Yet I can do all those things just fine. I regularly help our sys admin here, because he is a bit overworked. On windows, its a snap to figure out how to setup and configure pretty much anything. With Linux, it always ended up devolving into tweaking text configuration files.
Why would I be fixated on "applying updates to my network"?
I am not running Windows boxes. I don't have to worry about a constant stream of exploits. Why would I bother? Typical "programmer" mentality: muck around with stuff for no good reason.
Hmm, not according to security sites. Linux exploits exist, and fixes for them are released. Personally, I also like when a new version offers new features. Kopete was one where I was getting features I already had in something like Trillian. Exploits are not the only reason to update.
Even if you are using windows you still need to do a proper impact analysis. That latest service pack might break something you care about. It might not be trivial to roll back. You don't just do this crap willy-nilly. It doesn't matter what platform you're using.
That reasoning is totally flawed. First, its very rare that a fix breaks something. If it does, its probably the application vendors fault. At any rate, service packs ARE trivial to rollback. You simply find it in Add / Remove programs and click Remove. MS has improved thier patch process, whether you like to admit it or not.
Used Linux since 97 and have problems getting a printer to work? How lame is that? It's not like you're some newbie that's completely unaware of the concept of drivers and how 3rd party support works for products that aren't the market leader.
You're right, I shouldn't expect a new Lexmark printer to "just work" on Linux. That's really too much to ask. I should spend hours reading documens, tweaking text files, posting on newsgroups, JUST TO FUCKING PRINT. You realize I do have other things to do in my life right? Of course its my fault, I should still be using a printer from 1995 today too.
I understand drivers, I understand that 3rd parties may not provide drivers. But I keep hearing that there's all these developers working to fill that gap for free, yet it never seems to happen. At the end of the day, I don't care why its not working, I just want it to work, and with Windows I don't have to worry about whether it will work or not.
AppManager was Win3.x days. I didn't compare installation packages in Linux from 1995, but if you like we can go down that road. Considering linux STILL has issues installing software easily, i don't think you'll want to though.
Regarding c:\windows vs c:\winnt, its very simple; you use the %WINDIR% environment variable, and you always get it right. I haven't seen any application ever create a WINNT directory which it didn't exist, nor a c:\windows directory when it didn't exist.
At any rate, developers for a while now should not have to put anything in %WINDIR% or %SYSTEM%, its not best practices. Vista will now force this issue, because attempting to do so will throw up UAC prompts.
Installing on Windows has been easy for a long time now.. even going back to Windows 2000 is giving you almost a decade to work with.
setup? You mean the package installer, or the setup.exe? Or the msi script. Or the InstallAnywhere script? Or the drop the executable where ever install method? Or the blow up your system's registry installation script? Or any of the numerous other ways to screw up... err, install on Windows?
Wow, you're really out of touch there. Do you think it matters to an end user if they run setup.exe or setup.msi? Especially given that users either download and run the installer, or pop in a cd which runs it automatically. Most software for Windows is NOT the 'extract files somewhere' method.
If an installer blows up the registry (which I can't even remember the last time I installed something that did in fact blow up the system), its the application developers fault.
Face it, there's no standard installer for any OS I'm aware of, not even Mac OSX, although they do have a pretty nice standard for application packaging, far better than MS's write everywhere installation. But that's just my opinion.
Um, yes there is. MSI IS the standard for Windows. Pretty much all software installations now use it, even if they look different. Again, if an application installs everywhere, that's the fault of the application developer. There are known best practices regarding what to put where. Interestingly enough, if more developers followed these standards, they'd not be triggering UAC in Windows Vista that some people have complained about. These standards haven't really changed much at all by the way since Windows 2000. Vista is simply now more forceful when an app does something it really shouldn't be.
By the way, if you target MSI, you can target Win2000 and higher. If you target deb, you get maybe a third of all linux distros. You still leave Redhat and Mandriva users in the cold. Sorry, your argument doesn't hold up.
Wow, good job picking probably THE most popular free software for your example. That doesn't prove your point at all, because its not true of many applications. When you can replicate that to 99% of all OTHER free software, you'll have a point.
My experience was that installing software on Linux, especially when there wasn't even a packaged version of the software to install is nothing like Windows. With Windows, I run the setup program and I'm done. Most Linux software was not so friendly.
