Nope. According to Groklaw, Microsoft will only defend you in court if they feel there is no infringement on their part. If there is then you're stuffed.
What on earth justification with that? Do you know of any major OSS projects that are even compiled on VS.NET, let alone a pirated copy?
Lets look at the facts:
1) The majority of OSS developers use linux, or have their work ported to linux.
2) VS.NET doesn't run on linux
3) gcc does run on Windows.
4) Even if they had some mad reason to use VS.NET, it's only about $150 max (I'm talking Australian here, in the US it'll be probably half that). OSS projects are colaborative efforts - surely someone would have a copy of VS.NET. For that matter, I do (even though I don't actually use Windows personally, I have a copy for work purposes), so any OSS projects that I would contribute to would be able to have a compilation of VS.NET.
Looking at these facts, why on earth would OSS projects take the time to pirate a copy of VS.NET and port the code to work with VS.NET (which doesn't run on linux, and isn't as good as VS 6.0 anyway) when they don't even need to, and there are plenty of OSS equivalents anyway, that are, incidentely, more established and generally give better results?
Please get a clue before posting something like that. VS.Net isn't the only compiler in the world, it isn't even the first. While you may live in a Microsoft centric environment, most open source developers do not, and just that point makes your point seem rediculous.
I notice that tabbed browsing ends up using even more desktop real estate. I've never needed tabbed browsing before, all my windows appear on my Explorer task bar...just like tabs. I suppose tabs would be useful for people whos operating systems don't have a taskbar enabled shell.
This is a valid point. I have a friend who uses Firefox under Windows, but hardly ever uses tabs at all. I can do pretty well without myself too. On the other hand, I couldn't live without tabs on a Mac.
I absolutely detest new windows for browsing. The simple reason is that I do more things than just browse the internet! Say I want to do an assignment in OpenOffice and then research some little bit on the internet. If I were to use google then I'd want to open at the very least two links, probably at once. Unfortunately after doing this it becomes quite difficult to quickly switch back to the assignment because of the multitude of Internet Explorer icons - with tabbed browsing I can just alt-tab! If (like I used to a long time ago on Windows XP) I have "group similar tasks" together then it becomes hard to quickly change from one browser window to another.
Of course this is a null point for me - I don't even use Windows anymore.
Well, the person who started saying that the quotation is a rumour or a hoax was Bill Gates - that's an easy one to answer. Just read the article I gave: "I've said some stupid things and some wrong things, but not that. No one involved in computers would ever say that a certain amount of memory is enough for all time."
Look up "Bill Gates 640k" on google and you'll get lots of links to similar refutations from him.
Re:Convert friends - add top 10 reasons for FF her
on
Firefox 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
Episode 2-17: Gnomes, to be exact.
My post was a simple joke, nothing more, nothing less.
lol, though it's like taking candy from a baby, I hate to break it to you but he did never actually say that (for both 64k and 640k, which is the actual hoax statement), at least according to Wired News.
Let me say this clearly: America is acting on their own interests. America is not giving foreign aid in invading Iraq, or saving anyone. You seem to be under the misapprehension that America is a knight in shining armour that comes in and saving all the foreign countries with a huge army and cruise missiles.
The republican party that I think by your remarks seems to be trying to isolate America and build a brick wall is the party that got America into this mess in the first place. Am I not right in saying the roles are the opposite, that George Bush has the super-aggressive foreign policy, and John Kerry is trying to withdraw relatively peacefully? Perhaps I am, I haven't really been keeping up to date with American policies since the candidates are, by Australian terms, both ultra-conservative.
Anyway I don't have time at the moment to argue, perhaps another day. I'll just point out this: For one the people in "big cities" account for a large proportion of the American population. Secondly, look at the demographics - George Bush wasn't voted in by everyone, he was voted in by rich white men. I'm not saying this out of my head, it actually surprised me, but yes, the very specific but very large demographic of rich white men (earning over $100 000 US a year) consisted of the majority of George Bush's voters. Besides he was voted in in a majority of 1% anyway, which in my standards is almost nothing.
