Its much more honest I think to include years in your statements than "at launch".
To say "the C64 didn't do 3D at launch either" would be disingenuous to say the least.
In what year did each the iPhone and Android gain copy & paste? What year did (will) Microsoft add it?
Technology is about now. Apple's original iPhone is an interesting piece of history but no longer relevant to anyone's modern expectations of a smart phone. The iPhone 3GS and Android 2.1 are probably the minimal standards there.
Right, because PHP is the most common and portable language in the world. Not.
Here's an idea, why not use something like PERL that really IS portable? Better yet, when writing a benchmark, why not use a language that's efficient so you're benchmarking the system not the quality of the implementation of the interpreter on that system?
Any interpreted language is to be avoided for benchmarking unless it happens to be the system in use on that platform anyway (such as Java on a portable device). All we're otherwise seeing is "my platform is better suited to the Zend interpreter than yours" -- except when comparing same-platform systems to each other, in which case portability wouldn't have been an issue anyway.
Most common people think if there's a blank field to be filled in they're supposed to type something in it.
I've seen some crazy settings in routers because a customer typed in randomly what they thought were answers to the questions instead of ignoring fields they didn't understand.
User-friendly configuration has nothing to do with you and I.
One that's integrated with the store, only allows access to the people who have purchased, and only to the items they have purchased? That's a bit more complex than a simple FTP server.
Why is any of that required?
Hypothetically: "Software may contain GPL or other open source materials. Source code available at ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/oss/."
Then require authors to upload related source code with their software when they choose an open source license in the store, and Microsoft dumps the source in that folder. So simple.
I think you'll find I covered your points in my statement, and it remains true. There is a difference between an ISP (who is exempt under the DMCA) and an actual distributor (who is not).
PS a quick Wikipedia result on pawn brokers for you:
The pawnbroker assumes the risk that an item purchased was actually stolen property. However, laws exist in many jurisdictions that protect both the community at large and the brokers from unknowingly engaging in criminal activity(buying and selling stolen goods, also known as "fencing"). These laws often require the pawnbroker to establish positive identification of the seller through photo identification (such as a driver's license or government-issued identity document), as well as a holding period placed on an item purchased by a pawnbroker (to allow for local law enforcement authorities to track down stolen items).
Feel free to tell me how Microsoft would feel about doing the same for software that may or may contain Copyrighted portions they don't have the right to redistribute.
The term is being incorrectly used. I'll use 'infect' rather than propagate for a minute... people refer to the GPL "infecting" other software without realizing that you have to break the law for this to happen.
That is to say, what right do you have to use my source code that I have Copyright to in your works? None. Oh but look, I licensed it under the GPLv2, which means you can now freely use it so long as you also honour that license. If you don't want to "infect" your software with the GPL, write it yourself or arrange private licenses to the code from the authors of that code.
I fail to understand why any third party believes they have the right to steal someone else's source code without honouring their conditions.
There's a reason "sale of stolen goods" is illegal. The "i'm just a third party" excuse doesn't work.
There are exceptions for ISPs in Copyright law, but those are specific and on common carrier grounds. Microsoft is not one. Since Microsoft vettes the software they permit into their store, they lose common carrier status, they become a re-distributor of the work themselves, and they're held to the GPL.
This is completely ignorant of how the GPL works and very insulting to those who use it.
The GPL says "here's a magic marker you can use anywhere you want, any time you want, that replenishes itself indefinitely. Give it away all you want but do not restrict others any more than you were restricted."
Now a brick and mortar store rents the magic marker to people for one hour's use at a charge of $5. That's a restriction that isn't desired by the Copyright holder, and is a violation of licensing terms, so the creator of the marker tells you to either unrestrict peoples' usage or stop selling it entirely.
Remember, the GPL is about Copyright, not contracts. If you fail to abide the terms, you're automatically in violation of federal Copyright laws because you have no implicit right to redistribute someone else's code unless you're abiding their terms.
Precisely. People license software under the GPL to prevent others from having their freedoms curtailed. If you own the software, you can relicense it as something else. If you don't, you can't restrict others any more than you were restricted by the GPL.
That is to say, if Bob writes a GPL program, and Alice wants to use it to make a Windows Mobile app, but the Windows Mobile app has to have a more restrictive license attached, Alice cannot publish that app with those restrictions because the GPL forbids it.
However, if Bob's functionality were in the form of an LGPL library, Alice can link to it from a more restrictive application without problems so long as the library itself is not modified.
The teacher contacted Ubuntu and railed on them. Do yourself a favor and read Ubuntu's info pages and then explain to me how you could come to the conclusion that they're bad people.
Thanks but no thanks on your interpretation of events.
You're saying Windows phones are too stupid to understand dependencies? When I try to use the barcoding feature in one app on my Android phone, it redirects me to the Market page for the Barcode Reader so I can install the functionality I'm trying to use.