How many variations of Win2000 are there though? How many variations of Windows 2003? Not many, and they are much more similar to each other than Debian is to say RedHat or Slack.
Depending on your distro, you may have KDE but not Gnome, or Gnome but not KDE. Lets not even talk about what version of that software various distros may have. Others will have both. Still others put their configuration files in/etc, others in/var. Some in both.
Not the person you responded to, but I am a software engineer.
1. You haven't tried using Linux recently or maybe not at all. This means you don't know what you are talking about.
I had been running a Linux server since 1997 - 2006, and as a desktop 2002 to 2006. Using it was fine, updating it, getting it to work with my printer, finding an accounting program that I liked was difficult.
2. You are a Microsoft shill/astro-turfer.
Nope. I had supported Linux for everything.. but after getting married and doing things other than computers, I found myself not being able to easily manage my network. I couldn't easily deploy updates to all computers on the network, documentation was non-existent or outdated, and the community helpfully said RTFM, or worse, never answered questions at all. Sorry, I'd rather spend a few minutes clicking through a wizard than researching hours on the exact linux solution to the problem I want to solve.
3. You are one of the crappiest programmer's in the world and really too stupid to be using a computer. You should find a different line of work.
Every job I've had has consitently held me as a very good programmer. I've even been asked recently to come back to a former employer because they thought I did a good job.
So yes, even programmers can think Linux is too hard to use. Those of us that don't sit in front of a computer 24/7 at least.
Nope. Hard to use: needing to worry about buying new hardware, printers in general, updating the software on the system (have you ever tried to update Kopete on Mandriva?), some "oddness" (like sound ceasing to function in KDE for no reason). Oh, and not being able to stay away from the command line.
And each of those "clones" works in almost the exact same way.
Almost is not exactly though, is it? That DOES matter.
There is no "fragmentation". Any software that runs on the latest version of RHEL will also run on the latest version of Ubuntu. Or Slackware. etc.
Not true at all. Unless of course you mean someone going and downloading the source, compiling and hoping they got all the dependencies.
And yet that does not seem to be hampering Linux's growth at all.
Hmm, for the past four years now I've been hearing "Linux is taking over, Linux is growing on the desktop." While it may be true, I still don't see many shops putting Linux in front of their users.
Re:Don't worry, it's not Vista...
on
Vista is Watching You
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Exactly. Its a blanket catch all so that they have their asses covered. Each of those features sends certain amounts of data to performs its function.
For those wondering why the Games folder sends data, its to get the rating for the game and download additional information about the game (like the box art). There are many personalization features in Vista, and they're actually pretty cool.
Is it paranoia if the OS really *is* sending tons of data to Redmond?
Is it? I saw nothing in the article that actually tried to attempt to see what information, if any, was being sent. All I saw was a really paranoid reading of an EULA.
Is it slander if it's true?
Just because something is in a license agreement doesn't mean its happening. People said the same thing about Windows update. The truth of the matter is it sends what OS / service pack your running and you get a list of updates available, which then is parsed by your computer to see if it needs them or not. Also, what updates are needed but not installed is reported back. Not exactly terrifying data.
The issue in both cases is that while I try to take care of myself (eating right, working out, etc), others do not. My health care premiums are higher because OTHER people on the same plan smoke, for example. Others are overweight, have diabetes, etc., but pay the EXACT SAME RATES I do. I think that is wrong, but I believe the law current prohibits charging people at more risk of health problems than others.
Socializing health care amplifies the problem. Since nobody has to pay more for being unhealthy, they have even less incentive to be healthy. Those currently unhealthy but not covered are now covered. Meaning the tax goes up for something I don't really use a whole lot.
If on the other hand we stop wasting time with smokers and overweight people, health care costs drop for those of us that do take responsibility for our own health. An added bonus is we rid ourselves of people that cannot control themselves, who are typically lazy and unmotivated. In other words, we rid ourselves of dead weight.
IMO, this would be less of a problem if the United States had socialized medical care like the rest of the modern world.
Not this crap again. I think my taxes are too high and wasted as it is... now I should have to pay MORE because most of the fatasses in this country can't stop shoving donuts down their throats and don't want to get off the couch?
