I like how you guys accepted his initial report unquestioningly, because that report was in keeping with your Microsoft hatred. You had no problems applying 100% credibility to the initial report. You had no problems attaching 100% credibility to that initial report's author. But now that he's amended that report with new info, you guys are saying that he's full of shit, because the new info isn't in keeping with your Microsoft hatred.
One day he's your hero, a sage, an oracle. The next he's full of shit. It's too funny.
The truth is that you and your ilk are the ones that are full of shit, and that's quite apparent to anyone that's not an anti-MS lemming.
"It is too obvious. I am not a language expert but I can even see different style of writing/expressing in discussed post that in his other works."
You're seeing what you want to see. The reason for the different style in writing is because he's essentially writing a retraction of his original charge. The initial report was charging Microsoft with wrongdoing, and therefore had a judgmental tone. The amended report is a retraction of sorts, so will have a contrite tone (and an embarrassed tone, since he got caught running pirated software).
The publicly stated reason for WGA is to uncover usage of pirated copies of Windows by users who unknowinly bought pirated copies. WGA did its job in this case, and you just can't stand it.
It's not legal to convert a semi-automatic rifle to a fully automatic one. Do you object to that law? I guess you do. And according to your post, not only do you object to that law, you'd make it illegal (a "criminal violation") for the manufacturer of a rifle to add mechanisms to prevent the rifle from working as a fully-automatic rifle. Is that really what you're about?
And I can cite dozens of examples where a manufacturer and/or society has decided to prohibit particular uses of devices that you might own, and they have legit reasons for doing so.
"This does have the potential to have some power, because the GNU tools are far and away the best set of basic unix tools."
Are you saying that GPL3 makes forbids using GNU tools to create non-GPL3 software? Even RMS isn't that stupid. I can use GNU tools to make any software I want. All GPL3 would do is forbid my distributing DRM functional code that included GPL3 code. And don't flatter yourself, most devs get along just fine without mooching GPL code.
And how, pray tell, would GPL3 prevent that? If a piece of hardware is designed to only run Windows or, to give a real example, a game console is designed to only run digitally signed games, what is GPL3 going to do about it? Not a damn thing. All that would happen is that software devs wouldn't use GPL3 if they are targetting hardware that digitally validates the software that it runs.
That EC case is specifically about (formerly) private Windows network protocols, particularly ActiveDirectory, which were never intended to be a public API in the first place.
The real Windows API (Win32,.NET, COM, DirectX, etc) documentation is packaged as the MSDN Library, which is available for all to see. And the local version of the MSDN Library is now available for free download as well (it was formerly only available with Visual Studio, MSDN subscriptions, etc).
Having "Google" be the generic word for web-search is great for Google over the short term, but not necessarily good over the long term. In fact, over the long term, such a thing can actually devalue the company brand.
Examples: "Xerox" is the common verb people use for "photocopy", but people don't think of the Xerox company when using that word, they're just referring to photocopying in general. And Xerox is no longer the top photocopy company even though people use "xerox" as the verb for "photocopy".
"Kleenex" is the common noun for tissue paper, but people don't think of the Kleenex company when using that word; they're just referring to tissue paper in general. (I think Kleenex might still be the top tissue company, but not nearly as dominant as they were when "kleenex" became a common noun.)
Not to say that it can't go the other way. "Coke" is a common noun for any "cola", and people don't necessarily think of Coca-Cola when using the word "Coke", but they think of it enough that Coca-Cola is still the dominant cola company. Google could end up like that rather than like Xerox, but it's not guaranteed by any means.
Among the changes in this new draft are that the license only directly restricts DRM (digital rights management) in the special case in which it is used to prevent people from sharing or modifying GPLv3-covered software. According to the FSF, the clarified DRM section preserves the spirit of the original GPL, which forbids adding additional restrictions to free software. In short, GPLv3 doesn't prohibit the implementation of DRM features, but prevents them from being imposed on users in a way that they cannot remove.
So, I guess one can make a GPL BluRay/HD-DVD player (but must allow the user to remove the DRM functionalty (thus removing the ability to play these DRM'ed discs)).
Besides the change in terminology, what is the actual policy? Is GPL going to forbid any code that implements DRM functionality? If so, won't it be impossible to make a GPL app that plays BluRay and HD-DVD discs, since these discs use AACS DRM? Same goes for handling other DRM media?
