"Well, you have said a great truth here, it is even not possible for a NORMAL USER to trivially install a program on Linux."
This is untrue. ANY user can install any program to an area they have permission (like their/home directory) and run it from there. It is USUALLY only root that can modify system files. So the most damage a NORMAL USER can do is destroy their/home. Hell, I even have run differing versions of X from my/home directory (mostly for development reasons).
"How many programs, even after removal, leave junk in the registry? It was a bad idea to begin with, and it's just gotten worse with time."
This was intentional to appease the shareware and trialware folks. Pre-registry shareware was easy to get around the "time bomb" effect by simply removing then reinstalling the shareware. With the registry it is a royal pain in the rubber parts to remove it. Of course, adware / malware simply loved the registry idea.
It wasn't helped along any by MS support of the e-machines where adware is how you paid for it. The idea expanded from there.
"That said, I'm standing by for the inevitable flood of posts about Bush's fascist policies taking away our rights."
Your wait is over...;-)
Let's see, aren't the "terrorists" of today the very same "freedom fighters" of yesterday? Maybe we shouldn't have funded them during the Regan era then left them to ferment when the USSR pulled out.
The only thing that is better to give than recieve is blame!
"Record companies aren't worried about lost album sales from filesharing. If anything, they probably appreciate the increased sales it brings. What record companies are worried about is that musicians can get exposure without signing a contract. That's what this is about, and how this fight goes will determine a lot about the kind of future working musicians will have for the next decade or so."
You just hit the nail on the head! It amazes me that nobody has ever challenged the RIAA in their "3 billion dollar loss" to P2P claims. They made that argument based on lost sales figures because artists have figured out that they can distribute themselves cheaper, faster, and better than the labels. The loss figures (and I don't for one minute believe they are accurate) are more likely to come from the distribution loss than from illegal file sharing.
"It's is okay for people to illegally download music, movies, and software as long as they're made by a big studio or artist. Even though this goes against the wishes of the creators and owners of the content in question, it is acceptable."
No. Theft is theft....
"It is not okay for you to use a GPL'ed piece of code without GPL'ing it because this goes against the wishes of the creators and owners of the content in question."
Yes. Again, theft is theft...
"It is okay to sue or threaten to sue people for the above mentioned infringement of the GPL license because it is important to protect the coder's rights and not set a precedent of ignoring violations."
It is ok to negotiate a settlement or work with the GPL offender to try to keep it out of court. If that fails then that is what the court is for...
"It is not okay for the RIAA, MPAA, or BSA to sue people for illegally infringing on their copyrights or the copyrights of their members because the content in question falls under one or more of the following abstract, personal objections:
The content costs too much."
Not valid. Price is never a consideration for theft....
"The content is of poor quality."
Quality is never a consideration for theft...
"Nobody can own an idea (unless it's GPL'ed). The lesser artists that rarely get pirated signed lousy contract deals that leave them getting the short end of the RIAA stick."
Theft is theft be it GPL theft or others.
My complaint isn't that the RIAA is sueing infringers. It is in the manner that they are doing it. The RIAA is going after distributors and not the actual infringers of the content (the rippers). To put it another way, instead of going after the producers of this illegal content they are going after the distributors. This concept is backwards in the fact that it doesn't stop the infringment (or the distribution). There is no incentive in the current system for the RIAA to go after producers as long as there is a cash cow in the distributors.
This is a long running argument where the RIAA / MPAA want to hold onto their old pay through the nose business model in an era where that is less and less convienient.
(For the record: I do not now and have never used P2P for any content I own.)
"For example if it were lawn care companies that wanted to sell their services to people that had troubled(infested/sick) large lawns, then a limited GIS databse without a IR layer would be useless. With just regular maps you could see which house has the largest lawn, but you couldn't identify its health nor which nutrients it's lacking."
And you don't see a problem with this? Number one, maps can lie unless you have the required training (not something you can get in an hour or even a semester) data misinterpretation is likely. Everyone seems to think GIS is the ultimate end all be all for solving the worlds problems. Well, it isn't. It still takes expertise in the field of interest to properly interpret the data.
"And then there are the data mining warehouses that have been knocking on every local government's door demanding complete dumps of GIS, property records, and so on..."
And that is exactly what this litigant is doing. From the main story...
"Whitaker is seeking the images for potential "commercial and civic uses"..."
I work for State Government (and have worked for the Federal Government) doing GIS and know the problems involved in obtaining data vital to my job. I also know the abuses that can happen when the data is to be used "for commercial purposes".
Let me put it to you another way; When I worked for FEMA one of the maps we produced was called a "teleregistration map". This map shows the location of everybody who called for assistance. More importantly, it contains all the data on how much assistance they got and from what sources. It also lists income levels and credit levels. Because of this the teleregistration data is protected by the privacy act. Every state I have worked in would like this data and usually badger the hell out of FEMA to provide it. Every disaster the request is turned down. Now, would you like this data given over for "commercial purposes"? How about to local governments where it is likely to be abused as well?
