Re:Crossover Office their biggest threat
on
Microsoft's New Hurdles
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
"Right now, the biggest threat to their OS is Crossover Office. Why use Windows to run OFfice when Linux can do it so much better?"
I wonder how long before MS uses the EULA hammer and the DMCA anvil to crush things like Crossover Office and WINE? Not long now that CKK has given Ballmer and Co. a mild tap on the wrist (not even a slap) despite their being CONVICTED of a corporate felony.
Reading the CKK ruling, MS is going to be "monitored" by a comitte that will be made up of... MS board members. Not likely to see any evil.
Frankly, I see one great silver lining in the stupid ruling of yet another federal judgetrix: MS will not be saved from ITSELF by the government.
MS's greatest enemy isn't Linux, but itself. Management that thinks it's shit doesn't stink. Management that thinks that they can REALLY foist anything on the public, charge ANY price, and they will buy it.
If you think what MS has done with XP, product activation, Office XP, and Licensing 6.0 are bad, just you WAIT until their strategy gets emboldened by their "win" in CKK's court.
Every time you read about them sending the BSA after a school, threatening to block a merger (Bluelight), or price increases to the point where Windows/Office is by far the single most expensive part of a PC, Microsoft is marketing Linux.
A billion dollars spent on Linux marketing couldn't do as good a job as MS's own actions.
Ashcroft and CKK saved MS from breakup. But who will save MS from themselves?
"My current ISP (NBTel, owned by Alliant) is known to watch for people who use routers. When they are found, NBTel demands ~$10 more per month per computer in the household, and threatens to deactivate the account if demands are not met."
Sounds like a provider to avoid. What the hell does it matter to the ISP whether you share the connection with two PC's? Your bandwidth is capped.
BTW, do you know what method they use to detect this? When you are behind a NAT (which is what cheap routers create for you), only the router itself connects to the outside network. All your PC's connect to the router.
When I got Roadrunner (I wish I could get it where I moved to), I at first took one machine and ran Winproxy on it. That was before I bought the $99 Linksys router, one of the best and most satisfactory purchases I have ever made...
I wonder if they go hit the IP in a browser and see if they get the login screen for the router's configuration? Easiest way to find them that I know of. I had DMZ set on mine, so it forwarded all incoming traffic to one of my PC's )that was usually off).
"What if you modify your cable modem to send 120V AC down the cable and you blow up a lot of cable company equipment?
The cable company thinks that uncapping your modem is just the same: you're damaging their system."
Sending 120V down the cable line would be causing intentional property damage. It'd be just the same as pouring a path of gasoline to your neighbors's house but lighting it off in your yard.
Removing a bandwidth cap is wrong, but it's still not FUNDAMENTALLY altering what the connection is supposed to do: send/receive data, nor does it cause any damage to the equipment.
What boggles my mind is that the cable company didn't just CUT OFF the service of those abusing it. They'd have been within their rights to do that. It's also cheaper to do, and a FAR BETTER DETERRENT, especially if you can't GET broadband otherwise...
I suspect they will regret ever doing this. They are as guilty of misusing the government (and the government is also for going along with it) as these scumbags are for cheating their network.
I also must point out that it's a stupid idea to have the bandwidth be controlled by a device in the customer's home that can be owned by the customer as well. You can do bandwidth throttling through managed switches, and through servers as well on THEIR END.
Seems to me they would be better off spending the money they are now paying lawyers to pay a decent network engineer to make some minor changes to make this "crime" impossible to comit.
I mean, banks don't give their customers keys to the vault... Not that doing so would make bank robbery any more legal, it's just that they aren't stupid enough to make it EASY.
"Linux's IP stack is more efficient than what, exactly? MS uses the BSD stack, and so does Apple, and we all know that the BSD stack is the most efficient one out there."
I use both Doze XP and Mandrake 9.0. I connect to the internet through a shared dialup connection. Even after "fixing" XP's default QOS packet setting that reserves 20% of all network bandwidth for QOS, downloads and page loads are faster in Mandrake than in `Doze.
All else is equal: Same computer, same browser (Opera), same network connection. It was even more pronounced back when I lived in an area where I could get RoadRunner.
I'm sure MS's IP stack STARTED OUT as the same BSD one Linux likely uses, but they had to alter it in some way to be able to slap their copyright on it. The useless bloat probably makes it slower. There is also the fact that MS's default TCP/IP settings aren't very well optimized for a fast network.
Admittedly, some tweaking would probably narrow the gap to such I won't be able to notice, but why bother? I'd rather spend my time tweaking Linux. My Doze partition is there just for gaming anyway.
