In that case, would you mind ending the speculation by simply telling us the reason (if it was business-related; otherwise just tell us "it's private")? Curious minds want to know...
Surely you misspelled "Microsoft," right? I've read your article, and most of it makes sense, but it really seems like Novell is either aiming for Microsoft to buy them out instead of IBM, or at least for MS and IBM to fight over the UNIX rights (wouldn't that be the battle of the century!).
It doesn't matter if the license is $600, $6 million, or $0.00000006. Regardless of the cost, if it's non-zero it kills the GPL licensing model. Why? Because no matter what, the patent license would be non-transferable. This means that third parties wouldn't be able to exercise their redistribution rights under the GPL, because they wouldn't be allowed to also transfer the patent license.
Make no mistake: this, just like with SCO, is another Microsoft attempt to destroy Linux. The value of Linux is in the GPL; subvert that and Linux becomes "just another proprietary UNIX" which Microsoft can kill off at its leisure.
Vista allegedly has much improved support for Tablet PCs, which is enough for me to consider trying it out on my Thinkpad (which came with XP Tablet Edition, but also qualified for the $10 Vista "upgrade"). However, for anything other than a tablet there's no way in Hell I'd consider Vista -- any normal computer ought to run Ubuntu or OS X instead.
It is far from there, but say in five years, our primary computer will be of [the n800 or iPhone] scale.
I sure as Hell hope not! I've got a 12" Tablet PC, and that screen's quite small enough for me -- and I went out of my way to get 1400x1050. Any resolution lower than that is too damn small. Now, don't get me wrong: manufacturers can feel free to make the machine paper-thin and light, but it's got to have at least, say, an 8" diagonal screen with 1024x768 to be even slightly useful (and the more pixels, the better).
Re:you mean... like we have had for years?
on
Death of the UMPC?
·
· Score: 1
The real question is why there is all this hoopla over the iPhone
The exact same reason why there's hoopla over Macs, when they're just like regular PCs: it runs Mac OS.
There is NO WAY in which a laptop can cost only $10
No kidding. The XO (i.e., the "hundred-dollar laptop") genuinely qualifies as a laptop, but this could only be described as a "pocket organizer" or "PDA" at best.
Yes this is a legal issue, and "Open Source" (or "Free Software") is the term describing the type of license the software uses. In other words, "open source" is just as much a legal term as it is a technical one.
There's no way for anyone to know what this person's situation is
We know that, right now, he's not in jail. But if he installs the software, he will be. Therefore, regardless of how bad off he might be financially, quitting is the best of his alternatives.
Very easy to sit there and say "just quit your job", isn't it?
Let's see, at this point his choices are either:
quit (or document his refusal to install the software, which amounts to the same thing), or
be liable for (possibly criminal) copyright infringement.
Only one of these choices is sane (I'll leave figuring out which as an exercise for the reader). And yes, choosing between a sane choice and an insane one is easy!
Actually, having the DRM cracked should speed up adoption (although I might continue avoiding it anyway, on principle). What it would slow down is the MPAA's desire to use the format.
If you mean mirroring to a removable or external drive which is safely stored and with at least one copy always in safe storage that can be a very good system but hard drives aren't really built to be carted arround all the time or to survive being in a fire safe that falls through several floors as the building burns down.
For personal or small-business use, what are your thoughts on mirroring to a 2.5" external drive (which, being designed for laptops, ought to be built to be carted around) and storing the drive in a safe-deposit box?
This method usually depends on the availability of a certain hardware, if you cannot get a new mainboard or raid controller of the same type, the mirrored disk contains data you may have trouble getting at. You may ignore this issue, if you have the same hardware at a safe location again.
What I don't understand is, in the case of RAID 1, why the data on each disk isn't bit-for-bit identical to what it would be without any RAID at all. Or is it? It seems to me that you ought to be able to just hook any single disk up to any random disk controller and read it, but I don't know if that's really true or not.
The real question is, why did it take 23 years before even a single PC OS managed to get that functionality?! It's really the kind of thing that should have been in all OSs from day 1.
Err... although I mentioned that the US's stance on IP is protectionist, I never made any argument that people opposed it for that reason. There are many reasons why people might be opposed to the DMCA and whatnot: being opposed to corporate interests "buying" laws, believing philosophically that "information should be free," simply wanting stuff for free, etc.
I wouldn't be worried about the turbines failing to separate the cars (assuming they were built solidly); I'd be worried about cost. Jersey barriers are surely much cheaper and more durable than turbines, and I think the cost of turbine repair or replacement after the inevitable accidents would be enough to make this proposal uneconomical.
Now, I'm no fan of the DMCA, because I think it causes more damage and economic loss, here in the U.S., than it can or will ever possibly create in new IP-export revenue. But the logic driving it, when you separate it from the implementation, isn't that hard to understand, at least from a certain point of view. Allow me to illustrate how I think many people see the problem:
I don't think anybody really has trouble seeing the economic logic in IP protectionism. We just don't like it.
Like a ton of people in the IT industry, I work for a company that produces pretty much nothing but intellectual property... Those rock-bottom prices for digital stuff will put me out of a job, and probably a good proportion of Slashdot's userbase as well.
Apparently you don't realize this, but most of the "IT industry" works for companies that have nothing to do with retail software or even "intellectual property" in general. Most of IT is doing support and writing code for the internal use of companies like Wal-Mart, McDonalds, GM, GE, the health-care industry, etc.
And even within the computer industry, the collapse of "intellectual property" won't be a disaster. It won't kill Apple; that company makes hardware. It won't kill IBM; IBM sells services. It will kill Microsoft, but that's just because it has the wrong business model (and MS knows this; that's why it's so gung-ho on Treacherous Computing).
