I don't remember seeing Shareaza authors complaining about their copyrights. Please reply with link. Also, Shareaza is not part of Sharman Networks. It uses, guntella, G2, donkey, and bittorrent, but no fasttrack.
Here is the definition of "pirate". Please pay close attention to line #3 for both singular and plural definitions. Here is another word that applies to your previous post. Please pay close attention definition #1 as it is the only one that applies to your writing style.
You sir have won the daily "Tool of the Industry" award by spouting their corporate spin and calling pirates thievs. You shall recieve you prize tomorrow moring when you show up to your desk at the RIAA. The dictionary.... er... prize doubles as a stress reliever. Just bang repeatedly over your head.
I think that with tivo becoming the de facto name of PVRs by the general public, they already have an advantage over MS. Imagine you are average Joe consumer and you see these 2 boxes sitting side by side. Which one do you pick up first? If they can undercut MS on OEM and box pricing they have a great chance. They can also give the people what they want without losing control of their product.
Work with hardware manufacturers and sell the tivo brand on their product. Guaranteed to always be compatible and zero config. They could make a low cost home video editing station. An ATI all in wonder, two more tuners, a CD/DVD burner, a sound blaster, and some A/V editing software would let you keep 3 permanently attached devices (2 VCR's and DVD player) and have anotehr dongle with stereo audio, S-video, and composite video inputs and outputs. They can continue to sell the manufactured tivo, and add an expanded enthusiast crowd who will do it for the hacking, or their status among the nerd ranks.
Imagine if they even published some of the API's to let others add features their OS and app suite lacks. They could also allow inexpensive licensing of more powerful APIs that would directly compete with the functionality of their suite; much like Symantec does with Windows. If they play their cards right, they can dominate this market. MS needs a competitor in every field. Imagine where IE or outlook would be now if Netscape never lost their hold (around IE 4 or 5, I believe).
As I said before, have an independent source create a lesson plan for older kids. 13 year olds are not being sued, that's not legally possible. Their parents (or who ever the internet service's name is in) are being sued. But that plays into the fact that TV, the internet, and the governemnt are not, and should never be, a babysitter. Lessons of morality begin at home.
In related news top Microsoft executives are expected to address a grand jury tomorrow morning for betraying the public trust by carelessly releasing software without thorough debugging. Yesterday, Steve Ballmer addressed reporters from Reuters and the Associated Press denouncing the charges. "It's like suing an automaker for selling cars without thorough crash testing and evaluation."
So you would accept RJR teaching your kids health or Royal Dutch Shell teaching them about alternative feuls? I didn't realize that our teachers were so inept that they need a corporate entity to make the lesson plan. There is a reason they are targeting children under 10 for this education; they are not mentally developed enough think for themselves and are highly impresionable. Teaching copyright in school is just as important to the future as teaching the right privacy, but we should be teaching it to much older kids who can reach an informed opinion because they are capable of thinking for themselves.
I think most people are upset because it is a biased corporate entity teaching impressionable children who are too young to form their own opinions. Copyright does have a place in education, but not at that age and not from that source. Would you allow your child to be taught health by Phillip Morris, business ethics by Microsoft, or foods by McDonalds?
Copyright law is a subject the brightest lawyers spend years, even decades, learning without even knowing it all. Copyright should be presented in school, except not from biased sources and not to an age group that accepts the words of adults on blind faith. They should also be told how large corporations spent billions buying politicians to twist copyright 180 degrees from what the founders envisioned.
Piracy is not theft, it is copyright infringement. Piracy is a civil crime, theft if criminal. Anyone who says piracy is theft is unwittingly making themselves a tool of the media giants by mindlessly repeating their corporate spin. I'm not justifying piracy, but people who are tools of the media giants need to be shown exactly how they are tools in order for them to take the first step towards thinking for themselves. Please remember you are spouting corporate cliché for people who are buying politicians left and right so that they can strip personal rights and give more to corporations.
