> You mean you need 32 bits to have long filenames? > Will we hear the same bullsh*t when moving to 64 bits?
No. I mean that "command" is somewhat different from "cmd" (look for parent posts). "Command" emulates DOS interpereter (on Windows XP) - so it does not have access to long names.
(...)
> But other commands in the Windows CLI do not offer > this freedom. I think it was a big mistake.
I fully agree that Windows CLI sucks ass (as for XP) but only thing I wanted to say that "command" is an emulator of DOS so it is obvious that it will not support long file names. The native shell of Windows (XP) is "cmd".
> 3. In command.com, I cannot seem to change long paths with > cd command like: cd "Program Files". It says: Parameter not correct - "program.
Command.com (at least in XP, I haven't been testing Vista since I get nothing for testing it) is old 16-bit interpreter - think DOS. In XP the shell is "cmd" - which is 32-bit supports long names etc.
> The only people who care about Vista release "deadlines" are corporate stock holders.
Yeah sure. It is not that hardware vendors wait for Vista since it boost their sales. It is not that people that *plan* purchases of new PCs (and systems) plan to get the best option. It is not that software vendors need to think how to manage how to cope withThe New OS (its advantages, its incompatibilities etc.). It is not like people planning *new* deployments (like in comming years) consider Vista as OS.
There are in fact quite *some* of folks that are dependant on Windows new OS release and they need to plan their actions. I can imagine (I am free of this crap since I don't use Windows) that *some* people can be concerned with MS actions.
But again - this is nothing new - common MS (which is near-monopoly status so they can basically do what they want) pracices. Like to (few years in advance) announce the product which will have all *current* competing products features.
Oh! Now I get it. Now I actually read the article which says that Real will distribute Firefox along with its downloads, not the other way (Mozlilla will distribute Real). Way to go.
- when I download Firefox I will be faced with a webpage that urges me to get RealPlayer (but I still can opt-out from that)?
- when I download Firefox I will be forced to grab 20MB setup.exe only to choose to not install RealPlayer and only install Firefox which is about 5MB?
I am curious because in fact I hate RealPlayer and consider that is RealCrap. But on I don't mean Mozilla getting some money and pumping it into developement of its open source products.
So in fact it remains to be seen how they will implement this cooperation.
> Currently they're too busy reworking the internals of > Windows to be somewhat maintainable to add features.
I would say their are working to fix the sh**.:)
> This isn't a question of manpower--you don't want to > add any features to unstable code.
Yes as it would make the code more unstable. But I think problem with N+1 Windows is that it is getting to bloated. In some point of time they'll just *have* to rewrite everything and throw old shit away - that is why I like Linux, these folks just can throw old technology away and use new one.
> Whether Microsoft will innovate once its codebase is > stable and maintainable is debatable.
Wheter this codebase will be ever maintanable and stable I don't know.:) I havent seen it so I just assume it is a big messover there. Anyway that was not my point - my point was that MS with its market-share could do just about anything. They probably could just drop any support for old technologies and still not face any signigficant consequences. They literaly can shape up the market - whatever Windows demands to run - hardware vendors will supply it. I think it is a big advantage, but sadly they (MS) can't use it properly.
> The only innovation it's been providing so far, that I can > see, is in DirectX. The original innovation there was speed > --originally, OpenGL was slower than DirectX. Recently, though, > OpenGL has become much faster than equivalent versions of > DirectX. Add to that the fact that OpenGL is a higher level > API, and you've got little reason to use DirectX, unless you > actually need low-level access.
Also I find that OpenGl is an industry standard - not some jungle. F.e. in virtualisation software (like VMWare which is the leader here) there is beta functionality to virtualise even OpenGL direct access - I think it is possible (I really don't know much about DirectX/OpenGL). The test option in VMWare is that you can run OpenGL (but only - not DirectX) apps in guest operating system and the apps get direct access to host hardware - like a wrapper, OpenGL over virtualized OpenGL - so OpenGl must be more high-level.
