It's just that on Windows (Vista?) and Linux (Gnome/KDE), there is a separate option, outside of any browser, which sets the browser preference.
And it does seem stupid to me that every browser for OS X has to re-implement an option that should've been in System Preferences. I suppose next you'll be telling me it make sense for your network settings to be in the browser?
With modifications, Mac OS X will run on virtually any modern x86 PC.
Right, by cracking the DRM. Doesn't mean Apple isn't trying.
That's also ignoring the driver issue. Apple certainly isn't going to write drivers for my custom-built nforce system, so who is?
What you mean to say is the reverse: they disallow running Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware.... This is a completely different thing than saying that they disallow making hardware that Mac OS X can run on.
How is different?
If they disallow running OS X on non-Apple hardware, then no one except Apple can create hardware which OS X can run on. The fact that Apple controls the OS, instead of the hardware, is an implementation detail -- and they do use the hardware (TPM) to make it difficult or impossible for non-Apple people to create hardware which an unmodified OS X can run on.
Or am I wrong? If so, why don't you show me a company that has, without Apple's blessing and without illegally modifying the OS, sold a piece of hardware which you can get OS X to run on?
They can track the IP address you logged on from. They already do that to nail people who are sharing accounts.
That strikes me as dangerous. We played WoW at a LAN party, and I can certainly imagine people playing it when they travel.
So, very easy to fool Blizzard into restoring your account (and doubling your gold in a few days is probably still an attractive prospect), and very easy for Blizzard to find you "character sharing" because you play from cybercafes.
Alright, I did not know that about the iPhone, and I apologize if you're right. But:
No, they don't.
Yes, they do, and you yourself admit this. You're simply arguing motive here, and you're wrong there, but the simple, obvious fact is, no one except Apple is allowed to manufacture a machine that OS X will run on. Good or bad, that is the truth, you know it, you even said it. In what ways is this not true?
Mac OS X itself requires Apple hardware because that is what it was designed for.
If that was true, then why is the licensing such that it's only legal to put it on Apple hardware? Why does the product actually attempt to disable itself when run on non-Apple hardware?
I seem to remember they used a Trusted Computing platform to do this. Essentially, if it doesn't trust your hardware, you don't get to run the OS.
And Steve Jobs doesn't like DRM? Bullshit. If it was just about hardware support, isn't it enough to simply declare ordinary PCs totally unsupported, but let people run it anyway if they want to? Even make it illegal in the licensing, but why did they have to include the technical measures?
Apple is not under any obligation to imitate Microsoft's business practices or licensing customs.
I am not under any obligation to answer your comment reasonably, instead of just giving you a GNAA/Goatse/Tubgirl/Lastmeasure link.
It can still be the decent thing to do, even if you're under no obligation to do it. So again, why does Apple go out of its way to make sure no one can run OS X on non-Apple hardware?
Well, duh. It's a form of lockdown that Microsoft dreams of -- the entire system is one, shiny package, and there is no competition for any part of it.
Now that HP has destroyed its own OS projects it does not have a right to Apple's OS on the same terms it made with Microsoft.
What does HP have to do with anything either of us said?
There are apps and hardware out there. You just have to know were to look.
Missing the point.
First, try doing what you described with an iPhone.
Second, note that you still have to buy an officially Apple-sanctioned computer to plug that hardware into. Apple doesn't care what hardware you add to it, as long as you bought a MacBook.
Think of it this way: Compare the diversity of the PC world to the diversity of Dell. I'm not saying Dells are bad, but I don't have to buy a Dell, I can buy a Gateway, an IBM, a Mac, even build my own (which I did). And of course, once I buy it, I can plug in external hardware.
But would you really ask everyone to ONLY buy Dells with Windows? ("But you can add on hardware and software!" No, I want to get different hardware for the base machine, and run Linux.)
When my phone boots, it shows me the Java logo. It also has a store from which I can buy and download games and such via EDGE, and I can only assume those would have to be running on Java for it to work on a sufficient number of devices to be worth doing.
