your chances of catching a computer virus or a handful of invitations to unspeakable sexual acts is much greater than finding what you were looking for in the first place.
What happens if those are the things you were looking for?
Well that's a heck of an improvement on the old one. Now if only some of the other BSD's (Open, i'm looking at you) would do something similar, would be good. And yes, i know, better they spend time hacking at the source than making their site pretty, but as was shown by the summer of code thing, finding people willing to take on the responsibility of sorting it out isn't hard.
Lots of people seem to get up in arms about groups like the MPAA trying to control the way people view their content without remembering that it's their content and nobody has any right to it. Yes, your fair use is being compromised because you can't watch the show the way you want to, but they don't owe you anything, if you don't like it don't buy it. The thing that people should be upset with is things like the DMCA that mean that you're not allowed to exercise your fair use rights even if you technically can because you're not allowed to break the encrypted transmission. Thank goodness i like in the UK and there's not DMCA here (yet).
Not all patents are a problem i don't think, certainly nobody seems to object, it's just when very vauge ideas are patented and stockpiled by big companies that everyone starts questioning if the system needs sorting. Gotta love the idea of having to have a working implementation of the idea, that would at least weed out a fair amount of dodgy patents.
The question i've got to ask myself is whether they are running the same server 2003 that one would get if you purchased a copy from them, because i for one can't imagine that using a version that they haven't tweaked to hell would be wise. Maybe there is a special internal version because otherwise they are either brave or stupid.
But the question really is, how much do people care about this? There seem to be a couple of licences most open source softwares use, being the GPL and the BSD licences, and only odd examples use others. Yes, the big big things like apache and the like have their own licenece, but for most people writting a small application, as well as a lot of larger projects, those two seem to cover it.
Ah, and once again Microsoft do what they do best: create a solution to a demand which doesn't actually solve the problem but your average politician can point at and say "they've cooperated".
Bit like their server licencing and the judgement against them in the EU, it's providing a solution which is useless yet looks good on paper.
I think the best thing to do is sit down with him and explain why it is that you think 4 weeks is more than generous, and why he should expect to pay a premium not a subsidised rate if he requires services post that. While i can appreciate not wishing to burn a bridge, i think at some point you've got to say that the effort required to go past polite and accomidate his wishes is too great. There is no point in upsetting him, but he needs to understand that you are the one with all of the aces in this situation.
Yes, but ITMS will accept version 4.7 upwards. The problem was that previously earlier clients had been able to connect, however it was with them that the loophole existed. I suspect it won't be too long before someone modifies PyMusique to trick ITMS into believing it's itunes, but still.
Which of course requires that everyone upgrade their itunes to version 4.7. Apparently you can still use PyMusique to preview tracks, just not buy them.
it's the format. or more accurately the DRM that they included. recommended my father to purchase a himd minidisc recorder because of the ease of copying music from the minidisc recorder to the computer using USB. he is a piano teacher and musician, and likes to record what he does using a high quality microphone and his new minidisc recorder, but when we copied the music to the computer (which only, by the way, works with sonic stage) it wouldn't lets us burn audio cds. the song and dance required to get the music into a format to burn to cd was shocking. and this is not some hardware limitation, it's simply sony choosing not to let you burn to cd what you record with i microphone.
a) Do sony's fortune's need turning? Surely they are absolutely giant in quite a lot of markets thus aren't doing too badly for themselves
b) From my experience, sony are a total pain with respect to formats and suchlike, the minidisc being a good example. is it really something geeks are going to embrace?
What's the betting that microsoft make some carefully placed "donations" to people in charge of overseeing the changes to this and suddenly very minor changes are accepted as sufficient? I really can't see them letting this get changed too much in case it actually helps open source.
But then what about all the shiny new "features"? Where will Microsoft hide the "anti-terror protection" and all of the other exciting new things that will slip in the back door with their new release?
