---You mean Linux doesn't give me the power to live my computing life as I see fit, without spying on me? I didn't realize that you had that freedom in SOVIET RUSSIA.
I was talking about the quantity and quality of consumer software available. Your comment has nothing to do with my point.
---The whole system of Linux... this goes more into this jackass not knowing what he is talking about. Do you mean the kernel? A distribution? Which distribution? Most distributions only include software that works that at least a significant percentage will want. The fact it is included in a distribution negates that entire statement. Massive contradictions in this one paragraph.
I think you're trying to say there's a lot of software included in the distribution. That's true, but irrelevant to the point I was making. How much choice do you have among programs that do a certain thing? How good are those choices? How appealing are they to the average person compared to the Windows equivalent? Address that.
---Linux isn't a communist system. Linux is the capitalist system.
Capitalism without money. I don't think that computes.:)
---With Windows, you are entitled to what Microsoft gives you and no more.
How about the flood of Windows software that isn't written by MS?
---You do not have free access to your hardware anymore, because of DRM.
Really? There's no DRM in Windows, yet. There will be, just like there will be in Linux. Both will probably become effective after being legislatively mandated. Even Linus Torvalds said he had no problem with DRM.
---This is similar to the Soviet government restricting freedom rights on the people.
An anti-theft device does not oppose freedom. It opposes theft. The freedom to steal isn't in the Bill of Rights, no matter how often how many people say it is.
---With Windows, you can't just easily go out and start writing your own program. For any degree of success you have to pay the government, er, I mean Microsoft for a compiler and the development libraries. With capitalinux, you get to start it out with your own sweat and blood. I know you can start a business with very little. I've watched my parents start two and I'm on my first that has a snowballs chance in hell. I could go on and on, but I think it's pretty clear who the evil commie scum is.
Really? If you think paying for a compiler to get started in business is evil, imagine what you think about paying for the computer? Or the desk it sits on? Or the chair you sit on? Of course, they're dwarfed by the spawn of Satan that make you pay rent for office space. Stop being silly.
---I don't know, what is an average thief? What's an above average thief? Why are they stealing it? Are they stealing it to resell it, or because they need the software? What about Microsoft? I think it's easy to see which one they would steal. But, what is the point to this paragraph?
More irrelevant chatter, but to answer the question, I think it's safe to say that if they aren't taking it as some sort of trophy, they're taking it because they'd prefer using Windows and its programs than Linux.
---Apparently you do care if people use Linux.
One could call a monastery communistic, too. So long as it's a voluntary communism, fine by me. I'm pretty skeptical such a force can vanquish the Ravishing Redmonds, but knock yourself out trying to prove me wrong if you care to do so.
---And is there any examples of Linux users stomping on others? Is that why the Half-Life sources were stolen? Because of Linux users? Is this why Microsoft is getting attacked by viruses constantly, and sued? Because of Linux users?
I spoke about extremists doing these sort of things. The problem is those extremists talk your talk, and you don't challenge them as much as you should.
---If that's the case, why are most Microsoft Viruses written in Visual Basic?
---Yes, I'm sure several people did say that Half-Life will now have Linux binaries. If any of them said it seriously, I doubt they have the capabilities to build them anyway. Any joke taken out of context can make someone look like a dick. Or a Communist, right Ed?
I wouldn't categorize this place as a geek Comedy Central. How would you know what people whom you don't even know could or couldn't do? In any event, even presuming you're right, at the least, they're looking for somebody else to do it.
---I didn't realize that thieves were happy only getting what they need and no more.
Need is a psychologically flexible term, but I was primarily talking about extremists and their fellow-travellers. You didn't challenge that at all, so I can only assume you concede the major point.
---I can definitely see how they take only what they need. Like $40B in cash reserves.
You assume that profit is theft. I and the society we live in beg to differ.
---But when we talk about P2P, that's when Communism really rears it's ugly head.
Absolutely.
---Not Capitalism and market dominance nor supply and demand, which is the very cornerstone of capitalist economics:
I think you're trying to say that monopolistic capitalism is rearing its ugly head and abusing its power. I think the case for that is a lot stronger for MS than it would be for the RIAA and Company, but even assuming you're right, you don't solve the problem by stealing. You solve it by law, and if current law isn't working too well, you change the law.
---The replacement to the RIAA? I'm not sure, how about CDBaby or the other houses that are opening up?
I took a look at CDBaby. I can't say I'm too impressed when the top seller is "Multiplication Hip Hop," with second and third place being held by more of the same. Nor am I too awed by the $15.99 price.