If GPL continues to allow companies to incorporate GPL code into web apps that are then "released" to the public for public use without releasing the web app code, then the GPL will gradually become less and less relevant. The reason being that as time goes on, more and more classes of apps will shift from binary desktop apps to web apps (many of you raved over Google's web spreadsheet, for example), and such web apps are not covered under the GPL. So imagine a future where web apps are the norm; if such apps aren't covered under GPL, then GPL would be pretty worthless.
When GPL was written, there were no web apps, which is why the loophole exists today. Well, now there are many web apps (many that use GPL code, but don't release the changes even though the web apps are released for public use), and GPL must change with the times in order to remain relevant.
Oh, and as for your comment that closing the loophole would stifle development of new and innovative web apps, why does that logic not apply to distributed binaries as well? I really don't know why anyone would be against closing this loophole.
(Well, I could see why the Google faithful might want the loophole to remain, because it's been said that Google exploits the loophole more than anyone else.)
First of all, since you admin a site of 100 seats, you can install the IE7 blocker to block Windows Update from downloading IE7.
Secondly, even if you don't install the blocker, and the user does elect to install IE7 (after downloading IE7, Windows Update presents the options "Install", "Don't Install", "Ask me later" (if you select "Don't Install", you're never asked again, even for future security updates)), IE7 will not be installed as the default browser, unless an older IE was already the default browser.
From the IE blog: "If you decide to install IE7, it will preserve your current toolbars, home page, search settings, and favorites and installing will not change your choice of default browser. You will also be able to roll back to IE6 at any point by using Add/Remove Programs in the Control Panel."
IE7 has been in beta for *months*. The web masters have had plenty of time to update their sites, and still have plenty of time to do so. And the update mainly involves just changing the check of the useragent string to check for IE6 and earlier (rather than just IE in general) so that they only run the hacked CSS IE6-specific code for IE6 and not IE7. If the webmasters don't update their sites even though they've had plenty of time to do so, it's on them.
I think more problems will be with useragent checking that's too general rather than too specific. IE6 has very poor CSS support, so many pages have code like: if (IE)
hacked CSS code// for IE else
good CSS
IE7 has much better CSS support, and doesn't support the "hacks" that have been made for IE6, so code like the above will break on IE7. Such code should be updated to something like: if (IE version 6 or earlier)
hacked CSS code// for old IE else
good CSS
If you read the IE blog, you'll see that what happens is if you don't install the IE7 blocker, then Windows Update (if set to automatic) downloads IE7, then you're presented with options to "Install", "Don't Install", or "Ask Me Later". If you choose "Don't Install", then you're never asked again, even when later security updates occur (see the comments portion of the blog for this info).
You answered your own question. Microsoft can make money selling memory cards. Selling accessories is one of the ways to make up for selling consoles at a loss.
You're correct that that which makes OSX OSX is closed source, but it's not just the GUI. The whole Cocoa and Carbon API is closed. It's like Microsoft opensourcing the NT kernel and keeping Win32, DirectX, COM,.NET*, etc closed. It's fairly meaningless. OSX is "proprietary", period.
* The CLR part of.NET is open as the Rotor code; I refer to the closed parts of.NET (WinForms, WinFX, etc).
SpyBot and AdWare are free, so why would they care if Microsoft bundled anti-spyware with windows? It's not like they're being denied revenue.
The fact is, the overwhelming majority of users don't have any anti-spyware protection, and Microsoft is tired of getting blamed for this (note that spyware doesn't generally rely on OS flaws, but on users explicitly installing malware). In order to clamp down on spyware, it's necessary for anti-spyware to be bundled, since most are not installing 3rd party anti-spyware.
Wait, you're basing hostility toward Xbox360 on minimsft? Minimsft and the posters there are hostile towards anything that doesn't raise the value of their stock options. That blog in no way represents the general feeling regarding X360 by "Redmond" (or Microsoft, or the Microsoft rank and file).
Minimsft wants to terminate all projects that don't immediately make money, and terminate the employees working on those projects too. The guy has zero long-term vision. And the posters to his blog are a bunch of whining babies that Microsft would do better without.
Second, you hold Google in too high a regard; you've actually drank the "do no evil" Kool-Aid, as evidenced by your syconphantic rhetoric: "Have Google tried to shut down competition? Nope, they just beat them by simply being better."