Indeed... If you wanted to interpret things the way the cable company in this article does, Removing XP's 20% bandwidth handicap would warrant a visit from the FBI.
"Okay, so who thought it would be a good idea to include their full names and addresses? That seems, at least to me, to be a huge invasion of privacy. It would be one thing if it was just a local paper with a readership consisting of people who mostly know who these people are, but this is on the internet. Putting their addresses on the web is just mean. I can only hope that the only thing that comes from it is fan mail and lawyer funding, but I cannot see that happening."
The cable company and the FBI might have fucked their case by releasing all of this to the media too, IANAL.
There is a very definate set of rules they have to follow.
"Why could they even get additional bandwidth by changing their modem? If the provider wants to impose a limit, that should be done in their own hardware in their own end of the connection. If the system had been designed with this in mind, there wouldn't have been a case."
A very interesting point!
How about this: A customer who uses their own modem, ie, there is no cable company equipment inside the home at all. Most, if not all cable and DSL providers allow you to use/buy your own modem.
How could altering that be "unauthorized use of a computer device" or whatever, since the provider AUTHORIZED it to be connected to the network?
I think this is very, VERY thin as a criminal case. It'd be far stronger as a CIVIL case, ie: breech of contract.
But they don't send in the Federal jackboots to storm people's houses when you file a civil suit.
It's risky for even a monopoly like a cable company to do this, particularly in a larger area like Toledo. This could bite them in the ass, as people there can switch to satellite and get their local channels (as you can in most larger areas), and DSL is probably available (as well as other wireless broadband options).
I don't condone what they did, but neither do I condone what is definately a clear cut case of MISUSE of government power. This is a CONTRACT matter, not a criminal one!
"We hope these cases will have a deterrent value...
Sure will, it will deter people from becoming your customers."
Yes it would me too. Next thing you know they could raid people who plug their broadband connection into a router to use it with multiple PC's. Or go after people who use Linux, with it's more efficient IP stack... etc, etc...
If I lived in that company's service area I'd go DSL.
"Sounds to me like the FBI should go after the cable company for using up valuable resources for this kind of crap.
A cable company making an example out of customers, or fighting terrorism and REAL crime... Wonder which the FBI's resources would be better spent at..."
Exactly! This is a job for CIVIL courts and local jurisdictions, not the FBI and the Feds.
IANAL, but this seems to me to be a violation of a CONTRACT, not a criminal act!
But remember, corporations are "people" too, indeed, apparently more important than any mere flesh and blood person.
I mean, if the cable goes out, and they don't fix it within a few days, can I have the FBI raid the cable company for breaching their end of the contract?
"The Govt. already believes they're one big dick of a corporation....Messing about in bankrupcies is kicking someone when they're down and out. You have a lousy P.R. Dept., Ball(buster)mer. Better fire them and get one that KNOWS how to make a good image for M$."
I think this tells a lot about MS upper management. Clearly they believe themselves to be in a position where they DONT HAVE TO GIVE A SHIT about their image.
They are a monopoly. A "utility". "We don't care, we're the PHONE COMPANY!" to paraphrase the famous Lilly Tomlin bit on SNL.
In other words, they don't think it MATTERS what they do, their shit doesn't stink.
Frankly, doing such things might cause mass corporate migration to Linux, because MS is RAPIDLY making the alternative look like NO ALTERNATIVE. As in no alternative but to take it.
This couldn't be happening at a better time, with Star/Open Office looking better all the time, and Red Hat joining the push for a sharp desktop (though I still prefer Mandrake, competition is ALWAYS good!).
What Linux developers need to do is make an all out push towards improving ease of use. Given how they've produced an OS already superior in security, capability, and efficiency, improving ease of use surely isn't beyond them.
"This could potentially set a huge precedent - it's not just Microsoft's licenses that carry these agreements. If they manage to succeed with this line of reasoning I think we can expect a lot more software companies throwing their weight around. Which, in the end, is *very* good for the opensource community - we can transfer software all we want!"
What this REALLY should do is emphasize how CORRECT the findings were by Judge Jackson against MS.
The REAL issue here is that MS is leveraging it's monopoly to HARM a competitor.
Blue Light is an ISP. One that is cheaper than MSN, therefore meaning that to stop it being sold means MS eliminates a competitor.
And it is a signal to all MS competitors: If you use ANY of our software (and almost all do), WE have a say in your business!
"So it probably sounded like a good idea to filter out Nazis...everyone hates Nazis right? (except the Nazis) While we're at it let's censor White Supremicists, cause we all hate them too."
