The Free Software Foundation's essay simply reinforces the view that the differences are mainly to do with ideological tub-thumping. Personally, I value both ideologies. The FSF sees free software as part of a ideological struggle, the OSS sees open source as a pragmatic licensing issue.
I feel compelled to quote Disraeli: The review was clearly written by "a sophistical rhetorician, inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity, and gifted with an egotistical imagination that can at all times command an interminable and inconsistent series of arguments to malign an opponent and to glorify himself. "
Except of course, the reviewer's prose is so baroque it is impossible to tell whether is arguments are actually inconsistent.
And how, pray does the openness or otherwise of the OS allow you to know whether you could silently drop it inside a hypervisor without knowing? This is not a Vista-specific exploit.
Something about the relative intimacy of various forms of communication and willingness to engage in them.
Something about using the least intrusive means of communication that still has a reasonable chance of success, I think.
People are naturally reticent about wasting others' time or being too intrusive. If they have a reasonable expectation of getting a response on a forum, they will go that route, if not - e-mail, if not - IM, if not-phone, if not - they'll door-step you.
Yes, you are right. And contrary to some other comment in the discussion, this is not simple System Restore. Instead the Vista stuff appears to be a user-file-focussed system built on the existing Windows XP/Server system.
With Windows Vista, the operating system will make "shadow" (that is, backup) copies of files and folders for users who have "System Protection" enabled (the default setting). The feature will be called Previous Versions, and will be accessible via the right-click properties menu as "Restore previous versions."
The utility will show multiple versions of a file throughout a limited history and users will be able to restore, delete, or copy those versions. The service is configured to monitor modifications to files up to and including the latest "restore point," although this behavior could be modified by the time Vista ships.
I thought at the time, "that looks quite nifty" despite the rather negative spin from Ars. Glad to see that Leopard will have something similar, hopefully superior.
... but maybe it would be better to wait until he posts a really interesting, insightful column before posting it to the front page of Slashdot. This was just a preliminary bit of throat clearing from what I can see.
And really - a futurologist who finishes his column with "I can't wait to see how it turns out." - that's right up there with "only time will tell" - much beloved of lazy trainy-journalists who have got tired of thinking and have completed their allotted word count.
You modify your day-to-day activities somewhat - explain to him that you aren't trying to harass him., and ask him politely to turn the device off since you find it unpleasant.
I mean, you have tried to come to a reasonable accommodation, right?
I was going to, but I thought I might get accused of being a stooge. But since you ask. The insurer for house and contents was Abbey National (a UK bank). Their outsourced people for dealing with the claim (the people I dealt with) was a company called Claim Control, which sadly doesn't appear yo have a Web site.
Curious. My wife's very old laptop went bang last year, we were going to buy a new one when her dad said 'try claiming on the insurance' - we hadn't even thought about it, but there was a clause promising to pay out for accidental damage. I wasn't convinced that the smell of burning could really be classed as accidental damage, but what the hell. The outsourced claims people asked us to send the laptop in for examination by an expert, three days later we got a call saying, "yes it's covered we can offer you one of these four models of laptop as a replacement". All four were by far better specced than the original old machine. We asked whether it was possible to pay a bit more and get a better laptop, they said yes, so we paid £150 more, I think and got an Apple iBook which arrived through the post 4 days later.
Fast, courteous, friendly. You don't here much about insurance companies like that, but they do exist.... apparently.
It's a dusty tan box that sits under their $50 pressboard "computer table" from Wal-Mart that they turn on to check email and surf porn, and every so often, open a pirated copy of Word to update their resumes.
That's the issue. My parents (in their late 70s/early 80s) decided to get a Mac when they decided they liked the idea of getting a video camera and doing some video editing and DVD authoring. The bundled software simply sold them on the idea. Dad subsequently got a USB music keyboard just because he enjoyed the idea of playing with Garageband.
But yes, their old Windows 98 box was fine for e-mail. I'm not sure about their porn-surfing habits.
