"Nice attempt to dismiss arguments using invective."
Actually I didn't notice I had done so. My apologies.
In my defense it slipped out because "fool" seemed like a description rather than an insult. People who need security above performance can use existing open drivers. Slow, but secure. People who require performance are more likely to be gamers or artists - but probably gamers. For them using a binary from a manufacturer is probably not verboten, or even a bad idea.
And somewhere in the middle is the guy who wants performance, hates binaries, and has to choose between his technology-based morality and his desire to make use of his fancy new hardware.
And dismissing a binary simply because it's a binary, without even considering where the best option lies, seems like a fool to me.
"Even if ATI released 100% working, fast drivers, they would be useless if they weren't OPEN and FREE"
Totally. Unless, well... unless you want to some stuff that requires working, fast drivers. In that unlikely circumstance the drivers would be very useful.
When it comes to closed systems like video cards and their drivers, I think only a fool would turn up his nose at a binary simply because it doesn't come with source code. They should, of course, provide it for any GPL'd libraries they use.
"The two lawsuits [informationweek.com] already filed, with more lawyers lining up to hit the MS gravy train"
These two lawsuits are more applicable, both being for the "scratched disc" issue. However, these class action lawsuits will fail unless they get substantial numbers of claimants. From what I see here, so far there are... well, two claimants. Otherwise it's safe for the court to assume they might just be morons who thought they could move the 360 around while it was running.
We'll see how those play out, but really it's just a forgotten footnote in the tale, financially or news-wise, until the claimants number in the tens of thousands.
If the problem really is due to a manufacturing decision that inevitably leads to scratched discs, why are mine in pristine condition? That's the question I would want answered, were I making a determination of culpability.
"There was also a 60% plunge in 4th quarter sales"
It seems to me that an expensive console like the 360 is going to experience a drop over a year, especially since the competition launched in that period. I'm impressed it only dropped 60%.
"Shareholder suits. 360 sales are way down, 60%, according to MS' own figures."
Unless "reliability suits" means something other than what it seems to mean, "shareholder" suits are not "reliability suits". Besides, isn't Microsoft at a high point for the last calendar year, and didn't they revise their earnings upwards, even after including the billion dollar charge for dealing with the problems?
"...and numbers for 360 after all of the reliability suits..."
Reliability suits? They've agreed to fix all the failed units under warranty, pay back anybody who paid out of pocket for the repairs, and extend the warranty for those units to three years. What kind of suit could possibly exist after these concessions? Is somebody going to seriously try for a mental anguish grab or something?
"Microsoft is scared to death of the free market. In a fair competition of various products, MS would still make money, but not nearly as much as they do now, where they have the entire market captured due to file-format lock-in. This is what makes Microsoft scared. This is why they are being pulled kicking and screaming into the world of open and standards-compliant file formats."
Yeah. Sure. Microsoft is scared of competition in a free market. Because they've failed at it so dramatically in the past.
This "running scared" motif is stupid. Microsoft lives for competition, and they're very, very good at it. If you think they're terrified of a standards format you haven't been paying attention. Their response is standard operating procedure, and nobody is losing any sleep over the subject.
They aren't scared of linux either. They acknowledge the threat, and they move against it. But that's not fear, that's just business.
What percentage of gamers actually care about E3? I'm willing to bet that less than one person in a thousand that plays video games paid any attention at all to E3.
I haven't done a survey, and I pulled the number directly from my ass, but I might even be overstating the figure. The vast majority of internet-connected gamers will base their game purchases on some reviews, and their console purchases on price and what their friends bought so they can play against each other.
E3 is only good for telling people what they already know. "They're working on MGS4! Maybe they'll show MGS4! Oooo - they showed MGS4! YAY!"
What's the point? The relatively tiny group of people who give a crap about E3 already know most of the info in advance.
" I get the feeling that, in the hands of a new western developer, they're going to go all Resident Evil on us. Which is pretty much exactly the opposite of what most Silent Hill fans want. Silent Hill is the anti-Resident Evil."
