Yes, but I'm sure you'll agree with me that bugs should not cost extra to fix for the "consumer". If something doesn't work right when you get it, why should you pay to make it work?
Oh, the free software+paid support model? Just how, pray tell, are you meant to charge for support on music and movies? Or even Games for that matter? No, the free model only works for products for which support requirements exist.
Actually, I'm going to serve them a request to provide me with unprotected copies of my purchased music for interoperability reasons. Because you can now purchase unprotected ones, they legally can't deny my request.
Hmm. I think I might come to like the new NZ copyright law (thankfully minus the absent S92A)
You're actually very lucky Valve didn't notice that. In the past, Valve has actually removed access to games from people who've defeated the region protection in that fashion, with no refunds!
No, Valve can shove it. Steam might be "tolerable" but it sure as hell isn't doing anything right.
Receivers can be called in whether you're publicly traded or not. And I assure you - in the event Valve goes under, the creditors aren't going to let the outgoing management authorise the wholesale destruction of Valve's entire asset base - its software.
In other words, if Valve goes under it doesn't matter what Gabe Newell says, he's no longer in charge and the receivers will decide if they'll patch games to remove checks - and I guarantee they wont.
Uh, you can't disable the single pass memory test, only the three pass test which takes a couple of minutes on its own. Although you may be onto something with bells and whistles - it seems that the cost of a motherboard is directly proportional to the size of its feature set, and mine wasn't cheap. XFX (which is rebranded MSI) if it helps any.
It doesn't actually skip the RAM check, just reduces it to a single pass using a much faster test method. I do have it enabled, and PXE disabled, yet it still takes a while. To be honest, I think it's likely got more to do with PnP initialisation and updating configuration tables.
Actually, I've got Quick Boot enabled, so it only does a single pass of memory. To be perfectly honest, I don't understand why it takes so long for the rest of it. In fact quite a bit of that time isn't spent in POST, but in the BIOS nonetheless (updating the configuration tables perhaps? PnP initialisation?)
So Coreboot doesn't bother doing any POST at all? Screw that. I'd rather be assured that no memory is faulty because my BIOS has tested it, and I'd rather have a test establish whether my CPU can handle a given clock speed/voltage setting and undo any changes.
No, Coreboot is just a bad idea. Not doing a Power On Self Test (and sanity-checking configuration) is completely idiotic.
A minute is QUICKLY? The iPod Touch may well be the slowest booting device I've ever seen! I end up staring at that Apple logo for longer than my phone makes me stare at the Windows Mobile logo!
I like to get a terminal and a text editor up, for example. Maybe I'd like to play a game, start listening to some music or watch a movie. All of them things you don't need to initialize.
Good luck playing a game, watching movies, or listening to music when your sound subsystem hasn't started yet.
(WTF Firefox? Since when has "movies" not been a word? And Firefox?)
The BIOS. The BIOS is pretty much the sole reason PCs take so long to boot. For example, at home I have a Core 2 Quad Q8200. When I push power, I get the XFX logo up while the POST runs. This POST takes approximately 20 seconds alone to run because of the inherent slowness of actions like writing ones and zeroes to every byte of RAM and then reading them back to test whether any memory is faulty, or initialising the Video BIOS, so on. Power on to OS loaded (even if it's still spinning up services) is impossible in 1 second, because it takes about that time for the CPU itself to start!
I'll attach the definition of theft from a legal dictionary below. I leave it to you to decide whether it still meets GPs argument
n. the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale). In many states, if the value of the property taken is low (for example, less than $500) the crime is "petty theft," but it is "grand theft" for larger amounts, designated misdemeanor or felony, respectively. Theft is synonymous with "larceny." Although robbery (taking by force), burglary (taken by entering unlawfully) and embezzlement (stealing from an employer) are all commonly thought of as theft, they are distinguished by the means and methods used and are separately designated as those types of crimes in criminal charges and statutory punishments.
That's not evidence. That's a company suing Redhat and Novell, and typical Groklaw and Slashdot (pinnacles of rabid anti-Microsoft sentiment that they are) claiming that because employees of those two companies once worked for Microsoft, clearly Microsoft is involved.
Jesus fucking christ, go back to looking for aliens in your backyard, because that sort of crap is just as rational. The government is lying to you, you know, it isn't a weather balloon.
Apple doesn't make an antivirus. And if I'm not mistaken, OS X doesn't have per-application permissions, but rather per user like any Unix or BSD based OS. Correct me if I'm wrong there.
You know, I'm not even going to bother. You'll just turn a blind eye to anything that doesn't fit your narrow "MS == evil!" definition of the world.
Suffice it to say, you're talking bullshit, and the "if you disagree, you're clearly a shill" is the typical line of someone with no empirical evidence to back up their belief.
You're still spouting the same bullshit. "Dose of their own medicine" - what the fuck? Microsoft (or rather individual idiots within it) might ramble on about patents and how Linux violates them, but have they ever actually launched a lawsuit against anyone? No. In fact, if you search Google for "Microsoft patent lawsuit" I'd bet the only thing you'd find is story after story about Microsoft being sued by the "patent troll du jour" for some obvious software concept.
A lot of open source projects ultimately form an incorporated entity to handle development. ClamAV, for example, is Sourcefire, Inc (which I'm surprised got missed).
Don't think for a second that Open Source is immune.
Also, why are you so happy Microsoft got targeted? For all the sabre rattling, the reality is that Microsoft virtually never exercises their patents offensively. Yet they still get targeted by some scummy patent troll (to all their customers detriment) once a year or more. Remember Eolas and "Click here to activate and use this control" because they patented plugins?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but I'm sure you'll agree with me that bugs should not cost extra to fix for the "consumer". If something doesn't work right when you get it, why should you pay to make it work?
