"I suspect that they'll (Google) take exception to Rogers fiddling with their carefully designed home page - a page where simplicity and a clean layout are defining characteristics."
"give him? oh hell no those goggles cost $699 a pair to make. we can sell them at cost however."
You sir, while I admire your bravado, are completely wrong. We do *not* sell anything. We license it. Having said that, we also license based on an arbitrary limit set by ourselves. In this case, the OPU (Ocular Processing Unit; a.k.a. eye). Now, being that Darl has 2 OPUs, we will need to license accordingly.
To sum up; we will license the goggles to Darl based on the extremely affordable and justifiable flat rate of $699/OPU. Thank you:)
I am not sure of the point you are trying to make. None of the examples you give are GPL violations.
1. Microsoft violated Eolas' patent. Microsoft has no obligation to release source code for IE as they own the copyright to that source code. 2. See above. 3. Please give me an example of SCO code that is illegally included in Linux. The SCO group never could. 4. Trademark != copyright. 5. The Apple Music store thing was a private contract between Apple records and Apple computer. 6. Lindows was renamed due to a trademark violation. Refer to #4 above.
None of your examples have anything to do with the GPL or even copyright.
Wow. I have mod points, but there is no "-1 where the hell did that come from" option. I do not disagree with your first sentence, but the remainder of your post is completely and utterly wrong, at least in how it pertains to Asus and this discussion.
"A company may not be even in a position to release the source code as it may be owned by a third party." Fair enough, but this article is about a company distributing a GNU/Linux system with a modified kernel module that is GPL'd. There is no third party involved and even if there were, there is no way that Asus could both legally distribute their version of GNU/Linux in binary format (installed on the device) and simultaneously *not* release the modified source code; regardless of said third party's standing on distribution of the code. This is GPL 101 type stuff. Check it out.
"Releasing newly written code with equivalent functionality or even rewriting GPL code and keeping the product closed source is considered enough to cure a license violation." That is so wrong I don't even know where to begin. How about you come up with some citations for that asinine bit of trash? I feel dumber for having read that.
The thing is, there are so many little bitty teeny tiny crappy things about it...
And that about sums up my experience with Vista. There is not one big thing that bothers tremendously. It is the multitude of stupid little things that just frustrate me to the point of saying "to hell with it" and booting what works.. in my case that is usually Linux but I do have XP as a standby if I need Windows.
Why should I go out of my way to make up for shortcomings of the OS? That still doesn't address the sound card issues.
Thanks, but I will stick with XP for my Windows needs and hopefully by the time it is shelved completely I will no longer have any use for MS products at all.
I realize that I can disable the UAC, but that is supposed to be one of the big selling points of Vista; it now has "enhanced" security etc... It seems that disabling the UAC defeats one of the major reasons for having Vista in the first place. I was trying to give the OS a fair shake and disabling the features that are supposed to be selling points is not really doing that. I mean, I could also enable the administrator account and just log in that way too with (mostly) the same effect.
I have tried aftermarket sound drivers for the soundblaster live! -- they work excellently until I reboot and Vista restores the pos MS driver. This is besides the point that drivers are available for this card for every other OS I use (with the possible exception of Solaris). Just because Creative decided to EOL support for the card doesn't make it not work and I refuse to spend $50+ to "fix something that ain't broke".
I guess my point is that I see no reason to use an OS that spends more time getting in my way than just letting me do what I use my computer for. That being said I will stick with XP (for the very few times I use Windows) for the time being. It is very rare that I need to boot into Windows for anything and I spend 95% of my time on Linux of one flavor or another (currently Gentoo, Kubuntu Gutsy, Slackware 12.0 and CentOS 5.0 w/rpmforge repo). The remainder of my computer time is spent pretty much evenly between OpenSolaris NV86, XP and FreeBSD.
It is different in that Ubuntu will usually only ask once for a particular action and then it will allow/disallow the action. With Vista's UAC, you will be asked several times if you are sure you want to continue with a single action (e.g. installing software).
I installed Vista a few weeks ago to check it out. Between not having drivers for a Soundblaster Live (and overwriting the hacked drivers I found every time it reboots with MS drivers that make an obnoxious screech instead of real sound), the UAC stuff and random "memory access" violations causing a reboot I gave up on it.
And before I get blasted for using crappy hardware, this machine is only three years old. It was top of the line in its day. It is a dual Xeon 2.8Ghz with 4Gb ECC RAM, SCSI disks and a GeForce 6800. It runs XP, FreeBSD, Solaris and several Linux installations with no problems what so ever. The only OS it has trouble with is Vista - which I have no use for at this point.