Well, the opposite of Resident Evil would be SimChurch. Silent Hill would better be described as Resident Evil's sublime second cousin.
"Ninja Gaiden Sigma (also on 360 but not as well done)"
Well hot dog! Where can I buy that 360 version that isn't as well done? I don't think I can, because I don't think it exists.
What amazes me is that you managed to evaluate the relative quality of a game that does not exist.
Unless... wait... were you actually comparing a just-released PS3 game to a 4 year old original XBox title?
"Not working with EA on Madden was a HUGE mistake."
Oh good heavens are we ever on the same page here. I can't believe Sony didn't have their finest developers on a plane to EA the second they heard the terms "30fps", "PS3", and "Madden" in the same sentence.
"One of the first articles I read about digital broadcast said that they could have ten times as many channels broadcast over the air. It would be like getting standard cable (the kind without the box) without paying for it. Why, for example, can't I get Discovery or Sci Fi over the air if there's so much more room for them? When it can save me money by letting me get the content I want over the air rather than having to pay for cable, I'll buy an HDTV."
Good point, then. Sadly, it'll never happen. I don't know how saturated the lo-fi over-the-air band is where you live, but we get four channels that way. There's plenty of room, but nobody wants it.
With the price of development for video games rising through the roof, I say go ahead and use advertising revenues to fund it. Stick logos beside achievements. Put billboards along the racetrack. Let companies sponsor games. Give me snazzier games, and keep the cost the same for me! Sounds like a good deal.
I'm less inclined to allow them to advertise to me in a disruptive fashion. Don't interrupt the game, or make me sit through an ad. I've resigned myself to dealing with ads on TV, but in a game it might predispose me against the company, at least until I'm used to that as well.
Considering the production costs of modern entertainment I accept the reality that I have to be sold to in order to keep costs down. If I want to watch all my favorite shows in widescreen and HDTV without my cable bill skyrocketing, and Old Spice is willing to pony up the extra dough, I say let them.
Besides - sometimes I see products in advertisements that I am interested in, and would not have discovered, had it not been for the ad. The Mr. Clean magic eraser comes to mind, as does the Tide pen.
"Even if they paid any attention to them, who the hell would buy deodorant because a screen on their Xbox told them to? That's idiotic."
The advertisement isn't trying to get you to run out and buy deodorant. They already know that you will likely need deodorant eventually. The ad is there so that when you go to buy it, one of the brands you know about is that one. It's on your radar.
Most people think they aren't swayed by ads on TV, either, but guess what? The ads do work. And so will the ones attached somehow to video games.
"Count me as one of those people who won't own an HD set until he's forced to. I just spent $400 on a 32" CRT TV, and I'm not about to go out and spend $700+ on a similarly sized HDTV. I don't watch sports or movies all that often, so what will this get me? My wife will be able to see every pore on the face of some reality TV tramp? I'll be able to make out the birthmark on Katie Sackhoff's shoulder? It doesn't add to the plot or production quality, and can often get in the way of it."
So you're completely, irrevocably NOT a part of the target audience. That's nice.
The task the manufacturers have is not to convince you, the video luddite, that bigger and better is worth your dollar. It's to convince the people who are predisposed to liking bigger, clearer screens that their product is the one to pick. And most people, if given the choice, would rather watch movies and sports on bigger, clearer screens.
"Let me put it this way: Until HDTV gives me something other than sub-microscopic picture quality, there's nothing I can't get from it that I can get from my video iPod."
Well, what exactly would you want from an audio/video technology other than better quality? It's not gonna take your dog to the vet, do the grocery shopping for the wife, or service you sexually. Do you put off buying a good chair until chairs are developed that have the ability to act as alarm systems for your home? Probably not. It's job is to be a chair. And the job of HDTV is to increase the clarity and your video experience.
"Just because you have a lot of money doesn't mean the rules don't apply to you.
