Sorry to break it to you, but we will always have homocides in our society. There will always be some punk kid "Donovan" who rapes "Jonathon's" girl after stealing a car in the the city and taking her for a joy ride, and then gets stabbed by Jonathan. Yes, we can fight gang and youth violence and we should, but it isn't a battle we can ever win completely. Violence is part of the human nature, and every culture and country in the world experiences homocides and violence.
I'm not saying that gang members don't have intrinsic value... but the death of 3000 of them doesn't have nearly the impact of the death of 3000 productive, law-abiding citizens, managers, and even CEO's in the center of New York.
We should continue to seek to control and prevent gang violence and violent, criminal youths from killing eachother and being in gangs, even though it is a battle that we can never fully win. We can, however, keep terrorists from flying bombs into our major economic centers and slaughtering law-abiding, productive, innovative citizens and leaders of our country by the thousands. We can do everything possible to keep WMD's out of the hands of Islamic madmen and those who would attack their neighbors, attack us if they could get the weapons here, rape and kill innocents, and refuse to be open and cooperative with international inspectors.
Taking the war to the terrorists and the madmen is expensive, yes. But if we don't do it, we give them a safe haven in which to plan further attacks against us. And if we did that, trust me... the number of gang-related deaths would pale in comparison that of terrorism related deaths of productive, law-abiding citizens. And this country would suffer immeasurable consequences for letting that happen. That is something we can prevent, if we are willing to sacrifice. It is something we must prevent... or we won't even be around to try to help youth gangs stop killing eachother.
As I said, gang members are criminals, not warriors and fighters. Many, many years ago this country instituted a system for dealing with combatants during a war. It has been supported by Congress and judges through the years, because it is more effective for wartime scenarios and for gathering intelligence to defend the nation. The administration of President Bush is using that system to defend us. I'm glad about that. I'm glad we don't have some sissy president that's going to do whatever the French tell us to do, and is willing to only fight terror *after the fact*, so long as the French don't get agitated at us.
Terrorists are different from gang members in that *mass* death and extreme destabilization of the nation is their goal. This is much, much more similar to war then other crimes. In war, you are better safe then sorry... because when you're "sorry" thousands (or even millions) are dead and the entire nation takes a huge downturn. That is why the system of military tribunals, etc. exists. Our laws must acknowledge that we are at war, and our laws must become more preventative then "prosecutional after the fact" when it comes to dealing with terrorists.
"Lies he's using to string us along"? 9-11 was no lie. That's all I need to know that we are at war. And the terrorists are trying to top even that. Two years, how quickly some people forget. Or maybe you think "Dub-ya" orchestrated 9-11. That wouldn't suprise me, the way you've been talking. There are people out there who believe that ridiculous assertion.
Anyway, I see you've written an entire post to someone you disagree with without using one flaming insult. Good job. I'm proud of you. I suppose you aren't just a troll after all. Nonetheless, your original malice toward anyone with a viewpoint different from you has made me realize that discussing with you is probably useless. I doubt I could learn anything useful from a person with your intolerance toward discussion and diversity. This conversation is over on my end.
Dont be so full of yourself. This has happened before over and over again. Read a book once in a while. France is still struggling with terrorists every day. Israel has been working with terrorists ever since they became a country. This is old news.
"Gang members" never would've dreamed of suicidally taking out the World Trade Center. 9-11 changed the US forever. Our mainland had never been attacked by foreigners, especially with the sole intent of taking as many lives as possible, with the suicide of the killer a very likely. Sure, Israel has been dealing with terrorists attacking them on their turf for years... and their laws have developed accordingly. Now ours must develop as well, to be more preventative then "prosecutional after the fact."
I don't say that to offend you. But obviously your intent is to offend me as you offer your insightful tibits to this discussion such as, "Dont be so full of yourself," and, "read a book." I have no need to deal with trolls like you who can't disagree with someone without flaming and insulting him.
Would've been nice to have had and learned from a conscientious discussion with you. But I get the feeling you just wanted to troll all along.
Read the act before you make these comments... someone can be detained without the courts approval. Under the act the FBI could just keep someone for however long they want without reporting it to anyone. And they have. Read some of the other posts showing people which have been detained for months at a time.
