I have to be fair - Microsoft is doing MUCH better these days, 2000 is a nice OS, even though I like Linux better.
However, Microsoft sold an OS named Windows 98 in which you have to reboot to change network settings. I think that, along with related things, is enough reason to give it all the criticism you have breath for.
Oh, and that virtual limit of 512 (or so) megs of RAM is fun as well. For those who don't know what I'm talking about, I just put 768 megs of RAM in my system and it would hardly work. Windows reported an "out of memory error" after just booting.
Turns out that, as I was told by a fellow programmer, it doesn't have enough memory registers (is this the right term? I'm not an OS programmer), and when you add so much RAM, there isn't enough room for virtual memory.
Anyway, upgrading to 2k fixed it for me and my programmer friend who had this problem as well.
Saying 512 MB is enough for a desktop is about as stupid as saying that a 1.2 gig drive can never be filled. But that's right, if they gave their OSs longevity, then they would be able to get people to pay for upgrades.
Being realistic, for an ISP to block P2P programs would require more than they can handle without totally pissing off all of their users. I can think of a few ways around any ISP interference off the top of my head:
-Port redirection -Use protocols like AIM file transfer -Encryption in certain stages to hide P2P signature -100% encryption period
The last two would take more time and put a harder strain on networks and computers, but frankly, there is no way an ISP can block any information - period - short of putting spyware on customer's computers.
When Microsoft came out and said that they would fix all of our security and privacy problems with Palladium, most of us scoffed.
If the RIAA were to say, "Pay us for music downloads," I'm betting the farm that most of us will give them the finger, or at least a large enough of a percentage that they find the new venture to have too little benefit to sustain.
Before someone jumps down my throat, I made a typo:
-Tainting the idea of CDex in the first place by making a version of it non-free.
Should read:
-Tainting the idea of CDex in the first place by making money off of a product which was supposed to be a free, side-effect free tool to benefit the public out of good will.
-Taking advantage of a user's lack of knowledge about these utilities to get money.
-Riding on the back's of someone else to get money they did not earn.
-Tainting the idea of CDex in the first place by making a version of it non-free.
-Stealing a copywrited work.
Need I go on?
Even if they distributed the exact same thing they may nead to change the name (see RedHat).
Get your facts straight - Red Hat is NOT simply distributing the same thing. They make additions, modifications, etc. They're known to offer contributions to the Open Source Community. They take an otherwise hard to install Linux Kernel, package the whole thing with documentation and an installer, set default settings, etc. to make it easier on the end user. If this neo crap added useful (to the user) additions, then fine, but they didn't. And I should mention that Red Hat doesn't use spyware or adware, at least to the absolute best of my knowledge (and considering this laptop is running RH 7.1, I'd say I'm knowledgable enough).
The original product is in no way tainted
If you were to take a survey, the vast majority of users would rate spyware as bad, and most likely, adware negatively. These were the only additions to CDex. Adding a negative to something taints the original.
and yet some more people get its functionality. Yes, more people might find CDex's functionality - that is a plus. In fact, the only one I can find besides the publicity on their theft (yes, theft, look up copyright law).
P.S. What is so wrong about addware?
Ad-ware isn't all that bad - I don't mind contributing that to people who created a product I use (e.g. Opera, I have used it, but don't like it). But I am of the firm belief that ad-ware should be optional to the user and that one shouldn't put it in a free program to make money off someone else's work.
If you think taking someone else's work which was published with the goal of being free and helping people, and adding spyware and ad-ware to it to make money off of something you didn't help out on, you have some seriously twisted morals. If you truely believe that, I hope you never earn more than $35k yearly, ever, because that's all scum deserve.
Damn, I love these ACs. Please, if anyone wants to have a debate here, grow some genitals and post under your user name.
"A major study"...by some guy who my sister's friend's aunt met at the circle-K...
From OSI jobs page Programming will collapse if software has no market value
"Very unlikely. Code written for resale is only the tip of the programming iceberg. It used to be said that 85% of all the code in the world was written in-house at banks and insurance companies. This is probably no longer the case (and a good thing; who in their right mind wants to wear a tie and grind out huge volumes of COBOL?) but most estimates put the proportion of all code written in-house at companies other than software vendors at over 75%."
Forgive me for not putting that right or looking it up. I'll forgive you for being a mocking jack-ass.
"And the leftover 25% would most likely be fine as well"..most likely, we guess, although nobody really knows because it hasn't been tried. And if they would prefer to remain programmers, fuck 'em - everybody should follow the Church of Stallman!
