To be honest: no, I'm not sure. I was surprised too when I read it first time. While the case seems to be several years old, it came to my attention only a few months back and it seems to be a rather landmark court decision which is not talked about much. I tried to contact a company that does something similar in my country with the very same business model and I attempted to get a clarification, but the person on the other side was apparently not capable to understand my questions. It was basically a sales person with a script to follow.
On the other hand, the court decision seems to be rather clear: (in my own words:) the vendor by selling the license first time "exhausts" his rights to further control that license and thus the licensee is free to give up the rights he was granted by the license and can re-sell the license to next party. It also seems a common sense to me, but IANAL yada yada... I'd love to see this analyzed by Groklaw.
In time it will be illegal to possess a general-purpose computer.
Your comment shares 2 and half words with the title of the speech by Cory Doctorow:"The Coming Civil War over General-purpose Computing" - from 5 years ago.
Shit happens when you take something that works for 80,000 users and put it on 80,000,000 users's hardware and unique software configurations.
You know that. I know that. Everybody here knows that. Microsoft however, does not. Or, more likely, they do not care. All they have to do is to let the user choose what updates to install and when.
Well if you have to "run MS Office and Adobe CC" then I feel sorry for you. However if you need to run an office suite that includes a text processor, spreadsheet, presentation and vector drawing, and a photo editing software, then the suggestion of GP is not without merit.
Can you be a bit more specific? I would like to educate myself. All I'm finding are restrictions on U.S. companies on collecting and storing data. Not restriction on U.S. government itself.
As soon as a user has to modify a config file or open a command prompt that's a huge roadblock... and when it doesn't offering highly intuitive graphical interfaces for changing the way it works.
working with an object-oriented terminal is immensely more preferable to having to wrangle text.
You would need to have the objects first. On windows you have objects representing registry keys, services, users, installed packages, processes, scheduled tasks, shares, office documents, etc. etc. - Powershell gets the power from that. And in order to be similarly powerful on Linux, it would need to have bindings for all that on Linux. Somehow I doubt that.
The Krym annexation, unrest at Maidan in Ukraine, conflict in Donetsk, coup in Turkey - this is happening less than 2000km from me. And I have hard time doing any fact checking.
There are conspiracies and propaganda everywhere. Infiltrated social networks, state sponsored shills,... It is easy to pick sides. But really doing fact checking is difficult.
How do you know whether this image of the BUK system in Donetsk is true? You would have to be familiar with the location to recognize the aerial view. You would have to be aerial reconnaissance expert to identify the vehicle. You would have to have access to the history of movements of the military personnel in the area. And of course you would have to be able to check that the image was not doctored. Or you could stand on that street next to the vehicle when the picture is taken. That allows you to check facts, but then you have to convince others. Your close friends may trust you, but with each degree of separation the trust gets weaker.
Sometimes I think about what I would do to convince the world, that something that I saw is true. Something like cryptographic photo authentication might help - but we had a discussion about that before and it does not work.
Unlike the popular Slashdot opinion I am all for Intellectual Property rights...
I don't think that Slashdot readers want to abolish Intellectual Property rights completely. We just want reasonable terms. Start with copyright duration. Author's death + 70 years would be ridiculous if it wasn't true.
I followed the link. And IMHO the approach taken to deal with the problem is epitome of " throw the baby out with the bathwater".
But OK, if we are, after 14 years, still worried about this problem, then I suggest (hey whipsplash!) to review the whitelisted characters and add whatever screwed "Gray's Anatomy" and "Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D" in this post - I guess it's "'right single quotation mark U+2019".
(note to self: write down other instances of this problem when I see them).
in response to your "who" question, Benjamin Tissoires took care of touch input, I wrote the pen support.
While I have no use of this particular feature I want to say "thank you" to everyone writing code that allows Linux to support more hardware. Live long and prosper.
I have a bunch of old extensions that are not signed. [...] I sometimes like to edit extensions
If an extension is licensed for redistribution, you can solve cases 1 and 2 by submitting it to AMO as an unlisted extension.
I don't know how about you, but when I write code, I'm in a constant loop of edit-compile-debug. The extension I occasionally work on has over 1MB because it contains binary components (btw, those are frowned upon too). So are you suggesting that I re-upload and get signed 1MB of data after fixing a typo? And no, I do not want to run Nightly because that is not what the customers run and what the testers run and what I want to run for causal browsing.
Out there IRL people run tons of insecure software. Because they need it to get the work done. You think that software running a CNC milling machine was designed with security in mind? And that's fine, because the attack vectors, that is Mozilla trying to prevent, are simply not applicable in that production environment.
And if that insecure software is compromised then it's a problem between the software vendor and the customer and is resolved based on their support contract.
This is something I don't understand (probably because I live in entirely different part of the world) - what stops me from making a big purchase and then claiming that it was fraudulent. I get to keep the stuff and merchant is left holding the bag. Appeal to my honesty? With every fifth American being below poverty line, that's not going to work. Right, if it becomes a pattern then the credit card company will notice, but from what I'm reading here it seems that even then they do not give a fuck and the merchant just has to eat the losses.
On the other hand, if I make a purchase on the internet, then I provide to the merchant all information required to pull money from my account. What stops him to do that again and again? Or selling that info? Just that I can notice an unauthorized withdrawal and ask the CC company to cancel that? That sounds stupid.
What works reasonably over here is that the checkout on the web shop redirects to the internet-banking web page of my bank, gives it some token and after I transfer the money on the bank's site, the bank signs the token and redirects back to the merchant. The only trouble is, that it may not scale well for big number of banks.
