Why? Why shouldn't Microsoft have the right to invest in, design, manufacture, and sell a game machine that will play only Microsoft games?
They do have that right. They can manufacture and design it any way they like. They are perfectly free to make it very hard to get Linux or whatever running on it.
Why should you have a "right" to hack such a machine and run non-MS games or Linux on it?
Because you bought it and paid for it. It is your property and you should be able to do what you want with your property in your home without the thought-police after you. We live in what's supposedly a free society, and as such the rights of the indiviual are paramount.
One possible reason why it should not be legal to hack the XBox and run non-MS games or Linux on it is that it would effectively preclude Microsoft from adopting a modified razor blade strategy (pdf) (html) -- i.e., in this case, selling the XBox at a loss and making its profit on the sale of MS XBox games. This strategy is thwarted if Microsoft sells the XBox at a loss, only to have people use it to run Sony games or Linux.
Good! We don't want it to use this "razor blade strategy", using its large cash reseves to gain a monopoly in yet another market. If they can gain market share by making a better product, good for them. That's how capitalism is supposed to work.
If one insists that one has a "right" to hack the XBox and run Sony games or Linux on it, Microsoft's response may be to raise the price of the XBox to at least the level of its marginal cost. Thus, consumers will wind up paying more for the same product. As a result, demand will go down, and this may result in unemployment and/or reduced wages.
Yes, let the market decide the price. As to the potential loss of jobs, which is worse: a few MS employees being laid off or transfered to other departments, or whole other companies going out of business when MS pushes them out of the market with their massive capital?
More philosophically, your post appears to represent an attitude of many people on Slashdot that I don't understand. The attitude appears to be that a producer does not have a right to produce and offer for sale a good or service on the terms it deems satisfactory, but instead must offer that good or service to you on terms you feel are satisfactory, or not at all. If a producer does offer a good or service on terms one deems to be unsatisfactory, one is perfectly free not to purchase it.
Why should the manufacturer be allowed to retain control of a product after you've purchaced it? What if your car manufacturer Y said you can only purchase fuel and repairs from Company X, a subsidiary of Y, who can charge you whatever they want? Again, you should be able to do whatever you want with your property. It's not a "sale" if you don't gain control of the item.
Instead, many insist on the right to unilaterally modify the terms and conditions of sale -- after the fact.
Who's modifying the terms and conditions? The item's been sold. It's yours. Do what you want with your property. Or is it still the manufacturer's property? The law should be written for the benefit of the consumers, not the manufacturers, because unlike the manufacturers, most of us don't have billions of dollars to defend our rights.
I wouldn't support such a project. If you try to copy MS, you'll always be behind. Reverse engineering takes a lot of time and it's a moving target, since they can change.NET at will. Look at GNU Classpath (Java reimplementation): they're way behind.
In these cases I think it's better to create a project that offers the same general functionality, but in a distinctive, better way.
Why sell it as 'Linux' on the desktop at all? The average desktop user doesn't see the kernel at all. Sell it as 'KDE' if it runs KDE and 'Gnome' if it runs gnome. No confusion there. It doesn't even have to be running on a Linux kernel. It could be *BSD. Mr. Average Desktop User won't know the difference. All he sees is the GUI and the apps.
And another thing: why is everyone so concerned about selling Linux/OSS in the first place? Most people who write the stuff do so to fill a need they have. If it helps someone else, great. If not, who cares? That's why there's so much choice.
When they say $1 Billion, do they mean what the software would sell for in retail? Or do they mean what it actually costs to manufacture it? At a few cents per CD, that's probably enough to cover the planet in Windoze install disks. (Take *that*, AOL!)
Freedom != Anarchy In a free society, we still have laws, right? This is to protect the rights/freedoms (and safety) of others. I don't have the freedom to take away yours. Similarly, a free software license should not allow anyone to take the work of others and sell/redistribute it as his own. It protects the freedom of the developers and contributors to always have access to (the source code of) their creation. So, a license without this kind of provision is like saying that it's OK to take advantage of the work of others without compensating the free software community.