And there may not be a cause/effect relationship, but there's certainly a pattern. 99% of all cellphones run Java and are a piece of shit in exactly the same way mine is: Plenty of 3rd-party software, but no custom (consumer-written) software.
Here's a simple one: Editable text which controls the behavior of a program, is not specifically requested by a user, is not meant to be automatically updated by the system (except through package management), and is not Turing-copmlete.
Thus, motd is editable text, controls the default behavior of login, and is certainly not Turing-complete. (Or, probably is not, and certainly wasn't intended to be.)
Init scripts are not, and libraries are not, because they're Turing-complete.
But no, I don't think you really have to draw the line anywhere. "Config file" is a bit like "Operating system" or even "Pornography" -- difficult or impossible to define properly, but we know it when we see it. Not useful if you have to get really technical -- for example, the files in initramfs may be config files, scripts, programs, or parts of the OS, but you generally just call them "files in initramfs" and don't care if they're part of the OS or not. But, useful to make broad distinctions -- for instance, if I were to write a new program called "WidgetWars", I'd have/etc/widgetwars.conf and ~/.widgetwars, because that's where config files go, whether I know how to define it perfectly or not.
Actually, it occurs to me -- "we know it when we see it" may be misleading, because we disagree about motd. However, if I told you to edit the config file for, say, ntp or sudo, you would know exactly what I meant (/etc/ntpd.conf,/etc/sudoers), and the worst that would happen is you'd get anal and say "That's not a config file!"
If 20% was Mac and 5% was Linux, I think more developers would seriously consider spending 25% of their budget on a Mac and Linux port. If the product was developed sanely in the first place, it wouldn't take more than one or two guys to do that port.
Then, if you ended up with, say, 80% of new apps supported on OS X and Linux, more people would consider buying a Mac or downloading a Linux distro. At that point, it would start to be a real competition based on which is really better, not so much which people are FORCED to use.
Apple controls the hardware, and prevents anyone from making other hardware on which to run Mac OS X. It's not just a matter of saying it's "unsupported", they actually go out of their way to make sure it does not happen.
You'll also notice many of the same strange practices as Microsoft, only moreso. Where is the option to set the default web browser? Why, it's in the Safari control panel! Just like similar options -- email client, HTML editor, etc -- are on the "Internet Options" control panel on Windows -- but that is actually in Control Panel, not just in IE.
Upgrades are more frequent and cost more, and are less compatible with previous versions than any Microsoft OS -- except Vista, maybe, but that seems likely to change.
And look at how they are handling the iPhone. NO third-party apps, the end. I don't like Windows Mobile either -- I'd prefer a nice Linux handheld (and these do exist) -- but at least Windows Mobile encourages third-party development. Even my cell phone, a Java piece of shit, allows me to download third-party apps to it.
And as much as I wanted to thank Apple for supporting standards (Safari passes Acid2) and open source (they sent patches back to Konqueror), I've found that I actually have more freedom on Windows than I do on OS X.
I still run Linux as my main desktop, and I might even still use OS X on my Powerbook (if I got it fixed), but that's because OS X is a good OS, not because I like Apple or wish them to take over the world. They strike me as somewhat less evil than Microsoft (their stuff actually works, and they do actually innovate), but far, far more proprietary.
their OS isn't FIPS compliant, and doesn't have the other certifications that Windows does.
What does "FIPS compliant" mean? And what options are there other than Windows?
If there are none, and "F" stands for "Federal", does that mean the government has gone from letting MS off easy on the antitrust suit to blatantly supporting them?
How do you define "configuration" to include motd, passwd, and init scripts but exclude things that go in/var and shared libraries?
With few exceptions,/var is stuff that pretty much changes all the time as part of its normal operation. You get new mail, new stuff is cached, much of it changes daily just from init scripts.
