>>"Again, this doesn't answer the question. Certainly, if a few programmers modify some GPL code, their corporation isn't forced to create a website publishing that code to far and wide. But I argue they must permit that publication by their employees."
I disagree. The employees are under contract with the company, and so, their work is owned by the company (or so it is in most corporate environments I know). The modifications performed by the employees on behest of the company do not belong to them, but to the company itself. Your point would be accurate if in fact the internal use of the modified software implied a "distribution" to the employees, and therefore "distribution to the public" -- but this is stretching the definition of "distribution" a bit too far. In my opinion -- and I believe this is the spirit of the GPL in this case -- internal use by employees of the company does *NOT* denote distribution.
You are right in that the GPL does not expressly say "If you do not distribute the software, you do not have to distribute the source", but it certainly *implies* this notion, which is why I presume that even the FSF people have said this. Below are a few sections from the GPL license itself (copied verbatim from the www.gnu.org site):
DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, but I have a fair grasp of the English language and can extract meaning and intent from written documents (most of the time).
{SECTION 2: The section that applies to modifying the source.}
==== 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.) ====
Notice that it says "and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions". By including "and distribute" in that clause, the license is specifying that those particular conditions *must* be met when *all* the actions of causality are in place. Thus, for those conditions to apply you must "modify your copy or copies" AND "copy" AND "distribute".
Moreover, further down in Section 2 it states:
==== Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program. ====
It does more than imply -- it expressly states -- that the intent of this section is to "exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works", and not its access or modification.
All other sections of the license stipulate conditions on copying, distributing, or redistributing the original work or its derivatives, and do not directly deal with modifications as in Section 2.
Consider also that the notion of not having to distribute the source to modified versions used in-house without distribution is expressly stated in the GPL FAQ:
==== Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?
The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.
Fox News reports that the revolution _was_ indeed televised, but was pre-empted in all mayor networks by the fall season premier episode of The Apprentice*. Fox Network announces that highlights from it will soon be released on DVD.
I think the original poster's comments refer to a more specific, and somewhat obvious and transparent practice by Microsoft*, in which they deny at all costs any problems with their current methodologies or products, asserting -- nay, screaming at the top of their lungs -- how good and better their current products are, just to turn around in a few years and "admit" publicly somewhere along the lines of "Yeah, we know it sucked back then, what the hell were we thinking!"
This has happened in products such as Windows 95, 98, Me, IE, and we are seeing it now with Longhorn, even though its not even out yet. I still remember Microsoft's refutations at critics who said that Windows 95 was no more than a shell over DOS, and a very buggy one at that. Even the Win32 API was defended as the end-all-be-all of OS interfaces, only to later deride them all when introducing the latest and greatest. Of course, now we all hear MS engineers, and even some high-placed officials openly criticize old Internet Explorer and Windows 95 code, and sometimes even joke about how bad they were (but of course, Its Better Now (tm)!), and it seems that in the midst of all the fun ("well, its about time they admit it! we knew it all along!"), we all forgot how we were made to believe in no uncertain words that these products were Best Of Breed. Ironic.
To my knowledge, this candidness is more than just a PR stunt; it shows a dysfunctional and irreverent -- perhaps even irresponsible and arrogant -- attitude towards their customers and the industry in general. You can almost hear them: "Win32, ActiveX, code-commingling... what were we thinking! And you all bought it. Ha, Ha, Ha, suckers! Oh, and by the by, Its Fixed Now, Honest (tm)! *smirk*"
-dZ.
* P.S. Of course, Microsoft is far from the only company who does this. I think most large corporations have a somewhat elevated view of themselves which affects their culture and perception of their industry.
>> Then why are "far" hotkeys like ctrl-O okay on word processors? Because your right hand is already on the keyboard. That's not the case when surfing the web - your right hand is on the mouse.
The keyboard shortcuts are created so that you can use the application *without* the mouse. There are only a very limited "single-hand", "two-finger" shortcuts that can be implemented.
Wow! I remember as a kid just standing next to the machine cabinet and watching it, after someone else had put his quarter in it to start the movie. You mean, they were actually "playing" it? So that's why it kept freezing up for a second or two at certain points. It also explains the somewhat frantic and seemly useless button pushing... hum...
I always wondered why they had the machine in my local games arcade. He, he, he.