> Access control lists in Windows seem more flexible than UNIX groups, > but this is only useful in multiuser settings; and groups are a more > orderly method except in exceptional circumstances.
That is true. Access security system in Windows is *much* more flexible than on classic unices - but also it is much more complicated so in efect few users really get it.
> So, no, there's been little recent innovation from Microsoft operating > systems. But then, systems work is a matter of perturbing arrangements > these days; what *can* Microsoft do? Create an entirely new OS paradigm?
They surely can do it. By *can* I mean that they are able to bend entire market to switch to anything, not that by *can* I mean they are able to do so since I belive they are to lame.;)
> Actually, even if they stayed in the same one and started a new OS > series, that might be a good thing.
That would be a great thing. Same like once there was 9x for desktops and NT for server line which finally got to desktops. I think now they could have come up with entirely new system for servers (and all the killer apps such like Exchange for it) in time work up compatibility with legacy stuff and release it as new consumer OS - just exactly the same like they did with NT. Right now their are like catching up - not really doing something that gives advantage in technology.
> When a customer has a certain *need* in mind (eg: exterior color, > small size, portability, quietness) it becomes one of the selling > features of the product
Also: yes that is true - but reason I written that things are going to change is that I see PC buyers simply do not know that the thing can be more quiet and also send emails, that the thing can be smaller and also browse the web, that the thing can be easier to use etc.
Of course most of people look at the cost - but also comparing to automobiles - most users are cost concious but still they would pay more for new Toyota with asurance and so on that used ford that also drives, even if it is more expensive.
I think the matter is that people just don't know the alternatives so assume crappy beige-PCs as a standard. So after all it is a good move from MS - that does not cost them much to produce such sugestions. But we will see how that will go...
Also Apple recently (few years) introduced a product that is quite good is nice designed and works (I mean Macs) - and their sales just go up. This is nice trend and that is why I think that it will change and people will notice that there are alternatives.
> Great point on the deeper design though. I never addressed > it originally but UI design and ease of use are one of the > most important factors in PC Development IMHO.
And with this in mind Apple is in better situation - they design hardware AND software. They control it from ground up. Only thing MS can do is issue some directions/sugestions - but it actually won't matter.
On the other way MS has such power with its install base that I think that they can force anything on hardware suppliers - just introduce some new cool technology in the os, document it, leave no path od stepping out of it and hardware vendors cannot do anything that just comply. It is sad that they don't laverage this power to innovate but only to get richer (I know - normal business).
> A lot of little old ladies or folks getting in and out of > ferraris fit into these two categories. It's the 'noob' > market. Businesses, geeks, nerds, and probably 80% > of computer purchasers (per unit, not per person) are not > going to be affected by the prettiness of the thing.
Well I think that is going to change as PCs (and similar) start to become more of a commodity.
Few anegdotes:
Some time ago I went with my father to get a new microwave oven (just for company - I don't live with my parents for like 8 years). When we got to the shop the salesman asked what we wish - my father said just "a brown microwave so it will fit my kitchen" - really.:) Meaning knowing shit about microwave owens (and keeping in mind that most of them are basically the same - they microwave and do 1000 other things that you don't care of).
Also recently I was getting a new washing machine. Got to the shop and stood in front of like 100 washing machines that everyone got class A in power consumption and I just basically looked on factor (can washing machine have features?) and look of it.
So I think it is important how a product looks. Given that you don't know anything about it technical matters you will base your opinion on the look. And it is perfectly normal.
Now these MS sugesstions are flawed because they focus just on the look and exteria. Computer design is deeper than that. The thing should look nice - but also it should be quiet, it should be comfortable to use and so on. That is why recently when buing computers I bought Mac Mini for my entartainment system (I use it only to listen to music, watch movies, browse the web - I cannot really work on OSX, I use Linux for work). For the price I could have assembled much more powerfull PC machine - but it wouldn't be so nice looking, it wouldn't be so small, and it wouldn't be so quiet. So I bought a Mac mostly due to its *design* (not technical specs). But still MS misses it - it is not only about the look, it is about design.
