Oh wait, you haven't, despite the admission you haven't played anything on a phantom.
Waspish comments aside, HardOCP do have the perfect right to sue them, and saying "I think this has gone a little bit too far" is rather counter-productive. HardOCP is forcing the issue here and now, to stop what could possibly be endless months of legal threats, with no action. No-one likes legal threats, and the HardOCP team have moved to clear this up.
The blame lies solely on Infinium Labs. They could of just politely asked HardOCP to correct a few errors in the article (which OCP did), but they then proceeded to wax lyrically about legal threats, which was unneeded. Of course, they could of done alot better by ignoring the article, and getting on with making the phantom, or providing some proof to the contrary, but instead they threatened to sue.
To me, that doesn't sound like a secure company.
Hint: To stop flammatory comments, much like my opening lines, change your.sig to "Assigned Beta Tester". HTH.
"Additionally, I don't see how hard it is to believe in the Phantom's existence"
I.E is a slightly different kettle of fish, because, correct me if im wrong, but windows explorer is a slightly modified version of IE. Thus IE code is in there for windows explorer already.
But what the fuck does FireFox GAIM or Thunderbird have to do with Windows Media Player, or media players and/or formats in general?
You have gone through this whole thread pounding strawmen arguments about web browsers and email programs, when they are completely different to media players.
And before you ask why, its because media players allow for access to media files, which can come in any different number of formats and or codecs, and which a large entertainment industry is built upon (over the internet anyway).
Their leveraging their monopoly to make sure each windows computer has their Media Player has on, forcing the media content providers to put stuff in WM format.
You're strawmen arguments and obtuseness is starting to wear thin.
Please, stop with the Non Sequitur questions. Otherwise, provide logic and reasoning for your points.
But WMP is on all Windows Installs (barring exceptional circumstances). Windows Installs making up 85%+ of the market.
What type of files work best with WMP? Funnily enough, Windows Media. So everyone tends towards WM.
I may enjoy using media player "x", which plays format "y" much better than WMP does. But due to a leveraged monopoly, the only files are WM files.
Looking at it another way. Say you want to provide media in one format (too save costs or whatever). Now you know there are lots of different players and formats. Most players support Windows Media so Windows Media works great. And you know, if they haven't got any third-party players, they will still have some form of Windows Media Player on their computer. So WM is the safe, easy option.
Im not agreeing or disagreeing with the decision of the commission, but their logic has merit.
I'd much rather see interoperability improved by forcing Microsoft to publish some code that is need for better operability within the OS by third-party products.
The selling of a media-player less Windows is not a very well-thought out idea. Its great idealistically, but not very practically.
Easy way to sell bundled version - Sell both products at the same price, or about $5 dollars difference at most. Advertise one as standard, and one as a "Deluxe" version with latest, greatest Media Player et al, about to play DVD's etc etc.
Now which one do you think the majority of people will buy?
And of course, since we already have the market tending towards Windows Media files, when people go online they see alot of WM files, and hey presto, download Media Player.
Its still a great idea about selling a stripped down Windows XP, but if the commission think this is going to change much in reality, they have their heads in the clouds.
I highly doubt this is a slippery slope, and the analogy with Apple is misleading.
In the article it states that many media content companies are making files and movies available only in Windows Media Formats, because its the only Media player they know thats going to be on the system. Since a overwhelming of desktops use Windows, this is amounting to the fact that the market tends towards using Windows Media, and thus whats the point of getting other formats/players?
The commission is hoping to open up the media player market a little, only to allow more competition and "a fair go" for other media players/formats. People still have the choice of getting Windows Media with the OS, so this isn't really hurting anyone, just allowing for a free market.
On the issue of interoperability, there was this little gem-
Bolkestein warned that ordering Microsoft to reveal code, which is protected by copyright, and to a lesser extent by patents, could make the Commission vulnerable to a legal challenge by the company at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.
Im quite unclear on Bolkestein's motivation for that comment. Opening up the code to allow interoperability will not take away the fact that the code is Microsoft's, so Copyright is preserved. The commission isn't (as far as I can tell) letting competitor's simply copy MS's code so they can interoperate, but rather allow the code to be shown so they can code their own products to allow cleaner interoperability with MS's code. Any since patents are required to be published anyway, and need to be licenced, the patent comments is a non sequitur.
