But honestly, with the US so far behind other industrialized nations in broadband quality and penetration, shouldn't this be promoted by Japan or South Korea? Who cares about the super duper better intertubes if you're still stuck at the 1.2mbps downstream dictated by the local suckage cable mini-monopoly?
I'm all for this type of thing, I really am. But fix the basement before you go adding a new chimney.
Google won't follow suit? The difference here is that Bing is a loss leader for Microsoft. People want more privacy? No problem sez Microsoft, whatever. It's not like they live off the data they mine from their search engine users (which last I heard was something like 4% of the total in the US).
For Google, government-mandated privacy regulations can really hurt the bottom line. That data and how long they can hold on to it is essentially their business model.
I actually wouldn't be surprised to see Microsoft become a champion of consumer privacy on the Internet later on... you know, for the children.
Bruce, what is your intention here? I'm sorry if I couldn't figure it out from your article. Are you trying to get the SLFC to drop the suit, include you on it, recognize your copyright over the code, or what?
What do you say to the inevitable flood of "advocates" who claim Microsoft is doing this sort of thing to subvert FOSS?
Bonus points: Do you see Microsoft headed in the same general direction as Google and IBM where the core products and IP are held close to the chest while some of the more peripheral stuff (not key to revenue) is released under open licenses? Recent news like the open sourcing of one of the versions of the.NET framework make it seem that way.
Double bonus points: Do you see Microsoft ever releasing the whole of.NET itself under a non-restrictive license? Do you think there would be some benefit to Microsoft in pulling something akin to Sun GPL'ing Java and still retaining control over its direction? I ask this because it would end a lot of problems (imagined and real) with Mono, for example. But that would imply a lot of work with things like WinForms, ASP.NET and parts of the data client stack, without which any.NET implementation cannot help but be seen as a interesting experiment rather than as a valid enterprise-ready alternative.
To be clear, I would love to see Codeplex lead the way in facilitating a truly cross-platform alternative to.NET on the Windows platform. If that's Mono, great. Perhaps within Microsoft something like this is seen as a threat, but you guys need to get past that mindset. How come I can robustly host PHP or Python apps on Server 2003 today but I can't do the same with.NET in BSD? The Mono team has already done most of the heavy lifting, all you guys need to do is clear up the air around it!
(sorry for the multiple questions, these are things I've been thinking about lately a lot)
The GPL places restrictions on distribution of derivatives of the work. It does not restrict in any way shape or form what users can do with the software, or even derivative works, so long as those never leave their hard drives.
Further, FOSS licenses grant you ownership rights over the work.
Proprietary software licenses on the other hand (I assume you're talking about EULAs and such) place restrictions on usage and distribution, and they only grant you licensee (not ownership) rights, which can be revoked at any point for any reason by the company you're getting the software from.
I might not be a big fan of Stallman and his philosophies, but if you're going to make a point like this about him, at least get the basic legalese right.
The US power grid is so ancient, convoluted and in such a massive state of disrepair that we can be sure we're safe from terrorists. They wouldn't even know where to begin to find a point in the system that could be used to trigger a catastrophic cascading failure like the one in the East Coast a few years ago.
Just as they desperately need DotnetNuke to stay relevant in CMS
I can assure you that very few people involved in.NET app hosting/development take DNN seriously. It's probably one of the worst examples of.NET web application development out there.
This is a fav argument as always - the problem is that when you look at OS share collected by online data aggregators like NetApps it seems someone is actually connecting these mythical warehoused copies of Vista to the internet.
Personally, I think it's amazing Microsoft found a way to make unsold boxed DVDs of Vista to the internet. They might struggle to make Aero run on older hardware, but they're brilliant at wireless networking and power management.
By the way, 30% of roughly a billion PCs in the world... I'd like to have me a "complete failure" like that one every two or three decades.
