Windows ME Windows 2000 pre-SP3 XP pre-SP1 Most of the first-party XBox 1 titles save for Halo, which wasn't really first-party MS SQL Server Internet Explorer 5 Internet Explorer 6 Internet Explorer 7 Frontpage Microsoft Messenger Windows Messenger Live Messenger Office 97 (barely within the last decade, but it was truly horrible) Windows Mail Outlook Express Microsoft Mail Netmeeting MSN Explorer Microsoft Sharepoint Server Microsoft Works Microsoft Money Virtual PC IE For Mac Microsoft Anti-Virus Office Assistant Visual FoxPro Microsoft Binder Hotmail
And don't forget blunders like PlaysForSure, Zune, etc.
It isn't my first choice for a distro, but it seems to be the fasting growing distro for whatever reason.
I'm a KDE fan and not much of a fan of Gnome personally, so I installed Kubuntu on my wife's box. I was a big fan of SuSe formally, but I won't touch Novell products after the Novell-MS deal.
My wife was shocked how fast the Kubuntu install was. It bothered me how simple it was, it offered no real advanced options. But to someone new to Linux, it is perhaps perfect. Her laptop isn't particularly fast, but her install took something like 20 minutes, where as XP installs in say 40 on the same laptop.
If you're new to Linux and considering giving it a try, I recommend looking up a LiveCD, which will allow you to try Linux without formating your computer or installing anything. The other thing you will want to look into right away is what hardware you have, and if you'll have any driver issues with Linux. Linux has an incredibly library of drivers for all kinds of architecture, and plenty of legacy support, but it isn't perfect. My wife's built in wireless card keeps dropping signal in Linux because the driver is shitty.
Also research how to install proprietary stuff and if you want/need to. Because of licensing, out of the box, Ubuntu/Kubuntu and most distros don't have support for Quicktime, Real Player, MP3's, ATI drivers, NVidia drivers, etc. Often these aren't hard to install, but they can't be bundled with the original installer.
Several years back I tried Mandrake. I couldn't run any games, and I longed for various Windows apps I missed. About two years ago I gave Gentoo a try, and found that the Linux desktop has progressed greatly. There is plenty of stable, feature-rich apps for all my needs on Linux. In fact, some of the Linux apps far surpass anything I can find on Windows (like Amarok).
It isn't hard to take KDE and make it look and operate like Windows enough that people will just sit down and know how to use it.
Really, all that leaves on the list is that everyone else does.
Except the actual cost to you here is $50. If you intend to install Linux, I doubt you're rushing down to Best Buy to pay $250 for Vista. If you buy a new rig today, you get Vista preinstalled, pretty much if you want it or not. The $50 in difference in price isn't huge. For those that are comfortable with Linux alone can take advantage of the discount, and be content that they aren't financially supporting the boys in Redmond, but neither Dell nor you were paying Microsoft $250 for Vista when you're buying a Dell desktop.
Many Linux users are willing to buy their own rigs, or have been content to purchase Windows and then either dual-boot or just format and install Linux.
I don't think this move will equate to widespread acceptance of Linux on the desktop for the home. You're not going to shop Dell's site as a Windows lover with no Linux experience and say, "since Dell is selling Linux, I think I'll give it a try and buy a computer without Windows!"
It is nice that people will save money, however, there is a potential large impact of this move.
Several IT departments in all kinds of large corporations struggle with trying to get corporate suits to accept Linux in the workplace. And while large companies like RedHat or Novell will sell support, corporations like familiarity and standardization. If said corporation has a corporate contract with Dell, and Dell is officially standing behind Ubuntu and selling Ubuntu preinstalled, and you can see it as a cost-cutting move to the suits at the same time, then this might help spread the acceptance of Linux in the workplace.
Other companies have had their EULA win in courts before and it isn't like the GPL is new (save for the new version). Apple is fully aware of the licenses that they agreed to.
Let's say everytime there is a new version of LGPL program X, Apple just makes it a download available via iTunes specific for the iPhone. They even hash the download.
I doubt it, unless you tried to excuse them of fraud/extortion.
Let's say the argument is that they made up the patent allegations as a means to defraud/con people into these vendor agreements. Under those terms, I can see a court order demanding they produce such a list to ensure Microsoft wasn't defrauding Novell.