Nope. Not points either. I don't know about ems. As far as I know, IE will only resize fonts when they are specified in relative terms, as small/large/x-large, or smaller/larger. Other than that, it uses what was specified.
But that's exactly what they did. Massachussets did not choose Acrobat and OpenOffice software, they chose the OpenDocument and Portable Document Format (PDF) formats, which have published specifications and no licensing fees for competitors. Moreover, Microsoft is certainly entitled, and encouraged, to support these formats. If they did, they would be competing along with the rest.
Contrary to the headlines, this article offers no new insight into Microsoft's points of contention. I am not a Micro$oft lover by any stretch of the imagination, (see? I spelled it with a '$'!), but I must admit that their points are valid, albeit a bit redundant or overestimated. But even so, the article's author mainly retorts to each point with simple-minded, vacuous comments that do nothing to enlightened nor explain, while showing his bias in full force.
The article could be summed up as such:
-------- 1. We think MA made the wrong decision.
Bullshit. It is not the wrong decision, because it is the Right One.
2. We think it'll cost more to convert to the new format than they really expect.
Wrong. I'm sure they already took into consideration all the costs of conversion, so it won't be more than expected.
3. We think that choosing OpenDocument 1.0 gives preferential treatment to one vendor over another.
Bullshit. Choosing MS Office will give preference to one vendor.
4. We think giving preferential treatment to one vendor will hinder innovation.
Wrong. Choosing OpenDocument will not hinder innovation, because... it just won't.
5. There are alternatives that are cheaper and less limiting, that will not lock you into one single vendor's format.
This comment is bullshit, but since I couldn't really think of a reason, I'd say its because it makes no sense.
. In conclusion, we think that MA is doing a disservice to its citizens by choosing a format that is less functional and more restrictive than what they currently have. We can work with them to achieve all their goals while they continue giving us money.
This conclusion is all bullshit, because all they want is more money, when in fact the format Massachussets chose is the best one, although I won't say why; it just is. And since the original document was written by Microsoft it must be wrong! --------
Final conclusion about the article: Just another "blogger" tootin' his own horn and [writing|talking] just to hear himself [type|speak].
Below is my interpretation of what each version might contain.
STARTER EDITION: Crippled version. Includes Windows Media Player, but no DirectX and no Network capabilites (i.e. missing the icon). No Internet connectivity either (i.e. missing IE icon from the Desktop). No control panel folder. Possibly, the Program Files directory is set as Read-Only to prevent the user to install software. This is the version sold for small appliances and cheap e-machines.
HOME BASIC EDITION: Network control panel icon enabled, but artificially limited to allow only 4 users accounts. Has file but not printer sharing. IE7.0 icon included on the Desktop. Includes a FireWall, but it is set as default to block all outside traffic except ports 80 and 110/25 -- with no FireWall interface to change this. Program Files folder is now read-write-able.
HOME PREMIUM EDITION: Same as Home Base Edition, but with Themes and DirectX (this is the "gamers" edition!). Also printer sharing is available. Full Internet Access! (i.e. most ports are opened by default and includes the FireWall configuration icon).
PROFESSIONAL EDITION: Same as Home Premium Edition, Allows more than 4 user accounts (but less than 10), includes ScanDisk and Defrag, Device Manager, User Accounts Management, and Services icons.
SMALL BUSINESS EDITION: Same as Home Premium Edition, but without DirectX or Windows Media. Also, includes IIS and Exchange, and allows up to 10 user accounts to connect at a time.
ENTERPRISE EDITION: Same as Small Business Edition, but includes MS SQL server, and a few other services; and allows up to 20 accounts to connect at a time.
ULTIMATE EDITION: Same as Enterprise Edition, but with Windows Media and DirectX!
As far as I know, it supports MIDI synchronization. However, I never used it. I do remember once trying it out, and I needed to install some special drivers or something.
I bought ReBirth-338 a few years ago (1998 or 1999, I think) and was very impressed by it. It not only has a TB-303 emulator, it has two of them! Along with a TR-808 (w00t!) and a TR-909 (woo-hoo!!!) beat-boxes emulators, all in there.
It also has a simple, yet effective, sequencer for all the synthesizers, a few effects (distortion, delay, compression), and a nice Pattern Controlled Filter. In short, everything you need for swooping, hypnotic, techno tracks, or classic Freestyle Electro!
The first time I used it I was overwhelmed by the memories of DJ'ing back in the 80s.