To be fair, I looked at some other prices, and while many prices are lower than you'd find from RIAA, it's not by much. Generally, it's $10 and up. Either the RIAA and Company isn't quite as greedy as believed, or the "good guys" aren't much better.
---Why are there so many famous artists that loathe the RIAA?
Actually, I think they loathe their record companies. On the one hand, there's no doubt that many, especially in the past, got a raw deal, but just how does stealing their works fix that problem or help the artist?
I'll also note that many complaining artists seem to get amnesia about the advances they received prior to making their albums. Most who discuss the subject at best have amnesia if not a hole in the brain about all the money laid out for bands that flopped.
The record industry just isn't that profitable overall, simply because the failure rate is so high. It certainly is nowhere near the same league as MS or Intel.
---I can name one, and he makes more money now touring as a legendary band (from the 60s) than he ever did from his 6 platinum records. Even he wants to get on the internet distribution bandwagon.
Since there are no details, it's hard to assess how valid the comment is, or how much might be due to selective memory. A dollar in the sixties is more like five dollars today.
But let's assume he did get a pretty raw deal at the time. What he's doing now is piggybacking off all the promotion that was done for him back in the sixties. If you look at the usual indy leaders, that's whom you'll usually find on top: bands that got famous with the established record companies first.
Good for them, I suppose, but what about the new bands? Slavery and promotion may not be too good, but freedom and no promotion is likely to be worse.
I think there should be some serious study of this issue. If record companies are really abusing their economic power (as opposed to playing venture capitalists in a risky game), you solve the problem by putting in some legal safeguards. That's far better for artists than just stealing their stuff.
My apologies for not noting the HTML requirements in the first post.
I heard from others this reply was brilliant, let me correct that impression.:)
---It could be analogous to blaming the engineers if they had painted a big target on sensitive areas of the building, and provided planes a lighted approach for hitting them.
1) Gee, when I boot up Windows, that buffer overrun in the RPC interface keeps smacking me in the face. Sometimes it takes up the whole screen. When my little niece comes around, she keeps offering to hack the object code for me. Even fetuses stir in the womb when pregnant women come in range.:)
2) Even if the WTC had painted a target and provided planes a guiding light, that makes hitting it OK?
---When are you notified that you may need a kevlar vest?
I think the bullet does that.:)
---Again, this would be a more fitting analogy if the person not wearing a vest was in, say.. Iraq 8 months ago and had a US Army emblem stitched on their uniform.
The Army still goes after the shooter.
---If you buy software, I think it's a reasonable expectation that it won't be broken due to negligence. If I purchased a car, I'd be pretty pissed off if I found out the company made it very easy to open it without my keyless entry fob. That's a much more fitting analogy.
No, it isn't because we're not talking about something broken. We're talking about someone breaking it. To some point and degree, MS could be rightly accused of being overly lax, and I said that in the article (why'd you leave that part out, hmm?). However, at some point, the majority of blame needs to shift to the attacker. If you leave your doors wide open, that's one thing. If somebody uses a torch to slice through the iron gates on your window, that's another.
---Yes, this is why we demonize Microsoft. Not because they violate HTTP, SSL, CSS, and countless other standards.
Wow. Truly one of the great atrocities of our time.:)
---Not because they violate business laws, and are sued for it.
Nobody's perfect.:) Seriously, that's a legitimate reason to not like the company. I don't much like the company for that reason, too. However, I can tell the difference between Bill and Beezlebub. Can you?
---We demonize them because they attract idiots better than us.
1) I'm impressed. In one sentence, you have explained why Linux will never overtake Windows on the desktop far better than I. So long as you consider the vast number of computer users "idiots," rather than customers with worthy desires like MS does, you'll never get anywhere.
2) Isn't this just a different way of saying "largely because they're more successful with Joe Sixpack?"
---I suppose I'm part of the culture, and I don't glorify nor justify. In fact, I say it's wrong. So do a lot of people. So, again, half-baked claims with no factual backing.
I see. Are you the sole incarnation of, say, Slashdot folks? Is your view on this the only view on the matter? I wish this were true, but I assure you neither is so. The most cursory scan of any thread related to these subjects will provide reams of factual backing to the contrary. Actually, your statement in this forum is akin to standing in an outhouse saying, "What smell? Neither I nor my friends farted.":)
I heard from others this reply was brilliant, let me correct that impression.:)
---It could be analogous to blaming the engineers if they had painted a big target on sensitive areas of the building, and provided planes a lighted approach for hitting them.
1) Gee, when I boot up Windows, that buffer overrun in the RPC interface keeps smacking me in the face. Sometimes it takes up the whole screen. When my little niece comes around, she keeps offering to hack the object code for me. Even fetuses stir in the womb when pregnant women come in range.:)
2) Even if the WTC had painted a target and provided planes a guiding light, that makes hitting it OK?