So.... by having the name "the arbiter" all of a sudden your opinions are more valid.
AC comments are some of the most informative, insightful posts here these days, mainly because they don't care about karma or any of that other bullshit, they just post whats on their minds. Some of its inflammatory, some of its wrong, some of its noise, but some of its correct, just like the AC parent of your post.
So get off your high horse and start contributing to the discussion, instead of wasting time and accounts by posting drivel about people being AC or not.
For my views, I agree with the AC. Respond to his arguments, and I'll address your counter-arguments.
And yes yes, I saw the smiley. Doesn't make it any more valid.
I know your not going to reply to this, but for the record.
It is highly debatable whether the BBC were wrong or not. However, the clear lack of forethought into reasons for the virus, as well as a seemingly quick link-up (likely or not) to it being Linux fundamentalists seemed to put a lot of people's noses out of joint, pro-Linux or not.
As for referring the SCO as litigious bastards, when that happens, its mainly when people are preacing to the Choir. Slashdot has always had a pro-Linux slant, and its not surprising that they(SCO) are referred to as Litigious Bastards.
Also, you should temper your arrogance with a little humbleness. Just because you believe you are correct, factually or not, doesn't mean you ARE correct.
(I have many times almost added you to my foes/ignore list, mainly due to complete arrogance on your part. Please tone down your unctuousness.)
I'd say your closer to the money. What will happen is you'll really have special interests lobbying the politicians at this summit, they can make a feel-good statement and look like their doing something, and in actual effect, nothing at all really happens.
"Congratulations fuckers you proven why you shouldnt be allowed to have freedoms."
I find it rather amusing that you think some people deserve freedoms more than others? The original guy got all high and mighty and asked for something which he didn't AGREE with get banned. Well how would you react if i said you should be banned from this site? Everyone deserves freedoms, whether you agree with them or not. Your view is very authoritarian-like and I hope you enjoy living in North Korea.
And in a more crude reply, FUCK YOU!
I am in no way affiliated with GNAA or any other Troll organisation.
No the ACCC doesn't understand whats going on, thats why they are asking SCO for a please explain. A Victorian group has complained about it, and ACCC are trying to find the facts from both sides.
But its always good to see our ACCC responding to complaints in the right way, by finding out the facts. Hopefully this all pans out well for Aussie Linux Users.
Secondly, while it is based on Suse, there are a lot of "Third-Party" applications, so to speak, in the OS. Many Java utilities (in the article it leasts at least 4 standalone, IIRC), and Staroffice.
As for it being enterprise system, well.... all I can say is that the OS is clearly aimed at the Desktop level, as Sun are selling two different products, funnily enough named Desktop System, which is the one based on Linux and Enterprise System , which is the Solaris Version.
Im trying to work out where you are getting the enterprise angle from. The linux version is being marketed as the desktop system, so sprouting out nonsense like it being for Enterprise customers, when you yourself state its the desktop system, doesn't make sense.
Overall, you stated facts that are either wrong or obvious, so im wondering where your "insightful tag" came from.
There is no lite version of Mozilla, in the stricter sense of the word. There is Firebird, the standalone Browser, and Thunderbird, the standalone Email Program.
They are not lite versions, but rather programs which share a large code base with the Mozilla Browser and Mozilla Mail parts of the Mozilla suite.
Slashdot Mirror
God your a fucking tool.
Shut up, for the sake of all readers on slashdot.
AC's have way more brains than you, my "Im logged in and so tough" friend.
I wisely see you have removed your sig.
.sig to "Assigned Beta Tester". HTH.
Oh wait, you haven't, despite the admission you haven't played anything on a phantom.
Waspish comments aside, HardOCP do have the perfect right to sue them, and saying "I think this has gone a little bit too far" is rather counter-productive. HardOCP is forcing the issue here and now, to stop what could possibly be endless months of legal threats, with no action. No-one likes legal threats, and the HardOCP team have moved to clear this up.
The blame lies solely on Infinium Labs. They could of just politely asked HardOCP to correct a few errors in the article (which OCP did), but they then proceeded to wax lyrically about legal threats, which was unneeded. Of course, they could of done alot better by ignoring the article, and getting on with making the phantom, or providing some proof to the contrary, but instead they threatened to sue.
