But what's the problem about the field being not level? Look at all those applications that exist for Windows. Are those having any actualy problems? Anything that normal apps would do, but can't?
The only thing I can imagine is that some people would like access to internal APIs that aren't really relevant to the normal application developer, and it's MS's right to not disclose them, in my moral sense, if not in the EU's legal sense.
Similarly you could ask Apple to open up everything that's closed right now, but I'm not sure that that's important. Sure, some things that deeply affect the system can't be changed without that information, but why is it necessary that third parties modify the very core of the system or the user interface? Aren't there enough areas for third parties to compete on the Windows platform? Why is there some necessity for them to compete in areas that can be considered private or internal to the Windows platform and to MS?
No, the verification is only concerned with safety in a static sense, so that the loaded code can't break anything; it's certainly nothing about runtime, so it isn't NP-complete, and it doesn't suffer from some halting problem. But this load-time verification isn't safe, as some paper claimed. And IIRC there was some exploit that resulted in insecure code being loaded on cellphones, so that from inside the JVM the cellphone could execute unsafe code, which is supposedly not possible with Java.
The Java compiler can not determine static type safety, because Java allows exceptions in the type system (not Java exceptions), i.e. type casts. You can put Cars in a list and you get Objects out of the list. You have to cast them, but that's statically unsafe; only the VM can at runtime determine if it is safe. Other languages, say, ML, have real parametric types that are determined statically, at compile time.
The exploit was an implementation fault, because cellphones leave out the verifier, but the paper that said that Java didn't live up to its safety claims was about the JVM per se. It was from '98-02 I'd say, not later. Unfortunately I can't remember the author, or the exact name. Google doesn't find me anything.
Two things: We wouldn't have a different EU commission in any case, because the voters don't really have any power over the EU. The EU parliament's powers are a joke.
I agree that *using* a monopoly in unfair ways should be illegal, but I can't think of illegal ways right now. There are other OSes than Windows. There's lots of software for Windows, as well. Sure, MS delivers their browser and media player with the system, as do Apple and most Linux vendors. So what? They don't open their system too much? So what? There are tons of software for Windows, and if the APIs aren't enough, then switch to another system. If your software is so great that it needs more than Windows's power, then it should be a breeze to sell that to potential customers. And how expensive is it for a company that uses Windows for some tasks, to buy another computer with different software on it? There are MANY companies that use both Windows and Macs, or both Windows and Unix workstations, and for a reason.
Basically, if there's no coercion involved (i.e. gun to the head), it can't be too bad. Maybe you don't like it, but you can always choose differently, as can everyone else. It's not MS's fault that people banding together to create alternative software wasn't too successful yet (I wouldn't count Linux as too successful; especially in the technical sense I don't consider it too great).
I'm not even sure if Java does have provably type safety. AFAIK there was a paper that the JVM's verification system isn't safe, and there have been some exploits for some cellphone's JVMs as well by using "customized" bytecode. The Java *language*, as opposed to the JVM, doesn't even have static type safety, because it leaves a lot of stuff to the VM. Even in Java 5 which has static type checking for generic lists (for instance) there are still lots of runtime checks inside the VM.
The tiny little bit of difference is that Sarbannes-Oxley affects all companies, but this particular case of EU law only affects one single company, albeit a big one. Sorry if I find it unfair to use different measures for different companies, only because this one is bigger and doesn't write their software in the way that the Eurocrats would like.
If a particular *paying* customer would ask for a certain feature, maybe MS would even consider it, who knows? There's the way of peace, and then there's simple blackmail.
No, it IS stupid, because those laws aren't in any way reasonable. They'd be reasonable if indeed the vast majority of EU voters were in favor of heavily regulating Microsoft -- of course it's obvious that all of this regulation is totally on a whim, just because MS is big.
IF the voters want this regulation, why the hell don't they simply refrain from BUYING MS's software? Yes, that's BUYING, as in paying money in a voluntary exchange between two trade parties. It's about *choice*.
I know what I'm talking about. I live in Europe, and I have a Mac. I bought it on my own free will, because I'm not content with Windows, nor with Linux (yes, mod me down for that).
