Personally, I have no problems with Vista (apart from bloody annoying features, but everyone has that). It runs fine on my, yes, 1.4GHz processor with 1GB RAM (laptop, AMD processor).
It's my belief that you are talking shit, and at least I'm willing to sign my name to my statement.
You're correct. The laptop has only had one generation of Windows: Vista was pre-installed. I have had to upgrade the RAM from 512MB to 1GB, but since then it runs the same as the XP I still run on my desktop (which, incidentally, is a 3.2GHz P4 800MHz FSB Prescott with 1GB RAM) because - well, for a start XP isn't that bad, and second because Nvidia are bloody incompetent at making Vista drivers.
If you want to upgrade Windows, you usually wind up needing a new machine, so: new machine, new video card, new drivers, new Windows -- not a problem. Well, at least not the same problem. Bullshit. I haven't had to upgrade my PC through the last three releases and it works fine. Hell, I have Vista running on a laptop with only a 1.4GHz processor and it runs fine. That's with Aero enabled (my understanding is that this would be roughly equivalent to Ubuntu with Beryl and Compiz correct? and have I spelt that right?)
I think the main problem with Linux is that if a vendor releases a closed source driver (which some are obliged to do by legal agreements for other companies technologies) that the next minor Kernel release can break the driver. In the Windows world, it takes a major release to break drivers (i.e. Windows 4/Windows 98 to Windows 5/Windows 2000 or Windows 5.1/Windows XP to Windows 6/Windows Vista)
1. Have sound. If it does your so forever block from my browser and wallet its not even funny
This is an interesting issue. I can't see any reason to ever, EVER allow my web browser access to my sound device. Is there some way to stop it? SELinux maybe? You have options on Windows. You can either download FlashMute (which can actually prevent the entire browser from being able to make any sounds, although it was originally designed to mute Flash only), or if you have Vista you can simply click the Mute button for "Internet Explorer" or "Firefox" or "Opera" in the mixer (which nowadays allows you to mute or control the volume of individual applications). Damn, I wish that feature of Vista could be ported to other Operating Systems.
I presume that since it can be done on Windows, there is some way somehow to do this on Linux or MacOS X.
all those squatters who sit on a host name and serve up ads called a *search* list, you are all blocked on my systems. What you do is an abuse of the intention of the internet, and I will not support it. Don't like it, tough. Give me a valid reason to open up that site, a reason that meets my needs and wants So you block Googles ads then?
$5K, really? So you have a dual 3.0G Quad-core Xeon with 4G of RAM, a 750G 7200 RPM SATA drive, and an NVIDIA 7300GT vid card? Call me suspicious, but I'm guessing you have nowhere near that kind of horsepower. *Good* Macs aren't cheap, you can pick up a Mini that you'll hate for $600, but for $2200 you get a dual 2.0G Dual-core Xeon Mac Pro that's probably got better performance than the HP/Dell you're using not to mention that it's quieter by a factor of 10. Still not cheap, but you get one hell of a nice computer that you can sell for 70 cents on the dollar on eBay when you decide to upgrade. Woah! That'd be like $5K here!
When you extend the current idea of "DRM-enabled player", you presume to much by believing they will continue to support their own DRM and unprotected content. Oh, silly lad... That whole "DRM-less content" loophole will close any time now, leaving you stuck with disHarmony or PlayFair or PlaysForShit or whatever devil you choose as your only playable format. Your favorite artist changed vendors? Looks like you either get to carry two players, or re-buy your entire "can't live without" music library for the new DRM scheme. So, um, don't upgrade the firmware? I don't know of any devices that automatically do it without asking, so just don't do it (iPods might, just so Apple can retain the maximum control possible of their MP3 players)
MS Office would support PDF for free(*) too - in fact it did in the betas - if Adobe hadn't threatened legal action because it would cut into Acrobat sales. Antitrust, you know.
Just wait... Open Office gets big and Adobe'll be all over that too.
The only reason MS Office can't do that is because Adobe had a hissy fit when they tried. Threatened antitrust action because it cuts into sales of Acrobat Professional. (It was possible in Office 2007 betas, removed from Final)
Actually, Apple has a page saying that the levy was overturned and that if you paid it you're shit out of luck because they've given all the money to the Red Cross. Go figure.
The FSF nor the GPL do not define how copyright law applies, nor how it does not apply. Copyright law itself defines this. Copyright law is quite strong and far-reaching.
The FSF are copyright holders in GNU software. Under copyright law, this fact gives the FSF strong rights to control how their software may be copied. Note that the rights pertain to "copying", not just "distributing". This is copyright law, not the GPL. Half right. Actually, it gives them rights to control "copying" but absolutely none to control "distribution".