And the black supremicists, and the christian fanatics, and the muslim fanatics, the man haters, the woman haters...
It can go on and on. Which is why it's better to censor NO ONE. The cost to society is far less in letting the KKK march than the cost of allowing the government to have ANY power to prejudge speech.
"Corporations are people to! i'm serious. They also pay taxes!
Paying taxes does not make an entity into a person. While there are lawyers who have perverted the word to refer to both corporations and human beings in the same way, we don't have to accept their twisting of the English language."
Corporations also DO NOT pay taxes. The myth of corporate taxation is one of the biggest ones that most people believe.
Taxes to a corp is an EXPENSE. Corporate taxes get passed on 100% to their employees (in lower wages), and to their customers (in higher prices).
It's really just a mass charade to make people THINK that corps actually PAY taxes. And it honestly should be ended, as the cost in paperwork and government bureaucracy is a drag on the economy.
Worst of all, most people don't realize that it is THEY who are actually paying corporate taxes, simply by buying their product!
They could double the corporate tax rate tomorrow. All that would happen is employees make less, and customers pay more.
Really, our whole tax system is a sham. Numbers were just released today that showed that in 2000, the top 50% of wage earners ($26,000 a year or so or more) are paying 96% of all taxes...
Corporations are NOT people. They are a legal quasi-person, a fiction. Honestly, I think that they should be abolished. In a way, they are, as the new laws being passed in the wake of Enron/Global Crossing/WorldCom ARE putting personal liability back into corps, by making the CEO's personally liable for fraud.
And it's long overdue... If corporate executives were personally liable for what the corporation does, there'd be a lot less chicanery.
My best solution for spam regulation would be to hold the company being advertised liable for spam sent.
"On another occasion, my parents came out from the UK to visit me in Canada. They took a road trip down to Cape Cod. At the border they saw a young British couple with similar holiday ideas being being hassled. The reason the border partol was giving? They were unmarried! So much for an open border certain prominent politicians in the US tried to blame for letting terrorists in to the country last year."
Wrong conclusion, right idea.
The problem is that the INS and State Department are abusive assholes and harass those WHO TRY TO OBEY THE LAW. VIOLATE the law and enter this country illegally and they will fall all over themselves to force schools to educate you in your language, give you welfare benefits, etc.
Our system of immigration is terminally fucked because it PUNISHES those who try to obey the law while REWARDING those who violate it.
"As a side note, I think some of you Slashdotters agree that you'd be more than willing to go "biplatform" if Macs weren't so expensive... There's a $199 Wal-Mart PC for the curious Mac users, where's the $199 Mac for curious PC users?"
This is an excellent point.
I'd like nothing better than to replace my three PC's with Macs. I like the OS, I like the system better. But I can't afford the 2x cost.
My three PC's are: Athlon 1.2 that is a server, Athlon 1.33 that is my workstation, and an old Celeron notebook.
My server runs 2K Server (only because I'm stydying for the MCSE, . but I've got to pay the bills... My notebook runs only Mandrake 9. My workstation has Manadrake 9 and 2K Pro (2K is only for games).
The most striking thing is how much more stable my PC's have been with Linux than they were with the relatively stable Win 2K. With a good OS, the PC platform is just as stable as the Apple platform.
Thing is, I have less money in my three computers than it would cost to buy ONE Mac that would be equivalent to my workstation.
Until Apple makes a decent $600 machine, they will never penetrate the mass market. I'm thinking awful serious about a used G4 iMac,just to have an OSX machine, but I expect to pay $7-800 for that even...
"What we really need is an active law NO ONE in PA can receive telemarketing calls unless they ADD themselves to a list."
But the marketers KNOW no one will ever do this, which is why they want "opt out".
It's interesting to compare the attitude towards human beings that marketer tyoes have, and compare it to the Nazis, in a way.
They callously disregard the desires of their "targets", and have no respect for them.
Do you want to patronize a company that starts it's relationship with you on that basis?
I for one have a damn good idea of what I want, and what I will buy. When I'm interested, I'll call YOU. Not one second before. I maintain a "do not BUY" list that roughly corresponds to the companies that telemarket me and SPAM me.
My ultimate solution is very low tech. My phone line does not connect to a phone. It's data only. I have a cell phone that is off 90% of the time (leave a voice mail). Personal communications is supposed to exist for MY convienence, not the guy on the other end of the line. It's on when I want it on. It's off when I want it off. Leave a message. Maybe I'll call.