Although I resent your sarcasm, I'll agree with you here on both points. Stallman has gone over the top quite a few times. That doesn't make him wrong, however.
"Microsoft is slowly realizing the benefits of the OSS development model"
Here's the really humorous part. Yeah, they were so tired of making money they decided to just go Open Source!
Damn, you're dense. I didn't say they're doing open source, I said they're realizing the benefits. Read: Shared source. I didn't say how far they were taking it, just that they realize the benefits. This is just a beginning.
"you only make yourself look like one"
whereas by quoting statistics without also quoting sources you make yourself a paragon of truth and reliable source of undisputable facts, I suppose.
Being sarcastic doesn't add to your point, either.
And to your right, folks, an AC who hasn't done his homework. *shock* *amazement*
A major study (too lazy to look up links, I think I read this in that rebuttal letter to MS from the Peruvian senator) said that 75% or so of all development is done in-house for projects that are used within a company. Most of the programmer profession would be fine.
And the leftover 25% would most likely be fine as well. Being paid to develop OSS is not new, but not broadly found, simply because people are scared of this business model. However, even Microsoft is slowly realizing the benefits of the OSS development model. The OSI homepage has good speculation and even perspectives on these new business models as well.
Support and maintenance as an income stream? Sure, people are just lining up to pay for support...
Actually, if you study trends of late, the software market is going to a support role - businesses want solutions, not just a box with a CD.
I'll also add that my company, which is a software reseller, fits both of these points well (although less on the degree of % developed for in-house, it fits with the market overall).
Read up at www.opensource.org before you scream that Stallman is a retard as you only make yourself look like one.
Seconded (besides the modded up part - that negativity isn't neccessary).
It's not what laws they break, it's the thought that counts.
They're in the right, legally, but that doesn't make them good people. They take someone's work, put abusive software in the package, and attempt to take advantage of dumb users. That is immoral, regardless of legality.
We have a right to bitch, IMO. As the parent said, the backlash might be a bit harsh, but sometimes poor people really deserve it.
If this thing can repel them, I wonder if they have something that could be used to attract them somewhere else.
Computer: Attention! This is the RIAA! We have been monitoring your downloading activities and will be flooding you off the internet.
Cracker: Tsk.
Later that day: "In other news today, the RIAA was swarmed with thousands of hungry female mosquitos. Hilary Rosen, between slapping and scratching, said, 'Well, that's 10 minutes those kids weren't downloading music. Another victory for the RIAA!'"
I was under the impression that when a connection went out, the router would open up a port and forward that port to your computer... thus when an incoming packet hit that port, it would remember which internal IP that port was linked to and pass it on. I wasn't aware that MAC addressed remained the same, although that does make sense.
But from my understanding, if you put up a NAT wi-fi router, how could your ISP determine you were sharing? I suppose they could monitor traffic and guess depending on what data was being sent, but come on...
I'd actually like to see the RIAA DoS people, for three reasons:
It'll break this into the open a bit more, and eventually, even with media FUD and BS, the true nature will get out.
1) The RIAA's image will (hopefully) be tarnished beyond repair.
2) Congressmen that pass legislation putting the law in the hands of the RIAA and giving them power to commit a crime will (hopefully) be disgraced.
3) Crackers from around the world will make the RIAA sorry they were ever born. Call me immature, call me naive, but in this case, I say fight fire with fire: maybe the gov't will listen... but as an above post mentioned, they've been turning a deaf ear recently.
But I don't think the media should shape our lives. Screw'em. They don't represent hardly *anything* in it's true form, anyway.
On the other hand... maybe we should use that tool against this whole issue. How feasible would it be to get media coverage of this legislation? I think if people knew that certain members of our government were trying to:
-put the law in the hands of the RIAA -give them sole discression of who to attack -give them the power to commit what would be a crime for anyone else
this might blow up. I have a feeling most folks, given the facts, would be ashamed. Maybe we could find a way to get a black shadow cast on those behind this?
Maybe a mass-email campaign to 20/20 or something?:-P
3.1 is the best windows ever. it has true command line integration.
I've never heard anyone say something like that -- although when I think about it, I enjoyed working in 3.1 more than I did any Windows afterwards. It seems like it took me less time to do what I wanted. That was years ago though...
Desktop + command line is great, which is why I love Linux. =)
While I will flat out agree that Windows 98 and Linux today are not comparable, I will say this regarding uptime:
When was the last time you saw a 2000 box with an uptime of a few months with daily usage by a user?
