And pray tell me where are the "billions of dollars"? RedHat is barely in the black thanks to their per seat licensing (exactly the model Microsoft uses) of their enterprise solution - the other distros are surviving on mere charity and volunteer work.
Or are you referring to the future profits that will bring to someone?
He has followed a plain and transperant way and has tried to convince the leaders in a perfectly democratic way for a genuine purpose.
Oh yeah?
And you believe that the world really works like that? You just show a plain, transparent and a democratic way? Let me play the devil's advocate: where's the profit in that?
The only way you opne source/anti-patent people can outlobby the lobbyists it to use the "typical big business/RIAA mode": show where the maximal profit lies.
You are smart people. I don't understand why it is so hard to comprehend!
Why would you want to place your brand new 64-bit CPU powermonster in a case that hides its true power? Would you muffle a fearsome V8 so that you cannot push the pedal to the metal at 2 PM and wake all your neighbours so that they can watch in awe as you and your car disappear into the horizon!
How would your friends know that you have something special in that case unless they hear, no, scratch that, feel the power?
Now I hear it's back to the old routine. Fax is OK, but if you want to make sure your stance gets counted (again not heard, mind you), send a letter. Preferably hand-written.
E-mails and web-petitions carry absolutely no political weight.
Petitions are pathetic per se, but e-mail/web petitions carry absolutely no weight at all.
I've worked for professional politicians. The web/e-mail opinion is irrelevant. If you want to be counted (not heard, mind you) send a letter or a fax.
And why is no-one crying for the spilling of the blood of the sendmail maintainers? If this had been a Microsoft bug, you'd be climbing the walls but no - of course, if it's free, you've just got to swallow all this.
Yet, a year after year sendmail remains the buggiest open source code ever produced and - to make matters even worse - it is used in the very backbone of the internet.
Have you ever taken a look at the licenses you agree to when you install commercial software? I've never run across a one that would say something else than that the software is provided without any warranty or proof of correctness.
The law should apply equally to everyone. If the corporations are to be punished for their bad-behaving code, so should be the authors and/or copyright holders of free software.
"Most computer users use Microsoft Word. That is unfortunate for them, since Word is proprietary software, denying its users the freedom to study, change, copy, and redistribute it"
Yeah, right. Like hell I'd use that. They'd be former clients after that rant. They themselves thrive on proprietary protocols, software and tamper-proof embedded systems.
How would you propose that I tell my clients that they must not don't sell me heavily macroed MS Office documents that I cannot open with "open office" because I'm a cheapskate who can't bother to buy and install MS Office to do business with them?
How about creating a web-site with a timeline correlating SCOX with their absurd press releases and info on possible insider trading? Make it easy to read, as objective as possible (no hysteric ESR-style rants), have it copy edited by someone who knows the proper terminology and only use references that can be independently checked. If possible, provide links to all sources.
Slashdot Mirror
How is Microsoft coercive? No-one's forcing you to buy and use their software.
Or are you referring to the future profits that will bring to someone?
Ok.
I've got nothing more to say except that if you believe that, you are too naive for your own good.
It was postponed so that more political capital could be gained from its acceptance.
Do you really think it would not have been accepted now?
The postponement had nothing to do with your "pitiful rebellion".
In a free, democractic society that's perfectly acceptable.
Your point is?
Oh yeah?
And you believe that the world really works like that? You just show a plain, transparent and a democratic way? Let me play the devil's advocate: where's the profit in that?
The only way you opne source/anti-patent people can outlobby the lobbyists it to use the "typical big business/RIAA mode": show where the maximal profit lies.
You are smart people. I don't understand why it is so hard to comprehend!
Why would you want to place your brand new 64-bit CPU powermonster in a case that hides its true power? Would you muffle a fearsome V8 so that you cannot push the pedal to the metal at 2 PM and wake all your neighbours so that they can watch in awe as you and your car disappear into the horizon!
How would your friends know that you have something special in that case unless they hear, no, scratch that, feel the power?
Now I hear it's back to the old routine. Fax is OK, but if you want to make sure your stance gets counted (again not heard, mind you), send a letter. Preferably hand-written.
E-mails and web-petitions carry absolutely no political weight.
Petitions are pathetic per se, but e-mail/web petitions carry absolutely no weight at all.
I've worked for professional politicians. The web/e-mail opinion is irrelevant. If you want to be counted (not heard, mind you) send a letter or a fax.
So just because an operating system is popular, you think it should be excused for the "unneeded worm traffic"?
In other words, the number of exploits should not be normalized to the number of adopted systems?
Yet, a year after year sendmail remains the buggiest open source code ever produced and - to make matters even worse - it is used in the very backbone of the internet.
Have you ever taken a look at the licenses you agree to when you install commercial software? I've never run across a one that would say something else than that the software is provided without any warranty or proof of correctness.
The law should apply equally to everyone. If the corporations are to be punished for their bad-behaving code, so should be the authors and/or copyright holders of free software.
Corporations? And how would we punish the open source operating systems or software for the inevitable security holes? Sue FSF or the users?
I maintain several win and linux computers and I certainly don't have the time to lurk security mailing lists to stay ahead of every friggin' exploit.
"A second British spy has lost a laptop brimming with state secrets after getting "blind drunk" in a London bar."
Yeah, right. Like hell I'd use that. They'd be former clients after that rant. They themselves thrive on proprietary protocols, software and tamper-proof embedded systems.
I wonder how hard/expensive it would be to integrate a low-grade encryption layer at the IDE-controller level?
How would you propose that I tell my clients that they must not don't sell me heavily macroed MS Office documents that I cannot open with "open office" because I'm a cheapskate who can't bother to buy and install MS Office to do business with them?
Just watch it happen.
The point is compatibility. Those who end up in trouble with any compatibility issues will buy the new version. Problem solved.
You don't seem to get it.
99.999% import rate is not good enough. The 100% rate guaranteed by the use of the same version of MS Office is.
Perhaps. Until Office files are DRM controlled.
Good for letters to your mom - won't handle business spreadsheets.
They'll come crying back when they realize that they cannot read and reply to their customers' Word, Excel and Powerpoint e-mail attachements.
THEN sell it to the mainstream media.