"Maybe the GPL works for you, but its viral nature does not work for everyone."
The GPL can be summed up as thus:
"You can do whatever you want with this code, but you must pass along this same freedom to someone who wishes to do the same with what you produce with it".
I don't see what the problem is. Someone who wants to use GPL code in an "embrace and extend" project is prohibited by copyright law from doing so, just as someone who wanted to use MS code would be prohibited.
I DO like the patent clause in these new licenses. I wonder if anything like that will be put in GPL 3.0?
That sounds like some slippery word that only buearucrats, special interests, and politicial ideologues can love: they can sit in the big room talking and talking and talking, and when all the regular people get tired of listening and go away, they can cut up the pie the way they like and be done with it."
And allocating spectrum based solely on high bids is serving the "public interest"?
Too bad the courts have long forgotten the Constitutional limts on governmment power.
".. for Slashdot to have such an anit-technology standpoint. Every HDTV article I've seen on Slashdot in the last two years has been totally against it." "I've owned an HDTV for over two years now. A big one! Widescreen, rear projection." Three weeks ago, the first local station went up with the DTV (digital TV) broadcasting."
Yeah, HTDV IN THEROY can provide incredible pictures. But reality is that it will be YEARS, if not DECADES after the deadline, if ever, before the majority of signals are more than standard TV is now.
It's like saying that Slashdot is anti technology because it's ANTI MICROSOFT! DTV is much like Microsoft: They promise you the moon (HDTV), but charge you a premium and still deliver the same old crap (SDTV), but the only new "feature" is intrusiveness, loss of privacy, and "fair use" (DRM).
"While forced technological innovation may be a bad thing, remember that the main reason this is being pushed through is because the FCC really needs the additional frequencies. This is your future Gigabit wireless that they're trying to lay the foundations for."
No, the FCC is slobbering with greed over the MONEY that it will get for all those frequencies.
Does anyone believe that an agency intent on auctioning off every part of the broadcast spectrum it can instead of allocating it by merit is going to do anything not in the best interest of the almighty buck?
"Should be obvious to most that television dwindles intellect. My solution is to just not buy one. Dont really need it.
Got the net for news and I can watch dvds on my computer."
They aren't selling. That is why they already pushed the deadline back once. There is really no reason TO buy a DTV right now, as VERY few stations and cable systems even broadcast in it.
Why should someone pay $1200 instead of $300 for a TV when there is no benefit?
And even if there WERE more DTV stations broadcasting, is it really a benefit, when freedoms we have had in the analog world are forefit just for the priviledge of a (possibly) more "ShinyThing"?
Remember that while the FCC has mandated DTV, they did NOT mandate any standard for what a DTV signal is!
This means that a TV station has the option of broadcasting in anything from HDTV quality, down to MULTIPLE heavily digitally compressed SDTV signals!
There is no assurance that EVERY or even MOST programs or stations you receive will be any better in quality than what we get today on NTSC analog!
Congress will pass a law (DMCA) that makes it a felony to circumvent digital copy protection mechanisms, yet there is no similar felony for passing laws that circumvent our Constitutional liberty?
Which is the greater crime here? The person who wants to crack CSS so he can watch a DVD on a Linux computer, or maybe so that he doesn't have to watch ADVERTISEMENTS on a $18 movie that he'd PURCHASED?
Or a Congress who accepts Jack and Hillary's BIG LIE (along with a lot of their dollars) that digital technology is legally different from analog, thus "circumventing" the Supreme Court's many rulings on the legality of consumer analog recording, copying and time shifting technology?
I vote for the latter.
There will be no protections of the rights of American Citizens so long as there are no criminal penalties for legislatures who pass illegal laws. They should have to cite where in the Constitution authority is granted to pass said law. And they should be removed from office if convicted of voting for one that is Unconstitutional.
We should not have to solely rely on the courts to protect us. Legislatures should be AS beholden to "ignorance of the law is no defense" as we plebes are expected to be of the thousands of byzantine laws we are subject to at any given time and in any given place.
The only law they are really subject to in passing laws is the Constitution. Which anyone can read in under an hour, so what I'm asking isn't impossible.
Slashdot Mirror
"Right now, the biggest threat to their OS is Crossover Office. Why use Windows to run OFfice when Linux can do it so much better?"
I wonder how long before MS uses the EULA hammer and the DMCA anvil to crush things like Crossover Office and WINE? Not long now that CKK has given Ballmer and Co. a mild tap on the wrist (not even a slap) despite their being CONVICTED of a corporate felony.
