No, it's not. Never was. They're fixing other applications (Firefox in this case), the way they hack their entire userspace to deal with application quirks and stupid use of undocumented structures and APIs that are not supported. But that's the price they ultimately have to pay for backwards compatibility - the reason they also still own 96% of the desktop.
As in *actually* supported? Otherwise I'd just get plain Debian stable or CentOS, which is a downstream version of RHEL that works great.
I don't know if Ubuntu might ever match RHEL, but it's possible that Canonical might end up being RedHat's main competitor. Right now AFAIK that would be Novell and their server business is not doing amazingly well.
Wow, someone modded you up. To draw a parallel here then, Microsoft was never "convicted" of anything, right? After all, it wasn't a criminal trial, either. Correct?
Maybe I'm behind the times here, but how the hell do you flash an appliance to update the firmware? Do they have USB ports now or is it a special disc and some weird command from the remote?
You can legitimately complain that their releases are late, non free and patent encumbered.
I'm sorry, I'm not getting this. Can you explain how you can "legitimately" complain about something Adobe does or doesn't do? Unless someone is forcing you to use their software at gunpoint, that is.
Adobe has no obligation to cater to your "freedom" and release their source code just because you think it would be nice for them to do so.
Re:what about the DRM "feature"?
on
ZOMG New Zunes
·
· Score: 1
I understood what you were saying, sorry. When I said "you" I meant the original poster to whom I replied.
Re:what about the DRM "feature"?
on
ZOMG New Zunes
·
· Score: 1
I'm having trouble coming up to a reasonable response to this. Essentially what you're saying is that you don't mind DRM so much as you dislike Microsoft, and the fact that they're not buttering up their use of DRM with suave advertisement copy and lots of "cool" like Apple does.
So if it boils down to "I think the Zune is crap because I don't like Microsoft", that's all good and well. Just don't go around the internets yelling "DRM! DRM!" (as is the case with Vista) to try and scare as many people as possible away from buying product A and buying product B, which is essentially the same crap. Except that it's "cool" crap. Somehow.
Re:what about the DRM "feature"?
on
ZOMG New Zunes
·
· Score: 3, Informative
You mean sharing songs with people wirelessly and getting to listen to those songs three times? Which is three times more than the iPod? Does that make it "unwanted by many"? Because otherwise the "DRM" thing is applicable only to songs purchased from their online store. You can rip your song collection and put it in the Zune without involving any DRM whatsoever. Is this not how the iPod works as well?
IANAL, but the way I understand it, lost revenue is often difficult to prove.
As I understand it from reading Slashdot, the "loss of revenue" and "copyright infringement" arguments are essentially bullshit when the *AA uses them. So how is the SFLC (nee the FSF) any different?
When this story broke a few days ago I theorized that they were more than entitled to try to get this company to comply with the license. Maybe even make them donate money to Busybox. Heck, even try to get an injunction to make Monsoon stop selling their device until they came into compliance.
But damages? For copyright infringement and loss of revenue? The irony there is just too good to be true.
This is not what you "spray bullets" with. This is.
Any competent law enforcement official or soldier can do a 4-inch group at 50 yards with an MP5 or an M-4. Any civilian can kill six people with a.38 revolver at 5 feet with their eyes closed. You can also drown in your bathtub. Stop taking baths.
You better know *a lot* since that's what twitter claimed.
Let's start with the algorithms that make up software programs, all of these are math and for free.
Most of that predates Richard Stallman by far. Try again.
Most commercial programs are derived from this base so GP is right in that claim.
No, he's not, and neither are you. The basis for modern software was laid out by people working at universities and US government agencies in the 60s and 70s, mostly paid for by research grants from the government itself. All that has nothing to do with his concept of "free software". Nothing whatsoever.
Besides, do you have polio? you can check these facts yourself all over the internet, GP does not need to provide them.
What are you, twelve? The GP made a sweeping generalization to prop up his argument. He needs to put up or shut up. But then this is twitter, so I'm not really expecting that any time soon.
I can provide examples, but that won't satisfy you.
You'd need to provide a *lot* of examples, given your sweeping generalization that all commercial software is derived from something GNU came up with.
Browser history, if not the web itself
Mosaic was software funded by the government of the United States and made available under a BSD-style license. It has nothing to do with your concept of "free software".
I did not imply that free software is inherently superior for every person
That's funny, I remember you doing nothing else for the past four years or so.
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make
Oh, let me re-state it then: Your claim that "Every significant non free program has roots in some kind of free software" is false. Does that help?
I have to say that the irony of the FSF seeking monetary damages for the unauthorized use of software and/or alleged copyright violation just kills me.
