Fair points. However, if it's generally accepted that making the browser an object of the OS is an expected evolutionary step, then what choice did MS have? What should MS have done in order for that to not be an abusive action of a monopoly?
Making the browser "an object of the OS" wasn't the issue. The issue was that they not only integrated the browser with Windows, they tied it to Windows; not only did they claim there was no technical way to remove it, but they also prevented OEMs from removing it through licensing. Of course, the technical claims were later shown to be utter hogwash through 98lite, which left them with only their licensing, which then was pretty clear that it was imposing an arbitrary restriction on the consumer or system integrator, designed specifically to tie one product with another.
It was clearly not just a case of product bundling, but illegal tying. Kompare that toe Konqueror and you'll see immediately the differences between the two scenarios.
RMS basically thinks that because linux was built with a lot of gnu tools, he and the rest of gnu are being screwed over/ignored/lost if it's not called gnu/linux, to symbolize that it's a kernel and a bunch of (gnu) tools.
Horseshit. It's a GNU/Linux system because the userland base (including the C library) are GNU software. Regardless of what you feel like calling it, that's the definition.
No analogies, please. I can see the strawman arguments coming a mile away. Take them somewhere else.
Wow, isn't that a way to establish credibility? If you have an opinion that disagrees with mine, you must be using some logical fallacy, so I don't want to hear it! Go away or I'll cover my ears!
So my (now extensive) experience directly contradicts your own, for which I have to say: it's either you or your system, and not SuSe.
Hmm, I thought we only blame the user when Microsoft is involved, such as when stupid users don't search for and download patches for their operating system thus causing their system to be owned, or when idiots read emails with viruses in them causing their system to be infected through no fault of Windows.
I'm glad to see that Linux distributions are so sophisticated now that the user can now be blamed for any problems that cause them not to work on a given setup!
I can see Open Source being bad because I don't want to see a bunch of programmers working for free. I mean, unless you're a monk or something, you're just not making a living through charity!
Please expound on how Open Source is equivalent to programmers working for free, or that open source software is equivalent to charity.
It sounds like you may need to learn a little more about Open Source, Free Software, the differences between them, and the different ways in which both of them interface with a capitalist economy.
In essence, it means only standalone consumer DAT and CD-R machines and does not include computer CD-R drives. That leads to the incongruity that, if I borrow a CD from a friend or a library, I am allowed to make an analog recording of it, I am allowed to use a standalone CD recorder, but I am not allowed to use a computer CD recorder.
What about making a copy using the analog output of your CDROM drive as opposed to the SPDIF interface, or DAE?
You don't automatically get the use of everything your tax dollars fund just because.
Oh sure, let's beat the zealots over the head with a straw man. That really hurts. He didn't say "just because", he was stating a reasonable position that could be used as a starting point in a debate by the various interests involved.
You might be interested to learn that "right" and "wrong" don't matter in public policy; all that matters is how reasonable others feel your position is. If a majority of people felt that my plan to build money incinerators was a great way to bolster commerce in the city, by all means it would be implemented. Generally, if I make a plan look like a net win for the public, and no opposition exists that can pitch an equally strong case against it, it's going to happen.
Using that metric to judge the grandparent's comment, please provide counterexamples now to convince a city council to disagree with the statement: "the public should have a right to use software (whose development) that they have funded." It seems like a reasonable position. Tell us why it isn't!
Just like you can't use a hammer for everything, you can't use Open Source for everything either.
Even if the government places requirements that the software be open source (which isn't the issue, but is an even more extreme circumstance), how would that be a problem? If MS wanted their business, they would give them the source code along with the software. That doesn't make it Free software by any means, it just means the govt has the source code and can modify and study it for their own needs (not redistribution or derivative works).
Also, I feel that it is a reasonable position that the government should not use products that place control of future access to its data into the hands of a profit-minded entity. Such a move would only cost the public more eventually. If the vendor is unwilling to document their data formats, asking for the source code is the only other logical alternative. Again, this does not make it Free software, but simply takes future control away from the (proprietary) vendor.
Ironically, the skript kiddie hasn't been too careful, and he has left the PHP shell unpassworded and unprotected on his system. Running a uname -a through it shows that he's running a vulnerable kernel.
Erm, careful. What makes you think this isn't some other innocent person's box that the kiddie owned in the first place, perhaps as a cover while building up a botnet by owning other boxes? After all, it has the same vulnerability he's trying to exploit on yours. He probably just got to it first.
It's too easy to get on the wrong side of the law these days, and you might have a wrong target to boot. I wouldn't risk it.
Don't mix Stallman's ideas about commercial interests with the antispam crowd.
And what, pray tell, would those "ideas" be? That people are encouraged to commercialize software as long as it does not become proprietary? Oh, the horror!
Taking completely unrelated cheap shots at rms is probably not a good way to argue your point about spam.
Wow, that's an easy way out of defending your reasoning! Attacking the person, then asserting that your views stand on their own and are thus not subject to scrutiny.
Copyright is the right to restrict duplication of a work. I'm stunned that everyone thus far hasn't seen a problem with freely distributing an artist work.