> Also, Novell seems to support the non-enterprise users more than > Redhat (and their Opensuse distro is much more stable than Fedora).
Actually right now Novell is in transiction - the efect is that there would not be no SUSE - only OpenSUSE as base for enterprise and the free OS. So SUSE does not have an equivalent of Fedora.
> It's a feature, and a pretty cool one. I wouldn't mind this in Linux. This is not a bad thing.
I think it could be very easy done on Linux. Just write a library that intercepts certain system functions. And than LD_PRELOAD it. F.e. if it encounters file overwrite it renames the old file like:
I think also it would be easy to enable it on a per directory basis. Like put file ".liboldver" in a directory to enable it. Inside that file set options (like max no. of versions, max size, max age and so on) for that directory.
As for GUI to it would be extremely easy to implement it with above in mind (just read a listing of files).
>>... but it does not really matter if he is revelant or not. It makes no difference...
> Thank you for making my point. I say he's not relevant and you say it doesn't > matter if he's relevant?
Yes, that is what I did.
> Way to go. Sounds like your saying the same thing I am. Linus' opinion > is not relevant. Thanks.
No I didn't said that. But it still makes no difference.
>>... Don't buy them - nobody FORCES you to buy this stuff, you do it with your own choice.
> Let me try to explain it in simpler terms.
> I own Linux.
No, you don't. You don't either own the name Linux, nor you own the copyright to the code (or do you? I am certain that I don't). You have rights to use it under a license, you don't actually own it.
> You do too and so does everyone else (including Bill Gates, Steve Balmer and > George W. Bush, BTW). Our license allows manufacturers to create products > using our operating system kernel,etc.. so long as they do not take away > our freedom. It goes agains the spirit of the GPL if they can bypass that > just by locking the hardware so that it will only operate with their "approved" > signed binaries.
Don't use such hardware. Simple. Nobody forces you to use it.
> I like how you guys accepted his initial report unquestioningly,
I don't want to speak for everybody but as for me I just didn't care about initial report at all. What striked me with his (apparently not his) are few things:
- he didn't state the name of company he bought fake Windows copy - if somebody ripped me of like that company did to him I would post details of this company from three reasons: to get satisfaction, to warn others that the company is not worth buing from and to get everybody to know that this company sells fake stuff so everybody can recheck what he had bought from them
- I don't quite belive in companies selling fake copies of Windows. It don't happens now, they just have to much to loose - maybe in China, but not the US (if it doesn't happen here in Poland I don't think that it happens in US)
- the things he says are in purely MS-marketing speech, compare it to his other texts
(...)
> "It is too obvious. I am not a language expert but I can even see > different style of writing/expressing in discussed post that in > his other works."
> You're seeing what you want to see.
Not really. When I was in college we (meaning my colege it was CS facilty only) designed system for big university. The system was build to allow automated scanning for plagiarism - it analysed various aspects, like style, no. of phrased used usually by author etc.
When I read his post (I've read few others) I can feel difference.
> The reason for the different style in writing is because he's essentially > writing a retraction of his original charge. The initial report was charging > Microsoft with wrongdoing,
It wasn't charging MS - he just noticed something and was not really certain if the copy is legitimate.
If some company would sell me invalid copy (pirated) ofo software on purpose I would post EVERY DETAIL on that company that I have.
Just to make others safe from that company. He didn't that leads to conclusion that he is full of shit. Also posting such insult requires me to be real about it since if I wouldn't the resseler would sue my ass.
Now after reading (yes I did read that crap) a bit lenghty article on how MS is great, how they suprised him with their support and kindlyness, how it can happen to anyone, blah, blah, blah. I just see MS marketing bullshit in it and the guy getting kind of rich from just blogging what MS suggest him to blog.
It is too obvious. I am not a language expert but I can even see different style of writing/expressing in discussed post that in his other works.
> Exactly. Create limited user accounts, and only let them use those.
