
These two things are not necessarily in conflict.
Frankly, I also think that a number of arguments used are pure Aunt Sallys. Has anyone ever really said IBM have converted to communism? If so, which mental institution were they speaking from at the time?
Server and browser software is independent of each other
Back in the day, the internet was very much the new new thing and so a commoditised browser was important - the point the article doesn't make is that Netscape wanted one, MS delivered it when they made theirs "free".
No, because the application data here is stored locally, and not on the server. But how much of a difference that will make is open to question as, the data has to be uploaded at the start and downloaded at the end.
For those that don't know this company is what was formerly the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency - ie the UK military's top secret researchers.
Following the election of Labour to power in 1997 the new government decided that the end of the cold war meant that this operation should make its own way in the commericial world. It's still government owned, at present, but will be sold off to the private sector at some time.
In effect these are the guys that gave the world radar and much else besides, So they mean business!
Slashdot Mirror
Because that is all that fool Geordie could read.
Stands Scotland where it did?
If you don't get it read up some history.
So Apple behave like a proprietary software/hardware company and try and control information. Big deal. They are not a charity or a co-operative, but a company.
Sorry, folks - he may be a bit freaky, but RMS is right - proprietary software and hardware hurts us all.
No, this is not a flame. It is a reminder. This is how companies behave. This is how they are supposed to behave. And this is why free software/OSS (I don't buy into the theology, just the liberation) exists.
Get over it.
Yes, but us DC users have been running apache for over a year. About time you visted us on your jonnie-come-lately console. Bah!
Most console hardware blows chunks.
This, if I may be so bold, is total garbage. Consoles may not have much hardware, but what they do have smashes all those crappy ia32 machines - armed with a hardware mindset that even Bill Gates was moved to call "brain dead" a decade and half ago (well, almost - 12, 15, who's counting?) - that we are all using into outer space.
$50 buys you a Dreamcast - better graphics than a PCI graphics card for the same price.
Seems to me these boxes would be ideal for a bit of streaming - load the DVD in and away you go. Anybody doing that?
BBC Northern Ireland ran this as an April Fool's Joke in 1974. They said it was going to be a consequence of joining the EEC.
The zx80 keyboard? Well, it had no keys at all, really - just patches of plastic you had to run your finger over to get the characters to appear on the screen.
Thene there was the zxspectrum keyboard - memorably described as having the texture of the flesh of a dead fish.
My keyboard is full of button (HP internet extensions) which Linux seems unable to use properly - I have tried avrious solutions, but none works well. There is a specific driver for this keyboard too, but it doesn't seem to drive the extra keys AFAICS.
Eh? Answer me that then.
Better off buying a Dreamcast!
...don't the Linux vendors (especially IBM) flog this issue for all it's worth? I really think this is where the fight for market share should be.
However, the fact that it isn't makes me think that the vendors aren't entirely confident with the Linux security offer.
Perhaps it's too technical - there are plenty of security patches for GNU/GPL/Linux - I use that title advisedly, as they are rarely in the kernel (at least one a week AFAICS) - but they are generally on a faster turnaround than MS. But it's still not brilliant....hmmmm. Must think about this some more.
The real power of these devices will be seen if the potential of wireless networking to be a community resource that takes internetworking out of the hands of the mega-corporates.
So these have a lot more potential than a GPRS phone.
This is not a Government Bill - so has no real chance of getting passed - especially as it has been introduced so late in the session. I don't think it's even had a 2nd Reading debate.
Nice try, guys. But you need to update yourselves on the UK constitution.
...because I am one of those people trying to seriously encourage community wireless and if that activity is seen to be some sort of cracker plot it will be damaged.
I want the local computer users near me to buy wireless cards and log into my node, they aren't going to buy the cards if they think somebody is going to use them to steal their data.
It means you are using a lame encryption method that hackers are definately gonna want to break in to. Actually it means Wire Equivalent Privacy or something like that, it's a MAC level security system. But it's busted.
As you can run Linux on your DC you will have no problem with MAME.
The one real one in existence - GWB - has already been bought by MS and the oil companies.
Lots of things contributed to public access to the internet - it's not simply a question of business versus state.
But there is a wider question here So what if business built the internet. We - the people - are sovereign, not the CEOs. If we decide we want the internet to change or we wnat to restrict business activities in favour of community activities then that is our right.
"Business" is not sacred - why else do the mafia refer to their work as "business" after all?
Lived in Europe?
Err, no. This will never happen because when some engineer on the Moon knocks the antenna out of alignment, the beam will frag New York or cause the Atlantic to boil.
The really depressing thing about all these browser statistics is that they punch through the geek bubble and remind you just how few people are using 'nix based systems.
Granted, some of the IE users will be on OS X, but not many.
And the majority of Netscape and Opera users will be on Windows and quite possibly the majority of Mozilla users too.
I love Linux, I would never dream of giving it up now. But clearly, I am eccentric in that regard.
Hell, even now I am posting this off IE5 and NT4 (not my system).
A lot of good points, but the Cathedral/Bazaar point is still a good one.
The argument here seems to be people make free-as-in-beer software because its cheap. But they may also do it because it produces better software (therefore reducing the TOC for the other products).
These two things are not necessarily in conflict.
Frankly, I also think that a number of arguments used are pure Aunt Sallys. Has anyone ever really said IBM have converted to communism? If so, which mental institution were they speaking from at the time?
Server and browser software is independent of each other
Back in the day, the internet was very much the new new thing and so a commoditised browser was important - the point the article doesn't make is that Netscape wanted one, MS delivered it when they made theirs "free".
it's just VNC, isn't it
No, because the application data here is stored locally, and not on the server. But how much of a difference that will make is open to question as, the data has to be uploaded at the start and downloaded at the end.
Anyone who has used X over a 28.8 line will tell you that it's possible but it's not pretty. I am not convinced that this will be much better.
I could see that some big corporates might like something like this - but I am not sure it has a wider market awaiting it.
That explains driving over there then...
For those that don't know this company is what was formerly the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency - ie the UK military's top secret researchers.
Following the election of Labour to power in 1997 the new government decided that the end of the cold war meant that this operation should make its own way in the commericial world. It's still government owned, at present, but will be sold off to the private sector at some time.
In effect these are the guys that gave the world radar and much else besides, So they mean business!