If you want to sell a car, you can't just go to your garage, make one from scratch and sell it. You're not free to do that. You must submit your car for safety inspection before you are permitted to sell it, and if you're not prepared to do that, you can't sell it.
I'm not so sure about that. It seems to me that it would be perfectly legal to sell a home-built car. Driving it, however, is a different story.
Of course, I could be wrong about that.
So, how do you get rid of patents and copyrights and still force people to distribute the production methods and source code? Easy. You create a government funded public repository of designs and patterns. You make it illegal to distribute a device without submitting designs, and you make it illegal to distribute software without submitting source code. If you're caught doing so, your property and infrastructure are seized, and you are placed in jail for endangering public welfare.
So, you want to replace copyright and patent law with a mandatory copyright/patent registration process, without any of the protections that copyrights/patents provide to the holder. Or, put another way, replace a system that was designed to encourage creation (although in its present form it is failing that goal) with a system designed that would likely discourage creation.
Personally, I'm a proponent of copyright reform (I'm not knowledgeable enough about the patent system, although it seems to be pretty screwed up). I don't agree with abolishing copyright, and I definitely don't agree with replacing copyright with your rather draconian version of it.
By the way, if I distribute a Tetris clone without source code, how exactly do you figure I'm "endangering public welfare"?
However, there is no market for withheld or obfuscated source code in such a culture. Binaries cost nothing to make and could not be sold... The GPL is about reproducing the culture that would result if copyright and patent were abolished, i.e. a free culture.
Imagine we live in that world without copyright, and therefore a world without GPL. Oracle builds and sells an RDBMS. Anyone can copy and use it for free, since there is no copyright preventing that. However, Oracle wants to make money off of their RDBMS. So, they sell support services. Maybe they also offer custom development to tailor the RDBMS for your environment. In order to prevent competitors from providing those services, it makes sense for them to keep their source code hidden and only distribute the binaries.
No-one's freedom is constrained if the source is withheld or obfuscated in a culture without copyright.
According to RMS, withholding source limits user freedom. Therefore, users of GPL software have more freedom than users of Oracle RDBMS in the above example.
But then, without copyright there is absolutely no need for the GPL.... Bear in mind that the GPL is a means to enjoy freedom...
I'm no expert on the GPL, but am I not correct in thinking that the GPL forces restrictions on developers in order to ensure freedoms for users? For example, the requirement that if I build and distribute something that uses GPL code, I must use the GPL on my code and distribute the source code with the binaries.
Without copyright and the GPL, there is absolutely no way to force me to distribute my source code. I can take an open source project, add to it to create something new, hide the source code in a vault and distribute only the binary. You will be able to copy it freely, but good luck modifying it. You, the user of my software, have lost freedom because there is no GPL to force me to provide you with that freedom.
Granted, you won't fool a (competent) computer scientist with that, but a jury could be confused, to say the least.
Hans Reiser thought he could out-smart the jury. Look how well that worked for him.
Neither judges nor juries like to feel like they're being played. You play a game like that, attempting to confuse them with technology that's over their heads, and you're not exactly going to win them over.
The result of that kind of argument will likely be that they ignore the part that's confusing to them, and focus on the part that's simple to understand: you have the Indiana Jones movie on your hard drive, and that's a copyright violation. Simple.
Incidentally, no data passing through the network can be considered copyrighted because the means by which it is represented is truly random.
It's not the data that's protected by copyright, it's what the data represents.
No matter how you mangle the data when storing it or transferring it from one location to another, the end result is the same. They're trying to use semantics and technical voodoo to get around copyright law. It won't work.
There will always be murder, and there will always be horrible accidents. Eliminating aging wouldn't mean that you'll never die, it would just make it more probable that your death will be horrible.
...broke Windows 3 so it would display a false error message when running on DR-DOS...
Well, it was only in a beta, not the final release. But yes, they definitely did do that.
Nevertheless, my point isn't that Microsoft hasn't done horribly anti-competitive things (they definitely have), just that if we're going to criticize them, we should criticize them for things they actually did.
...(the words slow and bloated come up often) and most apps written in Java I have used have felt half-hearted.
