SIP works fine behind most NAT/firewalls, what are you talking about?
And IPV6 isn't NAT replacement, no thanks, I don't want to open my private localnet to the world.
Just because it runs on Linux and has low-bandwidth voice codec as default?
Personally I like X-Lite better. It runs behind firewall fine, can use the same codecs as Skype, can connect to any POTS gateway not just a single one, has a much nicer GUI.
Not to mention IP phone devices.
This has nothing to do with punishment, collective or personal.
This about business. You have few options:
a) ship to high-risk countries, get large chargbacks later and go bankrupt;
b) invest a lot of manhours/money into verification and fraud investigation/prosecution and so increase your costs, drive profits to zero;
c) just don't do business with customers in high-risk groups;
It won't be the downfull of Linux for servers, but it would be yet another obstacle for any serious consideration of Linux as desktop platform. You already can't use more advanced programming toolkits if because of KDE/Gnome differences. Add different X versions here, what you would have left? ASCII "art" for geeks:/ ? Linux already have a plenty of problems with complete support for new videocard features, do you think hardware vendors would be happy spending their money writing/debugging drivers for different implementations when total market share is few percents only?
I can only hope that GPL zealots will be able to come to agreement with XFree folks, othewise Linux desktop looks as a dead end indeed.
I'm amazed by ignorance of people posting here. XFree never has a single license. Part of XFree code licenses never were GPL compatable by FSF definition. See:
link at FSF site.
Other people don't think that dynamic linking can create any problem.
Nothing has changed in fact by that new license for XFree own contributions.
This doesn't make any sense to me. Listing contributors in some file has nothing to do with thousands of pages. Displaying an About box with scrollbars to output that file doesn't require 1000 line of code either.
And they already were obliged to do that for licenses like original BSD one, parts of XFree and other OS software are under such licenses from the beginning. So far I can only see a tendency from major commercial Linux vendor(s) to remove references to ouside projects and present everything as their own product, while it is mostly just a work of other people spending their time for free.
If they don't want even such trivial thing as to list contributors, they are free to hire their own programmers and do everything from scratch of cource.
Every decent program already has copyright information displayed or in documentation. Why the hell Linux vendors would want to hide they are using XFree?
These guys don't ask you to call Linux XFree/Linux. They don't distribute their software with licencse without advertising clauses, and don't tell you you are bad guy if you don't change the name of your software, they tell you in advance what they want.
I think it is a good thing to do, if you make profit distributing software created by volunteers free work, giving credit to people that deserve that won't bancrupt you!
What is so special about installer? It is just a script you run once and forget. The same way you are dependand on GPL (not LGPL) libreadline, but most people like to ignore that while making big fuzz about GPL'ed Qt.
And is still have/usr/local/linux-sun-jdk... as my java path in konqueror as native java is unable to play even simple online games without glitches. Sometimes it works though.
So now instead of two standard desktops we will have a dozen of unified desktops, each Linux distribution is going to redesign KDE & Gnome?
The goal of KDE (or Gnome, I don't use it myself) is about to provide a single familiar desktop across platforms and distributions. If every vendor makes it completely different this doesn't make sense.
Slashdot Mirror
How about "Software Nuker" adding Skype to their adware list? Frankly I'm afraid of running Skype on my PC - I don't trust it.
I think needless injections were available decades ago.
SIP works fine behind most NAT/firewalls, what are you talking about? And IPV6 isn't NAT replacement, no thanks, I don't want to open my private localnet to the world.
Just because it runs on Linux and has low-bandwidth voice codec as default? Personally I like X-Lite better. It runs behind firewall fine, can use the same codecs as Skype, can connect to any POTS gateway not just a single one, has a much nicer GUI. Not to mention IP phone devices.
This has nothing to do with punishment, collective or personal. This about business. You have few options: a) ship to high-risk countries, get large chargbacks later and go bankrupt; b) invest a lot of manhours/money into verification and fraud investigation/prosecution and so increase your costs, drive profits to zero; c) just don't do business with customers in high-risk groups;
It won't be the downfull of Linux for servers, but it would be yet another obstacle for any serious consideration of Linux as desktop platform. You already can't use more advanced programming toolkits if because of KDE/Gnome differences. Add different X versions here, what you would have left? ASCII "art" for geeks :/ ? Linux already have a plenty of problems with complete support for new videocard features, do you think hardware vendors would be happy spending their money writing/debugging drivers for different implementations when total market share is few percents only?
I can only hope that GPL zealots will be able to come to agreement with XFree folks, othewise Linux desktop looks as a dead end indeed.
I'm amazed by ignorance of people posting here. XFree never has a single license. Part of XFree code licenses never were GPL compatable by FSF definition. See: link at FSF site.
Other people don't think that dynamic linking can create any problem.
Nothing has changed in fact by that new license for XFree own contributions.
This doesn't make any sense to me. Listing contributors in some file has nothing to do with thousands of pages. Displaying an About box with scrollbars to output that file doesn't require 1000 line of code either.
And they already were obliged to do that for licenses like original BSD one, parts of XFree and other OS software are under such licenses from the beginning. So far I can only see a tendency from major commercial Linux vendor(s) to remove references to ouside projects and present everything as their own product, while it is mostly just a work of other people spending their time for free.
If they don't want even such trivial thing as to list contributors, they are free to hire their own programmers and do everything from scratch of cource.
Every decent program already has copyright information displayed or in documentation. Why the hell Linux vendors would want to hide they are using XFree? These guys don't ask you to call Linux XFree/Linux. They don't distribute their software with licencse without advertising clauses, and don't tell you you are bad guy if you don't change the name of your software, they tell you in advance what they want. I think it is a good thing to do, if you make profit distributing software created by volunteers free work, giving credit to people that deserve that won't bancrupt you!
Linux on 128MB RAM would also be quite slow - I mean KDE/OpenOffice.
What is so special about installer? It is just a script you run once and forget. The same way you are dependand on GPL (not LGPL) libreadline, but most people like to ignore that while making big fuzz about GPL'ed Qt.
And is still have /usr/local/linux-sun-jdk... as my java path in konqueror as native java is unable to play even simple online games without glitches. Sometimes it works though.
This would bring you to the another hell - hell of downloading gigabytes on minor security update in some obscure library.
So now instead of two standard desktops we will have a dozen of unified desktops, each Linux distribution is going to redesign KDE & Gnome? The goal of KDE (or Gnome, I don't use it myself) is about to provide a single familiar desktop across platforms and distributions. If every vendor makes it completely different this doesn't make sense.
Is there something that prevents Ogg to be patented next year?