This should be the last release candidate [RC] before the big 1; because in theory all the bugs should have been ironed out in this RC, but, nonetheless, Mozilla.Org is asking users who want to beta-test to download it and, in particular, check for bugs in these areas in RC2:
authentication (especially over SSL)
extension installation via update.mozilla.org and other sites
MacOS X builds
the new re-implementation of software update.
Some non-English RC2 builds are avaliable too according to Mozillazine. (Where are they?) For more info check out Ben Goodger's (lead developer's) blog.
For the rest of us, 1.0 final is supposed to be coming out in less than a week--then we can all party;-).
I agree with youir general points in this thread, but...
He could be Mike Tyson or Bill Gates and it wouldn't make his points any more or less accurate.
I agree that it probably really shouldn't in an ideal world, but the fact is most people on/. would (probably rightly & based on past experience) consider an argument put forward by Gates or Tyson to likely be invalid or false.
Using genuine Microsoft software ensures that you get world-class reliability, security and support so you can be confident that your PC and system will provide the perofrmence and the experience that you have come to expect from...Microsoft...ask for geuine MS software
ye..right...and I had to retype that because for some goddamn reason the text is on the page as an image (without appropriate alt text)
That is where the stronger conspiracy theory put forward does not work (although there probably is a conspiracy here somewhere). Remember, Microsoft actually encourage piracy of their products in some circles (where as they force big law-abiding users like governments to pay up) as this is the only way they can stop everyone from moving to a better OS. These facts have been well documented.
I hate Macs but there are lots of good graphical browsers for MacOS X:
* Gecko-based: Camino (Mac-style cut-down Firefoxy Mozilla), Firefox, Mozilla, Netscape, AOL, Fizilla (Mac-style Mozila), Beonex
* KHTML-based: Safari, Omniweb
* iCab
NB: MS stopped developing IE for MacOS ages ago (so hardly anyone still uses it) and it is a totally different browser from IE for MSW. Yes, you are right though--it is avaiable and _gratis_ (though not free).
I am probably going to buy a Zaurus, so could someone tell me what the pros and cons (both in usage & spec differences) of the C3000 v. 6000 are.
Also, how similar are they--can software compiled for one run on the other?
The reason I ask is that I am in the UK and I cannot find anywhere on WWW that sells the 6000 to the UK (maybe 'cause of the WiFi but there is a non-WiFi model) but some places will do the 3000.
But the situation the grandparent was outlining is different from (and IMO worse than) the historical examples you allude to for several reasons:
The "resource" in question is the collection of ideas--thinking itself and communication itself--the fundamentals of what it is to be who we are, of society and of being alive (as opposed to just random bits of matter)--no other resource or thing (tangible or intagible) is more important.
The immoral people (e.g.: WIPO and friends) here are trying to (primarily) attack (through confusion, duping, ambiguity and intellectual "theft")--and make worse the lives of--the very people (authors, artists, programmers, musicians, scientists,...) who create the ideas in question: many of these people want there ideas to be free; but, because of current laws, they have no control over this (or in some cases despite of current laws and because of the unlawful of WIPO et al); or, worse still, because they are brain-washed into giving away their exclusive intellectual exploitation rights (rights to restrict others rights) (or to not give away (non-exclusive) rights to their work). (This raises the more specific issue that copyright (and maybe patents) should not (and were never meant to be until WIPO introduced the term,"IP", to confuse peeps) be transferable, and definitely should not go automatically (as they usually do) into the hands of someone (or some company) who is not the author.)
Ideas are not ownable and one cannot naturally (as in according to laws of nature) control their production or distribution due to their intagibility and lack of physical location--very different from any physical resource including, no doubt, those the parent alludes to.
The concept of restricting abundance does not make sense as ideas are not finite resources--one can copy them an infinite number of times at no cost and one can create them at will. Whatsmore many people often create the same ideas independently and simultaneously.
You could try FSF Europe as they seem to be behind this fine proposal. Alternatively, if you really cannot find anyone willing to take your money, my bank account # is...