Actually, I would guess that most apps written in Java that you've used have been quite responsive, but you weren't aware that you were using a Java app. This is because most Java apps that people use are server-side apps (eBay springs immediately to mind).
There was a saying that "DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run". Back when Lotus 1-2-3 was MS' biggest software competitor, every new version of DOS would have some "feature" that would cause Lotus 1-2-3 to "break".
A cute phrase and an oft-repeated anecdote, but according to people at Lotus, it's completely false.
(S)ince when does the Head executive of the company refer to the company as "they" instead of "we"?
It could be argued that he was referring to the group that supports the website. I don't think that's a part of the company that Gates is directly involved with, so he would likely refer to that group as "they".
This is not actually a "leaked" email, but an email that was entered as evidence in the Iowa antitrust trial (Comes v Microsoft) and can be found here.
No, because you had to defraud someone to get the social engineering to work.
What if I guess the password? Is a weak or obvious password the same as saying "come on in, you're authorized"?
Why does everyone want to complicate this? Open WAP==free for respectful public use; Close WAP==public use prohibited. Simple. Why make this a legal problem when a WAP owner can specify for themselves open or close?
Because we're talking about technology that so few understand. Most people aren't aware that they have a choice, or what their choice implies. I'm not saying I agree with this law (I'm undecided), but until people are more educated about the technology, it's just not as simple as you want to make it seem.
If my router is set up for wide open access, I'm granting permission for anyone to use it.
If I don't put a fence with a locked gate on my yard, am I granting permission for anyone to come hang out in my yard anytime they want? I don't think it's illegal to do so (at least until I've warned them that they're not welcome), but it's hardly an open invitation.
In general, laws are designed to work like this: that which is not expressly forbidden is permitted.
But it doesn't have to be expressly forbidden by the individual, it can be expressly forbidden by the law, which, in this case, it is.
In other words, just because I don't wear a sign saying "don't kill me" doesn't mean it's okay to kill me. The law says "don't kill anyone", and that's good enough. Similarly, the law says "don't access a computer system without authorization". And, no, that doesn't mean authorization from the system itself, but authorization from those individuals with the authority to grant authorization.
If a defense of "I asked the router for entry and it granted me entry" is valid, then using social engineering to get someone's password and then entering the password would also be valid. After all, you entered the password and the system said "come on in", therefore you're authorized.
Nobody "needs" a powerful laptop for web browsing, email, text editing, or most of the other things most people use their computers for. And nobody "needs" Vista for those things either. A 386 running Windows 3.1 will probably suffice for 90% of today's computer users.
As I've said before, there's not much reason to upgrade an existing system to Vista. But if you're buying a brand new, relatively decent PC anyway, I see no reason not to get Vista. It's actually pretty good.
you must admit there are more than two "minor" bugs. For instance, try deleting a folder with "a lot" of files (say 20,000, although I've had to do so with hundreds of thousands).
The complaints I mentioned are the only ones I've encountered. Then again, I've never deleted a folder with 20,000+ files in it. As is always the case, YMMV.
Uh-huh. So you don't think "creating and naming a folder" should be a minimum requirement for an OS?
The bug doesn't prevent creating and naming a folder. It's a minor bug that creeps up when you do it a certain way that 95% of people likely wouldn't do. There's absolutely nothing stopping anyone from creating and renaming a folder in Vista.
To be precise, here's how the bug works: right-click in the folder where you want the new folder created, then press the "R" key, which is the shortcut for "Properties" in the context menu that pops up, then type the name of the new folder and hit "Enter" -- except, do this all as quickly as you can, so that the entire operation occurs in less than a second.
I'll leave it to you to try this to see what the result is, but I'll tell you that it's extremely minor.
I keep hearing justifications for Vista's poor I/O performance and I can't help but wonder: where is the skepticism?
Copying/moving files seems reasonably fast to me, but I've never done a side-by-side comparison with another OS. The only thing I'm skeptical about are the claims people make about how poor the I/O performance is. I just don't see it.
