As another poster pointed out, that site would be/.ed in seconds. However, as a business model, I think you might be on to something. Charge something like ~$20/disk. Not to mention the telephone/email/update support you could sell with it. Just a thought.
False advertising? If the product performs as advertised (even at less than optimum) you'd have to work pretty hard to prove it.
I agree, however my point was that they were selling features that did not currently (and may never) exist. This is not a performance issue, this is snake oil.
Which advertising agents? I freelance to a marketing firm who works with the salespeople for a particular gadget. Who's liable?
Another poster had what I consider to be a great idea. Professional engineers, architects, doctors, lawyers etc... are held directly responsible for their actions. What about the concept of the professional manager? If that person gives the final OK on fraudulent marketing techniques, that person is held liable.
Marketing is a fact of life. Without it, companies have to wait for consumers to come to them. No one has that much time or money. And without that, no gadgets.
Agreed. But they can bring products to market and they can market them without being fraudulent.
OK, false advertising could be argued as being a civil matter. Maybe I should have said fraud, which is a criminal matter. And isn't that what false advertising is?
There's also the issue of how to send a corporation to prison.
Pressing charges against the board members and advertising agents would be a start.
Yes, the ignorant masses are being duped by the marketing dollars of large corporations. This has happened throughout history (ask any woman if Victoria's Secret underwear is actually comfortable), and it's not likely to stop.
This would be great if you could *trust* the manufacturer. I worry way too much about privacy issues for that though. I don't want spyware/DRMware/adware installed behind my back. How long do you think it would take before that sort of thing started happening? Now, if it simply said "XXX update is available for your Widget3000, would you like to install it?" at least I could research the aforementioned issues before installing.
Sounds like vaporware has moved from the soft relm to the hard relm.
That and beta testing as well. It seems that you are also correct here: " Unless there's a class action, I'm screwed and they know it." yet, I can only hope you are correct here: "If what this article says is true, then it's a short-term trend that will get the companies long-term problems."
That is a great point, and one I admit I hadn't considered. It still seems deceitful to me though. If I buy something for some feature, and then have to go to the shop to get the firmware updated to get that feature, as a luddite that implies to me that my phone was broken to begin with.
Some cell phone patches require a proprietary cable ($25) that will then wipe out your phone book.
So, you are sold something that does not work as advertised, and to get it to work as advertised you have to spend $25 on a $2 cable? Only to find out you just lost your address book? Hmmmphh.
OK, my use of the word "disagree" is probably not the best term to describe what I was trying to convey (i.e. there are many laws that I disagree with, but as long as I don't break them, I am not in the wrong or violating the law).
However, SCO has publicly stated that they do not accept the license (which is the wording used in the license), yet they have continued to distribute software that is only licensed for them to distribute under that license. So, either way, SCO is in the wrong.
I hate to reply to my own post;), but it was modded redundant, I think because I did not mention the question I was attempting to answer:
Does violating the GPL in regards to one piece of software automatically justify removing your license to use any GPL'd software, or only that particular piece of software?
Now, my interpretation of the GPL (and again, IANAL) is that if you refute the validity of the GPL you have forfeited any rights that the GPL would otherwise grant you. Regardless of what software package it is. But, I could be wrong....
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
Thus it would seem that if you disagree with the GPL (which SCO has stated publicly on several occasions) you have no right to software licensed under the GPL. However I post to/. and thus IANAL.
Eh? I'm lost. As you say, SCO can download a new license. That's not what's going on. USENIX has terminated SCO's distribution license of NMAP - completely. Even if SCO "downloads" a new license, they would be barred from distributing NMAP, since that's what USENIX's position is.
Are you trolling or is that an honest question? There are two seperate issues mentioned. 1. USENIX has written an open letter to Congress contradicting most of what SCO's letter to congress (pdf). 2. Nmap's creator has simply stated that due to GPL violations, SCO has no right to continue distributing nmap. He is not changing the license in any way. He is simply stating that the license to distribute has been violated, thus distribution rights are revoked.
That is amazing! I remember waiting something like six hours on a 486SX25 for a 2.0 something kernel. First one I ever compiled =) But that kernel never booted either... (but it did compile!!!!).
"Anyone who claims to have uptimes on a M$ box of longer than about 2 weeks is running an insecure box."
OK, open mouth, insert foot. That is a great point about repackaging the patches. I admit that I hadn't really delved into it much further than simply installing them. And, as a direct result of a bad experience where I was installing several things at a time and thinking "they are just kidding about that reboot" and then borking the system... (*sigh*), I always reboot now.
