This is why Microsoft and other shrink-wrap companies have never made a big stink about EULA enforcement and have instead litigated on copyright issues.
Re:Good to see some progress here!
on
Microsoft's Athens PC
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
But as much as I hate to say it, they're moving forward with some interesting ideas. Sure, those ideas aren't original (what is?) but the key is that they have a direction and purpose.
This isn't about being a visionary or producing fabulously 'neat' products. It is about control. If I can make a system that locks you into my products, you have no choice but to purchase what I'm offering.
This is the same as the incestuous relationship that Ma Bell had with Western Electric. You couldn't get a telephone of your own and hook it up to the network. You could RENT their telephone. You couldn't use a modem without their permission. You couldn't put an autodialer on your phone system, despite the fact that the circuitry was easily obtained in hobby magazines and the parts were available in Radio Shack's bins.
No, the approach Microsoft and HP are taking isn't about providing you with better products. Theirs is the same mindset as the rapist: its not about sex, its about control.
Be careful, or you might just get fucked by Microsoft and HP.
He has at least put himself out there to be critiqued. When did BillG ever put himself out for questioning (re: business practices, trashing open source, purchaser ownership issues)?
The fact that you have grist for the mill makes him less of a slimeball than some CEOs I've read interviews from.
At least he doesn't front a company convicted of a crime in a federal court.
Some of what this poster has written is quite true: software is a market and the number of people employed in that market in the future will be determined by how well they expand their own skill set.
But I wouldn't necessarily choose engineering as the only avenue for computer science graduates.
How many engineers were involved in the creation of computer languages? Not as many as you might think. I would opine that there were probably more philosophers and mathemeticians than engineers working on the early development of "computers" or 'thinking machines'. Logic, structured languages, and various tests of intelligence (think Turing) were developed long before the ENIAC or the semiconductor.
The focus of any new student should be in the sciences and philosophy in general, not specific languages or electrical engineering. If one chooses electrical engineering, they should also think broadly about their profession and not focus specifically on computers.
Well, you've obviously presented a case where the exception rather than the rule applies. Of course you're example points out the case where you're code would be '86ed for matters beyond your control.
I guess there is no easy solution here. Nothing is easy when it comes to contracts.
I still don't get how the current system penalizes people who have the karma to burn. Posts can get high marks without the slightest regard to their content or relevance to the topic at hand.
I don't think you've fairly captured the intent of his statement. What he objects to is someone modifying his personal views (i.e., written opinions) in such a way that there is misattribution.
You're analogy can be extended to source code because source code is a medium of expression (as determined in Junger v. Daley). Therefore, you're argument is fatally flawed.
If you were only decribing *expression*, you'd be right. But the issue raised by the parent article goes one level deeper.
If you are an opponent of capital punishment and someone changes your words to create the impression that you support capital punishment, then it is not a matter of parsing preferences. The modifier has deliberately changed the intent of the content.
That is quite a different set of circumstances than your analogy presents. No one likes to be misquoted. DFSG would not, as represented by the parent article author, protect anyone from misattribution abuse.
With all-in-a-box system like a media computer that wouldnt require specific applications to perform tasks there is a good chance that windows will lose out.
True, but it has to work first.
The article was quite clear on the inability of this particular product to perform as advertised. The author was also more than a little disappointed at the customer service from Lindow's.
When personal computers started to gain momentum, Sun proclaimed that they were simple toys that didn't measure up to their standard of computing.
While early PCs probably didn't have the horsepower of Sun's workstations, they were increasing productivity. But they were not network-centric devices, so they were not "real" computers from Sun's perspective.
We've been trashing Microsoft for a long time
Note that I said personal computing, which includes Apple machines. Apple was the first to take a bite out if office computing from Sun's prospective client base. Every Appletalk computer installed in the office I worked in was money out of the pocket of Sun (in their judgment). And the line from Sun continued to be: "Just toys". But our productivity continued to increase.
Sun's committment to GNOME is another example of somewhere we've spent a significant amount of time, money, effort to improve important things that were lacking in an OSS project.
And I'm sure that folks who rely on Gnome appreciate it. But I wouldn't bank on that support.
So give some hard facts of things we've done to harm an OSS project that you think qualifies as reason to accuse us of waiting to stab GNOME in the back, or take your paranoid fantasies somewhere else.
There are plenty of other posts on this topic that provide evidence of Sun's waffling. As for being paranoid, you are obviously suffering from panic attacks. I am suggesting caution in depending on Sun for support. Their level of long term commitment is lacking even for their own product (see previous posts regarding Solaris X86)
Sun has very little commitment to Linux. It has a fairly substantial commitment to open source [openoffice.org] (not withstanding the stuff they did before the phrase was even coined - NIS, NFS, OpenLook, etc...)
You've got me on that one. They did buy Star Office and then release most of the code to openoffice.org.
I'm still deeply suspicious of Sun's motives. They have been trashing personal computing for decades.
1) If you find M$ bashing at/. to be so objectionable, why do you read it?
2) The reason most folks object to M$ implementing any certification program is that it is one more issue related to control.
Obviously the brand is theirs to control. I think that they should not be punished for exerting more control for a product they have spent millions to develop. Personally, I think that ALL developers should have to pay 20% of their revenue to M$ just for the privelege of writing to Windows.
No surer way to put Linux development on a stronger footing than to gouge application developers.
I understand the reason for flying the colors at ports and in areas where American forces have lost their lives. I would hope that the US military would use this opportunity to offer some dignity to the defeated (aka liberated) by flying the US flag at a position lower than the Iraqi flag. That would still acknowledge that the position is a US liberated site, but still Iraqi sovereign territory.
Slackware was my first distro (~1994). I loved it but there were some difficult install issues with software packages so I bailed for an RPM-based distro.
I am thinking of heading back to Slack. I miss the hacking.
Slashdot Mirror
You really believe Microsoft invented graphical user interfacing? (aka 'Windows')
You should get out more.
Here's one of several short summaries available on the web covering the development and history of the GUI.
Cite the relevant case law that supports an EULA.
You might be surprised how thin the defense is.
This is why Microsoft and other shrink-wrap companies have never made a big stink about EULA enforcement and have instead litigated on copyright issues.
But as much as I hate to say it, they're moving forward with some interesting ideas. Sure, those ideas aren't original (what is?) but the key is that they have a direction and purpose.
This isn't about being a visionary or producing fabulously 'neat' products. It is about control. If I can make a system that locks you into my products, you have no choice but to purchase what I'm offering.
This is the same as the incestuous relationship that Ma Bell had with Western Electric. You couldn't get a telephone of your own and hook it up to the network. You could RENT their telephone. You couldn't use a modem without their permission. You couldn't put an autodialer on your phone system, despite the fact that the circuitry was easily obtained in hobby magazines and the parts were available in Radio Shack's bins.
No, the approach Microsoft and HP are taking isn't about providing you with better products. Theirs is the same mindset as the rapist: its not about sex, its about control.
Be careful, or you might just get fucked by Microsoft and HP.
Your use of the name 'Nimrod' as a pejorative is just too funny when you read about Nimrod.
Hmmm.... A slimeball?
He has at least put himself out there to be critiqued. When did BillG ever put himself out for questioning (re: business practices, trashing open source, purchaser ownership issues)?
The fact that you have grist for the mill makes him less of a slimeball than some CEOs I've read interviews from.
At least he doesn't front a company convicted of a crime in a federal court.
Some of what this poster has written is quite true: software is a market and the number of people employed in that market in the future will be determined by how well they expand their own skill set.
But I wouldn't necessarily choose engineering as the only avenue for computer science graduates.
How many engineers were involved in the creation of computer languages? Not as many as you might think. I would opine that there were probably more philosophers and mathemeticians than engineers working on the early development of "computers" or 'thinking machines'. Logic, structured languages, and various tests of intelligence (think Turing) were developed long before the ENIAC or the semiconductor.
The focus of any new student should be in the sciences and philosophy in general, not specific languages or electrical engineering. If one chooses electrical engineering, they should also think broadly about their profession and not focus specifically on computers.
I guess you should add species to that list.
Well, you've obviously presented a case where the exception rather than the rule applies. Of course you're example points out the case where you're code would be '86ed for matters beyond your control.
I guess there is no easy solution here. Nothing is easy when it comes to contracts.
Best regards.
You are correct, sir.
I still don't get how the current system penalizes people who have the karma to burn. Posts can get high marks without the slightest regard to their content or relevance to the topic at hand.
But he still posted at score3 which increases his visibility to the point where he is read LONG before you are.
You have any mod points to throw at him?
Idiot.
I don't think you've fairly captured the intent of his statement. What he objects to is someone modifying his personal views (i.e., written opinions) in such a way that there is misattribution.
You're analogy can be extended to source code because source code is a medium of expression (as determined in Junger v. Daley). Therefore, you're argument is fatally flawed.
If you were only decribing *expression*, you'd be right. But the issue raised by the parent article goes one level deeper.