This allows the !@#$%&'s to scale back the amount of infrastructure they need to build out to serve their customers, while still charging everyone exorbitant prices for simple text messages and keep on making a killing for their shareholders. ??? Profit!
Number of people who use Magnatune < people who download the latest Britney Spears wreck from LimeWire.
Yes, this is wrong. But government employees are adults and I don't think they're being indoctrinated by this. And it makes no difference, because people who download crappy pop or rap music from P2P networks are the last ones who would ever even think of looking into freely-licensed music (and I'd agree with them since most of it is crappy, in my opinion).
Also, of course it ignores things like iTunes and Amazon MP3 sales, for example.
But let's cut down on the outrage here, please. This is not the way to communicate the problems with illegal vs legal content sharing, it's just more hand waving at dumb policies that make no difference either way. Ultimately the only thing the government and companies are trying to do is inoculate themselves from liability. The policy could have been worded better to reflect that instead of piling on legitimate file sharing, but again, Magnatune users are the least of their problems, and we all know that very well.
Seriously. I'm not one to loudly advocate using Linux on the desktop, but if it's a choice between jail and Linux... choose Linux. Use WINE if there's something you can't do without.
(I was going to make a Soviet Russia/Communist China joke here but I decided not to)
Right, I suppose "shuns experts" was a bit vague. Let me clarify. Wikipedia is the place where an expert's credentials and experience are no match for an unknown conspiracy theorist who has decided an article must include certain content _he_ believes is perfectly valid and useful to mankind.
That joke about the astrophysicist having to contend with the kid from Kansas who owns a book that talks about the laser-wielding sharks at the center of the galaxy, while humorous, has a well-documented basis in reality.
So no, I suppose Wikipedia doesn't shun experts. It just insults their intelligence. Or it makes them go through a number of exciting and mind-numbing procedures that only the regulars know how to emerge victorious from.
Authoritative-sounding proclamations from people like you about what Wikipedia is supposed to be are very different from what it actually is, and you all know that quite well.
The last time I edited a Wikipedia article in 2006 my changes were reverted by one of those zealous article owners (which I'm told by people like you are not supposed to exist), and I was later banned from editing for three days by one of his administrator buddies. Not by him you understand, by his buddy. I was given the choice to "file a content dispute" or something like that. All over a paragraph added to the article about an 80s rock band from Argentina. With a perfectly acceptable backing source, by the way.
Do you think actual experts on important topics would go through that kind of bullshit? They don't. Because not only do you have to be an expert on your field to successfully contribute to Wikipedia. You have to be an expert on Wikibullshit as well. And most people don't have time for that kind of thing. So very few articles ever actually benefit from any sort of real expertise.
But THE POINT is: if your encyclopedia is NOT a "reliable source"; then WTF is wrong with your encyclopedia?
Wikipedia is the largest organized compendium of popular culture in the history of the human race. It has some encyclopedic content, and happens to be massively cross-referenced, so some people call it an "encyclopedia".
I like Wikipedia. I read it sometimes when I'm bored. It is undoubtedly valuable in many ways. But it's not an encyclopedia by any stretch of the imagination. A culture that shuns subject matter experts and at the same time pretends to inform me about said subjects may be entertaining, but never trustworthy.
Patent lawsuits are filed in the Texas Eastern District because it's patent troll-friendly. It's an honest to god racket that's even credited with fueling the district seat's economic boom.
Weird. Maybe it's just old habits not wanting to die. Many "power users" are also extremely resistant to change, and they might be just dumb enough to give up functionality to stay in their safety zones.
Slashdot Mirror
But honestly, with the US so far behind other industrialized nations in broadband quality and penetration, shouldn't this be promoted by Japan or South Korea? Who cares about the super duper better intertubes if you're still stuck at the 1.2mbps downstream dictated by the local suckage cable mini-monopoly?
I'm all for this type of thing, I really am. But fix the basement before you go adding a new chimney.
Doesn't matter. We'll just render you to Slovakia or something :)
This is the NSA. Please put down the donut and remain at your desk until the nice officers arrive.