The reason i don't want a hard drive in my phone is the same as the reason i'm not going to buy an ipod till they do large flash based ones: i want to be able to throw the thing around, drop it, etc, and not have to worry about anything except having to buy a new cover.
Or do these hard drives have less problems with being dropped and generally abused that might be expected?
Where there's a will there's a bored geek just waiting for a new challenge to solve.
That and you can just factor in that time for going and doing something useful, making a sandwich, etc. 20 minutes you've not wasted, so who care if the ads are skippable.
What kind of comeback do people have if their data is misused as a result of this? I know in the UK the Data Protection Act would cover this kind of thing, but are there powers in the US to prosecute LexusNexus should their failure to protect your data cause you loss?
Except of course if someone else wants to incorperate it into a comerical product without having to release the source code. The GPL is wonderful for projects where the ultimate aim is for it to be totally free, but if you want to leave others free to take what you've done and make something non-free something like the BSD licenece would seem better.
But hey, i guess it doesn't really matter if the author wants to his software to be licenced in a way which the GPL suits.
As everyone seems to be suggesting, free doesn't have to mean you donate a lot of time and effort into supporting a product when you could legitimately charge for your time and give away the product. Often i think it more important to find a niche and fill it well than to expect instant returns on your work. Licencing your code under a slightly less restrictive licence, something like the BSD licence, will also aid in adoption by those who don't want to be so limited by it's terms of use.
Considering the heat one of these will kick out, NASA could use a few of those to warm mars. Surely far simpler than all these global warming gas plans plus they could donate the space cycles to something worth while.
Netscape obtains blacklists of scam and spam sites which will be denied access to ActiveX and cookies.
But who decides which sites are evil and which aren't? Will we suddenly find a group targetting anything they find morally objectionable (p0rn, etc) and having it added to the list?
Slashdot Mirror
your chances of catching a computer virus or a handful of invitations to unspeakable sexual acts is much greater than finding what you were looking for in the first place.
What happens if those are the things you were looking for?
Well that's a heck of an improvement on the old one. Now if only some of the other BSD's (Open, i'm looking at you) would do something similar, would be good. And yes, i know, better they spend time hacking at the source than making their site pretty, but as was shown by the summer of code thing, finding people willing to take on the responsibility of sorting it out isn't hard.
Lots of people seem to get up in arms about groups like the MPAA trying to control the way people view their content without remembering that it's their content and nobody has any right to it. Yes, your fair use is being compromised because you can't watch the show the way you want to, but they don't owe you anything, if you don't like it don't buy it. The thing that people should be upset with is things like the DMCA that mean that you're not allowed to exercise your fair use rights even if you technically can because you're not allowed to break the encrypted transmission. Thank goodness i like in the UK and there's not DMCA here (yet).
Whoever modded this troll, it's the lyrics from a song by The Bloodhound Gang, not just the useless trash it might at first appear to be.
Not all patents are a problem i don't think, certainly nobody seems to object, it's just when very vauge ideas are patented and stockpiled by big companies that everyone starts questioning if the system needs sorting. Gotta love the idea of having to have a working implementation of the idea, that would at least weed out a fair amount of dodgy patents.
The question i've got to ask myself is whether they are running the same server 2003 that one would get if you purchased a copy from them, because i for one can't imagine that using a version that they haven't tweaked to hell would be wise. Maybe there is a special internal version because otherwise they are either brave or stupid.
Was as long as the sheep aren't scared it's ok.
But the question really is, how much do people care about this? There seem to be a couple of licences most open source softwares use, being the GPL and the BSD licences, and only odd examples use others. Yes, the big big things like apache and the like have their own licenece, but for most people writting a small application, as well as a lot of larger projects, those two seem to cover it.
Ah, and once again Microsoft do what they do best: create a solution to a demand which doesn't actually solve the problem but your average politician can point at and say "they've cooperated". Bit like their server licencing and the judgement against them in the EU, it's providing a solution which is useless yet looks good on paper.