Second off, don't you think that hinting at an armed insurrection over a telecoms legal issue (or much of what flies out of DC these days for that matter to be honest) is a bit extreme?
You do realize that 'taxtation without representation' was a major factor for the colonies to revolt, right?
I don't buy that argument. The network traffic may travel interstate, but the facilities that carry it are pretty much stuck under (or hanging over) cities' streets.
And it goes from one city, to another, crosses onto AT&Ts network (for example) and eventually gets to its destination. Remember, its the AT&Ts that want to charge website operators. Do a trace route sometime, and see how much of your traffic goes over one of the major telcos lines.
I'm not really sure what the point of the rest of your post is, I only commented on whether or not the feds can have authority in this matter, I never said which side of the debate I was on.
the federal government has no Constitutionally-acceptable power to regulate the Internet.
Sure they do; the internet most certainly crosses state bounderies, and net neutrality is all about the telcos trying to make more money by throttling bandwidth for companies that don't pay. None of the major telcos are located entirely within a single state.
So while normally I agree that the interstate commerce clause is normally abused, this is pretty much interstate commerce and falls under the federal jurisdiction.
All ID theory states is that statistically it's impossible for what is now have come to be without some intelligence guiding the process.
That's where the argument falls apart; its not statistically impossible. Improbably, sure, but not impossible. Also, if you go Neitzche's route, randomness leading to life as we know it is a 100% certainty.
Not apple to oranges at all; in both cases a party is buying a product, and as part of that the product comes with a contract to which you must agree, or return / refuse the product.
A driver's license is also a license, as is a gun license, a marriage license etc. Claiming what they do is irrelevant is, at best, a poor attempt to dodge a valid point.
There's nothing to dodge; all of those things are contracts you enter into willingly and if you don't like the terms you don't enter into them.
As another example, two objects can both be machines and have completely different purposes. One is a mechanical toothbrush, and one is a supercollider. Barring extremely vague and largely useless statements about machines, disregarding what the machines actually do is silly when discussing them.
Another crap analogy. Learn to keep on topic. A machine is not a contract, and any comparison between the two in this discussion is just, well, plain retarded.
It's completely relevant. One license is based in copyright law, which is well vetted in the courts, and the other is an arbitrary restriction on usage that's completely new as of software (no one says you can only use BrandX hammers to use BrandX hammers, because there's actual competition in those markets).
All contracts are arbitrary. There's plenty of competition for video games, yet they all have license agreements. As far as being completely new, you're wrong. Software licenses have been around almsot as long as software. There also is precident for limits on what may be done with a purchased item, although its usually between a reseller and manufacterer. However consider the discount on phones you get, where if you cancel the phone you suddenly owe the remainder of the full price on it... a similar contract.
It's even dubious that they've entered into a "contract". A contract has to have both parties agree to it with full knowledge of what it entails. It's completely unreasonable to expect every person who uses software to be able to decipher the legalese of an EULA, or to hire a lawyer to decipher it, and tell them how they can expect to use the software. The thing is, with places like GM and such, they could challenge software licenses, and might even win. But they have legal departments to decipher the EULA's, and make sure they're in compliance, so it's not worth their while to try to fight one. It's only worth it to the people who are actually affected by them, the smaller companies and individuals who get sued for not even violating the EULA. It's a control tactic that enables unfair business practices and stifles competition.
It seems pretty clear to me they've entered into a contract. The owner is presented with the contract when the software starts, sometimes its even in the box. If you enter into a contract you don't understand, that's your own fault really. You should always consulate an attorny if you aren't sure... failure to do so does not release you from the contract.
As far as your link goes, it would not be possible for him to test that his hack worked without installing the Express edition.
And as a developer, you have every right to distribute your work. But you do NOT have the right to tell people what to do with it, other than tell them that they can't make more copies (copyright, natch). If you don't want your software used for military purposes, don't sell it to the military. But if you DO sell it to the military, what gives YOU the right to tell them "You can only use this on non-combat systems"?
I certainly can dictate what happens; if you don't like my terms don't use my software. If the military wants to use my software that I am selling them, I can attach any conditions I want. If they don't like it they can go somewhere else and I would refund there money. Its called a contract. Its very clear what each party is expected to do or not do, and there's a way to back out of it completely.