I've meant that as a punishment.:) But when you take admin rights from users that means you are the admin for them. And that will lead to less mess/work that allowing clueless users to admin. Really.:)
> Many (poorly-written) pieces of software claim that administrator > privileges are necessary, but there are (almost) always F/OSS equivalents > that don't have such a ridiculous requirement.
That is bullshit. In deed many of closed source software are poorly written and *tend* (go on with reading) to require admin rights. But stating that FOSS has all the equivalents is plain bullshit and a lie that in the end will make no good for FOSS.
FOSS is nice for some task but it *lacks* some of the apps and don't lie anybody that it doesn't. It is a bad advocacy and serves no purpose.
As for old Windows applications that conflict with LUA principle - that can be get over with. You just need to work around it. There are plenty of tools which help - compatibility mode, toolkits and so on. You can set access rights for apps and so on. So really some stupid app writing directly to C:\ can be tricked to work under LUA. It just requires some knowledge, but please don't state that it can't be done.
As a disclaimer - for my own computing needs I use Linux only and I love it.
Yeah right. Not that Corel does vector graphics and gimp is retarded (and does bitmap graphics).;) Not that she probably uses Corel since she gets these files from work or some other third party. And so on...
I happen to work in a company that uses Corel for its main business (drawing maps of trade fairs - Corel is a wordlwide standard) and I assure you - there is no piece of software for Linux that does what Corel does in sane (from wide point of view, features/price/user-friendlyness etc.) way. Just live with it.
I use Linux mostly for all my computing needs - but please stay connected with reality.
Oh and WINE will not do any good since it really cannot run Corel in usefull way.
> Or, they can just not document the API (which I get the impression is > what they're trying to do now), in which case people will reverse engineer > the software that uses it and they'll find out how what they need to know. > Malware writers and legit software writers alike.
Legit software writers *cannot* reverse engineer. I think that in USA under the DMCA it is prohibited to overcome secuity measures by reverse engeenering. FIXME
> Here's an example. One of the copy-prevention measures in blu-ray is that each disc must > have a cryptographically secure id that indicates the manufacturing plant which stamped > it out. Else the players won't play them. That means that if you want to distribute your > own videos on blu-ray, you must go get your discs manufactured by one of these officially > licensed plants. Else your stuff won't work.
So Sony is basically shooting itself in foot again (CF, MiniDisc and whatever own format they come up with). I don't really care AFAIK BLU-RAY has alternative - so they are going to make their media more expensive (since the market will be controlled there will be no real competition and prices will be high). I don't care really - that mean I will not use BLU-RAY since it will be more price ly. Simple.
> Today, BLU-RAY is a molecule of H2O to the bucket of water that is DVD. But Sony sure as hell > wants BLU-RAY to dominate like DVD has.
> So, today you can avoid being impeded by DRM. But if Sony's wet dream comes true, anyone who > wants to publish a hi-def video would have to suffer the effects of Sony's DRM, they would > have no choice.
But actually they have, a choice. HD-DVD has such restrictions?
(...)
> Gee, how does this contradict my statement that DRM is not > yet entrenched?
It doesn't - I just think that we have other problems with GPL that should be adressed now, not DRM.
Slashdot Mirror
> You mean you need 32 bits to have long filenames?
> Will we hear the same bullsh*t when moving to 64 bits?
No. I mean that "command" is somewhat different from "cmd" (look for parent posts). "Command" emulates DOS interpereter (on Windows XP) - so it does not have access to long names.
(...)
> But other commands in the Windows CLI do not offer
> this freedom. I think it was a big mistake.
I fully agree that Windows CLI sucks ass (as for XP) but only thing I wanted to say that "command" is an emulator of DOS so it is obvious that it will not support long file names. The native shell of Windows (XP) is "cmd".
> 3. In command.com, I cannot seem to change long paths with
> cd command like: cd "Program Files". It says: Parameter not correct - "program.
Command.com (at least in XP, I haven't been testing Vista since I get nothing for testing it) is old 16-bit interpreter - think DOS. In XP the shell is "cmd" - which is 32-bit supports long names etc.
