Hey, don't get mad at me, direct your anger against the bigotted author of this article. That's the only way we're going to change anything in this world, my black brother. The simple fact of the matter is, most sharecroppers were black. The author was talking about the "miserable work ethic" and "thieving tendancies" of sharecroppers, particularly black sharecroppers. As a black man, I found this highly, highly offensive, and I think it's absolutely the wrong message to send about open source software. The last thing we need is for the mainstream media to start thinking Linux users are racists. They're already portrayed and socialists, communists, hippies, and Europeans...do we really need to add "racist" to that list? I don't think so.
Well, at least Jobs admits he didn't think it up first. The distinction, here, is the "fast" part. Blockquoth the article:
That would imply, surely, that Microsoft has a solid prior art claim?
Of course. Microsoft invented user switching with the introduction of Windows XP. Before Windows XP, users were required to completely log off of their account before they could log in as another user. This advance was latter copied by Apple, and even Linux.
Microsoft invented user switching to begin with back in 1995, long before that sort of thing was added to Mac, or even to Linux. The new patent only covers doing it quickly, and that's an important distinction. Now, Apple has made yet another leap and enabled users to switch even more quickly, and they're going to be sure to patent that mighty quick! I wonder how long it'll take until they start sending out cease & desist letters to Linux users that they stop switching users unless they pay the royalty! Anyway I applaud Apple's new innovation. It's this kind of commitment to technology that keeps people coming back to Apple over and over again. It's no wonder they've snagged nearly 27% of the desktop market!
It's really only a matter of time before there IS a digital Pearl Harbor. The Internet has gotten too big, too fast, and is too important to leave unprotected. I heard a statistic the other day that something like 25% of industries in the United States now make use of the internet in their business, and consider it a "vital part of commerce."
This was all well and good when the Internet only existed in the United States. In the '80s when it spread to Europe I wasn't too worried, as back then they were our allies. When it hit Japan, I did think "Digital Pearl Harbor," just for a bit, but, again, not too concerned. Now, though, it's all over the world. I mean they've even got it in Iran and Afghanistan now! What's to stop Osama from logging onto AOL and digitally flying planes into buildings?
America created the Internet, and it's about time we cleaned it up and locked it down, too. A tight security framework, funded by the government, and implemented by a strong, security-focused business could stem the tide against terrorists and socialists. Perhaps a federal "Department of Internet Security," which could work closely with industry leaders to secure the internet. Actually, this could have already started, and we just don't know about it yet. Does Microsoft Trusted Computing Initiative ring any bells? This has definately got to be America's responsibility, though, Europe isn't our allies anymore. The socialists have taken over. I'm sorry, I know I'll get flamed, but it's just the honest truth, and I'm sorry if that offends any of your left-wing sensibilites. America, capitalism, freedom, security...that's what this is all about.
This, I think, will certainly help the fledgling Weblog (or 'blog) industry. I know that more ane more of these have been popping up all over the internet, and there have been a lot of Slashdot stories about them, but I hadn't ever really bothered to follow any, as most of them are just rants about auto racing or something.
Anyway, now I think blogs will become a much bigger factor on the internet with a name like AOL behind them. I know if I were surfing around the internet, and just come across somebody's blog (I guess we'll all be calling them Journals, now), anyway, if I came across somebody's Journal, I probably wouldn't care that much, but if it's got a brand like AOL on it, I think I can expect a little higher quality, and maybe some of that will rub off on the rest of the Journalists (or should it be Journalistas now?) out there. I mean, look at what AOL did for USENET? Before AOL get their tech-savvy users on that thing, it was just a dead service full of posts about Nazis and modern art. now it's a place to really do some business! Maybe AOL can repeat their success in the blogging (journaling!) field!
Great idea, Shawn, but it'll never be accepted. I know your heart's in the right place, and your bank account is feeling a little light, but this won't fix any of that.