---When are you notified that you may need a kevlar vest?
I think the bullet does that.:)
---Again, this would be a more fitting analogy if the person not wearing a vest was in, say.. Iraq 8 months ago and had a US Army emblem stitched on their uniform.
The Army still goes after the shooter.
---If you buy software, I think it's a reasonable expectation that it won't be broken due to negligence. If I purchased a car, I'd be pretty pissed off if I found out the company made it very easy to open it without my keyless entry fob. That's a much more fitting analogy.
No, it isn't because we're not talking about something broken. We're talking about someone breaking it. To some point and degree, MS could be rightly accused of being overly lax, and I said that in the article (why'd you leave that part out, hmm?). However, at some point, the majority of blame needs to shift to the attacker. If you leave your doors wide open, that's one thing. If somebody uses a torch to slice through the iron gates on your window, that's another.
---Yes, this is why we demonize Microsoft. Not because they violate HTTP, SSL, CSS, and countless other standards.
Wow. Truly one of the great atrocities of our time.:)
---Not because they violate business laws, and are sued for it.
Nobody's perfect.:) Seriously, that's a legitimate reason to not like the company. I don't much like the company for that reason, too. However, I can tell the difference between Bill and Beezlebub. Can you?
---We demonize them because they attract idiots better than us.
1) I'm impressed. In one sentence, you have explained why Linux will never overtake Windows on the desktop far better than I. So long as you consider the vast number of computer users "idiots," rather than customers with worthy desires like MS does, you'll never get anywhere.
2) Isn't this just a different way of saying "largely because they're more successful with Joe Sixpack?"
---I'm glad he cleared that up for me, because I was wondering why I didn't run Windows. . . . I suppose I'm part of the culture, and I don't glorify nor justify. In fact, I say it's wrong. So do a lot of people. So, again, half-baked claims with no factual backing.
I see. Are you the sole incarnation of, say, Slashdot folks? Is your view on this the only view on the matter? I wish this were true, but I assure you neither is so. The most cursory scan of any thread related to these subjects will provide reams of factual backing to the contrary. Actually, your statement in this forum is akin to standing in an outhouse saying, "What smell? Neither I nor my friends farted.:)
More to come.
Slashdot Mirror
I was talking about the quantity and quality of consumer software available. Your comment has nothing to do with my point.
---The whole system of Linux... this goes more into this jackass not knowing what he is talking about. Do you mean the kernel? A distribution? Which distribution? Most distributions only include software that works that at least a significant percentage will want. The fact it is included in a distribution negates that entire statement. Massive contradictions in this one paragraph.
I think you're trying to say there's a lot of software included in the distribution. That's true, but irrelevant to the point I was making. How much choice do you have among programs that do a certain thing? How good are those choices? How appealing are they to the average person compared to the Windows equivalent? Address that.
---Linux isn't a communist system. Linux is the capitalist system.
Capitalism without money. I don't think that computes. :)
---With Windows, you are entitled to what Microsoft gives you and no more.
How about the flood of Windows software that isn't written by MS?
---You do not have free access to your hardware anymore, because of DRM.
Really? There's no DRM in Windows, yet. There will be, just like there will be in Linux. Both will probably become effective after being legislatively mandated. Even Linus Torvalds said he had no problem with DRM.
---This is similar to the Soviet government restricting freedom rights on the people.
An anti-theft device does not oppose freedom. It opposes theft. The freedom to steal isn't in the Bill of Rights, no matter how often how many people say it is.
---With Windows, you can't just easily go out and start writing your own program. For any degree of success you have to pay the government, er, I mean Microsoft for a compiler and the development libraries. With capitalinux, you get to start it out with your own sweat and blood. I know you can start a business with very little. I've watched my parents start two and I'm on my first that has a snowballs chance in hell. I could go on and on, but I think it's pretty clear who the evil commie scum is.
Really? If you think paying for a compiler to get started in business is evil, imagine what you think about paying for the computer? Or the desk it sits on? Or the chair you sit on? Of course, they're dwarfed by the spawn of Satan that make you pay rent for office space. Stop being silly.
---I don't know, what is an average thief? What's an above average thief? Why are they stealing it? Are they stealing it to resell it, or because they need the software? What about Microsoft? I think it's easy to see which one they would steal. But, what is the point to this paragraph?
More irrelevant chatter, but to answer the question, I think it's safe to say that if they aren't taking it as some sort of trophy, they're taking it because they'd prefer using Windows and its programs than Linux.