Maybe the last post I wrote about corporate funded programming of our children should shed some light. I don't see why people tend to be apathetic towards highly biased sources teaching our children their spin on a subject as if it were absolute fact. Will they be teaching the kids about how large corporations spent billions buying politicians to pass laws that benifit them at the cost of citizens? Hell no. That would make them cynical. We'll just teach them one side as kids so they can grow up to realize the truth after it's too late and see how we betrayed their trust. Or we could do the right thing and keep it completely out of grade school. Maybe it could be taught to high school juniors or seniors. That's about the age kids start to think for themselves instead of taking everything an adult says as blind faith.
The US and Europe consider MS to be a monopoly. Japan looks like they will come to that conclusion too. How many more countries need to declare them a monopoly before it becomes true?
Maybe city officials realize something that a lot of businesses have yet to discover. Even if the initial investment and TCO of Linux and apps were higher than Windows, the fact that it's all built on open standards leaves the ability to make an easier switch in the future to new hardware and software platforms. Take VAX for example. It's a rock solid platform that can be trusted to run smoothly with little or no intervention. That's why many people still have them in operation today even though there are better applications that can be run on faster hardware. It's also going to be a big problem when the time comes for migration. Emulators for VAX have been mentioned on here before. With open standards, Linux won't have near the trouble when it comes time to migrate to new hardware architectures, different apps, or different operating systems. It's fairly easy to port apps between BSD, Linux, and other Unix variants. Future emulation probably won't be an issue once a total switch has been made. Basically, if it's a computer, Linux can be tailor made to run on it. Once the OS is ported, apps will follow. As for the apps themselves, instead of saving your documents as proprietary files, you have an open standard so you can easily move files between different applications without worring about compatability or licensing issues. To sum it up in one sentence: Linux offers a trustworthy migration path even with an unclear vision of what the future holds.
SCO produces software? This whole time I thought SCO was a law firm comprised of ludites. Their lawyers must be true renaissance men. I mean they put in a hard days work slandering Linux and sit down to write code and debug it at night.
how they are going to produce an untra-thin and ultra-light solar sail on such a gigantic scale? I forgot the ratio but it's going to take an ernormous sail to propel even a few kilograms. The only reasonable analogy I've heard is painting wax with a silver pigment and then melting the wax away, but that still leaves an important issue: The smalest speck of interstellar dust will leave a sizable hole in a sail so thin and light. How far can something like thins make it? Even space isn't a truly zero friction environment.
You are still missing the point that nearly all desktop computers are pre-installed with windows and nearly all desktop users are ignorant. The Mac user base tends to be smarter because they are a selective market base. If Mac had the same user base as windows, the same percentage of users would still give up their password to a stupid email attachment. It's just that with all previous wersions of windows, the user is root by default. BSD has the capability of being the least secure OS provided the user is dumb enough. That's 99% of what it comes down to... the user. Besides, OSX is just another flavor of BSD, save the front end. It's not much, more or less, secure than any other BSD. Real security come from the 1) user 2) user 3) user.
So what would have happened if Apple, as the start-up, licensed its technology at bargin basement prices so low that anyone could write apps or design hardware? They could have remained an independent company and slowly (with inflation, for example) raised the prices of licensing as demand and market share grew until they were the monoply MS currently is.
I said it once and I'll say it again: Apple and MS came to a crossroads. They each chose their own path and will contine to live with that decision. The 80s was the most critical decade for the desktop market, and if the goal was market share, Apple continues to live with their decision.
We call people who write viruses in VB.... Script Kiddies. Real, self respecting, authors write in assembly (aka: The Dead Language). If you write a basic (not the language) program in C, and another that does the exact same thing in asm, which will be small enough to fit into a program less than 90% the size of the other? Assembly is still the language preffered by true hackers. Shit, most people can''t even read hex these days. Running non-MS apps/OS's makes you immune to VB hacks. Besides, real security comes down to the user in charge of the box (home user, network admin/root/IT dept, etc).
Just like most rooted boxen tend to be ignorant windows (which is admin by default) users. It's all about the user changing defult settings and/or setting up programs to be as safe and secure as possible; something which the majority of computer owners are totally oblivious to. You could have the most secure machine in the world, but setting your password as 123 shows how little you care, or know. Imagine how many fewer viriuses would spread if Longhorn (and subsequent OS's) required at least a 6 character alpha-numeric password to install and ran every user as a 'limited' account by default. It probably wouldn't stop everything, but I bet it would make a noticable dent.
