No, if you look closely, most of Microsoft's comments were directed at the GPL in particular (esp. the more colourful comments about it being a cancer, and communist - actually, I think that last one was courtesy of our friend Darl).
The problem with the GPL is that if you use even a few lines of GPL code, you have to release the whole thing under the GPL.. which pretty much kills any commercial work (ie. for profit) on these projects (which some will argue is a good thing).
MPI is licensed BSD, so anyone can use it for anything pretty much.. including inside a closed source program. IMHO, it's much more free (as in freedom) as you don't have the obligation, as you do with the GPL, to release your source code modifications.
I don't see how this is a vulnerability. The bitTorrent protocol, as I understand, is based on a tit-for-tat principle which is worked out on a per-node basis (ie. if you upload to me, I'll be more willing to give you what you want).
I don't see how global ratios play into this in the least.. (each of the other nodes would say something like yeah, you've uploaded 10GB. Good for you. But what have you done for me?
(I'm not going to respond to all of the rest of the messages because the moderating Nazis are calling my posts "trolls").
You need to think about how the economics of commercial software works. The sale price of a single copy of a piece of software comes nowhere close to covering the development costs... they are only recovered after many, many copies have been sold. So, if because of piracy, the software company does not sell enough copies of the software.. they do indeed lose the $$ they spent developing the program.
Also consider the developers. Most do earn a salary.. but often get stock options/bonuses that are related to the performance of the company. Fewer software sales = less $$.
I think the fundamental question to ask is, if pirated software were not available - would you still have performed the task? And if so, how?
If you would have still performed the task, then there is a definate loss to the software company. Either you would have bought the software (or a similar lower-cost competitor) or you would have used some other means to accomplish it. In the latter case, the question is.. why not use that alternative instead of pirating software? Obviously, the pirated software must have some value (it makes the task easier, faster, etc.) to you.. otherwise you wouldn't use it. And if it does have value, then you are obligated to pay for it.
I would wager that a large majority of pirated software use falls into the category above - a category where there are definate losses to the software company.
OTOH, if you would not have performed the task.. we have a different story. Now, we need to consider the consequences of not performing the task to see how valuable the software is (and I'm not going to go into any detail on this).
1) It DOES make sense. By not paying for services used - in the case above, tire balancing.. in software piracy, coding services of the many hard working programmers that made the software a reality - you rob the people who provide those services of the money they are entitled to.
2) Your conclusion makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. THINK for a minute before writing.
3) The numbers the BSA give are obviously estimates. They have no way of knowing whom exactly is using pirated software, and what they're using it for (otherwise, it would be easy enough to prosecute all of these criminals). The estimates may be a bit on the high side BUT that still does not change the fact that software piracy is a huge problem that really is causing billions of dollars in lost sales worldwide.. all too often I hear lame excuses about the estimate being high, as a way to dismiss that there is any problem to begin with..
1) I said tire balancing.. IE a SERVICE. No concrete goods lost here.
2) It depends on what you call an "acceptable" alternative. If the alternatives are slower/buggy/more cumbersome to use.. well, you get what you pay for. If you can't stand to live with the limitations of the lower priced product, buy the real one. Sometimes, you do get what you pay for.
While the numbers are likely inflated, the problem of software piracy is still a huge one. In some countries, the majority of software being used is pirated! This certainly translates into significant losses for the software industry.
Let's debunk a few myths: 1)"I wouldn't have paid for it anyway, so it's not a lost sale" OK, so let's say I go in to get my car's wheels rebalanced (or some other service). When they're done.. I just drive off without paying. Have I done anything wrong? Well, what if "I wouldn't have paid for it anyway"? So it's not a lost sale!
2) "The software is too expensive" So perhaps you wouldn't buy product A which is overpriced for your needs. But by pirating A, you rob product B and C - competing products that are much cheaper with limited functionality compared to A that still meet your needs - of market share.
The fact is, if you don't pay for the software (unless a license is given for free), then you have no right to use the software. Period.
1) I THINK: Single Window, Sort bookmarks, close tab on double click, last tab. I believe that's the list.