From what I understand, this is nothing new. Classified "enemy combatants" have been allowed to be so detained since WWII, for reasons that have withstood the courts and the test of time. I'm not sure if "material witnesses" should be kept without telling anyone (or whether or not this has actually happened... a supporting link would be helpful), but if those occurances can be applied only in situations involving terrorism and will help in foiling terrorist plots, then I say bring it on.
The courts will rule on all this in time. This is why we have checks and balances. I think it is better to have an act that is a little too strong (and which the courts then refine) then to have one which is too weak (which the courts have no problem at all with) and lets terrorists do their thing.
Obviously we are facing an enemy unlike any other we have ever faced before. And so obviously our current laws will have to evolve to respond to this threat. Using war-time clauses to maximize the Justice Dept.'s ability to transform itself from a "reactive, prosecutional" entity to a "proactive, preventative" entity is a good idea. Changes will have to take place. Most people don't lik it, but it will have to take place. So just be careful not to mess with Big Brother, because he's out to save his ass and he's pissed off. I don't blame him, and am glad he's taking this seriously as hell. The checks and balances of this nation will keep him more or less straight over time. The enemy is literally all around us and we have suffered the first attack on our mainland's soil... and they promise more and more devestating attacks. This is a new and different era, and it will take time and sacrifice to adjust to it.
Secret arrests, supposed "terrorists" being held indefinitely without trial, widespead wiretap priviledges.. the list goes on.
No offense, but Congress (not just one administration or one judge) as a whole many, many, years ago instituted the policy of "military tribunals" and the classification of "enemy combatants" to combat situations exactly like the boundryless and extensive network of terrorists we're fighting. Numerous judges through the years have given these classifications merit, and they are historically parts of our countries international legal system. If I follow a few rules, I can keep myself from being held as an "enemy combatant".
1) Don't fly to the Sudan to attend terrorist training with an Osama Lieutenant.
2) If I happen to be in the Sudan and the US invades for whatever reason, don't pick up a gun and start firing on US troops.
3) Don't raise financial support for organization on the Feds list of organizations that support terrorism.
Is that really too much of a restriction on my freedom? I don't think so. It only takes one of these terrorist bastards to take you (and a *whole bunch* of the rest of us) out, and rip this country a new one.... again. The Feds have a job to do, so I'm going to let them do it with the tools Congress has given them. It isn't going to take another 9-11 for me to support this act.
Now using this act against non-terrorists (if it isn't meant for that) is a different story. That would be wrong. So far, I haven't heard of any innocent person being wrongly convicted or having his privacy invaded because of this act. If I do start hearing of those things, I'll ask that the act be changed (not necessarily repealled).
For now, as I see it, better safe then sorry. No judges have even ruled that a criminal has been wrongly prosecuted under this act, much less an innocent person (though some criminals have been prosecuted, and will have their day in court). We can always change the act if it gets out of hand, or the judges who hear these cases can rule on the Acts constitutionality or enforcement. That's what Federal Judges are for. Correct me if I'm wrong, but for now I think safe is better then sorry.
Oops... I accidentally replied to my original post instead of yours. By the way, thanks for the advice. You said, I bought a nice can of clear spray that I apply after a heavy rain and/or car wash. Makes it almost impossible to take a photo of the plate with or without a flash. Look on eBay..
I bought a nice can of clear spray that I apply after a heavy rain and/or car wash. Makes it almost impossible to take a photo of the plate with or without a flash. Look on eBay..
I'd love to make a push-button cover for my license plate so I could run video-policed red lights when it is late and no one is coming anyway.
We just started getting video surveillance at traffic lights in my town, and sometimes they really piss me off.
I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult. Just a push button switch up front wired to an electric motor in the back, some rotors, and a sliding cover. I suppose I'd have to cut through my trunk... that would suck. Or I could mount it on my trunk I guess... hmmm. Any suggestions?
No company should be allowed to rip common computing terms out of *any* language so that other companies can no longer use them in the names of their products.
This is like Ford creating a heavy duty towing machine called the "Ford Engine", and then trying to tradmark the word "Engine" so that any other company couldn't create a product, say, called the AlphaEngine or something like that. Its ridiculous, no matter what language you speak. If Lindows was advertising themselves as "the Microsoft Windows of Linux" or something like that, I can see M$'s point. But otherwise, Lindows should not be restricted by Microsoft's choice to use a common computing term (English or not) in their product's name.
Microsoft "B.V." or Microsoft, either way it shouldn't matter. The parent company (Microsoft) named its product after a commonly used English word, commonly used in computing environments long before Microsoft came around. I'm glad you don't care if I speak english. No one's asking you to change your language. We're asking you to recognize the fact the no company should be allowed to rip common computing terms out of *any* language so that other companies can no longer use them in the names of their products.
This is like Ford creating a heavy duty towing machine called the "Ford Engine", and then trying to tradmark the word "Engine" so that a company couldn't create a product, say, called the AlphaEngine or something like that. Its ridiculous, no matter what language you speak. Maybe the Dutch judges don't speak English very well or something, in which case they should let the US courts decide if Microsoft is allowed to trademark the English word "windows" in reference to computing.
They should recognize that the english word "windows" has been used generically in computing environments long before Microsoft's "Windows" came along. Period. I don't care if they speak Dutch. Microsoft is a company based in an English speaking country, so the European courts should take that into account.
Obviously, if I were to market an OS in the United States called CorvassSoft Vensters (tm), I would (or should) probably have a pretty good trademark case against a company calling their product LenstersOS.
Again, not if a "Venster" was a generic term used in computing environments long before "CorvassSoft" came around. You can trademark "CorvassSoft Vensters", but that doesn't rip the word "Venster" out of the language, nor take away the right for companies to keep using the word "Venster" in reference to computing and computer products. I could have "Jay's Vensters" if I wanted. They would by Jay's version of the generic computing "Vensters" that all computer users knew and loved even before Corvass came along.
Lindows is short for windows under linux. It has absolutely nothing to do with M$. It has to dow with windows.
Microsoft hasn't taken anyone in the OSS community to court over "Xwindows". Why? Because they'd lose. Windows are common features. The difference between the word "windows" in reference to computers and the word "mustang" in reference to cars is that "windows" was used in refering to computers *before* microsoft ever came along and started using it. So Ford can trademark "Mustang" much more easily then M$ can trademark 'windows'.
I understand how they had to take Lindows to court to protect their 'trademark', but I still believe they will lose in the US.
Why would then name their company after the boxes? For the same reason Microsoft did. FYI, Microsoft Windows wasn't the first OS to use windows (the boxes). M$ didn't invent them, and cannot trademark that word (as the US courts will rule, I believe). Windows (the boxes) are one of the most well known things all modern OS's have common. But I already made that point...
Are you telling me that in European languages (specifically Dutch, if you know it) the word for a "window" in OS/2, a Mozilla/Netscape browser or mail app, or a linux graphical environment is an entirely word then the second word in "Microsoft Windows(tm)"? If it isn't different, then my point stands. If it is a different word, then you have a point... except these companies are using the English word in naming their product, so regardless the English language and this word's history in *that language* should be taken account. Again, the ruling is ridiculous.
I think what they're doing is right on. Lindows tried protesting M$'s ridiculous assertion (that it can trademark a word common in the English language and in computing circles *before* there was ever a Microsoft Windows(tm)) in the courts. Now they can continue their protest of this ridiculous ruling via their new name... and they rightly should protest. The European ruling is idiotic.
The US courts are more reasonable, and likely won't let Microsoft pull words from the English language/computing circles like European courts have. Lindows is a great marketing name for a linux desktop solution, combining linux, a term the average joe may be unfamiliar with, with windows, a term most people use in reference to their computer everyday (not M$ Windows(tm), but those little boxes people are used to dealing with on their desktops in *any* OS environment, when they are instructed to "close the window" etc.). Trademarking the word "windows" is like trademarking the words "mouse" or "cursor".
I don't know much about the distro or the company... but I give them props for their name. Marketing wit is something the linux community can always use more of.
You say you want to run Oracle on your Linux workstation, but "Oracle is not supporting any workstation versions of Linux - only server versions." So your problem seems to be Oracle, not Red Hat. I believe Fedora has a server install, just like any other distro would have.
Fedora can be had entirely for free as well, no? And it uses only GPL-friendly software like Debian, right? Like I said, what's the big deal? From what you say, the 'big deal' is your prophecy that RH is migrating to paid only software. But that isn't reality, nor is it what they say they are doing. They say they are making RH Linux (now Fedora)have a more community driven development (rather then soley a corporate driven one). And that is what they've done.
RHL (Fedora) is more like Debian now. Why all the gloom and doom? What do you base your prophecy on? Maybe I'm missing something...
Maybe I'm missing something, but what's the big difference between a Fedora customer and a Red Hat customer, except the name? What are people so excited about? From what I can tell both RH 9 and Fedora are still free (as in beer) and all still get security updates (now from a corporation supported community instead of just a corporation). Red Hat is still pouring a lot of effort and money into the community. Are people upset because they don't get phone support any more or something like that? Seriously, what makes people feel sold out?
I personally am excited that a OSS-based company is starting to succeed and is creating a winning business model in the market place. OSS helps the market by increasing competition. I'd better get used to OSS companies needing to make money somewhere, if I want to see them take market share from proprietary companies. It seems such corporations make in-roads into the market more easily then a less organized community. Red Hat's success, its relationship with IBM, and IBM's increasing dependency on OSS is a great thing, IMHO.
The author said as his conclusion, "Crackers and spammers are getting more and more sophisticated, and are finding ways to fool even experienced and skilled computer users."
I'm not so sure this hijacker found a way to fool "even experienced and skilled computer users". Anybody with even a very basic know-how of how to safely use a web browser knows that you shouldn't even go to websites if you don't know and trust the person or organization directing you to that website (especially if you're running IE!).
You said above, "I'm quite clear on what free means in this context," so don't even try to say you need clarification on what free (as in speech) software is. Even if you are or were ignorant of what free (as in speech) software means, his point was that there was code in OS X he'd like to see, but can't. How much more clarification do you need? And you still haven't responded to his point.
If you want to ask him why he wants to see the specific code he cited, then ask him. Or if you even want to say, "Seeing your OS code doesn't matter, just use it," then you're entilted to that opinion. But at least say something in reference to his point. Don't just sit there and backpeddle after he clarified, pretending to be stupid. It seems you're just refusing to address his point, preferring rather to continue trolling.
First you say OS X is "essentially free" (in the context of "free as in speech") here:
AC: Besides, Mac OS X is not "free as in speech." Want to take a look inside the Quartz Compositor? Sorry, you're SOL
You: ...I said, "essentially free".
Now you back away from that claim, saying, "free as speech was never my argument in the first place."
Now, if you would care to discuss the freedom of both speech and software please feel free to
He already tried to discuss free software with you, saying, "Want to take a look inside the Quartz Compositor? Sorry, you're SOL." The guy is into graphic's I suppose, and free (as in speech) software is so valuable to him that he's willing to give up an OS he "essentially" paid for (in purchasing Mac hardware) in order to have the freedom to tweak and learn with his OS's windowing engine.
You're obviously just trolling and trying to start a flame war. His original point in response to your question, "why should anyone in their right mind want to run Linux on a Mac?," was that OS X isn't totally free (as in open). You have yet to respond to this point of his. Either you're knowledge of four different languages has effected your ability to communicate consistently in this one, or you're just posting flamebait.
I set my PowerBook up 4 months ago, and guess what... It just works. Apple can NOT provide that same advantage using cobbled-together x86 components thrown together and hope the end user experience "just works" for the average consumer.
It just works, eh? There's no reason to subject yourself to potential vendor lock-in. My Red Hat 9 installation on x86 hardware 'just works' just fine as my desktop environement. And I can tweak things around to my likings much more easily then I can under OS X. And I'm looking forward to a free (both as in beer and as in speech) upgrade to Fedora soon.
Hey, to each his own though...
... at least in the proprietary model of development. So the man made very good points, but he made them based on a fundamental misunderstanding of OSS and along with a fundamental lack of research into the history of breaches/fixes in proprietary software vs. OSS. Yeah, the buy basically just stared at his naval and came up with a bunch of BS... but he needed to be responded to.
If this guy had posted his article to his blog that gets 10 hits a week or some obscure message board, I'd agree with you. But his folly got posted on a major website, with a lot of exposer. So it was good that someone exposed the error of Jones' logic, just in case people without as much technical background as you and I fall for it.
Obviously it didn't take a ton of ink to defend OSS against this guys BS, so why not do it? Not to dis' the response or say it wasn't a great article. On the contrary, it was a great article. I especially like how he ends, after demolishing Jones' logic, by showing Jones' motives are rightly questioned too. I'm just saying, there is a difference between feeding trolls on some obscure message board and responding to credible people who have a fairly relatively large readership.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry to break it to you, but we will always have homocides in our society. There will always be some punk kid "Donovan" who rapes "Jonathon's" girl after stealing a car in the the city and taking her for a joy ride, and then gets stabbed by Jonathan. Yes, we can fight gang and youth violence and we should, but it isn't a battle we can ever win completely. Violence is part of the human nature, and every culture and country in the world experiences homocides and violence.
I'm not saying that gang members don't have intrinsic value... but the death of 3000 of them doesn't have nearly the impact of the death of 3000 productive, law-abiding citizens, managers, and even CEO's in the center of New York.
We should continue to seek to control and prevent gang violence and violent, criminal youths from killing eachother and being in gangs, even though it is a battle that we can never fully win. We can, however, keep terrorists from flying bombs into our major economic centers and slaughtering law-abiding, productive, innovative citizens and leaders of our country by the thousands. We can do everything possible to keep WMD's out of the hands of Islamic madmen and those who would attack their neighbors, attack us if they could get the weapons here, rape and kill innocents, and refuse to be open and cooperative with international inspectors.
Taking the war to the terrorists and the madmen is expensive, yes. But if we don't do it, we give them a safe haven in which to plan further attacks against us. And if we did that, trust me... the number of gang-related deaths would pale in comparison that of terrorism related deaths of productive, law-abiding citizens. And this country would suffer immeasurable consequences for letting that happen. That is something we can prevent, if we are willing to sacrifice. It is something we must prevent... or we won't even be around to try to help youth gangs stop killing eachother.
As I said, gang members are criminals, not warriors and fighters. Many, many years ago this country instituted a system for dealing with combatants during a war. It has been supported by Congress and judges through the years, because it is more effective for wartime scenarios and for gathering intelligence to defend the nation. The administration of President Bush is using that system to defend us. I'm glad about that. I'm glad we don't have some sissy president that's going to do whatever the French tell us to do, and is willing to only fight terror *after the fact*, so long as the French don't get agitated at us.
Terrorists are different from gang members in that *mass* death and extreme destabilization of the nation is their goal. This is much, much more similar to war then other crimes. In war, you are better safe then sorry... because when you're "sorry" thousands (or even millions) are dead and the entire nation takes a huge downturn. That is why the system of military tribunals, etc. exists. Our laws must acknowledge that we are at war, and our laws must become more preventative then "prosecutional after the fact" when it comes to dealing with terrorists.
"Lies he's using to string us along"? 9-11 was no lie. That's all I need to know that we are at war. And the terrorists are trying to top even that. Two years, how quickly some people forget. Or maybe you think "Dub-ya" orchestrated 9-11. That wouldn't suprise me, the way you've been talking. There are people out there who believe that ridiculous assertion.
Anyway, I see you've written an entire post to someone you disagree with without using one flaming insult. Good job. I'm proud of you. I suppose you aren't just a troll after all. Nonetheless, your original malice toward anyone with a viewpoint different from you has made me realize that discussing with you is probably useless. I doubt I could learn anything useful from a person with your intolerance toward discussion and diversity. This conversation is over on my end.