Propellerheads, thanx for the memory trip, and the very cool software!!
Sadly, consumers and corporate decision-makers are mostly interested in short-term benefits. Sometimes, decisions that will reap huge benefits in the long run seem to coincide with this short-sightedness because they appear to bring immediate results. This can be interpreted as "Consumers are starting to realize..." or "Major corporations are finally figuring out..." arguments, but this is just an illusion.
All it takes is for Microsoft to offer the software for a substantial discount, or even for free (it has been known to do this) to the state of Massachussets, for the local elected officials -- you know, the people who have a vested interest in "justifying" to their constituents that the should be re-elected in 2 years -- to re-consider their decision.
The same with consumers: All it takes is for an apparent immediate savings, like mail-in rebates, price discounts, etc. for most of them to completely forget about interoperability, freedom of choice, and corporate misbehaviour.
Plus, I don't know if they fixed this in XP and now in Vista, but up to Win2k, the "Show Desktop" function was "modeless", that is, when you call it, it clears your Desktop, but if you select a specific window, or open any other application, it resets itself, and there is no way for you to return all your windows to the desktop. For example:
1. I have 5 windows opened on my Desktop. 2. I call the "Show Desktop" function and it clears the desktop 3. I open up a Windows Explorer window (a subtle flicker of the Desktop occurs, as if to tell me that the Desktop has been resetted.) 4. I click the "Show Desktop" function again and my Windows Explorer window gets clear!
As opposed to Mac OSX's Exposé (I have Panther right now), which is modal, and has a precise "on" and "off" activation mode. If I clear the desktop using Exposé, I can open other applications, search in Finder windows, while still engaged in "Exposé-mode", and when I'm done, I can deactivate Exposé and get all my windows back.
The fact that you must compare a *new* beta version of Windows Vista to a 4 year old version of Mac OS speaks volumes about their development abilities and qualities. Microsoft truly trumps the hacker shop that is Apple by offering basically the same thing, hum, half a decade later.
>>"I still go and buy the DVD when it comes out, IF the movie is good."
And there lies the problem. At least as the Studios (tm) see it. You see, they are just a factory mass-producing a cheap and quick product, pumping out movies at an insane rate. They are aware that most of them are crap, but that people will just go to the theater for the fact of getting out of the house, or buy the DVD because it is the "Hottest New Release".
So what happens? Most people go to the theater on opening weekend, and even if they are disappointed afterwards, the *already* paid! Add to this a heavy marketing blitz and lots of hype, and you ensure that a lot of other (gullible) people will still go to the theater on subsequent weeks just to see what all the buzz is about -- regardless of reviews on opening weekend.
Now, if these people start downloading the movies off the Internet to "see what all the buzz is about" instead of coughing $8.00 to watch it at the theater (or $24.00 to buy the DVD first hand), then guess who doesn't make a profit?
Of course, the intention of a lot of these people downloading the movies, like you, is to "try before you buy", and they usually have a sincere contemplation of buying the DVD or going to the theater -- *if* the movie is good. And of course, like others have said, the true fans will pay for the experience afterwards, because they only wanted to have access to it for the geek-value -- but again, only *if* the movie is good. However, most of them are not, as we all are aware, so they end up skipping the theater run.
The Studios (tm) know this. They know that most of the films they produce are not worth the celluloid they are printed on. But they still want to rely on getting as many people as they can to *pay* up front. Pirated copy downloads and "try before you buy" methods prevent this sneaky model from succeeding.
Now, I do not condone piracy, but I strongly advocate the need to reform the entire business model of the Movie Industry.
Slashdot Mirror
>>"Again, this doesn't answer the question. Certainly, if a few programmers modify some GPL code, their corporation isn't forced to create a website publishing that code to far and wide. But I argue they must permit that publication by their employees."
I disagree. The employees are under contract with the company, and so, their work is owned by the company (or so it is in most corporate environments I know). The modifications performed by the employees on behest of the company do not belong to them, but to the company itself. Your point would be accurate if in fact the internal use of the modified software implied a "distribution" to the employees, and therefore "distribution to the public" -- but this is stretching the definition of "distribution" a bit too far. In my opinion -- and I believe this is the spirit of the GPL in this case -- internal use by employees of the company does *NOT* denote distribution.
-dZ.