To me, that doesn't sound like a secure company.
Hint: To stop flammatory comments, much like my opening lines, change your
"Additionally, I don't see how hard it is to believe in the Phantom's existence"
I'd like to have evidence, not faith.
I.E is a slightly different kettle of fish, because, correct me if im wrong, but windows explorer is a slightly modified version of IE. Thus IE code is in there for windows explorer already.
But I could be wrong.
Forgive my lack of ettiquette...
But what the fuck does FireFox GAIM or Thunderbird have to do with Windows Media Player, or media players and/or formats in general?
You have gone through this whole thread pounding strawmen arguments about web browsers and email programs, when they are completely different to media players.
And before you ask why, its because media players allow for access to media files, which can come in any different number of formats and or codecs, and which a large entertainment industry is built upon (over the internet anyway).
Stay on topic.
Stop being obtuse.
Their leveraging their monopoly to make sure each windows computer has their Media Player has on, forcing the media content providers to put stuff in WM format.
You're strawmen arguments and obtuseness is starting to wear thin.
Please, stop with the Non Sequitur questions. Otherwise, provide logic and reasoning for your points.
I still think your not getting it.
Sure, WMP allows you to play all those files.
But WMP is on all Windows Installs (barring exceptional circumstances). Windows Installs making up 85%+ of the market.
What type of files work best with WMP? Funnily enough, Windows Media. So everyone tends towards WM.
I may enjoy using media player "x", which plays format "y" much better than WMP does. But due to a leveraged monopoly, the only files are WM files.
Looking at it another way. Say you want to provide media in one format (too save costs or whatever). Now you know there are lots of different players and formats. Most players support Windows Media so Windows Media works great. And you know, if they haven't got any third-party players, they will still have some form of Windows Media Player on their computer. So WM is the safe, easy option.
Im not agreeing or disagreeing with the decision of the commission, but their logic has merit.
Actually if you read another of my posts in a thread further down, you'll see I completely agree with you. I wasn't endorsing or defending the commissions reasoning, simply stating it.
Thats a valid point.
I'd much rather see interoperability improved by forcing Microsoft to publish some code that is need for better operability within the OS by third-party products.
The selling of a media-player less Windows is not a very well-thought out idea. Its great idealistically, but not very practically.
Easy way to sell bundled version - Sell both products at the same price, or about $5 dollars difference at most. Advertise one as standard, and one as a "Deluxe" version with latest, greatest Media Player et al, about to play DVD's etc etc.
Now which one do you think the majority of people will buy?
And of course, since we already have the market tending towards Windows Media files, when people go online they see alot of WM files, and hey presto, download Media Player.
Its still a great idea about selling a stripped down Windows XP, but if the commission think this is going to change much in reality, they have their heads in the clouds.
I highly doubt this is a slippery slope, and the analogy with Apple is misleading.
In the article it states that many media content companies are making files and movies available only in Windows Media Formats, because its the only Media player they know thats going to be on the system. Since a overwhelming of desktops use Windows, this is amounting to the fact that the market tends towards using Windows Media, and thus whats the point of getting other formats/players?
The commission is hoping to open up the media player market a little, only to allow more competition and "a fair go" for other media players/formats. People still have the choice of getting Windows Media with the OS, so this isn't really hurting anyone, just allowing for a free market.
On the issue of interoperability, there was this little gem-
Bolkestein warned that ordering Microsoft to reveal code, which is protected by copyright, and to a lesser extent by patents, could make the Commission vulnerable to a legal challenge by the company at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.
Im quite unclear on Bolkestein's motivation for that comment. Opening up the code to allow interoperability will not take away the fact that the code is Microsoft's, so Copyright is preserved. The commission isn't (as far as I can tell) letting competitor's simply copy MS's code so they can interoperate, but rather allow the code to be shown so they can code their own products to allow cleaner interoperability with MS's code. Any since patents are required to be published anyway, and need to be licenced, the patent comments is a non sequitur.
So.... by having the name "the arbiter" all of a sudden your opinions are more valid.
AC comments are some of the most informative, insightful posts here these days, mainly because they don't care about karma or any of that other bullshit, they just post whats on their minds. Some of its inflammatory, some of its wrong, some of its noise, but some of its correct, just like the AC parent of your post.