Paying someone else doesn't mean the rules don't apply to you.
Mocking people for caring doesn't make the rules not apply to you.
Saying you aren't dishonest doesn't make the rules not apply to you.
It is dishonest to buy a character, because you agreed not to do that when you signed up for the game.
It's just a game, if you don't want to abide by the rules, don't play.
It's a silly policy. If I choose to ignore it I risk having Blizzard ban my account, as per their stated terms. But unless I deny it when asked I'm not being "dishonest", any more than choosing to smoke some pot is being "dishonest". Breaking the rules does not make one dishonest.
I was going to say that I wasn't mocking people who care about this, but actually, upon further contemplation, perhaps those people need to be mocked.
It's not that WoW is a den of scammers. The character buying and selling is where the scammers are. You're dealing with a bunch of people who want to buy a character and pretend that they did all the work for it. By definition, these people are somewhat dishonest.
I think it's unreasonable to jump to a claim of dishonesty.
I've had an account since the day of release, and I haven't reached level 60 with any character, although many people I know have several. I simply have neither the time nor the inclination to reach that level.
That means I can't play with them. However, what I DO have is a lot of discretionary income. I've considered buying a high level character so that I can experience the higher-level content with my friends. I haven't yet because I also lack the time to do raiding, not because there's anything "dishonest" about buying a character. Those people leveled the character - really I would be funding their time.
I'm a grown man. The idea of investing hundreds of hours into something that never leaves the confines of a digital environment seems silly to me. So if I just feel like entering a cheat code to unlock cars in a racing game, or using one to open up every course in a golf game, there's no dishonesty involved. Assigning morality to this kind of scenario is just retarded.
Sure, there'll be a small minority who buy high level characters so they can stand around in Orgrimmar flexing and being admired, but exactly how does this hurt anybody? How sad does somebody have to be for this to bother them?
"Take a look at your average crack addict. What does he/she want? More crack. They don't care if it's exactly the same as the crack they had last time or completely different in every way, they just want crack."
Not to be pedantic, but people who know cocaine in any of its forms usually know EXACTLY what kind they want. They know how the good stuff feels. And they're bitterly disappointed when, as often happens, they don't get the good stuff.
"Things like the UI itself being too small on my display "
Try a lower resolution.
When the price of a 1650x1080 widescreen LCD is as low as it is now it's simply retarded for a modern gaming company to not make allowances for large monitors and varying resolutions.
We're not in the old days, when 1024x768 was an extravagant.
Nothing at all happened to the concept of personal choice. But the original poster is still correct. Show me ten people who know about, care about, and prefer to use Ogg Vorbis and I'll show you at least nine, and probably ten, open source fans. And he's also correct in saying that if you had ripped the music to MP3 you could listen to it on practically anything.
What's with all the Vorbis bashing on slashdot these days? It's a superior codec than MP3, unencumbered by patents, absolutely free to use, and is supported by several brands of music players. The only real reason I can see to not like Vorbis is that Apple does not like Vorbis, and that's a stupid reason if you ask me.
Explain how I bashed Vorbis. I'd really like to know. I said nothing about it as a codec.
Beside, unless you've got killer headphones I'd be very surprised if you could detect much difference between a 160kbps mp3 file and a Vorbis-encoded one. For portable players they're both fine.
"Well that was pretty stupid of you. If you would've ripped the music in MP3 format you could listen to it on nearly anything. The only people that use Ogg Vorbis are open source fanatics."
That's a pretty stupid thing to say. It sounds better than MP3 and its legal to play on my operating system of choice, it also works fine on my audio player of choice. All it shows is a limitation of the ipod. All that matters to me is that my collection of music is in the best format for me, I couldn't really give a toss that your favourite format is MP3. For me Ogg Vorbis was the sensible choice. Whatever happened to the concept of personal choice?