First, you expect p2p users to submit to this willingly. Ummm...so, right now, they can steal all the music they want for free, but they're going to jump on your wagon and let spyware into their p2p programs. I'll eat my hat before I ever see spyware in Kazaa!
Most damningly, though, is that you expect the RIAA to go along with your plan, too. The problem is, they've got you in their sites as Pirate in Chief #1 with a bullet. They're never going to turn the keys over to you...that'd be as crazy as if Captain Pickard let that little Wil Wheaton character fly his spaceship. Fat chance of ever seeing that happen. Simply put, to stop pirates, the RIAA needs more power than they have now, and more power than they can get from your software. The only real solution has to come from government. Perhaps some kind of system whereby if the RIAA finds pirated music or movies, or movies about pirates, or songs that feature peg-legs or the word "arr!" in them, they'd be free to destroy your computer. Something like that might actually work, and just might make the world profitable for music producers again. We need a federal Department of Music Security, headed by Hillary Rosen to put an end to audio terrorists like Shawn here once and for all.
This is a very poor article, which makes a very poor analogy.
While I agree with the author that developing code for closed source platforms may be helping out a company, I hardly think that makes you a "sharecropper." Just because you write a program for Windows, doesn't mean it becomes Bill Gates' personal property now.
Really, it's worse than this, because the author appears to be trying to incite some kind of revolt in the programming community against all kinds of closed-source development. Uh, hello? If nobody writes these programs, how are the companies that sell software going to make any money? We live in a profit-driven world, and if there's no profit, nobody's going to do it! I think that's fairly obvious by now, just by looking at the operating systems out there. Good profits result in good software, it's just that simple.
Finally, I think the author does an even greater disservice, and exposes his bias, by referring to sharecroppers in a derogatory manner. Those who work the land should never be mocked, because if it weren't for the vast sharecropping industry in the united states, there wouldn't be any food on your plate. Sorry, you can't eat your AOL start-up disk, bucko. Also, it's a historical fact that most sharecroppers were African American, and I think the authors negative reference to them may be a veiled form of racism. I think this reflects badly on the open source software movement, and I don't think Linux Torvulds would approve. Might as well have titled the aticle, "Don't Write Software for Windows, or You're A Coon!" Pathetic.
Sure, the users will be fucked in the end, but you'll have a lot of money. With that money, buy a convertible. You may cry over the fate of the hapless users, so drive real fast with the top down, and the wind will dry your tears.
I'd only be interested if you could point the thing at a hot chick, and it would show you the nudie pics her last boyfriend took of her and then posted on the internet when they broke up.
Funny you should mention this!! My company is doing the switch right here. Here's what we're doing, and maybe you can try something similar.
We're using Windows 2003 servers (for IAS) and PEAP/MSCHAPv2. We're not offering support for Windows clients prior to 2000 (even though clients do exist for 98/ME,etc). Windows 2000 supposedly has builtin support after SP3, but on June 10, Microsoft released a WEP patch that breaks 1x! (At least for our implementation...) Windows XP SP1 works in most cases, but certain onboard-wireless chipsets (Intel) don't work, regardless of OS. I heard that staff struggled with and finally successfully installed a 3rd party client for RedHat 9, and I'm told there's also a client for Mac OS 10.2
The network guys certainly did their homework, and everything turned out great!
Well it's about time HP started listening to their user base. I've been using HP computers for several years now (the very best, in my opinion!) and I've had a lot of problems on the times I've tried to run Unix on them. Their customer support for that sort of thing was sorely lacking, as I'd spend an hour on the phone when them after installing Red Hat Unix over the Windows operating system that came with the computer, and then not being able to get Office to work. They kept telling me to reboot the computer over and over again, but Windows wouldn't come back up.
Now that they're using Mandrake Unix, which from the statistics I've seen is the most popular Unix in the world, maybe their tech support will improve.
The only thing that worries me is that I heard Mandrake was a French company, and therefore there might be some issues with importing a french operating system into the U.S., given the impending embargo. Also, the French government is pretty strict about their language and culture, so that could be a big problem. I don't think many American Unix users are going to like having to double click on "Mes Documents" to get to their files!