The article does appear to be FUD, however your assertion "So unless Google certifies their implementation, it cannot be called Java, and if Google doesn't - there *would* definitely be issues. Sun doesn't take bastardization of Java lightly!" is not only difficult to parse, but unnecessary. The article states: "By contrast, Google carefully appears to avoid calling Android a Java platform. Google describes the Android software development kit as a set of tools that lets developers create applications using Java."
"I think conspiring to take your country to war based upon false premises (for your own profit and that of your friends, no less) tops a quick office gobble in the impeachment stakes - don't you agree?"
That "quick office gobble" resulted in the President of the United States lying, eg. perjuring himself, on the stand. Morally, both are reprehensible acts and both deserve impeachment.
My office mate has one of these bad boys. He loves it except that the built-in sound card is only partially supported under Ubuntu:/ There is probably a solution though, as he claims to have not really researched the problem much.
Funny how so many people with gripes against Vista are yelling from the sidelines without any first-hand experience.
Followed by:
Vista's not perfect, but I'd still gladly choose it over any OS that forces me to compile things myself to get things working properly or buy an entirely new set of hardware just to run it.
Is that the definition of irony? My experience with Linux has not required me to compile anything for a few years now. And, out of the box, Linux supports much much more hardware than Windows. When was the last time you ran Linux?
Are not Windows (tm) and Microsoft (tm) trademarks of Microsoft Corporation? If Microsoft allows others to use their trademarks and doesn't defend them does not Microsoft lose enforceability of these trademarks regardless of locale?
I think you are a bit confused. No one is abusing MS trademarks if they pirate MS software - the software is still Microsoft(tm) Windows(tm) pirated or otherwise. Now, if a Linux distribution started naming themselves Microsoft Windows (which of course it would not be) I am sure the MS lawyers would attack pronto. MS is willing to give the software away... for now. There is no way in hell that they would allow their trademarks to be used in any way outside of their own control.
I have also seen T-bird corrupt files, but I have never seen it lose email. Usually, when I have problems with T-bird it is the summary files (*.msf) that are corrupt. Have you tried deleting the *.msf files and rebuilding them (to rebuild, just open T-bird and click on the folder in question)?
We keep absolutely no records of *who* went anywhere. All we do is use a stats program to look at referrers (or in apache-speak referers) for search engine terms (SEO stuff) and we look at destinations. On the internet there is really no real guarantee of anonymity, however we do all that is realistically possible to protect the identity of our users. Logs are destroyed nightly. Can I guarantee you are anonymous? I would be a fool to say yes. The stats program we use for the site (awstats) runs every few minutes. Once it has run, the old logs are no longer needed. The *only* way a user would ever show up in these stats is if that "user" requested thousands of pages per day. I have not seen even the most myspace hungry user do that.
The reason we look at destinations is so that we can pin-point abuses of the system. If every law-enforcement agency on the planet were to raid my offices, the *very best* I could offer them (after a court review) would be the logs that are currently on the servers. Thank you for the question:)
My company hosts an anonymous proxy (see my sig). While there is a fair amount of pr0n and the like, there is a *lot* of traffic from China and other countries with restrictive laws about what you can and cannot research. This only amounts to about 15-30% of our traffic though. Most of our traffic is to sites like myspace, facebook, photobucket etc.
There are actually many good reasons for using an anonymous proxy.
1). You want to search for information regarding an embarrassing physical condition and don't want those URLs logged at your router.
2). You are worried about the site you are visiting trying to infect your machine. Most anonymous proxies will block most scripts (in addition to advertisements).
3). You are researching your competitions website and don't want to show up in their logs.
4). In the U.S. you have a right to privacy and you simply want to exercise that right.
5). You work in government and want to visit sites that might otherwise be logged or blocked.
There are many other legitimate uses for anonymous proxies.
As a disclaimer, my company does not keep any logs -- the logs are rotated nightly at which point a cron runs and deletes all of the previous days logs. Our URLs are obfuscated but not encrypted. A sysadmin on the clients end could log all of these connections at their router and be able to decipher the URLs someone is visiting.
We also offer an SSL encrypted (https://) version of the site. You do have to trust our certificate though:) Logs are rotated nightly and dumped, same as on the "insecure" version of the site.