So get off your high horse and start contributing to the discussion, instead of wasting time and accounts by posting drivel about people being AC or not.
For my views, I agree with the AC. Respond to his arguments, and I'll address your counter-arguments.
And yes yes, I saw the smiley. Doesn't make it any more valid.
I know your not going to reply to this, but for the record.
It is highly debatable whether the BBC were wrong or not. However, the clear lack of forethought into reasons for the virus, as well as a seemingly quick link-up (likely or not) to it being Linux fundamentalists seemed to put a lot of people's noses out of joint, pro-Linux or not.
As for referring the SCO as litigious bastards, when that happens, its mainly when people are preacing to the Choir. Slashdot has always had a pro-Linux slant, and its not surprising that they(SCO) are referred to as Litigious Bastards.
Also, you should temper your arrogance with a little humbleness. Just because you believe you are correct, factually or not, doesn't mean you ARE correct.
(I have many times almost added you to my foes/ignore list, mainly due to complete arrogance on your part. Please tone down your unctuousness.)
Clit was partially destroyed/pushed underground when the -1 cap of 2 posts per day was put into effect.
Gnaa have multiple accounts and generally AC anyway with proxies, thats why you see them more.
Not going AC purposely.
I'd say your closer to the money. What will happen is you'll really have special interests lobbying the politicians at this summit, they can make a feel-good statement and look like their doing something, and in actual effect, nothing at all really happens.
Yes its a cynical view, but can you blame me?
"Congratulations fuckers you proven why you shouldnt be allowed to have freedoms."
I find it rather amusing that you think some people deserve freedoms more than others? The original guy got all high and mighty and asked for something which he didn't AGREE with get banned. Well how would you react if i said you should be banned from this site? Everyone deserves freedoms, whether you agree with them or not. Your view is very authoritarian-like and I hope you enjoy living in North Korea.
And in a more crude reply, FUCK YOU!
I am in no way affiliated with GNAA or any other Troll organisation.
Real Networks, and their spectacularly crappy software, are a shitstain on the mediaplayer market. Their spyware/adware is a bloated piece of shit.
The Real company is the most vile company around, bar none.
Bush and Co (or Neo-Cons in general)ARE a fascist clique.
Sincerely, An Australian.
Is it really necessary to have every test release on the front page?
You are truly a fucking tool. Welcome to my foes/ignore list, cocksucker.
Stop being such a stupid karma whore. FOAD.
No the ACCC doesn't understand whats going on, thats why they are asking SCO for a please explain. A Victorian group has complained about it, and ACCC are trying to find the facts from both sides.
But its always good to see our ACCC responding to complaints in the right way, by finding out the facts. Hopefully this all pans out well for Aussie Linux Users.
Its a Sun configured OS for the Desktop, with lots of little Java utilities thrown in and the Java Developer Kit and J2SE.
It makes perfect sense. They put it in black and white that the OS is linux. Whats the big problem?
If sun wants to customise GNOME, why stop them? Its not the end of the world when someone forks a open-source project.
Perhaps, but the browser is only one part of the complete Mozilla suite. Admittedly that its the most important, but still only one part.
First of all, please preview and format.
Secondly, while it is based on Suse, there are a lot of "Third-Party" applications, so to speak, in the OS. Many Java utilities (in the article it leasts at least 4 standalone, IIRC), and Staroffice.
As for it being enterprise system, well.... all I can say is that the OS is clearly aimed at the Desktop level, as Sun are selling two different products, funnily enough named Desktop System, which is the one based on Linux and Enterprise System , which is the Solaris Version.
Im trying to work out where you are getting the enterprise angle from. The linux version is being marketed as the desktop system, so sprouting out nonsense like it being for Enterprise customers, when you yourself state its the desktop system, doesn't make sense.
Overall, you stated facts that are either wrong or obvious, so im wondering where your "insightful tag" came from.
There is no lite version of Mozilla, in the stricter sense of the word. There is Firebird, the standalone Browser, and Thunderbird, the standalone Email Program.
They are not lite versions, but rather programs which share a large code base with the Mozilla Browser and Mozilla Mail parts of the Mozilla suite.