Well duh, they want to make sure it works with all their software. I'm sure they are mostly talking about their close customers who rely on IBM for their business, and IBM can't be sure everythig will be smooth. But seriously this is the same as me telling all my office not to download and install it personally to wait untill I have tested it and I will deploy it for them How does this get modded as informative? I'll be the first to burn MS as the stake, but IBM isn't rolling out because they failed to udpate thier OWN INTERNAL APPS, not becaue there is something wrong with SP2.> they failed to udpate thier OWN INTERNAL APPS. You choose your operating system to work with your apps, not the other way around. You don't run a corperation on bleeding edge, which is why RedHat Advanced server,seen as lowly by slashdot, is really a lot more appropriate for the corperate server room. IBM hasn't updated their apps. This is normal. Unless there is something in the new version that Justifies it, or that version is EOLed by the vender, nor should they. In spite of that, a "Service Pack" shouldn't break applications. To Sun, IBM, HP, Linux users, a "Service Pack" is a cluster of patches. To Microsoft, a "Service Pack" is whole lot of shit to foister on the clients without given them the option to install only what they need.
This is one reason why MS truly isn't ready for the datacenter.
Do children really need their own specialized computer?
No. I'd liken this specialized computer to saying "goo goo ga ga" to babies instead of using real English. The idea of childhood is growth and adaption of children to their environment; modifying their environment to make growth and adaption unnecessary or less necessary circumvents this process.
In this case, skills with a specialized computer will just be something to unlearn when they have to learn how to use a real computer.
Remember Unreal 2? I wouldn't be surprised if NWN 2 and KOTOR 2 end up being little more than tech upgrades with the sort of fundamentally similar content usually reserved for expansion packs.
Typing is, now, a necessary skill. If you want to communicate on or use a computer, you need to type - regardless of what technologies are available, this is the one in use.
I expect this will be successful simply because of how enormously inconvenient it is for Linux users to buy a laptop bundled with WinXP and get a refund, or how expensive that OS is to just pay for and not use. However, if you don't like SuSE, there's always FreeDOS on a Dell and installing the Linux distribution of your choice later. I guess this rules in the convenience stakes - as convenient as buying a WinXP laptop - and that's its selling point.
(Note that this certainly isn't the first popular Linux laptop.)
Frankly I think it's reasonable for a company to "own" my thoughts as related to the core business of that company, and any development activities that pertain to it.
This severely stunts the entrepreneurial spirit. IP laws used to be about rewarding new ideas; now it seems like a way old ones can survive. But firstly: your thoughts are your own. It is just fundamental respect for individualism that the individual has dominion over his own mind. All other rights and freedoms depend on this assumption. If an employee has an idea - corresponding, in all likelihood, to the nature of his employment - the same applies. This is wrong. Secondly, from a business perspective: consider the possibility that this employee's idea is rejected by the employer and he goes into his own business, finds success, and then is sued by his ex-employer because the idea technically belongs to them. IP has become a burden on innovation.
Shop around
Choices exist now, but companies are the ones dangling money in front of us, and we now depend on them utterly for our survival. It wouldn't be difficult for more repressive IP policies in contracts to be adopted in many companies and become policies, policies that insist that anything you think becomes property of the company. Hey, it shackles you to the company while they have no obligation to you - it's good in managers' eyes. Basically, the choice you mention could evaporate easily because we are dependent and don't really have any power. In the end, most types of labour are so abundant that a few dissenters to any specific policy wouldn't make much of a difference (there are millions of unemployed in the U.S. that would happily take their place), and Western lives would continue even more under the thumb of the corporate world. So don't stifle your objection to this sort of policy while its gaining acceptance because you can avoid it now. The more acceptance it has, the quicker it will become a standard measure, and noone will own their thoughts. And after all, it really is bizarre to give companies this sort of power over the human spirit and the individual.
The idea behind the so-called "Free Trade" treaty will work when ALL countries on this Earth adhere to it, and enforce it.
Exactly. As it stands now, the U.S., the wealthiest country, subsidises its agricultural industry so Third World countries can't get a foothold in its market. Meanwhile, it bullies other countries into accepting its patent laws so its pharmaceutical and software companies can penetrate world markets unrivalled. Its idea of Free Trade is a rigged trade system that allows it the broadest access to foreign markets but disallows access to its own. Free Trade will not be fair until the entire world is opened up equally and the U.S. (and Europe for that matter) makes sacrifices for it as well as gains; until then, it is just another way the wealthy crush everyone else.
