We who want our copyrights to be respected should have more respect for others'.
No, if YOU want YOUR copyrights to be respected, YOU should have more respect for others'. I would venture to guess that 90% of slashdot readers do not care if their own copyrights are respected. Yes, I know the GPL relies on copyright -- but we wouldn't need it if copyright did not exist. Quit reposting this BS that Apple trolls came up with a while ago.
Cygwin is a user-mode program, so I fail to see how it can crash a well-written system. Try writing a program that can crash a Linux box (that doesn't access hardware directly or require root privileges).
Since there were no viable alternatives to Win95 since its release, Microsoft did not have to worry about stability. After all, Win98 was even less stable, and WinME was by far the worst. When Linux actually started resembling something usable around 1998 and 1999, people were pissed off enough that a fairly significant percentage decided to try it.
I am pretty sure that we would still be using WinME if Linux didn't exist. As far as Lindows: it appeared much later, so it obviously couldn't have influenced WinXP directly. I was just making a point that competition is a good thing even for people who buy Microsoft software.
Well, just to remind you, Microsoft announced XP (then known as Whistler) about the same time as Linux was getting lots of media attention. Let's not forget that Microsoft's WinNT line did not support anything multimedia-related until Win2000 came out (and even then it had lots of compatibility problems). I think Microsoft wanted to keep selling NT as an expensive "premium" system, and Win9x as the cheap "consumer" version. Why else would they have bothered developing and releasing WinME?
You are forgetting one thing: the cost of your time. The only way you can get such outdated machines is if you build them yourself. If you have ever tried to build more than one machine, you would know that it is a slow, expensive, and error-prone process.
Half your boxes will refuse to work, you will spend hours troubleshooting to find the 10 dead mobos, 5 bad sticks of RAM, a few defective cables, and so on. Then you will find out that you got the wrong revision of the motherboard that tends to crash often when you use it with the particular brand of RAM you bought, and that you have to take apart and rebuild all the computers again (after exchanging 40 motherboards or so for different ones).
In short, it's much easier and cheaper to just buy a bunch of pre-built machines from a large vendor like Dell. And if you don't know, Dell doesn't sell AMD boxes, and a 2.8GHz processor is the slowest they offer on desktops these days.
You don't have a clue, do you? Linspire is a COMPETITOR to Windows. Therefore, they need to offer the same kind of features. Do you really think MS would have made WinXP half as good as it is if not for Linux? If Linux didn't exist, we would still be using WinME and complaining about BSODs.
As if you can somehow diminish a corporation's revenue. Yeah right. Go and try to make Wal-mart bankrupt by not shopping there. It won't happen, for the same reason that a Libertarian won't be president this year.
First, this would likely be legally unenforceble, which is why it is not possible to add it to the license. I am pretty sure that you cannot make someone agree to not sue you, which is what this would amount to. Besides, how do you even put something like that into precise terms?
Also, free software is just that, and discriminating against users will simply make it non-free. What if I decide to refuse to license my software to people who buy Microsoft products? Or to people who openly support Bush? The point is, politics and discrimination don't belong in free software licensing.
Linux is a piece of software. You can't sue a piece of software. You could sue a developer, a distributor, or an end user, and they would have to defend themselves.
You are another one of those Libertarian loonies. Do you not realize that, in the absence of relevant laws, the entity with the most money or resources wins? The fact is, a corporation can afford things like PR campaigns, which are very expensive and extremely powerful. It can afford to fight in the courts. It could do lots more if there weren't so many laws. For some reason libertarians choose to ignore these obvious facts.
Sure some work has been replaced (eg. manual calculation), but it has been replaced with more complex work (typed report->3d bar graph spreadsheet etc).
Try manually calculating something like a trigonometric table. Then tell us about how it's easier than Excel bar graphs.
Care to tell me what's so dangerous about running as root on a single-user machine? Yeah, some random trojan could theoretically corrupt some system files that can be reinstalled from CD in minutes. So what?