Yet, motd changes very rarely, and if it does change, it's probably the result of a user action -- that is, the admin wanted to put up a new message.
Then there's passwd, which is configuration of users. I still don't get how you argue that it's anything other than configuration. Without passwd, I'm still every bit as much a user as I always was -- as far as I know, the kernel doesn't care about passwd at all, only uids. It certainly isn't something which changes all the time, and what's more, it's something you generally want to have on boot, whereas it might be nice to have/var be a separate partition (you'll want/etc before you mount/var).
Shared libraries are an entirely different animal. While they can have their own config files, most shared libraries aren't meant to be edited by an admin. They're generally compiled, after all, which means editing isn't easy. And they're certainly distinct from passwd -- passwd does not contain executable code, and isn't even turing-complete.
The answer is that you don't have to, because/etc is about more than just configuration.
On this we're agreed, but I just thought it was odd that you picked passwd when init scripts are so much easier. Even though it's still nice to have editable init scripts, covered by a package manager's config file protection, versus uneditable binaries (which naturally go in the various bins). Even though init scripts can be seen as a configuration of how the system boots, and are often designed to be fairly simple shell scripts, so that any admin will have the skills required to edit them. Even given all of that, init scripts are much easier to call something other than configuration than passwd or fstab.
Yet another case of a legitimate use for cracking DRM. If I were to use this service, and the "special" blank DVDs cost a cent more, I'd simply crack the DVDs the way I already do and burn a non-DRM'd version.
The real obstacle would be if it requires special software -- which I'd imagine it does. But if they let us download anything resembling an ISO or a BIN/CUE, like we're used to, then this could actually be useful.
Interesting argument, but I think there are significant differences here./etc/motd configures the text to display on login. This is generally pretty static -- something like "Welcome to Debian". I suppose it could be documentation, but it certainly doesn't imply that absolutely everything is configuration./var/mail is user data, which changes constantly, and is not set by hand by the admin. I don't see how that could possibly qualify as configuration. Shared libraries are really a stretch -- they have to be recompiled to change that behavior, and they are executable, so you'd have more of a case if you were talking about something in, say,/etc/init.d, but/etc/motd is much easier -- as an admin, I can set it to say "Welcome to my system! I'm not sure how you got in, but please tell me so I can fix it..."
I really don't see much in/etc that doesn't qualify as configuration, and much outside it (except maybe dotfiles) that does qualify as configuration. There are exceptions, of course -- ut2004 expects your CD key to be a file somewhere in/usr/local/games/ut2004, and I might've stuck it in/etc.
The init scripts, with a few exceptions, are generally not configuration by themselves, but are small shell scripts -- good practice is to put actual configuration in, say,/etc/default or/etc/conf.d or somewhere the init script knows to look. So I don't know where those init scripts should go, but it should be a/bin somewhere, maybe/usr/sbin or something -- bin meant "binary", but it has come to mean "executable stuff for your PATH".
But things like that shouldn't be enough for you to throw up your arms and say "EVERYTHING's a configuration file if you have the source code!"
I just glanced at their homepage and just about puked. I'm making a list:
Claims to be XML, but doesn't validate.
Uses AJAX to render the homepage, for no good reason -- apparently just to keep their little Flash animation from reloading.
Has a chunk of Flash to display their logo, for no good reason.
Trademarked "Software should be free," or claimed to. Bonus is they seem to be talking about price, but are hijacking a software libre term.
Background is a picture of a forest... that's obviously some sort of public park, as the JPEG compression is just high enough to blur out what looks like trucks, houses, a swimming pool...
Tons of marketing buzzwords: Web 2.0, Internet OS, XML, AJAX, SOA, Web/Blogg (I guess digg means everything should have two 'g's?)...
Contact page is visually broken: The content itself is on a blue background, with two tabs above it, one blue, one gray -- but the gray one is the active one!
Use of {at} email address obfuscation -- annoying on an individual, worse here. Don't they have real spamfilters?
