Perhaps you might consider that I was making a joke in my original response.
Here, I'll explain it to you: yes, there might be an exploit someday, but if the past is any indication, I might be long dead and buried - and in Hell, you see, because I've been a very, very bad person. Though Hell is very hot at the moment, it might cool down when a Mac running OSX actually gets exploited because that may be a long time from now. Hence the jacket. Because jackets will warm you up when it's cold. It's not comfortable to be cold - for me, anyway.
Hope that clears things up for you. Merry Christmas (<-- not a joke)
No - have you ever actually rebuilt a *compromised* OS X machine? Not one that crashed or got corrupted, but one that someone actually broke into due to an exploit?
The first time someone compromises all the Macs on your network by setting up a fake LDAP/DHCP service, you'll be wishing you'd had the opportunity to spend a minute longer setting up each shiny new Mac in exchange for spending an hour less rebuilding each compromised Mac.
Be sure to let us know when that happens. I'll have a jacket with me in Hell just in case.
Just curious - in your scheme, how do the songwriters get compensated? The tip jar serms to make sense for the performer, but how do the Diane Warrens of the world get their fair share?
Apple isn't "on top" of much of anything that I can think of.
I suspect he meant "on top" with regard to the lack of exploited security vulnerabilities. Nobody I know running MacOS X has ever had their machine actually compromised.
Certainly this makes the OS a bigger target for fanboys of other operating systems trying to be the first to "prove" that Macs are somehow equally insecure.
"Linux", however, falls into a category of "fanciful" names which are much easier to defend than descriptive or generic names. Xerox and Kodak are similar fanciful names.
"Windows," as has been repeated many times, is not only a generic English word, but also is a generic term in the field of computer science which predates Microsoft's usage, and should never have been granted as a trademark.
In the US, the judge was initially inclined to grant Microsoft's request for preliminary injunction, but Lindows.com was allowed to present evidence that the Windows mark might reasonably be rendered invalid by a jury, and the judge was convinced.
In Europe, apparently learning from their mistakes, Microsoft specifically asked for the injunction to be granted without prior notification to Lindows.com, claiming imminent harm their trademark - after two years.
Windows started out as a window manager, or "enhancement" to DOS. By Microsoft's expanded definition of "operating system", AIXWindows would certainly count.
When asked if Ansel Adams would have liked the new McRib sandwich, the VP of Food Services at McDonalds replied "Yes, Ansel would have appreciated the rich BBQ flavor and texture of the latest McDonald's fast food product!".
A recent poll of company spokesmen across all industries indicates that Ansel Adams would have liked their products.
The reason Windows is uniquely associated with Microsoft *now* is that they had trademark and hence exclusivity on its usage.
That doesn't change the fact that the trademark should never have been granted in the first place - and it shouldn't matter how much money or marketing effort they expended to build it up. It's the fruit of a poisoned tree.
There were several products with "Windows" in the name when Microsoft Windows came to market.
"Office" would actually be a more defensible trademark term because there is no prior generic use of the word "office" in computer science and operating systems, unlike the term "window". If someone had trademarked "office" for a productivity suite, it would probably hold up. The same is true for "explorer" and "messenger".
If Microsoft indeed has a trademark of the word "Office", it's curious they haven't gone after the competing companies using the *exact* word, but *have* gone after Lindows.com for a *rhyming* word, and have in fact not pursued many companies also using "Windows" and "Win" in product names - this would tend to support Robertson's argument that the litigation is a tool to suppress his business.
Interesting - I was not aware that machines were sold in the Walmart storefronts with Lindows preinstalled - I thought it was only sold online.
In any case, the name "Lindows" was very likely not the source of confusion for these consumers, but rather the very idea that a computer would *not* come with Microsoft Windows preinstalled. How many people walked out with Mandrake or Lycoris and thought hey had bought Windows?
I'd bet money that they didn't even know the brand of the computer itself - the average consumer would call a Dell a "Windows computer". I'd even gamble that these consumers could have walked out with a Mac and *still* call it a "Windows computer".
What do you want them to do? SCO hasn't threatened them at all, and they've got their hands full with another, substantially larger, company suing them all across the planet. To do anything about SCO at this point is a waste of time, particularly since they have no case and IBM has the situation well in hand.
Besides - what "punitive action" are *you* taking, or are you "in bed" with them too?
You'll note that that press release talks about an agreement with SCO that dates back to 2001, long before the current situation with SCO and IBM and threats to Linux. Many companies had relationships wth them from that era - it doesn't at all mean they're party to the current behavior of SCO.