Google won't follow suit? The difference here is that Bing is a loss leader for Microsoft. People want more privacy? No problem sez Microsoft, whatever. It's not like they live off the data they mine from their search engine users (which last I heard was something like 4% of the total in the US).
For Google, government-mandated privacy regulations can really hurt the bottom line. That data and how long they can hold on to it is essentially their business model.
I actually wouldn't be surprised to see Microsoft become a champion of consumer privacy on the Internet later on... you know, for the children.
Welcome to 2004, where we run WU as a standalone service that does not require IE at all.
What other unnecessary things do you do with IE? We stopped bathing the cat with it as well. In 2002, if I recall.
(actually the only thing I use it for these days is OWA, but OWA is so nice that I don't mind at all)
That's what they said in 1999, isn't it? We have Facebook and Twitter and x10000000000 web pages and lolcats, but everything else is the same.
Bruce, what is your intention here? I'm sorry if I couldn't figure it out from your article. Are you trying to get the SLFC to drop the suit, include you on it, recognize your copyright over the code, or what?
Um, did you just "tweet" on Slashdot? That's !lame.
What do you say to the inevitable flood of "advocates" who claim Microsoft is doing this sort of thing to subvert FOSS?
Bonus points: Do you see Microsoft headed in the same general direction as Google and IBM where the core products and IP are held close to the chest while some of the more peripheral stuff (not key to revenue) is released under open licenses? Recent news like the open sourcing of one of the versions of the .NET framework make it seem that way.
Double bonus points: Do you see Microsoft ever releasing the whole of .NET itself under a non-restrictive license? Do you think there would be some benefit to Microsoft in pulling something akin to Sun GPL'ing Java and still retaining control over its direction? I ask this because it would end a lot of problems (imagined and real) with Mono, for example. But that would imply a lot of work with things like WinForms, ASP.NET and parts of the data client stack, without which any .NET implementation cannot help but be seen as a interesting experiment rather than as a valid enterprise-ready alternative.
To be clear, I would love to see Codeplex lead the way in facilitating a truly cross-platform alternative to .NET on the Windows platform. If that's Mono, great. Perhaps within Microsoft something like this is seen as a threat, but you guys need to get past that mindset. How come I can robustly host PHP or Python apps on Server 2003 today but I can't do the same with .NET in BSD? The Mono team has already done most of the heavy lifting, all you guys need to do is clear up the air around it!
(sorry for the multiple questions, these are things I've been thinking about lately a lot)
They'll just pass a law requiring you to hand over the key. I believe those exist already in the US at least.
Either way, you're screwed.
The GPL places restrictions on distribution of derivatives of the work. It does not restrict in any way shape or form what users can do with the software, or even derivative works, so long as those never leave their hard drives.
Further, FOSS licenses grant you ownership rights over the work.
Proprietary software licenses on the other hand (I assume you're talking about EULAs and such) place restrictions on usage and distribution, and they only grant you licensee (not ownership) rights, which can be revoked at any point for any reason by the company you're getting the software from.
I might not be a big fan of Stallman and his philosophies, but if you're going to make a point like this about him, at least get the basic legalese right.
Right after he adds a whiny child and an annoyingly stereotyped rastafarian caricature as the sidekick.
You just reminded me of this
The US power grid is so ancient, convoluted and in such a massive state of disrepair that we can be sure we're safe from terrorists. They wouldn't even know where to begin to find a point in the system that could be used to trigger a catastrophic cascading failure like the one in the East Coast a few years ago.
Trees on the other hand... trees are truly evil.
So... you don't like this because it doesn't help you.
Nice.
Where have you been and when are you going back?
I can assure you that very few people involved in .NET app hosting/development take DNN seriously. It's probably one of the worst examples of .NET web application development out there.
This is a fav argument as always - the problem is that when you look at OS share collected by online data aggregators like NetApps it seems someone is actually connecting these mythical warehoused copies of Vista to the internet.