Yeah I think he stinks. :) Mybe Novel or Ubuntu should *pay* him to get a nice shallow review of their products. ;) Nice way to make money.
> The only people who care about Vista release "deadlines" are corporate stock holders.
Yeah sure. It is not that hardware vendors wait for Vista since it boost their sales. It is not that people that *plan* purchases of new PCs (and systems) plan to get the best option. It is not that software vendors need to think how to manage how to cope withThe New OS (its advantages, its incompatibilities etc.). It is not like people planning *new* deployments (like in comming years) consider Vista as OS.
There are in fact quite *some* of folks that are dependant on Windows new OS release and they need to plan their actions. I can imagine (I am free of this crap since I don't use Windows) that *some* people can be concerned with MS actions.
But again - this is nothing new - common MS (which is near-monopoly status so they can basically do what they want) pracices. Like to (few years in advance) announce the product which will have all *current* competing products features.
Oh! Now I get it. Now I actually read the article which says that Real will distribute Firefox along with its downloads, not the other way (Mozlilla will distribute Real). Way to go.
I wonder what consequences will it have:
- when I download Firefox I will be faced with a webpage that urges me to get RealPlayer (but I still can opt-out from that)?
- when I download Firefox I will be forced to grab 20MB setup.exe only to choose to not install RealPlayer and only install Firefox which is about 5MB?
I am curious because in fact I hate RealPlayer and consider that is RealCrap. But on I don't mean Mozilla getting some money and pumping it into developement of its open source products.
So in fact it remains to be seen how they will implement this cooperation.
> Currently they're too busy reworking the internals of
:)
:) I havent seen it so I just assume it is a big messover there. Anyway that was not my point - my point was that MS with its market-share could do just about anything. They probably could just drop any support for old technologies and still not face any signigficant consequences. They literaly can shape up the market - whatever Windows demands to run - hardware vendors will supply it. I think it is a big advantage, but sadly they (MS) can't use it properly.
;)
> Windows to be somewhat maintainable to add features.
I would say their are working to fix the sh**.
> This isn't a question of manpower--you don't want to
> add any features to unstable code.
Yes as it would make the code more unstable. But I think problem with N+1 Windows is that it is getting to bloated. In some point of time they'll just *have* to rewrite everything and throw old shit away - that is why I like Linux, these folks just can throw old technology away and use new one.
> Whether Microsoft will innovate once its codebase is
> stable and maintainable is debatable.
Wheter this codebase will be ever maintanable and stable I don't know.
> The only innovation it's been providing so far, that I can
> see, is in DirectX. The original innovation there was speed
> --originally, OpenGL was slower than DirectX. Recently, though,
> OpenGL has become much faster than equivalent versions of
> DirectX. Add to that the fact that OpenGL is a higher level
> API, and you've got little reason to use DirectX, unless you
> actually need low-level access.
Also I find that OpenGl is an industry standard - not some jungle. F.e. in virtualisation software (like VMWare which is the leader here) there is beta functionality to virtualise even OpenGL direct access - I think it is possible (I really don't know much about DirectX/OpenGL). The test option in VMWare is that you can run OpenGL (but only - not DirectX) apps in guest operating system and the apps get direct access to host hardware - like a wrapper, OpenGL over virtualized OpenGL - so OpenGl must be more high-level.
> Access control lists in Windows seem more flexible than UNIX groups,
> but this is only useful in multiuser settings; and groups are a more
> orderly method except in exceptional circumstances.
That is true. Access security system in Windows is *much* more flexible than on classic unices - but also it is much more complicated so in efect few users really get it.
> So, no, there's been little recent innovation from Microsoft operating
> systems. But then, systems work is a matter of perturbing arrangements
> these days; what *can* Microsoft do? Create an entirely new OS paradigm?
They surely can do it. By *can* I mean that they are able to bend entire market to switch to anything, not that by *can* I mean they are able to do so since I belive they are to lame.