PS Microsoft's OLE and subsequent ActiveX are no different. Reaching out and downloading sub-programs to handle specific features most certainly should not break the package manager.
Its not a big leap from "published signing keys" to "harming our business model which requires charging license fees for access to our signature on your software."
You seem confused about who is making limits here. When Apple started selling DRM'd music, it wasn't Sony Music or its ilk putting restrictive DRM on the music files, it was Apple. Sure, it was an agreement, but had it not been legal to do so, it wouldn't have happened. When Microsoft cancelled Playsforsure and those customers who'd purchased music couldn't play their songs anymore on new devices, it wasn't because of the content creators. Metallica and its ilk didn't say "you can't listen to our music on your new ipod sucker", Microsoft did. And when Walmart's online music store went bust and the online DRM checks no longer functioned leaving many purchasers unable to listen to music they'd purchased even on legitimate devices, that wasn't the fault of Miley Cyrus or Britney Spears, that was Walmart's fault. Content distributors shouldn't be allowed to illegally restrict your use of a purchased piece of art. Period.
With a wireless protocol I think you'd find Apple no longer enjoying the control they presently have over the iDock interface.
That said, I believe there are already standards for input (Bluetooth) and display (Widi). Integrating them into a small device shouldn't be a problem.
To be frank, I've always thought the hardware of the phone should be bulkier (with battery) and lighter on display, and allow external wireless displays to be used, much like we use USB headsets instead of talking on the phone itself.
Technically you could make a PDA with almost no physical I/O and leave it in your pocket or purse, communicating with it via headsets, HUDs or portable Widi capable screen/keyboard combos.
Agreed. As an open source software advocate and user, I'm always wondering when someone with the skills required will write a proper replacement for Outlook's non-Email capabilities. That is to say, I don't value Outlook as an E-mail platform at all. Its the bundled crap they threw in after the failure of Schedule+ that's become nearly necessary in business circles.
Considering text messages are routed over sub band data that's already being transmitted between your phone and the carrier, there's effectively zero digital data involved too.
Slashdot Mirror
Its much more honest I think to include years in your statements than "at launch".
To say "the C64 didn't do 3D at launch either" would be disingenuous to say the least.
In what year did each the iPhone and Android gain copy & paste? What year did (will) Microsoft add it?
Technology is about now. Apple's original iPhone is an interesting piece of history but no longer relevant to anyone's modern expectations of a smart phone. The iPhone 3GS and Android 2.1 are probably the minimal standards there.
Right, because PHP is the most common and portable language in the world. Not.
Here's an idea, why not use something like PERL that really IS portable? Better yet, when writing a benchmark, why not use a language that's efficient so you're benchmarking the system not the quality of the implementation of the interpreter on that system?
Any interpreted language is to be avoided for benchmarking unless it happens to be the system in use on that platform anyway (such as Java on a portable device). All we're otherwise seeing is "my platform is better suited to the Zend interpreter than yours" -- except when comparing same-platform systems to each other, in which case portability wouldn't have been an issue anyway.
Most common people think if there's a blank field to be filled in they're supposed to type something in it.
I've seen some crazy settings in routers because a customer typed in randomly what they thought were answers to the questions instead of ignoring fields they didn't understand.
User-friendly configuration has nothing to do with you and I.
Update me when this isn't written in PHP.
Sorry, here in Canada its a completely different service. My mistake for assuming Americans had the same option :)
Why is any of that required?
Hypothetically: "Software may contain GPL or other open source materials. Source code available at ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/oss/."
Then require authors to upload related source code with their software when they choose an open source license in the store, and Microsoft dumps the source in that folder. So simple.
I think you'll find I covered your points in my statement, and it remains true. There is a difference between an ISP (who is exempt under the DMCA) and an actual distributor (who is not).
PS a quick Wikipedia result on pawn brokers for you:
Feel free to tell me how Microsoft would feel about doing the same for software that may or may contain Copyrighted portions they don't have the right to redistribute.
The term is being incorrectly used. I'll use 'infect' rather than propagate for a minute ... people refer to the GPL "infecting" other software without realizing that you have to break the law for this to happen.
That is to say, what right do you have to use my source code that I have Copyright to in your works? None. Oh but look, I licensed it under the GPLv2, which means you can now freely use it so long as you also honour that license. If you don't want to "infect" your software with the GPL, write it yourself or arrange private licenses to the code from the authors of that code.
I fail to understand why any third party believes they have the right to steal someone else's source code without honouring their conditions.
Microsoft is incapable of running an FTP server with a "go here to check for source code" link?
Its good enough for Dell, Intel, DLink, etc. ...
There's a reason "sale of stolen goods" is illegal. The "i'm just a third party" excuse doesn't work.