To me it seems that Europeans don't want to buy MS stuff, nor do they want to refrain from buying it. What they really want, or what in any case the EU wants, is to FORCE MS to produce the kind of software THEY want. Obviously something is *very* wrong about that. Either they should produce their own stuff to their liking, or they should buy MS stuff and shut up. Forcing other people into doing what YOU want by putting a gun to their head (or asking for a few million bucks) just isn't civilized, it's Mafia methods.
Economy-wise the current Republicans are socialist indeed. In every other regard they're almost fascist, or at least far fundamentalist right-wing, IMHO.
I'm libertarian, which is often called right-wing, but it's really about removing concentration of power and removing central planning, which provably doesn't work well. In principle I'm against taxation and stuff like that, but in practice a welfare-state like we have it in Germany is a Good Thing.
I think the main reason why Democrats aren't considered left-wing in Europe is that the USA don't have much of a consistent, safe-for-everybody welfare system, and that they are pro-war too and pro-big-corporate in most cases (which I oppose as a green libertarian).
Well, Fascism entails more than just the economic sphere, especially very strict conditioning of peoples' personal lives. But economy-wise e.g. Nazi Germany, and probably other Fascist states, strongly resemble aspects of today's economy, yes.
I wouldn't say though, that it's just the present administration. In Germany it's a trend that started in the '70s (when we still had a mostly free economy, plus welfare-state); from what I've heard in the US it started in the whole 20th century, with interventionist pre-recession politics, and then the New Deal to forever make clear that government and economy should be one.
They are Socialist, in that they like to stick their fingers in all things economical, often seemingly without understanding what consequences their actions will provoke in the system. That's a little bit as if I tried to do surgery; it should not be.
The Republicans are fascist, in that they like to meddle in your private lives.
Both is wrong, especially plundering honest working people for taxes and going to war to hurt or kill even more innocent people.
I meant that you hav to choose between Socialists (who want more state in the economy, and less state in private affairs) and Conservatives, who want less state in the economy (well, at least before Bush they said so) and lots of state in your private affairs, so you don't do anything they consider as wrong.
I want more freedom in everything (i.e. less of the Dem/Rep state), I want no war, I want no stupid laws to oppress poor people, etc., which makes me some kind of Green Libertarian. At least in Germany those parties are even represented in parliament.
Hm, I agree, but still I don't think it's good if anybody supports both parties, because that's worse than supporting none of them. After all, there are more than two parties, and any support only increases their power.
It'd be wrong to say that US politics are about *choice* in most cases. At least to me, having to choose between a Socialist and a Conservative redneck isn't choice.
Why I don't use legal music downloads? Because they quite frankly suck!
Honestly, I can get most CDs that are maybe a year old (and face it, 95% of good music is probably not totally brand-new) for no more than $10. And that includes a backup, in case my computer dies. It includes a booklet, a copy of my music to listen to in the car (if I had one, that is). It includes the ability to re-rip the music in better quality, or in another format (MP3, AAC, Vorbis, you name it), should another cellphone or music player come along for me. It's convenient, since I can buy not only the mainstream stuff available on iTunes, but CDs from any band I could wish for. Oh, did I mention it's 44kHz sampling and no lossy encoding? And no DRM at all, so I may actually listen to my paid-for music on whatever music player I like to use?
It's called competition, baby. Embrace it or fall!
To me that's just the way it should be. Why force website-owners to disclose lots of information? Why not just have a DNS registry where you register, and where they (the registrars) can contact you? When you don't want the domain anymore, you simply cancel the contract.
Why public disclosure of website owners at all? To me this looks just like more "anti-terrorist" measures created by rabid governments (only that all of it happened waaay before 9/11), i.e. none of it does actually serve a useful purpose.
Websites, like stores, that want verifiable identities can simply tell the registrar to make their information public, but there are reasons for other people not to do so.
Germany has patents. In fact patents are nothing but a state-enforced monopoly, so Socialism is likely to have more patents than (real) capitalism.
Why develop stuff that others can copy? Because you're first to market, and thus likely to have much more market share, a better public image, more revenues, and likely more profits (first-to-market companies often have all of those characteristics, even for non-patented stuff).