OK, copyright law says that in order to give out vouchers for a copyrighted work that enable someone to get a copy of the work, you need to have permission of the copyright holder. This is the law, it is not something invoked by the GPL or by the FSF. I see it's not just the FSF that know how to make shit up to prove an imaginary point. You most certainly do NOT need the permission of the copyright holder for such an act, it's an agreement between the distributor (who also doesn't need the permission of the copyright holder so long as the product was legally acquired, i.e. not copied) and the person printing vouchers.
OK, the FSF do give such permission via the GPL. Anyone abiding by the GPL has permission from the copyright holders to give out vouchers for GNU software. Anyone not abiding by the GPL has no such permission. It is as simple as that. Right, so it gives you permission to do something the copyright holder has no ability to prohibit. Therefore, even if the FSF tells you that you don't have permission to, you can still provide said vouchers.
The FSF press release is a statement of these facts. Actually, it's a statement of that bullshit, but OK.
And thank whatever deity the readers believe in that YOU are not a lawyer.
It is 100% legal for you to distribute MS Windows without agreeing to the EULA, provided that you did not need to make copies to do so (so therefore you simply transferred the physical product - remember, the physical media does not need a license, the license only becomes valid when you attempt to use the software within)
Where did I get a copy of Linux without agreeing to the GPL? Simple. I walked to my local computer store and bought a copy (around here you can get a Linux CD for $6 in the countries largest chain of computer stores) and/or bought a copy of PC World with Linux on the CD. In both cases, I did not need to agree to the GPL because the GPL expressly disclaims any binding for pure usage. And because I did not need to make copies, the GPL explicitly states that I am not bound by it.
Please do note that also means that I may choose to sell those copies onward, still without agreeing to the GPL!
Don't throw me that bullshit about conveyance. In a real court, those particular sections aren't valid anyway - the FSF does not have delegated authority to alter definitions created by common law, or to bind parties to a license when they do not take any action to invoke the requirement for a license under copyright law. Microsoft does not require a license under copyright law, because they are not distributing GNU+Linux. They are merely paying Novell for access to the software on your behalf so that you do not have to. Your argument is akin to binding a finance company to the GPL because they allowed you to get a machine with GNU+Linux on hire purchase - it doesn't happen.
You say that you cannot acquire GPL software without agreeing to the GPL, which is completely false. As well, the first paragraph of the GPL says that as long as I do not redistribute it it does not apply to me anyway!
How the fuck did you manage to turn this into an anti-proprietary-software rant? Lay off the drugs! I imagine if Redhat or Canonical had branches there, they'd do the same thing.
Did it occur to you that one of the key decisions that must be made by Yahoo in this case is "Am I willing to have myself and my staff imprisoned in order to protect one other person?" All things considered, I would answer "no". In a dodgy country like China, the government would be more than happy to persecute not just Yahoo, but its staff and their families as well in an effort to get what they want. Hell, it wouldn't be the first time,.
Actually, that's crap. Regardless of what the delusional fools at FSF believe, they cannot redefine the legal definition of "distribution". It is legal to distribute Linux without agreeing to the GPL for example, provided you do so in compliance with base copyright law (i.e. you distribute it in unmodified form - the law allows you to pass on any copyrighted work you currently possess without an explicit license from the copyright owner).
Also, as I said, NOTHING in the law permits you to bind third parties to a contract via definitions of distribution. The entire "conveyance" bullshit is null and void, because no law permits it to take effect.
I've said it before, and will say it again: any lawyer who actually believes those provisions of GPL3 will work needs to be disbarred, because they know law like I know astrophysics.
Which is to say, not at all.
Re:Is there a way to permanantly disable this?
on
Another Sony Rootkit?
·
· Score: 1
Windows drivers do run in User Mode. Very few need to (or do) run in Kernel Mode. Mostly things like Video, Network, Host Bus, and dodgy Printer drivers do. What would be better is if Kernel Mode drivers could run in Ring 1 instead of Ring 0. Well, that would be better if newer processors actually HAD a Ring 1.
He = Me. And not including Opera was an oversight.
And I explicitly avoided using the word "standards" because Slashdot doesn't work in a few standards compliant browsers.
Like Lynx.
It should also be noted that due to the simplicity of Slashdot's interface, they'd actually have to go out of their way to make it not work in Internet Explorer.
I don't care much, I only browse Slashdot in Firefox anyway. Although I do have issues with every now and again needing to close and re-open Firefox so that all the Javascript-crap actually works.
