Why should Linux.com favor Ubuntu, as opposed to Fedora or Open Suse or even one of the commercial versions of Linux?
Because my brother-in-law will not like Fedora, SuSe, or any other Damn Small thing you'd recommend. And he's not forking over cash on an unknown, so commerce is right out the Window. And he's only going to try 2 versions, tops, before he goes ahead and buys Vista. Maybe if you gave him something he could actually figure out, like a big link to Ubuntu, he'd actually stick with it!
It's too bad linux.com is favoring fairness over useability, because it means everyone gets a Fair-ly small share. Having lots of distributions is a Good Thing, but only if we also account for the needs of newbies.
Breaking the EULA might be illegal. But the EULA does not ban addons. Therefore TestDriven.NET has not broken the law. If Microsoft wanted to ban addons from the free version, they should have said so in writing.
I installed it once, and then I made backup copies on that same machine. Then I made some modifications to the original, but I kept a copy in case I break something. Seems to me I have the right to keep making as many copies as I want, since they are all on one machine for my personal use... And no I didn't read the EULA -- it's irrelevant legally anyway.
Jobs basically said the iPhone won't be fully user configurable because he wouldn't want to take down the cell networks with it, so I'm taking him at his word.
The AppleTV is configurable in the same way that the Xbox was: Only if you are willing to completely void your warranty. That's fine if it's what you want to do, it's just not what I have in mind when I call something a PC, is all.
If you run bootcamp, you are using windows on your mac hardware. Excellent work, you have just helped them expand their market.
If you use parallels, you are running OS/X and keeping windows around for backwards compatibility. Hardly a world that's friendly to Microsoft's continued domination. So you pay a penalty.
I know iBooks are famous for logicboard failures, but hopefully that won't carry over to intel macs, meaning it's a moot point now.
SMB support breaks because Microsoft will not conform to a data transport standard. It is a pain, but hardly Apple's fault.
I know what you mean about dumbed-down interfaces: Where is the one place in vista where I can actually configure my network card, rather than yet another auto-config wizard?
Honestly, the last thing I want is more OS "features," which is the painful trend everywhere. I want an OS that runs my hardware quickly and cleanly, so that I can run applications on top of it. So neither leopard nor vista offers me anything interesting.
Well, I've heard that new macs work out-of-the-box, unlike my brand new vista machine. It failed to boot after third time, and I've reinstalled twice in 2 weeks. Totally unacceptable for the general public. Also, wifi support is [i]worse[/i] than XP, how did that happen?
So after this lady wins her case in court, exactly what will we be able to do differently? Post clips of NFL games to YouTube with impunity? I doubt it.
We should be able to post brief clips for educational use that do not cause economic harm to the copyright holder- exactly as the law states. That the NFL cannot grasp the laws of a free country does not mean fascism has won yet.
Shrnk-wrapped books tend to be text books. Since no-one actually wants to own them, they have to be shrink-wrapped to force people to buy them. Blackmailing students is not a valid business model.
Yes, I can. It is specifically allowed by the legal definition of fair use.
...and then, when sued by the author, complain that they didn't opt out of your copying policy.
But my opt-out policy is only there as a courtesy, providing extracts is a perfectly defensible action.
Google is doing everyone (including the publishers) a favor by providing an index so that we can buy the right books faster. It's not illegal, it's not harmful, it's not even immoral. So why is it bad?
I guess it worked if you believe in terrorists. But you've just reinforced my point, really. That was the best storyline they had. Lame.
I really liked Scott Bakula in QL, but I was very young. At any rate, "Star Trek Captain" needn't be a challenging role: I think even Keanu Reeves could handle it. Or... not.
GeekSpeak is hard to understand if you don't know the physical objects being named. RAM didn't exist 300 years ago, so there isn't a word for it in any language from that time. HDDs, FDD, same problem. It's not a problem with geeks, but with the newness of technology. Give it 300 years, it'll fix itself.
I don't know a carburetor from a fuel-pump, but I don't complain that mechanics are conspiring to keep me from driving.