AJAX menus try to pop over their Flash logo, but nothing can appear over a Flash animation, at least in Firefox.
Tons of graphics that have nothing to do with the Internet, Operating Systems, or computers at all: the "forest", man going up an escalator, highway, etc. May as well be the GNAA homepage.
Signup page has apparently been known to reject legitimate email addresses -- and seems to do so in JavaScript, so I wonder if the server does any validation?
Really, they could be onto something great, but this is just what I've seen cruising through their webpage and Slashdot comments. I don't want to imagine how horrible it'll be once I'm actually inside their "OS".
I wouldn't call passwd "configuration," and I wouldn't call it "data." It's more "control."
I wouldn't call ntp.conf "configuration," and I wouldn't call it "data." It's more "control."
Dude, it's configuration, that's the very definition of configuration. It's a text file that specifies the way you want a program to behave, that is read and parsed by the program (or programs, or libraries).
I mean, yes, it could stand for anything you want it to stand for. But the fact is, as it's used now, it's configuration, and all the curious rationalizations of how a well known config file really isn't a config file won't change that.
If you put it in the app, there's at least a chance it'll be done right by some library that everyone ends up using. If you put it in the interpreter, the interpreter gets crufty for everyone, including people who don't care about source code signing, and people who might have a legitimate reason for implementing it a little differently.
Or, let me make this very simple: If we were talking about C, would you be in favor of including it in the operating system? Or the C compiler?
Alright, I got my First Post and had my fun, so now I've read TFA, and I have to ask...
For example, the bill contains a list of expressions to be considered by the federal court to determine whether someone has misled the public into believing that their business is endorsed or associated with the Olympics.
By that wording, it seems possible that "considered" merely means these are pointers, not actual rules -- thus, a federal court should "consider" someone's "Winter clothing line" or somesuch, but should also be allowed to make common sense and not assume that's intended to confuse people about the Olympics.
Hell, they could just be a list of keywords for prosecutors to repeatedly hit up Google with.
It still doesn't make it right, though. Remember the quote from the summary:
Bernier has no time to deal with spam, spyware, privacy, or net neutrality but commits to legislation on behalf of the organizers of a sporting event?
You both need to go use KMyMoney2 or Gnucash, or something similar -- web based, even. Pay some 13-year-old $50 to set her old computer up as a Linux desktop, or webserver, depending on which is easier for your financial data. Then, whenever Intuit nags you with a new version, take their asking price and offer it as a bounty for whatever killer feature you miss from Quicken.
You NEED open formats, and you've just demonstrated why.
No, no, no... BSD is hippies, yes. But Linux is the Borg!
You will be assimilated. Your sexual, psychotropic, and musical distinctiveness will be added to our own. Commercialization is irrelevant. Microsoft is irrelevant. Resistance is futile.
Slashdot Mirror
So gods don't get angry? Or jealous?
You must've read a different Bible than I did...
And by the way, the Old Testament does still apply, and Jesus said so.
It's just that on Windows (Vista?) and Linux (Gnome/KDE), there is a separate option, outside of any browser, which sets the browser preference.
And it does seem stupid to me that every browser for OS X has to re-implement an option that should've been in System Preferences. I suppose next you'll be telling me it make sense for your network settings to be in the browser?
Right, by cracking the DRM. Doesn't mean Apple isn't trying.
That's also ignoring the driver issue. Apple certainly isn't going to write drivers for my custom-built nforce system, so who is?
How is different?
If they disallow running OS X on non-Apple hardware, then no one except Apple can create hardware which OS X can run on. The fact that Apple controls the OS, instead of the hardware, is an implementation detail -- and they do use the hardware (TPM) to make it difficult or impossible for non-Apple people to create hardware which an unmodified OS X can run on.
Or am I wrong? If so, why don't you show me a company that has, without Apple's blessing and without illegally modifying the OS, sold a piece of hardware which you can get OS X to run on?
