and also when cost is considerd, most products with lightning fast delivery times are high dollar or high volume items... a laptop generally is high dollar, in this case its neither.... it would be impossible to sell this laptop at this cost if they had to pay for blazing fast shipping in (for the parts) and then back out to the customer, it would undoubtly raise the cost significantly.... now my only remaning question is who works in their assembly plant? orphens and widows? at these prices id be weary of supporting a "sweat shop" although they are in a country with laws aganst it, doesnt mean their assembly plant is too....
there only "in" the kernel if you compile them in on your next kernel compile, or if your distro compiles them in at install.... if they wernt "in" the kernel, then linux would have no way of understanding those filesystems, or methods of virtualization... asfar as end user confusion, if your technical enough to NEED them, you'll understand what they do and how they work, if not, then having them "in the kernel (or even actually compiled into that spefic kernel) wont hurt anything, as the user will probably never use them. I agree too many choices only creat confusion and a segmented market, but in the case of File systems, and virtualization, the choices dont "compete"... there may be some overlap, but they each solve different problems and needs of different people....
in any large company today, the first knee jerk reaction to the statment of fact that they have a issue with a product will be a knee jerk reaction from corperate "how dare you think our products are shitty" after the engeneers and customers can get the point accrost that its not that they think the product is "shitty" just that it has (in some cases serious) issues that need to be worked out, thats what defines weather its "good faith"... if i came into your place of buisness and accused you of under performing and all these mean nasty things, ofcourse your going to get defensive, but if i present facts to you that show that im right, you will start to agree. at that point the company (or you) should take steps to correct the problem, and move on. It would only be bad faith if the company (or you) continued denying the problem for a prolonged period after the facts all came to light. MS (and im no MS fanboy, look at my previous posts on other topics, and good karma) was probably waiting to get a solid fix for the problem, and confirm with the warranty reps that there was infact a problem before they pulled down their pants and beared it all so to speak... the point is, that they had a issue, they have admited it, and have extended a "fix" (extended warranty) to customers to show good faith... i would almost say its a safe bet that all the new machines comming off the line asof today will not have the problems the older ones had, as the time they were "denying" the problem they were also working on a fix... if as a large company i admit i have a issue, but no fix, consumers tend to get upset and distrust the company more than if they only admit theres a problem once they have the fix. You'll find this buisness practice in MANY large companys. Be glad that they have actually extended anything to the customers, as technically if the warranty epired, theres not much ground for the consumer to stand on legally to sue over (however IANAL) unless ofcourse the failure of the unit also caused collatral dammages, such as burning down a house, transforming into a deadly xbox terminator and wipeing out whole familys etc.... MS saw they were loosing customers over this, and once they had it all worked out, took steps to address the issue, and to retain their customers...
Eveything breaks... its a fact of life, from the space shuttle to the keyboard you typed your comment on... it all will eventually break. While the 360 did and may still continue to have quality control issues, its how the company handles the situation from that point thats importand, and recently MS have really impressed me with the way the handle most of the issues (with a few noted exceptions which any large company will have). Although they tried to supress the fact that they were having issues, they have now admited it, and in good faith. They extended the warranty to show good faith, not because they were obligated to, or had to.... infact many companys have problematic products still on shelves and refuse to service or extend the warranty once the issue becomes known... Just be glad you can get it fixed is what im trying to say here....
Hand some people free apples (free extended warranty), and they'll complain they havent been cored and seeded yet....
(when secret contracts are outlawed, only outlaws will have secret contracts) i think thats kind of the point, as last time i checked there arnt many "outlaws" that head fortune 500 companies etc... infact although they tend to be sleezy cheep bastards, they try to avoid "outlaw" status at all costs (as its usually pretty easy for the goverment to fuck them if they wanted to)
the lie is obvious because the funding records can be pulled, and the cost of tape is cheep, alot cheeper than a lawsuit of alleged police buritality... As a defendent, the first thing i would question is why they only record a "sampling" of them, as the camera is there for both the officer's and civillians protection, i would want it rolling on every traffic stop (basically when the lights come on, the camera should too, the only way to turn off the camera should be to put the patrol car into drive, but thats outside the scopt of this article)... Any responce the officer can give asto why that camera was turned off should be questioned and treated with extreme suspicion...
to the AC that replied to the parent post, it doesnt matter weather the Officer is honest or not, as there is no reason the camera should have been turned off in the first place... If he's honest, then hes BUSTED... if he lies... its obviously a lie, and hes just as busted....