Secondly, *people* develop stuff, and the heavy costs are a production thing. We have ARM, Intel, PPC, SPARC and others. Why? Well, there are reasons. But a company like ARM does nothing but produce designs for reuse. Manufacturing is elsewhere. Patents don't protect them from competition (see all those other CPUs), only quality and price do.
Thirdly, big companies could share costs and invest into big research centers. What else is public research, but jointly funded research?
Hell, even the Nazis and Soviets had some innovation. Does that in any way justify their means?
Do you think that those innovations that we've had under the patent system wouldn't have occurred otherwise? Just take a look at what isn't at all patented today.
They are just average people. Maybe they could get better, bribe-proof people by paying more for the job.
The problem lies in the system, in the perversion of granting a minority of society exclusive, monopolist rights to certain *ideas*, just because they
* got there first
* know how to work the system (i.e. formulate patents, so they sound NEW)
Before there were patents and government protection to monopolies, there were multiple competing providers, for phone service, water, gas, electricity, at least in most US cities.
Of course, since government started it, it's only fair that they clean up the mess now.:)
Europe wasn't as lucky to start with competing providers. We had France Telecom, Deutsche Telekom and that kind of stuff, all backed by government.
Centrally planned economy in all its glory. OF COURSE that makes those big corporations a bit more powerful than they should be, now that they're privatized. Maybe regulation in the other direction is what it takes to get some competition going in this defunct market.
Oh, I'm sure there's many good people in politics (actually, when I was in Wisconsin for a year, my impression was that your democracy is far closer to the citizen than it is in Germany).
But the concept of government power is a problem. In the USA state law might only be a minor annoyance (and many funny, weird laws:D), while federal law seems often quite drastic.
If I could do one reform in the USA or Germany, it'd be cutting back the federal level and extending state powers, so one bad law couldn't ruin the whole country.
I quite agree with your conclusions. Lots of companies will try to avoid GPL3. In some cases though that won't be necessary. I think there'll still be application servers or PHP that won't be GPL3, so that business logic can be kept secret.
I'm not sure if RMS wants everything free, but he definitely wants a whole big community free, and extend his grip;)
I'm not a huge GPL fan, so there's still the MPL and the BSD and derivatives out there, and they're growing fans I think.
Basically all coercion is bad, but the vast majority of people out there is riding some brain-washing wave, so they can't be bothered to check logical arguments. For that reason I sometimes present the simpler, shorter suggestion: just abolish democracy, and live within a minarchist constitution that limits what the remaining state can do. Of course it's biased in some way, but as long as that way is about limiting remaining state power, it should be rather good.
Democracy isn't as different from a dictatorship as you might think. In one case one person wields absolute power (and s/he is good or bad). In the democratic case people elect a government that consists of administrators (i.e. also good or bad people) that usually do whatever pays them the most (or their friends, or their bribesters). For one thing the people don't govern, they merely delegate their power to public admins; and secondly, you don't know if the majority is good, or if they're rabid racists.
By the way, Germany in the '20s democratically elected Adolf Hitler. They also pretty much agreed to Total War.
Why don't you say something more specific instead of just saying "completely inaccurate" as AC?
Patents might be one issue, but a couple of months ago I read something about GPL3 and they said they wanted to adapt it to this sort of web-app-usage, where people don't bother to publish their modified code.
Oops, make that "if you want to publish OR have it used...".
Your sendmail and Apache examples would qualify for that, yes, if they were GPL3 (if they really are going to change the GPL in this way).
I think something like MySQL that isn't directly linked with the rest of your app wouldn't count, but I don't know the specifics. Maybe they'll also change "linking" to something else.
What "these people really need" is probably best answered by themselves.
They typically do this by buying what gets them the most value for their buck, in the short or long term (or only short term if their country doesn't yet have banking and property rights to get a credit). If some (maybe the more well-off) communities choose to invest into a laptop, then that's good for them. Other communities might want to invest more in a clean water supply, maybe housing, maybe contraceptives.
Slashdot Mirror
But what's the problem about the field being not level?
Look at all those applications that exist for Windows. Are those having any actualy problems? Anything that normal apps would do, but can't?