XP?
And, if so, is that box still running like it was when you turned it on?
Even in the server market, where systems aren't touched at all, Linux seems to kick Windows around. I know of Windows 2K servers that have had uptimes of over three months, but I've never seen them rival that of common Linux uptimes.
In a 'controlled' environment like that, I think the comparison speaks the loudest.
Maybe this is all just my ignorance on the issue screaming, but from my experience, Windows has never consistantly beat Linux in uptime when management is good and variables equal.
I don't recall 95 doing that, but I know 3.1 was close.
There was a memory leak in 3.1 that was so global (Read: in the core of the OS) that it guaranteed a crash. Sometimes it took 6 hours, sometimes 6 days, but it *WOULD* crash.
As someone posted above, RPM managers and the like keep my system fresh and sparkly.
If you delete a program on Linux, most of the time you simply delete the directory or rpm -e the RPM. I can't count the number of times a Windows uninstall has failed and left junk on my system, or has completed but still left junk on my system.
I'm not saying that Linux is perfect, but having used Linux for a little over two years and Windows for the previous 5, I feel confident that Linux isn't even in the same ballpark.
Assuming that coping CDs is A Bad Idea (e.g. assume the DMCA is right... heh):
Don't blame stupid ideas for the stupid people that act on them.
Don't stop someone from preaching a bad idea (Read: KKK, Bruce) -- that's a violation of free speech. Arresting people who do Bad Things is the proper course of action.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to be fair - Microsoft is doing MUCH better these days, 2000 is a nice OS, even though I like Linux better.
However, Microsoft sold an OS named Windows 98 in which you have to reboot to change network settings. I think that, along with related things, is enough reason to give it all the criticism you have breath for.
Oh, and that virtual limit of 512 (or so) megs of RAM is fun as well. For those who don't know what I'm talking about, I just put 768 megs of RAM in my system and it would hardly work. Windows reported an "out of memory error" after just booting.
Turns out that, as I was told by a fellow programmer, it doesn't have enough memory registers (is this the right term? I'm not an OS programmer), and when you add so much RAM, there isn't enough room for virtual memory.
Anyway, upgrading to 2k fixed it for me and my programmer friend who had this problem as well.
Saying 512 MB is enough for a desktop is about as stupid as saying that a 1.2 gig drive can never be filled. But that's right, if they gave their OSs longevity, then they would be able to get people to pay for upgrades.
An interesting fact that I'd like to note:
A Windows 98 *upgrade* box is still $89 at the Best Buy nearest me.
Being realistic, for an ISP to block P2P programs would require more than they can handle without totally pissing off all of their users. I can think of a few ways around any ISP interference off the top of my head:
-Port redirection
-Use protocols like AIM file transfer
-Encryption in certain stages to hide P2P signature
-100% encryption period
The last two would take more time and put a harder strain on networks and computers, but frankly, there is no way an ISP can block any information - period - short of putting spyware on customer's computers.
When Microsoft came out and said that they would fix all of our security and privacy problems with Palladium, most of us scoffed.
If the RIAA were to say, "Pay us for music downloads," I'm betting the farm that most of us will give them the finger, or at least a large enough of a percentage that they find the new venture to have too little benefit to sustain.
I know =)
I've heard the advice. Just defending my argument with facts since I have the time to look them up now (not at work). =)
Even so, sometimes I just can't help myself =)
Before someone jumps down my throat, I made a typo:
-Tainting the idea of CDex in the first place by making a version of it non-free.
Should read:
-Tainting the idea of CDex in the first place by making money off of a product which was supposed to be a free, side-effect free tool to benefit the public out of good will.
What moraly wrong about what they are doing.
-Taking advantage of a user's lack of knowledge about these utilities to get money.
-Riding on the back's of someone else to get money they did not earn.
-Tainting the idea of CDex in the first place by making a version of it non-free.
-Stealing a copywrited work.
Need I go on?
Even if they distributed the exact same thing they may nead to change the name (see RedHat).
Get your facts straight - Red Hat is NOT simply distributing the same thing. They make additions, modifications, etc. They're known to offer contributions to the Open Source Community. They take an otherwise hard to install Linux Kernel, package the whole thing with documentation and an installer, set default settings, etc. to make it easier on the end user. If this neo crap added useful (to the user) additions, then fine, but they didn't. And I should mention that Red Hat doesn't use spyware or adware, at least to the absolute best of my knowledge (and considering this laptop is running RH 7.1, I'd say I'm knowledgable enough).