Have a nice day,
jay
"Gang members" never would've dreamed of suicidally taking out the World Trade Center. 9-11 changed the US forever. Our mainland had never been attacked by foreigners, especially with the sole intent of taking as many lives as possible, with the suicide of the killer a very likely. Sure, Israel has been dealing with terrorists attacking them on their turf for years... and their laws have developed accordingly. Now ours must develop as well, to be more preventative then "prosecutional after the fact."
I don't say that to offend you. But obviously your intent is to offend me as you offer your insightful tibits to this discussion such as, "Dont be so full of yourself," and, "read a book." I have no need to deal with trolls like you who can't disagree with someone without flaming and insulting him.
Would've been nice to have had and learned from a conscientious discussion with you. But I get the feeling you just wanted to troll all along.
From what I understand, this is nothing new. Classified "enemy combatants" have been allowed to be so detained since WWII, for reasons that have withstood the courts and the test of time. I'm not sure if "material witnesses" should be kept without telling anyone (or whether or not this has actually happened... a supporting link would be helpful), but if those occurances can be applied only in situations involving terrorism and will help in foiling terrorist plots, then I say bring it on.
The courts will rule on all this in time. This is why we have checks and balances. I think it is better to have an act that is a little too strong (and which the courts then refine) then to have one which is too weak (which the courts have no problem at all with) and lets terrorists do their thing.
Obviously we are facing an enemy unlike any other we have ever faced before. And so obviously our current laws will have to evolve to respond to this threat. Using war-time clauses to maximize the Justice Dept.'s ability to transform itself from a "reactive, prosecutional" entity to a "proactive, preventative" entity is a good idea. Changes will have to take place. Most people don't lik it, but it will have to take place. So just be careful not to mess with Big Brother, because he's out to save his ass and he's pissed off. I don't blame him, and am glad he's taking this seriously as hell. The checks and balances of this nation will keep him more or less straight over time. The enemy is literally all around us and we have suffered the first attack on our mainland's soil... and they promise more and more devestating attacks. This is a new and different era, and it will take time and sacrifice to adjust to it.
No offense, but Congress (not just one administration or one judge) as a whole many, many, years ago instituted the policy of "military tribunals" and the classification of "enemy combatants" to combat situations exactly like the boundryless and extensive network of terrorists we're fighting. Numerous judges through the years have given these classifications merit, and they are historically parts of our countries international legal system. If I follow a few rules, I can keep myself from being held as an "enemy combatant".
1) Don't fly to the Sudan to attend terrorist training with an Osama Lieutenant.
2) If I happen to be in the Sudan and the US invades for whatever reason, don't pick up a gun and start firing on US troops.
3) Don't raise financial support for organization on the Feds list of organizations that support terrorism.
Is that really too much of a restriction on my freedom? I don't think so. It only takes one of these terrorist bastards to take you (and a *whole bunch* of the rest of us) out, and rip this country a new one.... again. The Feds have a job to do, so I'm going to let them do it with the tools Congress has given them. It isn't going to take another 9-11 for me to support this act.
Now using this act against non-terrorists (if it isn't meant for that) is a different story. That would be wrong. So far, I haven't heard of any innocent person being wrongly convicted or having his privacy invaded because of this act. If I do start hearing of those things, I'll ask that the act be changed (not necessarily repealled).
For now, as I see it, better safe then sorry. No judges have even ruled that a criminal has been wrongly prosecuted under this act, much less an innocent person (though some criminals have been prosecuted, and will have their day in court). We can always change the act if it gets out of hand, or the judges who hear these cases can rule on the Acts constitutionality or enforcement. That's what Federal Judges are for. Correct me if I'm wrong, but for now I think safe is better then sorry.
Interesting. Are you talking about something along the lines of your basic clear spray paint enamel or maybe something like "reflect a-lite" clear spray kryon?
Interesting. Are you talking about something along the lines of your basic clear spray paint enamel or maybe something like "reflect a-lite" clear spray kryon?
I'd love to make a push-button cover for my license plate so I could run video-policed red lights when it is late and no one is coming anyway.
We just started getting video surveillance at traffic lights in my town, and sometimes they really piss me off.
I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult. Just a push button switch up front wired to an electric motor in the back, some rotors, and a sliding cover. I suppose I'd have to cut through my trunk... that would suck. Or I could mount it on my trunk I guess... hmmm. Any suggestions?