Oh sure, pull out a strawman at the 11th hour. I love when people get on their "protect the artists" high horse.
First of all, copyright is not a right; it is a privilege granted for a limited time and with a specific purpose in mind. There is substantial argument that the purpose of copyright is not being satisfied by its current obesity and that it should be reformed.
However, that is not an argument in this debate. This debate is about fair use and a utility that had substantial non-infringing use.
Napster is like taping a song off the radio. Napster is like someone else ripping your legally obtained CDs for you so you don't have to go to the trouble of dealing with buggy software, crappy CD readers, and copy protection.
If you can show me what is demonstrably wrong with consumers sampling works before paying for them, when the sample comes at no cost to anyone, you'll win.
You'll notice it's version 7, two versions behind. Now why would that be? Mm.. maybe because Mac interest just isn't that high on it?
Or maybe because people don't want their proprietary DRM trojan horse outside of the ones that use Windows anyway? I never said anything about WMP anyway. Providing specifications for their format and codec would suffice.
Linux would be far worse, not to mention that the effort to support Linux in a useful way is impractical. Too many distros, too many things that can break, too many processors it'd have to run on. That's why MS likes their stuff nice and proprietary. It's very difficult to ensure a good end user experience on such a broad variety of hardware.
Yeah, I feel sorry for Microsoft. Those open source hackers seem to have a leg up on them wherever they go, even on such difficult things as writing portable and modular code.
Past behaviour? You're basing your point on assumptions and stereotypes about Microsoft.
See Microsoft vs Sun, Microsoft vs Netscape, Microsoft vs Spyglass, Microsoft vs Caldera, on and on. Oh, poor MS! How they are falsely accused and troubled by so many people! They just want what's good for their customers. Choice is confusing, you know.
"Microsoft wants ppl to use IE to view their content, they're trying to enforce their monopoly!"/kneejerk.
I don't accept ad hominems. If I see another one, this thread is over.
Proof? It's simple business logic. If it doesn't benefit Microsoft in some way, they won't spend money developing it.
Perhaps it can be attributed to that, but even in that case, it's shallow thinking on their part. The benefits of a certain strategy do not have to be immediate and tangible in order to still be benefits.
You mean besides putting the extra development effort to make it work on another OS that very few people, in contrast to Windows, use?
Your claim is vacuous until you provide proof that this is actually the reason why they don't offer it on non-Windows systems or allow non-IE browsers to even download it.
Otherwise, judging from their past behavior, this is nothing more than the latest in a long line of anti-competitive and user-unfriendly strategies. Why would they have a sudden change of heart?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm confused. Does a post get modded as a troll if the link is labelled goatse, but points to the right place?
Get the MS TT Core Fonts Here
It was clearly not just a case of product bundling, but illegal tying. Kompare that toe Konqueror and you'll see immediately the differences between the two scenarios.
I'm glad to see that Linux distributions are so sophisticated now that the user can now be blamed for any problems that cause them not to work on a given setup!
It sounds like you may need to learn a little more about Open Source, Free Software, the differences between them, and the different ways in which both of them interface with a capitalist economy.
You might be interested to learn that "right" and "wrong" don't matter in public policy; all that matters is how reasonable others feel your position is. If a majority of people felt that my plan to build money incinerators was a great way to bolster commerce in the city, by all means it would be implemented. Generally, if I make a plan look like a net win for the public, and no opposition exists that can pitch an equally strong case against it, it's going to happen.
Using that metric to judge the grandparent's comment, please provide counterexamples now to convince a city council to disagree with the statement: "the public should have a right to use software (whose development) that they have funded." It seems like a reasonable position. Tell us why it isn't!
Also, I feel that it is a reasonable position that the government should not use products that place control of future access to its data into the hands of a profit-minded entity. Such a move would only cost the public more eventually. If the vendor is unwilling to document their data formats, asking for the source code is the only other logical alternative. Again, this does not make it Free software, but simply takes future control away from the (proprietary) vendor.
It's too easy to get on the wrong side of the law these days, and you might have a wrong target to boot. I wouldn't risk it.
Taking completely unrelated cheap shots at rms is probably not a good way to argue your point about spam.
I'll have to try that myself sometime.
First of all, copyright is not a right; it is a privilege granted for a limited time and with a specific purpose in mind. There is substantial argument that the purpose of copyright is not being satisfied by its current obesity and that it should be reformed.
However, that is not an argument in this debate. This debate is about fair use and a utility that had substantial non-infringing use.
Napster is like taping a song off the radio. Napster is like someone else ripping your legally obtained CDs for you so you don't have to go to the trouble of dealing with buggy software, crappy CD readers, and copy protection.
If you can show me what is demonstrably wrong with consumers sampling works before paying for them, when the sample comes at no cost to anyone, you'll win.
See http://marillat.free.fr
Hey Bill,
:)
Totally OT, but what happened to quakeforge.net and taniwha.org? I can't get through to either and mail is bouncing.
That page is a goner already. No other posts yet even!
Otherwise, judging from their past behavior, this is nothing more than the latest in a long line of anti-competitive and user-unfriendly strategies. Why would they have a sudden change of heart?