You do realize that businesses enter into these kinds of agreements all the time right? Walmart becomes the exclusive distributor of something, my gym cannot sell Polar watches less than a price dictated to them by Polar itself, the list is endless.
The most valid analogy I can think of: I own ALL the houses that you could buy. The ones that fit your budget, lifestyle and location (it solves a problem you have), and I'm willing to sell one to you. The catch is, if you buy one of my houses, you have to agree to not use it on Thursdays, and always have classical music playing at 50dB or louder, 24 hours a day. Seems fair, right? I get to dictate how you use what you buy from me, it's all there in the license/contract. It's either that, or just don't buy it. Your car has plenty of room for you to live in. Catching on yet?
Back to useless analogies and strawmen I see... I guess you really don't have an argument. It starts off invalid; there is no class of product which is exclusive to one vendor which you must have.
Nobody said the universe cared. The only route that I could see with your arguement would be to try to say it shouldn't matter to us either, because its irrelevent at the universe level. Otherwise I see no point in bringing up the fact that the universe doesn't care.
Unfortunately circumstancial "evidence" is given too much credence in this country. There was a Dateline recently about a small Texas town (I believe) that had at least four convicts on death row.. two have recently been proven innocent thanks to DNA. The system there simply railroaded the two (likely more though).
It is well known that FLOSS has fewer bugs per 1000 lines of source code. The bloat that went into Vista brought in plenty of bugs to be sure.
Hmm, yet you have no proof of anything, just that you think Vista is bloated. Sorry, there's nothing 'to be sure' about in your statement.
M$ gets stuff determined by the sales department. We know how well salesmen design systems.
So you're claiming that salesmen are doubling as software architechs at MS?
Linux is designed to be modular so the complexity of each piece is less. M$ has stuff where the browser installs code, printing a document can cause pieces of the file to be executed, etc.
Windows is modular as well. The browser installing code is an ActiveX control, FF has the same capabilities.
There are far more projects in FLOSS than there are coders in M$. More manpower, with properly filtered output results in more correct code.
Sorry, having more coders does not mean that the code ends up more correct. Another logic fallacy here..
If a bug bugs me, I can look at the code, file a bug report, or suggest a patch. There is no way that can be done with M$'s way of doing things. Vista release was as buggy as a Linux release candidate.
You can file a bug report with MS as well. Whether or not you understand the code, and how it all interrelates is debatable though. Your claim that Vista RTM is as buggy as a Linux RC is again nothing more than a statement you claim to be true with no actual facts. For myself, and many others, Vista has been exteremely stable. I've not had a single issue since I've installed the OS.
Where have you seen transparent quality control like that at M$?
So transparent I can't even see it, as both of those links result in a 404. I don't need a bug list (although its there for any patch) to determine if an OS is buggy or not, I can see that by simply using the OS.
Repeat after me: The GPL is not a usage license, it's a redistribution license. Completely different balls of wax.
Yet they both are licenses; what they do is irrelevent.
Anyway, why would a company with the legal coffers to invalidate an EULA actually go to invalidate an EULA that it doesn't read or pay attention to? No one tries to enforce it except against small-time users, so there's no reason to invalidate one. EULA's being "solid" benefits all the big players to be able to make a one-sided contract, and the little players don't have enough clout to fight it, so it's in their best interests to not challenge clickwrap usage licenses.
The little players could instead choose software which is not licensed in a way they disapprove of. What gives them a right to decide to use it and simply ignore the contract they entered into?
GM could probably challenge software licenses, I'm sure they have enough money to, and it doesn't affect their bottom line if a shink wrap license is declared invalid.
You could modify the code as much as you wanted, and you could use it for whatever you wanted, but you just couldn't redistribute it unless you agreed to the GPL. The GPL only covers copies of the software you distribute, not how you modify it or use is personally.
As a developer though I likely would want to redistribute my work. Are the rights of a user of a piece of software more important than the rights of the person that created the software? That seems to be what is being suggested.
Slashdot Mirror
Yet I can do all those things just fine. I regularly help our sys admin here, because he is a bit overworked. On windows, its a snap to figure out how to setup and configure pretty much anything. With Linux, it always ended up devolving into tweaking text configuration files.