Nice troll asshat (hey, ad hominem is the way to go right Mr brain transplant buddy?). Also did you even try to search for "Linux workstations" on Dells site and go from there? Follow your own advice and try it. It lands you on a results page with some Precision Desktops that can be configured with either Windows Vista or Windows XP -- NO LINUX OPTION. Not to mention I didn't say anything about searching their site, I mentioned navigating their site. You should learn to read.
"Your lack of any fundamental understanding of basic business principles is exceeded only by your the "badness" of your writing."And that my friend is the definition of irony.
I saw your post and I thought to myself "sweet, I can get a Dell with something other than Windows preinstalled". So, I followed your link. I saw the Dell Precision M90 workstation (which is really a laptop?) and clicked on "Customize It" at which point I was brought to a screen where I could choose either 32-bit Windows XP/Vista or 64-bit Windows XP/Vista. No other options. *sigh*
"Dell offers FreeDOS on at least some machines, they have offered Linux in the past. No one jumped on any bandwagon behind either OS."
While factually correct I don't think either of these moves by Dell was anything approaching altruistic, let alone an honest effort to promote software written outside of Redmond. Did you ever try to navigate from Dell.com to one of these machines? Nigh on impossible. Also, once you do find one, did you also notice that the price was *higher* than if you had ordered the exact same machine with Windows? What is the motivation here for the customer? Also, as I recall, the only Linux distro ever offered by Dell was Redhat Enterprise, which is a very expensive distribution and it was only offered on their business line machines. Why not use something like CentOS (if it must be RH based) and pass the savings on to the customer? Or, better yet, use a totally free distribution and pass the savings on. Dell's "attempts" at selling no-OS/Free-OS machines was half-hearted at best; more than likely a public relations move to appease a certain software company concerned with anti-trust issues.
"When did Windows stop working on other Laptop/Desktop models.."
I have to assume GP was referring to the fact that GGP bought the laptop with Windows installed. That being the case, he more than likely bought an OEM license which, I am sure you are aware, is non-transferable. That being the case, the laptop *will* work fine without Windows, however, since Windows cannot be (legally) transferred to another machine, it *will not* work on other hardware (legally).
Slashdot Mirror
"I suspect that they'll (Google) take exception to Rogers fiddling with their carefully designed home page - a page where simplicity and a clean layout are defining characteristics."
You appear to be correct sir.
"give him? oh hell no those goggles cost $699 a pair to make. we can sell them at cost however."
:)
You sir, while I admire your bravado, are completely wrong. We do *not* sell anything. We license it. Having said that, we also license based on an arbitrary limit set by ourselves. In this case, the OPU (Ocular Processing Unit; a.k.a. eye). Now, being that Darl has 2 OPUs, we will need to license accordingly.
To sum up; we will license the goggles to Darl based on the extremely affordable and justifiable flat rate of $699/OPU. Thank you
I am not sure of the point you are trying to make. None of the examples you give are GPL violations.
1. Microsoft violated Eolas' patent. Microsoft has no obligation to release source code for IE as they own the copyright to that source code.
2. See above.
3. Please give me an example of SCO code that is illegally included in Linux. The SCO group never could.
4. Trademark != copyright.
5. The Apple Music store thing was a private contract between Apple records and Apple computer.
6. Lindows was renamed due to a trademark violation. Refer to #4 above.
None of your examples have anything to do with the GPL or even copyright.
Wow. I have mod points, but there is no "-1 where the hell did that come from" option. I do not disagree with your first sentence, but the remainder of your post is completely and utterly wrong, at least in how it pertains to Asus and this discussion.
"A company may not be even in a position to release the source code as it may be owned by a third party." Fair enough, but this article is about a company distributing a GNU/Linux system with a modified kernel module that is GPL'd. There is no third party involved and even if there were, there is no way that Asus could both legally distribute their version of GNU/Linux in binary format (installed on the device) and simultaneously *not* release the modified source code; regardless of said third party's standing on distribution of the code. This is GPL 101 type stuff. Check it out.
"Releasing newly written code with equivalent functionality or even rewriting GPL code and keeping the product closed source is considered enough to cure a license violation." That is so wrong I don't even know where to begin. How about you come up with some citations for that asinine bit of trash? I feel dumber for having read that.
The thing is, there are so many little bitty teeny tiny crappy things about it...
And that about sums up my experience with Vista. There is not one big thing that bothers tremendously. It is the multitude of stupid little things that just frustrate me to the point of saying "to hell with it" and booting what works.. in my case that is usually Linux but I do have XP as a standby if I need Windows.
Why should I go out of my way to make up for shortcomings of the OS? That still doesn't address the sound card issues.