..and last time I heard all criminal offences in the USA were still "innocent until proven guilty"
I'm afraid that only applies to criminal and civil law. Tax laws is somewhat different, since the IRS can seize all you assets before giving you a trial. If you get a trial.
Isn't your implication kind of like throwing out the baby with the bathwater? (Most companies don't develop original things, so we should keep the few that do from doing so?) Not really. Since DRM is not in any way encouraging innovation, it's kind of silly to say that DRM is necesary for innovation. IOW, there will be music whether or not the RIAA can find a way to profit from it.
The "open source" comment was such a non-sequitor I just ignored it - what the hell was that even supposed to mean?
It means that corporate ownership of genes and proprietary food lines are dominating the market to create the same scenario that we already have in music, except in a field that actually matters.
It's not the unnaturalness of gengineered food that horrifies me, it's monopolistic control of our food sources. We're not there yet, but companies like monsanto are working on that. And if people don't acknowledge it as a problem, it could easily come to pass.
Is flavor a magical property of fruits and vegetables that is somehow unrelated to the genome? No, but neither is it a trait of any value to corporations. Eat an African banana, and then try its American counterpart. The American one has a thicker brighter peel, a smoother whiter flesh, and stays that way for much longer. The African one doesn't taste like card-board.
It will be much harder to regain that flavor than it would have been to retain it, so I have no faith that Americans will ever taste good bananas again.
...only to have a competitor buy a handful of seeds, and start selling them under their own label? That's actually not what we're talking about. We're talking about infecting fields with seeds that farmers don't want, and then suing them for royalties.
Doesn't seem to smart to me to spend another red cent developing new strains of crops if they couldn't patent them. And if this were the case, we'd have a LOT more starving people in the world. Ah yes, because evolution is a lie: corn could not exist without genetic engineering.
If your model of security is "I'll use what no one else is using, regardless of any actual security holes" - then you're not secure at all.Using your "not secure at all," method, I'd still be more secure than 90% of the people on the internet, which is certainly good enough for my web-surfing box. It may someday get a virus, but I don't particularly care if it does, and since it never has, I'm not going to worry about it.
Slashdot Mirror
Breaking the EULA might be illegal. But the EULA does not ban addons. Therefore TestDriven.NET has not broken the law. If Microsoft wanted to ban addons from the free version, they should have said so in writing.
I have never seen a EULA upheld in court unless it simply reiterated existing law. Do you have any concrete examples?
I installed it once, and then I made backup copies on that same machine. Then I made some modifications to the original, but I kept a copy in case I break something. Seems to me I have the right to keep making as many copies as I want, since they are all on one machine for my personal use... And no I didn't read the EULA -- it's irrelevant legally anyway.
Jobs basically said the iPhone won't be fully user configurable because he wouldn't want to take down the cell networks with it, so I'm taking him at his word.
The AppleTV is configurable in the same way that the Xbox was: Only if you are willing to completely void your warranty. That's fine if it's what you want to do, it's just not what I have in mind when I call something a PC, is all.
Why? You are still going to have to pay for a windows license for each VM you run.
Only if you run them all at once.
If you run bootcamp, you are using windows on your mac hardware. Excellent work, you have just helped them expand their market.
If you use parallels, you are running OS/X and keeping windows around for backwards compatibility. Hardly a world that's friendly to Microsoft's continued domination. So you pay a penalty.
I know iBooks are famous for logicboard failures, but hopefully that won't carry over to intel macs, meaning it's a moot point now. SMB support breaks because Microsoft will not conform to a data transport standard. It is a pain, but hardly Apple's fault. I know what you mean about dumbed-down interfaces: Where is the one place in vista where I can actually configure my network card, rather than yet another auto-config wizard? Honestly, the last thing I want is more OS "features," which is the painful trend everywhere. I want an OS that runs my hardware quickly and cleanly, so that I can run applications on top of it. So neither leopard nor vista offers me anything interesting.
A personal computer is user-configurable. A phone or dvr is not. Processor power is not the issue, versatility is.
Well, I've heard that new macs work out-of-the-box, unlike my brand new vista machine. It failed to boot after third time, and I've reinstalled twice in 2 weeks. Totally unacceptable for the general public. Also, wifi support is [i]worse[/i] than XP, how did that happen?