It doesn't exist. GP is making it up.
Oh, the free software+paid support model? Just how, pray tell, are you meant to charge for support on music and movies? Or even Games for that matter? No, the free model only works for products for which support requirements exist.
Of course, Apple still charges you for the key.
Actually, I'm going to serve them a request to provide me with unprotected copies of my purchased music for interoperability reasons. Because you can now purchase unprotected ones, they legally can't deny my request.
Hmm. I think I might come to like the new NZ copyright law (thankfully minus the absent S92A)
You're actually very lucky Valve didn't notice that. In the past, Valve has actually removed access to games from people who've defeated the region protection in that fashion, with no refunds!
No, Valve can shove it. Steam might be "tolerable" but it sure as hell isn't doing anything right.
Receivers can be called in whether you're publicly traded or not. And I assure you - in the event Valve goes under, the creditors aren't going to let the outgoing management authorise the wholesale destruction of Valve's entire asset base - its software.
In other words, if Valve goes under it doesn't matter what Gabe Newell says, he's no longer in charge and the receivers will decide if they'll patch games to remove checks - and I guarantee they wont.
Yup. And they run a "1 Euro = 1 USD" policy. Valve doesn't get it, and I don't see what this article is about.
I tagged it "hypocrites".
And the translations are a crapton better than the legit ones.
Woooosh?
Uh, you can't disable the single pass memory test, only the three pass test which takes a couple of minutes on its own. Although you may be onto something with bells and whistles - it seems that the cost of a motherboard is directly proportional to the size of its feature set, and mine wasn't cheap. XFX (which is rebranded MSI) if it helps any.
That isn't even funny any more. Everyone knows you can't patent business processes.
It doesn't actually skip the RAM check, just reduces it to a single pass using a much faster test method. I do have it enabled, and PXE disabled, yet it still takes a while. To be honest, I think it's likely got more to do with PnP initialisation and updating configuration tables.
Actually, I've got Quick Boot enabled, so it only does a single pass of memory. To be perfectly honest, I don't understand why it takes so long for the rest of it. In fact quite a bit of that time isn't spent in POST, but in the BIOS nonetheless (updating the configuration tables perhaps? PnP initialisation?)
And if it helps any, no I didn't enable PXE.
So Coreboot doesn't bother doing any POST at all? Screw that. I'd rather be assured that no memory is faulty because my BIOS has tested it, and I'd rather have a test establish whether my CPU can handle a given clock speed/voltage setting and undo any changes.
No, Coreboot is just a bad idea. Not doing a Power On Self Test (and sanity-checking configuration) is completely idiotic.
A minute is QUICKLY? The iPod Touch may well be the slowest booting device I've ever seen! I end up staring at that Apple logo for longer than my phone makes me stare at the Windows Mobile logo!
I like to get a terminal and a text editor up, for example. Maybe I'd like to play a game, start listening to some music or watch a movie. All of them things you don't need to initialize.
Good luck playing a game, watching movies, or listening to music when your sound subsystem hasn't started yet.
(WTF Firefox? Since when has "movies" not been a word? And Firefox?)
The BIOS. The BIOS is pretty much the sole reason PCs take so long to boot. For example, at home I have a Core 2 Quad Q8200. When I push power, I get the XFX logo up while the POST runs. This POST takes approximately 20 seconds alone to run because of the inherent slowness of actions like writing ones and zeroes to every byte of RAM and then reading them back to test whether any memory is faulty, or initialising the Video BIOS, so on. Power on to OS loaded (even if it's still spinning up services) is impossible in 1 second, because it takes about that time for the CPU itself to start!
I'll attach the definition of theft from a legal dictionary below. I leave it to you to decide whether it still meets GPs argument
That's not evidence. That's a company suing Redhat and Novell, and typical Groklaw and Slashdot (pinnacles of rabid anti-Microsoft sentiment that they are) claiming that because employees of those two companies once worked for Microsoft, clearly Microsoft is involved.
Jesus fucking christ, go back to looking for aliens in your backyard, because that sort of crap is just as rational. The government is lying to you, you know, it isn't a weather balloon.
Apple doesn't make an antivirus. And if I'm not mistaken, OS X doesn't have per-application permissions, but rather per user like any Unix or BSD based OS. Correct me if I'm wrong there.
You know, I'm not even going to bother. You'll just turn a blind eye to anything that doesn't fit your narrow "MS == evil!" definition of the world.
Suffice it to say, you're talking bullshit, and the "if you disagree, you're clearly a shill" is the typical line of someone with no empirical evidence to back up their belief.
You'd get on famously with twitter.
You're still spouting the same bullshit. "Dose of their own medicine" - what the fuck? Microsoft (or rather individual idiots within it) might ramble on about patents and how Linux violates them, but have they ever actually launched a lawsuit against anyone? No. In fact, if you search Google for "Microsoft patent lawsuit" I'd bet the only thing you'd find is story after story about Microsoft being sued by the "patent troll du jour" for some obvious software concept.
A lot of open source projects ultimately form an incorporated entity to handle development. ClamAV, for example, is Sourcefire, Inc (which I'm surprised got missed).
Don't think for a second that Open Source is immune.
Also, why are you so happy Microsoft got targeted? For all the sabre rattling, the reality is that Microsoft virtually never exercises their patents offensively. Yet they still get targeted by some scummy patent troll (to all their customers detriment) once a year or more. Remember Eolas and "Click here to activate and use this control" because they patented plugins?
Can't patent business processes.
Now, patenting his bot before he writes it, that's another story!
They're going solely for Antivirus vendors for some reason - Microsoft's on there because of OneCare, not Windows. Not sure on Novell.
Also the NSA is likely immune on National Security grounds.