Regardless, I hope HP is successful in this. A lot of people on Slashdot have said you need a big, well-known name like Microsoft to stand behind something like Unix so idiot bosses in corporate america will accept it, but I think HP brings enough clout, along with the proven success of Mandrake Unix, to make a good go at it now that HP isn't going to sell windows anymore.
On the surface, this seems like a great idea. After all, we know Micro$oft servers are a lot easier to crack than Linux or BSD servers, so they'll probably take the brunt of this. But, after it's all said and done, isn't Bill Gates going to point at the Linux crowd, and sites like Slashdot, as having started this? "Hackers" have such a bad name already, do we really want to feed it?
It would be a lot easier for Bill to get media exposure, as he owns CNBC and everything, so I can just see them trying to interview Linux Tovalds and asking him "So how many websites did you and your Free Software friends deface today?" I thank that would be bad for our message.
Nice try, but it seems to me we should focus on more productive things to bring down Micro$oft, like trying to get Linux on the XBox!!!
This sounds like a wonderful idea! It's about time the USPS got with the times. For too long they've been afraid of digital technology. Remember when they tried to put a tax on faxes in the 80's because they thought everybody was going to use those insteading of sending letters? It's that kind of short-sightedness that hurts the postal service's quality image as a whole.
The only thing that worries me is the oversight on this by Donald Rumfields. The USPS is actually a division of the US Department of Defense...kind of like how the Treasury department oversees the secret service. Does this mean, then, that the Bush administration would get to decide who does and doesn't get digital certificates? Also, what about big business interests? Bill Gates gives an awful lot of money to Bush, so what if he decided no Linux users could get these certs?
Huh, I thought this had already been solved? I was reading about this issue on CNN's similar story last week, and they mentioned the outcry from the blind and mute community over this issue. However, they also said Microsoft had already come up for a solution with regards to hotmail (M$'s free internet based e mail service) by simply not applying the test to the blind. WindowsXP checks to see if a Braille translator is hooked up to your computer, and relays this through your.NET passport to Hotmail. If it is, you don't have to go through that mess.
Sounds like a good solution to me! Besides, if they do this for the blind, and use that audio test thing instead, the deaf will be all over them.
Why, wouldn't you know it, IAAIPL (I am an IP lawyer)!
Sadly, yes, this is enforceable. "Sniff" is too broad a term to trademark, but "sniffer" is certainly not. Check findlaw.com's take on trademark dilution. NAI believes these's peoples' use of the term "sniffer" dialates their trademark.
However, I think in this case they've gone too far. There's a C&D letter they also sent to the Children's Television Workshop after the Sesame Street producers gave Snuffleupagus HIV last year as part of a bid to raise kids' awareness of AIDS. Apparently NAI didn't want their trademark associated with wherever Snuffleupagus was keeping his "sniffer"
This is a great entry, with some really good insights.
I first heard about this project from a BBC Article where they describe it as a "browser free from censorship or outmoded intellectual property laws," which is something I think we can all get behind! However, they made the point that the project could have been better named.
It seems the author has picked up on that now, too. I think most telling is this passage from the author's blog (weblog):
Be careful when naming your project. It's difficult for IT managers to convice PHB's that this project is useful for their enterprise class systems with a name like "peakabooty." This sort of nomenclature is detrimental to the future of GPL/Linux
It's odd that this would come up right now, but I've got a friend in the California state senate (he's a page), and apparently there's rumor that this bill may have been killed because some topless photos of Senator Debra Bowen have been floating around on the internet. It's ironic that the spam bill would be killed because of free porn spam.
I'm surprised to see this story on/. without a link to Daubert on the Web. This is a very important case with a lot of angry followers, and there's some great stuff on this site. I happen to have some of it bookmarked, as IAAL (I Am A Lawyer).
