But if MS Changes the EULA from one I accept to one I do not accept and the patches fall under the latter, then why bother with it at all? I'm certainly glad Wine is doing so well and I look forward to giving my mother an alternative to Win98 ASAP.
One other thing, though, and I tip my head to Sun for this:
They have a lot of PDF material on their website in regards to the standards they support. I printed these out until one said I needed written permission to copy them so I had to stop and write them.
They replied, in writing, that I may make as many copies (and hardcopies) of the PDF's in their website as I please!
I use linux on my systems but my mother uses Win98. I basically take care of her machine and it provides the connection to the net. Recently I became aware of a flaw in MSN-Messanger and decided to upgrade but pulled on the brakes when I saw the EULA - meaning I refused to upgrade and the MSN-Messanger on her machine is not secure.
Since the EULA's apply to the latest, secure versions of their code and I disagree with their EULA, I essentially have a frozen win98 machine in regards to MS code (which includes the OS).
While most people may ignore the EULA, not all of us do and their new EULA is beginning to cause some serious problems for those of us who purchased the OS when the newer EULA was not in affect.
The general EULA system is becoming more of a problem; they are showing up on more and more software. For example, in order to run a 'support' java applet I was supposed to agree with a EULA that wasn't even applicable to the current situation (it mentioned "evaluation purposes only" which I was *not* going to do). So, I did not install it. It seems that if these companies are going to make us agree to their EULA they could at least spend the time up making their EULA fit to the particular situation.
I have heard little mention of one of my all-time favorite URL's anywhere, and that is
www.whereintheworldisosamabinladen.org.
The owner has a game in which people try to pick where Osama Bin Laden will be found for a fee; whoever is the closest wins have of the funds contributed into the guessing.
I believe that we should not enforce click-through licensing in anyway on the principle that the majority of people don't read them.
Some of you might be like, "Well, I read them, or at least overview them," okay, but have you hung around the folks that just use computers - they just download and click "okay" (I've done it a few times myself). But my point is that the vast majority of people do *not* read them - it's download, "ok", install.
So, why should we say, "You must 'click through this' as an agreement" when they haven't even read it? On the basis of principal alone that EULA's are rarely read, I suggest we in no way mandate nor even recommend click-through licensing.
Click-through licensing, to me, is a bit of a joke and I'd be suprised if it holds up in court; most people cannot and should not have to work through the legal jargon of those EULAs! Should we hire lawyers, ask them to work through the EULA prior to hitting "okay" at gobbs of $$?
I say no - do not enforce, mandate or recommend click-through licensing; the developer may do so if he or she believes it is to the best interest of the end user, but that is the end-developer's discretion.
To the best of my understanding, the government's aim in this regard is to provide an auditing facility to help lock-down end systems and they have no intention whatsoever of using this to spy on people.
As far as a marxist society goes, history has proven that all marxist governments have been extremely corrupt as where the US has a fairly open form of government, allowing one another to audit the other. Further, we have the power to vote which help insure that the "old boy network" is not automatically favored (although I am sure there is some of this in the govn't just as it exists within most corporations).
It is this internal auditing facility that helps the people by imposing certain boundaries on what the government can and cannot do.
I'm not saying that the USA is perfect as it's not. Indeed, the best government would be a "Benign Monorchy" such as a believer in Jesus has in the Kingdom of God (which envelopes the USA, btw). However, in regards to worldly governments, the USA is the closest to ideal than any other government on the planet because it is "by the people, for the people, and of the people" - which is a big deal.
Hi,
I read some book on internet and unix security put out by o'reilly and IIRC there was some security-related audit software the government had then (Spring 2000). It came in a binary form so I was a bit suspicious but nothing wicked became of it.
Hi,
I downloaded the file to change my keyboard layout and also printed out the PDF file - I'm all ready to go except I do not know how to easily change the keyboard layout.
Is there an easy command that I may use to change the keyboard? Thank you.