Theres a pretty good defence aganst your theory though.... Officer Bob, can we please see the videotape from your cruser on the night of may 12, when the victum alleges you beat him for speeding? Uh, Your Honor, i wasnt recording the incident.... Officer Bob, why wernt you recording the incident? I was afrade the suspect would film me aswell, so i turned off my camera.... Why were you afrade to be filmed.... BUSTED... theres NO REASON why the officer should ever NOT videotape the incident...
you are partially correct, firefox has a huge marketing engine the Get Firefox campaign, the ad in the NY times... etc... however, the real problem with IE isnt its dominance, is that its installed by default, not giving competition a chance, im sure Firefox, Opera, Safari, hell, probably even lynx! would have more market share if the customer had to Choose which browser to use... but arguing this point is like arguing that sony doesnt get enough marketshare because ford uses Panasonic sterios in all there cars.... Sony would have more share in the car stereo market if ford shipped all there cars w/o a stereo, and made the customer choose which after market product to slip into that ugly hold in the dash... so i do understand where MS stands on this option....
Also, the type of user that would "never realize they are using a different program" are the exact type of users that wouldnt use Safari after they "try" it because those users are trained to click on the "Big Blue e" to get on the inter-tubes!
i was just about to post the same thought... when going up aganst a de-facto standard such as IE, introducing competors into the market doesnt decrease IE's marketshare (as the users switching from IE, they do so because there unhappy with IE... not just to support OSS, as such the number of users switching is independent of the number of alternitives (solong as there IS a alternitive that functions as expected) and more dependent on the users determinitation to goto sompthing better...) as such, adding safari, knoqueror etc to the windows platform will only serve to fragment the "competing" market and not impact the "dominate product" in any noticable way... however, i for one, welcome out KHTML coding overlords.....
i would have rtfa if there wasnt a HUGE ad right overtop the text that SCROLLED with the screen, and wouldnt DIE.... arg, im never going to that website again...
the magic pills im taking are sompthing called apt-get, which is a huge repo of trustable functional free software, sompthing that windows doesnt have, so its users scurry all over the web installing whatever crap they can find..... (most users, not yourself) where kubuntu makes this practive hard for the adverage user, and the use of apt exceedingly simple....
idk, i started out as a fluxbos and windowmaker geek, and now i have kind of grown fond of stadard kde, i play with beryl every now and again, however all the "bells and whistles" are just perks and playtime for me, i find kde more... robust when it comes to providing a useable enviroment, and that most of my time in fluxbox or windowmaker was just playing with the menu's and widgets.... trying to come up with a system that made sence to me...
i wouldnt flag it as off topic as its about the article at hand and your ability to READ it, congratulations for being with the.000001% here that actually RTFA (or try to...)
Ok so using lets say Joe Comic, owner of The Comic Shack, wants to use a Open Source Solution for his POS terminal (register), so he contacts some major distirbutor, gets his POS terminal, sets it all up, and hires Marty to run the register at 5.50/hr, marty being a bit of a geek (hence working in a comic shop for minimum wage) also knows a good deal about unix, linux, and malware... so lets say Marty see's the profits The Comic Shack generates, and decides he wants more than minimum wage, so he writes a nice little kernel module to add 20% onto any transaction run through the register, or pull 20% off the top of any transaction... or even just simply log card numbers etc.... now when Joe Comic's customers decide to SUE The Comic Shack for ripping them off, or Joe audits his financial logs, and discovers the discrepancies... he's going to goto the Open Source Solution provider and ask why wasnt the POS terminal tamper proof (is when unauthroized or modified code was loaded, why did it still run?)... the only answer the Open Source Solution provider could offer would be... its Illegal under the GPL 3 for us to offer a Open Source Solution that runs on Tamper Proof hardware.... where as with the exception... Joe Comic gets the Tamper Proof POS Terminals, Marty attempts to load his code, the register wont boot, Marty is fired.... So you decide if this clause doesnt have its merits, i however can see where it could play a useful role...