There's also a listing of other cases where this ruling has been applied. One of the most interesting is United States v. Villarman-Oviedo, which is a narcotics case where the admissibility of the evidence was confirmed despite the fact that the expert was obviously drunk when he took the stand.
Also, the arson case of United States v. Diaz where the handwriting expert's opion was admissible, despite the fact that the handwriting expert was actually a phrenologist.
Clearly, this ruling has hand a profound negative impact on our judicial system.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, don't get mad at me, direct your anger against the bigotted author of this article. That's the only way we're going to change anything in this world, my black brother. The simple fact of the matter is, most sharecroppers were black. The author was talking about the "miserable work ethic" and "thieving tendancies" of sharecroppers, particularly black sharecroppers. As a black man, I found this highly, highly offensive, and I think it's absolutely the wrong message to send about open source software. The last thing we need is for the mainstream media to start thinking Linux users are racists. They're already portrayed and socialists, communists, hippies, and Europeans...do we really need to add "racist" to that list? I don't think so.
Whenever there's a story about a Segway on /., some troll asks "Yeah, but does it run Linux?" Well, buck up, buttercup, the answer is YES!
It's really only a matter of time before there IS a digital Pearl Harbor. The Internet has gotten too big, too fast, and is too important to leave unprotected. I heard a statistic the other day that something like 25% of industries in the United States now make use of the internet in their business, and consider it a "vital part of commerce."
This was all well and good when the Internet only existed in the United States. In the '80s when it spread to Europe I wasn't too worried, as back then they were our allies. When it hit Japan, I did think "Digital Pearl Harbor," just for a bit, but, again, not too concerned. Now, though, it's all over the world. I mean they've even got it in Iran and Afghanistan now! What's to stop Osama from logging onto AOL and digitally flying planes into buildings?
America created the Internet, and it's about time we cleaned it up and locked it down, too. A tight security framework, funded by the government, and implemented by a strong, security-focused business could stem the tide against terrorists and socialists. Perhaps a federal "Department of Internet Security," which could work closely with industry leaders to secure the internet. Actually, this could have already started, and we just don't know about it yet. Does Microsoft Trusted Computing Initiative ring any bells? This has definately got to be America's responsibility, though, Europe isn't our allies anymore. The socialists have taken over. I'm sorry, I know I'll get flamed, but it's just the honest truth, and I'm sorry if that offends any of your left-wing sensibilites. America, capitalism, freedom, security...that's what this is all about.
This, I think, will certainly help the fledgling Weblog (or 'blog) industry. I know that more ane more of these have been popping up all over the internet, and there have been a lot of Slashdot stories about them, but I hadn't ever really bothered to follow any, as most of them are just rants about auto racing or something.
Anyway, now I think blogs will become a much bigger factor on the internet with a name like AOL behind them. I know if I were surfing around the internet, and just come across somebody's blog (I guess we'll all be calling them Journals, now), anyway, if I came across somebody's Journal, I probably wouldn't care that much, but if it's got a brand like AOL on it, I think I can expect a little higher quality, and maybe some of that will rub off on the rest of the Journalists (or should it be Journalistas now?) out there. I mean, look at what AOL did for USENET? Before AOL get their tech-savvy users on that thing, it was just a dead service full of posts about Nazis and modern art. now it's a place to really do some business! Maybe AOL can repeat their success in the blogging (journaling!) field!
Great idea, Shawn, but it'll never be accepted. I know your heart's in the right place, and your bank account is feeling a little light, but this won't fix any of that.
First, you expect p2p users to submit to this willingly. Ummm...so, right now, they can steal all the music they want for free, but they're going to jump on your wagon and let spyware into their p2p programs. I'll eat my hat before I ever see spyware in Kazaa!