2) What do you mean, what app? FIREFOX of course. (FF isn't good enough for you?) To be specific Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050225 Firefox/1.0.1
3) New version != security patch. Especially when: " Prior to installing Firefox 1.0.4, please ensure that the directory you've chosen to install into is clean and doesn't contain any previous Firefox installations." and clicking on the update button DOES NOT: a) warn you of this b) uninstall the previous version.
A few specific problems: 1) Some extensions don't work (I've since forgotten which ones) 2) When I start up the app, sometimes the "update" icon is right next to the "help" menu item (not where it should be).. and the app is completely frozen. Only restarting FF fixes this (and it sometimes does not)
The fact that they don't release patches (critical security updates, at least!) is a major downfall for FF. Updating IE is singnificantly easier (wtf does a FF update want to change my default settings? And ask me where I want to install?), and in my experience, does not cause any problems.
That said, I am using FF, for two reasons: 1) Ad blocking - there is no similar feature for IE. I've even banished the text ads on gmail! 2) FF is not targeted nearly as much for spyware (that's not to say it's "more secure", from an objective standpoint).
but I may very well jump ship when IE7 comes along.
department for testing (damn restricted length subjects).
Even just for home use, Firefox is a huge pain in the ass to update compared to IE.. so much so, that I'm still running 1.0 or 1.01 on most of the machines I use.
It seems like they do very little/no testing that updates to FF won't break things..
Cringely got to this part: Question 2: What happened to Apple's 64-bit operating system?
OS X 10.4 -- Tiger -- is a 64-bit OS, remember, yet Intel's 64-bit chips -- Xeon and Itanium -- are high buck items aimed at servers, not iMacs. So is Intel going to do a cheaper Itanium for Apple or is Apple going to pretend that 64-bit never existed? Yes to both is my guess, which explains why the word "Pentium" was hardly used in the Jobs presentation. Certainly, he never said WHICH Intel chip they'd be using, just mentioning an unnamed 3.6-Ghz development system -- a system which apparently doesn't benchmark very well, either (it's in the links).
So is 64-bit really nothing to Apple? And why did they make such a big deal about it in their earlier marketing?
Umm.. what about EMT64? Umm.. you know, that technology that's in those new-fangled P4 chips?
No need to read the rest of it.. conclusions based on false "facts" aren't very good conclusions at all.
Then Microsoft can release their new ad campaign: Remember kids, when you program open source, you're programming COMMUNISM.. which would be exactly what your proposal would amount to.
Apparently, we're not "Persons" according to the terms of the settlement.
Bugger that. Now I know how those women suffragists felt 100 years ago (if you remember, there were some Heritage Canada commercials where they said women were not "persons").
I stopped using my m100 for more than a year now.. it's so bad that if even one of the batteries gets dislodged for a second (nevermind a minute), then I lose all data. Suffice to say, that's not a risk I'm prepared to take.
Replaced it with a Dell Axim X50V, which I'm very happy with (very slick unit), except for the button size, and battery life.
Hopefully what you say is true.. but I fear this will just lead RMS to make another "Java trap"-type rant.. where developers of OSS should target the free(dom) (but incomplete) version of Flash..
In general, I agree with you. But for peer-to-peer filesharing applications, the argument of privacy does not not really work well.
All I'm saying is that the vast majority of people who will use this program will do it in an attempt to hide their IP address when illegally pirating copyright protected works.
Sure, there are some privacy advocates who (perhaps justifiably) don't want there to be any way to trace what they download (but there are better ways to do this, I think).. but the main use of hiding your IP address in a P2P application is to facilitate piracy.
Slashdot Mirror
No, if you look closely, most of Microsoft's comments were directed at the GPL in particular (esp. the more colourful comments about it being a cancer, and communist - actually, I think that last one was courtesy of our friend Darl).
The problem with the GPL is that if you use even a few lines of GPL code, you have to release the whole thing under the GPL.. which pretty much kills any commercial work (ie. for profit) on these projects (which some will argue is a good thing).
MPI is licensed BSD, so anyone can use it for anything pretty much.. including inside a closed source program. IMHO, it's much more free (as in freedom) as you don't have the obligation, as you do with the GPL, to release your source code modifications.
So some sites try to force (err.. persuade?) you to upload more than the BT protocol requires to download the file?