Ugh. Meridian. I still haven't set up my voice mail after 9 months at my work. Everyone who calls just gets "This user is not subscribed to this service" (subscribed? wtf?). Funnily enough, I think my predecessor using the same phone on the same PC and same port did have voicemail, it just mysteriously died.
Actually, from what I heard, Opera does a better job than all four at rendering standards based stuff. They all have their little quirks... Trident just has more than most.
But then I notice in the source code for this very compose message screen:
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I have no problems with Vista (apart from bloody annoying features, but everyone has that). It runs fine on my, yes, 1.4GHz processor with 1GB RAM (laptop, AMD processor).
It's my belief that you are talking shit, and at least I'm willing to sign my name to my statement.
You're correct. The laptop has only had one generation of Windows: Vista was pre-installed. I have had to upgrade the RAM from 512MB to 1GB, but since then it runs the same as the XP I still run on my desktop (which, incidentally, is a 3.2GHz P4 800MHz FSB Prescott with 1GB RAM) because - well, for a start XP isn't that bad, and second because Nvidia are bloody incompetent at making Vista drivers.
I think the main problem with Linux is that if a vendor releases a closed source driver (which some are obliged to do by legal agreements for other companies technologies) that the next minor Kernel release can break the driver. In the Windows world, it takes a major release to break drivers (i.e. Windows 4/Windows 98 to Windows 5/Windows 2000 or Windows 5.1/Windows XP to Windows 6/Windows Vista)
1. Have sound. If it does your so forever block from my browser and wallet its not even funny
This is an interesting issue. I can't see any reason to ever, EVER allow my web browser access to my sound device. Is there some way to stop it? SELinux maybe? You have options on Windows. You can either download FlashMute (which can actually prevent the entire browser from being able to make any sounds, although it was originally designed to mute Flash only), or if you have Vista you can simply click the Mute button for "Internet Explorer" or "Firefox" or "Opera" in the mixer (which nowadays allows you to mute or control the volume of individual applications). Damn, I wish that feature of Vista could be ported to other Operating Systems.
I presume that since it can be done on Windows, there is some way somehow to do this on Linux or MacOS X.
You appear to be under the mistaken illusion that MTV has Music.
http://www.google.com/domainpark/
presume to much by believing they will continue to support their
own DRM and unprotected content. Oh, silly lad... That
whole "DRM-less content" loophole will close any time now, leaving
you stuck with disHarmony or PlayFair or PlaysForShit or whatever
devil you choose as your only playable format. Your favorite
artist changed vendors? Looks like you either get to carry two
players, or re-buy your entire "can't live without" music library
for the new DRM scheme. So, um, don't upgrade the firmware? I don't know of any devices that automatically do it without asking, so just don't do it (iPods might, just so Apple can retain the maximum control possible of their MP3 players)
MS Office would support PDF for free(*) too - in fact it did in the betas - if Adobe hadn't threatened legal action because it would cut into Acrobat sales. Antitrust, you know.
Just wait... Open Office gets big and Adobe'll be all over that too.
The only reason MS Office can't do that is because Adobe had a hissy fit when they tried. Threatened antitrust action because it cuts into sales of Acrobat Professional. (It was possible in Office 2007 betas, removed from Final)
Did you mean:
1. A desktop and a laptop with MS Office and its snazzy interface.
2. A desktop and a laptop with Open Office, which you can use right away.
I see we have a new twitter account abound.
Linux is a registered trademark of the Linux Foundation actually.
Actually, Apple has a page saying that the levy was overturned and that if you paid it you're shit out of luck because they've given all the money to the Red Cross. Go figure.
The FSF are copyright holders in GNU software. Under copyright law, this fact gives the FSF strong rights to control how their software may be copied. Note that the rights pertain to "copying", not just "distributing". This is copyright law, not the GPL. Half right. Actually, it gives them rights to control "copying" but absolutely none to control "distribution". OK, copyright law says that in order to give out vouchers for a copyrighted work that enable someone to get a copy of the work, you need to have permission of the copyright holder. This is the law, it is not something invoked by the GPL or by the FSF. I see it's not just the FSF that know how to make shit up to prove an imaginary point. You most certainly do NOT need the permission of the copyright holder for such an act, it's an agreement between the distributor (who also doesn't need the permission of the copyright holder so long as the product was legally acquired, i.e. not copied) and the person printing vouchers. OK, the FSF do give such permission via the GPL. Anyone abiding by the GPL has permission from the copyright holders to give out vouchers for GNU software. Anyone not abiding by the GPL has no such permission. It is as simple as that. Right, so it gives you permission to do something the copyright holder has no ability to prohibit. Therefore, even if the FSF tells you that you don't have permission to, you can still provide said vouchers. The FSF press release is a statement of these facts. Actually, it's a statement of that bullshit, but OK.