Actually neither of those things you said about the attachment are at all clear to me from the bug comments or the attachment itself (but I'm tired), but, assuming you are right, the bug itself seems to nonetheless be calling for further restrictions on Firefox's licensing (and does have serious support) which can only be a bad thing.
There isn't a big scandal yet (except the more minor thing that, as I've stated elsewhere, some (dispensible) parts of Firefox are already proprietary).
WRT forcing people to agree to the GPL:
Licenses are not agreements, so it makes no sense agreeing to a license (hence license agreement in "EULA" is an oxymoron which I think means that it is actually an agreement or contract but one that is a bit like a license (or that the agreement's author wants you to think is)). [It doesn't make much sense as license and agreements are diametrically opposed from a legal perspective: the former is a (not necessarily solicited) one-way permission to do something (e.g.: letting someone fish in your lake); the latter, a two-way agreement between parties involving reward for both sides (e.g.: buying and selling).]
Also, there are two possible legal issues with trying to force users to agree to the GNU GPL, that I can think of:
* Firstly, depending how the text of such a dialog box is phrased, it could (and is likely to) violate the "copyright" (EIR&DR) of third-party copyright holders of parts of that software--who have chosen to release only under the GNU GPL (or a less permissive license)--by attempting to put restrictions on use of the software.
* Secondly, one may argue that the inclusion of the GNU GPL (linked) within the software itself results in that software being non-free as the GNU GPL is non-free (at least the preamble is and the FSF have given mixed messages about the rest).
Or maybe the FOSS community should look at >>Mozilla and what they're doing right...<<
I love Mozilla, and I love Firefox even more and have done ever since before 0.1. I was questioning the recent thinking of some of the people at MF, not whether Mozilla & Firefox are the best things since sliced bread (which, incidentally, is not that great).
>>You know, maybe the "FOSS methods" methods you mention are just not as good as traditional marketing for these sorts of applications.<<
I actually agree with you on that point. You probably need both for *marketing*. It is one of the reasons why I like Mozilla & Firefox. I, as I stated am not sure whether the NYT ad is the most efficient way to spend marketing money--it is not as clear as some of the other campaigns--but maybe I will be proved wrong.
>>but only a very very tiny minority even worries about that question.<<
Mainly because they do not realise it exists and what the real difference between the two is. If you people took the time to understand/research what the question meant (both from pragmatic and moral, and short- and long-term perspective)... I was expressing a fear that some unscrupulous people (I don't know who) in MF may play on the masses' ignorance on this issue.
>>is it easy to use? Is it standards compliant? Is it easy to install?<<
You think that using an open and free model might not have had something to do with these things? You think that if you use an MS-style proprietary business model, you would get standards-compliance and ease of use?
>>I disagree. Oh, you mean, the GPL is superior because is restricts what I can do with the code.<<
Well...not specifically you...but it does stop free software from being made into proprietary software (which if some get their way looks like it could be the way of Mozilla & Firefox--parts of them are already proprietary actually--but I hope and think that this will probably not happen.) It also clears up confusion over whether a particular version of the software is free or proprietary--especially where a company/organisation chooses to lie about this. You might think about these things as superiour (in the sense of usually encouraging freedom) especially to a license like NPL where one organisation (was NS apparently now MF) has special powers to make a proprietary fork of a free-software package.
Hopefully that made sense. [I'm very tired, hungry, being on PC too long and fed up with using a PC without a mouse installed (along with Moz 1.0 which cleverly doesn't have as many key shortcuts as later versions and/. which has an annoying interface for keyboard use)--I'm at uni and don't have a PC in my halls set up yet.]
So lets get this straight. I criticised the MPL/NPL. You now think I should explain to you why the BSD license (not one I mentioned) is better than the BSD license ("it").
Well, it would be handy knowing which BSD license you mean and what "better" means, but anyway, if both "BSD license"s refer to the same license, you are asking me to say whether an undisclosed license associated with BSD is better than itself.
Well this is very interesting question because if I say it is better than itself then it logically cannot be, and if I say....