It helps the manufacturer in that the manufacturer gets to use the GPL3 code that they would like to use. A little window popping up that says 'Hi We've noticed that you are running non-supplied software on this box, this invalidates your support agreement, click to continue, or cancel to reinstall the original software' seems reasonable.
"You don't have the security implant chip required to activate a high damage laser pistol", "You don't have sufficient energy packs", "your trigger finger isn't sufficiently muscled..."
Sounds to me as if you are trying to redefine 'game' to exclude cut scenes. Cut scenes are part of the game, there to expose the plot or help with emotional nuances. Excluding cut scenes is rather like someone excluding a particular movie scene on the grounds that 'it wasn't the movie that made you cry, it was just the music and dialogue.
What pisses me off is people who use the words 'open source' as if it is a synonym for 'free' and then get upset when companies abide by the open source licenses and not the free license that the speaker 'wished' they used.
Actually, I believe it is a poor analogy. I'm currently undecided on the merits of legislating for net neutrality. I'm not sure differentiated classes of service is intrinsically a bad idea. It all depends how it is handled. Much of the debate is, indeed alarmist.
Anyway, having got that out of the way, why is it a bad analogy?
The article asks why there is a dearth of innovative applications on cellular phones and answers: It's simple. Because the cell phone carriers control what services are allowed to use their networks.
Well no, it's not that simple. The cellular networks control a hell of a lot more than that:
1. In many cases they control the applications you can install on the handset (an application walled garden) 2. Data is charged on a per-byte basis as opposed to the flat rate all-you-can-eat (yes I know there are exceptions) tariffs common on the net.
Those two on their own are enough to keep the mobile ecosystem moribund.
Net neutrality potentially threatens to impose the third big sin of the cellular networks:
3. The content/connectivity walled garden where you can't connect to Google or YouTube, Just AT&Tgle and You&T.
the trouble is, I simple don't see this coming to pass. While there is a market for people wanting to connect to these guys, someone will make the circuits available and charge for them. Any backbone that offers lousy services to key Internet destinations will find its downstream customers changing backbones).
I love reading comments from people who know just enough to post a smug put-down, but not quite enough to explain cogently why something is a silly idea.
Slashdot Mirror
The Free Software Foundation's essay simply reinforces the view that the differences are mainly to do with ideological tub-thumping. Personally, I value both ideologies. The FSF sees free software as part of a ideological struggle, the OSS sees open source as a pragmatic licensing issue.
I feel compelled to quote Disraeli: The review was clearly written by "a sophistical rhetorician, inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity, and gifted with an egotistical imagination that can at all times command an interminable and inconsistent series of arguments to malign an opponent and to glorify himself. "
Except of course, the reviewer's prose is so baroque it is impossible to tell whether is arguments are actually inconsistent.
Well, I thought it was funny.
And how, pray does the openness or otherwise of the OS allow you to know whether you could silently drop it inside a hypervisor without knowing? This is not a Vista-specific exploit.
Something about using the least intrusive means of communication that still has a reasonable chance of success, I think.
People are naturally reticent about wasting others' time or being too intrusive. If they have a reasonable expectation of getting a response on a forum, they will go that route, if not - e-mail, if not - IM, if not-phone, if not - they'll door-step you.
Good wasn't it? Taken a long time to get into the mainstream desktop OSes considering that NetWare 3.x had it in, what? 1986?
You effectively would be running the same software - just with native widgets and OS integration. So what's not to like?
There is a good Ars description of it here: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060730-738
Here's an excerpt:
I thought at the time, "that looks quite nifty" despite the rather negative spin from Ars. Glad to see that Leopard will have something similar, hopefully superior.
... the Vista implementation (see the posted Ars link above) does look similar.
... but maybe it would be better to wait until he posts a really interesting, insightful column before posting it to the front page of Slashdot. This was just a preliminary bit of throat clearing from what I can see.
And really - a futurologist who finishes his column with "I can't wait to see how it turns out." - that's right up there with "only time will tell" - much beloved of lazy trainy-journalists who have got tired of thinking and have completed their allotted word count.