Reading the CKK ruling, MS is going to be "monitored" by a comitte that will be made up of... MS board members. Not likely to see any evil.
Frankly, I see one great silver lining in the stupid ruling of yet another federal judgetrix: MS will not be saved from ITSELF by the government.
MS's greatest enemy isn't Linux, but itself. Management that thinks it's shit doesn't stink. Management that thinks that they can REALLY foist anything on the public, charge ANY price, and they will buy it.
If you think what MS has done with XP, product activation, Office XP, and Licensing 6.0 are bad, just you WAIT until their strategy gets emboldened by their "win" in CKK's court.
Every time you read about them sending the BSA after a school, threatening to block a merger (Bluelight), or price increases to the point where Windows/Office is by far the single most expensive part of a PC, Microsoft is marketing Linux.
A billion dollars spent on Linux marketing couldn't do as good a job as MS's own actions.
Ashcroft and CKK saved MS from breakup. But who will save MS from themselves?
"But remember, corporations are "people" too, indeed, apparently more important than any mere flesh and blood person.
;)
:(
But how often do you see a corporation being hauled away by cops when it is accused of breaking the law?"
Well, in the case of my cable company, Adelphia, they hauled them away
But what that means is no cable modem for me... Just before the bankruptcy they were to add PowerLink to the Ashland, KY system
"My current ISP (NBTel, owned by Alliant) is known to watch for people who use routers. When they are found, NBTel demands ~$10 more per month per computer in the household, and threatens to deactivate the account if demands are not met."
Sounds like a provider to avoid. What the hell does it matter to the ISP whether you share the connection with two PC's? Your bandwidth is capped.
BTW, do you know what method they use to detect this? When you are behind a NAT (which is what cheap routers create for you), only the router itself connects to the outside network. All your PC's connect to the router.
When I got Roadrunner (I wish I could get it where I moved to), I at first took one machine and ran Winproxy on it. That was before I bought the $99 Linksys router, one of the best and most satisfactory purchases I have ever made...
I wonder if they go hit the IP in a browser and see if they get the login screen for the router's configuration? Easiest way to find them that I know of. I had DMZ set on mine, so it forwarded all incoming traffic to one of my PC's )that was usually off).
"What if you modify your cable modem to send 120V AC down the cable and you blow up a lot of cable company equipment?
The cable company thinks that uncapping your modem is just the same: you're damaging their system."
Sending 120V down the cable line would be causing intentional property damage. It'd be just the same as pouring a path of gasoline to your neighbors's house but lighting it off in your yard.
Removing a bandwidth cap is wrong, but it's still not FUNDAMENTALLY altering what the connection is supposed to do: send/receive data, nor does it cause any damage to the equipment.
What boggles my mind is that the cable company didn't just CUT OFF the service of those abusing it. They'd have been within their rights to do that. It's also cheaper to do, and a FAR BETTER DETERRENT, especially if you can't GET broadband otherwise...
I suspect they will regret ever doing this. They are as guilty of misusing the government (and the government is also for going along with it) as these scumbags are for cheating their network.
I also must point out that it's a stupid idea to have the bandwidth be controlled by a device in the customer's home that can be owned by the customer as well. You can do bandwidth throttling through managed switches, and through servers as well on THEIR END.
Seems to me they would be better off spending the money they are now paying lawyers to pay a decent network engineer to make some minor changes to make this "crime" impossible to comit.
I mean, banks don't give their customers keys to the vault... Not that doing so would make bank robbery any more legal, it's just that they aren't stupid enough to make it EASY.
"Linux's IP stack is more efficient than what, exactly? MS uses the BSD stack, and so does Apple, and we all know that the BSD stack is the most efficient one out there."
I use both Doze XP and Mandrake 9.0. I connect to the internet through a shared dialup connection. Even after "fixing" XP's default QOS packet setting that reserves 20% of all network bandwidth for QOS, downloads and page loads are faster in Mandrake than in `Doze.
All else is equal: Same computer, same browser (Opera), same network connection. It was even more pronounced back when I lived in an area where I could get RoadRunner.
I'm sure MS's IP stack STARTED OUT as the same BSD one Linux likely uses, but they had to alter it in some way to be able to slap their copyright on it. The useless bloat probably makes it slower. There is also the fact that MS's default TCP/IP settings aren't very well optimized for a fast network.
Admittedly, some tweaking would probably narrow the gap to such I won't be able to notice, but why bother? I'd rather spend my time tweaking Linux. My Doze partition is there just for gaming anyway.