I think linux distro distributors will have something to say if bittorrent is banned. Even a gaming mod that I helped produce was distributed via bittorrent. It's most definitely not like ordinary P2P where 90%+ of all work distributed using P2P is copyrighted. Though it's probably a large percentage, there's still huge amounts of legal usage.
You're talking as if warez was extinct on the PS2. It's not exactly hard to pirate console games (except I don't think I'd have the guts for the Game Cube!), especially in my experience for the XBox.
What a great representative of your nation, with such a lacking sence of humour. Fortunately most Americans I know are actually decent people, so I'm not making judgements.
Though I have a busy schedule of assignments and work, I just can't resist having the fun of giving you a history lesson, especially since you're vigilantly defending the conservative government who just "get blamed" after they have continually displayed disrespect to our own political situation, most recently and outrageously openly endorsing our Prime Minister John Howard, as well as proclaiming that should Jown Howard not be re-elected, treaty negotiations will be pushed back. This of course was the root of my joke, which obviously went over your head.
Currently the American troops are based in Iraq. So are Australians, but that is only a nominal and political support, with less than 4000 troops. You seem to be saying that if you had never sent your troops over to the Middle East then the Middle East will have been a far worse place than it is today.
Though I don't see that bombing the homes of the populous and killing innocent people can make their lives better, I will continue this analysis assuming that it has.
The main cause for the war seems to be the toppling of the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. I will give you again the benifit of the doubt by not mentioning WMDs or, should I say it, oil. That the conservative republican America might invade another country for as frivilous a reason as profit is of course unthinkable. However even if this is the reason then at best this can be called "cleaning up their own mess" since America set Saddam Hussein up with money and weapons in the first place. Can anyone say "stuff up"?
In fact the US invested $40 billion in armourments into Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war between 1980 and 1988. This wasn't a liberal Democrat either no, it was a conservative republican, Ronald Reagan. Your precious conservatives seem to be quite good at messing up other countries.
Think about how much $40 billion would have been worth fifteen-twenty years ago.
The next conservative republican president, George H. W. Bush, then took steps to resolve the f*ck up that his predecessor made (though of course your enlightening words prove that it was the liberal's fault), trying his hardest to invade the country that because of the US has used chemical weapons on the Kurds. Unfortunately George Bush Sr. failed, and left the f*ck up for his poor little son who got the presidency as his fifty fith birthday present. Luckily George Bush Jr didn't fail as miserably as Sr, though that still remains to be seen.
Unfortunately I'm tired now - I would have gone into Afghanistan but I couldn't be bothered at the moment. Don't try to refute me on that one btw, that was another country that the US bankrolled in arms, though instead of being against Iran it was against the Soviet Union. Your "bunch of strong people, who just wanted to be left alone to do their own thing", seem to be very good at f*cking the rest of the world up, then proclaiming to be the world's saviour.
So how about instead of trying to give a misinformed flame post blindly defending an administration that's lead by an incompetant idiot, try taking a history lesson or two - it's really worth the effort.
Modding isn't exactly a competition, it's just about people browsing at their convenience. Karma be damned, the moderations were just to get a convenient link for the browsers to click.
Of course not. As Australians, we should be wide open to the issue of who runs our country for the next four years.
Unfortunately civil rights haven't yet advanced enough to allow Australian People votes to help decide our collective fate. It just shows how the "master race" of Americans still holds their superiority over the rest of the poor souls ruled under the American Presidency.
Could I just put up a theory that perhaps Mr Shrum isn't actually cursed or unlucky, just a complete idiot? I don't know the guy but when the evidence is there...
Slashdot Mirror
or you can just go to www.bugmenot.com and download the firefox extension!
he beat about two thousand other people to the joke as well
Nope. According to Groklaw, Microsoft will only defend you in court if they feel there is no infringement on their part. If there is then you're stuffed.
So much for the hyped Microsoft Indemnification.
What on earth justification with that? Do you know of any major OSS projects that are even compiled on VS.NET, let alone a pirated copy?
Lets look at the facts:
1) The majority of OSS developers use linux, or have their work ported to linux.
2) VS.NET doesn't run on linux
3) gcc does run on Windows.