Slashdot Mirror
But if MS Changes the EULA from one I accept to one I do not accept and the patches fall under the latter, then why bother with it at all? I'm certainly glad Wine is doing so well and I look forward to giving my mother an alternative to Win98 ASAP.
One other thing, though, and I tip my head to Sun for this:
They have a lot of PDF material on their website in regards to the standards they support. I printed these out until one said I needed written permission to copy them so I had to stop and write them.
They replied, in writing, that I may make as many copies (and hardcopies) of the PDF's in their website as I please!
Here's the situation:
I use linux on my systems but my mother uses Win98. I basically take care of her machine and it provides the connection to the net. Recently I became aware of a flaw in MSN-Messanger and decided to upgrade but pulled on the brakes when I saw the EULA - meaning I refused to upgrade and the MSN-Messanger on her machine is not secure.
Since the EULA's apply to the latest, secure versions of their code and I disagree with their EULA, I essentially have a frozen win98 machine in regards to MS code (which includes the OS).
While most people may ignore the EULA, not all of us do and their new EULA is beginning to cause some serious problems for those of us who purchased the OS when the newer EULA was not in affect.
The general EULA system is becoming more of a problem; they are showing up on more and more software. For example, in order to run a 'support' java applet I was supposed to agree with a EULA that wasn't even applicable to the current situation (it mentioned "evaluation purposes only" which I was *not* going to do). So, I did not install it. It seems that if these companies are going to make us agree to their EULA they could at least spend the time up making their EULA fit to the particular situation.
Yes, that is strange.
I have heard little mention of one of my all-time favorite URL's anywhere, and that is www.whereintheworldisosamabinladen.org. The owner has a game in which people try to pick where Osama Bin Laden will be found for a fee; whoever is the closest wins have of the funds contributed into the guessing.
Oh, yes, I did.
I believe that we should not enforce click-through licensing in anyway on the principle that the majority of people don't read them.
Some of you might be like, "Well, I read them, or at least overview them," okay, but have you hung around the folks that just use computers - they just download and click "okay" (I've done it a few times myself). But my point is that the vast majority of people do *not* read them - it's download, "ok", install.
So, why should we say, "You must 'click through this' as an agreement" when they haven't even read it? On the basis of principal alone that EULA's are rarely read, I suggest we in no way mandate nor even recommend click-through licensing.
Click-through licensing, to me, is a bit of a joke and I'd be suprised if it holds up in court; most people cannot and should not have to work through the legal jargon of those EULAs! Should we hire lawyers, ask them to work through the EULA prior to hitting "okay" at gobbs of $$?
I say no - do not enforce, mandate or recommend click-through licensing; the developer may do so if he or she believes it is to the best interest of the end user, but that is the end-developer's discretion.
To the best of my understanding, the government's aim in this regard is to provide an auditing facility to help lock-down end systems and they have no intention whatsoever of using this to spy on people.
As far as a marxist society goes, history has proven that all marxist governments have been extremely corrupt as where the US has a fairly open form of government, allowing one another to audit the other. Further, we have the power to vote which help insure that the "old boy network" is not automatically favored (although I am sure there is some of this in the govn't just as it exists within most corporations).
It is this internal auditing facility that helps the people by imposing certain boundaries on what the government can and cannot do.
I'm not saying that the USA is perfect as it's not. Indeed, the best government would be a "Benign Monorchy" such as a believer in Jesus has in the Kingdom of God (which envelopes the USA, btw). However, in regards to worldly governments, the USA is the closest to ideal than any other government on the planet because it is "by the people, for the people, and of the people" - which is a big deal.
Hi, I read some book on internet and unix security put out by o'reilly and IIRC there was some security-related audit software the government had then (Spring 2000). It came in a binary form so I was a bit suspicious but nothing wicked became of it.
Hi, I downloaded the file to change my keyboard layout and also printed out the PDF file - I'm all ready to go except I do not know how to easily change the keyboard layout. Is there an easy command that I may use to change the keyboard? Thank you.
That web page has some messed up links going to it's own filesystem: