You are getting confused with Trademark law, and even there it's not true. With trademarks the issue is that if a mark has been diluted enough that it is in use as a common word then you can't enforce it any more, so in order to prevent that from happening you need to actively defend it.
But copyright is yours till it expires, no matter what happens.
What does that have to do with anything? The question still remains: "Will Apple sell you a Macintosh *without* Mac OS and/or with Linux?"
Besides, Apple are not a "Hardware Company", they're an "Apple Company", the sell Apple computers with Apple Mac OS X on them. If the software didn't matter, they'd just be another PC vendor. The operating system is not "Free" as such - Apple's development costs are amortised through the price of their systems (and via upgrade purchases of course)
There is no license that gives you the right to re-license someone else's copyrighted work. The GPL doesn't require that everything linked to it be GPL'd, it requires that any changes or derivative works be licensed under a license (any license) that adds no more restrictions than the GPL itself does.
And despite the initial failings, I tend to trust its security over IE6 or IE7. Then you're an idiot. It's BETA software - I don't care if it was written by Jesus himself, if it's Beta, then it has undiscovered (and possibly trivially easy to trigger) bugs, and some of those bugs will be security related.
The reason it's Beta is because Apple haven't put it through enough testing yet to be confident that you won't get pwned in the first ten minutes of use - so if you have any confidence in its security at all, then you're an idiot.
Once Apple have given it the "Released" blessing, you can feel as confident as you like, but in the mean time you're not helping anyone.
If your faith is so easily shaken, then don't install beta software. Wait until the bugs have been found, and install the final release.
A bug is a bug, and there's nothing special about security related bugs that makes them easier or harder to find than non security related ones, so as I said before, a company cannot guarantee that a product will have no security bugs unless they can guarantee that it will have no other unknown bugs. Obviously they can choose to fix the security bugs over the non security ones, but as long as there are bugs they have not discovered, then those undiscovered bugs can be security related. That's just how it is, and no amount of whining will change that.
Well the point of a Beta release is to increase the userbase so as to increase the amount of testing.
If they could guarantee they could get the security bugs out before releasing a Beta version, then they'd be able to guarantee they could get all the other bugs out too, so then it wouldn't be a Beta release, but a final release.
You just have to accept that if a company has said "this is a beta release, it will have bugs", that it will have bugs - all types of bugs, not just "safe" bugs. Also, the severity of the effect of a bug has no correlation with how easy it is to locate.
People have become way too complacent about trying beta quality software these days. Don't try it if you don't want to take the risk.
Which would be fine, except that Tuatara are [i]not[/i] lizards. Reptiles, yes, and they're certainly related to lizards, but they're not lizards - they're older than that.
The problem is not that Microsoft include a search tool. The problem is that there's no way to turn it off, and running Google desktop simultaneously therefore causes the computer to slow down enough that no one would want to install Google Desktop.
There should never be anything wrong with including something with the operating system, it's preventing competitors from competing on merit that's the problem - even the Netscape issue was never purely about the bundling of IE - as much as the overly simplistic coverage often implied that - it was about Microsoft using the threat of cutting off OEMs who installed Netscape as an alternative.
This is a fair bit weaker, as it's more of a technical issue than anything else, though it bugs me that Vista's indexer can't be turned off regardless of whether or not it affects Google Desktop.
Sound Check is not something with standard named tags that exists in the encoder. It is something which exists only within the player, so that it works with all of your files, even the ones (which in my case is probably 100% of them) which do not have these standard named tags. That's not true at all - iTunes scans your tracks to calculate the level, then embeds the Sound Check information in them. The last thing you want is your iPod wasting battery power and time scanning each song before it plays it to determine the volume...
If you can't visualise an equivalent single click installer equivalent to the install.sh in the GP Post then you have no imagination.
There's no reason why compilation can't be hidden behind a GUI installer. Of course, binary packages install faster, and don't require all the dev packages to be installed, but if you're expecting to have to support a wide variety of platforms, then source is much easier from a packaging point of view. So much easier that you really don't care whether or not it bothers the end user. (besides, there's nothing stopping you having binary packages for your primary platform, and source for the rest)
But to also emphasise another poster's point - do not force end-users to use a mouse either. Just because end user X likes to use a mouse, doesn't mean end user Y does - why should Y suffer for X's preferences?
Besides, these days pretty much every operating system has some sort of package manager (even Windows, such as it is), and the environment itself is responsible for deciding what methods can be used to install a package. The software publisher just concerns themselves with the package itself.
gah, they're morons. They can't prevent you implementing a protocol. Unless maybe via patents. The GPL only works because it provides a restrictive alternative to doing something that you would otherwise not be allowed to do. Since they can't prevent you from implementing the protocol, you don't need to agree to a license to do it.
No one consents to the laws of the country they're born in. So consent has nothing to do with it. No one said anything about converting people, just that there's nothing about the laws of the USA at any point in history that makes them more or less "natural" then those in any other country or culture.
It's the completely wrong answer to the problem though, as it still promotes the idea of using SQL built by string concatenation. The result being that SQL injection is only one forgotten function call away.
Firstly, "unused memory is wasted memory" is a decision for the kernel to make. Nice in theory, and makes for an excellent holier than thou high ground, but in reality the kernel is only able to cache things on a fairly simplistic level. An application has far more relevant and useful domain specific information about what can be cached to best effect.
morality was probably the wrong word - replace "morality" with "rationality" and I think that's more in line with what the GP was trying to say.
BTW, concluding that a statement about behaviour towards a specific group of people implies the opposite for members not of that group is a logical fallacy. It doesn't follow at all, and is a case of putting words into someone's mouth.
Slashdot Mirror
That is not even close to true.
You are getting confused with Trademark law, and even there it's not true.
With trademarks the issue is that if a mark has been diluted enough that it is in use as a common word then you can't enforce it any more, so in order to prevent that from happening you need to actively defend it.
But copyright is yours till it expires, no matter what happens.
What does that have to do with anything?
The question still remains: "Will Apple sell you a Macintosh *without* Mac OS and/or with Linux?"
Besides, Apple are not a "Hardware Company", they're an "Apple Company", the sell Apple computers with Apple Mac OS X on them.
If the software didn't matter, they'd just be another PC vendor. The operating system is not "Free" as such - Apple's development costs are amortised through the price of their systems (and via upgrade purchases of course)
So which part of "pre-payment" implies there is a Debt?
There is no license that gives you the right to re-license someone else's copyrighted work.
The GPL doesn't require that everything linked to it be GPL'd, it requires that any changes or derivative works be licensed under a license (any license) that adds no more restrictions than the GPL itself does.
It's BETA software - I don't care if it was written by Jesus himself, if it's Beta, then it has undiscovered (and possibly trivially easy to trigger) bugs, and some of those bugs will be security related.
The reason it's Beta is because Apple haven't put it through enough testing yet to be confident that you won't get pwned in the first ten minutes of use - so if you have any confidence in its security at all, then you're an idiot.
Once Apple have given it the "Released" blessing, you can feel as confident as you like, but in the mean time you're not helping anyone.
That's right - in 1857 they're more likely to just want to know how you managed to get steam to do that.
If your faith is so easily shaken, then don't install beta software.
Wait until the bugs have been found, and install the final release.
A bug is a bug, and there's nothing special about security related bugs that makes them easier or harder to find than non security related ones, so as I said before, a company cannot guarantee that a product will have no security bugs unless they can guarantee that it will have no other unknown bugs. Obviously they can choose to fix the security bugs over the non security ones, but as long as there are bugs they have not discovered, then those undiscovered bugs can be security related. That's just how it is, and no amount of whining will change that.
Well the point of a Beta release is to increase the userbase so as to increase the amount of testing.
If they could guarantee they could get the security bugs out before releasing a Beta version, then they'd be able to guarantee they could get all the other bugs out too, so then it wouldn't be a Beta release, but a final release.
You just have to accept that if a company has said "this is a beta release, it will have bugs", that it will have bugs - all types of bugs, not just "safe" bugs. Also, the severity of the effect of a bug has no correlation with how easy it is to locate.
People have become way too complacent about trying beta quality software these days. Don't try it if you don't want to take the risk.
Bugs in the first public beta release!
:/
Who would've thought it!
Incidentally, it doesn't seem to like authenticating proxies at all, so my first experience with it was a bug too
However, making a big deal of, but not reporting bugs found in a beta release of something seems more than a little silly.
gah, that's what I get for not previewing.
Which would be fine, except that Tuatara are [i]not[/i] lizards. Reptiles, yes, and they're certainly related to lizards, but they're not lizards - they're older than that.
WTF is a Tutuara?
Could we at least get the name right in the title?
Tuatara
So, if they aren't in fact aware of any issues, then how would you have them say that?
wait, you get a UAC prompt for merely _searching_ for a control panel item?
I only repeated what was said in TFA.
I have not used Vista myself.
The problem is not that Microsoft include a search tool.
The problem is that there's no way to turn it off, and running Google desktop simultaneously therefore causes the computer to slow down enough that no one would want to install Google Desktop.
There should never be anything wrong with including something with the operating system, it's preventing competitors from competing on merit that's the problem - even the Netscape issue was never purely about the bundling of IE - as much as the overly simplistic coverage often implied that - it was about Microsoft using the threat of cutting off OEMs who installed Netscape as an alternative.
This is a fair bit weaker, as it's more of a technical issue than anything else, though it bugs me that Vista's indexer can't be turned off regardless of whether or not it affects Google Desktop.
The last thing you want is your iPod wasting battery power and time scanning each song before it plays it to determine the volume...
Actually, she never said any such thing.
If you can't visualise an equivalent single click installer equivalent to the install.sh in the GP Post then you have no imagination.
There's no reason why compilation can't be hidden behind a GUI installer.
Of course, binary packages install faster, and don't require all the dev packages to be installed, but if you're expecting to have to support a wide variety of platforms, then source is much easier from a packaging point of view. So much easier that you really don't care whether or not it bothers the end user. (besides, there's nothing stopping you having binary packages for your primary platform, and source for the rest)
But to also emphasise another poster's point - do not force end-users to use a mouse either. Just because end user X likes to use a mouse, doesn't mean end user Y does - why should Y suffer for X's preferences?
Besides, these days pretty much every operating system has some sort of package manager (even Windows, such as it is), and the environment itself is responsible for deciding what methods can be used to install a package. The software publisher just concerns themselves with the package itself.
gah, they're morons. They can't prevent you implementing a protocol. Unless maybe via patents.
The GPL only works because it provides a restrictive alternative to doing something that you would otherwise not be allowed to do.
Since they can't prevent you from implementing the protocol, you don't need to agree to a license to do it.
which cultures?
Purple dresses?
Fetishes?
WTF?
No one consents to the laws of the country they're born in. So consent has nothing to do with it.
No one said anything about converting people, just that there's nothing about the laws of the USA at any point in history that makes them more or less "natural" then those in any other country or culture.
It's the completely wrong answer to the problem though, as it still promotes the idea of using SQL built by string concatenation.
The result being that SQL injection is only one forgotten function call away.
An application has far more relevant and useful domain specific information about what can be cached to best effect.
morality was probably the wrong word - replace "morality" with "rationality" and I think that's more in line with what the GP was trying to say.
BTW, concluding that a statement about behaviour towards a specific group of people implies the opposite for members not of that group is a logical fallacy. It doesn't follow at all, and is a case of putting words into someone's mouth.