If you are an opponent of capital punishment and someone changes your words to create the impression that you support capital punishment, then it is not a matter of parsing preferences. The modifier has deliberately changed the intent of the content.
That is quite a different set of circumstances than your analogy presents. No one likes to be misquoted. DFSG would not, as represented by the parent article author, protect anyone from misattribution abuse.
Given British Telecom's ridiculous criteria for only installing ADSL where there is 'sufficient demand'
I suspect that BTs refusal probably has more to do with their dislike of haggis.
Obligatory haggis joke now over, we return you to your normal programming.
you have to pay a transfer fee of 72.8 times...
I don't know how you calculated THAT amount.
My calculations put the transfer fee at a much more conservative 74.6 times the original license cost.
Harumpf!
With all-in-a-box system like a media computer that wouldnt require specific applications to perform tasks there is a good chance that windows will lose out.
True, but it has to work first.
The article was quite clear on the inability of this particular product to perform as advertised. The author was also more than a little disappointed at the customer service from Lindow's.
There seems to me to be a pretty clear difference between waffling and "stabbing in the back".
And there is clearly a difference between "watching your back" and 'stabbing in the back'.
The first quote is composed of my words, the other is what you have created from mine.
Paranoia is certainly a topic on which you are an expert.
Re: Trashing personal computing
What exactly does that mean?
That Sun has trashed personal computing.
When personal computers started to gain momentum, Sun proclaimed that they were simple toys that didn't measure up to their standard of computing.
While early PCs probably didn't have the horsepower of Sun's workstations, they were increasing productivity. But they were not network-centric devices, so they were not "real" computers from Sun's perspective.
We've been trashing Microsoft for a long time
Note that I said personal computing, which includes Apple machines. Apple was the first to take a bite out if office computing from Sun's prospective client base. Every Appletalk computer installed in the office I worked in was money out of the pocket of Sun (in their judgment). And the line from Sun continued to be: "Just toys". But our productivity continued to increase.
Sun's committment to GNOME is another example of somewhere we've spent a significant amount of time, money, effort to improve important things that were lacking in an OSS project.
And I'm sure that folks who rely on Gnome appreciate it. But I wouldn't bank on that support.
So give some hard facts of things we've done to harm an OSS project that you think qualifies as reason to accuse us of waiting to stab GNOME in the back, or take your paranoid fantasies somewhere else.
There are plenty of other posts on this topic that provide evidence of Sun's waffling. As for being paranoid, you are obviously suffering from panic attacks. I am suggesting caution in depending on Sun for support. Their level of long term commitment is lacking even for their own product (see previous posts regarding Solaris X86)
Sun has very little commitment to Linux. It has a fairly substantial commitment to open source [openoffice.org] (not withstanding the stuff they did before the phrase was even coined - NIS, NFS, OpenLook, etc...)
You've got me on that one. They did buy Star Office and then release most of the code to openoffice.org.
I'm still deeply suspicious of Sun's motives. They have been trashing personal computing for decades.
As I pointed out earlier, Sun has very little commitment to Linux/Open Source.
The folks at Gnome need to watch their backs. Sun only looks out for itself.
Two observations for you to consider:
/. to be so objectionable, why do you read it?
1) If you find M$ bashing at
2) The reason most folks object to M$ implementing any certification program is that it is one more issue related to control.
Obviously the brand is theirs to control. I think that they should not be punished for exerting more control for a product they have spent millions to develop. Personally, I think that ALL developers should have to pay 20% of their revenue to M$ just for the privelege of writing to Windows.
No surer way to put Linux development on a stronger footing than to gouge application developers.
Yeah, if you are going to get your ass beat, make it count.
Agreed. The poster's screed is similar to those fucking retards who used to spit on returning US military personnel who served in Viet Nam.
I may or may not agree with the foreign policy of my government, but the soldier who volunteers to take a bullet for my freedom deserves my respect.
A cattle prod and a puppy.
that the reason the US is pulling its punches is to reduce the future financial liability of restoring infrastructure in Iraq?
I'm sure that this has been discussed in the last 50 billion+ posts on the Iraq war.
I understand the reason for flying the colors at ports and in areas where American forces have lost their lives. I would hope that the US military would use this opportunity to offer some dignity to the defeated (aka liberated) by flying the US flag at a position lower than the Iraqi flag. That would still acknowledge that the position is a US liberated site, but still Iraqi sovereign territory.
Slackware was my first distro (~1994). I loved it but there were some difficult install issues with software packages so I bailed for an RPM-based distro.
I am thinking of heading back to Slack. I miss the hacking.