No company should be allowed to rip common computing terms out of *any* language so that other companies can no longer use them in the names of their products.
This is like Ford creating a heavy duty towing machine called the "Ford Engine", and then trying to tradmark the word "Engine" so that any other company couldn't create a product, say, called the AlphaEngine or something like that. Its ridiculous, no matter what language you speak. If Lindows was advertising themselves as "the Microsoft Windows of Linux" or something like that, I can see M$'s point. But otherwise, Lindows should not be restricted by Microsoft's choice to use a common computing term (English or not) in their product's name.
Microsoft "B.V." or Microsoft, either way it shouldn't matter. The parent company (Microsoft) named its product after a commonly used English word, commonly used in computing environments long before Microsoft came around. I'm glad you don't care if I speak english. No one's asking you to change your language. We're asking you to recognize the fact the no company should be allowed to rip common computing terms out of *any* language so that other companies can no longer use them in the names of their products.
This is like Ford creating a heavy duty towing machine called the "Ford Engine", and then trying to tradmark the word "Engine" so that a company couldn't create a product, say, called the AlphaEngine or something like that. Its ridiculous, no matter what language you speak. Maybe the Dutch judges don't speak English very well or something, in which case they should let the US courts decide if Microsoft is allowed to trademark the English word "windows" in reference to computing.
They should recognize that the english word "windows" has been used generically in computing environments long before Microsoft's "Windows" came along. Period. I don't care if they speak Dutch. Microsoft is a company based in an English speaking country, so the European courts should take that into account.
Again, not if a "Venster" was a generic term used in computing environments long before "CorvassSoft" came around. You can trademark "CorvassSoft Vensters", but that doesn't rip the word "Venster" out of the language, nor take away the right for companies to keep using the word "Venster" in reference to computing and computer products. I could have "Jay's Vensters" if I wanted. They would by Jay's version of the generic computing "Vensters" that all computer users knew and loved even before Corvass came along.
Lindows is short for windows under linux. It has absolutely nothing to do with M$. It has to dow with windows.
Microsoft hasn't taken anyone in the OSS community to court over "Xwindows". Why? Because they'd lose. Windows are common features. The difference between the word "windows" in reference to computers and the word "mustang" in reference to cars is that "windows" was used in refering to computers *before* microsoft ever came along and started using it. So Ford can trademark "Mustang" much more easily then M$ can trademark 'windows'.
I understand how they had to take Lindows to court to protect their 'trademark', but I still believe they will lose in the US.
Why would then name their company after the boxes? For the same reason Microsoft did. FYI, Microsoft Windows wasn't the first OS to use windows (the boxes). M$ didn't invent them, and cannot trademark that word (as the US courts will rule, I believe). Windows (the boxes) are one of the most well known things all modern OS's have common. But I already made that point...
Are you telling me that in European languages (specifically Dutch, if you know it) the word for a "window" in OS/2, a Mozilla/Netscape browser or mail app, or a linux graphical environment is an entirely word then the second word in "Microsoft Windows(tm)"? If it isn't different, then my point stands. If it is a different word, then you have a point... except these companies are using the English word in naming their product, so regardless the English language and this word's history in *that language* should be taken account. Again, the ruling is ridiculous.
I think what they're doing is right on. Lindows tried protesting M$'s ridiculous assertion (that it can trademark a word common in the English language and in computing circles *before* there was ever a Microsoft Windows(tm)) in the courts. Now they can continue their protest of this ridiculous ruling via their new name... and they rightly should protest. The European ruling is idiotic.
The US courts are more reasonable, and likely won't let Microsoft pull words from the English language/computing circles like European courts have. Lindows is a great marketing name for a linux desktop solution, combining linux, a term the average joe may be unfamiliar with, with windows, a term most people use in reference to their computer everyday (not M$ Windows(tm), but those little boxes people are used to dealing with on their desktops in *any* OS environment, when they are instructed to "close the window" etc.). Trademarking the word "windows" is like trademarking the words "mouse" or "cursor".