> Actually, even if they stayed in the same one and started a new OS
> series, that might be a good thing.
That would be a great thing. Same like once there was 9x for desktops and NT for server line which finally got to desktops. I think now they could have come up with entirely new system for servers (and all the killer apps such like Exchange for it) in time work up compatibility with legacy stuff and release it as new consumer OS - just exactly the same like they did with NT. Right now their are like catching up - not really doing something that gives advantage in technology.
> When a customer has a certain *need* in mind (eg: exterior color,
> small size, portability, quietness) it becomes one of the selling
> features of the product
Also: yes that is true - but reason I written that things are going to change is that I see PC buyers simply do not know that the thing can be more quiet and also send emails, that the thing can be smaller and also browse the web, that the thing can be easier to use etc.
Of course most of people look at the cost - but also comparing to automobiles - most users are cost concious but still they would pay more for new Toyota with asurance and so on that used ford that also drives, even if it is more expensive.
I think the matter is that people just don't know the alternatives so assume crappy beige-PCs as a standard. So after all it is a good move from MS - that does not cost them much to produce such sugestions. But we will see how that will go...
Also Apple recently (few years) introduced a product that is quite good is nice designed and works (I mean Macs) - and their sales just go up. This is nice trend and that is why I think that it will change and people will notice that there are alternatives.
> Great point on the deeper design though. I never addressed
> it originally but UI design and ease of use are one of the
> most important factors in PC Development IMHO.
And with this in mind Apple is in better situation - they design hardware AND software. They control it from ground up. Only thing MS can do is issue some directions/sugestions - but it actually won't matter.
On the other way MS has such power with its install base that I think that they can force anything on hardware suppliers - just introduce some new cool technology in the os, document it, leave no path od stepping out of it and hardware vendors cannot do anything that just comply. It is sad that they don't laverage this power to innovate but only to get richer (I know - normal business).
> A lot of little old ladies or folks getting in and out of
:) Meaning knowing shit about microwave owens (and keeping in mind that most of them are basically the same - they microwave and do 1000 other things that you don't care of).
> ferraris fit into these two categories. It's the 'noob'
> market. Businesses, geeks, nerds, and probably 80%
> of computer purchasers (per unit, not per person) are not
> going to be affected by the prettiness of the thing.
Well I think that is going to change as PCs (and similar) start to become more of a commodity.
Few anegdotes:
Some time ago I went with my father to get a new microwave oven (just for company - I don't live with my parents for like 8 years). When we got to the shop the salesman asked what we wish - my father said just "a brown microwave so it will fit my kitchen" - really.
Also recently I was getting a new washing machine. Got to the shop and stood in front of like 100 washing machines that everyone got class A in power consumption and I just basically looked on factor (can washing machine have features?) and look of it.
So I think it is important how a product looks. Given that you don't know anything about it technical matters you will base your opinion on the look. And it is perfectly normal.
Now these MS sugesstions are flawed because they focus just on the look and exteria. Computer design is deeper than that. The thing should look nice - but also it should be quiet, it should be comfortable to use and so on. That is why recently when buing computers I bought Mac Mini for my entartainment system (I use it only to listen to music, watch movies, browse the web - I cannot really work on OSX, I use Linux for work). For the price I could have assembled much more powerfull PC machine - but it wouldn't be so nice looking, it wouldn't be so small, and it wouldn't be so quiet. So I bought a Mac mostly due to its *design* (not technical specs). But still MS misses it - it is not only about the look, it is about design.
I don't know if they designed them but some of their keyboards and mices are quite nice. :)
p x?view=22&pcid=c250fb0a-1613-4550-983d-ba203f35769 8
Take a look
http://www.microsoft.com/products/info/default.as
(but their website with this crappy URL is for sure not well designed)
> Also, Novell seems to support the non-enterprise users more than
> Redhat (and their Opensuse distro is much more stable than Fedora).
Actually right now Novell is in transiction - the efect is that there would not be no SUSE - only OpenSUSE as base for enterprise and the free OS. So SUSE does not have an equivalent of Fedora.