Which reminds me that in parts of Asia, the mobile phone market is somewhat saturated and there is very little room for growth. Then what is the point of convergence? If phones overtook iPods as MP3 player of choice, it wouldn't have made the phone companies too much more money because of the limited growth of the market but it would have killed Apple's device, which did make money. I think an earlier poster's comparison between the mobile phone and a black hole is very valid. (This may also be relevant.)
Just because Sveasoft is responding to someone who redistributes their source code in a tit-for-tat fashion doesn't mean this source code distributer is being prevented (in a legal sense) from releasing the code.
Right. Terminating accounts is probably not, in a legal sense, preventing people from redistributing. But Sveasoft is also shutting down servers (in an unspecified way, presumably not DDoS) that are hosting the code. Their attempts to prevent redistribution go beyond just denying access to their service.
Put another way, if you sent some modified, half finished code you were working (whose origins were under GPL) to some friends for comment, would you want it released to everyone? Probably not. You'd want their feedback and then an opportunity to fix it up and then release it when it's good and ready.
Two points. Firstly, it doesn't matter if, once you have in any form released the code, you decide that you don't want it released. It's out there. You can't cherry pick your GPL clauses. Secondly, that sort of development really misses the point of OSS, in which source is usually available throughout the dev cycle so people can improve it before its final release - not that breaching the Open Sourced spirit grounds for litigation, mind you, but it's worth noting.
But Sveasoft has NOT stopped people from distributing source.
Sveasoft are terminating the accounts of those that redistribute source. This seems like an attempt to prevent people redistributing source, which I understand to be illegal under the GPL (if you accept that the GPL is valid on pre-releases), where people are supposed to modify and redistribute.
Regarding the charging-for-source thing, I don't think they're violating the GPL because they are actually making the source available. Granted, chutzpah to be charging $49 for it, but not in conflict with the GPL. But that's not the meat of the issue...
Sveasoft also states that if a subscriber redistributes pre-release firmwares, they will lose their subscription. Some people have argued that this goes against the GPL, but the FSF has decided this is *not* a violation.
The essential point is then that Sveasoft stopped people distributing source. And the question there is whether this "unreleased" source is GPL'd. One would expect that anything based on a GPL'd codebase would be GPL'd if made available officially or unofficially. In this case, pre-releases are available, and the distribution of pre-release source should be protected by the GPL. If we consider released pre-releases to be releases, then, Sveasoft's actions against those distributing pre-release source are illegal - but it's a complex 'if'.
It won't be neat and it wasn't neat (Active Desktop anyone?). New ideas need to be weighed against their potential to overcomplicate or become intrusive. Without a practical purpose, complicated additions only damage usability.
The same problem is there: we still can't choose our own platform. DVD CCA has added more ground within its walls, but the walls are still there and just as oppressive to anyone who wants real freedom.
In your capitalist fervour you make a number of unfair associations. The first is scientist = businessman. Do you really need to be an entrepreneur to survive as a scientist? The second is freedom = capitalism. How does a "love [of] freedom" coincide with a love of money? Perhaps the freedom I would like is the freedom not to have my every action bound by money - not to have to think as an entrepreneur when pursuing scientific knowledge.
It's true. What is America now? The U.S. lost its production capacity in the 80s, 90s bouts of outsourcing. In the recent ones it's losing much of its engineering/R&D capacity. Almost all American power is on paper. A warning: paper is not particularly strong in serious times, and in the end, the most powerful countries will be those with utilities and talents on their soil.
Literally, a couple:
- Bookmarks filtered into topic folders
- Organization of history based on topic or links - so you could follow which pages you went to and how you got to them like a Gmail conversation
Otherwise, keep it lean, or fork it: Firefox, the lean browser and er... Waterfox... the experimental one.
Slashdot Mirror
"It's stable to keep your condition stable."
Well duh, they want to make sure it works with all their software. I'm sure they are mostly talking about their close customers who rely on IBM for their business, and IBM can't be sure everythig will be smooth. But seriously this is the same as me telling all my office not to download and install it personally to wait untill I have tested it and I will deploy it for them
How does this get modded as informative? I'll be the first to burn MS as the stake, but IBM isn't rolling out because they failed to udpate thier OWN INTERNAL APPS, not becaue there is something wrong with SP2.> they failed to udpate thier OWN INTERNAL APPS.