This guy wants the entire database (something I would refuse even if court ordered). From the story again...
"Stephen Whitaker filed with the state Freedom Information Commission after the town denied his request for an electronic copy of the entire database..."
The town used the excuse of "security" wrongly IMO and should have stuck to their guns on privacy concerns (especially if there are any in the DB).
"Today? Nothing. If the day comes that "Trusted Computing" becomes the norm, it would allow any motherboard vendor who had such an option to continue to sell products to linux users."
This is a completely bogus statement. You are underestimating the power of greed. The same reason that binds them to legacy OSes will bind them to the Linux crowd mainly fear of lost sales. If Linux doesn't support "Trusted Computing" by the time it is the "norm" (a wide assumption to begin with) then BIOS manufacturers will ensure that Linux will run on it or suffer in lost sales to Linux users.
The only army they are employing according to their SEC filings are lawyers. That is probably why they claim 12 hours to get the machine back up. Lawers aren't IT.
1. What do you if the user requires some special equipment to do their job? This equipment has no linux modules/drivers, you then have to move the user back to Windows/OS X to get this device working. (IE: Blackberry, Digitizer, Special scanner designed to catalog bills of laden, etc).
Then you either write a driver or pay someone else to write one for you. It isn't as hard as you make it out to be. Hell, I wrote the driver for my display card (or more to the point the DRI part). That is the beauty of open source.
2. What about users who need applications such as AutoCAD, or their custom accounting software that only runs on Windows? Then you have some users on one OS and some on another. If you have a user transfer they then have a learning curve again.
Then either find an equivalent Linux program or use a tool like VMware or VNC. Again, not too hard.
3. The headache of managing two operating systems. Sorry, but Linux doesn't yet have any sort of centralized managing solution like MS does Active Directory. AD lets me do practically anything to any workstation so I don't have to walk to each PC to make a policy change, or so I don't have to copy a file to each PC to make a policy change. This is where I REALLY hope Novell shines in regards to the SuSE purchase.
Then boot from the server and only operate from there. You can do this in Linux you can't in MS.
Slashdot Mirror
"Well, you have said a great truth here, it is even not possible for a NORMAL USER to trivially install a program on Linux."
/home directory) and run it from there. It is USUALLY only root that can modify system files. So the most damage a NORMAL USER can do is destroy their /home. Hell, I even have run differing versions of X from my /home directory (mostly for development reasons).
This is untrue. ANY user can install any program to an area they have permission (like their
B.
"How many programs, even after removal, leave junk in the registry? It was a bad idea to begin with, and it's just gotten worse with time."
This was intentional to appease the shareware and trialware folks. Pre-registry shareware was easy to get around the "time bomb" effect by simply removing then reinstalling the shareware. With the registry it is a royal pain in the rubber parts to remove it. Of course, adware / malware simply loved the registry idea.
It wasn't helped along any by MS support of the e-machines where adware is how you paid for it. The idea expanded from there.
B.
"That said, I'm standing by for the inevitable flood of posts about Bush's fascist policies taking away our rights."
.02
Your wait is over...;-)
Let's see, aren't the "terrorists" of today the very same "freedom fighters" of yesterday? Maybe we shouldn't have funded them during the Regan era then left them to ferment when the USSR pulled out.
The only thing that is better to give than recieve is blame!
Just my
B.
Or if you're hit by the Cardinal and the 220 is the tracking just after impact and 0 is when the phone is vaporized....
B.
"my buds at AOL said it's MOSTLY marketeers, they're just also shutting down some of the R&D shops"
They need to cut out the marketing more than the marketeers. I'm sure all those coasters they send out cost $$$ that can be better spent elsewhere.
B.
"Also, the fact that she wrote 'landed immigrant' on the first line of her CV entitles her employer to fabulous subsidies on her salary."
plus she meets 3 protected classes...
Minority
Female
Young (Ok, not a "protected" class but still a plus since younger workers == less salery)
B.
"Record companies aren't worried about lost album sales from filesharing. If anything, they probably appreciate the increased sales it brings. What record companies are worried about is that musicians can get exposure without signing a contract. That's what this is about, and how this fight goes will determine a lot about the kind of future working musicians will have for the next decade or so."
You just hit the nail on the head! It amazes me that nobody has ever challenged the RIAA in their "3 billion dollar loss" to P2P claims. They made that argument based on lost sales figures because artists have figured out that they can distribute themselves cheaper, faster, and better than the labels. The loss figures (and I don't for one minute believe they are accurate) are more likely to come from the distribution loss than from illegal file sharing.
B.
"It's is okay for people to illegally download music, movies, and software as long as they're made by a big studio or artist. Even though this goes against the wishes of the creators and owners of the content in question, it is acceptable."
No. Theft is theft....
"It is not okay for you to use a GPL'ed piece of code without GPL'ing it because this goes against the wishes of the creators and owners of the content in question."