The only performance issue I would point out is the ridiculously slow zip file processing -- and I mean, ridiculously slow, to the point that I wouldn't even attempt to unzip a 6KB zip file with Vista's zip functionality. However, I consider this a non-issue since I've always used third-party file compression utilities. I don't rely on the built-in zip functionality in XP, and I don't rely on it in Vista either.
I don't think there was much "slobbering" in the GP post. There are lots of non-anonymous posters with a lot more to say about how much they like Vista. Why would Microsoft's marketing department need to squeeze in that one tiny post into this thread?
I'm not saying that it was a particularly insightful post, but you seem a little eager to find a conspiracy here. Is it that hard to believe that an anonymous Slashdot poster might like Vista and also Linux? Not only that, but do you think the opinion of Slashdot users is that important to Microsoft? I think they have much bigger battles to fight.
As a side note, I also use Ubuntu and Fedora (on my servers) and prefer Vista over XP.
I already have XP Pro when I need Windows, so what do I gain by switching to Vista?
Honestly, I'd say you gain very little.
I got Vista because I was buying a new laptop, and that's what it came with. I like it, but I don't see too much of an incentive to upgrade an existing PC. My recommendation in the past has been: if buying a new computer, get Vista. If happy with current computer, stay with what you've got.
So the question is, from what I understand, if you turn off all the extras, Vista is not that bad. I don't suppose I can get an unbiased assessment on slashdot, though. Is it really that buggy? More than XP?
There are a handful of people here on Slashdot who actually like Vista and admit it. I'm one of them.
I haven't turned off any of the extras. Regarding the eye candy, they did an awesome job. It's a slick looking user interface. Regarding performance, it runs beautifully on my Acer laptop (1.6 GHz dual core, 2 GB RAM, GeForce Go7300).
The biggest annoyance for me is the automatic horizontal scrolling in the folder pane of Windows Explorer. I absolutely hate it and want to turn it off, but there is no option.
I've only encountered two actual bugs, and they were both extremely minor. One of them I only encountered once, and can't actually remember what it is right now. The other is just a small bug that occurs when you create a new folder and then try to rename it too quickly.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want to sell a car, you can't just go to your garage, make one from scratch and sell it. You're not free to do that. You must submit your car for safety inspection before you are permitted to sell it, and if you're not prepared to do that, you can't sell it.
I'm not so sure about that. It seems to me that it would be perfectly legal to sell a home-built car. Driving it, however, is a different story.
Of course, I could be wrong about that.
So, how do you get rid of patents and copyrights and still force people to distribute the production methods and source code? Easy. You create a government funded public repository of designs and patterns. You make it illegal to distribute a device without submitting designs, and you make it illegal to distribute software without submitting source code. If you're caught doing so, your property and infrastructure are seized, and you are placed in jail for endangering public welfare.
So, you want to replace copyright and patent law with a mandatory copyright/patent registration process, without any of the protections that copyrights/patents provide to the holder. Or, put another way, replace a system that was designed to encourage creation (although in its present form it is failing that goal) with a system designed that would likely discourage creation.
Personally, I'm a proponent of copyright reform (I'm not knowledgeable enough about the patent system, although it seems to be pretty screwed up). I don't agree with abolishing copyright, and I definitely don't agree with replacing copyright with your rather draconian version of it.
By the way, if I distribute a Tetris clone without source code, how exactly do you figure I'm "endangering public welfare"?
However, there is no market for withheld or obfuscated source code in such a culture. Binaries cost nothing to make and could not be sold ... The GPL is about reproducing the culture that would result if copyright and patent were abolished, i.e. a free culture.
Imagine we live in that world without copyright, and therefore a world without GPL. Oracle builds and sells an RDBMS. Anyone can copy and use it for free, since there is no copyright preventing that. However, Oracle wants to make money off of their RDBMS. So, they sell support services. Maybe they also offer custom development to tailor the RDBMS for your environment. In order to prevent competitors from providing those services, it makes sense for them to keep their source code hidden and only distribute the binaries.
No-one's freedom is constrained if the source is withheld or obfuscated in a culture without copyright.
According to RMS, withholding source limits user freedom. Therefore, users of GPL software have more freedom than users of Oracle RDBMS in the above example.