You are right in that the GPL does not expressly say "If you do not distribute the software, you do not have to distribute the source", but it certainly *implies* this notion, which is why I presume that even the FSF people have said this. Below are a few sections from the GPL license itself (copied verbatim from the www.gnu.org site):
DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, but I have a fair grasp of the English language and can extract meaning and intent from written documents (most of the time).
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
{SECTION 2: The section that applies to modifying the source.}
====
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
====
Notice that it says "and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions". By including "and distribute" in that clause, the license is specifying that those particular conditions *must* be met when *all* the actions of causality are in place. Thus, for those conditions to apply you must "modify your copy or copies" AND "copy" AND "distribute".
Moreover, further down in Section 2 it states:
====
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.
====
It does more than imply -- it expressly states -- that the intent of this section is to "exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works", and not its access or modification.
All other sections of the license stipulate conditions on copying, distributing, or redistributing the original work or its derivatives, and do not directly deal with modifications as in Section 2.
Consider also that the notion of not having to distribute the source to modified versions used in-house without distribution is expressly stated in the GPL FAQ:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequir eSourcePostedPublic
====
Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?
The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.
But if you release
Fox News reports that the revolution _was_ indeed televised, but was pre-empted in all mayor networks by the fall season premier episode of The Apprentice*. Fox Network announces that highlights from it will soon be released on DVD.
* (Random popular Reality TV (tm) show.)
-dZ.
And everybody should get a pony, too!
-dZ.
I think the original poster's comments refer to a more specific, and somewhat obvious and transparent practice by Microsoft*, in which they deny at all costs any problems with their current methodologies or products, asserting -- nay, screaming at the top of their lungs -- how good and better their current products are, just to turn around in a few years and "admit" publicly somewhere along the lines of "Yeah, we know it sucked back then, what the hell were we thinking!"
This has happened in products such as Windows 95, 98, Me, IE, and we are seeing it now with Longhorn, even though its not even out yet. I still remember Microsoft's refutations at critics who said that Windows 95 was no more than a shell over DOS, and a very buggy one at that. Even the Win32 API was defended as the end-all-be-all of OS interfaces, only to later deride them all when introducing the latest and greatest. Of course, now we all hear MS engineers, and even some high-placed officials openly criticize old Internet Explorer and Windows 95 code, and sometimes even joke about how bad they were (but of course, Its Better Now (tm)!), and it seems that in the midst of all the fun ("well, its about time they admit it! we knew it all along!"), we all forgot how we were made to believe in no uncertain words that these products were Best Of Breed. Ironic.
To my knowledge, this candidness is more than just a PR stunt; it shows a dysfunctional and irreverent -- perhaps even irresponsible and arrogant -- attitude towards their customers and the industry in general. You can almost hear them: "Win32, ActiveX, code-commingling... what were we thinking! And you all bought it. Ha, Ha, Ha, suckers! Oh, and by the by, Its Fixed Now, Honest (tm)! *smirk*"
-dZ.
* P.S. Of course, Microsoft is far from the only company who does this. I think most large corporations have a somewhat elevated view of themselves which affects their culture and perception of their industry.
>> Nuclear - dealing with the nucleus.
I think you meant nukulus.
-dZ.
>> Then why are "far" hotkeys like ctrl-O okay on word processors? Because your right hand is already on the keyboard. That's not the case when surfing the web - your right hand is on the mouse.
The keyboard shortcuts are created so that you can use the application *without* the mouse. There are only a very limited "single-hand", "two-finger" shortcuts that can be implemented.
-dZ.
Oh yeah! Flash Gordon and the Roots People, I loved that episode!
Or was it Commando Cody?
Buck Rogers...?
maybe Indiana Jones?!
-dZ.
Wow! I remember as a kid just standing next to the machine cabinet and watching it, after someone else had put his quarter in it to start the movie. You mean, they were actually "playing" it? So that's why it kept freezing up for a second or two at certain points. It also explains the somewhat frantic and seemly useless button pushing... hum...
I always wondered why they had the machine in my local games arcade. He, he, he.
-dZ.
Nope. Not points either. I don't know about ems. As far as I know, IE will only resize fonts when they are specified in relative terms, as small/large/x-large, or smaller/larger. Other than that, it uses what was specified.
-dZ.
>> 2) not good keyboard access of the search bar. No useful history, up+down don't do anything.
CTRL+K Should take you there. CTRL+L will take you to the Address bar. CTRL+F will take you to the "Find in this Page" bar.