The original product is in no way tainted
If you were to take a survey, the vast majority of users would rate spyware as bad, and most likely, adware negatively. These were the only additions to CDex. Adding a negative to something taints the original.
and yet some more people get its functionality.
Yes, more people might find CDex's functionality - that is a plus. In fact, the only one I can find besides the publicity on their theft (yes, theft, look up copyright law).
P.S. What is so wrong about addware?
Ad-ware isn't all that bad - I don't mind contributing that to people who created a product I use (e.g. Opera, I have used it, but don't like it). But I am of the firm belief that ad-ware should be optional to the user and that one shouldn't put it in a free program to make money off someone else's work.
If you think taking someone else's work which was published with the goal of being free and helping people, and adding spyware and ad-ware to it to make money off of something you didn't help out on, you have some seriously twisted morals. If you truely believe that, I hope you never earn more than $35k yearly, ever, because that's all scum deserve.
Damn, I love these ACs. Please, if anyone wants to have a debate here, grow some genitals and post under your user name.
...by some guy who my sister's friend's aunt met at the circle-K...
..most likely, we guess, although nobody really knows because it hasn't been tried. And if they would prefer to remain programmers, fuck 'em - everybody should follow the Church of Stallman!
"A major study"
From OSI jobs page
Programming will collapse if software has no market value
"Very unlikely. Code written for resale is only the tip of the programming iceberg. It used to be said that 85% of all the code in the world was written in-house at banks and insurance companies. This is probably no longer the case (and a good thing; who in their right mind wants to wear a tie and grind out huge volumes of COBOL?) but most estimates put the proportion of all code written in-house at companies other than software vendors at over 75%."
Forgive me for not putting that right or looking it up. I'll forgive you for being a mocking jack-ass.
"And the leftover 25% would most likely be fine as well"
Although I resent your sarcasm, I'll agree with you here on both points. Stallman has gone over the top quite a few times. That doesn't make him wrong, however.
"Microsoft is slowly realizing the benefits of the OSS development model"
Here's the really humorous part. Yeah, they were so tired of making money they decided to just go Open Source!
Damn, you're dense. I didn't say they're doing open source, I said they're realizing the benefits. Read: Shared source. I didn't say how far they were taking it, just that they realize the benefits. This is just a beginning.
"you only make yourself look like one"
whereas by quoting statistics without also quoting sources you make yourself a paragon of truth and reliable source of undisputable facts, I suppose.
Being sarcastic doesn't add to your point, either.
And to your right, folks, an AC who hasn't done his homework. *shock* *amazement*
A major study (too lazy to look up links, I think I read this in that rebuttal letter to MS from the Peruvian senator) said that 75% or so of all development is done in-house for projects that are used within a company. Most of the programmer profession would be fine.
And the leftover 25% would most likely be fine as well. Being paid to develop OSS is not new, but not broadly found, simply because people are scared of this business model. However, even Microsoft is slowly realizing the benefits of the OSS development model. The OSI homepage has good speculation and even perspectives on these new business models as well.
Support and maintenance as an income stream? Sure, people are just lining up to pay for support...
Actually, if you study trends of late, the software market is going to a support role - businesses want solutions, not just a box with a CD.
I'll also add that my company, which is a software reseller, fits both of these points well (although less on the degree of % developed for in-house, it fits with the market overall).
Read up at www.opensource.org before you scream that Stallman is a retard as you only make yourself look like one.
There is nothing wrong with being young.
There is nothing wrong with being a virgin.
There is nothing wrong with being behind mountains of mountain dew.
None of these relate to the intelligence of the poster. Your post, however, seems to relate to your intelligence perfectly.
Seconded (besides the modded up part - that negativity isn't neccessary).
It's not what laws they break, it's the thought that counts.
They're in the right, legally, but that doesn't make them good people. They take someone's work, put abusive software in the package, and attempt to take advantage of dumb users. That is immoral, regardless of legality.
We have a right to bitch, IMO. As the parent said, the backlash might be a bit harsh, but sometimes poor people really deserve it.
If this thing can repel them, I wonder if they have something that could be used to attract them somewhere else.
Computer: Attention! This is the RIAA! We have been monitoring your downloading activities and will be flooding you off the internet.
Cracker: Tsk.
