Why the fuck is slashdot giving these scumsucking leeches who illegally profit off the hard work of others recognition?
This sort of shit really pisses me off.. why the fuck did China gain admittance into the WTO with this appalling shit going on? They're not even hiding the fact that this is going on..
Sorry for the profanity, but this really makes me angry..
I absolutely agree. In fact, I was just about to post just about exactly what you did (but I won't, for fear of being modded redundant:->)
The only reason I can see why Negroponte would practically prefer OSS over proprietary software - aside from cost, which for Java isn't an issue - is the ability to modify the source, if necessary.
Flat out rejecting the use of proprietary software (I apologize if I'm misrepresenting his views..) just because it's not open source (ie. if the software already functions as desired, or the creators would be willing to code the desired modifications) is absurd..
You've got a point there - but that really only speaks to the security of the human element, which (while significant) doesn't say anything about the relative security of Linux or Windows in this regard.
I do think Linux makes it easier to run as a limited user, though, in general (Linspire was a notable exception.. although I don't think you run as root by default with that anymore..) - as fewer apps require admin priviledges, and most distros will prompt (force?) you to create at least one LUA on install.
I must say I admire Microsoft's savvy more each day in their EULA -- crafted to absolve Microsoft of any responsibility for bad things happening to users because of Microsoft's software. It must be reassuring to offer a product and not have to assume responsibility. What a unique privelege "Unique privelege (sic)"? Not quite.. just about every software company absolves itself of legal responsibility in this way.. why, even the GPL does it.
It's things like this (and believe me, this isn't the first time..) that really discredit the register as any sort of reputable news site. Their lack of professionalism is not appreciated.
Why dont we treat drivers as drivers instead of application, WRT the GPL? Drivers are treated differently from application because they are different, they behave different and they have different requirements. Apps don't link deeply to the kernel, drivers do. Because this mess where Kororaa can't distribute their software with the nVidia/ATI drivers built in.
So, NVIDIA can't release the source because their products are fast? Is that it? As I said before, it's because nVidia's products compete on performance, and the drivers are one (sometimes significant) factor in determining performance.
Uh, drivers are NOT applications. If they were, they would be called "applications" and not "drivers". drivers need to intimately talk with the kernel, and that is something apps do not have to do. And misbehaving driver could bring the system down, a misbehaving app could not (well, not as easily at least). I didn't say they were. I said they should be treated as applications are, WRT the GPL. That is, adding a driver shouldn't be construed as creating a "derivative" of the Linux kernel, requiring the driver code be released under the GPL.
If that were the case, there would be no problem here. Kororaa could continue doing what they're doing.. and those who find proprietary software somehow offensive can go ahead and develop "free" replacement drivers if they have the perogative.
Intel provides open-source drivers for their 3D-accelerators. NVIDIA could do the same. Are you kidding me? Have you seen the performance of Intel's integrated graphics chips? They're not aiming to compete on performance - that is not a barrier to releasing their source code as it is for ATI and nVidia.
Well, is it Linux'es fault? Do they have an obligation to satisfy the whims of creators of proprietary software? They (all the people out there developing Linux) created a free operating system. Should they then bend over backwards to help out those who make proprietary software? I don't see how this is "bending over backwards". There is no effort required on the part of the kernel developers to allow nVidia to link their proprietary drivers to Linux.
Personally, I think the drivers should be treated as any application software would.. I mean, Crossover Office and VMWare (for example) are not licensed under the GPL (AFAIK), yet are commercially successful Linux applications..
But there are other companies doing just that, and it doesn't seem to be hurting them one bit. That really depends on the particular hardware that the company develops.. as well as the perception of risk that open sourcing their drivers entails.
In the graphics card business, ATI and nVidia's products are successful only if they beat the competition in a number of performance benchmarks (leading gamers to choose these cards over their competitors) - and the performance in these benchmarks is determined, in part, by the drivers. By open-sourcing the drivers, nVidia would be at a competitive disadvantage, as ATI could simply use the performance-enhancing ideas (not the source code) contained therein to improve their drivers.
OTOH, if Linux was licensed as BSD, for instance, there would be no problem in including the proprietary drivers (AFAIK). So I guess, at best, we can say that the GPL and proprietary drivers are incompatible (or, compatible with tight restrictions on distribution).
Whose "fault" is it? You could say nVidia - but do they really have any obligation beyond providing drivers that work? Is asking them to publish the source code of their drivers - which may contain valuable IP, and information they'd rather not disclose, for competitive purposes - too much?
I think if the only option for supporting Linux with OEM drivers is to place these drivers under the GPL, (ie. if nVidia's method of separating Linux kernel code and their driver code with a shim is - for one reason or another - determined to be invalid) many hardware manufacturers will simply decline to provide Linux support. It won't be worth - essentially - giving away their intellectual property for the small amount of market share Linux support would give them.