> Did you think about CONVERTING the Corel files to ANOTHER format,
And loosing data along the process? No thanks.
> then using them in a n00b app (OpenOffice, et. al.), then converting
> back to Corel format (if nessessrary)? Doesn't that make some logical sense?
No it doesn't. It would with the assumption that the conversion is perfect. But it isn't.
> It's a feature, and a pretty cool one. I wouldn't mind this in Linux. This is not a bad thing.
.oldver_important_document.txt.[1] .oldver_important_document.txt.[2] .oldver_important_document.txt.[3] .oldver_important_document.txt.[4] .oldver_important_document.txt.[5] ...
I think it could be very easy done on Linux. Just write a library that intercepts certain system functions. And than LD_PRELOAD it. F.e. if it encounters file overwrite it renames the old file like:
important_document.txt
I think also it would be easy to enable it on a per directory basis. Like put file ".liboldver" in a directory to enable it. Inside that file set options (like max no. of versions, max size, max age and so on) for that directory.
As for GUI to it would be extremely easy to implement it with above in mind (just read a listing of files).
>> ... but it does not really matter if he is revelant or not. It makes no difference ...
... Don't buy them - nobody FORCES you to buy this stuff, you do it with your own choice.
> Thank you for making my point. I say he's not relevant and you say it doesn't
> matter if he's relevant?
Yes, that is what I did.
> Way to go. Sounds like your saying the same thing I am. Linus' opinion
> is not relevant. Thanks.
No I didn't said that. But it still makes no difference.
>>
> Let me try to explain it in simpler terms.
> I own Linux.
No, you don't. You don't either own the name Linux, nor you own the copyright to the code (or do you? I am certain that I don't). You have rights to use it under a license, you don't actually own it.
> You do too and so does everyone else (including Bill Gates, Steve Balmer and
> George W. Bush, BTW). Our license allows manufacturers to create products
> using our operating system kernel,etc.. so long as they do not take away
> our freedom. It goes agains the spirit of the GPL if they can bypass that
> just by locking the hardware so that it will only operate with their "approved"
> signed binaries.
Don't use such hardware. Simple. Nobody forces you to use it.
> I like how you guys accepted his initial report unquestioningly,
I don't want to speak for everybody but as for me I just didn't care about initial report at all. What striked me with his (apparently not his) are few things:
- he didn't state the name of company he bought fake Windows copy - if somebody ripped me of like that company did to him I would post details of this company from three reasons: to get satisfaction, to warn others that the company is not worth buing from and to get everybody to know that this company sells fake stuff so everybody can recheck what he had bought from them
- I don't quite belive in companies selling fake copies of Windows. It don't happens now, they just have to much to loose - maybe in China, but not the US (if it doesn't happen here in Poland I don't think that it happens in US)
- the things he says are in purely MS-marketing speech, compare it to his other texts
(...)
> "It is too obvious. I am not a language expert but I can even see
> different style of writing/expressing in discussed post that in
> his other works."
> You're seeing what you want to see.
Not really. When I was in college we (meaning my colege it was CS facilty only) designed system for big university. The system was build to allow automated scanning for plagiarism - it analysed various aspects, like style, no. of phrased used usually by author etc.
When I read his post (I've read few others) I can feel difference.
> The reason for the different style in writing is because he's essentially
> writing a retraction of his original charge. The initial report was charging
> Microsoft with wrongdoing,
It wasn't charging MS - he just noticed something and was not really certain if the copy is legitimate.
If some company would sell me invalid copy (pirated) ofo software on purpose I would post EVERY DETAIL on that company that I have.
Just to make others safe from that company. He didn't that leads to conclusion that he is full of shit. Also posting such insult requires me to be real about it since if I wouldn't the resseler would sue my ass.
Now after reading (yes I did read that crap) a bit lenghty article on how MS is great, how they suprised him with their support and kindlyness, how it can happen to anyone, blah, blah, blah. I just see MS marketing bullshit in it and the guy getting kind of rich from just blogging what MS suggest him to blog.