Lindows.com's argument is that "Windows" is a generic term used in computer science to refer to the feature of the GUI being broken into rectanglar areas, and this usage predates Microsoft's usage, and is therefore not protectable. In the United States, the judge on the case has stated that he thinks the Lindows.com case has merit, which is why he denied Microsoft's attempt to get a preliminary judgement.
This happened overseas first because the generic use of "windows" does not extend to other languages.
Microsoft is probably going to lose the case in the Untited States - the word "windows" is a generic term commonly used in computer science and Microsoft should never have been granted the trademark.
In non-English-speaking countries, the term is no longer generic - it becomes "fanciful", and therefore protectable, and Microsoft might win in those countries, though given the scrutiny they're under in the EU, this is not a given. Lindows.com isn't big enough to sell the same product under too different names, and will have to change.
Therefore, even though Microsoft will lose the battle in the US, they're likely to win the war overall.
What I think Robertson will do is what he did in the MP3.com situation - fight until the very end just to keep the company in the news, then concede in a flurry of press releases just before it could actually result in a big payout to Microsoft.
Microsoft is hinting that they'll ask for damages - this is, of course, absurd. It will be impossible to show any loss of sales of Microsoft's product in any of those countries, since it's unlikely Lindows.com has sold more than a couple of dozen units there, and you could interview *every one* of those customers to find out if they were confused.
The point is that the author brings up a "vulnerability" in an application program running under Windows in an article that purports to be about weaknesses in MacOS.
I still see no reason to switch from a platform (be it Linux or MacOS) that potentially *could*, but does not, have viruses and worms to a platform (Windows) which actively *has* dozens of exploits and hundreds of viruses and worms.
It's rather like telling me I'm not getting shot at because I don't have a target painted on my chest, and that somehow makes me a loser.
If the WWW had been encumbered by patents, it might not have gained world-wide acceptance, and the patent would subsequently have had no value whatsoever.
It's a classic Catch-22 situation - attempting to capture the value destroys the value.
The porn guys raised the alarm on Acacia quite a long time ago but were actively ignored by the mainstream because they were "porn". Now Acacia has a few wins (and money) under its belt and is starting to go after the mainstream video streamers.
It was a very clever strategy on the part of Acacia - first go after the porn folks (nobody would come to their defense), then the university and online education folks (no money to fight), then the broadcasters (already under siege by the trade associations), then the toolmakers. They probably could have been nipped in the bud if people had paid attention early on.
At this point, it's important to drag the big players into the fight - folks who are being sued by Acacia need to subsequently sue the tool vendors (Microsoft, Real, Apple, Macromedia) for selling them allegedly unlicensed patented technology.
What's shady about it? We were completely up front about the particular charges that that particular customer was going to pay - it wasn't a surprise on the bill.
Either *that* customer paid it, or the cost would be spread among *all* the customers, including the ones not requiring the special treatment. I think our solution was the fair one - you want special handling, you pay for it. We also had a tiered shipping price schedule - you want it tomorrow morning, you pay the higher overnight shipping charge, but if you can wait until sometime next week, the charge is much lower.
The issue I was trying to address was that the charge was consistent with our actual costs.
I've had a software company that sold most of its product through distribution (Ingram, etc), but we supported one-off shipping directly to customers that wanted it. We charged a handling fee that was about $10 per unit and we didn't make any money doing so - there was a full-time employee handling these items, which might be 20-30 a day, and given her salary, benefits, packaging, necessary equipment and overhead, it cost us just about $10/unit.
Could we have been more efficient? Perhaps - but only after spending money to become so. Either way, the costs had to be made up by the customer. If you came to pick up the item in person, you didn't get charged.
I can assure you that if somebody's offering "free shipping and handling" it just means they buried the cost.
Slashdot Mirror
Here, I'll explain it to you: yes, there might be an exploit someday, but if the past is any indication, I might be long dead and buried - and in Hell, you see, because I've been a very, very bad person. Though Hell is very hot at the moment, it might cool down when a Mac running OSX actually gets exploited because that may be a long time from now. Hence the jacket. Because jackets will warm you up when it's cold. It's not comfortable to be cold - for me, anyway.
Hope that clears things up for you. Merry Christmas (<-- not a joke)
No - have you ever actually rebuilt a *compromised* OS X machine? Not one that crashed or got corrupted, but one that someone actually broke into due to an exploit?