Re:The GPL: Intellectual Theft
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
2 points:
1 bsd style licence is there so that people dont HAVE to give back, if the developers wanted to encourage this notion they should have created/chosen a gpl-ish licence
2 more recently its been the bsd people actually STEALING code from the gpl camp... see the recent driver fiasco, where the only thing the bsd camp needed to do ask ask permission to help with their own driver variant, but instead of asking, they ripped it right off and stripped the gpl out of the code...
Re:The GPL: Intellectual Theft
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
now IAMAL but its my understanding that unless you intend to redistribute the modified operating system, or expect customers to interact with a box (tivo style) running the modified operating system, that any and all changes could be kept private, and also i would suggest getting a second opinion about the whole issue with compiling code using gcc needing to be opensourced.... the GPL in general just keeps companies and people from taking away the freedoms inherent with opensource.... the only REAL worry these days comes from outside patent holders with a lack of indemnification for using linux products it wouldnt be hard for companies to go on a FUD/Lawsuit rampage (sco style) and really stir up a world of legal shit...
anyway... I would strongly advice a second opinion about the GPL than the one your lawyer gave you as it seemes like it was flawwed, and runs counter to most knoldage on the gpl ive come accrost.... now again IANAL and all i can go on is my own expirence so i strongly suggest you talk to a(nother) lawyer more indepth reguarding these topics...
Court is now in session for the case of Microsoft vs Anonymous Coward(s).... for the Microsoft would like to call ALL of the F/OSS company... err.. community to the stand for cross examination....
Well where i live and work (while im within 5 miles from work to home... i got lucky) most people around here cant afford to move closer to their job because there already streached pretty tight financially, and theres not many jobs around here that are well paying and that are hireing.... i looked for months to find where im at now, and am still looking although nothing has come along.... i had to take a job that paid atleast what my monthly bills were, and those arnt always EASY to find, especially when your talking about more Rural Areas, like Charleston WV... Big city... kind of.... most people here commute 30+ miles to find a good neighborhood, and a decent place to live..... moving closer to work isnt a option as its more expensive, and in a worse neighborhood.... finding a closer job isnt a option either as there are no closer jobs..... Also... Public transportation here sucks.... the buses dont stop in every small town from here to the next big city, and the distance to some bus stops is a 30+ miniute drive... i couldnt imagin that bike ride.... esp in the winter....
My point was, Merck is grossly over charging for this medicin... if Merck did keep the medicin under trade secret instead of patented, atleast the Brazilian goverment could have used the knock off drug without all this fiasco.... even the US Goverment rates Human Life Higher than Contract Law... Your suggesting IP and Contracts are More important than Human Life... and if you calculate how much Merck is charging, it comes to well over 1.8B per YEAR in profits, at that rate, it would take less than a year to fully recoupe all the money lost in R&D.... But the patent lasts 10 YEARS.... Thats why the WTO puts this clause in, to keep companys like Merck from overcharging like they do.... Instead of the media reconizing this, and basically scolding Merck, they say woah... the WTO is evil and bad because it doesnt respect IP rights etc...
YOU have tha ability to take out loans, sell your house and car, buy cheeper ones etc... alot of people dont... people who rent and already ride a bike to work, people who dont have healthcare and litteraly live week to week pay check to pay check, who dont have the blessing of our goverment that would rather have the drug now, for a REASONABLE price, if you look at the math i provided a few comments up, you'll see that the drug company is asking WAY too much money for this medicin, there asking what ammounts to well OVER 1.8 Billion a year in profit alone! (thats after you account for materials and manafacturing!) even the most outlandish estimates ive seen here on/. of how much it costs to develope a drug (usually around 1 Billion, and no source or proof provided) Would be recouped within the first year by the company.... Drug patents are lasting on adverage 10+ YEARS.... thats 900% profit or MORE! so yes, while i would want companys to continue research, i would like them to do it at a REASONABLE price.... and to those of you who claim it costs more than 1 Billion to develope a drug... i want sources.... break downs of salaries, R&D costs, and why it would cost so much, i do understand theres money involved, but 1 Billion is a tad high for me to beleave.... I've provided links to all my sourced in every argument ive made, if you want to rebut it, please do the same, and not post wild guesses and unsubstanciated facts....