That strikes me as dangerous. We played WoW at a LAN party, and I can certainly imagine people playing it when they travel.
So, very easy to fool Blizzard into restoring your account (and doubling your gold in a few days is probably still an attractive prospect), and very easy for Blizzard to find you "character sharing" because you play from cybercafes.
Alright, I did not know that about the iPhone, and I apologize if you're right. But:
Yes, they do, and you yourself admit this. You're simply arguing motive here, and you're wrong there, but the simple, obvious fact is, no one except Apple is allowed to manufacture a machine that OS X will run on. Good or bad, that is the truth, you know it, you even said it. In what ways is this not true?
If that was true, then why is the licensing such that it's only legal to put it on Apple hardware? Why does the product actually attempt to disable itself when run on non-Apple hardware?
I seem to remember they used a Trusted Computing platform to do this. Essentially, if it doesn't trust your hardware, you don't get to run the OS.
And Steve Jobs doesn't like DRM? Bullshit. If it was just about hardware support, isn't it enough to simply declare ordinary PCs totally unsupported, but let people run it anyway if they want to? Even make it illegal in the licensing, but why did they have to include the technical measures?
I am not under any obligation to answer your comment reasonably, instead of just giving you a GNAA/Goatse/Tubgirl/Lastmeasure link.
It can still be the decent thing to do, even if you're under no obligation to do it. So again, why does Apple go out of its way to make sure no one can run OS X on non-Apple hardware?
Well, duh. It's a form of lockdown that Microsoft dreams of -- the entire system is one, shiny package, and there is no competition for any part of it.
What does HP have to do with anything either of us said?
Missing the point.
First, try doing what you described with an iPhone.
Second, note that you still have to buy an officially Apple-sanctioned computer to plug that hardware into. Apple doesn't care what hardware you add to it, as long as you bought a MacBook.
Think of it this way: Compare the diversity of the PC world to the diversity of Dell. I'm not saying Dells are bad, but I don't have to buy a Dell, I can buy a Gateway, an IBM, a Mac, even build my own (which I did). And of course, once I buy it, I can plug in external hardware.
But would you really ask everyone to ONLY buy Dells with Windows? ("But you can add on hardware and software!" No, I want to get different hardware for the base machine, and run Linux.)
When my phone boots, it shows me the Java logo. It also has a store from which I can buy and download games and such via EDGE, and I can only assume those would have to be running on Java for it to work on a sufficient number of devices to be worth doing.
And there may not be a cause/effect relationship, but there's certainly a pattern. 99% of all cellphones run Java and are a piece of shit in exactly the same way mine is: Plenty of 3rd-party software, but no custom (consumer-written) software.
Well, I did draw another line. A few, actually.
/etc/widgetwars.conf and ~/.widgetwars, because that's where config files go, whether I know how to define it perfectly or not.
/etc/sudoers), and the worst that would happen is you'd get anal and say "That's not a config file!"
Here's a simple one: Editable text which controls the behavior of a program, is not specifically requested by a user, is not meant to be automatically updated by the system (except through package management), and is not Turing-copmlete.
Thus, motd is editable text, controls the default behavior of login, and is certainly not Turing-complete. (Or, probably is not, and certainly wasn't intended to be.)
Init scripts are not, and libraries are not, because they're Turing-complete.
But no, I don't think you really have to draw the line anywhere. "Config file" is a bit like "Operating system" or even "Pornography" -- difficult or impossible to define properly, but we know it when we see it. Not useful if you have to get really technical -- for example, the files in initramfs may be config files, scripts, programs, or parts of the OS, but you generally just call them "files in initramfs" and don't care if they're part of the OS or not. But, useful to make broad distinctions -- for instance, if I were to write a new program called "WidgetWars", I'd have
Actually, it occurs to me -- "we know it when we see it" may be misleading, because we disagree about motd. However, if I told you to edit the config file for, say, ntp or sudo, you would know exactly what I meant (/etc/ntpd.conf,
If 20% was Mac and 5% was Linux, I think more developers would seriously consider spending 25% of their budget on a Mac and Linux port. If the product was developed sanely in the first place, it wouldn't take more than one or two guys to do that port.
