GPL doesn't prevent people from profitting on others' work without any compensation going to said others. BSD doesn't either, but it's more honest about that fact. People releasing code under BSD know what they're doing without the utopian-dogma that surrounds GPL and clouds the issues.
It's said that Google uses a huge amount of GPL code. They're making billions while the programmers that created the GPL code get none of those billions. And Google isn't even contributing code back to the "community" (web services aren't covered by GPL), so it's no different from BSD anyway.
Then of course there's the scenarios where a team of programmers makes a great GPL product, but they happen to suck at support (support/consulting skills and programming skills are not equivalent). Some company that specialized in consulting then offers consult support for said prodcut, makes millions, and the original programmers get nothing (other than "code contributed back to the community if any public modifications to code are made"). There's something obsene witht he idea that consultants work is worthy of payment but not that of programmers.
They don't understand how it can be that someone would write an app or maintain a distro because they find it enjoyable or gratifying, and so they don't find that model predictable, much less harnessable.
Well, they're right - it's not "predictable". And there is a risk basing your IT department on it. Programmers lose interest in projects all the time, and most of the time the projects are not taken up by others, but simply die off (see the mass of moribund projects on sourceforge). Payment would at least give the original programmers or new programmers some incentive to work on a project when the "enjoyment and gratification" decreases or isn't worth the time (programmers that work for free have real jobs (programming or otherwise) to put food on the table, and they only have so much time to spare).
But I'm more shallow than the typical slashdotter. I personally despise the idea of working hours and hours at night on a project without compensation and seeing a company make billions off of it. I don't like the idea of Red Hat execs driving Ferraris bought on the backs of unpaid labor. Some people deride OSS as "communistic" but in truth it's the exact opposite extreme, where the "capitalists" get everything and the workers get nothing. But again, that's me. Most slashdotters find "enjoyment and gratification" to be enough for them, and don't mind Red Hat and IBM execs getting rich. That's great for you guys. (The only problem I have is that many "volunteer" programmers have a holier-than-thou attidude wrt programmers that work for pay.)
You could grow up and just buy whatever works rather than getting mired down into mixing religion/politics with your technology choices. Just a thought.
Jobs is the single largest shareholder in Disney, and he goes on and on about DRM-free music, but doesn't push for Disney to release its movies on unprotcted DVDs, HD-DVDs, and/or BRs, nor DRM-free online web releases. When asked about it, he hemmed and hawed, "Um, well, you see, video is different than audio...". Bull. Jobs, stop grandstanding about music and start releasing your own company's movies in unprotected fashion. THEN you'll have some credibility on this issue.
You clearly have no clue how COM CLSIDs work, do you? There is no "magic naming system". Each plugin implements the shell extention interface and registers its CLSID; when explorer needs to load the plugin for a particular CLSID, it looks it up in the registry, finds the corresponding dll, loads it, and accesses the shell extension's COM interface.
And to think that your post was modded "Insighful" rather than "Arrogantly Ignorant".
From the summary: "This move would give everyone the freedom to share, recut, and edit the debates as they wish."
This sounds cool, but the "edit" part is problematic. Editing debates to make a candidate you don't like say something that he/she didn't say, then posting it on YouTube, and making that candidate's campaign waste precious time trying to debunk the video wouldn't be a good thing.
"AJAX stopped XAML dead in its tracks, at a time when new Microsoft technologies were still considered unstoppable. Why should we believe that Silverlight will be any different?"
Yours was a good post until you felt the need to pander to the "I hate Microsoft" crowd with "Look I'm sure Microsoft screwed it up so it's stupid since they basically screw up everything they do." If you think it's good, just say it.
Seems like everytime someone says something good about Microsoft around here, they chicken-out and throw in the "But I'm sure it sucks anyway" qualifier. Microsoft's programmers were educated at the same colleges as other programmers, and are NOT inherently worse than anyone else. If the concept is good, there's no reason to believe that Microsoft would "screw it up" any more than anyone else would. Throwing in the lame "I know that Microsoft sucks, but..." or "I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy, but..." qualifiers is lame.