Nothing at all happened to the concept of personal choice. But the original poster is still correct. Show me ten people who know about, care about, and prefer to use Ogg Vorbis and I'll show you at least nine, and probably ten, open source fans. And he's also correct in saying that if you had ripped the music to MP3 you could listen to it on practically anything.
The big sign on the front of that shop doesn't just say, "Free Wi-Fi". It says, "Free Wi-Fi Customers Only". Right there are the terms of use, announced loud and clear.
The guy sits out in his car and, despite not buying anything, makes use of the network.
Play all the games you want concerning ease of access. He definitely knew he didn't have permission to use the network and he did anyway.
Are you just making this stuff up? I've burned hundreds of dual-layer DVDs from various generic brands and *every single one* of them has worked perfectly fine in my home DVD player.
Then congratulations - you have the world's most forgiving DVD player. I've tried eight different brands, and four different DVD players, and they all choke on the layer break, except for Verbatim DL's.
A quick search of forums like CD Freaks will confirm that Verbatim is far and away the preferred brand for dual layer DVD's.
"You need to change jobs, because the only damage done here, is to your company."
He works for a large financial company - one large enough to have its own law department. While eliminating open source software from their infrastructure is certainly unreasonable, it's unlikely that they'll be "damaged" by it. There are plenty of good closed-source solutions out there.
As for having to change jobs, well, changing jobs on the basis of software morality (a dodgy proposition at best) might be reasonable in a very select few markets. Lots of people can't simply throw a tantrum and quit just because they don't get their way.
"I'll wager that Microsoft is eying FAT and NTFS. Still, it's awfully easy to fix that. Just distribute a kernel without those drivers in the source, and just let someone outside the US distribute the patches, compiled modules, as well as compiled kernels."
How would that help? Stopping now wouldn't absolve one of prior acts of patent infringement, would it?
Slashdot Mirror
"Nice attempt to dismiss arguments using invective."
Actually I didn't notice I had done so. My apologies.
In my defense it slipped out because "fool" seemed like a description rather than an insult. People who need security above performance can use existing open drivers. Slow, but secure. People who require performance are more likely to be gamers or artists - but probably gamers. For them using a binary from a manufacturer is probably not verboten, or even a bad idea.
And somewhere in the middle is the guy who wants performance, hates binaries, and has to choose between his technology-based morality and his desire to make use of his fancy new hardware.
And dismissing a binary simply because it's a binary, without even considering where the best option lies, seems like a fool to me.
"Even if ATI released 100% working, fast drivers, they would be useless if they weren't OPEN and FREE"
Totally. Unless, well... unless you want to some stuff that requires working, fast drivers. In that unlikely circumstance the drivers would be very useful.
When it comes to closed systems like video cards and their drivers, I think only a fool would turn up his nose at a binary simply because it doesn't come with source code. They should, of course, provide it for any GPL'd libraries they use.
"The two lawsuits [informationweek.com] already filed, with more lawyers lining up to hit the MS gravy train"
These two lawsuits are more applicable, both being for the "scratched disc" issue. However, these class action lawsuits will fail unless they get substantial numbers of claimants. From what I see here, so far there are... well, two claimants. Otherwise it's safe for the court to assume they might just be morons who thought they could move the 360 around while it was running.
We'll see how those play out, but really it's just a forgotten footnote in the tale, financially or news-wise, until the claimants number in the tens of thousands.
If the problem really is due to a manufacturing decision that inevitably leads to scratched discs, why are mine in pristine condition? That's the question I would want answered, were I making a determination of culpability. "There was also a 60% plunge in 4th quarter sales"
It seems to me that an expensive console like the 360 is going to experience a drop over a year, especially since the competition launched in that period. I'm impressed it only dropped 60%.
"Shareholder suits. 360 sales are way down, 60%, according to MS' own figures."
Unless "reliability suits" means something other than what it seems to mean, "shareholder" suits are not "reliability suits". Besides, isn't Microsoft at a high point for the last calendar year, and didn't they revise their earnings upwards, even after including the billion dollar charge for dealing with the problems?