How about Google's exclusive deal with Apple to block other search engines from appearing in the search field of OSX's default browser?
And it's debatable whether Google is "simply being better"; their search results have really began to suck over the last year or so; unless you enjoy the search results directing you to pages that are nothing but other search indexes, which refer to more search indexes, and on and on, each page filled with Google adsense ads.
Um, what do you mean by, "Not worried"? If your'e an Apple shareholder, I can see that such a statement would make sense, but if you're just a regular consumer, why would the introduction of a new product "worry" you to begin with? Please tell me that you don't identify your own selfworth with Apple's.
Are you an OSS advocate criticizing a company for "me too" products, when so much of OSS is knockoffs of commercial offerings? Or are you an Apple advocate blissfully ignorant that Apple is blatantly copying Microsoft's MCE product with FrontRow? Or are you an Apple fanboy who thinks Apple invented portable digital music players?
Everyone copies from others; only the truly deluded believe otherwise.
"We touched on this yesterday, but the 12 tenets weren't clear at that point... ", so we touch on it again tdday, but still fail to provide the official URL to the actual 12 tenets (a URL which was released yesterday, so the 12 tenets were indeed clear).
(Note that according to the text, the tenets are in keeping with and following the spirit of the MS/USDOJ settlement, rather than having to do with EU fines (though the latter likely played a role).)
The "extra scrutiny" you refer to isn't at the whim of anti-MS zealots, it's based on the provisions of the MS/DOJ settlement, and those provisions would not preclude Microsoft bidding for contracts on the open market (as long as the bids don't relate to or depend on the "monopoly" status of the "monopoly" product in question). It sounds like you want Microsoft to be precluded from conducting business at all, without your OK (where "your OK" = "the consent of Microsoft haters").
Oh, and the "convicted of monopoly, convicted monopolist" rhetoric is so tired. "Conviction" refers to criminal cases, not civil cases.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conviction "NOTE: Jurisdictions differ as to what constitutes conviction for various statutes (as habitual offender statutes). Conviction is rarely applied to civil cases."
Microsoft has never been "convicted" of anything, nor even accused of criminal behavior.
Slashdot Mirror
I like how you guys accepted his initial report unquestioningly, because that report was in keeping with your Microsoft hatred. You had no problems applying 100% credibility to the initial report. You had no problems attaching 100% credibility to that initial report's author. But now that he's amended that report with new info, you guys are saying that he's full of shit, because the new info isn't in keeping with your Microsoft hatred.
One day he's your hero, a sage, an oracle. The next he's full of shit.
It's too funny.
The truth is that you and your ilk are the ones that are full of shit, and that's quite apparent to anyone that's not an anti-MS lemming.
"It is too obvious. I am not a language expert but I can even see different style of writing/expressing in discussed post that in his other works."
You're seeing what you want to see. The reason for the different style in writing is because he's essentially writing a retraction of his original charge. The initial report was charging Microsoft with wrongdoing, and therefore had a judgmental tone. The amended report is a retraction of sorts, so will have a contrite tone (and an embarrassed tone, since he got caught running pirated software).
The publicly stated reason for WGA is to uncover usage of pirated copies of Windows by users who unknowinly bought pirated copies. WGA did its job in this case, and you just can't stand it.
It's not legal to convert a semi-automatic rifle to a fully automatic one. Do you object to that law? I guess you do. And according to your post, not only do you object to that law, you'd make it illegal (a "criminal violation") for the manufacturer of a rifle to add mechanisms to prevent the rifle from working as a fully-automatic rifle. Is that really what you're about?
And I can cite dozens of examples where a manufacturer and/or society has decided to prohibit particular uses of devices that you might own, and they have legit reasons for doing so.
If one of hundred such manufacturers chooses GPLv3 vs complete in-house development it's a net win for free software.
You're equating GPL with "free software". Much "free software" is not GPL, in fact much software is "free-er" than premitted by the GPL.
"This does have the potential to have some power, because the GNU tools are far and away the best set of basic unix tools."
Are you saying that GPL3 makes forbids using GNU tools to create non-GPL3 software? Even RMS isn't that stupid. I can use GNU tools to make any software I want. All GPL3 would do is forbid my distributing DRM functional code that included GPL3 code. And don't flatter yourself, most devs get along just fine without mooching GPL code.
