Re:Stallman's entire comment on novell's deal
on
Stallman Absolves Novell
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
As I understand it, the Novell-Microsoft agreement does not protect either Novell or Microsoft directly. It only states that Novell's customers will not be in the firing line if Microsoft goes after Novell or Redhat, for instance. This advantage that Novell's clients would have is seen by some open source advocates as against the spirit of the GPL which, apparently, is that everyone should be equally vulnerable. I am sort of curious. Let us say that Microsoft unilaterally decides to offer protection to Red Hat's clients, but not any downstream recipients of those clients. Does Red Hat suddenly have responsibility to provide protection for those downstream recipients that they would otherwise not have? If the answer is "no", then presumably the problem with the Novell-Microsoft deal is not that some users are at less risk, but purely that this is as a result of an agreement between the parties. The fact that non-Novell customers are in precisely the same position they would have been if this agreement to which they are not a party did not exist appears irrelevant. I can understand why some free software extremists dislike the Novell-Microsoft agreement, but I am bound to say that I do not find their position very logical.
So he bought something, without actually doing due diligence to find out if they actually needed it.
I have listened to this argument over and over. I do not buy it. What is the appropriate due diligence to know if you are going to be the target of bogus litigation? The US legal system is a complete mess, and getting worse. The assumption that you have nothing to fear if you have done nothing wrong is unbelievably naive. There is nothing irresponsible about taking out insurance against one of the biggest business risks corporations face today.
The problem is that if most of the base OS becomes GPLv3, and Novell uses it, it will pass any patent related agreement (like "promise not to sue") to every FOSS users of the software that has the problem. This would break their contract, or prevent them from using the GPLv3 software.
I am beginning to get the impression that FSF is trying to introduce software licenses with more conditions than Microsoft's. Why will Novell having patent protection for some of their software preclude them from distributing anything that has a GPLv3 license? Is the GPLv3 license really going to be that viral? The suggestion seems to be that if they have some Windows migration tools with patent protection, they can no longer use a completely unrelated tar program.
I really think a large group of the FOSS community is going overboard on this. Novell wants to provide a Linux distribution that can be easily used by MS Windows folks but, reasonably, does not want to get embroiled in patent disputes with Microsoft in the process. They are not implying, in any way, that this means Microsoft holds patents on techniques used in FSF developed code. The potential issues that Samba and Mono might have is nothing to do with any agreement between Microsoft and Novell, convoluted theories notwithstanding. I hate software patents, but this kind of heavy handed attempt to kill them is just going to be counter-productive.
Foreign government: "Are you sure you could now and in the future defend yourself if we attacked you?"
Your own government: "I could ask you the same question."
Foreign government: "How about we sign a treaty, mutually agreeing not to take military action against each other?
Your own government: "OK."
You, and many others here, seem to assume that such an agreement is an admission of weakness. I prefer to view it as a sensible way of reducing the risk of future conflict. Even if your own government is the US, surely a non-aggression pact cannot always be out of the question?
So you signed a deal with Microsoft... over patents... that you claim do not exist?
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
It may seem crazy to you, but executives try to protect themselves against potential patent litigation in the US all the time. The hazards of not doing so were well demonstrated recently by RIM. Of course, you may be convinced that Microsoft is such a clean, ethical company that they would never stoop to initiating baseless patent litigation. However, if I was Novell trying to migrate clients from MS Windows to Linux and writing tools to provide compatibility running Windows applications under Linux, I might just see the value of such a patent pact. If I take out accident insurance, it is not because I intend to be involved in an accident. I do so because it is prudent to be prepared.
Of course useful (= survival/breeding advantage) traits are emphasized! That's the definition of useful in this context. Each generation has more "useful" traits than the preceding one simply because lack of those traits is what caused some members of the prior generation to die before breeding or to be less successful at breeding and therefore be disproportionatly underrepresented in the following generation. This is evolution 101.
Yes, as I tried (inadequately) to explain, I am quite aware of the theory of natural selection. However, natural selection, in conjunction with genetics, does not seem to fully explain the kinds of rapid evolutionary changes we see here. Pure genetics will, of course, mean that useful traits will tend to be perpetuated. However, a large number of generations would seem to be needed for such a mechanism to cause a species to evolve climbing abilities (unless, perhaps, genes for this were already present as a result of prior possession of the ability, lost because it was not needed). At any rate, I continue to believe the mechanisms at work deserve a closer look.