Why would I be fixated on "applying updates to my network"?
I am not running Windows boxes. I don't have to worry about a constant stream of exploits. Why would I bother? Typical "programmer" mentality: muck around with stuff for no good reason.
Hmm, not according to security sites. Linux exploits exist, and fixes for them are released. Personally, I also like when a new version offers new features. Kopete was one where I was getting features I already had in something like Trillian. Exploits are not the only reason to update.
Even if you are using windows you still need to do a proper impact analysis. That latest service pack might break something you care about. It might not be trivial to roll back. You don't just do this crap willy-nilly. It doesn't matter what platform you're using.
That reasoning is totally flawed. First, its very rare that a fix breaks something. If it does, its probably the application vendors fault. At any rate, service packs ARE trivial to rollback. You simply find it in Add / Remove programs and click Remove. MS has improved thier patch process, whether you like to admit it or not.
Used Linux since 97 and have problems getting a printer to work? How lame is that? It's not like you're some newbie that's completely unaware of the concept of drivers and how 3rd party support works for products that aren't the market leader.
You're right, I shouldn't expect a new Lexmark printer to "just work" on Linux. That's really too much to ask. I should spend hours reading documens, tweaking text files, posting on newsgroups, JUST TO FUCKING PRINT. You realize I do have other things to do in my life right? Of course its my fault, I should still be using a printer from 1995 today too.
I understand drivers, I understand that 3rd parties may not provide drivers. But I keep hearing that there's all these developers working to fill that gap for free, yet it never seems to happen. At the end of the day, I don't care why its not working, I just want it to work, and with Windows I don't have to worry about whether it will work or not.
AppManager was Win3.x days. I didn't compare installation packages in Linux from 1995, but if you like we can go down that road. Considering linux STILL has issues installing software easily, i don't think you'll want to though.
Regarding c:\windows vs c:\winnt, its very simple; you use the %WINDIR% environment variable, and you always get it right. I haven't seen any application ever create a WINNT directory which it didn't exist, nor a c:\windows directory when it didn't exist.
At any rate, developers for a while now should not have to put anything in %WINDIR% or %SYSTEM%, its not best practices. Vista will now force this issue, because attempting to do so will throw up UAC prompts.
Installing on Windows has been easy for a long time now.. even going back to Windows 2000 is giving you almost a decade to work with.
setup? You mean the package installer, or the setup.exe? Or the msi script. Or the InstallAnywhere script? Or the drop the executable where ever install method? Or the blow up your system's registry installation script? Or any of the numerous other ways to screw up... err, install on Windows?
Wow, you're really out of touch there. Do you think it matters to an end user if they run setup.exe or setup.msi? Especially given that users either download and run the installer, or pop in a cd which runs it automatically. Most software for Windows is NOT the 'extract files somewhere' method.
If an installer blows up the registry (which I can't even remember the last time I installed something that did in fact blow up the system), its the application developers fault.
Face it, there's no standard installer for any OS I'm aware of, not even Mac OSX, although they do have a pretty nice standard for application packaging, far better than MS's write everywhere installation. But that's just my opinion.
Um, yes there is. MSI IS the standard for Windows. Pretty much all software installations now use it, even if they look different. Again, if an application installs everywhere, that's the fault of the application developer. There are known best practices regarding what to put where. Interestingly enough, if more developers followed these standards, they'd not be triggering UAC in Windows Vista that some people have complained about. These standards haven't really changed much at all by the way since Windows 2000. Vista is simply now more forceful when an app does something it really shouldn't be.
By the way, if you target MSI, you can target Win2000 and higher. If you target deb, you get maybe a third of all linux distros. You still leave Redhat and Mandriva users in the cold. Sorry, your argument doesn't hold up.
Wow, good job picking probably THE most popular free software for your example. That doesn't prove your point at all, because its not true of many applications. When you can replicate that to 99% of all OTHER free software, you'll have a point.
My experience was that installing software on Linux, especially when there wasn't even a packaged version of the software to install is nothing like Windows. With Windows, I run the setup program and I'm done. Most Linux software was not so friendly.
How many variations of Win2000 are there though? How many variations of Windows 2003? Not many, and they are much more similar to each other than Debian is to say RedHat or Slack.