Most damningly, though, is that you expect the RIAA to go along with your plan, too. The problem is, they've got you in their sites as Pirate in Chief #1 with a bullet. They're never going to turn the keys over to you...that'd be as crazy as if Captain Pickard let that little Wil Wheaton character fly his spaceship. Fat chance of ever seeing that happen. Simply put, to stop pirates, the RIAA needs more power than they have now, and more power than they can get from your software. The only real solution has to come from government. Perhaps some kind of system whereby if the RIAA finds pirated music or movies, or movies about pirates, or songs that feature peg-legs or the word "arr!" in them, they'd be free to destroy your computer. Something like that might actually work, and just might make the world profitable for music producers again. We need a federal Department of Music Security, headed by Hillary Rosen to put an end to audio terrorists like Shawn here once and for all.
This is a very poor article, which makes a very poor analogy.
While I agree with the author that developing code for closed source platforms may be helping out a company, I hardly think that makes you a "sharecropper." Just because you write a program for Windows, doesn't mean it becomes Bill Gates' personal property now.
Really, it's worse than this, because the author appears to be trying to incite some kind of revolt in the programming community against all kinds of closed-source development. Uh, hello? If nobody writes these programs, how are the companies that sell software going to make any money? We live in a profit-driven world, and if there's no profit, nobody's going to do it! I think that's fairly obvious by now, just by looking at the operating systems out there. Good profits result in good software, it's just that simple.
Finally, I think the author does an even greater disservice, and exposes his bias, by referring to sharecroppers in a derogatory manner. Those who work the land should never be mocked, because if it weren't for the vast sharecropping industry in the united states, there wouldn't be any food on your plate. Sorry, you can't eat your AOL start-up disk, bucko. Also, it's a historical fact that most sharecroppers were African American, and I think the authors negative reference to them may be a veiled form of racism. I think this reflects badly on the open source software movement, and I don't think Linux Torvulds would approve. Might as well have titled the aticle, "Don't Write Software for Windows, or You're A Coon!" Pathetic.
Sure, the users will be fucked in the end, but you'll have a lot of money. With that money, buy a convertible. You may cry over the fate of the hapless users, so drive real fast with the top down, and the wind will dry your tears.
I'd only be interested if you could point the thing at a hot chick, and it would show you the nudie pics her last boyfriend took of her and then posted on the internet when they broke up.
Funny you should mention this!! My company is doing the switch right here. Here's what we're doing, and maybe you can try something similar.
We're using Windows 2003 servers (for IAS) and PEAP/MSCHAPv2. We're not offering support for Windows clients prior to 2000 (even though clients do exist for 98/ME,etc). Windows 2000 supposedly has builtin support after SP3, but on June 10, Microsoft released a WEP patch that breaks 1x! (At least for our implementation...) Windows XP SP1 works in most cases, but certain onboard-wireless chipsets (Intel) don't work, regardless of OS. I heard that staff struggled with and finally successfully installed a 3rd party client for RedHat 9, and I'm told there's also a client for Mac OS 10.2
The network guys certainly did their homework, and everything turned out great!
Cheers,
FtP
Well it's about time HP started listening to their user base. I've been using HP computers for several years now (the very best, in my opinion!) and I've had a lot of problems on the times I've tried to run Unix on them. Their customer support for that sort of thing was sorely lacking, as I'd spend an hour on the phone when them after installing Red Hat Unix over the Windows operating system that came with the computer, and then not being able to get Office to work. They kept telling me to reboot the computer over and over again, but Windows wouldn't come back up.
Now that they're using Mandrake Unix, which from the statistics I've seen is the most popular Unix in the world, maybe their tech support will improve.
The only thing that worries me is that I heard Mandrake was a French company, and therefore there might be some issues with importing a french operating system into the U.S., given the impending embargo. Also, the French government is pretty strict about their language and culture, so that could be a big problem. I don't think many American Unix users are going to like having to double click on "Mes Documents" to get to their files!
Regardless, I hope HP is successful in this. A lot of people on Slashdot have said you need a big, well-known name like Microsoft to stand behind something like Unix so idiot bosses in corporate america will accept it, but I think HP brings enough clout, along with the proven success of Mandrake Unix, to make a good go at it now that HP isn't going to sell windows anymore.