Ever noticed that some guys (RedHat or MandrakeSoft for example) built whole business models selling free stuff? The question is, what are they selling? Is it the software, or is it the support? I think it's the latter (if you can prove me wrong on this one, please do..).
Tell me, if someone buys a copy of RHEL, is there anything to stop them from going around and giving copies of that away for free (it's GPL, right?)?
In practice, however, you cannot charge for GPL software. Why? Say I sell a copy of the program for $100 to some guy. What's to stop that guy from turning around and giving it away to everyone and his mother for free? And more importantly, why would anyone buy it from me, when they can get it for free?
Now, you can talk about support (blah, blah), and that may be a good enough business model for some companies to be profitable.. but personally, I went to school so I could have a career developing software - not providing tech support.
Here's one thing I've wondered about OSS projects - how do you prevent architecture degredation? What I mean is, how do you stop people from making cheap hacks to fix their immediate issue in favour of solving the real bug? And if the solution is to reject their changes into the source tree, what incentive is there for banks (see, I'm tying it into the article:->) to make source contributions?
If you don't have a valid license for Windows, you have no right to use it, PERIOD.
I expect Microsoft is monitoring the "cracks" that will inevitiably appear to this system, and is working out any false negatives.. such that they can drop the hammer (ie. disable unlicensed versions of Windows completely) come Vista.
At the same time, I don't think that this is "Office without the Microsoft" as the (always completely neutral)./ description says. I'll take Office 2003 over this any day - although if Office isn't available (which is rarely), it should suffice in a pinch.
I actually agree with the CRIA on something..
on
CRIA Falling Apart?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
They want to get rid of the private copying levy. Well, hell.. that's been a long time coming.. especially since they were the ones who pushed for it in the first place.
I agree with this sentiment, although for different reasons. Why the hell should I be paying a private (music) copying levy for a CD-R that I buy which will never contain any music?
If this means that Canadians lose the legal right to download music on P2P sites, I think this is a fair compromise. After all, most of the P2P sites are crap nowadays, anyway.. infected with bogus files by the RIAA surrogates and "traffic shaped" by our ISPs.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, though, this is a good feature.. so long as there's strong encryption on all of it.
Likewise, Vigenre ciphers aren't new or ingenious.. they are pretty trivial to break nowadays.
It's funny..
if this were about Microsoft (replace Mozilla with MS, open source, with proprietary..), this would be modded +5 insightful.
Why the fuck is slashdot giving these scumsucking leeches who illegally profit off the hard work of others recognition?
This sort of shit really pisses me off.. why the fuck did China gain admittance into the WTO with this appalling shit going on? They're not even hiding the fact that this is going on..
Sorry for the profanity, but this really makes me angry..
I absolutely agree. In fact, I was just about to post just about exactly what you did (but I won't, for fear of being modded redundant :->)
The only reason I can see why Negroponte would practically prefer OSS over proprietary software - aside from cost, which for Java isn't an issue - is the ability to modify the source, if necessary.
Flat out rejecting the use of proprietary software (I apologize if I'm misrepresenting his views..) just because it's not open source (ie. if the software already functions as desired, or the creators would be willing to code the desired modifications) is absurd..
You've got a point there - but that really only speaks to the security of the human element, which (while significant) doesn't say anything about the relative security of Linux or Windows in this regard.
I do think Linux makes it easier to run as a limited user, though, in general (Linspire was a notable exception.. although I don't think you run as root by default with that anymore..) - as fewer apps require admin priviledges, and most distros will prompt (force?) you to create at least one LUA on install.
You can just as easily always run as root under Linux (etc.) as well..
I must say I admire Microsoft's savvy more each day in their EULA -- crafted to absolve Microsoft of any responsibility for bad things happening to users because of Microsoft's software. It must be reassuring to offer a product and not have to assume responsibility. What a unique privelege
"Unique privelege (sic)"? Not quite.. just about every software company absolves itself of legal responsibility in this way.. why, even the GPL does it.
It's things like this (and believe me, this isn't the first time..) that really discredit the register as any sort of reputable news site. Their lack of professionalism is not appreciated.
Why dont we treat drivers as drivers instead of application, WRT the GPL? Drivers are treated differently from application because they are different, they behave different and they have different requirements. Apps don't link deeply to the kernel, drivers do.
Because this mess where Kororaa can't distribute their software with the nVidia/ATI drivers built in.
So, NVIDIA can't release the source because their products are fast? Is that it?
As I said before, it's because nVidia's products compete on performance, and the drivers are one (sometimes significant) factor in determining performance.
Uh, drivers are NOT applications. If they were, they would be called "applications" and not "drivers". drivers need to intimately talk with the kernel, and that is something apps do not have to do. And misbehaving driver could bring the system down, a misbehaving app could not (well, not as easily at least).
I didn't say they were. I said they should be treated as applications are, WRT the GPL. That is, adding a driver shouldn't be construed as creating a "derivative" of the Linux kernel, requiring the driver code be released under the GPL.