---Apparently you do care if people use Linux.
One could call a monastery communistic, too. So long as it's a voluntary communism, fine by me. I'm pretty skeptical such a force can vanquish the Ravishing Redmonds, but knock yourself out trying to prove me wrong if you care to do so.
---And is there any examples of Linux users stomping on others? Is that why the Half-Life sources were stolen? Because of Linux users? Is this why Microsoft is getting attacked by viruses constantly, and sued? Because of Linux users?
I spoke about extremists doing these sort of things. The problem is those extremists talk your talk, and you don't challenge them as much as you should.
---If that's the case, why are most Microsoft Viruses written in Visual Basic?
The 911 hijackers used American-made planes.
---Yes, I'm sure several people did say that Half-Life will now have Linux binaries. If any of them said it seriously, I doubt they have the capabilities to build them anyway. Any joke taken out of context can make someone look like a dick. Or a Communist, right Ed?
I wouldn't categorize this place as a geek Comedy Central. How would you know what people whom you don't even know could or couldn't do? In any event, even presuming you're right, at the least, they're looking for somebody else to do it.
---I didn't realize that thieves were happy only getting what they need and no more.
Need is a psychologically flexible term, but I was primarily talking about extremists and their fellow-travellers. You didn't challenge that at all, so I can only assume you concede the major point.
---I can definitely see how they take only what they need. Like $40B in cash reserves.
You assume that profit is theft. I and the society we live in beg to differ.
---But when we talk about P2P, that's when Communism really rears it's ugly head.
Absolutely.
---Not Capitalism and market dominance nor supply and demand, which is the very cornerstone of capitalist economics:
I think you're trying to say that monopolistic capitalism is rearing its ugly head and abusing its power. I think the case for that is a lot stronger for MS than it would be for the RIAA and Company, but even assuming you're right, you don't solve the problem by stealing. You solve it by law, and if current law isn't working too well, you change the law.
---The replacement to the RIAA? I'm not sure, how about CDBaby or the other houses that are opening up?
I took a look at CDBaby. I can't say I'm too impressed when the top seller is "Multiplication Hip Hop," with second and third place being held by more of the same. Nor am I too awed by the $15.99 price.
To be fair, I looked at some other prices, and while many prices are lower than you'd find from RIAA, it's not by much. Generally, it's $10 and up. Either the RIAA and Company isn't quite as greedy as believed, or the "good guys" aren't much better.
---Why are there so many famous artists that loathe the RIAA?
Actually, I think they loathe their record companies. On the one hand, there's no doubt that many, especially in the past, got a raw deal, but just how does stealing their works fix that problem or help the artist?
I'll also note that many complaining artists seem to get amnesia about the advances they received prior to making their albums. Most who discuss the subject at best have amnesia if not a hole in the brain about all the money laid out for bands that flopped.
The record industry just isn't that profitable overall, simply because the failure rate is so high. It certainly is nowhere near the same league as MS or Intel.
---I can name one, and he makes more money now touring as a legendary band (from the 60s) than he ever did from his 6 platinum records. Even he wants to get on the internet distribution bandwagon.
Since there are no details, it's hard to assess how valid the comment is, or how much might be due to selective memory. A dollar in the sixties is more like five dollars today.
But let's assume he did get a pretty raw deal at the time. What he's doing now is piggybacking off all the promotion that was done for him back in the sixties. If you look at the usual indy leaders, that's whom you'll usually find on top: bands that got famous with the established record companies first.
Good for them, I suppose, but what about the new bands? Slavery and promotion may not be too good, but freedom and no promotion is likely to be worse.
I think there should be some serious study of this issue. If record companies are really abusing their economic power (as opposed to playing venture capitalists in a risky game), you solve the problem by putting in some legal safeguards. That's far better for artists than just stealing their stuff.
Still more ahead.
I heard from others this reply was brilliant, let me correct that impression. :)
---It could be analogous to blaming the engineers if they had painted a big target on sensitive areas of the building, and provided planes a lighted approach for hitting them.
1) Gee, when I boot up Windows, that buffer overrun in the RPC interface keeps smacking me in the face. Sometimes it takes up the whole screen. When my little niece comes around, she keeps offering to hack the object code for me. Even fetuses stir in the womb when pregnant women come in range. :)
2) Even if the WTC had painted a target and provided planes a guiding light, that makes hitting it OK?
---When are you notified that you may need a kevlar vest?
I think the bullet does that. :)
---Again, this would be a more fitting analogy if the person not wearing a vest was in, say.. Iraq 8 months ago and had a US Army emblem stitched on their uniform.