The license wouldn't suit all projects obviously, but for several scenarios such as Java, PDF, Flash, video drivers, etc. it would be perfect. It prevents someone else forking, or developing their own proprietary version while still allowing the code to be redistributed, community developed, and even modified for personal use.
The entire purpose of the license is to protect those who under most circumstances wouldn't fully open up their sources under any other terms. Consider it a "better than nothing" license. ATI or NVidia could open their drivers under this license, and it beats not releasing the code.
I understand the distinction. Again, between the browser or the syncing function, Apple could allow a mechanism for the user to install updates to the LGPL portions. When you've seen proof that Apple intends to violate this, let me know.
The supposition hangs on two points. First, that the iPhone is using LGPL code. The second is that Apple intends to violate the license and not allow for people to install updates.
Given that the phone has a browser, and that it can sync with iTunes, applying updates is something that is built into the system. iPods update their firmware when you sync them.
If you have proof the phone has LGPL software, and that Apple intends to refuse updates, then by all means get upset. Until then, this is still FUD.
I think we do need a new license for OSS projects, and it isn't GPL v3. Consider this scenario:
BSD licenses allow for people to take and never give anything back. The GPL has evolved into its own form of shackles, loopholes and lengthy clauses. CC is a pretty decent concept to protect your work. Sun has been under all this pressure to GPL Java for ages. Adobe releases API and code for certain products and technologies like Flash and PDF, but needs to protect their interests. What if I have a technology that I wish to be fairly open, and allow the community to help develop. I want people to be able to see the libraries and API to extend the technology. But I also need to protect against forking and theft.
What we need is a license that is simple and short like a BSD license but provides these basic functionalities.
1 - The material may be distributed freely so long as the copyright and license agreement stays with it. 2 - The material may be altered for personal use and/or community development. 3 - If you choose to alter the material, if requested, you must pass your changes upstream to be reviewed. 4 - You may not distribute forks or derived materials without explicit permission. For this there would be a specific license to grant a "fork" which also must remain open to allow changes to drift back upstream.
Wouldn't a license like this be absolutely perfect for a great deal of scenarios?
Java, Flash, and PDF technologies could be protected from forks and theft, but we could compile plugins for any OS and architecture. This license would also be perfect for NVidia or ATI's drivers. ATI could open their drivers without fear of NVidia stealing technology, because NVidia can't fork it, or take part of it without explicit permission, and vice-versa. This would save these companies money by allowing the community to develop and maintain ports of their software products.
Imagine how this would apply to Tivo.
Let's say Tivo and the software they use is now part of license X. Since the source is open, you can install upgrades, recompile, or even tweak and extend the software on your personal box. Tivo wants to protect themselves that they aren't losing on the service. They can ask to see modifications that people make, which is a provision of the license, and thusly keep on pace with the hackers to make sure they aren't circumventing the Tivo service.
Honestly, if Tivo did such a thing, most of the hackers would buy Tivo boxes, and likely even pay for the service instead of circumventing it. Now they'd have an easier, and legal method to extend their boxes, fully supported by Tivo. Add new codecs, or features, or heck run an emulator on your Tivo box.
Seriously, someone with any legal knowledge should draft such a simple license.
I don't own an iPod, but all my very early Qualcomm cell phones WAY back in the day had jog-dials. It made it easy to control and navigate all the menus in your phone with simply your thumb. I never understand why it disappeared.
Even then, wouldn't the new license only apply to new releases?
If the GPL v3 was retroactive, Tivo would have to recall all their boxes right this second. However, I don't think you can have a retroactive license. You can't invent terms today and say that people agreed to them in the past.
Can you imagine what that would open the door to?
I'm sorry, you inherently agreed to anything Microsoft ever wants from you when you agreed to use any flavor of Windows at any point in your life. We can invent new licenses and terms that go back and override any previous license agreements.
That is a big aspect of the GPL v3, the Tivoization clause, allowing you to do whatever you want with the hardware you purchase if it includes any GPL-based software.
However, that does not apply to earlier versions of the license.
That is why Tivo can still operate.
I won't bother to argue whether or not the clause is good, or if Tivo is evil, rather I would refer you to the huge lkml.org flamefest from the past two weeks. However, I should clarify this is clearly FUD. Even if the iPhone has GPL or LGPL'ed content, and there is no evidence to suggest that, it wouldn't be a violation, unless it was GPL v3 content, and Apple decided to lock people out.