You are forgetting that most viruses are written in assembly. That's why even the ancient Michelangelo virus can still spread even though the OS it was written for is more or less dead. For how well written BSD is, there are still chinks in the armor. The more complex a program is the more unpredictable its behavior can be. BSD was still written by humans, who are still fallible. The greatest flaw in security is assuming you are immune.
t's quite obvious that you don't really know your PC-clone history (note: IBM didn't "leave the hardware open"), let alone your Mac history.
IBM did leave the hardware open when compared to Apple (except the MCA bus developed later).
Seriously, the author of the article has a very very good point when he mentions that terminals at the time were 40-column (80 if you were lucky) text displays -- not machines capable of displaying 512x384...it was the integration of hardware and software that made [and still makes] the mac what it is.
The video lilitation for PCs of the day was largely due to the amount of available video memory. Instead of storing data about the location, value, and attributes of an ASCII character, you needed enough memory to store data about the position and color of each pixel. The fact that most of the static data on the Apple was stored in ROM just made things easier. Unfortunately the PC market could employ this "shortcut" because no single PC entity developed both the hardware and software. It would require cooperation between corporations, which is difficult even to this day.
Apple has slowly been adopting various ideas from the PC market over the last decade or so. The move from SCSI to IDE as the default option is one example. The move to PCI is another good choice. Most Mac users don't have to go out and buy 5 volt buffered DIMMs either. Apple has done a great job of accepting some PC standards to reduce the cost to its customers. In order to do this they had to seperate the hardware from the software yet allow them to interact as if they were still one.
Apple makes great machines at a fairly reasonable price, but they made their decision about 2 decades ago and continue to choose to live by it. Articles like this serve no purpose than to bring out the trolls.
Actually PC hardware of the day was capable of running a GUI. Windows 3.0 can be run on a 8086. Xerox had a computer at PARC running a GUI in the mid 70s running on consumer grade hardware. In fact, it's a myth that Gates stole the idea of a GUI from Mac OS. They both toured PARC and saw the machine. If anything they both got the idea from Xerox, which they later got (unsucessfully) sued over.
Learn some basic comprehension skills, THEN post. You look like less of a dumbass that way. It would be a good idea to follow your own advice. You did a good job of comprehending the story, but a bad job of thinking for yourself.
Apple is a good of example of security through obscurity. What respectable virus writer of hacker would waste time trying to root Apple boxes? The serve no good for DoS attacks or spam zombies because they are so low in number. Going by the numbers alone, a virus has much better odds of infecting a Windows box because that's most of what's out there. If Mac OS and Windows reversed their user base you'd better believe there would be a dozen exploits and/or viruses by morning.
He makes the argument that because Apple was 10 years ahead they couldn't have licensed their stuff and taken the places of MS. I make the argument that because they were 10 years ahead they were in the prime position to take the lead. When Apple/Mac decided not to license their hardware they chose to be the sole supplier of Apple/Mac hardware thereby reducing options and diversity compared to the PC platform. It ensured hardware compatibility because only Apple and a selectively chosen minority of hardware vendors could make add-on parts. It also bound their hands because their hardware could not be specialized for specific applications using off the shelf parts. The lack of competition also made sure that Apple wouldn't be more than a niche market. The PC market was ripe with competing parts and by extension led to many incompatibility issues. With the advent of much more stable OS's and PCI-x, I see this being a non-issue shortly.
My biggest problem with the article is that the author has a hard time telling the difference between hardware and software. The more than decade lack of an adequate GUI OS for x86 can't be blamed on the platform but the software developer (MS), but Apple is its own hardware/software vendor. That's why a direct comparison can not be reasonably made, although it is my opinion that since Apple was ahead in the early days if they had left the hardware open (like IBM did the x86) Apple would have a much greater share of today's market.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't remember seeing Shareaza authors complaining about their copyrights. Please reply with link. Also, Shareaza is not part of Sharman Networks. It uses, guntella, G2, donkey, and bittorrent, but no fasttrack.