So after this lady wins her case in court, exactly what will we be able to do differently? Post clips of NFL games to YouTube with impunity? I doubt it.
We should be able to post brief clips for educational use that do not cause economic harm to the copyright holder- exactly as the law states. That the NFL cannot grasp the laws of a free country does not mean fascism has won yet.
Shrnk-wrapped books tend to be text books. Since no-one actually wants to own them, they have to be shrink-wrapped to force people to buy them. Blackmailing students is not a valid business model.
You can't transcribe parts of a book...
Yes, I can. It is specifically allowed by the legal definition of fair use.
But my opt-out policy is only there as a courtesy, providing extracts is a perfectly defensible action.
Google is doing everyone (including the publishers) a favor by providing an index so that we can buy the right books faster. It's not illegal, it's not harmful, it's not even immoral. So why is it bad?
I guess it worked if you believe in terrorists. But you've just reinforced my point, really. That was the best storyline they had. Lame.
I really liked Scott Bakula in QL, but I was very young. At any rate, "Star Trek Captain" needn't be a challenging role: I think even Keanu Reeves could handle it. Or... not.
GeekSpeak is hard to understand if you don't know the physical objects being named. RAM didn't exist 300 years ago, so there isn't a word for it in any language from that time. HDDs, FDD, same problem. It's not a problem with geeks, but with the newness of technology. Give it 300 years, it'll fix itself.
I don't know a carburetor from a fuel-pump, but I don't complain that mechanics are conspiring to keep me from driving.
Enterprise failed because it had no storyline. Terrorists travelling back in time to destroy our world? Lame!
The idea was great, and although the dialog in the first episode sucked, it had potential. But they had no vision, no purpose to it at all.
I'm afraid that only applies to criminal and civil law. Tax laws is somewhat different, since the IRS can seize all you assets before giving you a trial. If you get a trial.
Isn't your implication kind of like throwing out the baby with the bathwater? (Most companies don't develop original things, so we should keep the few that do from doing so?)
Not really. Since DRM is not in any way encouraging innovation, it's kind of silly to say that DRM is necesary for innovation. IOW, there will be music whether or not the RIAA can find a way to profit from it.
Perhaps he meant simplify, rather than solve: sqrt(27) = 3 Sqrt(3)
then again, a TI92 can do that.
The "open source" comment was such a non-sequitor I just ignored it - what the hell was that even supposed to mean?
It means that corporate ownership of genes and proprietary food lines are dominating the market to create the same scenario that we already have in music, except in a field that actually matters.
It's not the unnaturalness of gengineered food that horrifies me, it's monopolistic control of our food sources. We're not there yet, but companies like monsanto are working on that. And if people don't acknowledge it as a problem, it could easily come to pass.
Which just means the terrorist won in Israel a long time ago.
Is flavor a magical property of fruits and vegetables that is somehow unrelated to the genome?
No, but neither is it a trait of any value to corporations. Eat an African banana, and then try its American counterpart. The American one has a thicker brighter peel, a smoother whiter flesh, and stays that way for much longer. The African one doesn't taste like card-board.
It will be much harder to regain that flavor than it would have been to retain it, so I have no faith that Americans will ever taste good bananas again.
...only to have a competitor buy a handful of seeds, and start selling them under their own label?
Doesn't seem to smart to me to spend another red cent developing new strains of crops if they couldn't patent them. And if this were the case, we'd have a LOT more starving people in the world.That's actually not what we're talking about. We're talking about infecting fields with seeds that farmers don't want, and then suing them for royalties.
Ah yes, because evolution is a lie: corn could not exist without genetic engineering.
Did you have a better definition of "open source" that you wanted to share?
If your model of security is "I'll use what no one else is using, regardless of any actual security holes" - then you're not secure at all.Using your "not secure at all," method, I'd still be more secure than 90% of the people on the internet, which is certainly good enough for my web-surfing box. It may someday get a virus, but I don't particularly care if it does, and since it never has, I'm not going to worry about it.