The news is that the first bits are available, and it's the complete CLR, not a stripped down CLR. The accompanying.NET Frameworks libs are stripped down, but the CLR is complete, supporting all.NET languages. The original wpf/e spec only had support for C# and VB.NET, and lacked support for reflection and whatnot (which many of the more "exotic" languages depend on).
You're way off. Everything in your post is not only wrong, it's 180 degrees wrong. Please do some research. (For instance, Silverlight itself doesn't need a compiler for "any".NET language, it only needs the JIT to compile MSIL to native code.)
"I don't know why this article is so light on the details, the others aren't."
Indeed, there have been numerous *detailed* articles all over the web, and slashdot went with the worst article of them all, probably in an attempt to cover the story while allowing readers to create their own internal FUD regarding it.
The problems with not "taking away the old one": 1. The old UI was already overburdened by the old feature set, and would be even worse with the new feature set.
2. People would be tempted to just keep using the old UI, even if the new UI is vastly superior.
3. Given (2), Microsoft would be forced to maintain the old UI forever, and given (1), would be forced to keep cramming future funcionality in to that already overburdened UI.
Keeping the old UI available would have been counter-productive. A clean break was required here.
Does the EU not have a Constitution, or something like it? I doubt the EC can just do whatever it wants and stay within the "constitution".
In the US, when the legislature passes a law, the Supreme Court can rule it as "unconstitutional", meaning that the legislature overstepped its bounds. The appeals courts in the EU have yet to hear this EU case. The EC has to answer to them. If the EC decided to just appropriate all MS assets in Europe, you think the EU courts wouldn't rule that out of bounds? Get real.
Governments do have limits. Unless you're advocating "ad-hoc law", which is an absolutely horrible system.
You do know this is part of a settlement for criminal activity right?
What "criminal activity"? Microsoft has never been charged with a "crime". "Civil" violations are not "crimes". The "civil" code is not the same as the "criminal" code.
Also, I've read that the EU "case" consists of mandates and decrees issued by the EC, not a court. Microsoft has appealed those decrees to a real court, but the court hasn't heard the case yet.
This "stealing password" scneario might be less effective in Vista. In Vista the default account runs is an "admin" account that runs with "standard" privileges, such that elevation requires merely clicking OK rather than actually entering the password (which would be required for "non-admin" accounts). So, if a user is used to merely clicking OK on UAC dlgs, then is suddenly presented with a fake dlg that requires him to enter a password, he may suspect that something is amiss.
"The 802.11 thing was apparently due to some legal crap and was only $5 anyway."
That's great. Now please explain why Apple charges $10 to enable its video player to play videos full-screen. While you're at it, please explain why Apple charges another $10 for an MPEG2 codec for that same video player, when the OS already ships with an MPEG2 codec (which is used to allow its DVD player to play DVDs).
Jobs knows how to nickel and dime his user base for all they're worth. He knows that they'll just line up, bend over, and take it with a smile on their faces (as evidenced by your sycophantic post).
According to http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=617 98 Apple released a Security Update almost every month in 2005. Less so in 2006, but the 2006 updates were huge (one fixed over 40 flaws, others fixed over 20 each). Face facts - Apple patches their system just as much as does MS and Linux distros (particularly when you normalize for frequency vs size).
OOXML, OTOH, was rubber stamped by ECMA (that was one of the conditions of the submission)
Sorty, this is bullshit. The ECMA process took over a year to complete, and there were many revisions and multiple drafts released during that time. The ratification vote wasn't guaranteed. IBM was on the committee and voted NO. All other members had the same opportunity to vote NO as well (though nobody else did, since they didn't have an pro-ODF agenda that IBM did; IBM lost 20-1). Those other members included Apple, Novell, government entities, etc.
If anything was "rubberstamped" by anyone, it was ODF being rubberstamped by ISO. ISO approved a standard that wasn't even complete. It doesn't even have a standard for saving spreadsheet formulae. Oh, and Microsoft was on that IDO committee that rubberstamped ODF and raised no objections (unlike IBM throwing a temper tantrum at the ECMA/OOXML vote).
Slashdot Mirror
So?
GPL doesn't prevent people from profitting on others' work without any compensation going to said others.
BSD doesn't either, but it's more honest about that fact. People releasing code under BSD know what they're doing without the utopian-dogma that surrounds GPL and clouds the issues.