Thanks, but I will stick with XP for my Windows needs and hopefully by the time it is shelved completely I will no longer have any use for MS products at all.
I realize that I can disable the UAC, but that is supposed to be one of the big selling points of Vista; it now has "enhanced" security etc... It seems that disabling the UAC defeats one of the major reasons for having Vista in the first place. I was trying to give the OS a fair shake and disabling the features that are supposed to be selling points is not really doing that. I mean, I could also enable the administrator account and just log in that way too with (mostly) the same effect.
I have tried aftermarket sound drivers for the soundblaster live! -- they work excellently until I reboot and Vista restores the pos MS driver. This is besides the point that drivers are available for this card for every other OS I use (with the possible exception of Solaris). Just because Creative decided to EOL support for the card doesn't make it not work and I refuse to spend $50+ to "fix something that ain't broke".
I guess my point is that I see no reason to use an OS that spends more time getting in my way than just letting me do what I use my computer for. That being said I will stick with XP (for the very few times I use Windows) for the time being. It is very rare that I need to boot into Windows for anything and I spend 95% of my time on Linux of one flavor or another (currently Gentoo, Kubuntu Gutsy, Slackware 12.0 and CentOS 5.0 w/rpmforge repo). The remainder of my computer time is spent pretty much evenly between OpenSolaris NV86, XP and FreeBSD.
It is different in that Ubuntu will usually only ask once for a particular action and then it will allow/disallow the action. With Vista's UAC, you will be asked several times if you are sure you want to continue with a single action (e.g. installing software).
I installed Vista a few weeks ago to check it out. Between not having drivers for a Soundblaster Live (and overwriting the hacked drivers I found every time it reboots with MS drivers that make an obnoxious screech instead of real sound), the UAC stuff and random "memory access" violations causing a reboot I gave up on it.
And before I get blasted for using crappy hardware, this machine is only three years old. It was top of the line in its day. It is a dual Xeon 2.8Ghz with 4Gb ECC RAM, SCSI disks and a GeForce 6800. It runs XP, FreeBSD, Solaris and several Linux installations with no problems what so ever. The only OS it has trouble with is Vista - which I have no use for at this point.
The article does appear to be FUD, however your assertion "So unless Google certifies their implementation, it cannot be called Java, and if Google doesn't - there *would* definitely be issues. Sun doesn't take bastardization of Java lightly!" is not only difficult to parse, but unnecessary. The article states: "By contrast, Google carefully appears to avoid calling Android a Java platform. Google describes the Android software development kit as a set of tools that lets developers create applications using Java."
"I think conspiring to take your country to war based upon false premises (for your own profit and that of your friends, no less) tops a quick office gobble in the impeachment stakes - don't you agree?"
That "quick office gobble" resulted in the President of the United States lying, eg. perjuring himself, on the stand. Morally, both are reprehensible acts and both deserve impeachment.
My office mate has one of these bad boys. He loves it except that the built-in sound card is only partially supported under Ubuntu :/ There is probably a solution though, as he claims to have not really researched the problem much.
Suspend still doesn't work in Windows either. Well, let me restate that; Suspend works fine, Resume does not.
That's a great way to determine VALID accounts to spam.
Possibly, but it does prevent the backflow DOS problem.
Funny how so many people with gripes against Vista are yelling from the sidelines without any first-hand experience.
Followed by:
Vista's not perfect, but I'd still gladly choose it over any OS that forces me to compile things myself to get things working properly or buy an entirely new set of hardware just to run it.
Is that the definition of irony? My experience with Linux has not required me to compile anything for a few years now. And, out of the box, Linux supports much much more hardware than Windows. When was the last time you ran Linux?
Are not Windows (tm) and Microsoft (tm) trademarks of Microsoft Corporation? If Microsoft allows others to use their trademarks and doesn't defend them does not Microsoft lose enforceability of these trademarks regardless of locale?
I think you are a bit confused. No one is abusing MS trademarks if they pirate MS software - the software is still Microsoft(tm) Windows(tm) pirated or otherwise. Now, if a Linux distribution started naming themselves Microsoft Windows (which of course it would not be) I am sure the MS lawyers would attack pronto. MS is willing to give the software away... for now. There is no way in hell that they would allow their trademarks to be used in any way outside of their own control.
I have also seen T-bird corrupt files, but I have never seen it lose email. Usually, when I have problems with T-bird it is the summary files (*.msf) that are corrupt. Have you tried deleting the *.msf files and rebuilding them (to rebuild, just open T-bird and click on the folder in question)?