What are you smoking? Most of their products pretty much set the standard of "ugly". Some of their stuff is decent, but most of it looks like ass. Hell, they seem to have designed the newer Dell boxes -- which are butt-ugly. I think the reason people like Apple's design is because it's NOT done by this company anymore.
Maybe you should stop using Slackware and try a modern desktop-oriented distribution. Ever try Linspire, Mandrake, Lycoris, or Xandros? Who the fuck are you responding to, anyway?
Webhosting is so cheap these days it's practically free. So is storage -- how do you think Gmail can afford to give everyone a gig of space? Developing itunes is not that expensive, either. Manufacturing hardware is much, much more expensive.
Anyway, there are about 20 other music services with prices that are lower than Apple's. They somehow manage to be profitable. Why would the industry leader be less profitable?
Their profit margin is not 4%. It is closer to 40%. Clearly, they don't intend to run iTMS on a non-profit basis if their profit margin is so large. The iPod's margin is much smaller. In short, what you are saying does not make sense.
There are practically no fixed costs apart from licensing fees that they pay to record companies. Please don't give me the BS about high webhosting prices, it's not true. There are certain costs they need to amortize, but given the volume of songs they are tiny.
Whatever. If you read Microsoft's tax filings, you'd think they are a money-losing company. They are probably counting R&D costs, advertising, and so on. The point is, they wouldn't be in the business if they didn't intend to make money off of it.
Apple makes a lot more money selling iPods than they do selling songs on the iTMS.
That was true maybe in the first week of iTMS. I am sure it is extremely profitable right now since they could have renegotiated the contract about ten times since it was launched. Considering that the labels only charge them about 50 cents (by their own admission), that's a 50% gross profit margin.
Slashdot Mirror
We who want our copyrights to be respected should have more respect for others'.
No, if YOU want YOUR copyrights to be respected, YOU should have more respect for others'. I would venture to guess that 90% of slashdot readers do not care if their own copyrights are respected. Yes, I know the GPL relies on copyright -- but we wouldn't need it if copyright did not exist. Quit reposting this BS that Apple trolls came up with a while ago.
Cygwin is a user-mode program, so I fail to see how it can crash a well-written system. Try writing a program that can crash a Linux box (that doesn't access hardware directly or require root privileges).
Since there were no viable alternatives to Win95 since its release, Microsoft did not have to worry about stability. After all, Win98 was even less stable, and WinME was by far the worst. When Linux actually started resembling something usable around 1998 and 1999, people were pissed off enough that a fairly significant percentage decided to try it.
I am pretty sure that we would still be using WinME if Linux didn't exist. As far as Lindows: it appeared much later, so it obviously couldn't have influenced WinXP directly. I was just making a point that competition is a good thing even for people who buy Microsoft software.
Well, just to remind you, Microsoft announced XP (then known as Whistler) about the same time as Linux was getting lots of media attention. Let's not forget that Microsoft's WinNT line did not support anything multimedia-related until Win2000 came out (and even then it had lots of compatibility problems). I think Microsoft wanted to keep selling NT as an expensive "premium" system, and Win9x as the cheap "consumer" version. Why else would they have bothered developing and releasing WinME?
You are forgetting one thing: the cost of your time. The only way you can get such outdated machines is if you build them yourself. If you have ever tried to build more than one machine, you would know that it is a slow, expensive, and error-prone process.
Half your boxes will refuse to work, you will spend hours troubleshooting to find the 10 dead mobos, 5 bad sticks of RAM, a few defective cables, and so on. Then you will find out that you got the wrong revision of the motherboard that tends to crash often when you use it with the particular brand of RAM you bought, and that you have to take apart and rebuild all the computers again (after exchanging 40 motherboards or so for different ones).
In short, it's much easier and cheaper to just buy a bunch of pre-built machines from a large vendor like Dell. And if you don't know, Dell doesn't sell AMD boxes, and a 2.8GHz processor is the slowest they offer on desktops these days.