/etc, others in /var. Some in both.
Depending on your distro, you may have KDE but not Gnome, or Gnome but not KDE. Lets not even talk about what version of that software various distros may have. Others will have both. Still others put their configuration files in
Still saying there's a different meter?
Not the person you responded to, but I am a software engineer.
1. You haven't tried using Linux recently or maybe not at all. This means you don't know what you are talking about.
I had been running a Linux server since 1997 - 2006, and as a desktop 2002 to 2006. Using it was fine, updating it, getting it to work with my printer, finding an accounting program that I liked was difficult.
2. You are a Microsoft shill/astro-turfer.
Nope. I had supported Linux for everything.. but after getting married and doing things other than computers, I found myself not being able to easily manage my network. I couldn't easily deploy updates to all computers on the network, documentation was non-existent or outdated, and the community helpfully said RTFM, or worse, never answered questions at all. Sorry, I'd rather spend a few minutes clicking through a wizard than researching hours on the exact linux solution to the problem I want to solve.
3. You are one of the crappiest programmer's in the world and really too stupid to be using a computer. You should find a different line of work.
Every job I've had has consitently held me as a very good programmer. I've even been asked recently to come back to a former employer because they thought I did a good job.
So yes, even programmers can think Linux is too hard to use. Those of us that don't sit in front of a computer 24/7 at least.
Nope. Hard to use: needing to worry about buying new hardware, printers in general, updating the software on the system (have you ever tried to update Kopete on Mandriva?), some "oddness" (like sound ceasing to function in KDE for no reason). Oh, and not being able to stay away from the command line.
And each of those "clones" works in almost the exact same way.
Almost is not exactly though, is it? That DOES matter.
There is no "fragmentation". Any software that runs on the latest version of RHEL will also run on the latest version of Ubuntu. Or Slackware. etc.
Not true at all. Unless of course you mean someone going and downloading the source, compiling and hoping they got all the dependencies.
And yet that does not seem to be hampering Linux's growth at all.
Hmm, for the past four years now I've been hearing "Linux is taking over, Linux is growing on the desktop." While it may be true, I still don't see many shops putting Linux in front of their users.
Exactly. Its a blanket catch all so that they have their asses covered. Each of those features sends certain amounts of data to performs its function.
For those wondering why the Games folder sends data, its to get the rating for the game and download additional information about the game (like the box art). There are many personalization features in Vista, and they're actually pretty cool.
Is it paranoia if the OS really *is* sending tons of data to Redmond?
Is it? I saw nothing in the article that actually tried to attempt to see what information, if any, was being sent. All I saw was a really paranoid reading of an EULA.
Is it slander if it's true?
Just because something is in a license agreement doesn't mean its happening. People said the same thing about Windows update. The truth of the matter is it sends what OS / service pack your running and you get a list of updates available, which then is parsed by your computer to see if it needs them or not. Also, what updates are needed but not installed is reported back. Not exactly terrifying data.
The issue in both cases is that while I try to take care of myself (eating right, working out, etc), others do not. My health care premiums are higher because OTHER people on the same plan smoke, for example. Others are overweight, have diabetes, etc., but pay the EXACT SAME RATES I do. I think that is wrong, but I believe the law current prohibits charging people at more risk of health problems than others.
Socializing health care amplifies the problem. Since nobody has to pay more for being unhealthy, they have even less incentive to be healthy. Those currently unhealthy but not covered are now covered. Meaning the tax goes up for something I don't really use a whole lot.
If on the other hand we stop wasting time with smokers and overweight people, health care costs drop for those of us that do take responsibility for our own health. An added bonus is we rid ourselves of people that cannot control themselves, who are typically lazy and unmotivated. In other words, we rid ourselves of dead weight.
IMO, this would be less of a problem if the United States had socialized medical care like the rest of the modern world.
Not this crap again. I think my taxes are too high and wasted as it is... now I should have to pay MORE because most of the fatasses in this country can't stop shoving donuts down their throats and don't want to get off the couch?
No thanks.
Second off, don't you think that hinting at an armed insurrection over a telecoms legal issue (or much of what flies out of DC these days for that matter to be honest) is a bit extreme?