Interesting. Not something I'd be willing to use - BT sucks up enough of my (limited by ISP) bandwidth already - but interesting nonetheless..
This really isn't a vulnerability in the BT protocol, then, more of a vulnerability for these communities of BT users..
I don't see how this is a vulnerability. The bitTorrent protocol, as I understand, is based on a tit-for-tat principle which is worked out on a per-node basis (ie. if you upload to me, I'll be more willing to give you what you want).
I don't see how global ratios play into this in the least.. (each of the other nodes would say something like yeah, you've uploaded 10GB. Good for you. But what have you done for me?
(I'm not going to respond to all of the rest of the messages because the moderating Nazis are calling my posts "trolls").
You need to think about how the economics of commercial software works. The sale price of a single copy of a piece of software comes nowhere close to covering the development costs... they are only recovered after many, many copies have been sold. So, if because of piracy, the software company does not sell enough copies of the software.. they do indeed lose the $$ they spent developing the program.
Also consider the developers. Most do earn a salary.. but often get stock options/bonuses that are related to the performance of the company. Fewer software sales = less $$.
I think the fundamental question to ask is, if pirated software were not available - would you still have performed the task? And if so, how?
If you would have still performed the task, then there is a definate loss to the software company. Either you would have bought the software (or a similar lower-cost competitor) or you would have used some other means to accomplish it. In the latter case, the question is.. why not use that alternative instead of pirating software? Obviously, the pirated software must have some value (it makes the task easier, faster, etc.) to you.. otherwise you wouldn't use it. And if it does have value, then you are obligated to pay for it.
I would wager that a large majority of pirated software use falls into the category above - a category where there are definate losses to the software company.
OTOH, if you would not have performed the task.. we have a different story. Now, we need to consider the consequences of not performing the task to see how valuable the software is (and I'm not going to go into any detail on this).
wheel balancing - loss of income to the mechanic
software piracy - loss of income to the programmers.
tnd software companies lost time and money by having programmers take the time to write the software. You steal their work effectively.
Now, you see the point?
1) It DOES make sense. By not paying for services used - in the case above, tire balancing.. in software piracy, coding services of the many hard working programmers that made the software a reality - you rob the people who provide those services of the money they are entitled to.
2) Your conclusion makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. THINK for a minute before writing.
3) The numbers the BSA give are obviously estimates. They have no way of knowing whom exactly is using pirated software, and what they're using it for (otherwise, it would be easy enough to prosecute all of these criminals). The estimates may be a bit on the high side BUT that still does not change the fact that software piracy is a huge problem that really is causing billions of dollars in lost sales worldwide.. all too often I hear lame excuses about the estimate being high, as a way to dismiss that there is any problem to begin with..
1) I said tire balancing.. IE a SERVICE. No concrete goods lost here.
2) It depends on what you call an "acceptable" alternative. If the alternatives are slower/buggy/more cumbersome to use.. well, you get what you pay for. If you can't stand to live with the limitations of the lower priced product, buy the real one. Sometimes, you do get what you pay for.
I can't read TFA.
While the numbers are likely inflated, the problem of software piracy is still a huge one. In some countries, the majority of software being used is pirated! This certainly translates into significant losses for the software industry.
Let's debunk a few myths:
1)"I wouldn't have paid for it anyway, so it's not a lost sale"
OK, so let's say I go in to get my car's wheels rebalanced (or some other service). When they're done.. I just drive off without paying. Have I done anything wrong? Well, what if "I wouldn't have paid for it anyway"? So it's not a lost sale!
2) "The software is too expensive"
So perhaps you wouldn't buy product A which is overpriced for your needs. But by pirating A, you rob product B and C - competing products that are much cheaper with limited functionality compared to A that still meet your needs - of market share.
The fact is, if you don't pay for the software (unless a license is given for free), then you have no right to use the software. Period.
1)
I THINK: Single Window, Sort bookmarks, close tab on double click, last tab. I believe that's the list.
2)
What do you mean, what app?
FIREFOX of course. (FF isn't good enough for you?) To be specific Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050225 Firefox/1.0.1
3) New version != security patch.