Slashdot Mirror
To be honest: no, I'm not sure. I was surprised too when I read it first time. While the case seems to be several years old, it came to my attention only a few months back and it seems to be a rather landmark court decision which is not talked about much. I tried to contact a company that does something similar in my country with the very same business model and I attempted to get a clarification, but the person on the other side was apparently not capable to understand my questions. It was basically a sales person with a script to follow.
On the other hand, the court decision seems to be rather clear: (in my own words:) the vendor by selling the license first time "exhausts" his rights to further control that license and thus the licensee is free to give up the rights he was granted by the license and can re-sell the license to next party. It also seems a common sense to me, but IANAL yada yada ... I'd love to see this analyzed by Groklaw.
European Court of Justice dares to disagree.
Your comment shares 2 and half words with the title of the speech by Cory Doctorow :"The Coming Civil War over General-purpose Computing" - from 5 years ago.
You know that. I know that. Everybody here knows that. Microsoft however, does not. Or, more likely, they do not care. All they have to do is to let the user choose what updates to install and when.
Well if you have to "run MS Office and Adobe CC" then I feel sorry for you. However if you need to run an office suite that includes a text processor, spreadsheet, presentation and vector drawing, and a photo editing software, then the suggestion of GP is not without merit.
See? This is a proof that once something goes opensource it instantly becomes less secure more buggy!
Can you be a bit more specific? I would like to educate myself. All I'm finding are restrictions on U.S. companies on collecting and storing data. Not restriction on U.S. government itself.
Sure! Because instructions, how to do something, should look like this: https://s4.postimg.io/6lkmasqd9/gui.png
So they think, that people who do not like forced updates and telemetry will resolve the problem by upgrading to Windows 10? That does not make sense.
Let me guess: it's 10am and it's depressing. Right?
Do you expect that to work in Powershell running on a Linux system?
To get back to the topic of this discussion - how well do you expect that to run on a Powershell running on a Linux machine?
You would need to have the objects first. On windows you have objects representing registry keys, services, users, installed packages, processes, scheduled tasks, shares, office documents, etc. etc. - Powershell gets the power from that. And in order to be similarly powerful on Linux, it would need to have bindings for all that on Linux. Somehow I doubt that.
The law of not divulging the password to the "authorities" when asked nicely.
Of course it is a technical term and it does describe a very specific thing: It means "computer that belongs to someone else".
The Krym annexation, unrest at Maidan in Ukraine, conflict in Donetsk, coup in Turkey - this is happening less than 2000km from me. And I have hard time doing any fact checking.
There are conspiracies and propaganda everywhere. Infiltrated social networks, state sponsored shills, ... It is easy to pick sides. But really doing fact checking is difficult.
How do you know whether this image of the BUK system in Donetsk is true? You would have to be familiar with the location to recognize the aerial view. You would have to be aerial reconnaissance expert to identify the vehicle. You would have to have access to the history of movements of the military personnel in the area. And of course you would have to be able to check that the image was not doctored. Or you could stand on that street next to the vehicle when the picture is taken. That allows you to check facts, but then you have to convince others. Your close friends may trust you, but with each degree of separation the trust gets weaker.
Sometimes I think about what I would do to convince the world, that something that I saw is true. Something like cryptographic photo authentication might help - but we had a discussion about that before and it does not work.
I don't think that Slashdot readers want to abolish Intellectual Property rights completely. We just want reasonable terms. Start with copyright duration. Author's death + 70 years would be ridiculous if it wasn't true.
I followed the link. And IMHO the approach taken to deal with the problem is epitome of " throw the baby out with the bathwater".
But OK, if we are, after 14 years, still worried about this problem, then I suggest (hey whipsplash!) to review the whitelisted characters and add whatever screwed "Gray's Anatomy" and "Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D" in this post - I guess it's "'right single quotation mark U+2019".
(note to self: write down other instances of this problem when I see them).
While I have no use of this particular feature I want to say "thank you" to everyone writing code that allows Linux to support more hardware. Live long and prosper.
Interesting. Thanks for the tip.
I don't know how about you, but when I write code, I'm in a constant loop of edit-compile-debug. The extension I occasionally work on has over 1MB because it contains binary components (btw, those are frowned upon too). So are you suggesting that I re-upload and get signed 1MB of data after fixing a typo? And no, I do not want to run Nightly because that is not what the customers run and what the testers run and what I want to run for causal browsing.
Out there IRL people run tons of insecure software. Because they need it to get the work done. You think that software running a CNC milling machine was designed with security in mind? And that's fine, because the attack vectors, that is Mozilla trying to prevent, are simply not applicable in that production environment.
And if that insecure software is compromised then it's a problem between the software vendor and the customer and is resolved based on their support contract.
This is something I don't understand (probably because I live in entirely different part of the world) - what stops me from making a big purchase and then claiming that it was fraudulent. I get to keep the stuff and merchant is left holding the bag. Appeal to my honesty? With every fifth American being below poverty line, that's not going to work. Right, if it becomes a pattern then the credit card company will notice, but from what I'm reading here it seems that even then they do not give a fuck and the merchant just has to eat the losses.
On the other hand, if I make a purchase on the internet, then I provide to the merchant all information required to pull money from my account. What stops him to do that again and again? Or selling that info? Just that I can notice an unauthorized withdrawal and ask the CC company to cancel that? That sounds stupid.
What works reasonably over here is that the checkout on the web shop redirects to the internet-banking web page of my bank, gives it some token and after I transfer the money on the bank's site, the bank signs the token and redirects back to the merchant. The only trouble is, that it may not scale well for big number of banks.
They replaced the Q&A department with end users. We already knew that.
You do not use public transport much, do you?