The only thing I can imagine is that some people would like access to internal APIs that aren't really relevant to the normal application developer, and it's MS's right to not disclose them, in my moral sense, if not in the EU's legal sense.
Similarly you could ask Apple to open up everything that's closed right now, but I'm not sure that that's important. Sure, some things that deeply affect the system can't be changed without that information, but why is it necessary that third parties modify the very core of the system or the user interface? Aren't there enough areas for third parties to compete on the Windows platform? Why is there some necessity for them to compete in areas that can be considered private or internal to the Windows platform and to MS?
No, the verification is only concerned with safety in a static sense, so that the loaded code can't break anything; it's certainly nothing about runtime, so it isn't NP-complete, and it doesn't suffer from some halting problem. But this load-time verification isn't safe, as some paper claimed. And IIRC there was some exploit that resulted in insecure code being loaded on cellphones, so that from inside the JVM the cellphone could execute unsafe code, which is supposedly not possible with Java.
The Java compiler can not determine static type safety, because Java allows exceptions in the type system (not Java exceptions), i.e. type casts. You can put Cars in a list and you get Objects out of the list. You have to cast them, but that's statically unsafe; only the VM can at runtime determine if it is safe. Other languages, say, ML, have real parametric types that are determined statically, at compile time.
The exploit was an implementation fault, because cellphones leave out the verifier, but the paper that said that Java didn't live up to its safety claims was about the JVM per se. It was from '98-02 I'd say, not later. Unfortunately I can't remember the author, or the exact name. Google doesn't find me anything.
Two things:
We wouldn't have a different EU commission in any case, because the voters don't really have any power over the EU. The EU parliament's powers are a joke.
I agree that *using* a monopoly in unfair ways should be illegal, but I can't think of illegal ways right now. There are other OSes than Windows. There's lots of software for Windows, as well. Sure, MS delivers their browser and media player with the system, as do Apple and most Linux vendors. So what? They don't open their system too much? So what? There are tons of software for Windows, and if the APIs aren't enough, then switch to another system. If your software is so great that it needs more than Windows's power, then it should be a breeze to sell that to potential customers. And how expensive is it for a company that uses Windows for some tasks, to buy another computer with different software on it? There are MANY companies that use both Windows and Macs, or both Windows and Unix workstations, and for a reason.
Basically, if there's no coercion involved (i.e. gun to the head), it can't be too bad. Maybe you don't like it, but you can always choose differently, as can everyone else. It's not MS's fault that people banding together to create alternative software wasn't too successful yet (I wouldn't count Linux as too successful; especially in the technical sense I don't consider it too great).
I'm not even sure if Java does have provably type safety. AFAIK there was a paper that the JVM's verification system isn't safe, and there have been some exploits for some cellphone's JVMs as well by using "customized" bytecode. The Java *language*, as opposed to the JVM, doesn't even have static type safety, because it leaves a lot of stuff to the VM. Even in Java 5 which has static type checking for generic lists (for instance) there are still lots of runtime checks inside the VM.
The tiny little bit of difference is that Sarbannes-Oxley affects all companies, but this particular case of EU law only affects one single company, albeit a big one. Sorry if I find it unfair to use different measures for different companies, only because this one is bigger and doesn't write their software in the way that the Eurocrats would like.
If a particular *paying* customer would ask for a certain feature, maybe MS would even consider it, who knows? There's the way of peace, and then there's simple blackmail.
No, it IS stupid, because those laws aren't in any way reasonable. They'd be reasonable if indeed the vast majority of EU voters were in favor of heavily regulating Microsoft -- of course it's obvious that all of this regulation is totally on a whim, just because MS is big.
IF the voters want this regulation, why the hell don't they simply refrain from BUYING MS's software? Yes, that's BUYING, as in paying money in a voluntary exchange between two trade parties. It's about *choice*.
I know what I'm talking about. I live in Europe, and I have a Mac. I bought it on my own free will, because I'm not content with Windows, nor with Linux (yes, mod me down for that).
To me it seems that Europeans don't want to buy MS stuff, nor do they want to refrain from buying it. What they really want, or what in any case the EU wants, is to FORCE MS to produce the kind of software THEY want. Obviously something is *very* wrong about that. Either they should produce their own stuff to their liking, or they should buy MS stuff and shut up. Forcing other people into doing what YOU want by putting a gun to their head (or asking for a few million bucks) just isn't civilized, it's Mafia methods.