Well thank you for a cival argument, youve just made my friends list:) Most people around here just want to sling mud, i do enjoy a good debate though.... (the kind where facts are involved:^) )
Slashdot Mirror
and also when cost is considerd, most products with lightning fast delivery times are high dollar or high volume items... a laptop generally is high dollar, in this case its neither.... it would be impossible to sell this laptop at this cost if they had to pay for blazing fast shipping in (for the parts) and then back out to the customer, it would undoubtly raise the cost significantly.... now my only remaning question is who works in their assembly plant? orphens and widows? at these prices id be weary of supporting a "sweat shop" although they are in a country with laws aganst it, doesnt mean their assembly plant is too....
there only "in" the kernel if you compile them in on your next kernel compile, or if your distro compiles them in at install.... if they wernt "in" the kernel, then linux would have no way of understanding those filesystems, or methods of virtualization... asfar as end user confusion, if your technical enough to NEED them, you'll understand what they do and how they work, if not, then having them "in the kernel (or even actually compiled into that spefic kernel) wont hurt anything, as the user will probably never use them. I agree too many choices only creat confusion and a segmented market, but in the case of File systems, and virtualization, the choices dont "compete"... there may be some overlap, but they each solve different problems and needs of different people....
in any large company today, the first knee jerk reaction to the statment of fact that they have a issue with a product will be a knee jerk reaction from corperate "how dare you think our products are shitty" after the engeneers and customers can get the point accrost that its not that they think the product is "shitty" just that it has (in some cases serious) issues that need to be worked out, thats what defines weather its "good faith"... if i came into your place of buisness and accused you of under performing and all these mean nasty things, ofcourse your going to get defensive, but if i present facts to you that show that im right, you will start to agree. at that point the company (or you) should take steps to correct the problem, and move on. It would only be bad faith if the company (or you) continued denying the problem for a prolonged period after the facts all came to light. MS (and im no MS fanboy, look at my previous posts on other topics, and good karma) was probably waiting to get a solid fix for the problem, and confirm with the warranty reps that there was infact a problem before they pulled down their pants and beared it all so to speak... the point is, that they had a issue, they have admited it, and have extended a "fix" (extended warranty) to customers to show good faith... i would almost say its a safe bet that all the new machines comming off the line asof today will not have the problems the older ones had, as the time they were "denying" the problem they were also working on a fix... if as a large company i admit i have a issue, but no fix, consumers tend to get upset and distrust the company more than if they only admit theres a problem once they have the fix. You'll find this buisness practice in MANY large companys. Be glad that they have actually extended anything to the customers, as technically if the warranty epired, theres not much ground for the consumer to stand on legally to sue over (however IANAL) unless ofcourse the failure of the unit also caused collatral dammages, such as burning down a house, transforming into a deadly xbox terminator and wipeing out whole familys etc.... MS saw they were loosing customers over this, and once they had it all worked out, took steps to address the issue, and to retain their customers...
Eveything breaks... its a fact of life, from the space shuttle to the keyboard you typed your comment on... it all will eventually break. While the 360 did and may still continue to have quality control issues, its how the company handles the situation from that point thats importand, and recently MS have really impressed me with the way the handle most of the issues (with a few noted exceptions which any large company will have). Although they tried to supress the fact that they were having issues, they have now admited it, and in good faith. They extended the warranty to show good faith, not because they were obligated to, or had to.... infact many companys have problematic products still on shelves and refuse to service or extend the warranty once the issue becomes known... Just be glad you can get it fixed is what im trying to say here....
Hand some people free apples (free extended warranty), and they'll complain they havent been cored and seeded yet....
Well in that case i move to classify spam as a dangerous addictive drug, with no medicinal value!
you cant get a "pipe" as pipes are considerd drug parafinalia, and as such illegal!
the lie is obvious because the funding records can be pulled, and the cost of tape is cheep, alot cheeper than a lawsuit of alleged police buritality... As a defendent, the first thing i would question is why they only record a "sampling" of them, as the camera is there for both the officer's and civillians protection, i would want it rolling on every traffic stop (basically when the lights come on, the camera should too, the only way to turn off the camera should be to put the patrol car into drive, but thats outside the scopt of this article)... Any responce the officer can give asto why that camera was turned off should be questioned and treated with extreme suspicion...
to the AC that replied to the parent post, it doesnt matter weather the Officer is honest or not, as there is no reason the camera should have been turned off in the first place... If he's honest, then hes BUSTED... if he lies... its obviously a lie, and hes just as busted....