The study supports the controversial idea that an animal's behavior in response to environmental change can spur evolutionary adaptations.
Pure random chance in conjunction with natural selection seems inadequate, by itself, to explain many of the, sometimes rapid, evolutionary changes that we see in nature. Some kind of feedback system whereby the useful traits of one generation are emphasised in succeeding generations (to a greater degree than pure genetic inheritance would suggest) could be the key missing factor.
... I find it difficult to understand how failure to account before for ocean impacts of meteors could change the anticipated frequency of large meteor impacts from once every 500,000-1,000,000 years to once every 1,000. Surely, a frequency of once every 1,000 years or so would mean several hundred hitting land every million years. Those would, one imagines, leave pretty obvious evidence.
I share your suspicion concerning all coup leaders, but there is some evidence that this crowd mean what they say. Within less than two weeks after the coup, they handed over to an independent prime minister (yes, they are still in the background) and started the ball rolling on a new constitution.
As for Thaksin, it is difficult to have free and fair elections when the TV media is totally in government hands, programmes critical of the government cancelled, community radio stations (supposedly guaranteed by the constitution) closed, and the major print media largely also Thaksin controlled. Add that to widespread corruption and you have an election process was not democratic.
If all you need to do is get the most votes via any means, then why do we criticise Mugabe in Zimbabwe. After all, he is democratically elected isn't he?
And a month before the government was kicked out the army had a big car bomb parked around the corner from the Prime Ministers house. Those Thai army guys are such pussycats.
Originally, many thought the bomb plot was made up by Taksin to justify taking action against his opponents. It appears the plot was real, because the current administration is trying to bring those responsible to justice. To me, that suggests the coup leaders were not involved in the bomb plot.
Its been a few years since I visited but Pantip Plaza was literally a 6 story high mall where every single shop sold pirate cds, dvds and software.
Things have changed. I do not mean that the shops selling pirated CDs, DVDs and software are gone. They are still there, blatant as ever, with their catalogs of pirated items in clear view and the touts trying to get you to whichever shop is paying them. But, now you will see big signs near these shops stating how opposed to pirating Pantip is and providing phone numbers to call if you see anyone offering pirated goods for sale! Unless you have familiar with Thailand, this will seem like a strange contradiction. Among residents, it scarcely raises an eyebrow.
Actually, there is another small change. Among the hundreds of outlets for pirated software at US$3 per CD or US$7 per DVD, there are a handful that will sell you the genuine Adobe CS2 Suite for US$1,500 or so. I assume these must occasionally have customers as they would not otherwise stock these items, but I have never actually seen such a sale.
A case can be made for running all Windows versions without anti-virus, especially if browsing the Internet routinely as a limited user. Unfortunately, the popular anti-virus products (McAfee, Symantec, Trend Micro) almost never prevent targeted attacks by cyber criminals, so one is tempted to avoid the performance hit and potential system destabilisation that comes from using these products and just rely on common sense, good backups, encryption of sensitive data, and acting all the time as if a keylogger might be installed on your system. I still use an anti-virus product personally, but I do not regard it as a reliable means of preventing infection.
Is it OK for you and a friend to take turns keeping a position in the line? If not, would you lose your place simply by going for a pee?
If the answers to the above are "no" and "yes, the mind boggles. I have visions of someone in adult diapers for 10 days, unable to go for a shower. When the store finally opens on the big day, he smells so awful that the store bars him entry.
This will still involve port forwarding, and probably wont be forcing itself on a user, so it will be nearly invisible and impossible to configure for the average user. Enough said...
The "average user" will not need to worry about how to configure it. Any good malware will take care of that quite nicely. As for it being nearly invisible, the "average user" seems not to worry about highly visible malware, judging by the various toolbars I see in the browsers of users complaining of poor performance. Microsoft had no need to make this "nearly invisible". Microsoft's enhancements in Vista to try to block installation of security software on users' machines, and to make tracking of bot networks nearly impossible, would have been sufficient assistance for the malware industry even without trying to hide the existence of malware on the machines.