"...and numbers for 360 after all of the reliability suits..."
Reliability suits? They've agreed to fix all the failed units under warranty, pay back anybody who paid out of pocket for the repairs, and extend the warranty for those units to three years. What kind of suit could possibly exist after these concessions? Is somebody going to seriously try for a mental anguish grab or something?
"Microsoft is scared to death of the free market. In a fair competition of various products, MS would still make money, but not nearly as much as they do now, where they have the entire market captured due to file-format lock-in. This is what makes Microsoft scared. This is why they are being pulled kicking and screaming into the world of open and standards-compliant file formats."
Yeah. Sure. Microsoft is scared of competition in a free market. Because they've failed at it so dramatically in the past.
This "running scared" motif is stupid. Microsoft lives for competition, and they're very, very good at it. If you think they're terrified of a standards format you haven't been paying attention. Their response is standard operating procedure, and nobody is losing any sleep over the subject.
They aren't scared of linux either. They acknowledge the threat, and they move against it. But that's not fear, that's just business.
What percentage of gamers actually care about E3? I'm willing to bet that less than one person in a thousand that plays video games paid any attention at all to E3.
I haven't done a survey, and I pulled the number directly from my ass, but I might even be overstating the figure. The vast majority of internet-connected gamers will base their game purchases on some reviews, and their console purchases on price and what their friends bought so they can play against each other.
E3 is only good for telling people what they already know. "They're working on MGS4! Maybe they'll show MGS4! Oooo - they showed MGS4! YAY!"
What's the point? The relatively tiny group of people who give a crap about E3 already know most of the info in advance.
" I get the feeling that, in the hands of a new western developer, they're going to go all Resident Evil on us. Which is pretty much exactly the opposite of what most Silent Hill fans want. Silent Hill is the anti-Resident Evil."
Well, the opposite of Resident Evil would be SimChurch. Silent Hill would better be described as Resident Evil's sublime second cousin.
"Ninja Gaiden Sigma (also on 360 but not as well done)"
Well hot dog! Where can I buy that 360 version that isn't as well done? I don't think I can, because I don't think it exists.
What amazes me is that you managed to evaluate the relative quality of a game that does not exist.
Unless... wait... were you actually comparing a just-released PS3 game to a 4 year old original XBox title?
"Not working with EA on Madden was a HUGE mistake."
Oh good heavens are we ever on the same page here. I can't believe Sony didn't have their finest developers on a plane to EA the second they heard the terms "30fps", "PS3", and "Madden" in the same sentence.
"One of the first articles I read about digital broadcast said that they could have ten times as many channels broadcast over the air. It would be like getting standard cable (the kind without the box) without paying for it. Why, for example, can't I get Discovery or Sci Fi over the air if there's so much more room for them? When it can save me money by letting me get the content I want over the air rather than having to pay for cable, I'll buy an HDTV."
Good point, then. Sadly, it'll never happen. I don't know how saturated the lo-fi over-the-air band is where you live, but we get four channels that way. There's plenty of room, but nobody wants it.
...regular attendance at WWE events!
Who woulda thunk it?
With the price of development for video games rising through the roof, I say go ahead and use advertising revenues to fund it. Stick logos beside achievements. Put billboards along the racetrack. Let companies sponsor games. Give me snazzier games, and keep the cost the same for me! Sounds like a good deal.
I'm less inclined to allow them to advertise to me in a disruptive fashion. Don't interrupt the game, or make me sit through an ad. I've resigned myself to dealing with ads on TV, but in a game it might predispose me against the company, at least until I'm used to that as well.
Considering the production costs of modern entertainment I accept the reality that I have to be sold to in order to keep costs down. If I want to watch all my favorite shows in widescreen and HDTV without my cable bill skyrocketing, and Old Spice is willing to pony up the extra dough, I say let them.