Later that day:
"In other news today, the RIAA was swarmed with thousands of hungry female mosquitos. Hilary Rosen, between slapping and scratching, said, 'Well, that's 10 minutes those kids weren't downloading music. Another victory for the RIAA!'"
but even then they still can't prove it was your wireless access point that they connected to.
Well, they could get on your network and send traffic to the web and see if it goes through your modem - but that would be abuse of your network.
Is anyone aware of any ISP agreements that allow them to do just this with impunity (or if this has been tried)? =\
Wow, thanks for the heads up! =)
I was under the impression that when a connection went out, the router would open up a port and forward that port to your computer... thus when an incoming packet hit that port, it would remember which internal IP that port was linked to and pass it on. I wasn't aware that MAC addressed remained the same, although that does make sense.
Thanks again. =)
I am no network expert.
But from my understanding, if you put up a NAT wi-fi router, how could your ISP determine you were sharing? I suppose they could monitor traffic and guess depending on what data was being sent, but come on...
Am I missing something?
ROFL! Point seconded.
I'd actually like to see the RIAA DoS people, for three reasons:
It'll break this into the open a bit more, and eventually, even with media FUD and BS, the true nature will get out.
1) The RIAA's image will (hopefully) be tarnished beyond repair.
2) Congressmen that pass legislation putting the law in the hands of the RIAA and giving them power to commit a crime will (hopefully) be disgraced.
3) Crackers from around the world will make the RIAA sorry they were ever born. Call me immature, call me naive, but in this case, I say fight fire with fire: maybe the gov't will listen... but as an above post mentioned, they've been turning a deaf ear recently.
I agree with your point of media perception.
:-P
But I don't think the media should shape our lives. Screw'em. They don't represent hardly *anything* in it's true form, anyway.
On the other hand... maybe we should use that tool against this whole issue. How feasible would it be to get media coverage of this legislation? I think if people knew that certain members of our government were trying to:
-put the law in the hands of the RIAA
-give them sole discression of who to attack
-give them the power to commit what would be a crime for anyone else
this might blow up. I have a feeling most folks, given the facts, would be ashamed. Maybe we could find a way to get a black shadow cast on those behind this?
Maybe a mass-email campaign to 20/20 or something?
I want your thoughts on this! Reply!
3.1 is the best windows ever. it has true command line integration.
I've never heard anyone say something like that -- although when I think about it, I enjoyed working in 3.1 more than I did any Windows afterwards. It seems like it took me less time to do what I wanted. That was years ago though...
Desktop + command line is great, which is why I love Linux. =)
I mean the core of the code specific to Win 3.1.
While I will flat out agree that Windows 98 and Linux today are not comparable, I will say this regarding uptime:
When was the last time you saw a 2000 box with an uptime of a few months with daily usage by a user?
XP?
And, if so, is that box still running like it was when you turned it on?
Even in the server market, where systems aren't touched at all, Linux seems to kick Windows around. I know of Windows 2K servers that have had uptimes of over three months, but I've never seen them rival that of common Linux uptimes.
In a 'controlled' environment like that, I think the comparison speaks the loudest.
Maybe this is all just my ignorance on the issue screaming, but from my experience, Windows has never consistantly beat Linux in uptime when management is good and variables equal.
I don't recall 95 doing that, but I know 3.1 was close.
There was a memory leak in 3.1 that was so global (Read: in the core of the OS) that it guaranteed a crash. Sometimes it took 6 hours, sometimes 6 days, but it *WOULD* crash.
I should add:
As someone posted above, RPM managers and the like keep my system fresh and sparkly.
If you delete a program on Linux, most of the time you simply delete the directory or rpm -e the RPM. I can't count the number of times a Windows uninstall has failed and left junk on my system, or has completed but still left junk on my system.
I'm not saying that Linux is perfect, but having used Linux for a little over two years and Windows for the previous 5, I feel confident that Linux isn't even in the same ballpark.
These systems are just as prone [as Windows]? Huh?
I don't call an uptime of three months+ on my system (taken down due to power failure) without a largely noticeable slow-down comparable to Windows.
Doesn't (didn't?) Microsoft even officially recommend rebooting win 9x system daily?
I agree.
Assuming that coping CDs is A Bad Idea (e.g. assume the DMCA is right... heh):
Don't blame stupid ideas for the stupid people that act on them.
Don't stop someone from preaching a bad idea (Read: KKK, Bruce) -- that's a violation of free speech. Arresting people who do Bad Things is the proper course of action.
I have to put some karma on the line -- this comment is too good.
Mod the parent AC up... he has a very interesting point.