You do realize that 'taxtation without representation' was a major factor for the colonies to revolt, right?
I don't buy that argument. The network traffic may travel interstate, but the facilities that carry it are pretty much stuck under (or hanging over) cities' streets.
And it goes from one city, to another, crosses onto AT&Ts network (for example) and eventually gets to its destination. Remember, its the AT&Ts that want to charge website operators. Do a trace route sometime, and see how much of your traffic goes over one of the major telcos lines.
I'm not really sure what the point of the rest of your post is, I only commented on whether or not the feds can have authority in this matter, I never said which side of the debate I was on.
the federal government has no Constitutionally-acceptable power to regulate the Internet.
Sure they do; the internet most certainly crosses state bounderies, and net neutrality is all about the telcos trying to make more money by throttling bandwidth for companies that don't pay. None of the major telcos are located entirely within a single state.
So while normally I agree that the interstate commerce clause is normally abused, this is pretty much interstate commerce and falls under the federal jurisdiction.
All ID theory states is that statistically it's impossible for what is now have come to be without some intelligence guiding the process.
That's where the argument falls apart; its not statistically impossible. Improbably, sure, but not impossible. Also, if you go Neitzche's route, randomness leading to life as we know it is a 100% certainty.
Not apple to oranges at all; in both cases a party is buying a product, and as part of that the product comes with a contract to which you must agree, or return / refuse the product.
A driver's license is also a license, as is a gun license, a marriage license etc. Claiming what they do is irrelevant is, at best, a poor attempt to dodge a valid point.
There's nothing to dodge; all of those things are contracts you enter into willingly and if you don't like the terms you don't enter into them.
As another example, two objects can both be machines and have completely different purposes. One is a mechanical toothbrush, and one is a supercollider. Barring extremely vague and largely useless statements about machines, disregarding what the machines actually do is silly when discussing them.
Another crap analogy. Learn to keep on topic. A machine is not a contract, and any comparison between the two in this discussion is just, well, plain retarded.
It's completely relevant. One license is based in copyright law, which is well vetted in the courts, and the other is an arbitrary restriction on usage that's completely new as of software (no one says you can only use BrandX hammers to use BrandX hammers, because there's actual competition in those markets).
All contracts are arbitrary. There's plenty of competition for video games, yet they all have license agreements. As far as being completely new, you're wrong. Software licenses have been around almsot as long as software. There also is precident for limits on what may be done with a purchased item, although its usually between a reseller and manufacterer. However consider the discount on phones you get, where if you cancel the phone you suddenly owe the remainder of the full price on it... a similar contract.
It's even dubious that they've entered into a "contract". A contract has to have both parties agree to it with full knowledge of what it entails. It's completely unreasonable to expect every person who uses software to be able to decipher the legalese of an EULA, or to hire a lawyer to decipher it, and tell them how they can expect to use the software. The thing is, with places like GM and such, they could challenge software licenses, and might even win. But they have legal departments to decipher the EULA's, and make sure they're in compliance, so it's not worth their while to try to fight one. It's only worth it to the people who are actually affected by them, the smaller companies and individuals who get sued for not even violating the EULA. It's a control tactic that enables unfair business practices and stifles competition.
It seems pretty clear to me they've entered into a contract. The owner is presented with the contract when the software starts, sometimes its even in the box. If you enter into a contract you don't understand, that's your own fault really. You should always consulate an attorny if you aren't sure... failure to do so does not release you from the contract.
As far as your link goes, it would not be possible for him to test that his hack worked without installing the Express edition.
And as a developer, you have every right to distribute your work. But you do NOT have the right to tell people what to do with it, other than tell them that they can't make more copies (copyright, natch). If you don't want your software used for military purposes, don't sell it to the military. But if you DO sell it to the military, what gives YOU the right to tell them "You can only use this on non-combat systems"?
I certainly can dictate what happens; if you don't like my terms don't use my software. If the military wants to use my software that I am selling them, I can attach any conditions I want. If they don't like it they can go somewhere else and I would refund there money. Its called a contract. Its very clear what each party is expected to do or not do, and there's a way to back out of it completely.