You don't have a clue, do you? Linspire is a COMPETITOR to Windows. Therefore, they need to offer the same kind of features. Do you really think MS would have made WinXP half as good as it is if not for Linux? If Linux didn't exist, we would still be using WinME and complaining about BSODs.
You need to learn some history. The fact is, an entity with enough resources can oppress quite a large group of people pretty much indefinitely.
As if you can somehow diminish a corporation's revenue. Yeah right. Go and try to make Wal-mart bankrupt by not shopping there. It won't happen, for the same reason that a Libertarian won't be president this year.
First, this would likely be legally unenforceble, which is why it is not possible to add it to the license. I am pretty sure that you cannot make someone agree to not sue you, which is what this would amount to. Besides, how do you even put something like that into precise terms?
Also, free software is just that, and discriminating against users will simply make it non-free. What if I decide to refuse to license my software to people who buy Microsoft products? Or to people who openly support Bush? The point is, politics and discrimination don't belong in free software licensing.
Linux is a piece of software. You can't sue a piece of software. You could sue a developer, a distributor, or an end user, and they would have to defend themselves.
You are another one of those Libertarian loonies. Do you not realize that, in the absence of relevant laws, the entity with the most money or resources wins? The fact is, a corporation can afford things like PR campaigns, which are very expensive and extremely powerful. It can afford to fight in the courts. It could do lots more if there weren't so many laws. For some reason libertarians choose to ignore these obvious facts.
Sure some work has been replaced (eg. manual calculation), but it has been replaced with more complex work (typed report->3d bar graph spreadsheet etc).
Try manually calculating something like a trigonometric table. Then tell us about how it's easier than Excel bar graphs.
If you signed a non-compete agreement, you will have to disclose that information if they sue you (which they can, and will, do).
Care to tell me what's so dangerous about running as root on a single-user machine? Yeah, some random trojan could theoretically corrupt some system files that can be reinstalled from CD in minutes. So what?
Acer? BARF! As I said earlier, pretty much sets the standard for "ugly." It's kinda quirky in a Mac sense, but unlike Macs it just looks hideous.
What are you smoking? Most of their products pretty much set the standard of "ugly". Some of their stuff is decent, but most of it looks like ass. Hell, they seem to have designed the newer Dell boxes -- which are butt-ugly. I think the reason people like Apple's design is because it's NOT done by this company anymore.
Maybe you should stop using Slackware and try a modern desktop-oriented distribution. Ever try Linspire, Mandrake, Lycoris, or Xandros? Who the fuck are you responding to, anyway?
Laser discs are actually analog. So you can't copy them to DVD directly.
Webhosting is so cheap these days it's practically free. So is storage -- how do you think Gmail can afford to give everyone a gig of space? Developing itunes is not that expensive, either. Manufacturing hardware is much, much more expensive.
Anyway, there are about 20 other music services with prices that are lower than Apple's. They somehow manage to be profitable. Why would the industry leader be less profitable?
Their profit margin is not 4%. It is closer to 40%. Clearly, they don't intend to run iTMS on a non-profit basis if their profit margin is so large. The iPod's margin is much smaller. In short, what you are saying does not make sense.
There are practically no fixed costs apart from licensing fees that they pay to record companies. Please don't give me the BS about high webhosting prices, it's not true. There are certain costs they need to amortize, but given the volume of songs they are tiny.
Whatever. If you read Microsoft's tax filings, you'd think they are a money-losing company. They are probably counting R&D costs, advertising, and so on. The point is, they wouldn't be in the business if they didn't intend to make money off of it.
It's a British thing, you moron.
Apple makes a lot more money selling iPods than they do selling songs on the iTMS.
That was true maybe in the first week of iTMS. I am sure it is extremely profitable right now since they could have renegotiated the contract about ten times since it was launched. Considering that the labels only charge them about 50 cents (by their own admission), that's a 50% gross profit margin.
At least Real is better than Quicktime for Windows. Talk about a buggy piece of shit...