To stop this sort of thing, it really should be illegal (if it is not already) to misrepresent how something is licensed. Telling other people they can copy something when they cannot (or even giving them contradictory messages) is IMO worse than illegally copying it yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
This should be the last release candidate [RC] before the big 1; because in theory all the bugs should have been ironed out in this RC, but, nonetheless, Mozilla.Org is asking users who want to beta-test to download it and, in particular, check for bugs in these areas in RC2:
Some non-English RC2 builds are avaliable too according to Mozillazine. (Where are they?) For more info check out Ben Goodger's (lead developer's) blog.
For the rest of us, 1.0 final is supposed to be coming out in less than a week--then we can all party ;-).
Uhh...wait...that doesn't work...no..never mind.
*USans
Was the hardware and software for these machines transparent, freely documented and free?
/.ed /.?)
(BTW, who
this is almost as bad as their "The Facts" site:
Using genuine Microsoft software ensures that you get world-class reliability, security and support so you can be confident that your PC and system will provide the perofrmence and the experience that you have come to expect from...Microsoft...ask for geuine MS software
ye..right...and I had to retype that because for some goddamn reason the text is on the page as an image (without appropriate alt text)
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fw ww.microsoft.com%2Fgenuine%2Fdefault.mspx%3Fdispla ylang%3Den arrggghh!
That is where the stronger conspiracy theory put forward does not work (although there probably is a conspiracy here somewhere). Remember, Microsoft actually encourage piracy of their products in some circles (where as they force big law-abiding users like governments to pay up) as this is the only way they can stop everyone from moving to a better OS. These facts have been well documented.
I was hoping this lawsuit was about Microsoft remotely deleting the contents of the hard drives XBox GNU/Linux users.
Its Oct 29 not April 1st....
At least you wouldn't have a hung jury...
woops...
I hate Macs but there are lots of good graphical browsers for MacOS X:
* Gecko-based: Camino (Mac-style cut-down Firefoxy Mozilla), Firefox, Mozilla, Netscape, AOL, Fizilla (Mac-style Mozila), Beonex
* KHTML-based: Safari, Omniweb
* iCab
I hate Macs but there are lots of good graphical browsers for MacOS X: * Gecko-based: Camino (Mac-style cut-down Firefoxy Mozilla), Firefox, Mozilla, Netscape, AOL, Fizilla (Mac-style Mozila), Beonex * KHTML-based: Safari, Omniweb * iCab
Oh...and the minor issue of your freedom.
NB: MS stopped developing IE for MacOS ages ago (so hardly anyone still uses it) and it is a totally different browser from IE for MSW. Yes, you are right though--it is avaiable and _gratis_ (though not free).
They also do ActiveX if you want.
What about people who browse without a UA string or "UA Strings Suck", so they don't get banned anywhere?
Or people who are behind a proxy which fakes their UA string and they have no control over?
I think...
I am probably going to buy a Zaurus, so could someone tell me what the pros and cons (both in usage & spec differences) of the C3000 v. 6000 are.
Also, how similar are they--can software compiled for one run on the other?
The reason I ask is that I am in the UK and I cannot find anywhere on WWW that sells the 6000 to the UK (maybe 'cause of the WiFi but there is a non-WiFi model) but some places will do the 3000.
But the situation the grandparent was outlining is different from (and IMO worse than) the historical examples you allude to for several reasons:
(This raises the more specific issue that copyright (and maybe patents) should not (and were never meant to be until WIPO introduced the term,"IP", to confuse peeps) be transferable, and definitely should not go automatically (as they usually do) into the hands of someone (or some company) who is not the author.)
http://fsfeurope.org/help/donate.html (for FSFE donations).
You could try FSF Europe as they seem to be behind this fine proposal. Alternatively, if you really cannot find anyone willing to take your money, my bank account # is...
Actually neither of those things you said about the attachment are at all clear to me from the bug comments or the attachment itself (but I'm tired), but, assuming you are right, the bug itself seems to nonetheless be calling for further restrictions on Firefox's licensing (and does have serious support) which can only be a bad thing.