There are exceptions for ISPs in Copyright law, but those are specific and on common carrier grounds. Microsoft is not one. Since Microsoft vettes the software they permit into their store, they lose common carrier status, they become a re-distributor of the work themselves, and they're held to the GPL.
IANAL.
This is completely ignorant of how the GPL works and very insulting to those who use it.
The GPL says "here's a magic marker you can use anywhere you want, any time you want, that replenishes itself indefinitely. Give it away all you want but do not restrict others any more than you were restricted."
Now a brick and mortar store rents the magic marker to people for one hour's use at a charge of $5. That's a restriction that isn't desired by the Copyright holder, and is a violation of licensing terms, so the creator of the marker tells you to either unrestrict peoples' usage or stop selling it entirely.
Remember, the GPL is about Copyright, not contracts. If you fail to abide the terms, you're automatically in violation of federal Copyright laws because you have no implicit right to redistribute someone else's code unless you're abiding their terms.
Precisely. People license software under the GPL to prevent others from having their freedoms curtailed. If you own the software, you can relicense it as something else. If you don't, you can't restrict others any more than you were restricted by the GPL.
That is to say, if Bob writes a GPL program, and Alice wants to use it to make a Windows Mobile app, but the Windows Mobile app has to have a more restrictive license attached, Alice cannot publish that app with those restrictions because the GPL forbids it.
However, if Bob's functionality were in the form of an LGPL library, Alice can link to it from a more restrictive application without problems so long as the library itself is not modified.
Excuse me for the double-reply but:
format /q/u/autotest is a much faster way to disable a hard drive, and it doesn't require Linux.
Windows also comes with fdisk, and has only a "press F8 if you're sure" blocking you from deleting your OS partition when you install it.
There's nothing safe about official software.
The teacher contacted Ubuntu and railed on them. Do yourself a favor and read Ubuntu's info pages and then explain to me how you could come to the conclusion that they're bad people.
Thanks but no thanks on your interpretation of events.
You're saying Windows phones are too stupid to understand dependencies? When I try to use the barcoding feature in one app on my Android phone, it redirects me to the Market page for the Barcode Reader so I can install the functionality I'm trying to use.
PS Microsoft's OLE and subsequent ActiveX are no different. Reaching out and downloading sub-programs to handle specific features most certainly should not break the package manager.
lol @ irony. Thanks for the laugh, troll.
I can submit a request for such an order from up here in Canada. If it lacks merit, it will be denied. That's how the system is supposed to work.
Its not a big leap from "published signing keys" to "harming our business model which requires charging license fees for access to our signature on your software."
You seem confused about who is making limits here.
When Apple started selling DRM'd music, it wasn't Sony Music or its ilk putting restrictive DRM on the music files, it was Apple. Sure, it was an agreement, but had it not been legal to do so, it wouldn't have happened.
When Microsoft cancelled Playsforsure and those customers who'd purchased music couldn't play their songs anymore on new devices, it wasn't because of the content creators. Metallica and its ilk didn't say "you can't listen to our music on your new ipod sucker", Microsoft did.
And when Walmart's online music store went bust and the online DRM checks no longer functioned leaving many purchasers unable to listen to music they'd purchased even on legitimate devices, that wasn't the fault of Miley Cyrus or Britney Spears, that was Walmart's fault.
Content distributors shouldn't be allowed to illegally restrict your use of a purchased piece of art. Period.
I wonder if its a side-effect of using Extrans or HTML modes. I always post in PLAIN fwiw.
With a wireless protocol I think you'd find Apple no longer enjoying the control they presently have over the iDock interface.
That said, I believe there are already standards for input (Bluetooth) and display (Widi). Integrating them into a small device shouldn't be a problem.
To be frank, I've always thought the hardware of the phone should be bulkier (with battery) and lighter on display, and allow external wireless displays to be used, much like we use USB headsets instead of talking on the phone itself.
Technically you could make a PDA with almost no physical I/O and leave it in your pocket or purse, communicating with it via headsets, HUDs or portable Widi capable screen/keyboard combos.
You realize that in an arm's length attack from behind your gun is useless right? Unless the attacker's a complete moron that is.
Its not hard to defeat someone's defenses from behind long before they can respond with any kind of force unless they have martial art's training.
PS I recommend the martial arts training.
Please learn to space your text properly. Reading your comments is terribly annoying with all that extra whitespace.
Other than that, I agree with you :)
Agreed. As an open source software advocate and user, I'm always wondering when someone with the skills required will write a proper replacement for Outlook's non-Email capabilities. That is to say, I don't value Outlook as an E-mail platform at all. Its the bundled crap they threw in after the failure of Schedule+ that's become nearly necessary in business circles.
PS Evolution is terrible in comparison.
Considering text messages are routed over sub band data that's already being transmitted between your phone and the carrier, there's effectively zero digital data involved too.