Can I file a patent on a business strategy to make money simply by carefully tracking what companies have patents in various areas, looking for overlapping patents, possible infringements, and basically blackmail companies with the threat of such a patent nuclear war, that I could live a wealthy life without ever once inventing anything of my own, or doing any real honest work?
And then I can demand royalties from anyone else who attempts to follow a similar line of work, or a lack thereof.
I call this soon-to-be-patented technique:
1. Googling with too much free time 2. ??? 3. Profit!
Some simple, real basic cheap tests. He had various samples of the film.
Place it directly over a cell phone, and the signal disappears, for instance. Place it directly between a wireless router, and your wireless card, and you cease to get a signal.
He insisted he had seen proper rooms done up with the material when he met with the manufacturer, and you could maintain a network inside a building without signal loss, but it would block the signal from getting out.
We had worked together at a casino where they put 50 access points directly over the new table games section to put in their first ever wireless network. I was arguing that we didn't need 50 access points to cover a very small area, and also arguing the security holes this created, to which the executives said "we'll simply buy another $200,000 firewall to plug the wireless network into. That will make it secure!"
I kept explaining how I could sit the parking lot (or likely a few blocks away with those 50 access points (salesmen are always objective with how much you need to buy from them) and pick up the signal, and do all kinds of naughty things with it. No one listened, and the casino wasted their money on a very insecure system. My friend (who was then a manager in Slots) remembered all that, and when he discovered this film, he gave me a call and asked me to research it.
There is little to no information online about it, even though it has been around a long time. However, if I recall the manufacturer (assuming it is the same company in this article, which I can't pull up to the Slashdot effect) insists their product is in the Pentagon, the FBA, CIA, NSA, and all the three-letter agencies.
A few months back a friend introduced me to this. He isn't big into technology. He runs a window tinting company and wanted to know how legit this was, so we got some samples and tested it. I'm going to have to send him the link. This could be really big money for him, as he is getting in on the ground floor.
It appears to work exactly as promised, and honestly, in certain applications it is the only real way to secure wireless data.
The government declassifies technology all the time, usually after they've developed something better.
Slashdot Mirror
Windows ME
Windows 2000 pre-SP3
XP pre-SP1
Most of the first-party XBox 1 titles save for Halo, which wasn't really first-party
MS SQL Server
Internet Explorer 5
Internet Explorer 6
Internet Explorer 7
Frontpage
Microsoft Messenger
Windows Messenger
Live Messenger
Office 97 (barely within the last decade, but it was truly horrible)
Windows Mail
Outlook Express
Microsoft Mail
Netmeeting
MSN Explorer
Microsoft Sharepoint Server
Microsoft Works
Microsoft Money
Virtual PC
IE For Mac
Microsoft Anti-Virus
Office Assistant
Visual FoxPro
Microsoft Binder
Hotmail
And don't forget blunders like PlaysForSure, Zune, etc.
Breaking headline news!
Bill Gates drops a number 2!
If there is a KDE flavor of Mint, I'll start recommending that to people. Thanks!
It isn't my first choice for a distro, but it seems to be the fasting growing distro for whatever reason.
I'm a KDE fan and not much of a fan of Gnome personally, so I installed Kubuntu on my wife's box. I was a big fan of SuSe formally, but I won't touch Novell products after the Novell-MS deal.
My wife was shocked how fast the Kubuntu install was. It bothered me how simple it was, it offered no real advanced options. But to someone new to Linux, it is perhaps perfect. Her laptop isn't particularly fast, but her install took something like 20 minutes, where as XP installs in say 40 on the same laptop.
If you're new to Linux and considering giving it a try, I recommend looking up a LiveCD, which will allow you to try Linux without formating your computer or installing anything. The other thing you will want to look into right away is what hardware you have, and if you'll have any driver issues with Linux. Linux has an incredibly library of drivers for all kinds of architecture, and plenty of legacy support, but it isn't perfect. My wife's built in wireless card keeps dropping signal in Linux because the driver is shitty.
Also research how to install proprietary stuff and if you want/need to. Because of licensing, out of the box, Ubuntu/Kubuntu and most distros don't have support for Quicktime, Real Player, MP3's, ATI drivers, NVidia drivers, etc. Often these aren't hard to install, but they can't be bundled with the original installer.
Several years back I tried Mandrake. I couldn't run any games, and I longed for various Windows apps I missed. About two years ago I gave Gentoo a try, and found that the Linux desktop has progressed greatly. There is plenty of stable, feature-rich apps for all my needs on Linux. In fact, some of the Linux apps far surpass anything I can find on Windows (like Amarok).