It is just that waiting when you have to take down a remote system, praying it comes back is stress I would rather avoid. I think what I find most ironic is that I am an MCSE and an MCSA and I still prefer my Linux boxes by far!
Are you talking about the time I spent testing new patches? That is about the same, Linux or M$. Or how about the time it takes to replicate systems becuase I work in an environment where downtime is not acceptable and every fscking patch that comes out of Redmond requires a reboot? With Linux, unless I change a kernel, I don't have to reboot and unless I am patching/replacing the main service on that machine, my downtime is 0. Now, rebooting on a home PC is no big deal, 2 minutes start to finish. Rebooting a multiprocessor server with several SCSI cards and error checking memory can take as long as 15 minutes. Anyone who claims to have uptimes on a M$ box of longer than about 2 weeks is running an insecure box.
The average user should not ever have to update a kernel. Simply wait for a boxed set of your favorite distro and upgrade.
This article is aimed at those of us that have the experience and desire to run a custom kernel. I have been running the 2.6 series kernels since 2.6.0 with virtually no problems. Admittedly, there were some growing pains learning the nuances of the new kernel. Not to mention, I am using a lot of hardware that only has beta and alpha drivers (NVidia ti-4600 on an Apollo Pro chipset - Win2K won't even see the card and XP only has uptimes of about 5 minutes, Hauppage PVR-250 video capture, Atheros based wireless pci card, etc...). Still no kernel panics or stability issues. Then again, I am not a newbie. If I were, I would wait for a distro to release a 2.6 version.
Slashdot Mirror
As another poster pointed out, that site would be /.ed in seconds. However, as a business model, I think you might be on to something. Charge something like ~$20/disk. Not to mention the telephone/email/update support you could sell with it. Just a thought.
False advertising? If the product performs as advertised (even at less than optimum) you'd have to work pretty hard to prove it.
I agree, however my point was that they were selling features that did not currently (and may never) exist. This is not a performance issue, this is snake oil.
Which advertising agents? I freelance to a marketing firm who works with the salespeople for a particular gadget. Who's liable?
Another poster had what I consider to be a great idea. Professional engineers, architects, doctors, lawyers etc... are held directly responsible for their actions. What about the concept of the professional manager? If that person gives the final OK on fraudulent marketing techniques, that person is held liable.
Marketing is a fact of life. Without it, companies have to wait for consumers to come to them. No one has that much time or money. And without that, no gadgets.
Agreed. But they can bring products to market and they can market them without being fraudulent.
Amen. I was not nearly so articulate with my wording; you hit the nail on the head. Thanks.
Sorry, I just reread that and have my own answer. That was exactly your point; the DMCA trumps fair-use.
Ok. Gotcha. So, who trumps who? Does fair-use trump the DMCA or vice-versa?
I thought that was what fair-use laws were all about. I *can* make *legal* backups of my purchases.
OK, false advertising could be argued as being a civil matter. Maybe I should have said fraud, which is a criminal matter. And isn't that what false advertising is?
Where's the criminal act?
False advertising.
There's also the issue of how to send a corporation to prison.
Pressing charges against the board members and advertising agents would be a start.
Yes, the ignorant masses are being duped by the marketing dollars of large corporations. This has happened throughout history (ask any woman if Victoria's Secret underwear is actually comfortable), and it's not likely to stop.
Doh! I've been trolled!
This would be great if you could *trust* the manufacturer. I worry way too much about privacy issues for that though. I don't want spyware/DRMware/adware installed behind my back. How long do you think it would take before that sort of thing started happening? Now, if it simply said "XXX update is available for your Widget3000, would you like to install it?" at least I could research the aforementioned issues before installing.
Sounds like vaporware has moved from the soft relm to the hard relm.
That and beta testing as well. It seems that you are also correct here: " Unless there's a class action, I'm screwed and they know it." yet, I can only hope you are correct here: "If what this article says is true, then it's a short-term trend that will get the companies long-term problems."
That is a great point, and one I admit I hadn't considered. It still seems deceitful to me though. If I buy something for some feature, and then have to go to the shop to get the firmware updated to get that feature, as a luddite that implies to me that my phone was broken to begin with.
New features through firmware updates should be quite welcome to everybody who can follow the simple precautions necessary to update.
Except that the customer has in most cases already paid for these features. At that point, who is to say these "features" won't turn into vaporware.