Here is the definition of "pirate". Please pay close attention to line #3 for both singular and plural definitions. Here is another word that applies to your previous post. Please pay close attention definition #1 as it is the only one that applies to your writing style.
You sir have won the daily "Tool of the Industry" award by spouting their corporate spin and calling pirates thievs. You shall recieve you prize tomorrow moring when you show up to your desk at the RIAA. The dictionary.... er... prize doubles as a stress reliever. Just bang repeatedly over your head.
You can never go bankrupt betting on the ignorance of average PC users.
I think that with tivo becoming the de facto name of PVRs by the general public, they already have an advantage over MS. Imagine you are average Joe consumer and you see these 2 boxes sitting side by side. Which one do you pick up first? If they can undercut MS on OEM and box pricing they have a great chance. They can also give the people what they want without losing control of their product.
Work with hardware manufacturers and sell the tivo brand on their product. Guaranteed to always be compatible and zero config. They could make a low cost home video editing station. An ATI all in wonder, two more tuners, a CD/DVD burner, a sound blaster, and some A/V editing software would let you keep 3 permanently attached devices (2 VCR's and DVD player) and have anotehr dongle with stereo audio, S-video, and composite video inputs and outputs. They can continue to sell the manufactured tivo, and add an expanded enthusiast crowd who will do it for the hacking, or their status among the nerd ranks.
Imagine if they even published some of the API's to let others add features their OS and app suite lacks. They could also allow inexpensive licensing of more powerful APIs that would directly compete with the functionality of their suite; much like Symantec does with Windows. If they play their cards right, they can dominate this market. MS needs a competitor in every field. Imagine where IE or outlook would be now if Netscape never lost their hold (around IE 4 or 5, I believe).
As I said before, have an independent source create a lesson plan for older kids. 13 year olds are not being sued, that's not legally possible. Their parents (or who ever the internet service's name is in) are being sued. But that plays into the fact that TV, the internet, and the governemnt are not, and should never be, a babysitter. Lessons of morality begin at home.
In related news top Microsoft executives are expected to address a grand jury tomorrow morning for betraying the public trust by carelessly releasing software without thorough debugging. Yesterday, Steve Ballmer addressed reporters from Reuters and the Associated Press denouncing the charges. "It's like suing an automaker for selling cars without thorough crash testing and evaluation."
So you would accept RJR teaching your kids health or Royal Dutch Shell teaching them about alternative feuls? I didn't realize that our teachers were so inept that they need a corporate entity to make the lesson plan. There is a reason they are targeting children under 10 for this education; they are not mentally developed enough think for themselves and are highly impresionable. Teaching copyright in school is just as important to the future as teaching the right privacy, but we should be teaching it to much older kids who can reach an informed opinion because they are capable of thinking for themselves.
I think most people are upset because it is a biased corporate entity teaching impressionable children who are too young to form their own opinions. Copyright does have a place in education, but not at that age and not from that source. Would you allow your child to be taught health by Phillip Morris, business ethics by Microsoft, or foods by McDonalds?
Copyright law is a subject the brightest lawyers spend years, even decades, learning without even knowing it all. Copyright should be presented in school, except not from biased sources and not to an age group that accepts the words of adults on blind faith. They should also be told how large corporations spent billions buying politicians to twist copyright 180 degrees from what the founders envisioned.
Piracy is not theft, it is copyright infringement. Piracy is a civil crime, theft if criminal. Anyone who says piracy is theft is unwittingly making themselves a tool of the media giants by mindlessly repeating their corporate spin. I'm not justifying piracy, but people who are tools of the media giants need to be shown exactly how they are tools in order for them to take the first step towards thinking for themselves. Please remember you are spouting corporate cliché for people who are buying politicians left and right so that they can strip personal rights and give more to corporations.