And thank whatever deity the readers believe in that YOU are not a lawyer.
It is 100% legal for you to distribute MS Windows without agreeing to the EULA, provided that you did not need to make copies to do so (so therefore you simply transferred the physical product - remember, the physical media does not need a license, the license only becomes valid when you attempt to use the software within)
Where did I get a copy of Linux without agreeing to the GPL? Simple. I walked to my local computer store and bought a copy (around here you can get a Linux CD for $6 in the countries largest chain of computer stores) and/or bought a copy of PC World with Linux on the CD. In both cases, I did not need to agree to the GPL because the GPL expressly disclaims any binding for pure usage. And because I did not need to make copies, the GPL explicitly states that I am not bound by it.
Please do note that also means that I may choose to sell those copies onward, still without agreeing to the GPL!
Don't throw me that bullshit about conveyance. In a real court, those particular sections aren't valid anyway - the FSF does not have delegated authority to alter definitions created by common law, or to bind parties to a license when they do not take any action to invoke the requirement for a license under copyright law. Microsoft does not require a license under copyright law, because they are not distributing GNU+Linux. They are merely paying Novell for access to the software on your behalf so that you do not have to. Your argument is akin to binding a finance company to the GPL because they allowed you to get a machine with GNU+Linux on hire purchase - it doesn't happen.
You say that you cannot acquire GPL software without agreeing to the GPL, which is completely false. As well, the first paragraph of the GPL says that as long as I do not redistribute it it does not apply to me anyway!
How the fuck did you manage to turn this into an anti-proprietary-software rant? Lay off the drugs! I imagine if Redhat or Canonical had branches there, they'd do the same thing.
Did it occur to you that one of the key decisions that must be made by Yahoo in this case is "Am I willing to have myself and my staff imprisoned in order to protect one other person?" All things considered, I would answer "no". In a dodgy country like China, the government would be more than happy to persecute not just Yahoo, but its staff and their families as well in an effort to get what they want. Hell, it wouldn't be the first time,.
Actually, that's crap. Regardless of what the delusional fools at FSF believe, they cannot redefine the legal definition of "distribution". It is legal to distribute Linux without agreeing to the GPL for example, provided you do so in compliance with base copyright law (i.e. you distribute it in unmodified form - the law allows you to pass on any copyrighted work you currently possess without an explicit license from the copyright owner).
Also, as I said, NOTHING in the law permits you to bind third parties to a contract via definitions of distribution. The entire "conveyance" bullshit is null and void, because no law permits it to take effect.
I've said it before, and will say it again: any lawyer who actually believes those provisions of GPL3 will work needs to be disbarred, because they know law like I know astrophysics.
Which is to say, not at all.
Windows drivers do run in User Mode. Very few need to (or do) run in Kernel Mode. Mostly things like Video, Network, Host Bus, and dodgy Printer drivers do. What would be better is if Kernel Mode drivers could run in Ring 1 instead of Ring 0. Well, that would be better if newer processors actually HAD a Ring 1.
It's like the resource fork of a file on an HFS+ disk (Mac OS)
The problem is that macOSX.getPrice() is a very large number, and linuxDistro[index].getRequiredCompetency() is the same. No dice.
Are you implying that Duke Nukem Forever may be released this millennium?
He = Me. And not including Opera was an oversight.
And I explicitly avoided using the word "standards" because Slashdot doesn't work in a few standards compliant browsers.
Like Lynx.
It should also be noted that due to the simplicity of Slashdot's interface, they'd actually have to go out of their way to make it not work in Internet Explorer.
I don't care much, I only browse Slashdot in Firefox anyway. Although I do have issues with every now and again needing to close and re-open Firefox so that all the Javascript-crap actually works.
Ugh. Meridian. I still haven't set up my voice mail after 9 months at my work. Everyone who calls just gets "This user is not subscribed to this service" (subscribed? wtf?). Funnily enough, I think my predecessor using the same phone on the same PC and same port did have voicemail, it just mysteriously died.
Actually, from what I heard, Opera does a better job than all four at rendering standards based stuff. They all have their little quirks... Trident just has more than most.
1 70"><![endif]-->
But then I notice in the source code for this very compose message screen:
<!--[if IE]><link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="screen, projection" href="//images.slashdot.org/iestyles.css?T_2_5_0_
The perfect opportunity to make all the hacks they need (or better yet, not apply those hacks to IE7)