Personally, I think it's amazing Microsoft found a way to make unsold boxed DVDs of Vista to the internet. They might struggle to make Aero run on older hardware, but they're brilliant at wireless networking and power management.
By the way, 30% of roughly a billion PCs in the world... I'd like to have me a "complete failure" like that one every two or three decades.
This allows the !@#$%&'s to scale back the amount of infrastructure they need to build out to serve their customers, while still charging everyone exorbitant prices for simple text messages and keep on making a killing for their shareholders. ??? Profit!
F'em.
Number of people who use Magnatune < people who download the latest Britney Spears wreck from LimeWire.
Yes, this is wrong. But government employees are adults and I don't think they're being indoctrinated by this. And it makes no difference, because people who download crappy pop or rap music from P2P networks are the last ones who would ever even think of looking into freely-licensed music (and I'd agree with them since most of it is crappy, in my opinion).
Also, of course it ignores things like iTunes and Amazon MP3 sales, for example.
But let's cut down on the outrage here, please. This is not the way to communicate the problems with illegal vs legal content sharing, it's just more hand waving at dumb policies that make no difference either way. Ultimately the only thing the government and companies are trying to do is inoculate themselves from liability. The policy could have been worded better to reflect that instead of piling on legitimate file sharing, but again, Magnatune users are the least of their problems, and we all know that very well.
So what you're saying is that I should have paid for XPSP3. Yet I don't remember having done so.
Seriously. I'm not one to loudly advocate using Linux on the desktop, but if it's a choice between jail and Linux... choose Linux. Use WINE if there's something you can't do without.
(I was going to make a Soviet Russia/Communist China joke here but I decided not to)
Right, I suppose "shuns experts" was a bit vague. Let me clarify. Wikipedia is the place where an expert's credentials and experience are no match for an unknown conspiracy theorist who has decided an article must include certain content _he_ believes is perfectly valid and useful to mankind.
That joke about the astrophysicist having to contend with the kid from Kansas who owns a book that talks about the laser-wielding sharks at the center of the galaxy, while humorous, has a well-documented basis in reality.
So no, I suppose Wikipedia doesn't shun experts. It just insults their intelligence. Or it makes them go through a number of exciting and mind-numbing procedures that only the regulars know how to emerge victorious from.
Authoritative-sounding proclamations from people like you about what Wikipedia is supposed to be are very different from what it actually is, and you all know that quite well.
The last time I edited a Wikipedia article in 2006 my changes were reverted by one of those zealous article owners (which I'm told by people like you are not supposed to exist), and I was later banned from editing for three days by one of his administrator buddies. Not by him you understand, by his buddy. I was given the choice to "file a content dispute" or something like that. All over a paragraph added to the article about an 80s rock band from Argentina. With a perfectly acceptable backing source, by the way.
Do you think actual experts on important topics would go through that kind of bullshit? They don't. Because not only do you have to be an expert on your field to successfully contribute to Wikipedia. You have to be an expert on Wikibullshit as well. And most people don't have time for that kind of thing. So very few articles ever actually benefit from any sort of real expertise.
Wikipedia is the largest organized compendium of popular culture in the history of the human race. It has some encyclopedic content, and happens to be massively cross-referenced, so some people call it an "encyclopedia".
I like Wikipedia. I read it sometimes when I'm bored. It is undoubtedly valuable in many ways. But it's not an encyclopedia by any stretch of the imagination. A culture that shuns subject matter experts and at the same time pretends to inform me about said subjects may be entertaining, but never trustworthy.
Patent lawsuits are filed in the Texas Eastern District because it's patent troll-friendly. It's an honest to god racket that's even credited with fueling the district seat's economic boom.
Weird. Maybe it's just old habits not wanting to die. Many "power users" are also extremely resistant to change, and they might be just dumb enough to give up functionality to stay in their safety zones.