You choose your operating system to work with your apps, not the other way around.
You don't run a corperation on bleeding edge, which is why RedHat Advanced server,seen as lowly by slashdot, is really a lot more appropriate for the corperate server room.
IBM hasn't updated their apps. This is normal. Unless there is something in the new version that Justifies it, or that version is EOLed by the vender, nor should they.
In spite of that, a "Service Pack" shouldn't break applications. To Sun, IBM, HP, Linux users, a "Service Pack" is a cluster of patches. To Microsoft, a "Service Pack" is whole lot of shit to foister on the clients without given them the option to install only what they need.
This is one reason why MS truly isn't ready for the datacenter.
It was always about the money. Zeus was raking it in.
(Zeus is a little out of fashion right now but the spirit has been retained)
Well, er, good.
Or perhaps dupes will die out of overpopulation.
Do children really need their own specialized computer?
No. I'd liken this specialized computer to saying "goo goo ga ga" to babies instead of using real English. The idea of childhood is growth and adaption of children to their environment; modifying their environment to make growth and adaption unnecessary or less necessary circumvents this process.
In this case, skills with a specialized computer will just be something to unlearn when they have to learn how to use a real computer.
Remember Unreal 2? I wouldn't be surprised if NWN 2 and KOTOR 2 end up being little more than tech upgrades with the sort of fundamentally similar content usually reserved for expansion packs.
Typing is, now, a necessary skill. If you want to communicate on or use a computer, you need to type - regardless of what technologies are available, this is the one in use.
Afterall, he wasn't a "dictator" but a elected leader
He wasn't a dictator? I think the most important part of a democracy is the ability to remove its leader.
I expect this will be successful simply because of how enormously inconvenient it is for Linux users to buy a laptop bundled with WinXP and get a refund, or how expensive that OS is to just pay for and not use. However, if you don't like SuSE, there's always FreeDOS on a Dell and installing the Linux distribution of your choice later. I guess this rules in the convenience stakes - as convenient as buying a WinXP laptop - and that's its selling point.
(Note that this certainly isn't the first popular Linux laptop.)
Frankly I think it's reasonable for a company to "own" my thoughts as related to the core business of that company, and any development activities that pertain to it.
This severely stunts the entrepreneurial spirit. IP laws used to be about rewarding new ideas; now it seems like a way old ones can survive. But firstly: your thoughts are your own. It is just fundamental respect for individualism that the individual has dominion over his own mind. All other rights and freedoms depend on this assumption. If an employee has an idea - corresponding, in all likelihood, to the nature of his employment - the same applies. This is wrong. Secondly, from a business perspective: consider the possibility that this employee's idea is rejected by the employer and he goes into his own business, finds success, and then is sued by his ex-employer because the idea technically belongs to them. IP has become a burden on innovation.
Shop around
Choices exist now, but companies are the ones dangling money in front of us, and we now depend on them utterly for our survival. It wouldn't be difficult for more repressive IP policies in contracts to be adopted in many companies and become policies, policies that insist that anything you think becomes property of the company. Hey, it shackles you to the company while they have no obligation to you - it's good in managers' eyes. Basically, the choice you mention could evaporate easily because we are dependent and don't really have any power. In the end, most types of labour are so abundant that a few dissenters to any specific policy wouldn't make much of a difference (there are millions of unemployed in the U.S. that would happily take their place), and Western lives would continue even more under the thumb of the corporate world. So don't stifle your objection to this sort of policy while its gaining acceptance because you can avoid it now. The more acceptance it has, the quicker it will become a standard measure, and noone will own their thoughts. And after all, it really is bizarre to give companies this sort of power over the human spirit and the individual.
The idea behind the so-called "Free Trade" treaty will work when ALL countries on this Earth adhere to it, and enforce it.