But then, without copyright there is absolutely no need for the GPL. ... Bear in mind that the GPL is a means to enjoy freedom...
I'm no expert on the GPL, but am I not correct in thinking that the GPL forces restrictions on developers in order to ensure freedoms for users? For example, the requirement that if I build and distribute something that uses GPL code, I must use the GPL on my code and distribute the source code with the binaries.
Without copyright and the GPL, there is absolutely no way to force me to distribute my source code. I can take an open source project, add to it to create something new, hide the source code in a vault and distribute only the binary. You will be able to copy it freely, but good luck modifying it. You, the user of my software, have lost freedom because there is no GPL to force me to provide you with that freedom.
Granted, you won't fool a (competent) computer scientist with that, but a jury could be confused, to say the least.
Hans Reiser thought he could out-smart the jury. Look how well that worked for him.
Neither judges nor juries like to feel like they're being played. You play a game like that, attempting to confuse them with technology that's over their heads, and you're not exactly going to win them over.
The result of that kind of argument will likely be that they ignore the part that's confusing to them, and focus on the part that's simple to understand: you have the Indiana Jones movie on your hard drive, and that's a copyright violation. Simple.
Incidentally, no data passing through the network can be considered copyrighted because the means by which it is represented is truly random.
It's not the data that's protected by copyright, it's what the data represents.
No matter how you mangle the data when storing it or transferring it from one location to another, the end result is the same. They're trying to use semantics and technical voodoo to get around copyright law. It won't work.
People don't give a shit about the planet because they know they will be dead long before it is.
Give them eternal life and watch how quickly they become militant greenies.
I don't know about that. Look at the things that people do to themselves, knowing full well the effects it will have on them later in their own life.
Few people are willing to think beyond today.
Yes...I DO want to live for ever.
It can't be done.
There will always be murder, and there will always be horrible accidents. Eliminating aging wouldn't mean that you'll never die, it would just make it more probable that your death will be horrible.
...broke Windows 3 so it would display a false error message when running on DR-DOS...Well, it was only in a beta, not the final release. But yes, they definitely did do that.
Nevertheless, my point isn't that Microsoft hasn't done horribly anti-competitive things (they definitely have), just that if we're going to criticize them, we should criticize them for things they actually did.
Actually, it uses a bunch of technologies, including C++, Java, Perl, and much more. Here are some specifics.
...(the words slow and bloated come up often) and most apps written in Java I have used have felt half-hearted.Actually, I would guess that most apps written in Java that you've used have been quite responsive, but you weren't aware that you were using a Java app. This is because most Java apps that people use are server-side apps (eBay springs immediately to mind).
He must be referring to Amazon's use of Java.
A cute phrase and an oft-repeated anecdote, but according to people at Lotus, it's completely false.
It could be argued that he was referring to the group that supports the website. I don't think that's a part of the company that Gates is directly involved with, so he would likely refer to that group as "they".
This is not actually a "leaked" email, but an email that was entered as evidence in the Iowa antitrust trial (Comes v Microsoft) and can be found here.
You missed one...
Sairiously, this is rediculous.There. That's better.
Most definitely not Carlin's words (the phrase "and pray too seldom" should've been a dead giveaway).
What if I guess the password? Is a weak or obvious password the same as saying "come on in, you're authorized"?
Why does everyone want to complicate this? Open WAP==free for respectful public use; Close WAP==public use prohibited. Simple. Why make this a legal problem when a WAP owner can specify for themselves open or close?Because we're talking about technology that so few understand. Most people aren't aware that they have a choice, or what their choice implies. I'm not saying I agree with this law (I'm undecided), but until people are more educated about the technology, it's just not as simple as you want to make it seem.
If I don't put a fence with a locked gate on my yard, am I granting permission for anyone to come hang out in my yard anytime they want? I don't think it's illegal to do so (at least until I've warned them that they're not welcome), but it's hardly an open invitation.
In general, laws are designed to work like this: that which is not expressly forbidden is permitted.But it doesn't have to be expressly forbidden by the individual, it can be expressly forbidden by the law, which, in this case, it is.