You do realize that businesses enter into these kinds of agreements all the time right? Walmart becomes the exclusive distributor of something, my gym cannot sell Polar watches less than a price dictated to them by Polar itself, the list is endless.
The most valid analogy I can think of: I own ALL the houses that you could buy. The ones that fit your budget, lifestyle and location (it solves a problem you have), and I'm willing to sell one to you. The catch is, if you buy one of my houses, you have to agree to not use it on Thursdays, and always have classical music playing at 50dB or louder, 24 hours a day. Seems fair, right? I get to dictate how you use what you buy from me, it's all there in the license/contract. It's either that, or just don't buy it. Your car has plenty of room for you to live in. Catching on yet?
Back to useless analogies and strawmen I see... I guess you really don't have an argument. It starts off invalid; there is no class of product which is exclusive to one vendor which you must have.
Nobody said the universe cared. The only route that I could see with your arguement would be to try to say it shouldn't matter to us either, because its irrelevent at the universe level. Otherwise I see no point in bringing up the fact that the universe doesn't care.
Unfortunately circumstancial "evidence" is given too much credence in this country. There was a Dateline recently about a small Texas town (I believe) that had at least four convicts on death row.. two have recently been proven innocent thanks to DNA. The system there simply railroaded the two (likely more though).
It is well known that FLOSS has fewer bugs per 1000 lines of source code. The bloat that went into Vista brought in plenty of bugs to be sure.
r insecurity.pdf
Hmm, yet you have no proof of anything, just that you think Vista is bloated. Sorry, there's nothing 'to be sure' about in your statement.
M$ gets stuff determined by the sales department. We know how well salesmen design systems.
So you're claiming that salesmen are doubling as software architechs at MS?
Linux is designed to be modular so the complexity of each piece is less. M$ has stuff where the browser installs code, printing a document can cause pieces of the file to be executed, etc.
Windows is modular as well. The browser installing code is an ActiveX control, FF has the same capabilities.
There are far more projects in FLOSS than there are coders in M$. More manpower, with properly filtered output results in more correct code.
Sorry, having more coders does not mean that the code ends up more correct. Another logic fallacy here..
If a bug bugs me, I can look at the code, file a bug report, or suggest a patch. There is no way that can be done with M$'s way of doing things. Vista release was as buggy as a Linux release candidate.
You can file a bug report with MS as well. Whether or not you understand the code, and how it all interrelates is debatable though. Your claim that Vista RTM is as buggy as a Linux RC is again nothing more than a statement you claim to be true with no actual facts. For myself, and many others, Vista has been exteremely stable. I've not had a single issue since I've installed the OS.
see Cyberinsecurity at http://www.ccianet.org/filings/cybersecurity/cybe
see release-critical bugs at http://bugs.debian.org/bugs/release-critical
Where have you seen transparent quality control like that at M$?
So transparent I can't even see it, as both of those links result in a 404. I don't need a bug list (although its there for any patch) to determine if an OS is buggy or not, I can see that by simply using the OS.
One claim from a blog was that Vista shipped with 60,000 bugs.
OMG IT MUST BE TRUE ONE BLOG REPORTED IT OMG!!!!111!!!11
Repeat after me: The GPL is not a usage license, it's a redistribution license. Completely different balls of wax.
Yet they both are licenses; what they do is irrelevent.
Anyway, why would a company with the legal coffers to invalidate an EULA actually go to invalidate an EULA that it doesn't read or pay attention to? No one tries to enforce it except against small-time users, so there's no reason to invalidate one. EULA's being "solid" benefits all the big players to be able to make a one-sided contract, and the little players don't have enough clout to fight it, so it's in their best interests to not challenge clickwrap usage licenses.
The little players could instead choose software which is not licensed in a way they disapprove of. What gives them a right to decide to use it and simply ignore the contract they entered into?
GM could probably challenge software licenses, I'm sure they have enough money to, and it doesn't affect their bottom line if a shink wrap license is declared invalid.
You could modify the code as much as you wanted, and you could use it for whatever you wanted, but you just couldn't redistribute it unless you agreed to the GPL. The GPL only covers copies of the software you distribute, not how you modify it or use is personally.
As a developer though I likely would want to redistribute my work. Are the rights of a user of a piece of software more important than the rights of the person that created the software? That seems to be what is being suggested.