There has to be a common ground where everybody is happy and everybody with the genuine talent can make a living from it...
Why? Maybe I have a "genuine talent" for sitting on my ass and posting condescending bullshit on Slashdot, but does that mean I'm entitled to make a living from it?
This is a number used in circumvention of "effective copy controls."
No, this is just a number. Only a number. To use something to circumvent copy controls it has to have functions or methods associated with it (e.g. be executable computer code). This shouldn't qualify.
Slashdot Mirror
In that case, would you mind ending the speculation by simply telling us the reason (if it was business-related; otherwise just tell us "it's private")? Curious minds want to know...
Surely you misspelled "Microsoft," right? I've read your article, and most of it makes sense, but it really seems like Novell is either aiming for Microsoft to buy them out instead of IBM, or at least for MS and IBM to fight over the UNIX rights (wouldn't that be the battle of the century!).
It doesn't matter if the license is $600, $6 million, or $0.00000006. Regardless of the cost, if it's non-zero it kills the GPL licensing model. Why? Because no matter what, the patent license would be non-transferable. This means that third parties wouldn't be able to exercise their redistribution rights under the GPL, because they wouldn't be allowed to also transfer the patent license.
Make no mistake: this, just like with SCO, is another Microsoft attempt to destroy Linux. The value of Linux is in the GPL; subvert that and Linux becomes "just another proprietary UNIX" which Microsoft can kill off at its leisure.
Vista allegedly has much improved support for Tablet PCs, which is enough for me to consider trying it out on my Thinkpad (which came with XP Tablet Edition, but also qualified for the $10 Vista "upgrade"). However, for anything other than a tablet there's no way in Hell I'd consider Vista -- any normal computer ought to run Ubuntu or OS X instead.
Bah, that "redneck shithole" is a ripoff. You could get a fixer-upper in the high-crime area west of downtown Atlanta for half the price!
Lenovo X60 Tablet.
I sure as Hell hope not! I've got a 12" Tablet PC, and that screen's quite small enough for me -- and I went out of my way to get 1400x1050. Any resolution lower than that is too damn small. Now, don't get me wrong: manufacturers can feel free to make the machine paper-thin and light, but it's got to have at least, say, an 8" diagonal screen with 1024x768 to be even slightly useful (and the more pixels, the better).
The exact same reason why there's hoopla over Macs, when they're just like regular PCs: it runs Mac OS.
No kidding. The XO (i.e., the "hundred-dollar laptop") genuinely qualifies as a laptop, but this could only be described as a "pocket organizer" or "PDA" at best.
Yes this is a legal issue, and "Open Source" (or "Free Software") is the term describing the type of license the software uses. In other words, "open source" is just as much a legal term as it is a technical one.
We know that, right now, he's not in jail. But if he installs the software, he will be. Therefore, regardless of how bad off he might be financially, quitting is the best of his alternatives.
Let's see, at this point his choices are either:
Only one of these choices is sane (I'll leave figuring out which as an exercise for the reader). And yes, choosing between a sane choice and an insane one is easy!
I watch my movies on my Tablet PC, you insensitive clod!
Actually, having the DRM cracked should speed up adoption (although I might continue avoiding it anyway, on principle). What it would slow down is the MPAA's desire to use the format.
Either "FLASH" is actually an acronym (and I didn't realize it), or you're making your post really annoying to read.
If that's true (and I don't doubt that it is), then putting that "/J" in the name was a spectacularly bad idea.
For personal or small-business use, what are your thoughts on mirroring to a 2.5" external drive (which, being designed for laptops, ought to be built to be carted around) and storing the drive in a safe-deposit box?
What I don't understand is, in the case of RAID 1, why the data on each disk isn't bit-for-bit identical to what it would be without any RAID at all. Or is it? It seems to me that you ought to be able to just hook any single disk up to any random disk controller and read it, but I don't know if that's really true or not.
The real question is, why did it take 23 years before even a single PC OS managed to get that functionality?! It's really the kind of thing that should have been in all OSs from day 1.
Err... although I mentioned that the US's stance on IP is protectionist, I never made any argument that people opposed it for that reason. There are many reasons why people might be opposed to the DMCA and whatnot: being opposed to corporate interests "buying" laws, believing philosophically that "information should be free," simply wanting stuff for free, etc.
Yeah, and a lot of them are foreign-born and here on educational visas.
I wouldn't be worried about the turbines failing to separate the cars (assuming they were built solidly); I'd be worried about cost. Jersey barriers are surely much cheaper and more durable than turbines, and I think the cost of turbine repair or replacement after the inevitable accidents would be enough to make this proposal uneconomical.
I don't think anybody really has trouble seeing the economic logic in IP protectionism. We just don't like it.
Apparently you don't realize this, but most of the "IT industry" works for companies that have nothing to do with retail software or even "intellectual property" in general. Most of IT is doing support and writing code for the internal use of companies like Wal-Mart, McDonalds, GM, GE, the health-care industry, etc.
And even within the computer industry, the collapse of "intellectual property" won't be a disaster. It won't kill Apple; that company makes hardware. It won't kill IBM; IBM sells services. It will kill Microsoft, but that's just because it has the wrong business model (and MS knows this; that's why it's so gung-ho on Treacherous Computing).
Why? Maybe I have a "genuine talent" for sitting on my ass and posting condescending bullshit on Slashdot, but does that mean I'm entitled to make a living from it?
No, this is just a number. Only a number. To use something to circumvent copy controls it has to have functions or methods associated with it (e.g. be executable computer code). This shouldn't qualify.