Theres a pretty good defence aganst your theory though.... Officer Bob, can we please see the videotape from your cruser on the night of may 12, when the victum alleges you beat him for speeding? Uh, Your Honor, i wasnt recording the incident.... Officer Bob, why wernt you recording the incident? I was afrade the suspect would film me aswell, so i turned off my camera.... Why were you afrade to be filmed.... BUSTED... theres NO REASON why the officer should ever NOT videotape the incident...
you are partially correct, firefox has a huge marketing engine the Get Firefox campaign, the ad in the NY times... etc... however, the real problem with IE isnt its dominance, is that its installed by default, not giving competition a chance, im sure Firefox, Opera, Safari, hell, probably even lynx! would have more market share if the customer had to Choose which browser to use... but arguing this point is like arguing that sony doesnt get enough marketshare because ford uses Panasonic sterios in all there cars.... Sony would have more share in the car stereo market if ford shipped all there cars w/o a stereo, and made the customer choose which after market product to slip into that ugly hold in the dash... so i do understand where MS stands on this option.... Also, the type of user that would "never realize they are using a different program" are the exact type of users that wouldnt use Safari after they "try" it because those users are trained to click on the "Big Blue e" to get on the inter-tubes!
i was just about to post the same thought... when going up aganst a de-facto standard such as IE, introducing competors into the market doesnt decrease IE's marketshare (as the users switching from IE, they do so because there unhappy with IE... not just to support OSS, as such the number of users switching is independent of the number of alternitives (solong as there IS a alternitive that functions as expected) and more dependent on the users determinitation to goto sompthing better...) as such, adding safari, knoqueror etc to the windows platform will only serve to fragment the "competing" market and not impact the "dominate product" in any noticable way... however, i for one, welcome out KHTML coding overlords.....
i would have rtfa if there wasnt a HUGE ad right overtop the text that SCROLLED with the screen, and wouldnt DIE.... arg, im never going to that website again...
the magic pills im taking are sompthing called apt-get, which is a huge repo of trustable functional free software, sompthing that windows doesnt have, so its users scurry all over the web installing whatever crap they can find..... (most users, not yourself) where kubuntu makes this practive hard for the adverage user, and the use of apt exceedingly simple....
idk, i started out as a fluxbos and windowmaker geek, and now i have kind of grown fond of stadard kde, i play with beryl every now and again, however all the "bells and whistles" are just perks and playtime for me, i find kde more... robust when it comes to providing a useable enviroment, and that most of my time in fluxbox or windowmaker was just playing with the menu's and widgets.... trying to come up with a system that made sence to me...
i wouldnt flag it as off topic as its about the article at hand and your ability to READ it, congratulations for being with the .000001% here that actually RTFA (or try to...)
Ok so using lets say Joe Comic, owner of The Comic Shack, wants to use a Open Source Solution for his POS terminal (register), so he contacts some major distirbutor, gets his POS terminal, sets it all up, and hires Marty to run the register at 5.50/hr, marty being a bit of a geek (hence working in a comic shop for minimum wage) also knows a good deal about unix, linux, and malware... so lets say Marty see's the profits The Comic Shack generates, and decides he wants more than minimum wage, so he writes a nice little kernel module to add 20% onto any transaction run through the register, or pull 20% off the top of any transaction... or even just simply log card numbers etc.... now when Joe Comic's customers decide to SUE The Comic Shack for ripping them off, or Joe audits his financial logs, and discovers the discrepancies... he's going to goto the Open Source Solution provider and ask why wasnt the POS terminal tamper proof (is when unauthroized or modified code was loaded, why did it still run?)... the only answer the Open Source Solution provider could offer would be... its Illegal under the GPL 3 for us to offer a Open Source Solution that runs on Tamper Proof hardware.... where as with the exception... Joe Comic gets the Tamper Proof POS Terminals, Marty attempts to load his code, the register wont boot, Marty is fired.... So you decide if this clause doesnt have its merits, i however can see where it could play a useful role...