The MVP initiative will be a big part of Microsoft's efforts to promote a sense of "community" among users and developers,...
Real nice community there. One that doesn't share source code, charges for tech support, gets all testy about its 'intellectual property', screws the users, and everybody sues everybody else. I REALLY want to be a part of that. Maybe that's why the word is in quotes.
Doesn't anyone realize that being nice to users isn't the only reason for them to do this?
Blocking RIAA DOS attacks against any of their users who may be targetted saves them bandwidth, which saves them money, which increases profits!
Other ISPs are perfectly happy catering to RIAA by cutting off users who share lots of (copyrighted) files, for the same reason. By removing the 10% of users who use 90% of bandwidth (mostly through P2P) they save big $$$ and they can shift blame to RIAA for the dissatisfaction. It's one of those odd situations, where more customeres != more money.
It is indeed an arbitrary definition of palindrome. Try doing this in binary: 196 (Dec) = 1100100 (Bin) 1100100 + 0010011 = 1110111 However, there may be different sets of Lychrel numbers in different bases. (I don't know, this is the first time I've heard of Lychrel numbers.)
Slashdot Mirror
Technical talk is what annoys management. Since they can't be expected to learn, we have to dumb it down. Because we're annoying.
Now, if only they could read...
Thanks for that announcement. Why anyone felt it was important to announce this to everyone on slashdot is beyond me.
Thanks for that announcement. Why you felt it was important to announce your confusion to everyone on slashdot is beyond me.
Did you use your Caps Lock to type "SCO"?
I think what they mean is a different kind of single, fat, balding, Mountain Dew drinker.
there will be a computer that will automatically post on slashdot.
Actually, I'm working on a Hidden Markov Model program to generate typical slashdot comments. So, yes, you're right.
Just hire someone to shoot the birds before they hit the turbines.
Why? Why shouldn't Microsoft have the right to invest in, design, manufacture, and sell a game machine that will play only Microsoft games?
They do have that right. They can manufacture and design it any way they like. They are perfectly free to make it very hard to get Linux or whatever running on it.
Why should you have a "right" to hack such a machine and run non-MS games or Linux on it?
Because you bought it and paid for it. It is your property and you should be able to do what you want with your property in your home without the thought-police after you. We live in what's supposedly a free society, and as such the rights of the indiviual are paramount.
One possible reason why it should not be legal to hack the XBox and run non-MS games or Linux on it is that it would effectively preclude Microsoft from adopting a modified razor blade strategy (pdf) (html) -- i.e., in this case, selling the XBox at a loss and making its profit on the sale of MS XBox games. This strategy is thwarted if Microsoft sells the XBox at a loss, only to have people use it to run Sony games or Linux.
Good! We don't want it to use this "razor blade strategy", using its large cash reseves to gain a monopoly in yet another market. If they can gain market share by making a better product, good for them. That's how capitalism is supposed to work.
If one insists that one has a "right" to hack the XBox and run Sony games or Linux on it, Microsoft's response may be to raise the price of the XBox to at least the level of its marginal cost. Thus, consumers will wind up paying more for the same product. As a result, demand will go down, and this may result in unemployment and/or reduced wages.
Yes, let the market decide the price. As to the potential loss of jobs, which is worse: a few MS employees being laid off or transfered to other departments, or whole other companies going out of business when MS pushes them out of the market with their massive capital?
More philosophically, your post appears to represent an attitude of many people on Slashdot that I don't understand. The attitude appears to be that a producer does not have a right to produce and offer for sale a good or service on the terms it deems satisfactory, but instead must offer that good or service to you on terms you feel are satisfactory, or not at all. If a producer does offer a good or service on terms one deems to be unsatisfactory, one is perfectly free not to purchase it.