If that were the case, there would be no problem here. Kororaa could continue doing what they're doing.. and those who find proprietary software somehow offensive can go ahead and develop "free" replacement drivers if they have the perogative.
Intel provides open-source drivers for their 3D-accelerators. NVIDIA could do the same.
Are you kidding me? Have you seen the performance of Intel's integrated graphics chips? They're not aiming to compete on performance - that is not a barrier to releasing their source code as it is for ATI and nVidia.
Well, is it Linux'es fault? Do they have an obligation to satisfy the whims of creators of proprietary software? They (all the people out there developing Linux) created a free operating system. Should they then bend over backwards to help out those who make proprietary software?
I don't see how this is "bending over backwards". There is no effort required on the part of the kernel developers to allow nVidia to link their proprietary drivers to Linux.
Personally, I think the drivers should be treated as any application software would.. I mean, Crossover Office and VMWare (for example) are not licensed under the GPL (AFAIK), yet are commercially successful Linux applications..
But there are other companies doing just that, and it doesn't seem to be hurting them one bit.
That really depends on the particular hardware that the company develops.. as well as the perception of risk that open sourcing their drivers entails.
In the graphics card business, ATI and nVidia's products are successful only if they beat the competition in a number of performance benchmarks (leading gamers to choose these cards over their competitors) - and the performance in these benchmarks is determined, in part, by the drivers. By open-sourcing the drivers, nVidia would be at a competitive disadvantage, as ATI could simply use the performance-enhancing ideas (not the source code) contained therein to improve their drivers.
OTOH, if Linux was licensed as BSD, for instance, there would be no problem in including the proprietary drivers (AFAIK). So I guess, at best, we can say that the GPL and proprietary drivers are incompatible (or, compatible with tight restrictions on distribution).
Whose "fault" is it? You could say nVidia - but do they really have any obligation beyond providing drivers that work? Is asking them to publish the source code of their drivers - which may contain valuable IP, and information they'd rather not disclose, for competitive purposes - too much?
I think if the only option for supporting Linux with OEM drivers is to place these drivers under the GPL, (ie. if nVidia's method of separating Linux kernel code and their driver code with a shim is - for one reason or another - determined to be invalid) many hardware manufacturers will simply decline to provide Linux support. It won't be worth - essentially - giving away their intellectual property for the small amount of market share Linux support would give them.
No, it's the GPL that's restricting them from doing it (and hence innovation)..
OK.. and what's a /dev/null?
In that case, what's to stop someone from buying a copy, and then selling it at a reduced price (ex. $10,000 per copy) to take away my business?
Ever noticed that some guys (RedHat or MandrakeSoft for example) built whole business models selling free stuff?
The question is, what are they selling? Is it the software, or is it the support? I think it's the latter (if you can prove me wrong on this one, please do..).
Tell me, if someone buys a copy of RHEL, is there anything to stop them from going around and giving copies of that away for free (it's GPL, right?)?
In practice , however, you cannot charge for GPL software. Why? Say I sell a copy of the program for $100 to some guy. What's to stop that guy from turning around and giving it away to everyone and his mother for free? And more importantly, why would anyone buy it from me, when they can get it for free?
Now, you can talk about support (blah, blah), and that may be a good enough business model for some companies to be profitable.. but personally, I went to school so I could have a career developing software - not providing tech support.
Since "Billy and the Cloneosaurus"
A screenshot of the website is only one of many tools to use in judging whether a site has safe downloads or not.
:->
That said, I got 7/8
The only one I got wrong was I thought emule had spyware (it did before, I believe)..
Here's one thing I've wondered about OSS projects - how do you prevent architecture degredation? What I mean is, how do you stop people from making cheap hacks to fix their immediate issue in favour of solving the real bug? :->) to make source contributions?
And if the solution is to reject their changes into the source tree, what incentive is there for banks (see, I'm tying it into the article
If you don't have a valid license for Windows, you have no right to use it, PERIOD.
I expect Microsoft is monitoring the "cracks" that will inevitiably appear to this system, and is working out any false negatives.. such that they can drop the hammer (ie. disable unlicensed versions of Windows completely) come Vista.
Go to the site right now:
"The web site will be unavailable from 3:00AM to 7:00AM PDT on April 25"
this is exactly the kind of thing why web apps won't replace desktop ones.
At the same time, I don't think that this is "Office without the Microsoft" as the (always completely neutral) ./ description says. I'll take Office 2003 over this any day - although if Office isn't available (which is rarely), it should suffice in a pinch.
They want to get rid of the private copying levy. Well, hell.. that's been a long time coming.. especially since they were the ones who pushed for it in the first place.
I agree with this sentiment, although for different reasons. Why the hell should I be paying a private (music) copying levy for a CD-R that I buy which will never contain any music?
If this means that Canadians lose the legal right to download music on P2P sites, I think this is a fair compromise. After all, most of the P2P sites are crap nowadays, anyway.. infected with bogus files by the RIAA surrogates and "traffic shaped" by our ISPs.