How long until the masses catch up and stop being screwed?
When corporations are held criminally liable for this sort of deceit. Don't hold your breath.(I too am cynical;)
Some cell phone patches require a proprietary cable ($25) that will then wipe out your phone book.
So, you are sold something that does not work as advertised, and to get it to work as advertised you have to spend $25 on a $2 cable? Only to find out you just lost your address book? Hmmmphh.
OK, my use of the word "disagree" is probably not the best term to describe what I was trying to convey (i.e. there are many laws that I disagree with, but as long as I don't break them, I am not in the wrong or violating the law).
However, SCO has publicly stated that they do not accept the license (which is the wording used in the license), yet they have continued to distribute software that is only licensed for them to distribute under that license. So, either way, SCO is in the wrong.
I hate to reply to my own post ;), but it was modded redundant, I think because I did not mention the question I was attempting to answer:
Does violating the GPL in regards to one piece of software automatically justify removing your license to use any GPL'd software, or only that particular piece of software?
Now, my interpretation of the GPL (and again, IANAL) is that if you refute the validity of the GPL you have forfeited any rights that the GPL would otherwise grant you. Regardless of what software package it is. But, I could be wrong....
Ripped straight from The GPL (emphasis mine)
/. and thus IANAL.
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
Thus it would seem that if you disagree with the GPL (which SCO has stated publicly on several occasions) you have no right to software licensed under the GPL. However I post to
Eh? I'm lost. As you say, SCO can download a new license. That's not what's going on. USENIX has terminated SCO's distribution license of NMAP - completely. Even if SCO "downloads" a new license, they would be barred from distributing NMAP, since that's what USENIX's position is.
Are you trolling or is that an honest question? There are two seperate issues mentioned. 1. USENIX has written an open letter to Congress contradicting most of what SCO's letter to congress (pdf). 2. Nmap's creator has simply stated that due to GPL violations, SCO has no right to continue distributing nmap. He is not changing the license in any way. He is simply stating that the license to distribute has been violated, thus distribution rights are revoked.
That is amazing! I remember waiting something like six hours on a 486SX25 for a 2.0 something kernel. First one I ever compiled =) But that kernel never booted either... (but it did compile!!!!).
"Anyone who claims to have uptimes on a M$ box of longer than about 2 weeks is running an insecure box."
OK, open mouth, insert foot. That is a great point about repackaging the patches. I admit that I hadn't really delved into it much further than simply installing them. And, as a direct result of a bad experience where I was installing several things at a time and thinking "they are just kidding about that reboot" and then borking the system... (*sigh*), I always reboot now.
It is just that waiting when you have to take down a remote system, praying it comes back is stress I would rather avoid. I think what I find most ironic is that I am an MCSE and an MCSA and I still prefer my Linux boxes by far!
Are you talking about the time I spent testing new patches? That is about the same, Linux or M$. Or how about the time it takes to replicate systems becuase I work in an environment where downtime is not acceptable and every fscking patch that comes out of Redmond requires a reboot? With Linux, unless I change a kernel, I don't have to reboot and unless I am patching/replacing the main service on that machine, my downtime is 0. Now, rebooting on a home PC is no big deal, 2 minutes start to finish. Rebooting a multiprocessor server with several SCSI cards and error checking memory can take as long as 15 minutes. Anyone who claims to have uptimes on a M$ box of longer than about 2 weeks is running an insecure box.
Except it would take something like six hours to compile on what he has. I guess this is where cross-compiling would be helpful ;)
Actually, 2.6.3 is the current stable kernel. Wise-ass.
Somebody around here has/had a .sig to that effect. "The box said Designed for Windows XP or better, so I installed [insert favorite distro name here]"
I always found it funny anyway....
Someone please mod parent up.
The average user should not ever have to update a kernel. Simply wait for a boxed set of your favorite distro and upgrade.
This article is aimed at those of us that have the experience and desire to run a custom kernel. I have been running the 2.6 series kernels since 2.6.0 with virtually no problems. Admittedly, there were some growing pains learning the nuances of the new kernel. Not to mention, I am using a lot of hardware that only has beta and alpha drivers (NVidia ti-4600 on an Apollo Pro chipset - Win2K won't even see the card and XP only has uptimes of about 5 minutes, Hauppage PVR-250 video capture, Atheros based wireless pci card, etc...). Still no kernel panics or stability issues. Then again, I am not a newbie. If I were, I would wait for a distro to release a 2.6 version.