Then, if you ended up with, say, 80% of new apps supported on OS X and Linux, more people would consider buying a Mac or downloading a Linux distro. At that point, it would start to be a real competition based on which is really better, not so much which people are FORCED to use.
Grandparent is an insightful troll.
Apple controls the hardware, and prevents anyone from making other hardware on which to run Mac OS X. It's not just a matter of saying it's "unsupported", they actually go out of their way to make sure it does not happen.
You'll also notice many of the same strange practices as Microsoft, only moreso. Where is the option to set the default web browser? Why, it's in the Safari control panel! Just like similar options -- email client, HTML editor, etc -- are on the "Internet Options" control panel on Windows -- but that is actually in Control Panel, not just in IE.
Upgrades are more frequent and cost more, and are less compatible with previous versions than any Microsoft OS -- except Vista, maybe, but that seems likely to change.
And look at how they are handling the iPhone. NO third-party apps, the end. I don't like Windows Mobile either -- I'd prefer a nice Linux handheld (and these do exist) -- but at least Windows Mobile encourages third-party development. Even my cell phone, a Java piece of shit, allows me to download third-party apps to it.
And as much as I wanted to thank Apple for supporting standards (Safari passes Acid2) and open source (they sent patches back to Konqueror), I've found that I actually have more freedom on Windows than I do on OS X.
I still run Linux as my main desktop, and I might even still use OS X on my Powerbook (if I got it fixed), but that's because OS X is a good OS, not because I like Apple or wish them to take over the world. They strike me as somewhat less evil than Microsoft (their stuff actually works, and they do actually innovate), but far, far more proprietary.
What does "FIPS compliant" mean? And what options are there other than Windows?
If there are none, and "F" stands for "Federal", does that mean the government has gone from letting MS off easy on the antitrust suit to blatantly supporting them?
With few exceptions, /var is stuff that pretty much changes all the time as part of its normal operation. You get new mail, new stuff is cached, much of it changes daily just from init scripts.
Yet, motd changes very rarely, and if it does change, it's probably the result of a user action -- that is, the admin wanted to put up a new message.
Then there's passwd, which is configuration of users. I still don't get how you argue that it's anything other than configuration. Without passwd, I'm still every bit as much a user as I always was -- as far as I know, the kernel doesn't care about passwd at all, only uids. It certainly isn't something which changes all the time, and what's more, it's something you generally want to have on boot, whereas it might be nice to have /var be a separate partition (you'll want /etc before you mount /var).
Shared libraries are an entirely different animal. While they can have their own config files, most shared libraries aren't meant to be edited by an admin. They're generally compiled, after all, which means editing isn't easy. And they're certainly distinct from passwd -- passwd does not contain executable code, and isn't even turing-complete.
On this we're agreed, but I just thought it was odd that you picked passwd when init scripts are so much easier. Even though it's still nice to have editable init scripts, covered by a package manager's config file protection, versus uneditable binaries (which naturally go in the various bins). Even though init scripts can be seen as a configuration of how the system boots, and are often designed to be fairly simple shell scripts, so that any admin will have the skills required to edit them. Even given all of that, init scripts are much easier to call something other than configuration than passwd or fstab.
Because really, even without this trip, his whole life has been a demonstration of that sentence.
Is this the new word for "lie"?
Why is he not already IN JAIL for PERJURY?
Yet another case of a legitimate use for cracking DRM. If I were to use this service, and the "special" blank DVDs cost a cent more, I'd simply crack the DVDs the way I already do and burn a non-DRM'd version.
The real obstacle would be if it requires special software -- which I'd imagine it does. But if they let us download anything resembling an ISO or a BIN/CUE, like we're used to, then this could actually be useful.