Just curious - in your scheme, how do the songwriters get compensated? The tip jar serms to make sense for the performer, but how do the Diane Warrens of the world get their fair share?
Certainly this makes the OS a bigger target for fanboys of other operating systems trying to be the first to "prove" that Macs are somehow equally insecure.
"Windows," as has been repeated many times, is not only a generic English word, but also is a generic term in the field of computer science which predates Microsoft's usage, and should never have been granted as a trademark.
In Europe, apparently learning from their mistakes, Microsoft specifically asked for the injunction to be granted without prior notification to Lindows.com, claiming imminent harm their trademark - after two years.
Windows started out as a window manager, or "enhancement" to DOS. By Microsoft's expanded definition of "operating system", AIXWindows would certainly count.
A recent poll of company spokesmen across all industries indicates that Ansel Adams would have liked their products.
That doesn't change the fact that the trademark should never have been granted in the first place - and it shouldn't matter how much money or marketing effort they expended to build it up. It's the fruit of a poisoned tree.
There were several products with "Windows" in the name when Microsoft Windows came to market.
IBM - AIXWindows
If Microsoft indeed has a trademark of the word "Office", it's curious they haven't gone after the competing companies using the *exact* word, but *have* gone after Lindows.com for a *rhyming* word, and have in fact not pursued many companies also using "Windows" and "Win" in product names - this would tend to support Robertson's argument that the litigation is a tool to suppress his business.
In any case, the name "Lindows" was very likely not the source of confusion for these consumers, but rather the very idea that a computer would *not* come with Microsoft Windows preinstalled. How many people walked out with Mandrake or Lycoris and thought hey had bought Windows?
I'd bet money that they didn't even know the brand of the computer itself - the average consumer would call a Dell a "Windows computer". I'd even gamble that these consumers could have walked out with a Mac and *still* call it a "Windows computer".
Besides - what "punitive action" are *you* taking, or are you "in bed" with them too?
You'll note that that press release talks about an agreement with SCO that dates back to 2001, long before the current situation with SCO and IBM and threats to Linux. Many companies had relationships wth them from that era - it doesn't at all mean they're party to the current behavior of SCO.
This happened overseas first because the generic use of "windows" does not extend to other languages.
In non-English-speaking countries, the term is no longer generic - it becomes "fanciful", and therefore protectable, and Microsoft might win in those countries, though given the scrutiny they're under in the EU, this is not a given. Lindows.com isn't big enough to sell the same product under too different names, and will have to change.
Therefore, even though Microsoft will lose the battle in the US, they're likely to win the war overall.
What I think Robertson will do is what he did in the MP3.com situation - fight until the very end just to keep the company in the news, then concede in a flurry of press releases just before it could actually result in a big payout to Microsoft.
Microsoft is hinting that they'll ask for damages - this is, of course, absurd. It will be impossible to show any loss of sales of Microsoft's product in any of those countries, since it's unlikely Lindows.com has sold more than a couple of dozen units there, and you could interview *every one* of those customers to find out if they were confused.
The point is that the author brings up a "vulnerability" in an application program running under Windows in an article that purports to be about weaknesses in MacOS.
...wait for it...
...Windows!
It's rather like telling me I'm not getting shot at because I don't have a target painted on my chest, and that somehow makes me a loser.
It's a classic Catch-22 situation - attempting to capture the value destroys the value.
It was a very clever strategy on the part of Acacia - first go after the porn folks (nobody would come to their defense), then the university and online education folks (no money to fight), then the broadcasters (already under siege by the trade associations), then the toolmakers. They probably could have been nipped in the bud if people had paid attention early on.
At this point, it's important to drag the big players into the fight - folks who are being sued by Acacia need to subsequently sue the tool vendors (Microsoft, Real, Apple, Macromedia) for selling them allegedly unlicensed patented technology.
Anyone out there know why unleaded gasoline cost more than leaded gasoline? Why charge more to *not* put an additive in the gasoline?
Either *that* customer paid it, or the cost would be spread among *all* the customers, including the ones not requiring the special treatment. I think our solution was the fair one - you want special handling, you pay for it. We also had a tiered shipping price schedule - you want it tomorrow morning, you pay the higher overnight shipping charge, but if you can wait until sometime next week, the charge is much lower.
The issue I was trying to address was that the charge was consistent with our actual costs.
Could we have been more efficient? Perhaps - but only after spending money to become so. Either way, the costs had to be made up by the customer. If you came to pick up the item in person, you didn't get charged.
I can assure you that if somebody's offering "free shipping and handling" it just means they buried the cost.