Besides - sometimes I see products in advertisements that I am interested in, and would not have discovered, had it not been for the ad. The Mr. Clean magic eraser comes to mind, as does the Tide pen.
"Even if they paid any attention to them, who the hell would buy deodorant because a screen on their Xbox told them to? That's idiotic."
The advertisement isn't trying to get you to run out and buy deodorant. They already know that you will likely need deodorant eventually. The ad is there so that when you go to buy it, one of the brands you know about is that one. It's on your radar.
Most people think they aren't swayed by ads on TV, either, but guess what? The ads do work. And so will the ones attached somehow to video games.
"Count me as one of those people who won't own an HD set until he's forced to. I just spent $400 on a 32" CRT TV, and I'm not about to go out and spend $700+ on a similarly sized HDTV. I don't watch sports or movies all that often, so what will this get me? My wife will be able to see every pore on the face of some reality TV tramp? I'll be able to make out the birthmark on Katie Sackhoff's shoulder? It doesn't add to the plot or production quality, and can often get in the way of it."
So you're completely, irrevocably NOT a part of the target audience. That's nice.
The task the manufacturers have is not to convince you, the video luddite, that bigger and better is worth your dollar. It's to convince the people who are predisposed to liking bigger, clearer screens that their product is the one to pick. And most people, if given the choice, would rather watch movies and sports on bigger, clearer screens.
"Let me put it this way: Until HDTV gives me something other than sub-microscopic picture quality, there's nothing I can't get from it that I can get from my video iPod."
Well, what exactly would you want from an audio/video technology other than better quality? It's not gonna take your dog to the vet, do the grocery shopping for the wife, or service you sexually. Do you put off buying a good chair until chairs are developed that have the ability to act as alarm systems for your home? Probably not. It's job is to be a chair. And the job of HDTV is to increase the clarity and your video experience.
"Just because you have a lot of money doesn't mean the rules don't apply to you. Paying someone else doesn't mean the rules don't apply to you. Mocking people for caring doesn't make the rules not apply to you. Saying you aren't dishonest doesn't make the rules not apply to you. It is dishonest to buy a character, because you agreed not to do that when you signed up for the game. It's just a game, if you don't want to abide by the rules, don't play.
It's a silly policy. If I choose to ignore it I risk having Blizzard ban my account, as per their stated terms. But unless I deny it when asked I'm not being "dishonest", any more than choosing to smoke some pot is being "dishonest". Breaking the rules does not make one dishonest.
I was going to say that I wasn't mocking people who care about this, but actually, upon further contemplation, perhaps those people need to be mocked.
It's not that WoW is a den of scammers. The character buying and selling is where the scammers are. You're dealing with a bunch of people who want to buy a character and pretend that they did all the work for it. By definition, these people are somewhat dishonest.
I think it's unreasonable to jump to a claim of dishonesty.
I've had an account since the day of release, and I haven't reached level 60 with any character, although many people I know have several. I simply have neither the time nor the inclination to reach that level.
That means I can't play with them. However, what I DO have is a lot of discretionary income. I've considered buying a high level character so that I can experience the higher-level content with my friends. I haven't yet because I also lack the time to do raiding, not because there's anything "dishonest" about buying a character. Those people leveled the character - really I would be funding their time.
I'm a grown man. The idea of investing hundreds of hours into something that never leaves the confines of a digital environment seems silly to me. So if I just feel like entering a cheat code to unlock cars in a racing game, or using one to open up every course in a golf game, there's no dishonesty involved. Assigning morality to this kind of scenario is just retarded.
Sure, there'll be a small minority who buy high level characters so they can stand around in Orgrimmar flexing and being admired, but exactly how does this hurt anybody? How sad does somebody have to be for this to bother them?
"Take a look at your average crack addict. What does he/she want? More crack. They don't care if it's exactly the same as the crack they had last time or completely different in every way, they just want crack."
Not to be pedantic, but people who know cocaine in any of its forms usually know EXACTLY what kind they want. They know how the good stuff feels. And they're bitterly disappointed when, as often happens, they don't get the good stuff.