Sounds a lot like the LGPL to me... but IANAL.
Now, just simply block *all* access to those IPs. Of course... there goes your automatic updates as well.
We keep absolutely no records of *who* went anywhere. All we do is use a stats program to look at referrers (or in apache-speak referers) for search engine terms (SEO stuff) and we look at destinations. On the internet there is really no real guarantee of anonymity, however we do all that is realistically possible to protect the identity of our users. Logs are destroyed nightly. Can I guarantee you are anonymous? I would be a fool to say yes. The stats program we use for the site (awstats) runs every few minutes. Once it has run, the old logs are no longer needed. The *only* way a user would ever show up in these stats is if that "user" requested thousands of pages per day. I have not seen even the most myspace hungry user do that.
:)
The reason we look at destinations is so that we can pin-point abuses of the system. If every law-enforcement agency on the planet were to raid my offices, the *very best* I could offer them (after a court review) would be the logs that are currently on the servers. Thank you for the question
Bingo! Advertisers want to know how many pageviews you get.
My company hosts an anonymous proxy (see my sig). While there is a fair amount of pr0n and the like, there is a *lot* of traffic from China and other countries with restrictive laws about what you can and cannot research. This only amounts to about 15-30% of our traffic though. Most of our traffic is to sites like myspace, facebook, photobucket etc.
:) Logs are rotated nightly and dumped, same as on the "insecure" version of the site.
There are actually many good reasons for using an anonymous proxy.
1). You want to search for information regarding an embarrassing physical condition and don't want those URLs logged at your router.
2). You are worried about the site you are visiting trying to infect your machine. Most anonymous proxies will block most scripts (in addition to advertisements).
3). You are researching your competitions website and don't want to show up in their logs.
4). In the U.S. you have a right to privacy and you simply want to exercise that right.
5). You work in government and want to visit sites that might otherwise be logged or blocked.
There are many other legitimate uses for anonymous proxies.
As a disclaimer, my company does not keep any logs -- the logs are rotated nightly at which point a cron runs and deletes all of the previous days logs. Our URLs are obfuscated but not encrypted. A sysadmin on the clients end could log all of these connections at their router and be able to decipher the URLs someone is visiting.
We also offer an SSL encrypted (https://) version of the site. You do have to trust our certificate though
Nice troll asshat (hey, ad hominem is the way to go right Mr brain transplant buddy?). Also did you even try to search for "Linux workstations" on Dells site and go from there? Follow your own advice and try it. It lands you on a results page with some Precision Desktops that can be configured with either Windows Vista or Windows XP -- NO LINUX OPTION. Not to mention I didn't say anything about searching their site, I mentioned navigating their site. You should learn to read.
"Your lack of any fundamental understanding of basic business principles is exceeded only by your the "badness" of your writing."And that my friend is the definition of irony.
I saw your post and I thought to myself "sweet, I can get a Dell with something other than Windows preinstalled". So, I followed your link. I saw the Dell Precision M90 workstation (which is really a laptop?) and clicked on "Customize It" at which point I was brought to a screen where I could choose either 32-bit Windows XP/Vista or 64-bit Windows XP/Vista. No other options. *sigh*
"Dell offers FreeDOS on at least some machines, they have offered Linux in the past. No one jumped on any bandwagon behind either OS."
While factually correct I don't think either of these moves by Dell was anything approaching altruistic, let alone an honest effort to promote software written outside of Redmond. Did you ever try to navigate from Dell.com to one of these machines? Nigh on impossible. Also, once you do find one, did you also notice that the price was *higher* than if you had ordered the exact same machine with Windows? What is the motivation here for the customer? Also, as I recall, the only Linux distro ever offered by Dell was Redhat Enterprise, which is a very expensive distribution and it was only offered on their business line machines. Why not use something like CentOS (if it must be RH based) and pass the savings on to the customer? Or, better yet, use a totally free distribution and pass the savings on. Dell's "attempts" at selling no-OS/Free-OS machines was half-hearted at best; more than likely a public relations move to appease a certain software company concerned with anti-trust issues.
"When did Windows stop working on other Laptop/Desktop models.."
:)
I have to assume GP was referring to the fact that GGP bought the laptop with Windows installed. That being the case, he more than likely bought an OEM license which, I am sure you are aware, is non-transferable. That being the case, the laptop *will* work fine without Windows, however, since Windows cannot be (legally) transferred to another machine, it *will not* work on other hardware (legally).
"...wait, don't answer that."
Ooops... too late