I'm not sure what the big test is here. The GPL isn't some sort of special magical construct that exists on a different plane of reality. It relies on established copyright and contract law to enforce its distribution restrictions. Laws that have a crapload of precedents, usually in favor of the plaintiffs.
A court would be hard pressed not to uphold a copyright claim from the SFLC. That would mean that everyone else's copyright claims on everything else are also null and void. If Viacom and Disney can do it, so can the FSF. That's how it works.
Slashdot Mirror
That's impressive, but what does that have to do with the topic of this article?
No, it's not. Never was. They're fixing other applications (Firefox in this case), the way they hack their entire userspace to deal with application quirks and stupid use of undocumented structures and APIs that are not supported. But that's the price they ultimately have to pay for backwards compatibility - the reason they also still own 96% of the desktop.
I don't know if Ubuntu might ever match RHEL, but it's possible that Canonical might end up being RedHat's main competitor. Right now AFAIK that would be Novell and their server business is not doing amazingly well.
C'mon now, you forgot to add "IANAL" to your post. Please!
Wow, someone modded you up. To draw a parallel here then, Microsoft was never "convicted" of anything, right? After all, it wasn't a criminal trial, either. Correct?
You must be new around here.
It bent, the battery ruptured, the lithium reacted with the air. Fire. Possible? I doubt it was spontaneous like the Dell laptops.
I can hardly wait for the spin on this one.
I'm sure we all can agree this is bad, but can we keep the dramatics down please?
Maybe I'm behind the times here, but how the hell do you flash an appliance to update the firmware? Do they have USB ports now or is it a special disc and some weird command from the remote?
I'm sorry, I'm not getting this. Can you explain how you can "legitimately" complain about something Adobe does or doesn't do? Unless someone is forcing you to use their software at gunpoint, that is.
Adobe has no obligation to cater to your "freedom" and release their source code just because you think it would be nice for them to do so.
I understood what you were saying, sorry. When I said "you" I meant the original poster to whom I replied.
So if it boils down to "I think the Zune is crap because I don't like Microsoft", that's all good and well. Just don't go around the internets yelling "DRM! DRM!" (as is the case with Vista) to try and scare as many people as possible away from buying product A and buying product B, which is essentially the same crap. Except that it's "cool" crap. Somehow.
You mean sharing songs with people wirelessly and getting to listen to those songs three times? Which is three times more than the iPod? Does that make it "unwanted by many"? Because otherwise the "DRM" thing is applicable only to songs purchased from their online store. You can rip your song collection and put it in the Zune without involving any DRM whatsoever. Is this not how the iPod works as well?
As I understand it from reading Slashdot, the "loss of revenue" and "copyright infringement" arguments are essentially bullshit when the *AA uses them. So how is the SFLC (nee the FSF) any different?
When this story broke a few days ago I theorized that they were more than entitled to try to get this company to comply with the license. Maybe even make them donate money to Busybox. Heck, even try to get an injunction to make Monsoon stop selling their device until they came into compliance.
But damages? For copyright infringement and loss of revenue? The irony there is just too good to be true.
I'm sure the RIAA can use that argument as well. After all, it takes money to produce records.
Stick it to 'em. Make them pay for copyright violations and "loss of revenue".
Any competent law enforcement official or soldier can do a 4-inch group at 50 yards with an MP5 or an M-4. Any civilian can kill six people with a .38 revolver at 5 feet with their eyes closed. You can also drown in your bathtub. Stop taking baths.
Of course, as long as you define "Free Software" for me first.
Please, the SFLC is just another FSF project, subsidiary, branch, etc. Whatever you want to call them, it's the same group of people.
You better know *a lot* since that's what twitter claimed.
Most of that predates Richard Stallman by far. Try again.
No, he's not, and neither are you. The basis for modern software was laid out by people working at universities and US government agencies in the 60s and 70s, mostly paid for by research grants from the government itself. All that has nothing to do with his concept of "free software". Nothing whatsoever.
What are you, twelve? The GP made a sweeping generalization to prop up his argument. He needs to put up or shut up. But then this is twitter, so I'm not really expecting that any time soon.
You'd need to provide a *lot* of examples, given your sweeping generalization that all commercial software is derived from something GNU came up with.
Mosaic was software funded by the government of the United States and made available under a BSD-style license. It has nothing to do with your concept of "free software".
That's funny, I remember you doing nothing else for the past four years or so.
Oh, let me re-state it then: Your claim that "Every significant non free program has roots in some kind of free software" is false. Does that help?
I have to say that the irony of the FSF seeking monetary damages for the unauthorized use of software and/or alleged copyright violation just kills me.
A court would be hard pressed not to uphold a copyright claim from the SFLC. That would mean that everyone else's copyright claims on everything else are also null and void. If Viacom and Disney can do it, so can the FSF. That's how it works.
You beat me to that.