Economy-wise the current Republicans are socialist indeed. In every other regard they're almost fascist, or at least far fundamentalist right-wing, IMHO.
I'm libertarian, which is often called right-wing, but it's really about removing concentration of power and removing central planning, which provably doesn't work well. In principle I'm against taxation and stuff like that, but in practice a welfare-state like we have it in Germany is a Good Thing.
I think the main reason why Democrats aren't considered left-wing in Europe is that the USA don't have much of a consistent, safe-for-everybody welfare system, and that they are pro-war too and pro-big-corporate in most cases (which I oppose as a green libertarian).
Well, Fascism entails more than just the economic sphere, especially very strict conditioning of peoples' personal lives. But economy-wise e.g. Nazi Germany, and probably other Fascist states, strongly resemble aspects of today's economy, yes.
I wouldn't say though, that it's just the present administration. In Germany it's a trend that started in the '70s (when we still had a mostly free economy, plus welfare-state); from what I've heard in the US it started in the whole 20th century, with interventionist pre-recession politics, and then the New Deal to forever make clear that government and economy should be one.
No definitely, the mere mortal girl in your bed is much better than the model on the roof!
They are Socialist, in that they like to stick their fingers in all things economical, often seemingly without understanding what consequences their actions will provoke in the system. That's a little bit as if I tried to do surgery; it should not be.
The Republicans are fascist, in that they like to meddle in your private lives.
Both is wrong, especially plundering honest working people for taxes and going to war to hurt or kill even more innocent people.
Thanks, I know what Socialism is ;)
I meant that you hav to choose between Socialists (who want more state in the economy, and less state in private affairs) and Conservatives, who want less state in the economy (well, at least before Bush they said so) and lots of state in your private affairs, so you don't do anything they consider as wrong.
I want more freedom in everything (i.e. less of the Dem/Rep state), I want no war, I want no stupid laws to oppress poor people, etc., which makes me some kind of Green Libertarian. At least in Germany those parties are even represented in parliament.
Hm, I agree, but still I don't think it's good if anybody supports both parties, because that's worse than supporting none of them. After all, there are more than two parties, and any support only increases their power.
It'd be wrong to say that US politics are about *choice* in most cases. At least to me, having to choose between a Socialist and a Conservative redneck isn't choice.
Why I don't use legal music downloads? Because they quite frankly suck!
Honestly, I can get most CDs that are maybe a year old (and face it, 95% of good music is probably not totally brand-new) for no more than $10. And that includes a backup, in case my computer dies. It includes a booklet, a copy of my music to listen to in the car (if I had one, that is). It includes the ability to re-rip the music in better quality, or in another format (MP3, AAC, Vorbis, you name it), should another cellphone or music player come along for me. It's convenient, since I can buy not only the mainstream stuff available on iTunes, but CDs from any band I could wish for. Oh, did I mention it's 44kHz sampling and no lossy encoding? And no DRM at all, so I may actually listen to my paid-for music on whatever music player I like to use?
It's called competition, baby. Embrace it or fall!
To me that's just the way it should be. Why force website-owners to disclose lots of information? Why not just have a DNS registry where you register, and where they (the registrars) can contact you? When you don't want the domain anymore, you simply cancel the contract.
Why public disclosure of website owners at all? To me this looks just like more "anti-terrorist" measures created by rabid governments (only that all of it happened waaay before 9/11), i.e. none of it does actually serve a useful purpose.
Websites, like stores, that want verifiable identities can simply tell the registrar to make their information public, but there are reasons for other people not to do so.
Germany has patents. In fact patents are nothing but a state-enforced monopoly, so Socialism is likely to have more patents than (real) capitalism.
Why develop stuff that others can copy? Because you're first to market, and thus likely to have much more market share, a better public image, more revenues, and likely more profits (first-to-market companies often have all of those characteristics, even for non-patented stuff).