It's said that Google uses a huge amount of GPL code. They're making billions while the programmers that created the GPL code get none of those billions. And Google isn't even contributing code back to the "community" (web services aren't covered by GPL), so it's no different from BSD anyway.
Then of course there's the scenarios where a team of programmers makes a great GPL product, but they happen to suck at support (support/consulting skills and programming skills are not equivalent). Some company that specialized in consulting then offers consult support for said prodcut, makes millions, and the original programmers get nothing (other than "code contributed back to the community if any public modifications to code are made"). There's something obsene witht he idea that consultants work is worthy of payment but not that of programmers.
Well, they're right - it's not "predictable". And there is a risk basing your IT department on it. Programmers lose interest in projects all the time, and most of the time the projects are not taken up by others, but simply die off (see the mass of moribund projects on sourceforge). Payment would at least give the original programmers or new programmers some incentive to work on a project when the "enjoyment and gratification" decreases or isn't worth the time (programmers that work for free have real jobs (programming or otherwise) to put food on the table, and they only have so much time to spare).
But I'm more shallow than the typical slashdotter. I personally despise the idea of working hours and hours at night on a project without compensation and seeing a company make billions off of it. I don't like the idea of Red Hat execs driving Ferraris bought on the backs of unpaid labor. Some people deride OSS as "communistic" but in truth it's the exact opposite extreme, where the "capitalists" get everything and the workers get nothing. But again, that's me. Most slashdotters find "enjoyment and gratification" to be enough for them, and don't mind Red Hat and IBM execs getting rich. That's great for you guys. (The only problem I have is that many "volunteer" programmers have a holier-than-thou attidude wrt programmers that work for pay.)
Email systems have never been secure (besides the login/handshake).
You could grow up and just buy whatever works rather than getting mired down into mixing religion/politics with your technology choices. Just a thought.
Jobs is the single largest shareholder in Disney, and he goes on and on about DRM-free music, but doesn't push for Disney to release its movies on unprotcted DVDs, HD-DVDs, and/or BRs, nor DRM-free online web releases. When asked about it, he hemmed and hawed, "Um, well, you see, video is different than audio...". Bull. Jobs, stop grandstanding about music and start releasing your own company's movies in unprotected fashion. THEN you'll have some credibility on this issue.
You clearly have no clue how COM CLSIDs work, do you?
There is no "magic naming system". Each plugin implements the shell extention interface and registers its CLSID; when explorer needs to load the plugin for a particular CLSID, it looks it up in the registry, finds the corresponding dll, loads it, and accesses the shell extension's COM interface.
And to think that your post was modded "Insighful" rather than "Arrogantly Ignorant".
From the summary: "This move would give everyone the freedom to share, recut, and edit the debates as they wish."
This sounds cool, but the "edit" part is problematic. Editing debates to make a candidate you don't like say something that he/she didn't say, then posting it on YouTube, and making that candidate's campaign waste precious time trying to debunk the video wouldn't be a good thing.
"AJAX stopped XAML dead in its tracks, at a time when new Microsoft technologies were still considered unstoppable. Why should we believe that Silverlight will be any different?"
Um, Microsoft is the inventor of AJAX.
Yours was a good post until you felt the need to pander to the "I hate Microsoft" crowd with "Look I'm sure Microsoft screwed it up so it's stupid since they basically screw up everything they do." If you think it's good, just say it.
..." or "I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy, but ..." qualifiers is lame.
Seems like everytime someone says something good about Microsoft around here, they chicken-out and throw in the "But I'm sure it sucks anyway" qualifier. Microsoft's programmers were educated at the same colleges as other programmers, and are NOT inherently worse than anyone else. If the concept is good, there's no reason to believe that Microsoft would "screw it up" any more than anyone else would. Throwing in the lame "I know that Microsoft sucks, but
PowerShell is a free download.l ogies/management/powershell/download.mspx
It's available for 32 and 64 bit versions of Vista, XP, Windows Server 2k3, and Longhorn Server.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/techno
(There's old text at that link saying that the Vista version is at RC2, but it's actually RTM.)