2 points: 1 bsd style licence is there so that people dont HAVE to give back, if the developers wanted to encourage this notion they should have created/chosen a gpl-ish licence 2 more recently its been the bsd people actually STEALING code from the gpl camp... see the recent driver fiasco, where the only thing the bsd camp needed to do ask ask permission to help with their own driver variant, but instead of asking, they ripped it right off and stripped the gpl out of the code...
now IAMAL but its my understanding that unless you intend to redistribute the modified operating system, or expect customers to interact with a box (tivo style) running the modified operating system, that any and all changes could be kept private, and also i would suggest getting a second opinion about the whole issue with compiling code using gcc needing to be opensourced.... the GPL in general just keeps companies and people from taking away the freedoms inherent with opensource.... the only REAL worry these days comes from outside patent holders with a lack of indemnification for using linux products it wouldnt be hard for companies to go on a FUD/Lawsuit rampage (sco style) and really stir up a world of legal shit... anyway... I would strongly advice a second opinion about the GPL than the one your lawyer gave you as it seemes like it was flawwed, and runs counter to most knoldage on the gpl ive come accrost.... now again IANAL and all i can go on is my own expirence so i strongly suggest you talk to a(nother) lawyer more indepth reguarding these topics...
Court is now in session for the case of Microsoft vs Anonymous Coward(s).... for the Microsoft would like to call ALL of the F/OSS company... err.. community to the stand for cross examination....
maby YOU should have watched the video... then you'd know its not fair use "right".... they exercised their fair use legaly defendable position.....
sorry... had to point that out....
Well where i live and work (while im within 5 miles from work to home... i got lucky) most people around here cant afford to move closer to their job because there already streached pretty tight financially, and theres not many jobs around here that are well paying and that are hireing.... i looked for months to find where im at now, and am still looking although nothing has come along.... i had to take a job that paid atleast what my monthly bills were, and those arnt always EASY to find, especially when your talking about more Rural Areas, like Charleston WV... Big city... kind of.... most people here commute 30+ miles to find a good neighborhood, and a decent place to live..... moving closer to work isnt a option as its more expensive, and in a worse neighborhood.... finding a closer job isnt a option either as there are no closer jobs..... Also... Public transportation here sucks.... the buses dont stop in every small town from here to the next big city, and the distance to some bus stops is a 30+ miniute drive... i couldnt imagin that bike ride.... esp in the winter....
My point was, Merck is grossly over charging for this medicin... if Merck did keep the medicin under trade secret instead of patented, atleast the Brazilian goverment could have used the knock off drug without all this fiasco.... even the US Goverment rates Human Life Higher than Contract Law... Your suggesting IP and Contracts are More important than Human Life... and if you calculate how much Merck is charging, it comes to well over 1.8B per YEAR in profits, at that rate, it would take less than a year to fully recoupe all the money lost in R&D.... But the patent lasts 10 YEARS.... Thats why the WTO puts this clause in, to keep companys like Merck from overcharging like they do.... Instead of the media reconizing this, and basically scolding Merck, they say woah... the WTO is evil and bad because it doesnt respect IP rights etc...
YOU have tha ability to take out loans, sell your house and car, buy cheeper ones etc... alot of people dont... people who rent and already ride a bike to work, people who dont have healthcare and litteraly live week to week pay check to pay check, who dont have the blessing of our goverment that would rather have the drug now, for a REASONABLE price, if you look at the math i provided a few comments up, you'll see that the drug company is asking WAY too much money for this medicin, there asking what ammounts to well OVER 1.8 Billion a year in profit alone! (thats after you account for materials and manafacturing!) even the most outlandish estimates ive seen here on /. of how much it costs to develope a drug (usually around 1 Billion, and no source or proof provided) Would be recouped within the first year by the company.... Drug patents are lasting on adverage 10+ YEARS.... thats 900% profit or MORE! so yes, while i would want companys to continue research, i would like them to do it at a REASONABLE price.... and to those of you who claim it costs more than 1 Billion to develope a drug... i want sources.... break downs of salaries, R&D costs, and why it would cost so much, i do understand theres money involved, but 1 Billion is a tad high for me to beleave.... I've provided links to all my sourced in every argument ive made, if you want to rebut it, please do the same, and not post wild guesses and unsubstanciated facts....
Well thank you for a cival argument, youve just made my friends list :) Most people around here just want to sling mud, i do enjoy a good debate though.... (the kind where facts are involved :^) )