Yes. Again, theft is theft...
"It is okay to sue or threaten to sue people for the above mentioned infringement of the GPL license because it is important to protect the coder's rights and not set a precedent of ignoring violations."
It is ok to negotiate a settlement or work with the GPL offender to try to keep it out of court. If that fails then that is what the court is for...
"It is not okay for the RIAA, MPAA, or BSA to sue people for illegally infringing on their copyrights or the copyrights of their members because the content in question falls under one or more of the following abstract, personal objections:
The content costs too much."
Not valid. Price is never a consideration for theft....
"The content is of poor quality."
Quality is never a consideration for theft...
"Nobody can own an idea (unless it's GPL'ed).
The lesser artists that rarely get pirated signed lousy contract deals that leave them getting the short end of the RIAA stick."
Theft is theft be it GPL theft or others.
My complaint isn't that the RIAA is sueing infringers. It is in the manner that they are doing it. The RIAA is going after distributors and not the actual infringers of the content (the rippers). To put it another way, instead of going after the producers of this illegal content they are going after the distributors. This concept is backwards in the fact that it doesn't stop the infringment (or the distribution). There is no incentive in the current system for the RIAA to go after producers as long as there is a cash cow in the distributors.
This is a long running argument where the RIAA / MPAA want to hold onto their old pay through the nose business model in an era where that is less and less convienient.
(For the record: I do not now and have never used P2P for any content I own.)
B.
"For example if it were lawn care companies that wanted to sell their services to people that had troubled(infested/sick) large lawns, then a limited GIS databse without a IR layer would be useless. With just regular maps you could see which house has the largest lawn, but you couldn't identify its health nor which nutrients it's lacking."
And you don't see a problem with this? Number one, maps can lie unless you have the required training (not something you can get in an hour or even a semester) data misinterpretation is likely. Everyone seems to think GIS is the ultimate end all be all for solving the worlds problems. Well, it isn't. It still takes expertise in the field of interest to properly interpret the data.
"And then there are the data mining warehouses that have been knocking on every local government's door demanding complete dumps of GIS, property records, and so on..."
.02 on this...
And that is exactly what this litigant is doing. From the main story...
"Whitaker is seeking the images for potential "commercial and civic uses"..."
I work for State Government (and have worked for the Federal Government) doing GIS and know the problems involved in obtaining data vital to my job. I also know the abuses that can happen when the data is to be used "for commercial purposes".
Let me put it to you another way;
When I worked for FEMA one of the maps we produced was called a "teleregistration map". This map shows the location of everybody who called for assistance. More importantly, it contains all the data on how much assistance they got and from what sources. It also lists income levels and credit levels. Because of this the teleregistration data is protected by the privacy act. Every state I have worked in would like this data and usually badger the hell out of FEMA to provide it. Every disaster the request is turned down. Now, would you like this data given over for "commercial purposes"? How about to local governments where it is likely to be abused as well?
This guy wants the entire database (something I would refuse even if court ordered). From the story again...
"Stephen Whitaker filed with the state Freedom Information Commission after the town denied his request for an electronic copy of the entire database..."
The town used the excuse of "security" wrongly IMO and should have stuck to their guns on privacy concerns (especially if there are any in the DB).
Just my
B.
"Today? Nothing. If the day comes that "Trusted Computing" becomes the norm, it would allow any motherboard vendor who had such an option to continue to sell products to linux users."
This is a completely bogus statement. You are underestimating the power of greed. The same reason that binds them to legacy OSes will bind them to the Linux crowd mainly fear of lost sales. If Linux doesn't support "Trusted Computing" by the time it is the "norm" (a wide assumption to begin with) then BIOS manufacturers will ensure that Linux will run on it or suffer in lost sales to Linux users.
The only army they are employing according to their SEC filings are lawyers. That is probably why they claim 12 hours to get the machine back up. Lawers aren't IT.
1. What do you if the user requires some special equipment to do their job? This equipment has no linux modules/drivers, you then have to move the user back to Windows/OS X to get this device working. (IE: Blackberry, Digitizer, Special scanner designed to catalog bills of laden, etc).
Then you either write a driver or pay someone else to write one for you. It isn't as hard as you make it out to be. Hell, I wrote the driver for my display card (or more to the point the DRI part). That is the beauty of open source.
2. What about users who need applications such as AutoCAD, or their custom accounting software that only runs on Windows? Then you have some users on one OS and some on another. If you have a user transfer they then have a learning curve again.
Then either find an equivalent Linux program or use a tool like VMware or VNC. Again, not too hard.
3. The headache of managing two operating systems. Sorry, but Linux doesn't yet have any sort of centralized managing solution like MS does Active Directory. AD lets me do practically anything to any workstation so I don't have to walk to each PC to make a policy change, or so I don't have to copy a file to each PC to make a policy change. This is where I REALLY hope Novell shines in regards to the SuSE purchase.
Then boot from the server and only operate from there. You can do this in Linux you can't in MS.