-dZ.
But that's exactly what they did. Massachussets did not choose Acrobat and OpenOffice software, they chose the OpenDocument and Portable Document Format (PDF) formats, which have published specifications and no licensing fees for competitors. Moreover, Microsoft is certainly entitled, and encouraged, to support these formats. If they did, they would be competing along with the rest.
-dZ.
Contrary to the headlines, this article offers no new insight into Microsoft's points of contention. I am not a Micro$oft lover by any stretch of the imagination, (see? I spelled it with a '$'!), but I must admit that their points are valid, albeit a bit redundant or overestimated. But even so, the article's author mainly retorts to each point with simple-minded, vacuous comments that do nothing to enlightened nor explain, while showing his bias in full force.
The article could be summed up as such:
--------
1. We think MA made the wrong decision.
Bullshit. It is not the wrong decision, because it is the Right One.
2. We think it'll cost more to convert to the new format than they really expect.
Wrong. I'm sure they already took into consideration all the costs of conversion, so it won't be more than expected.
3. We think that choosing OpenDocument 1.0 gives preferential treatment to one vendor over another.
Bullshit. Choosing MS Office will give preference to one vendor.
4. We think giving preferential treatment to one vendor will hinder innovation.
Wrong. Choosing OpenDocument will not hinder innovation, because... it just won't.
5. There are alternatives that are cheaper and less limiting, that will not lock you into one single vendor's format.
This comment is bullshit, but since I couldn't really think of a reason, I'd say its because it makes no sense.
. In conclusion, we think that MA is doing a disservice to its citizens by choosing a format that is less functional and more restrictive than what they currently have. We can work with them to achieve all their goals while they continue giving us money.
This conclusion is all bullshit, because all they want is more money, when in fact the format Massachussets chose is the best one, although I won't say why; it just is. And since the original document was written by Microsoft it must be wrong!
--------
Final conclusion about the article: Just another "blogger" tootin' his own horn and [writing|talking] just to hear himself [type|speak].
Nothing to see here, move along.
-dZ.
Below is my interpretation of what each version might contain.
STARTER EDITION:
Crippled version. Includes Windows Media Player, but no DirectX and no Network capabilites (i.e. missing the icon). No Internet connectivity either (i.e. missing IE icon from the Desktop). No control panel folder. Possibly, the Program Files directory is set as Read-Only to prevent the user to install software. This is the version sold for small appliances and cheap e-machines.
HOME BASIC EDITION:
Network control panel icon enabled, but artificially limited to allow only 4 users accounts. Has file but not printer sharing. IE7.0 icon included on the Desktop. Includes a FireWall, but it is set as default to block all outside traffic except ports 80 and 110/25 -- with no FireWall interface to change this. Program Files folder is now read-write-able.
HOME PREMIUM EDITION:
Same as Home Base Edition, but with Themes and DirectX (this is the "gamers" edition!). Also printer sharing is available. Full Internet Access! (i.e. most ports are opened by default and includes the FireWall configuration icon).
PROFESSIONAL EDITION:
Same as Home Premium Edition, Allows more than 4 user accounts (but less than 10), includes ScanDisk and Defrag, Device Manager, User Accounts Management, and Services icons.
SMALL BUSINESS EDITION:
Same as Home Premium Edition, but without DirectX or Windows Media. Also, includes IIS and Exchange, and allows up to 10 user accounts to connect at a time.
ENTERPRISE EDITION:
Same as Small Business Edition, but includes MS SQL server, and a few other services; and allows up to 20 accounts to connect at a time.
ULTIMATE EDITION:
Same as Enterprise Edition, but with Windows Media and DirectX!
-dZ.
Wow, Slashcode has been Slashdotted... how fitting.
-dZ.
As far as I know, it supports MIDI synchronization. However, I never used it. I do remember once trying it out, and I needed to install some special drivers or something.
-dZ.
True, but since to most of us getting a real TB-303 or TR-808 box is out of reach, ReBirth offers a more than acceptable facsimile.
-dZ.
I bought ReBirth-338 a few years ago (1998 or 1999, I think) and was very impressed by it. It not only has a TB-303 emulator, it has two of them! Along with a TR-808 (w00t!) and a TR-909 (woo-hoo!!!) beat-boxes emulators, all in there.