You modify your day-to-day activities somewhat - explain to him that you aren't trying to harass him., and ask him politely to turn the device off since you find it unpleasant.
I mean, you have tried to come to a reasonable accommodation, right?
Same thing reported by another source here
It would let me wash that inaccessible window in the attic, and prune the top from the Leylandii next door.
Where do I sign up?
I was going to, but I thought I might get accused of being a stooge. But since you ask. The insurer for house and contents was Abbey National (a UK bank). Their outsourced people for dealing with the claim (the people I dealt with) was a company called Claim Control, which sadly doesn't appear yo have a Web site.
Curious. My wife's very old laptop went bang last year, we were going to buy a new one when her dad said 'try claiming on the insurance' - we hadn't even thought about it, but there was a clause promising to pay out for accidental damage. I wasn't convinced that the smell of burning could really be classed as accidental damage, but what the hell. The outsourced claims people asked us to send the laptop in for examination by an expert, three days later we got a call saying, "yes it's covered we can offer you one of these four models of laptop as a replacement". All four were by far better specced than the original old machine. We asked whether it was possible to pay a bit more and get a better laptop, they said yes, so we paid £150 more, I think and got an Apple iBook which arrived through the post 4 days later.
Fast, courteous, friendly. You don't here much about insurance companies like that, but they do exist.... apparently.
As a matter of interest, which public and legal forum would you suggest that the people of Lebanon chose?
And when you say "correct" you mean that in the sense of "wrong"? Correct?
That's the issue. My parents (in their late 70s/early 80s) decided to get a Mac when they decided they liked the idea of getting a video camera and doing some video editing and DVD authoring. The bundled software simply sold them on the idea. Dad subsequently got a USB music keyboard just because he enjoyed the idea of playing with Garageband.
But yes, their old Windows 98 box was fine for e-mail. I'm not sure about their porn-surfing habits.
It helps the manufacturer in that the manufacturer gets to use the GPL3 code that they would like to use. A little window popping up that says 'Hi We've noticed that you are running non-supplied software on this box, this invalidates your support agreement, click to continue, or cancel to reinstall the original software' seems reasonable.
Choose whichever McGuffin fits.
"You don't have the security implant chip required to activate a high damage laser pistol", "You don't have sufficient energy packs", "your trigger finger isn't sufficiently muscled..."
Sounds to me as if you are trying to redefine 'game' to exclude cut scenes. Cut scenes are part of the game, there to expose the plot or help with emotional nuances. Excluding cut scenes is rather like someone excluding a particular movie scene on the grounds that 'it wasn't the movie that made you cry, it was just the music and dialogue.
What pisses me off is people who use the words 'open source' as if it is a synonym for 'free' and then get upset when companies abide by the open source licenses and not the free license that the speaker 'wished' they used.
You're spot on.
Actually, I believe it is a poor analogy. I'm currently undecided on the merits of legislating for net neutrality. I'm not sure differentiated classes of service is intrinsically a bad idea. It all depends how it is handled. Much of the debate is, indeed alarmist.
Anyway, having got that out of the way, why is it a bad analogy?
The article asks why there is a dearth of innovative applications on cellular phones and answers: It's simple. Because the cell phone carriers control what services are allowed to use their networks.
Well no, it's not that simple. The cellular networks control a hell of a lot more than that:
1. In many cases they control the applications you can install on the handset (an application walled garden)
2. Data is charged on a per-byte basis as opposed to the flat rate all-you-can-eat (yes I know there are exceptions) tariffs common on the net.
Those two on their own are enough to keep the mobile ecosystem moribund.
Net neutrality potentially threatens to impose the third big sin of the cellular networks:
3. The content/connectivity walled garden where you can't connect to Google or YouTube, Just AT&Tgle and You&T.
the trouble is, I simple don't see this coming to pass. While there is a market for people wanting to connect to these guys, someone will make the circuits available and charge for them. Any backbone that offers lousy services to key Internet destinations will find its downstream customers changing backbones).
I love reading comments from people who know just enough to post a smug put-down, but not quite enough to explain cogently why something is a silly idea.