Indeed... If you wanted to interpret things the way the cable company in this article does, Removing XP's 20% bandwidth handicap would warrant a visit from the FBI.
"Okay, so who thought it would be a good idea to include their full names and addresses? That seems, at least to me, to be a huge invasion of privacy. It would be one thing if it was just a local paper with a readership consisting of people who mostly know who these people are, but this is on the internet. Putting their addresses on the web is just mean. I can only hope that the only thing that comes from it is fan mail and lawyer funding, but I cannot see that happening."
The cable company and the FBI might have fucked their case by releasing all of this to the media too, IANAL.
There is a very definate set of rules they have to follow.
"Why could they even get additional bandwidth by changing their modem? If the provider wants to impose a limit, that should be done in their own hardware in their own end of the connection. If the system had been designed with this in mind, there wouldn't have been a case."
A very interesting point!
How about this: A customer who uses their own modem, ie, there is no cable company equipment inside the home at all. Most, if not all cable and DSL providers allow you to use/buy your own modem.
How could altering that be "unauthorized use of a computer device" or whatever, since the provider AUTHORIZED it to be connected to the network?
I think this is very, VERY thin as a criminal case. It'd be far stronger as a CIVIL case, ie: breech of contract.
But they don't send in the Federal jackboots to storm people's houses when you file a civil suit.
It's risky for even a monopoly like a cable company to do this, particularly in a larger area like Toledo. This could bite them in the ass, as people there can switch to satellite and get their local channels (as you can in most larger areas), and DSL is probably available (as well as other wireless broadband options).
I don't condone what they did, but neither do I condone what is definately a clear cut case of MISUSE of government power. This is a CONTRACT matter, not a criminal one!
"We hope these cases will have a deterrent value...
Sure will, it will deter people from becoming your customers."
Yes it would me too. Next thing you know they could raid people who plug their broadband connection into a router to use it with multiple PC's. Or go after people who use Linux, with it's more efficient IP stack... etc, etc...
If I lived in that company's service area I'd go DSL.
"Sounds to me like the FBI should go after the cable company for using up valuable resources for this kind of crap.
A cable company making an example out of customers, or fighting terrorism and REAL crime... Wonder which the FBI's resources would be better spent at..."
Exactly! This is a job for CIVIL courts and local jurisdictions, not the FBI and the Feds.
IANAL, but this seems to me to be a violation of a CONTRACT, not a criminal act!
But remember, corporations are "people" too, indeed, apparently more important than any mere flesh and blood person.
I mean, if the cable goes out, and they don't fix it within a few days, can I have the FBI raid the cable company for breaching their end of the contract?
Of course not.
"The Govt. already believes they're one big dick of a corporation....Messing about in bankrupcies is kicking someone when they're down and out.
You have a lousy P.R. Dept., Ball(buster)mer.
Better fire them and get one that KNOWS how to make a good image for M$."
I think this tells a lot about MS upper management. Clearly they believe themselves to be in a position where they DONT HAVE TO GIVE A SHIT about their image.
They are a monopoly. A "utility". "We don't care, we're the PHONE COMPANY!" to paraphrase the famous Lilly Tomlin bit on SNL.
In other words, they don't think it MATTERS what they do, their shit doesn't stink.
Frankly, doing such things might cause mass corporate migration to Linux, because MS is RAPIDLY making the alternative look like NO ALTERNATIVE. As in no alternative but to take it.
This couldn't be happening at a better time, with Star/Open Office looking better all the time, and Red Hat joining the push for a sharp desktop (though I still prefer Mandrake, competition is ALWAYS good!).
What Linux developers need to do is make an all out push towards improving ease of use. Given how they've produced an OS already superior in security, capability, and efficiency, improving ease of use surely isn't beyond them.
"This could potentially set a huge precedent - it's not just Microsoft's licenses that carry these agreements. If they manage to succeed with this line of reasoning I think we can expect a lot more software companies throwing their weight around. Which, in the end, is *very* good for the opensource community - we can transfer software all we want!"
What this REALLY should do is emphasize how CORRECT the findings were by Judge Jackson against MS.
The REAL issue here is that MS is leveraging it's monopoly to HARM a competitor.
Blue Light is an ISP. One that is cheaper than MSN, therefore meaning that to stop it being sold means MS eliminates a competitor.
And it is a signal to all MS competitors: If you use ANY of our software (and almost all do), WE have a say in your business!
"So it probably sounded like a good idea to filter out Nazis...everyone hates Nazis right? (except the Nazis) While we're at it let's censor White Supremicists, cause we all hate them too."