Maybe the last post I wrote about corporate funded programming of our children should shed some light. I don't see why people tend to be apathetic towards highly biased sources teaching our children their spin on a subject as if it were absolute fact. Will they be teaching the kids about how large corporations spent billions buying politicians to pass laws that benifit them at the cost of citizens? Hell no. That would make them cynical. We'll just teach them one side as kids so they can grow up to realize the truth after it's too late and see how we betrayed their trust. Or we could do the right thing and keep it completely out of grade school. Maybe it could be taught to high school juniors or seniors. That's about the age kids start to think for themselves instead of taking everything an adult says as blind faith.
The US and Europe consider MS to be a monopoly. Japan looks like they will come to that conclusion too. How many more countries need to declare them a monopoly before it becomes true?
Maybe city officials realize something that a lot of businesses have yet to discover. Even if the initial investment and TCO of Linux and apps were higher than Windows, the fact that it's all built on open standards leaves the ability to make an easier switch in the future to new hardware and software platforms. Take VAX for example. It's a rock solid platform that can be trusted to run smoothly with little or no intervention. That's why many people still have them in operation today even though there are better applications that can be run on faster hardware. It's also going to be a big problem when the time comes for migration. Emulators for VAX have been mentioned on here before. With open standards, Linux won't have near the trouble when it comes time to migrate to new hardware architectures, different apps, or different operating systems. It's fairly easy to port apps between BSD, Linux, and other Unix variants. Future emulation probably won't be an issue once a total switch has been made. Basically, if it's a computer, Linux can be tailor made to run on it. Once the OS is ported, apps will follow. As for the apps themselves, instead of saving your documents as proprietary files, you have an open standard so you can easily move files between different applications without worring about compatability or licensing issues. To sum it up in one sentence: Linux offers a trustworthy migration path even with an unclear vision of what the future holds.
SCO produces software? This whole time I thought SCO was a law firm comprised of ludites. Their lawyers must be true renaissance men. I mean they put in a hard days work slandering Linux and sit down to write code and debug it at night.
how they are going to produce an untra-thin and ultra-light solar sail on such a gigantic scale? I forgot the ratio but it's going to take an ernormous sail to propel even a few kilograms. The only reasonable analogy I've heard is painting wax with a silver pigment and then melting the wax away, but that still leaves an important issue: The smalest speck of interstellar dust will leave a sizable hole in a sail so thin and light. How far can something like thins make it? Even space isn't a truly zero friction environment.
You are still missing the point that nearly all desktop computers are pre-installed with windows and nearly all desktop users are ignorant. The Mac user base tends to be smarter because they are a selective market base. If Mac had the same user base as windows, the same percentage of users would still give up their password to a stupid email attachment. It's just that with all previous wersions of windows, the user is root by default. BSD has the capability of being the least secure OS provided the user is dumb enough. That's 99% of what it comes down to... the user. Besides, OSX is just another flavor of BSD, save the front end. It's not much, more or less, secure than any other BSD. Real security come from the 1) user 2) user 3) user.
So what would have happened if Apple, as the start-up, licensed its technology at bargin basement prices so low that anyone could write apps or design hardware? They could have remained an independent company and slowly (with inflation, for example) raised the prices of licensing as demand and market share grew until they were the monoply MS currently is.
I said it once and I'll say it again: Apple and MS came to a crossroads. They each chose their own path and will contine to live with that decision. The 80s was the most critical decade for the desktop market, and if the goal was market share, Apple continues to live with their decision.
Most viruses are written in Visual Fucking Basic.
We call people who write viruses in VB.... Script Kiddies. Real, self respecting, authors write in assembly (aka: The Dead Language). If you write a basic (not the language) program in C, and another that does the exact same thing in asm, which will be small enough to fit into a program less than 90% the size of the other? Assembly is still the language preffered by true hackers. Shit, most people can''t even read hex these days. Running non-MS apps/OS's makes you immune to VB hacks. Besides, real security comes down to the user in charge of the box (home user, network admin/root/IT dept, etc).