On the surface, this seems like a great idea. After all, we know Micro$oft servers are a lot easier to crack than Linux or BSD servers, so they'll probably take the brunt of this. But, after it's all said and done, isn't Bill Gates going to point at the Linux crowd, and sites like Slashdot, as having started this? "Hackers" have such a bad name already, do we really want to feed it?
It would be a lot easier for Bill to get media exposure, as he owns CNBC and everything, so I can just see them trying to interview Linux Tovalds and asking him "So how many websites did you and your Free Software friends deface today?" I thank that would be bad for our message.
Nice try, but it seems to me we should focus on more productive things to bring down Micro$oft, like trying to get Linux on the XBox!!!
Cheers,
FtP
This sounds like a wonderful idea! It's about time the USPS got with the times. For too long they've been afraid of digital technology. Remember when they tried to put a tax on faxes in the 80's because they thought everybody was going to use those insteading of sending letters? It's that kind of short-sightedness that hurts the postal service's quality image as a whole.
The only thing that worries me is the oversight on this by Donald Rumfields. The USPS is actually a division of the US Department of Defense...kind of like how the Treasury department oversees the secret service. Does this mean, then, that the Bush administration would get to decide who does and doesn't get digital certificates? Also, what about big business interests? Bill Gates gives an awful lot of money to Bush, so what if he decided no Linux users could get these certs?
What are your thoughts, guys?
Cheers, FtP
Huh, I thought this had already been solved? I was reading about this issue on CNN's similar story last week, and they mentioned the outcry from the blind and mute community over this issue. However, they also said Microsoft had already come up for a solution with regards to hotmail (M$'s free internet based e mail service) by simply not applying the test to the blind. WindowsXP checks to see if a Braille translator is hooked up to your computer, and relays this through your .NET passport to Hotmail. If it is, you don't have to go through that mess.
Sounds like a good solution to me! Besides, if they do this for the blind, and use that audio test thing instead, the deaf will be all over them.
Why, wouldn't you know it, IAAIPL (I am an IP lawyer)! Sadly, yes, this is enforceable. "Sniff" is too broad a term to trademark, but "sniffer" is certainly not. Check findlaw.com's take on trademark dilution. NAI believes these's peoples' use of the term "sniffer" dialates their trademark.
However, I think in this case they've gone too far. There's a C&D letter they also sent to the Children's Television Workshop after the Sesame Street producers gave Snuffleupagus HIV last year as part of a bid to raise kids' awareness of AIDS. Apparently NAI didn't want their trademark associated with wherever Snuffleupagus was keeping his "sniffer"
I first heard about this project from a BBC Article where they describe it as a "browser free from censorship or outmoded intellectual property laws," which is something I think we can all get behind! However, they made the point that the project could have been better named.
It seems the author has picked up on that now, too. I think most telling is this passage from the author's blog (weblog):
Hopefully, he'll take these insights to heart!
The news link doesn't mention this, but Senator Bowen's bill was actually written by Greg Maddox of Spam Prevention Early Warning System (SPEWS) fame
It's odd that this would come up right now, but I've got a friend in the California state senate (he's a page), and apparently there's rumor that this bill may have been killed because some topless photos of Senator Debra Bowen have been floating around on the internet. It's ironic that the spam bill would be killed because of free porn spam.
I'm surprised to see this story on /. without a link to Daubert on the Web. This is a very important case with a lot of angry followers, and there's some great stuff on this site. I happen to have some of it bookmarked, as IAAL (I Am A Lawyer).
There's also a listing of other cases where this ruling has been applied. One of the most interesting is United States v. Villarman-Oviedo, which is a narcotics case where the admissibility of the evidence was confirmed despite the fact that the expert was obviously drunk when he took the stand.
Also, the arson case of United States v. Diaz where the handwriting expert's opion was admissible, despite the fact that the handwriting expert was actually a phrenologist.
Clearly, this ruling has hand a profound negative impact on our judicial system.