Why should the manufacturer be allowed to retain control of a product after you've purchaced it? What if your car manufacturer Y said you can only purchase fuel and repairs from Company X, a subsidiary of Y, who can charge you whatever they want? Again, you should be able to do whatever you want with your property. It's not a "sale" if you don't gain control of the item.
Instead, many insist on the right to unilaterally modify the terms and conditions of sale -- after the fact.
Who's modifying the terms and conditions? The item's been sold. It's yours. Do what you want with your property. Or is it still the manufacturer's property? The law should be written for the benefit of the consumers, not the manufacturers, because unlike the manufacturers, most of us don't have billions of dollars to defend our rights.
Or the immigration agent could look at the passport, then look at the person.
Yeah, but who writes the spec?
Or, taking a pencil and paper and copying it out by hand, or reading it to someone over the phone, or relaying the information from memory, ...
Mind control DRM hardware?
10,000 Euros = About 54 lawyer-hours.
I wouldn't support such a project. If you try to copy MS, you'll always be behind. Reverse engineering takes a lot of time and it's a moving target, since they can change .NET at will. Look at GNU Classpath (Java reimplementation): they're way behind.
In these cases I think it's better to create a project that offers the same general functionality, but in a distinctive, better way.
If only I wasn't so lazy...
Why sell it as 'Linux' on the desktop at all?
The average desktop user doesn't see the kernel at all. Sell it as 'KDE' if it runs KDE and 'Gnome' if it runs gnome. No confusion there. It doesn't even have to be running on a Linux kernel. It could be *BSD. Mr. Average Desktop User won't know the difference. All he sees is the GUI and the apps.
And another thing: why is everyone so concerned about selling Linux/OSS in the first place? Most people who write the stuff do so to fill a need they have. If it helps someone else, great. If not, who cares? That's why there's so much choice.
>...rather than dipping into the project fund to buy pizza and beer.
Let them spend it on pizza and beer. What better way to keep the developers working on a worthy project?
When they say $1 Billion, do they mean what the software would sell for in retail? Or do they mean what it actually costs to manufacture it? At a few cents per CD, that's probably enough to cover the planet in Windoze install disks. (Take *that*, AOL!)
The SCSI controller in my Quadra 840AV is by AMD.
And furthermore, the average person has about 1 testicle and 1 breast.
I am not saying those people are stupid
They're not?
Don't all the smart people use UN*X when they need to get some real work done?
Freedom != Anarchy
In a free society, we still have laws, right? This is to protect the rights/freedoms (and safety) of others. I don't have the freedom to take away yours. Similarly, a free software license should not allow anyone to take the work of others and sell/redistribute it as his own. It protects the freedom of the developers and contributors to always have access to (the source code of) their creation.
So, a license without this kind of provision is like saying that it's OK to take advantage of the work of others without compensating the free software community.
The MVP initiative will be a big part of Microsoft's efforts to promote a sense of "community" among users and developers, ...
Real nice community there. One that doesn't share source code, charges for tech support, gets all testy about its 'intellectual property', screws the users, and everybody sues everybody else. I REALLY want to be a part of that. Maybe that's why the word is in quotes.
Doesn't anyone realize that being nice to users isn't the only reason for them to do this?
Blocking RIAA DOS attacks against any of their users who may be targetted saves them bandwidth, which saves them money, which increases profits!
Other ISPs are perfectly happy catering to RIAA by cutting off users who share lots of (copyrighted) files, for the same reason. By removing the 10% of users who use 90% of bandwidth (mostly through P2P) they save big $$$ and they can shift blame to RIAA for the dissatisfaction. It's one of those odd situations, where more customeres != more money.
It is indeed an arbitrary definition of palindrome. Try doing this in binary:
196 (Dec) = 1100100 (Bin)
1100100 + 0010011 = 1110111
However, there may be different sets of Lychrel numbers in different bases. (I don't know, this is the first time I've heard of Lychrel numbers.)