4) Even if they had some mad reason to use VS.NET, it's only about $150 max (I'm talking Australian here, in the US it'll be probably half that). OSS projects are colaborative efforts - surely someone would have a copy of VS.NET. For that matter, I do (even though I don't actually use Windows personally, I have a copy for work purposes), so any OSS projects that I would contribute to would be able to have a compilation of VS.NET.
Looking at these facts, why on earth would OSS projects take the time to pirate a copy of VS.NET and port the code to work with VS.NET (which doesn't run on linux, and isn't as good as VS 6.0 anyway) when they don't even need to, and there are plenty of OSS equivalents anyway, that are, incidentely, more established and generally give better results?
Please get a clue before posting something like that. VS.Net isn't the only compiler in the world, it isn't even the first. While you may live in a Microsoft centric environment, most open source developers do not, and just that point makes your point seem rediculous.
I notice that tabbed browsing ends up using even more desktop real estate. I've never needed tabbed browsing before, all my windows appear on my Explorer task bar...just like tabs. I suppose tabs would be useful for people whos operating systems don't have a taskbar enabled shell.
This is a valid point. I have a friend who uses Firefox under Windows, but hardly ever uses tabs at all. I can do pretty well without myself too. On the other hand, I couldn't live without tabs on a Mac.
I absolutely detest new windows for browsing. The simple reason is that I do more things than just browse the internet! Say I want to do an assignment in OpenOffice and then research some little bit on the internet. If I were to use google then I'd want to open at the very least two links, probably at once. Unfortunately after doing this it becomes quite difficult to quickly switch back to the assignment because of the multitude of Internet Explorer icons - with tabbed browsing I can just alt-tab! If (like I used to a long time ago on Windows XP) I have "group similar tasks" together then it becomes hard to quickly change from one browser window to another.
Of course this is a null point for me - I don't even use Windows anymore.
They're making an example out of SCO.
Well, the person who started saying that the quotation is a rumour or a hoax was Bill Gates - that's an easy one to answer. Just read the article I gave: "I've said some stupid things and some wrong things, but not that. No one involved in computers would ever say that a certain amount of memory is enough for all time."
Look up "Bill Gates 640k" on google and you'll get lots of links to similar refutations from him.
Episode 2-17: Gnomes, to be exact.
My post was a simple joke, nothing more, nothing less.
ironically it's not a bug in firefox, but a bug in slashdot.
However, I (under linux) don't get this bug at all since 0.9.
for a freely downloadable piece of software?
lol, though it's like taking candy from a baby, I hate to break it to you but he did never actually say that (for both 64k and 640k, which is the actual hoax statement), at least according to Wired News.
Let me say this clearly: America is acting on their own interests. America is not giving foreign aid in invading Iraq, or saving anyone. You seem to be under the misapprehension that America is a knight in shining armour that comes in and saving all the foreign countries with a huge army and cruise missiles.
The republican party that I think by your remarks seems to be trying to isolate America and build a brick wall is the party that got America into this mess in the first place. Am I not right in saying the roles are the opposite, that George Bush has the super-aggressive foreign policy, and John Kerry is trying to withdraw relatively peacefully? Perhaps I am, I haven't really been keeping up to date with American policies since the candidates are, by Australian terms, both ultra-conservative.
Anyway I don't have time at the moment to argue, perhaps another day. I'll just point out this: For one the people in "big cities" account for a large proportion of the American population. Secondly, look at the demographics - George Bush wasn't voted in by everyone, he was voted in by rich white men. I'm not saying this out of my head, it actually surprised me, but yes, the very specific but very large demographic of rich white men (earning over $100 000 US a year) consisted of the majority of George Bush's voters. Besides he was voted in in a majority of 1% anyway, which in my standards is almost nothing.
Thanks for directing me to that site. I saw the star wars 3 trailer and immediately downloaded it at 50 kb/s with no ads, registration, or queuing.
and how long will it take until there's a napster-like minute change in names of files?
They can't do anything with files named Ind Day.torrent or Day Aft Tom.torrent - they're not trademark violations and they don't have illegal content.