Interesting argument, but I think there are significant differences here. /etc/motd configures the text to display on login. This is generally pretty static -- something like "Welcome to Debian". I suppose it could be documentation, but it certainly doesn't imply that absolutely everything is configuration. /var/mail is user data, which changes constantly, and is not set by hand by the admin. I don't see how that could possibly qualify as configuration. Shared libraries are really a stretch -- they have to be recompiled to change that behavior, and they are executable, so you'd have more of a case if you were talking about something in, say, /etc/init.d, but /etc/motd is much easier -- as an admin, I can set it to say "Welcome to my system! I'm not sure how you got in, but please tell me so I can fix it..."
/etc that doesn't qualify as configuration, and much outside it (except maybe dotfiles) that does qualify as configuration. There are exceptions, of course -- ut2004 expects your CD key to be a file somewhere in /usr/local/games/ut2004, and I might've stuck it in /etc.
/etc/default or /etc/conf.d or somewhere the init script knows to look. So I don't know where those init scripts should go, but it should be a /bin somewhere, maybe /usr/sbin or something -- bin meant "binary", but it has come to mean "executable stuff for your PATH".
I really don't see much in
The init scripts, with a few exceptions, are generally not configuration by themselves, but are small shell scripts -- good practice is to put actual configuration in, say,
But things like that shouldn't be enough for you to throw up your arms and say "EVERYTHING's a configuration file if you have the source code!"
I just glanced at their homepage and just about puked. I'm making a list:
Really, they could be onto something great, but this is just what I've seen cruising through their webpage and Slashdot comments. I don't want to imagine how horrible it'll be once I'm actually inside their "OS".
I wouldn't call ntp.conf "configuration," and I wouldn't call it "data." It's more "control."
Dude, it's configuration, that's the very definition of configuration. It's a text file that specifies the way you want a program to behave, that is read and parsed by the program (or programs, or libraries).
I mean, yes, it could stand for anything you want it to stand for. But the fact is, as it's used now, it's configuration, and all the curious rationalizations of how a well known config file really isn't a config file won't change that.
That will happen anyway.
If you put it in the app, there's at least a chance it'll be done right by some library that everyone ends up using. If you put it in the interpreter, the interpreter gets crufty for everyone, including people who don't care about source code signing, and people who might have a legitimate reason for implementing it a little differently.
Or, let me make this very simple: If we were talking about C, would you be in favor of including it in the operating system? Or the C compiler?
Alright, I got my First Post and had my fun, so now I've read TFA, and I have to ask...
By that wording, it seems possible that "considered" merely means these are pointers, not actual rules -- thus, a federal court should "consider" someone's "Winter clothing line" or somesuch, but should also be allowed to make common sense and not assume that's intended to confuse people about the Olympics.
Hell, they could just be a list of keywords for prosecutors to repeatedly hit up Google with.
It still doesn't make it right, though. Remember the quote from the summary:
Hey! You're infringing on my copyright/patent/trademark on the words "to", "you", and "are"!
If you don't stop, I'll complain to the RIAA/MPAA/God/Canada, and you'll be sorry then!
Don't, you, wish, we, could, afford, to, buy, our, own, legislators? Life, would, be, so, much, easier, if, all, your, words, are, belong, to, me!
You both need to go use KMyMoney2 or Gnucash, or something similar -- web based, even. Pay some 13-year-old $50 to set her old computer up as a Linux desktop, or webserver, depending on which is easier for your financial data. Then, whenever Intuit nags you with a new version, take their asking price and offer it as a bounty for whatever killer feature you miss from Quicken.
You NEED open formats, and you've just demonstrated why.
No, no, no... BSD is hippies, yes. But Linux is the Borg!
You will be assimilated. Your sexual, psychotropic, and musical distinctiveness will be added to our own. Commercialization is irrelevant. Microsoft is irrelevant. Resistance is futile.
Not if done in a language which properly optimizes tail-recursion!