"Things like the UI itself being too small on my display "
Try a lower resolution.
When the price of a 1650x1080 widescreen LCD is as low as it is now it's simply retarded for a modern gaming company to not make allowances for large monitors and varying resolutions.
We're not in the old days, when 1024x768 was an extravagant.
Nothing at all happened to the concept of personal choice. But the original poster is still correct. Show me ten people who know about, care about, and prefer to use Ogg Vorbis and I'll show you at least nine, and probably ten, open source fans. And he's also correct in saying that if you had ripped the music to MP3 you could listen to it on practically anything.
What's with all the Vorbis bashing on slashdot these days? It's a superior codec than MP3, unencumbered by patents, absolutely free to use, and is supported by several brands of music players. The only real reason I can see to not like Vorbis is that Apple does not like Vorbis, and that's a stupid reason if you ask me.
Explain how I bashed Vorbis. I'd really like to know. I said nothing about it as a codec.
Beside, unless you've got killer headphones I'd be very surprised if you could detect much difference between a 160kbps mp3 file and a Vorbis-encoded one. For portable players they're both fine.
"Well that was pretty stupid of you. If you would've ripped the music in MP3 format you could listen to it on nearly anything. The only people that use Ogg Vorbis are open source fanatics."
That's a pretty stupid thing to say. It sounds better than MP3 and its legal to play on my operating system of choice, it also works fine on my audio player of choice. All it shows is a limitation of the ipod. All that matters to me is that my collection of music is in the best format for me, I couldn't really give a toss that your favourite format is MP3. For me Ogg Vorbis was the sensible choice. Whatever happened to the concept of personal choice?
Nothing at all happened to the concept of personal choice. But the original poster is still correct. Show me ten people who know about, care about, and prefer to use Ogg Vorbis and I'll show you at least nine, and probably ten, open source fans. And he's also correct in saying that if you had ripped the music to MP3 you could listen to it on practically anything.
The big sign on the front of that shop doesn't just say, "Free Wi-Fi". It says, "Free Wi-Fi Customers Only". Right there are the terms of use, announced loud and clear.
The guy sits out in his car and, despite not buying anything, makes use of the network.
Play all the games you want concerning ease of access. He definitely knew he didn't have permission to use the network and he did anyway.
Are you just making this stuff up? I've burned hundreds of dual-layer DVDs from various generic brands and *every single one* of them has worked perfectly fine in my home DVD player.
Then congratulations - you have the world's most forgiving DVD player. I've tried eight different brands, and four different DVD players, and they all choke on the layer break, except for Verbatim DL's.
A quick search of forums like CD Freaks will confirm that Verbatim is far and away the preferred brand for dual layer DVD's.
There are lots of perfectly decent providers of blank CD's.
Anybody who writes DVD's already knows that there are only a couple of reliable brands of blanks, Like Taiyo Yuden.
If you want to write dual layer DVD's, and expect them to read right on home DVD players, the only brand you can trust is Verbatim.
Now we're talking about HD discs, single and dual layer? There'll be one okay provider, and every third blank is gonna fail.
"You need to change jobs, because the only damage done here, is to your company."
He works for a large financial company - one large enough to have its own law department. While eliminating open source software from their infrastructure is certainly unreasonable, it's unlikely that they'll be "damaged" by it. There are plenty of good closed-source solutions out there.
As for having to change jobs, well, changing jobs on the basis of software morality (a dodgy proposition at best) might be reasonable in a very select few markets. Lots of people can't simply throw a tantrum and quit just because they don't get their way.
"I'll wager that Microsoft is eying FAT and NTFS. Still, it's awfully easy to fix that. Just distribute a kernel without those drivers in the source, and just let someone outside the US distribute the patches, compiled modules, as well as compiled kernels."
How would that help? Stopping now wouldn't absolve one of prior acts of patent infringement, would it?