I don't know much about the distro or the company... but I give them props for their name. Marketing wit is something the linux community can always use more of.
You say you want to run Oracle on your Linux workstation, but "Oracle is not supporting any workstation versions of Linux - only server versions." So your problem seems to be Oracle, not Red Hat. I believe Fedora has a server install, just like any other distro would have.
Fedora can be had entirely for free as well, no? And it uses only GPL-friendly software like Debian, right? Like I said, what's the big deal? From what you say, the 'big deal' is your prophecy that RH is migrating to paid only software. But that isn't reality, nor is it what they say they are doing. They say they are making RH Linux (now Fedora)have a more community driven development (rather then soley a corporate driven one). And that is what they've done.
RHL (Fedora) is more like Debian now. Why all the gloom and doom? What do you base your prophecy on? Maybe I'm missing something...
Maybe I'm missing something, but what's the big difference between a Fedora customer and a Red Hat customer, except the name? What are people so excited about? From what I can tell both RH 9 and Fedora are still free (as in beer) and all still get security updates (now from a corporation supported community instead of just a corporation). Red Hat is still pouring a lot of effort and money into the community. Are people upset because they don't get phone support any more or something like that? Seriously, what makes people feel sold out?
I personally am excited that a OSS-based company is starting to succeed and is creating a winning business model in the market place. OSS helps the market by increasing competition. I'd better get used to OSS companies needing to make money somewhere, if I want to see them take market share from proprietary companies. It seems such corporations make in-roads into the market more easily then a less organized community. Red Hat's success, its relationship with IBM, and IBM's increasing dependency on OSS is a great thing, IMHO.
I'm not so sure this hijacker found a way to fool "even experienced and skilled computer users". Anybody with even a very basic know-how of how to safely use a web browser knows that you shouldn't even go to websites if you don't know and trust the person or organization directing you to that website (especially if you're running IE!).
If you want to ask him why he wants to see the specific code he cited, then ask him. Or if you even want to say, "Seeing your OS code doesn't matter, just use it," then you're entilted to that opinion. But at least say something in reference to his point. Don't just sit there and backpeddle after he clarified, pretending to be stupid. It seems you're just refusing to address his point, preferring rather to continue trolling.
AC: Besides, Mac OS X is not "free as in speech." Want to take a look inside the Quartz Compositor? Sorry, you're SOL
You: ...I said, "essentially free".
Now you back away from that claim, saying, "free as speech was never my argument in the first place."
Now, if you would care to discuss the freedom of both speech and software please feel free to
He already tried to discuss free software with you, saying, "Want to take a look inside the Quartz Compositor? Sorry, you're SOL." The guy is into graphic's I suppose, and free (as in speech) software is so valuable to him that he's willing to give up an OS he "essentially" paid for (in purchasing Mac hardware) in order to have the freedom to tweak and learn with his OS's windowing engine.
You're obviously just trolling and trying to start a flame war. His original point in response to your question, "why should anyone in their right mind want to run Linux on a Mac?," was that OS X isn't totally free (as in open). You have yet to respond to this point of his. Either you're knowledge of four different languages has effected your ability to communicate consistently in this one, or you're just posting flamebait.
Well, not quite that much exposure.
It just works, eh? There's no reason to subject yourself to potential vendor lock-in. My Red Hat 9 installation on x86 hardware 'just works' just fine as my desktop environement. And I can tweak things around to my likings much more easily then I can under OS X. And I'm looking forward to a free (both as in beer and as in speech) upgrade to Fedora soon. Hey, to each his own though...
If this guy had posted his article to his blog that gets 10 hits a week or some obscure message board, I'd agree with you. But his folly got posted on a major website, with a lot of exposer. So it was good that someone exposed the error of Jones' logic, just in case people without as much technical background as you and I fall for it.
Obviously it didn't take a ton of ink to defend OSS against this guys BS, so why not do it? Not to dis' the response or say it wasn't a great article. On the contrary, it was a great article. I especially like how he ends, after demolishing Jones' logic, by showing Jones' motives are rightly questioned too. I'm just saying, there is a difference between feeding trolls on some obscure message board and responding to credible people who have a fairly relatively large readership.