I think the best thing to do is sit down with him and explain why it is that you think 4 weeks is more than generous, and why he should expect to pay a premium not a subsidised rate if he requires services post that. While i can appreciate not wishing to burn a bridge, i think at some point you've got to say that the effort required to go past polite and accomidate his wishes is too great. There is no point in upsetting him, but he needs to understand that you are the one with all of the aces in this situation.
Yes, but ITMS will accept version 4.7 upwards. The problem was that previously earlier clients had been able to connect, however it was with them that the loophole existed. I suspect it won't be too long before someone modifies PyMusique to trick ITMS into believing it's itunes, but still.
Which of course requires that everyone upgrade their itunes to version 4.7. Apparently you can still use PyMusique to preview tracks, just not buy them.
it's the format. or more accurately the DRM that they included. recommended my father to purchase a himd minidisc recorder because of the ease of copying music from the minidisc recorder to the computer using USB. he is a piano teacher and musician, and likes to record what he does using a high quality microphone and his new minidisc recorder, but when we copied the music to the computer (which only, by the way, works with sonic stage) it wouldn't lets us burn audio cds. the song and dance required to get the music into a format to burn to cd was shocking. and this is not some hardware limitation, it's simply sony choosing not to let you burn to cd what you record with i microphone.
a) Do sony's fortune's need turning? Surely they are absolutely giant in quite a lot of markets thus aren't doing too badly for themselves b) From my experience, sony are a total pain with respect to formats and suchlike, the minidisc being a good example. is it really something geeks are going to embrace?
What's the betting that microsoft make some carefully placed "donations" to people in charge of overseeing the changes to this and suddenly very minor changes are accepted as sufficient? I really can't see them letting this get changed too much in case it actually helps open source.
But then what about all the shiny new "features"? Where will Microsoft hide the "anti-terror protection" and all of the other exciting new things that will slip in the back door with their new release?
The reason i don't want a hard drive in my phone is the same as the reason i'm not going to buy an ipod till they do large flash based ones: i want to be able to throw the thing around, drop it, etc, and not have to worry about anything except having to buy a new cover. Or do these hard drives have less problems with being dropped and generally abused that might be expected?
Where there's a will there's a bored geek just waiting for a new challenge to solve. That and you can just factor in that time for going and doing something useful, making a sandwich, etc. 20 minutes you've not wasted, so who care if the ads are skippable.
What kind of comeback do people have if their data is misused as a result of this? I know in the UK the Data Protection Act would cover this kind of thing, but are there powers in the US to prosecute LexusNexus should their failure to protect your data cause you loss?
Except of course if someone else wants to incorperate it into a comerical product without having to release the source code. The GPL is wonderful for projects where the ultimate aim is for it to be totally free, but if you want to leave others free to take what you've done and make something non-free something like the BSD licenece would seem better. But hey, i guess it doesn't really matter if the author wants to his software to be licenced in a way which the GPL suits.
As everyone seems to be suggesting, free doesn't have to mean you donate a lot of time and effort into supporting a product when you could legitimately charge for your time and give away the product. Often i think it more important to find a niche and fill it well than to expect instant returns on your work. Licencing your code under a slightly less restrictive licence, something like the BSD licence, will also aid in adoption by those who don't want to be so limited by it's terms of use.
It is even really worth fighting software patents in europe when clearly the european parliment will do it's own thing whatever the people say?
Considering the heat one of these will kick out, NASA could use a few of those to warm mars. Surely far simpler than all these global warming gas plans plus they could donate the space cycles to something worth while.
Netscape obtains blacklists of scam and spam sites which will be denied access to ActiveX and cookies.
But who decides which sites are evil and which aren't? Will we suddenly find a group targetting anything they find morally objectionable (p0rn, etc) and having it added to the list?
Yes, but would the people rather use a state owned, hugely filtered search engine or google which, even if it is cut down, will still be 1000x better?