The news is that the first bits are available, and it's the complete CLR, not a stripped down CLR. The accompanying .NET Frameworks libs are stripped down, but the CLR is complete, supporting all .NET languages. The original wpf/e spec only had support for C# and VB.NET, and lacked support for reflection and whatnot (which many of the more "exotic" languages depend on).
Also, the DLR is new.
You're way off. .NET language, it only needs the JIT to compile MSIL to native code.)
Everything in your post is not only wrong, it's 180 degrees wrong.
Please do some research.
(For instance, Silverlight itself doesn't need a compiler for "any"
The license is Microsoft Permissive License, a BSD-style license.
Yes, C# is supported. Silverlight supports any
Silverlight includes its own CLR. Both Windows and Mac are supported. That wikipedia article hasn't been updated yet, that's all.
"I don't know why this article is so light on the details, the others aren't."
Indeed, there have been numerous *detailed* articles all over the web, and slashdot went with the worst article of them all, probably in an attempt to cover the story while allowing readers to create their own internal FUD regarding it.
The problems with not "taking away the old one":
1. The old UI was already overburdened by the old feature set, and would be even worse with the new feature set.
2. People would be tempted to just keep using the old UI, even if the new UI is vastly superior.
3. Given (2), Microsoft would be forced to maintain the old UI forever, and given (1), would be forced to keep cramming future funcionality in to that already overburdened UI.
Keeping the old UI available would have been counter-productive. A clean break was required here.
and you guys consider these fools as saviors against Microsoft?
Does the EU not have a Constitution, or something like it?
I doubt the EC can just do whatever it wants and stay within the "constitution".
In the US, when the legislature passes a law, the Supreme Court can rule it as "unconstitutional", meaning that the legislature overstepped its bounds. The appeals courts in the EU have yet to hear this EU case. The EC has to answer to them. If the EC decided to just appropriate all MS assets in Europe, you think the EU courts wouldn't rule that out of bounds? Get real.
Governments do have limits. Unless you're advocating "ad-hoc law", which is an absolutely horrible system.
What "criminal activity"? Microsoft has never been charged with a "crime". "Civil" violations are not "crimes". The "civil" code is not the same as the "criminal" code.
Also, I've read that the EU "case" consists of mandates and decrees issued by the EC, not a court. Microsoft has appealed those decrees to a real court, but the court hasn't heard the case yet.
This "stealing password" scneario might be less effective in Vista. In Vista the default account runs is an "admin" account that runs with "standard" privileges, such that elevation requires merely clicking OK rather than actually entering the password (which would be required for "non-admin" accounts). So, if a user is used to merely clicking OK on UAC dlgs, then is suddenly presented with a fake dlg that requires him to enter a password, he may suspect that something is amiss.
"The 802.11 thing was apparently due to some legal crap and was only $5 anyway."
That's great.
Now please explain why Apple charges $10 to enable its video player to play videos full-screen. While you're at it, please explain why Apple charges another $10 for an MPEG2 codec for that same video player, when the OS already ships with an MPEG2 codec (which is used to allow its DVD player to play DVDs).
Jobs knows how to nickel and dime his user base for all they're worth. He knows that they'll just line up, bend over, and take it with a smile on their faces (as evidenced by your sycophantic post).
According to http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=617 98
Apple released a Security Update almost every month in 2005. Less so in 2006, but the 2006 updates were huge (one fixed over 40 flaws, others fixed over 20 each). Face facts - Apple patches their system just as much as does MS and Linux distros (particularly when you normalize for frequency vs size).
THAT's your comeback? Wow. You'd have been better off saying nothing. Seriously.
Sorty, this is bullshit.
The ECMA process took over a year to complete, and there were many revisions and multiple drafts released during that time. The ratification vote wasn't guaranteed. IBM was on the committee and voted NO. All other members had the same opportunity to vote NO as well (though nobody else did, since they didn't have an pro-ODF agenda that IBM did; IBM lost 20-1). Those other members included Apple, Novell, government entities, etc.
If anything was "rubberstamped" by anyone, it was ODF being rubberstamped by ISO. ISO approved a standard that wasn't even complete. It doesn't even have a standard for saving spreadsheet formulae. Oh, and Microsoft was on that IDO committee that rubberstamped ODF and raised no objections (unlike IBM throwing a temper tantrum at the ECMA/OOXML vote).