Secondly, *people* develop stuff, and the heavy costs are a production thing. We have ARM, Intel, PPC, SPARC and others. Why? Well, there are reasons. But a company like ARM does nothing but produce designs for reuse. Manufacturing is elsewhere. Patents don't protect them from competition (see all those other CPUs), only quality and price do.
Thirdly, big companies could share costs and invest into big research centers. What else is public research, but jointly funded research?
Now that's a pretty useless comment to make.
Hell, even the Nazis and Soviets had some innovation. Does that in any way justify their means?
Do you think that those innovations that we've had under the patent system wouldn't have occurred otherwise? Just take a look at what isn't at all patented today.
They are just average people. Maybe they could get better, bribe-proof people by paying more for the job.
The problem lies in the system, in the perversion of granting a minority of society exclusive, monopolist rights to certain *ideas*, just because they
* got there first
* know how to work the system (i.e. formulate patents, so they sound NEW)
Before there were patents and government protection to monopolies, there were multiple competing providers, for phone service, water, gas, electricity, at least in most US cities.
:)
Of course, since government started it, it's only fair that they clean up the mess now.
Europe wasn't as lucky to start with competing providers. We had France Telecom, Deutsche Telekom and that kind of stuff, all backed by government.
Centrally planned economy in all its glory. OF COURSE that makes those big corporations a bit more powerful than they should be, now that they're privatized. Maybe regulation in the other direction is what it takes to get some competition going in this defunct market.
Oh, I'm sure there's many good people in politics (actually, when I was in Wisconsin for a year, my impression was that your democracy is far closer to the citizen than it is in Germany).
:D), while federal law seems often quite drastic.
But the concept of government power is a problem. In the USA state law might only be a minor annoyance (and many funny, weird laws
If I could do one reform in the USA or Germany, it'd be cutting back the federal level and extending state powers, so one bad law couldn't ruin the whole country.
I quite agree with your conclusions. Lots of companies will try to avoid GPL3. In some cases though that won't be necessary. I think there'll still be application servers or PHP that won't be GPL3, so that business logic can be kept secret.
;)
I'm not sure if RMS wants everything free, but he definitely wants a whole big community free, and extend his grip
I'm not a huge GPL fan, so there's still the MPL and the BSD and derivatives out there, and they're growing fans I think.
Basically all coercion is bad, but the vast majority of people out there is riding some brain-washing wave, so they can't be bothered to check logical arguments. For that reason I sometimes present the simpler, shorter suggestion: just abolish democracy, and live within a minarchist constitution that limits what the remaining state can do. Of course it's biased in some way, but as long as that way is about limiting remaining state power, it should be rather good.
i es.html
Democracy isn't as different from a dictatorship as you might think. In one case one person wields absolute power (and s/he is good or bad). In the democratic case people elect a government that consists of administrators (i.e. also good or bad people) that usually do whatever pays them the most (or their friends, or their bribesters). For one thing the people don't govern, they merely delegate their power to public admins; and secondly, you don't know if the majority is good, or if they're rabid racists.
By the way, Germany in the '20s democratically elected Adolf Hitler. They also pretty much agreed to Total War.
Maybe it wouldn't hurt to read this:
http://fare.tunes.org/liberty/public_goods_fallac
if you're not sure about how good the state really is.
Sorry for replying to myself. It was covered here on /. :3 4&tid=117&tid=185&tid=95
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/30/06272
Why don't you say something more specific instead of just saying "completely inaccurate" as AC?
Patents might be one issue, but a couple of months ago I read something about GPL3 and they said they wanted to adapt it to this sort of web-app-usage, where people don't bother to publish their modified code.
Oops, make that "if you want to publish OR have it used...".
Your sendmail and Apache examples would qualify for that, yes, if they were GPL3 (if they really are going to change the GPL in this way).
I think something like MySQL that isn't directly linked with the rest of your app wouldn't count, but I don't know the specifics. Maybe they'll also change "linking" to something else.
What "these people really need" is probably best answered by themselves.
They typically do this by buying what gets them the most value for their buck, in the short or long term (or only short term if their country doesn't yet have banking and property rights to get a credit). If some (maybe the more well-off) communities choose to invest into a laptop, then that's good for them. Other communities might want to invest more in a clean water supply, maybe housing, maybe contraceptives.