The numbers for MSN search are artificially inflated by the fact that IE is set (by default) to automatically do a search using MSN search, if the domain name in the address bar is not found. Of course, the same is true of Google and Firefox. The difference is that most Firefox users know this and use it as a feature. Mostly IE users have no idea why they get a completely different page to the one they intended.
Sure, the patent agreement means little as far as Novell distributing GPL code. However, it is clear that Novell wants SLES and SLED to be composed of (separate so not in violation of the GPL) components, some GPL and some under other, hopefully open source, licenses. I am fairly sure Novell wants the ability to develop tools that will make it easier for Windows users to migrate to Linux. It will be hard to do this and stay clear of Microsoft patents at the same time.
More interesting is to decide what Microsoft hopes to gain from this. Personally, I am sceptical of the theory that this is part of a litigation strategy. I fail to see what laws Red Hat is breaking as a result of this agreement that they were not breaking before. No, Microsoft wants part of the revenue stream that is coming from enterprise use of Linux. I think there are two main areas
make it easy for people who migrate to Linux to continue to use Miscrosoft Office, as opposed to making the switch to Open Office;
get a piece of the data center action. The future of the data center is going to be all about huge servers using virtualization technologies. Microsoft bought Virtual PC hoping to build a strategy around that and Longhorn Server. However, they have come to the realisation that this is not going to compete well with the VMware (or Xen) and Linux combination. So, in the same way that they need to cooperate with the hated Apache (for those unwilling to use IIS) they now need to cooperate with the hated Linux.
Selling them retail implies either (1) the store is willing to forego their customary profit margin; or (2) you accept a smaller margin on each box. Iirc, these currently cost about $120 to make (expected to drop to $100 shortly). With distribution costs, store markup and so on, selling 100,000 at $200 each would not achieve much profit.
These computers are much better than most people here are implying. Ruggedised laptops, even with small screens, tend to be very expensive. Actually, I think this is a great computer for hacking. I think the kids who use it, and are interested, will learn a lot.
Roughly 90% of web content consists of discussions of software patents...
Do you mean 90% of software patent discussions happen on the Web? I'd believe that a lot more easily.
I spend time here because I have always assumed/. readers and posters to be somewhat brighter than the general population. Based on the replies to the PP, I really hope this previous assumption was wrong. Do none of you folks recognise the use of hyperbole to make a point?
The thrust of this rather positive FA seems to be that user acceptance has been good, and the delays were caused by such things as legal concerns and complex negotiations with project partners. The indications are that a massive migration to desktop Linux is perfectly feasible. I think Wilhelm Hoegner's view that this project, by itself, will not cause an avalanche of further conversions will prove correct. That said, a few projects like this can dramatically change perceptions leading to major change over time.
The Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) is actually very easy to defeat
The early iterations of WGA were trivially breakable. Microsoft has steadily increased the sophistication. If you can download and install the final release version of Internet Explorer 7 on a Windows box that fails the WGA test now inside two days, without some fairly intensive Googling and web downloads, then you are really good. It took the Russian hackers a few days.
There are a few ways that a business computer could be made unable to receive TV or radio streams. Are these sufficient to avoid the tax? Enquiring minds want to know.
Slashdot Mirror
As I understand it, the Novell-Microsoft agreement does not protect either Novell or Microsoft directly. It only states that Novell's customers will not be in the firing line if Microsoft goes after Novell or Redhat, for instance. This advantage that Novell's clients would have is seen by some open source advocates as against the spirit of the GPL which, apparently, is that everyone should be equally vulnerable. I am sort of curious. Let us say that Microsoft unilaterally decides to offer protection to Red Hat's clients, but not any downstream recipients of those clients. Does Red Hat suddenly have responsibility to provide protection for those downstream recipients that they would otherwise not have? If the answer is "no", then presumably the problem with the Novell-Microsoft deal is not that some users are at less risk, but purely that this is as a result of an agreement between the parties. The fact that non-Novell customers are in precisely the same position they would have been if this agreement to which they are not a party did not exist appears irrelevant. I can understand why some free software extremists dislike the Novell-Microsoft agreement, but I am bound to say that I do not find their position very logical.
"... I'd like you to know, I'm feeling very depressed."