And how, pray tell, would GPL3 prevent that? If a piece of hardware is designed to only run Windows or, to give a real example, a game console is designed to only run digitally signed games, what is GPL3 going to do about it? Not a damn thing. All that would happen is that software devs wouldn't use GPL3 if they are targetting hardware that digitally validates the software that it runs.
That EC case is specifically about (formerly) private Windows network protocols, particularly ActiveDirectory, which were never intended to be a public API in the first place.
.NET, COM, DirectX, etc) documentation is packaged as the MSDN Library, which is available for all to see. And the local version of the MSDN Library is now available for free download as well (it was formerly only available with Visual Studio, MSDN subscriptions, etc).
The real Windows API (Win32,
Having "Google" be the generic word for web-search is great for Google over the short term, but not necessarily good over the long term. In fact, over the long term, such a thing can actually devalue the company brand.
Examples:
"Xerox" is the common verb people use for "photocopy", but people don't think of the Xerox company when using that word, they're just referring to photocopying in general. And Xerox is no longer the top photocopy company even though people use "xerox" as the verb for "photocopy".
"Kleenex" is the common noun for tissue paper, but people don't think of the Kleenex company when using that word; they're just referring to tissue paper in general. (I think Kleenex might still be the top tissue company, but not nearly as dominant as they were when "kleenex" became a common noun.)
Not to say that it can't go the other way. "Coke" is a common noun for any "cola", and people don't necessarily think of Coca-Cola when using the word "Coke", but they think of it enough that Coca-Cola is still the dominant cola company. Google could end up like that rather than like Xerox, but it's not guaranteed by any means.
Besides the change in terminology, what is the actual policy? Is GPL going to forbid any code that implements DRM functionality? If so, won't it be impossible to make a GPL app that plays BluRay and HD-DVD discs, since these discs use AACS DRM? Same goes for handling other DRM media?
If GPL continues to allow companies to incorporate GPL code into web apps that are then "released" to the public for public use without releasing the web app code, then the GPL will gradually become less and less relevant. The reason being that as time goes on, more and more classes of apps will shift from binary desktop apps to web apps (many of you raved over Google's web spreadsheet, for example), and such web apps are not covered under the GPL. So imagine a future where web apps are the norm; if such apps aren't covered under GPL, then GPL would be pretty worthless.
When GPL was written, there were no web apps, which is why the loophole exists today. Well, now there are many web apps (many that use GPL code, but don't release the changes even though the web apps are released for public use), and GPL must change with the times in order to remain relevant.
Oh, and as for your comment that closing the loophole would stifle development of new and innovative web apps, why does that logic not apply to distributed binaries as well? I really don't know why anyone would be against closing this loophole.
(Well, I could see why the Google faithful might want the loophole to remain, because it's been said that Google exploits the loophole more than anyone else.)
First of all, since you admin a site of 100 seats, you can install the IE7 blocker to block Windows Update from downloading IE7.
Secondly, even if you don't install the blocker, and the user does elect to install IE7 (after downloading IE7, Windows Update presents the options "Install", "Don't Install", "Ask me later" (if you select "Don't Install", you're never asked again, even for future security updates)), IE7 will not be installed as the default browser, unless an older IE was already the default browser.
From the IE blog: "If you decide to install IE7, it will preserve your current toolbars, home page, search settings, and favorites and installing will not change your choice of default browser. You will also be able to roll back to IE6 at any point by using Add/Remove Programs in the Control Panel."
IE7 has been in beta for *months*. The web masters have had plenty of time to update their sites, and still have plenty of time to do so. And the update mainly involves just changing the check of the useragent string to check for IE6 and earlier (rather than just IE in general) so that they only run the hacked CSS IE6-specific code for IE6 and not IE7. If the webmasters don't update their sites even though they've had plenty of time to do so, it's on them.
I think more problems will be with useragent checking that's too general rather than too specific. // for IE
// for old IE
IE6 has very poor CSS support, so many pages have code like:
if (IE)
hacked CSS code
else
good CSS
IE7 has much better CSS support, and doesn't support the "hacks" that have been made for IE6, so code like the above will break on IE7. Such code should be updated to something like:
if (IE version 6 or earlier)
hacked CSS code
else
good CSS
Dealing with the different behaviors of browsers is why you get the big bucks. ;-)
If you read the IE blog, you'll see that what happens is if you don't install the IE7 blocker, then Windows Update (if set to automatic) downloads IE7, then you're presented with options to "Install", "Don't Install", or "Ask Me Later". If you choose "Don't Install", then you're never asked again, even when later security updates occur (see the comments portion of the blog for this info).