And the black supremicists, and the christian fanatics, and the muslim fanatics, the man haters, the woman haters...
It can go on and on. Which is why it's better to censor NO ONE. The cost to society is far less in letting the KKK march than the cost of allowing the government to have ANY power to prejudge speech.
"Corporations are people to! i'm serious. They also pay taxes!
Paying taxes does not make an entity into a person. While there are lawyers who have perverted the word to refer to both corporations and human beings in the same way, we don't have to accept their twisting of the English language."
Corporations also DO NOT pay taxes. The myth of corporate taxation is one of the biggest ones that most people believe.
Taxes to a corp is an EXPENSE. Corporate taxes get passed on 100% to their employees (in lower wages), and to their customers (in higher prices).
It's really just a mass charade to make people THINK that corps actually PAY taxes. And it honestly should be ended, as the cost in paperwork and government bureaucracy is a drag on the economy.
Worst of all, most people don't realize that it is THEY who are actually paying corporate taxes, simply by buying their product!
They could double the corporate tax rate tomorrow. All that would happen is employees make less, and customers pay more.
Really, our whole tax system is a sham. Numbers were just released today that showed that in 2000, the top 50% of wage earners ($26,000 a year or so or more) are paying 96% of all taxes...
Corporations are NOT people. They are a legal quasi-person, a fiction. Honestly, I think that they should be abolished. In a way, they are, as the new laws being passed in the wake of Enron/Global Crossing/WorldCom ARE putting personal liability back into corps, by making the CEO's personally liable for fraud.
And it's long overdue... If corporate executives were personally liable for what the corporation does, there'd be a lot less chicanery.
My best solution for spam regulation would be to hold the company being advertised liable for spam sent.
"On another occasion, my parents came out from the UK to visit me in Canada. They took a road trip down to Cape Cod. At the border they saw a young British couple with similar holiday ideas being being hassled. The reason the border partol was giving? They were unmarried! So much for an open border certain prominent politicians in the US tried to blame for letting terrorists in to the country last year."
Wrong conclusion, right idea.
The problem is that the INS and State Department are abusive assholes and harass those WHO TRY TO OBEY THE LAW. VIOLATE the law and enter this country illegally and they will fall all over themselves to force schools to educate you in your language, give you welfare benefits, etc.
Our system of immigration is terminally fucked because it PUNISHES those who try to obey the law while REWARDING those who violate it.
"As a side note, I think some of you Slashdotters agree that you'd be more than willing to go "biplatform" if Macs weren't so expensive... There's a $199 Wal-Mart PC for the curious Mac users, where's the $199 Mac for curious PC users?"
This is an excellent point.
I'd like nothing better than to replace my three PC's with Macs. I like the OS, I like the system better. But I can't afford the 2x cost.
My three PC's are: Athlon 1.2 that is a server, Athlon 1.33 that is my workstation, and an old Celeron notebook.
My server runs 2K Server (only because I'm stydying for the MCSE, . but I've got to pay the bills... My notebook runs only Mandrake 9. My workstation has Manadrake 9 and 2K Pro (2K is only for games).
The most striking thing is how much more stable my PC's have been with Linux than they were with the relatively stable Win 2K. With a good OS, the PC platform is just as stable as the Apple platform.
Thing is, I have less money in my three computers than it would cost to buy ONE Mac that would be equivalent to my workstation.
Until Apple makes a decent $600 machine, they will never penetrate the mass market. I'm thinking awful serious about a used G4 iMac,just to have an OSX machine, but I expect to pay $7-800 for that even...
That is just too expensive.
"What we really need is an active law NO ONE in PA can receive telemarketing calls unless they ADD themselves to a list."
But the marketers KNOW no one will ever do this, which is why they want "opt out".
It's interesting to compare the attitude towards human beings that marketer tyoes have, and compare it to the Nazis, in a way.
They callously disregard the desires of their "targets", and have no respect for them.
Do you want to patronize a company that starts it's relationship with you on that basis?
I for one have a damn good idea of what I want, and what I will buy. When I'm interested, I'll call YOU. Not one second before. I maintain a "do not BUY" list that roughly corresponds to the companies that telemarket me and SPAM me.
My ultimate solution is very low tech. My phone line does not connect to a phone. It's data only. I have a cell phone that is off 90% of the time (leave a voice mail). Personal communications is supposed to exist for MY convienence, not the guy on the other end of the line. It's on when I want it on. It's off when I want it off. Leave a message. Maybe I'll call.
"Maybe the GPL works for you, but its viral nature does not work for everyone."