Just like most rooted boxen tend to be ignorant windows (which is admin by default) users. It's all about the user changing defult settings and/or setting up programs to be as safe and secure as possible; something which the majority of computer owners are totally oblivious to. You could have the most secure machine in the world, but setting your password as 123 shows how little you care, or know. Imagine how many fewer viriuses would spread if Longhorn (and subsequent OS's) required at least a 6 character alpha-numeric password to install and ran every user as a 'limited' account by default. It probably wouldn't stop everything, but I bet it would make a noticable dent.
You are forgetting that most viruses are written in assembly. That's why even the ancient Michelangelo virus can still spread even though the OS it was written for is more or less dead. For how well written BSD is, there are still chinks in the armor. The more complex a program is the more unpredictable its behavior can be. BSD was still written by humans, who are still fallible. The greatest flaw in security is assuming you are immune.
t's quite obvious that you don't really know your PC-clone history (note: IBM didn't "leave the hardware open"), let alone your Mac history.
IBM did leave the hardware open when compared to Apple (except the MCA bus developed later).
Seriously, the author of the article has a very very good point when he mentions that terminals at the time were 40-column (80 if you were lucky) text displays -- not machines capable of displaying 512x384...it was the integration of hardware and software that made [and still makes] the mac what it is.
The video lilitation for PCs of the day was largely due to the amount of available video memory. Instead of storing data about the location, value, and attributes of an ASCII character, you needed enough memory to store data about the position and color of each pixel. The fact that most of the static data on the Apple was stored in ROM just made things easier. Unfortunately the PC market could employ this "shortcut" because no single PC entity developed both the hardware and software. It would require cooperation between corporations, which is difficult even to this day.
Apple has slowly been adopting various ideas from the PC market over the last decade or so. The move from SCSI to IDE as the default option is one example. The move to PCI is another good choice. Most Mac users don't have to go out and buy 5 volt buffered DIMMs either. Apple has done a great job of accepting some PC standards to reduce the cost to its customers. In order to do this they had to seperate the hardware from the software yet allow them to interact as if they were still one.
Apple makes great machines at a fairly reasonable price, but they made their decision about 2 decades ago and continue to choose to live by it. Articles like this serve no purpose than to bring out the trolls.
Actually PC hardware of the day was capable of running a GUI. Windows 3.0 can be run on a 8086. Xerox had a computer at PARC running a GUI in the mid 70s running on consumer grade hardware. In fact, it's a myth that Gates stole the idea of a GUI from Mac OS. They both toured PARC and saw the machine. If anything they both got the idea from Xerox, which they later got (unsucessfully) sued over.
Learn some basic comprehension skills, THEN post. You look like less of a dumbass that way.
It would be a good idea to follow your own advice. You did a good job of comprehending the story, but a bad job of thinking for yourself.
Apple is a good of example of security through obscurity. What respectable virus writer of hacker would waste time trying to root Apple boxes? The serve no good for DoS attacks or spam zombies because they are so low in number. Going by the numbers alone, a virus has much better odds of infecting a Windows box because that's most of what's out there. If Mac OS and Windows reversed their user base you'd better believe there would be a dozen exploits and/or viruses by morning.
He makes the argument that because Apple was 10 years ahead they couldn't have licensed their stuff and taken the places of MS. I make the argument that because they were 10 years ahead they were in the prime position to take the lead. When Apple/Mac decided not to license their hardware they chose to be the sole supplier of Apple/Mac hardware thereby reducing options and diversity compared to the PC platform. It ensured hardware compatibility because only Apple and a selectively chosen minority of hardware vendors could make add-on parts. It also bound their hands because their hardware could not be specialized for specific applications using off the shelf parts. The lack of competition also made sure that Apple wouldn't be more than a niche market. The PC market was ripe with competing parts and by extension led to many incompatibility issues. With the advent of much more stable OS's and PCI-x, I see this being a non-issue shortly.
My biggest problem with the article is that the author has a hard time telling the difference between hardware and software. The more than decade lack of an adequate GUI OS for x86 can't be blamed on the platform but the software developer (MS), but Apple is its own hardware/software vendor. That's why a direct comparison can not be reasonably made, although it is my opinion that since Apple was ahead in the early days if they had left the hardware open (like IBM did the x86) Apple would have a much greater share of today's market.