The Army still goes after the shooter.
---If you buy software, I think it's a reasonable expectation that it won't be broken due to negligence. If I purchased a car, I'd be pretty pissed off if I found out the company made it very easy to open it without my keyless entry fob. That's a much more fitting analogy.
No, it isn't because we're not talking about something broken. We're talking about someone breaking it. To some point and degree, MS could be rightly accused of being overly lax, and I said that in the article (why'd you leave that part out, hmm?). However, at some point, the majority of blame needs to shift to the attacker. If you leave your doors wide open, that's one thing. If somebody uses a torch to slice through the iron gates on your window, that's another.
---Yes, this is why we demonize Microsoft. Not because they violate HTTP, SSL, CSS, and countless other standards.
Wow. Truly one of the great atrocities of our time. :)
---Not because they violate business laws, and are sued for it.
Nobody's perfect. :) Seriously, that's a legitimate reason to not like the company. I don't much like the company for that reason, too. However, I can tell the difference between Bill and Beezlebub. Can you?
---We demonize them because they attract idiots better than us.
1) I'm impressed. In one sentence, you have explained why Linux will never overtake Windows on the desktop far better than I. So long as you consider the vast number of computer users "idiots," rather than customers with worthy desires like MS does, you'll never get anywhere.
2) Isn't this just a different way of saying "largely because they're more successful with Joe Sixpack?"
---I suppose I'm part of the culture, and I don't glorify nor justify. In fact, I say it's wrong. So do a lot of people. So, again, half-baked claims with no factual backing.
I see. Are you the sole incarnation of, say, Slashdot folks? Is your view on this the only view on the matter? I wish this were true, but I assure you neither is so. The most cursory scan of any thread related to these subjects will provide reams of factual backing to the contrary. Actually, your statement in this forum is akin to standing in an outhouse saying, "What smell? Neither I nor my friends farted." :)
More to come.
I heard from others this reply was brilliant, let me correct that impression. :)
---It could be analogous to blaming the engineers if they had painted a big target on sensitive areas of the building, and provided planes a lighted approach for hitting them.
1) Gee, when I boot up Windows, that buffer overrun in the RPC interface keeps smacking me in the face. Sometimes it takes up the whole screen. When my little niece comes around, she keeps offering to hack the object code for me. Even fetuses stir in the womb when pregnant women come in range. :)
2) Even if the WTC had painted a target and provided planes a guiding light, that makes hitting it OK?
---When are you notified that you may need a kevlar vest?
I think the bullet does that. :)
---Again, this would be a more fitting analogy if the person not wearing a vest was in, say.. Iraq 8 months ago and had a US Army emblem stitched on their uniform.
The Army still goes after the shooter.
---If you buy software, I think it's a reasonable expectation that it won't be broken due to negligence. If I purchased a car, I'd be pretty pissed off if I found out the company made it very easy to open it without my keyless entry fob. That's a much more fitting analogy.
No, it isn't because we're not talking about something broken. We're talking about someone breaking it. To some point and degree, MS could be rightly accused of being overly lax, and I said that in the article (why'd you leave that part out, hmm?). However, at some point, the majority of blame needs to shift to the attacker. If you leave your doors wide open, that's one thing. If somebody uses a torch to slice through the iron gates on your window, that's another.
---Yes, this is why we demonize Microsoft. Not because they violate HTTP, SSL, CSS, and countless other standards.
Wow. Truly one of the great atrocities of our time. :)
---Not because they violate business laws, and are sued for it.
Nobody's perfect. :) Seriously, that's a legitimate reason to not like the company. I don't much like the company for that reason, too. However, I can tell the difference between Bill and Beezlebub. Can you?
---We demonize them because they attract idiots better than us.
1) I'm impressed. In one sentence, you have explained why Linux will never overtake Windows on the desktop far better than I. So long as you consider the vast number of computer users "idiots," rather than customers with worthy desires like MS does, you'll never get anywhere.
2) Isn't this just a different way of saying "largely because they're more successful with Joe Sixpack?"
---I'm glad he cleared that up for me, because I was wondering why I didn't run Windows. . . . I suppose I'm part of the culture, and I don't glorify nor justify. In fact, I say it's wrong. So do a lot of people. So, again, half-baked claims with no factual backing.
I see. Are you the sole incarnation of, say, Slashdot folks? Is your view on this the only view on the matter? I wish this were true, but I assure you neither is so. The most cursory scan of any thread related to these subjects will provide reams of factual backing to the contrary. Actually, your statement in this forum is akin to standing in an outhouse saying, "What smell? Neither I nor my friends farted. :)
More to come.