The GPL can be summed up as thus:
"You can do whatever you want with this code, but you must pass along this same freedom to someone who wishes to do the same with what you produce with it".
I don't see what the problem is. Someone who wants to use GPL code in an "embrace and extend" project is prohibited by copyright law from doing so, just as someone who wanted to use MS code would be prohibited.
I DO like the patent clause in these new licenses. I wonder if anything like that will be put in GPL 3.0?
The closest Amish village. I mean, they need someone familliar with keeping alive "horse and buggy" technology in the 21st Century!
The recording industry as currently constituted is just as obsolete.
I think it'd be a perfect fit.
"WTF is merit ???
That sounds like some slippery word that only buearucrats, special interests, and politicial ideologues can love: they can sit in the big room talking and talking and talking, and when all the regular people get tired of listening and go away, they can cut up the pie the way they like and be done with it."
And allocating spectrum based solely on high bids is serving the "public interest"?
Too bad the courts have long forgotten the Constitutional limts on governmment power.
You know, convicted felons right now can't contribute to campaigns.
How come GE can? It's a convicted corporate felon. How about MS? Ditto.
It was to illustrate a point.
Unless yoour local stations are broadcasting in more than 480 lines your digital picture is no better than analog.
".. for Slashdot to have such an anit-technology standpoint. Every HDTV article I've seen on Slashdot in the last two years has been totally against it."
"I've owned an HDTV for over two years now. A big one! Widescreen, rear projection."
Three weeks ago, the first local station went up with the DTV (digital TV) broadcasting."
Yeah, HTDV IN THEROY can provide incredible pictures. But reality is that it will be YEARS, if not DECADES after the deadline, if ever, before the majority of signals are more than standard TV is now.
It's like saying that Slashdot is anti technology because it's ANTI MICROSOFT! DTV is much like Microsoft: They promise you the moon (HDTV), but charge you a premium and still deliver the same old crap (SDTV), but the only new "feature" is intrusiveness, loss of privacy, and "fair use" (DRM).
"While forced technological innovation may be a bad thing, remember that the main reason this is being pushed through is because the FCC really needs the additional frequencies. This is your future Gigabit wireless that they're trying to lay the foundations for."
No, the FCC is slobbering with greed over the MONEY that it will get for all those frequencies.
Does anyone believe that an agency intent on auctioning off every part of the broadcast spectrum it can instead of allocating it by merit is going to do anything not in the best interest of the almighty buck?
"Should be obvious to most that television dwindles intellect. My solution is to just not buy one. Dont really need it.
Got the net for news and I can watch dvds on my computer."
They aren't selling. That is why they already pushed the deadline back once. There is really no reason TO buy a DTV right now, as VERY few stations and cable systems even broadcast in it.
Why should someone pay $1200 instead of $300 for a TV when there is no benefit?
And even if there WERE more DTV stations broadcasting, is it really a benefit, when freedoms we have had in the analog world are forefit just for the priviledge of a (possibly) more "ShinyThing"?
Remember that while the FCC has mandated DTV, they did NOT mandate any standard for what a DTV signal is!
This means that a TV station has the option of broadcasting in anything from HDTV quality, down to MULTIPLE heavily digitally compressed SDTV signals!
There is no assurance that EVERY or even MOST programs or stations you receive will be any better in quality than what we get today on NTSC analog!
Congress will pass a law (DMCA) that makes it a felony to circumvent digital copy protection mechanisms, yet there is no similar felony for passing laws that circumvent our Constitutional liberty?
Which is the greater crime here? The person who wants to crack CSS so he can watch a DVD on a Linux computer, or maybe so that he doesn't have to watch ADVERTISEMENTS on a $18 movie that he'd PURCHASED?
Or a Congress who accepts Jack and Hillary's BIG LIE (along with a lot of their dollars) that digital technology is legally different from analog, thus "circumventing" the Supreme Court's many rulings on the legality of consumer analog recording, copying and time shifting technology?
I vote for the latter.
There will be no protections of the rights of American Citizens so long as there are no criminal penalties for legislatures who pass illegal laws. They should have to cite where in the Constitution authority is granted to pass said law. And they should be removed from office if convicted of voting for one that is Unconstitutional.
We should not have to solely rely on the courts to protect us. Legislatures should be AS beholden to "ignorance of the law is no defense" as we plebes are expected to be of the thousands of byzantine laws we are subject to at any given time and in any given place.
The only law they are really subject to in passing laws is the Constitution. Which anyone can read in under an hour, so what I'm asking isn't impossible.