I really think a large group of the FOSS community is going overboard on this. Novell wants to provide a Linux distribution that can be easily used by MS Windows folks but, reasonably, does not want to get embroiled in patent disputes with Microsoft in the process. They are not implying, in any way, that this means Microsoft holds patents on techniques used in FSF developed code. The potential issues that Samba and Mono might have is nothing to do with any agreement between Microsoft and Novell, convoluted theories notwithstanding. I hate software patents, but this kind of heavy handed attempt to kill them is just going to be counter-productive.
Foreign government: "Are you sure you could now and in the future defend yourself if we attacked you?"
Your own government: "I could ask you the same question."
Foreign government: "How about we sign a treaty, mutually agreeing not to take military action against each other?
Your own government: "OK."
You, and many others here, seem to assume that such an agreement is an admission of weakness. I prefer to view it as a sensible way of reducing the risk of future conflict. Even if your own government is the US, surely a non-aggression pact cannot always be out of the question?
... I find it difficult to understand how failure to account before for ocean impacts of meteors could change the anticipated frequency of large meteor impacts from once every 500,000-1,000,000 years to once every 1,000. Surely, a frequency of once every 1,000 years or so would mean several hundred hitting land every million years. Those would, one imagines, leave pretty obvious evidence.
As for Thaksin, it is difficult to have free and fair elections when the TV media is totally in government hands, programmes critical of the government cancelled, community radio stations (supposedly guaranteed by the constitution) closed, and the major print media largely also Thaksin controlled. Add that to widespread corruption and you have an election process was not democratic.
If all you need to do is get the most votes via any means, then why do we criticise Mugabe in Zimbabwe. After all, he is democratically elected isn't he?
Actually, there is another small change. Among the hundreds of outlets for pirated software at US$3 per CD or US$7 per DVD, there are a handful that will sell you the genuine Adobe CS2 Suite for US$1,500 or so. I assume these must occasionally have customers as they would not otherwise stock these items, but I have never actually seen such a sale.
A case can be made for running all Windows versions without anti-virus, especially if browsing the Internet routinely as a limited user. Unfortunately, the popular anti-virus products (McAfee, Symantec, Trend Micro) almost never prevent targeted attacks by cyber criminals, so one is tempted to avoid the performance hit and potential system destabilisation that comes from using these products and just rely on common sense, good backups, encryption of sensitive data, and acting all the time as if a keylogger might be installed on your system. I still use an anti-virus product personally, but I do not regard it as a reliable means of preventing infection.
If the answers to the above are "no" and "yes, the mind boggles. I have visions of someone in adult diapers for 10 days, unable to go for a shower. When the store finally opens on the big day, he smells so awful that the store bars him entry.
The numbers for MSN search are artificially inflated by the fact that IE is set (by default) to automatically do a search using MSN search, if the domain name in the address bar is not found. Of course, the same is true of Google and Firefox. The difference is that most Firefox users know this and use it as a feature. Mostly IE users have no idea why they get a completely different page to the one they intended.
Sure, the patent agreement means little as far as Novell distributing GPL code. However, it is clear that Novell wants SLES and SLED to be composed of (separate so not in violation of the GPL) components, some GPL and some under other, hopefully open source, licenses. I am fairly sure Novell wants the ability to develop tools that will make it easier for Windows users to migrate to Linux. It will be hard to do this and stay clear of Microsoft patents at the same time.
More interesting is to decide what Microsoft hopes to gain from this. Personally, I am sceptical of the theory that this is part of a litigation strategy. I fail to see what laws Red Hat is breaking as a result of this agreement that they were not breaking before. No, Microsoft wants part of the revenue stream that is coming from enterprise use of Linux. I think there are two main areas
These computers are much better than most people here are implying. Ruggedised laptops, even with small screens, tend to be very expensive. Actually, I think this is a great computer for hacking. I think the kids who use it, and are interested, will learn a lot.
The thrust of this rather positive FA seems to be that user acceptance has been good, and the delays were caused by such things as legal concerns and complex negotiations with project partners. The indications are that a massive migration to desktop Linux is perfectly feasible. I think Wilhelm Hoegner's view that this project, by itself, will not cause an avalanche of further conversions will prove correct. That said, a few projects like this can dramatically change perceptions leading to major change over time.
There are a few ways that a business computer could be made unable to receive TV or radio streams. Are these sufficient to avoid the tax? Enquiring minds want to know.
Frankly, there are signs of progress in the Americans not simply demanding that all the locals communicate solely in English.