You answered your own question. Microsoft can make money selling memory cards. Selling accessories is one of the ways to make up for selling consoles at a loss.
You're correct that that which makes OSX OSX is closed source, but it's not just the GUI. The whole Cocoa and Carbon API is closed. It's like Microsoft opensourcing the NT kernel and keeping Win32, DirectX, COM, .NET*, etc closed. It's fairly meaningless. OSX is "proprietary", period.
.NET is open as the Rotor code; I refer to the closed parts of .NET (WinForms, WinFX, etc).
* The CLR part of
SpyBot and AdWare are free, so why would they care if Microsoft bundled anti-spyware with windows? It's not like they're being denied revenue.
The fact is, the overwhelming majority of users don't have any anti-spyware protection, and Microsoft is tired of getting blamed for this (note that spyware doesn't generally rely on OS flaws, but on users explicitly installing malware). In order to clamp down on spyware, it's necessary for anti-spyware to be bundled, since most are not installing 3rd party anti-spyware.
Wait, you're basing hostility toward Xbox360 on minimsft? Minimsft and the posters there are hostile towards anything that doesn't raise the value of their stock options. That blog in no way represents the general feeling regarding X360 by "Redmond" (or Microsoft, or the Microsoft rank and file).
Minimsft wants to terminate all projects that don't immediately make money, and terminate the employees working on those projects too. The guy has zero long-term vision. And the posters to his blog are a bunch of whining babies that Microsft would do better without.
That's what Microsoft hopes, but Apple isn't as stupid as Palm was.
First of all, Microsoft is "scared" of everyone.
Second, you hold Google in too high a regard; you've actually drank the "do no evil" Kool-Aid, as evidenced by your syconphantic rhetoric: "Have Google tried to shut down competition? Nope, they just beat them by simply being better."
How about Google's exclusive deal with Apple to block other search engines from appearing in the search field of OSX's default browser?
And it's debatable whether Google is "simply being better"; their search results have really began to suck over the last year or so; unless you enjoy the search results directing you to pages that are nothing but other search indexes, which refer to more search indexes, and on and on, each page filled with Google adsense ads.
Um, what do you mean by, "Not worried"? If your'e an Apple shareholder, I can see that such a statement would make sense, but if you're just a regular consumer, why would the introduction of a new product "worry" you to begin with? Please tell me that you don't identify your own selfworth with Apple's.
Are you an OSS advocate criticizing a company for "me too" products, when so much of OSS is knockoffs of commercial offerings?
Or are you an Apple advocate blissfully ignorant that Apple is blatantly copying Microsoft's MCE product with FrontRow?
Or are you an Apple fanboy who thinks Apple invented portable digital music players?
Everyone copies from others; only the truly deluded believe otherwise.
"We touched on this yesterday, but the 12 tenets weren't clear at that point ... ", so we touch on it again tdday, but still fail to provide the official URL to the actual 12 tenets (a URL which was released yesterday, so the 12 tenets were indeed clear).
Anyway, here's the official link:
Windows Principles: Twelve Tenets to Promote Competition
(Note that according to the text, the tenets are in keeping with and following the spirit of the MS/USDOJ settlement, rather than having to do with EU fines (though the latter likely played a role).)
The "extra scrutiny" you refer to isn't at the whim of anti-MS zealots, it's based on the provisions of the MS/DOJ settlement, and those provisions would not preclude Microsoft bidding for contracts on the open market (as long as the bids don't relate to or depend on the "monopoly" status of the "monopoly" product in question). It sounds like you want Microsoft to be precluded from conducting business at all, without your OK (where "your OK" = "the consent of Microsoft haters").
Oh, and the "convicted of monopoly, convicted monopolist" rhetoric is so tired. "Conviction" refers to criminal cases, not civil cases.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conviction
"NOTE: Jurisdictions differ as to what constitutes conviction for various statutes (as habitual offender statutes). Conviction is rarely applied to civil cases."
Microsoft has never been "convicted" of anything, nor even accused of criminal behavior.