Exactly. As it stands now, the U.S., the wealthiest country, subsidises its agricultural industry so Third World countries can't get a foothold in its market. Meanwhile, it bullies other countries into accepting its patent laws so its pharmaceutical and software companies can penetrate world markets unrivalled. Its idea of Free Trade is a rigged trade system that allows it the broadest access to foreign markets but disallows access to its own. Free Trade will not be fair until the entire world is opened up equally and the U.S. (and Europe for that matter) makes sacrifices for it as well as gains; until then, it is just another way the wealthy crush everyone else.
In most of Europe and Asia
Which reminds me that in parts of Asia, the mobile phone market is somewhat saturated and there is very little room for growth. Then what is the point of convergence? If phones overtook iPods as MP3 player of choice, it wouldn't have made the phone companies too much more money because of the limited growth of the market but it would have killed Apple's device, which did make money. I think an earlier poster's comparison between the mobile phone and a black hole is very valid. (This may also be relevant.)
I'm playing Doom III, right? Man, I wouldn't know. On my 6800, every game sounds like IL-2 Sturmovik.
well putt.
Just because Sveasoft is responding to someone who redistributes their source code in a tit-for-tat fashion doesn't mean this source code distributer is being prevented (in a legal sense) from releasing the code.
Right. Terminating accounts is probably not, in a legal sense, preventing people from redistributing. But Sveasoft is also shutting down servers (in an unspecified way, presumably not DDoS) that are hosting the code. Their attempts to prevent redistribution go beyond just denying access to their service.
Put another way, if you sent some modified, half finished code you were working (whose origins were under GPL) to some friends for comment, would you want it released to everyone? Probably not. You'd want their feedback and then an opportunity to fix it up and then release it when it's good and ready.
Two points. Firstly, it doesn't matter if, once you have in any form released the code, you decide that you don't want it released. It's out there. You can't cherry pick your GPL clauses. Secondly, that sort of development really misses the point of OSS, in which source is usually available throughout the dev cycle so people can improve it before its final release - not that breaching the Open Sourced spirit grounds for litigation, mind you, but it's worth noting.
But Sveasoft has NOT stopped people from distributing source.
Sveasoft are terminating the accounts of those that redistribute source. This seems like an attempt to prevent people redistributing source, which I understand to be illegal under the GPL (if you accept that the GPL is valid on pre-releases), where people are supposed to modify and redistribute.
Regarding the charging-for-source thing, I don't think they're violating the GPL because they are actually making the source available. Granted, chutzpah to be charging $49 for it, but not in conflict with the GPL. But that's not the meat of the issue...
Sveasoft also states that if a subscriber redistributes pre-release firmwares, they will lose their subscription. Some people have argued that this goes against the GPL, but the FSF has decided this is *not* a violation.
The essential point is then that Sveasoft stopped people distributing source. And the question there is whether this "unreleased" source is GPL'd. One would expect that anything based on a GPL'd codebase would be GPL'd if made available officially or unofficially. In this case, pre-releases are available, and the distribution of pre-release source should be protected by the GPL. If we consider released pre-releases to be releases, then, Sveasoft's actions against those distributing pre-release source are illegal - but it's a complex 'if'.
Er, great, but how will that help me use my iPod?
It won't be neat and it wasn't neat (Active Desktop anyone?). New ideas need to be weighed against their potential to overcomplicate or become intrusive. Without a practical purpose, complicated additions only damage usability.
The same problem is there: we still can't choose our own platform. DVD CCA has added more ground within its walls, but the walls are still there and just as oppressive to anyone who wants real freedom.
In your capitalist fervour you make a number of unfair associations. The first is scientist = businessman. Do you really need to be an entrepreneur to survive as a scientist? The second is freedom = capitalism. How does a "love [of] freedom" coincide with a love of money? Perhaps the freedom I would like is the freedom not to have my every action bound by money - not to have to think as an entrepreneur when pursuing scientific knowledge.
It's true. What is America now? The U.S. lost its production capacity in the 80s, 90s bouts of outsourcing. In the recent ones it's losing much of its engineering/R&D capacity. Almost all American power is on paper. A warning: paper is not particularly strong in serious times, and in the end, the most powerful countries will be those with utilities and talents on their soil.
Literally, a couple: - Bookmarks filtered into topic folders - Organization of history based on topic or links - so you could follow which pages you went to and how you got to them like a Gmail conversation Otherwise, keep it lean, or fork it: Firefox, the lean browser and er... Waterfox... the experimental one.
Kidney stones aren't useful. Why would something that could help the minders pass?