I think linux distro distributors will have something to say if bittorrent is banned. Even a gaming mod that I helped produce was distributed via bittorrent. It's most definitely not like ordinary P2P where 90%+ of all work distributed using P2P is copyrighted. Though it's probably a large percentage, there's still huge amounts of legal usage.
"Would you like some fries with that?"
You're talking as if warez was extinct on the PS2. It's not exactly hard to pirate console games (except I don't think I'd have the guts for the Game Cube!), especially in my experience for the XBox.
What a great representative of your nation, with such a lacking sence of humour. Fortunately most Americans I know are actually decent people, so I'm not making judgements.
Though I have a busy schedule of assignments and work, I just can't resist having the fun of giving you a history lesson, especially since you're vigilantly defending the conservative government who just "get blamed" after they have continually displayed disrespect to our own political situation, most recently and outrageously openly endorsing our Prime Minister John Howard, as well as proclaiming that should Jown Howard not be re-elected, treaty negotiations will be pushed back. This of course was the root of my joke, which obviously went over your head.
Currently the American troops are based in Iraq. So are Australians, but that is only a nominal and political support, with less than 4000 troops. You seem to be saying that if you had never sent your troops over to the Middle East then the Middle East will have been a far worse place than it is today.
Though I don't see that bombing the homes of the populous and killing innocent people can make their lives better, I will continue this analysis assuming that it has.
The main cause for the war seems to be the toppling of the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. I will give you again the benifit of the doubt by not mentioning WMDs or, should I say it, oil. That the conservative republican America might invade another country for as frivilous a reason as profit is of course unthinkable. However even if this is the reason then at best this can be called "cleaning up their own mess" since America set Saddam Hussein up with money and weapons in the first place. Can anyone say "stuff up"?
In fact the US invested $40 billion in armourments into Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war between 1980 and 1988. This wasn't a liberal Democrat either no, it was a conservative republican, Ronald Reagan. Your precious conservatives seem to be quite good at messing up other countries.
Think about how much $40 billion would have been worth fifteen-twenty years ago.
The next conservative republican president, George H. W. Bush, then took steps to resolve the f*ck up that his predecessor made (though of course your enlightening words prove that it was the liberal's fault), trying his hardest to invade the country that because of the US has used chemical weapons on the Kurds. Unfortunately George Bush Sr. failed, and left the f*ck up for his poor little son who got the presidency as his fifty fith birthday present. Luckily George Bush Jr didn't fail as miserably as Sr, though that still remains to be seen.
Unfortunately I'm tired now - I would have gone into Afghanistan but I couldn't be bothered at the moment. Don't try to refute me on that one btw, that was another country that the US bankrolled in arms, though instead of being against Iran it was against the Soviet Union. Your "bunch of strong people, who just wanted to be left alone to do their own thing", seem to be very good at f*cking the rest of the world up, then proclaiming to be the world's saviour.
So how about instead of trying to give a misinformed flame post blindly defending an administration that's lead by an incompetant idiot, try taking a history lesson or two - it's really worth the effort.
Modding isn't exactly a competition, it's just about people browsing at their convenience. Karma be damned, the moderations were just to get a convenient link for the browsers to click.
Of course not. As Australians, we should be wide open to the issue of who runs our country for the next four years.
Unfortunately civil rights haven't yet advanced enough to allow Australian People votes to help decide our collective fate. It just shows how the "master race" of Americans still holds their superiority over the rest of the poor souls ruled under the American Presidency.
As an aside, my favourite linux game by far at the moment is "Battle for Wesnoth" (go to www.wesnoth.org)
Though sometimes the anime graphics irritate me, it's one of the most intriguing strategy games I've come across.
Does anyone else know of any good hopefully free linux games?
that should be "kalls things 'Game Paks' and 'Memory Paks'."
Remember, there is no 'C' in KDE, so there obviously should be no 'C' in the english language either.
Could I just put up a theory that perhaps Mr Shrum isn't actually cursed or unlucky, just a complete idiot? I don't know the guy but when the evidence is there...
Don't you see? It's proof that John Kerry is a definite winner! No need for Kerry supporters to go out and vote now obviously - he's already won.
I did.