They're not going to plant someone in a ISP for years to set up a server to bust the ISP. For likely, the infiltrator is actually an informant who cut a deal.
"In addition, Apple does not typically use their system to try and lock out competitors."
Huh?!? Tell that to the former clone makers who no longer are able to make mac clones. Their behavior with regard to iPod is standard operating procedure for Apple. If they weren't trying to lock out competition, why is there not an z86 port of MacOS?
"The original slashdot article was comparing business models and the problem with the $15/mo napster model is that there is no "rent-to-own" scenario."
Napster allows you to also buys songs for $1 and burn them to CDs. So you have both options, unlike Apple where you can only buy.
They'll say the Napster plan is a waste of money until it catches on and Apple offers the same deal. Then they'll say it's the greatest idea ever and Steve Jobs is a genius. BTW, isn't this basically the EFF plan of charging some flat monthly tax and then downloading whatever music you want?
From reading/. comments, the general opinion seems to be that violating copyright is ok as long as it's not for profit. This is not my personal opinion.
Maybe you should consider: 1) Using mass transit, if available. 2) Moving closer to work 3) Buying an electric car and driving in the carpool lane, if that's an option
Not sure why you picked Larry Flynt, but it's a great analogy. Larry Flynt was persecuted for selling a product people didn't want other people having. MS is being punished for merely selling a product in a manner some people don't want it to be sold, many of whom have no intention of ever using (like many/.ers). Yet the govt. feels they have the right to take away freedom in both cases, because of some notion of serving the greater public good, whatever that means.
"Microsoft was attempting to bypass the regulation by offering a license totally incompatible with the GPL and which has an absurdly high fee attached."
At issue is opening up protocols, not source code. WTF does the GPL have to do with anything? Why should anyone have the right to force the GPL on MS anyway for their own code?
" Perhaps the customers ARE deciding via their elected government..
You know.. a government is supposed to REPRESENT THE PEOPLE."
So if the majority of people think slavery is fine or that GPL should be outlawed, it should be done? Governments shouldn't be able to tread on rights, even if the majority of people think it's ok.
You're lying or stupid is you think MacOS 1-7 was better than Win95 and beyond. I've used both, and MacOS was by far the worse of the two. MacOS had no memory protection, memory management was a joke (remember having to tell the OS how much memory a program could use?), and no premeptive multitasking.
"But the problem is that the consumers DON'T have a choice. Hence the term MONOPOLY. M$ has been found guilty of using its MONOPOLY position in the market to leverage other competitors out which leaves consumers with no choice."
Yes, I don't have a choice of using Linux, BSD, MacOS, etc, I only have the choice of using Windows.
"$1.8 billion a year would be a big boost to free software if an EU agency were to funnel it into free software development. That would anger Microsoft more than increasing the fine would. "
It's pathetic how people here claim to value freedom, but have no problem taking away someone's freedom when they don't like what they're doing. So now you want private companies to pay for your free software and use the force of govt. to get what you want. So much for freedom.
"I haven't seen any sort of consumer research, but I imagine people don't like to have their number of possible network connections restrained by the host operating system."
The writeup doesn't even mention the key point of the article: "Gilliland attributed the tepid response largely to high piracy rates."
So/. editors make up their own reasons when they don't agree with the articles their posting.
to take the lead in writing software to utilize this technology. Of course, that is, if their not too busy writing rants condemning it, like everyone on this post.
How does this tin foil hat rant get modded up? Did you watch South Park last night? You sound just like those stoner hippies ranting about how the govt. and corporations are all out to get them.
If they're distributing code to the public containing GPLed code, without source, they're violating the GPL. If there is no publically distributed binaries, there is no GPL violation as long as anyone in the company using the code has access to the source code, which is probably true. If you want to keep your job and there is a GPL violation, let it pass. If you want to make a big deal out of it, expect that you are creating a lot of hassle for a lot of people who will probably want you fired.
"If only VB were a F/OSS project instead of a proprietary customers could be assured of continued support as long as there was demand."
This is somewhat overstated. All OSS guarantees is that you could hire your own support team, if all else fails. There's no guarantee that anyone will come along and support some software project just because there is some demand.
Translation: Java applet installs malware that uses IE. It wasn't clear from the writeup whether user input was required to install the malware, or if it bypassed permission in Firefox. There may be no security problem, or it maybe there's one in Java or Firefox. Doubtful this is a proble with IE.
So is the irony that they require registration, or that the registration is free? The registration part is not ironic since it is a step in the direction they are warning about, no more free news. The fact that it's now free is not ironic since the fact that they're making you register means you're not really getting the news for free. The info you provide has value to the New York Times. Whether or not they can cash in in directly for revenue or not, I don't know.
Slashdot Mirror
They're not going to plant someone in a ISP for years to set up a server to bust the ISP. For likely, the infiltrator is actually an informant who cut a deal.
"In addition, Apple does not typically use their system to try and lock out competitors."