It is too obvious. I am not a language expert but I can even see different style of writing/expressing in discussed post that in his other works.
> Exactly. Create limited user accounts, and only let them use those.
:) But when you take admin rights from users that means you are the admin for them. And that will lead to less mess/work that allowing clueless users to admin. Really. :)
I've meant that as a punishment.
> Many (poorly-written) pieces of software claim that administrator
> privileges are necessary, but there are (almost) always F/OSS equivalents
> that don't have such a ridiculous requirement.
That is bullshit. In deed many of closed source software are poorly written and *tend* (go on with reading) to require admin rights. But stating that FOSS has all the equivalents is plain bullshit and a lie that in the end will make no good for FOSS.
FOSS is nice for some task but it *lacks* some of the apps and don't lie anybody that it doesn't. It is a bad advocacy and serves no purpose.
As for old Windows applications that conflict with LUA principle - that can be get over with. You just need to work around it. There are plenty of tools which help - compatibility mode, toolkits and so on. You can set access rights for apps and so on. So really some stupid app writing directly to C:\ can be tricked to work under LUA. It just requires some knowledge, but please don't state that it can't be done.
As a disclaimer - for my own computing needs I use Linux only and I love it.
Yeah right. Not that Corel does vector graphics and gimp is retarded (and does bitmap graphics). ;) Not that she probably uses Corel since she gets these files from work or some other third party. And so on...
I happen to work in a company that uses Corel for its main business (drawing maps of trade fairs - Corel is a wordlwide standard) and I assure you - there is no piece of software for Linux that does what Corel does in sane (from wide point of view, features/price/user-friendlyness etc.) way. Just live with it.
I use Linux mostly for all my computing needs - but please stay connected with reality.
Oh and WINE will not do any good since it really cannot run Corel in usefull way.
It is not about the apps - it is about file formats. No app for Linux that opens Corel files.
Don't give her admin rights...
Just an offside note.
MacBook is too small for me. I like big screen in my current laptop.
You can start whatever you feel you like. Don't ask me what you need to do. :) You need to know that on your own.
But I think that with a psychology background you can go into stuff like:
- user/computer interaction - UI design, translations, documentation, implementation, quality control etc.
- new media (i.e. Internet) marketing
I think these are quite interesting areas. But of course you can do anything you wish and feel like doing.
> Or, they can just not document the API (which I get the impression is
> what they're trying to do now), in which case people will reverse engineer
> the software that uses it and they'll find out how what they need to know.
> Malware writers and legit software writers alike.
Legit software writers *cannot* reverse engineer. I think that in USA under the DMCA it is prohibited to overcome secuity measures by reverse engeenering. FIXME
> Here's an example. One of the copy-prevention measures in blu-ray is that each disc must
> have a cryptographically secure id that indicates the manufacturing plant which stamped
> it out. Else the players won't play them. That means that if you want to distribute your
> own videos on blu-ray, you must go get your discs manufactured by one of these officially
> licensed plants. Else your stuff won't work.
So Sony is basically shooting itself in foot again (CF, MiniDisc and whatever own format they come up with). I don't really care AFAIK BLU-RAY has alternative - so they are going to make their media more expensive (since the market will be controlled there will be no real competition and prices will be high). I don't care really - that mean I will not use BLU-RAY since it will be more price ly. Simple.
> Today, BLU-RAY is a molecule of H2O to the bucket of water that is DVD. But Sony sure as hell
> wants BLU-RAY to dominate like DVD has.
> So, today you can avoid being impeded by DRM. But if Sony's wet dream comes true, anyone who
> wants to publish a hi-def video would have to suffer the effects of Sony's DRM, they would
> have no choice.
But actually they have, a choice. HD-DVD has such restrictions?
(...)
> Gee, how does this contradict my statement that DRM is not
> yet entrenched?
It doesn't - I just think that we have other problems with GPL that should be adressed now, not DRM.