In other words, just because I don't wear a sign saying "don't kill me" doesn't mean it's okay to kill me. The law says "don't kill anyone", and that's good enough. Similarly, the law says "don't access a computer system without authorization". And, no, that doesn't mean authorization from the system itself, but authorization from those individuals with the authority to grant authorization.
If a defense of "I asked the router for entry and it granted me entry" is valid, then using social engineering to get someone's password and then entering the password would also be valid. After all, you entered the password and the system said "come on in", therefore you're authorized.
Replying to myself because I got the description of the bug wrong. I'll try it again.
To do it, you right-click, hit "w" and then "f" (for "New"/"Folder"), then type the new name really quickly.
Or something like that. I just tried it again a couple times and couldn't get the bug to occur.
Nobody "needs" a powerful laptop for web browsing, email, text editing, or most of the other things most people use their computers for. And nobody "needs" Vista for those things either. A 386 running Windows 3.1 will probably suffice for 90% of today's computer users.
As I've said before, there's not much reason to upgrade an existing system to Vista. But if you're buying a brand new, relatively decent PC anyway, I see no reason not to get Vista. It's actually pretty good.
The complaints I mentioned are the only ones I've encountered. Then again, I've never deleted a folder with 20,000+ files in it. As is always the case, YMMV.
The bug doesn't prevent creating and naming a folder. It's a minor bug that creeps up when you do it a certain way that 95% of people likely wouldn't do. There's absolutely nothing stopping anyone from creating and renaming a folder in Vista.
To be precise, here's how the bug works: right-click in the folder where you want the new folder created, then press the "R" key, which is the shortcut for "Properties" in the context menu that pops up, then type the name of the new folder and hit "Enter" -- except, do this all as quickly as you can, so that the entire operation occurs in less than a second.
I'll leave it to you to try this to see what the result is, but I'll tell you that it's extremely minor.
I keep hearing justifications for Vista's poor I/O performance and I can't help but wonder: where is the skepticism?Copying/moving files seems reasonably fast to me, but I've never done a side-by-side comparison with another OS. The only thing I'm skeptical about are the claims people make about how poor the I/O performance is. I just don't see it.
The only performance issue I would point out is the ridiculously slow zip file processing -- and I mean, ridiculously slow, to the point that I wouldn't even attempt to unzip a 6KB zip file with Vista's zip functionality. However, I consider this a non-issue since I've always used third-party file compression utilities. I don't rely on the built-in zip functionality in XP, and I don't rely on it in Vista either.
I don't think there was much "slobbering" in the GP post. There are lots of non-anonymous posters with a lot more to say about how much they like Vista. Why would Microsoft's marketing department need to squeeze in that one tiny post into this thread?
I'm not saying that it was a particularly insightful post, but you seem a little eager to find a conspiracy here. Is it that hard to believe that an anonymous Slashdot poster might like Vista and also Linux? Not only that, but do you think the opinion of Slashdot users is that important to Microsoft? I think they have much bigger battles to fight.
As a side note, I also use Ubuntu and Fedora (on my servers) and prefer Vista over XP.
Honestly, I'd say you gain very little.
I got Vista because I was buying a new laptop, and that's what it came with. I like it, but I don't see too much of an incentive to upgrade an existing PC. My recommendation in the past has been: if buying a new computer, get Vista. If happy with current computer, stay with what you've got.
There are a handful of people here on Slashdot who actually like Vista and admit it. I'm one of them.
I haven't turned off any of the extras. Regarding the eye candy, they did an awesome job. It's a slick looking user interface. Regarding performance, it runs beautifully on my Acer laptop (1.6 GHz dual core, 2 GB RAM, GeForce Go7300).
The biggest annoyance for me is the automatic horizontal scrolling in the folder pane of Windows Explorer. I absolutely hate it and want to turn it off, but there is no option.
I've only encountered two actual bugs, and they were both extremely minor. One of them I only encountered once, and can't actually remember what it is right now. The other is just a small bug that occurs when you create a new folder and then try to rename it too quickly.
Overall, I'm happy with it.
Maybe that's why he asked for links/references, not just random quotes.