Huh?!? Tell that to the former clone makers who no longer are able to make mac clones. Their behavior with regard to iPod is standard operating procedure for Apple. If they weren't trying to lock out competition, why is there not an z86 port of MacOS?
OK. So where can I get the source code for aqua so I can compile it for x86, smart ass.
The mac mini is obsolete. My 3 year old computer is on par with it on performance. It's not worth $500 unless you need the small form factor.
"The original slashdot article was comparing business models and the problem with the $15/mo napster model is that there is no "rent-to-own" scenario."
Napster allows you to also buys songs for $1 and burn them to CDs. So you have both options, unlike Apple where you can only buy.
Napster would love to support the iPod. Apple won't let them.
They'll say the Napster plan is a waste of money until it catches on and Apple offers the same deal. Then they'll say it's the greatest idea ever and Steve Jobs is a genius. BTW, isn't this basically the EFF plan of charging some flat monthly tax and then downloading whatever music you want?
From reading /. comments, the general opinion seems to be that violating copyright is ok as long as it's not for profit. This is not my personal opinion.
Maybe you should consider:
1) Using mass transit, if available.
2) Moving closer to work
3) Buying an electric car and driving in the carpool lane, if that's an option
Not sure why you picked Larry Flynt, but it's a great analogy. Larry Flynt was persecuted for selling a product people didn't want other people having. MS is being punished for merely selling a product in a manner some people don't want it to be sold, many of whom have no intention of ever using (like many /.ers). Yet the govt. feels they have the right to take away freedom in both cases, because of some notion of serving the greater public good, whatever that means.
"Microsoft was attempting to bypass the regulation by offering a license totally incompatible with the GPL and which has an absurdly high fee attached."
At issue is opening up protocols, not source code. WTF does the GPL have to do with anything? Why should anyone have the right to force the GPL on MS anyway for their own code?
" Perhaps the customers ARE deciding via their elected government..
You know.. a government is supposed to REPRESENT THE PEOPLE."
So if the majority of people think slavery is fine or that GPL should be outlawed, it should be done? Governments shouldn't be able to tread on rights, even if the majority of people think it's ok.
You're lying or stupid is you think MacOS 1-7 was better than Win95 and beyond. I've used both, and MacOS was by far the worse of the two. MacOS had no memory protection, memory management was a joke (remember having to tell the OS how much memory a program could use?), and no premeptive multitasking.
"But the problem is that the consumers DON'T have a choice. Hence the term MONOPOLY. M$ has been found guilty of using its MONOPOLY position in the market to leverage other competitors out which leaves consumers with no choice."
Yes, I don't have a choice of using Linux, BSD, MacOS, etc, I only have the choice of using Windows.
Why don't they just assasinate Bill Gates while they're at it If your going to take away MS's freedom, why stop at these things?
"$1.8 billion a year would be a big boost to free software if an EU agency were to funnel it into free software development. That would anger Microsoft more than increasing the fine would. "
It's pathetic how people here claim to value freedom, but have no problem taking away someone's freedom when they don't like what they're doing. So now you want private companies to pay for your free software and use the force of govt. to get what you want. So much for freedom.
"I haven't seen any sort of consumer research, but I imagine people don't like to have their number of possible network connections restrained by the host operating system."
/. editors make up their own reasons when they don't agree with the articles their posting.
The writeup doesn't even mention the key point of the article:
"Gilliland attributed the tepid response largely to high piracy rates."
So
to take the lead in writing software to utilize this technology. Of course, that is, if their not too busy writing rants condemning it, like everyone on this post.
How does this tin foil hat rant get modded up? Did you watch South Park last night? You sound just like those stoner hippies ranting about how the govt. and corporations are all out to get them.
If they're distributing code to the public containing GPLed code, without source, they're violating the GPL. If there is no publically distributed binaries, there is no GPL violation as long as anyone in the company using the code has access to the source code, which is probably true. If you want to keep your job and there is a GPL violation, let it pass. If you want to make a big deal out of it, expect that you are creating a lot of hassle for a lot of people who will probably want you fired.
"If only VB were a F/OSS project instead of a proprietary customers could be assured of continued support as long as there was demand."
This is somewhat overstated. All OSS guarantees is that you could hire your own support team, if all else fails. There's no guarantee that anyone will come along and support some software project just because there is some demand.
If everyone switches to creative commons, I'll never pay a cent for a movie or for music again. That's the economics of it for me.
So basically I can run a bunch of threads slowly simultaneously, and pay 10x the cost of AMD. Thanks but no thanks.
Translation: Java applet installs malware that uses IE. It wasn't clear from the writeup whether user input was required to install the malware, or if it bypassed permission in Firefox. There may be no security problem, or it maybe there's one in Java or Firefox. Doubtful this is a proble with IE.
So is the irony that they require registration, or that the registration is free? The registration part is not ironic since it is a step in the direction they are warning about, no more free news. The fact that it's now free is not ironic since the fact that they're making you register means you're not really getting the news for free. The info you provide has value to the New York Times. Whether or not they can cash in in directly for revenue or not, I don't know.