Especially when:
" Prior to installing Firefox 1.0.4, please ensure that the directory you've chosen to install into is clean and doesn't contain any previous Firefox installations."
and clicking on the update button DOES NOT:
a) warn you of this
b) uninstall the previous version.
A few specific problems:
1) Some extensions don't work (I've since forgotten which ones)
2) When I start up the app, sometimes the "update" icon is right next to the "help" menu item (not where it should be).. and the app is completely frozen. Only restarting FF fixes this (and it sometimes does not)
The fact that they don't release patches (critical security updates, at least!) is a major downfall for FF. Updating IE is singnificantly easier (wtf does a FF update want to change my default settings? And ask me where I want to install?), and in my experience, does not cause any problems.
That said, I am using FF, for two reasons:
1) Ad blocking - there is no similar feature for IE. I've even banished the text ads on gmail!
2) FF is not targeted nearly as much for spyware (that's not to say it's "more secure", from an objective standpoint).
but I may very well jump ship when IE7 comes along.
department for testing
(damn restricted length subjects).
Even just for home use, Firefox is a huge pain in the ass to update compared to IE.. so much so, that I'm still running 1.0 or 1.01 on most of the machines I use.
It seems like they do very little/no testing that updates to FF won't break things..
Cringely got to this part:
Question 2: What happened to Apple's 64-bit operating system?
OS X 10.4 -- Tiger -- is a 64-bit OS, remember, yet Intel's 64-bit chips -- Xeon and Itanium -- are high buck items aimed at servers, not iMacs. So is Intel going to do a cheaper Itanium for Apple or is Apple going to pretend that 64-bit never existed? Yes to both is my guess, which explains why the word "Pentium" was hardly used in the Jobs presentation. Certainly, he never said WHICH Intel chip they'd be using, just mentioning an unnamed 3.6-Ghz development system -- a system which apparently doesn't benchmark very well, either (it's in the links).
So is 64-bit really nothing to Apple? And why did they make such a big deal about it in their earlier marketing?
Umm.. what about EMT64? Umm.. you know, that technology that's in those new-fangled P4 chips?
No need to read the rest of it.. conclusions based on false "facts" aren't very good conclusions at all.
The Simpsons Movie: The Book?
Then Microsoft can release their new ad campaign:
Remember kids, when you program open source, you're programming COMMUNISM.. which would be exactly what your proposal would amount to.
So you're saying Microsoft...
..
gasp
expects to be PAID for their work?
That's so COMMUNIST of them!..
wait...
Apparently, we're not "Persons" according to the terms of the settlement.
Bugger that. Now I know how those women suffragists felt 100 years ago (if you remember, there were some Heritage Canada commercials where they said women were not "persons").
I stopped using my m100 for more than a year now.. it's so bad that if even one of the batteries gets dislodged for a second (nevermind a minute), then I lose all data. Suffice to say, that's not a risk I'm prepared to take.
Replaced it with a Dell Axim X50V, which I'm very happy with (very slick unit), except for the button size, and battery life.
Hopefully what you say is true..
but I fear this will just lead RMS to make another "Java trap"-type rant.. where developers of OSS should target the free(dom) (but incomplete) version of Flash..
Macromedia already releases a flash player for Windows, MacOS, Linux, PocketPC (wow..), OS/2, Solaris, HPUX, and IRIX..
Now, a free flash authoring program.. that would be newsworthy!
In general, I agree with you. But for peer-to-peer filesharing applications, the argument of privacy does not not really work well.
All I'm saying is that the vast majority of people who will use this program will do it in an attempt to hide their IP address when illegally pirating copyright protected works.
Sure, there are some privacy advocates who (perhaps justifiably) don't want there to be any way to trace what they download (but there are better ways to do this, I think).. but the main use of hiding your IP address in a P2P application is to facilitate piracy.
Different crime, same effect.. money out of hard working software developers etc. pockets..
You steal from me or you rip off my software.. you're still a scumbag who needs to be hunted down and sent to jail for a nice long stay in my book.
Now, they just need to get the logs, and prosecute all of the thieves (or "copyright infringers", if that helps you sleep better at night).
how far do you wanner take it :->
Nuke their servers!
They're INTENTIONALLY distrupting LEGAL use of a communications medium.
There's gotta be a law against that..