It also has a simple, yet effective, sequencer for all the synthesizers, a few effects (distortion, delay, compression), and a nice Pattern Controlled Filter. In short, everything you need for swooping, hypnotic, techno tracks, or classic Freestyle Electro!
The first time I used it I was overwhelmed by the memories of DJ'ing back in the 80s.
Propellerheads, thanx for the memory trip, and the very cool software!!
-dZ.
Sadly, consumers and corporate decision-makers are mostly interested in short-term benefits. Sometimes, decisions that will reap huge benefits in the long run seem to coincide with this short-sightedness because they appear to bring immediate results. This can be interpreted as "Consumers are starting to realize..." or "Major corporations are finally figuring out..." arguments, but this is just an illusion.
All it takes is for Microsoft to offer the software for a substantial discount, or even for free (it has been known to do this) to the state of Massachussets, for the local elected officials -- you know, the people who have a vested interest in "justifying" to their constituents that the should be re-elected in 2 years -- to re-consider their decision.
The same with consumers: All it takes is for an apparent immediate savings, like mail-in rebates, price discounts, etc. for most of them to completely forget about interoperability, freedom of choice, and corporate misbehaviour.
-dZ.
You forgot prong three of the Typical MS Response (tm):
To offer it for free and moot any TCO points.
-dZ.
I think you meant "wabbit".
-dZ.
>>"In short, the indicators point to the likelihood that Homo sapiens crushed or ousted the Neanderthals in the fight to survive."
It took almost 1,000 years, but we finally did it. And as soon as we finish crushing or ousting all other species on this planet, Martians are next!
Yay!
-dZ.
Plus, I don't know if they fixed this in XP and now in Vista, but up to Win2k, the "Show Desktop" function was "modeless", that is, when you call it, it clears your Desktop, but if you select a specific window, or open any other application, it resets itself, and there is no way for you to return all your windows to the desktop. For example:
1. I have 5 windows opened on my Desktop.
2. I call the "Show Desktop" function and it clears the desktop
3. I open up a Windows Explorer window
(a subtle flicker of the Desktop occurs, as if to tell me that the Desktop has been resetted.)
4. I click the "Show Desktop" function again and my Windows Explorer window gets clear!
As opposed to Mac OSX's Exposé (I have Panther right now), which is modal, and has a precise "on" and "off" activation mode. If I clear the desktop using Exposé, I can open other applications, search in Finder windows, while still engaged in "Exposé-mode", and when I'm done, I can deactivate Exposé and get all my windows back.
-dZ.
The fact that you must compare a *new* beta version of Windows Vista to a 4 year old version of Mac OS speaks volumes about their development abilities and qualities. Microsoft truly trumps the hacker shop that is Apple by offering basically the same thing, hum, half a decade later.
-dZ.
>>"I still go and buy the DVD when it comes out, IF the movie is good."
And there lies the problem. At least as the Studios (tm) see it. You see, they are just a factory mass-producing a cheap and quick product, pumping out movies at an insane rate. They are aware that most of them are crap, but that people will just go to the theater for the fact of getting out of the house, or buy the DVD because it is the "Hottest New Release".
So what happens? Most people go to the theater on opening weekend, and even if they are disappointed afterwards, the *already* paid! Add to this a heavy marketing blitz and lots of hype, and you ensure that a lot of other (gullible) people will still go to the theater on subsequent weeks just to see what all the buzz is about -- regardless of reviews on opening weekend.
Now, if these people start downloading the movies off the Internet to "see what all the buzz is about" instead of coughing $8.00 to watch it at the theater (or $24.00 to buy the DVD first hand), then guess who doesn't make a profit?
Of course, the intention of a lot of these people downloading the movies, like you, is to "try before you buy", and they usually have a sincere contemplation of buying the DVD or going to the theater -- *if* the movie is good. And of course, like others have said, the true fans will pay for the experience afterwards, because they only wanted to have access to it for the geek-value -- but again, only *if* the movie is good. However, most of them are not, as we all are aware, so they end up skipping the theater run.
The Studios (tm) know this. They know that most of the films they produce are not worth the celluloid they are printed on. But they still want to rely on getting as many people as they can to *pay* up front. Pirated copy downloads and "try before you buy" methods prevent this sneaky model from succeeding.
Now, I do not condone piracy, but I strongly advocate the need to reform the entire business model of the Movie Industry.
-dZ.