There isn't a big scandal yet (except the more minor thing that, as I've stated elsewhere, some (dispensible) parts of Firefox are already proprietary).
WRT forcing people to agree to the GPL:
Licenses are not agreements, so it makes no sense agreeing to a license (hence license agreement in "EULA" is an oxymoron which I think means that it is actually an agreement or contract but one that is a bit like a license (or that the agreement's author wants you to think is)). [It doesn't make much sense as license and agreements are diametrically opposed from a legal perspective: the former is a (not necessarily solicited) one-way permission to do something (e.g.: letting someone fish in your lake); the latter, a two-way agreement between parties involving reward for both sides (e.g.: buying and selling).]
Also, there are two possible legal issues with trying to force users to agree to the GNU GPL, that I can think of:
* Firstly, depending how the text of such a dialog box is phrased, it could (and is likely to) violate the "copyright" (EIR&DR) of third-party copyright holders of parts of that software--who have chosen to release only under the GNU GPL (or a less permissive license)--by attempting to put restrictions on use of the software.
* Secondly, one may argue that the inclusion of the GNU GPL (linked) within the software itself results in that software being non-free as the GNU GPL is non-free (at least the preamble is and the FSF have given mixed messages about the rest).
Or maybe the FOSS community should look at >>Mozilla and what they're doing right...<<
/. which has an annoying interface for keyboard use)--I'm at uni and don't have a PC in my halls set up yet.]
I love Mozilla, and I love Firefox even more and have done ever since before 0.1. I was questioning the recent thinking of some of the people at MF, not whether Mozilla & Firefox are the best things since sliced bread (which, incidentally, is not that great).
>>You know, maybe the "FOSS methods" methods you mention are just not as good as traditional marketing for these sorts of applications.<<
I actually agree with you on that point. You probably need both for *marketing*. It is one of the reasons why I like Mozilla & Firefox. I, as I stated am not sure whether the NYT ad is the most efficient way to spend marketing money--it is not as clear as some of the other campaigns--but maybe I will be proved wrong.
>>but only a very very tiny minority even worries about that question.<<
Mainly because they do not realise it exists and what the real difference between the two is. If you people took the time to understand/research what the question meant (both from pragmatic and moral, and short- and long-term perspective)... I was expressing a fear that some unscrupulous people (I don't know who) in MF may play on the masses' ignorance on this issue.
>>is it easy to use? Is it standards compliant? Is it easy to install?<<
You think that using an open and free model might not have had something to do with these things? You think that if you use an MS-style proprietary business model, you would get standards-compliance and ease of use?
>>I disagree. Oh, you mean, the GPL is superior because is restricts what I can do with the code.<<
Well...not specifically you...but it does stop free software from being made into proprietary software (which if some get their way looks like it could be the way of Mozilla & Firefox--parts of them are already proprietary actually--but I hope and think that this will probably not happen.) It also clears up confusion over whether a particular version of the software is free or proprietary--especially where a company/organisation chooses to lie about this. You might think about these things as superiour (in the sense of usually encouraging freedom) especially to a license like NPL where one organisation (was NS apparently now MF) has special powers to make a proprietary fork of a free-software package.
Hopefully that made sense. [I'm very tired, hungry, being on PC too long and fed up with using a PC without a mouse installed (along with Moz 1.0 which cleverly doesn't have as many key shortcuts as later versions and
So lets get this straight. I criticised the MPL/NPL. You now think I should explain to you why the BSD license (not one I mentioned) is better than the BSD license ("it").
Well, it would be handy knowing which BSD license you mean and what "better" means, but anyway, if both "BSD license"s refer to the same license, you are asking me to say whether an undisclosed license associated with BSD is better than itself.
Well this is very interesting question because if I say it is better than itself then it logically cannot be, and if I say....
Oh nevermind...why am I talking to dumbass ACs?
To stop this sort of thing, it really should be illegal (if it is not already) to misrepresent how something is licensed. Telling other people they can copy something when they cannot (or even giving them contradictory messages) is IMO worse than illegally copying it yourself.