It isn't hard to take KDE and make it look and operate like Windows enough that people will just sit down and know how to use it.
Really, all that leaves on the list is that everyone else does.
Dell also said they'd never sell AMD processors, nor never sell Linux on their desktops.
If big corporations request it, I'm sure Dell will comply.
Except the actual cost to you here is $50. If you intend to install Linux, I doubt you're rushing down to Best Buy to pay $250 for Vista. If you buy a new rig today, you get Vista preinstalled, pretty much if you want it or not. The $50 in difference in price isn't huge. For those that are comfortable with Linux alone can take advantage of the discount, and be content that they aren't financially supporting the boys in Redmond, but neither Dell nor you were paying Microsoft $250 for Vista when you're buying a Dell desktop.
Many Linux users are willing to buy their own rigs, or have been content to purchase Windows and then either dual-boot or just format and install Linux.
I don't think this move will equate to widespread acceptance of Linux on the desktop for the home. You're not going to shop Dell's site as a Windows lover with no Linux experience and say, "since Dell is selling Linux, I think I'll give it a try and buy a computer without Windows!"
It is nice that people will save money, however, there is a potential large impact of this move.
Several IT departments in all kinds of large corporations struggle with trying to get corporate suits to accept Linux in the workplace. And while large companies like RedHat or Novell will sell support, corporations like familiarity and standardization. If said corporation has a corporate contract with Dell, and Dell is officially standing behind Ubuntu and selling Ubuntu preinstalled, and you can see it as a cost-cutting move to the suits at the same time, then this might help spread the acceptance of Linux in the workplace.
Honestly I regret it now, but having tried all the various media players on the Windows platform, WMP was my favorite, and I still stand by that.
Of course no media comes close to Amarok, and I can't wait until I can use it on both Windows and Linux.
Other companies have had their EULA win in courts before and it isn't like the GPL is new (save for the new version). Apple is fully aware of the licenses that they agreed to.
Not necessarily.
Let's say everytime there is a new version of LGPL program X, Apple just makes it a download available via iTunes specific for the iPhone. They even hash the download.
It doesn't make it a fully programmable device.
I doubt it, unless you tried to excuse them of fraud/extortion.
Let's say the argument is that they made up the patent allegations as a means to defraud/con people into these vendor agreements. Under those terms, I can see a court order demanding they produce such a list to ensure Microsoft wasn't defrauding Novell.
Exactly my point.
The license wouldn't suit all projects obviously, but for several scenarios such as Java, PDF, Flash, video drivers, etc. it would be perfect. It prevents someone else forking, or developing their own proprietary version while still allowing the code to be redistributed, community developed, and even modified for personal use.
The entire purpose of the license is to protect those who under most circumstances wouldn't fully open up their sources under any other terms. Consider it a "better than nothing" license. ATI or NVidia could open their drivers under this license, and it beats not releasing the code.
I should email suggestions to the various phone companies asking someone to bring back the jog-dial in a phone. That I would buy in a heart-beat.
I understand the distinction. Again, between the browser or the syncing function, Apple could allow a mechanism for the user to install updates to the LGPL portions. When you've seen proof that Apple intends to violate this, let me know.
The supposition hangs on two points. First, that the iPhone is using LGPL code. The second is that Apple intends to violate the license and not allow for people to install updates.
Given that the phone has a browser, and that it can sync with iTunes, applying updates is something that is built into the system. iPods update their firmware when you sync them.
If you have proof the phone has LGPL software, and that Apple intends to refuse updates, then by all means get upset. Until then, this is still FUD.
I think we do need a new license for OSS projects, and it isn't GPL v3. Consider this scenario:
BSD licenses allow for people to take and never give anything back. The GPL has evolved into its own form of shackles, loopholes and lengthy clauses. CC is a pretty decent concept to protect your work. Sun has been under all this pressure to GPL Java for ages. Adobe releases API and code for certain products and technologies like Flash and PDF, but needs to protect their interests. What if I have a technology that I wish to be fairly open, and allow the community to help develop. I want people to be able to see the libraries and API to extend the technology. But I also need to protect against forking and theft.
What we need is a license that is simple and short like a BSD license but provides these basic functionalities.
1 - The material may be distributed freely so long as the copyright and license agreement stays with it.
2 - The material may be altered for personal use and/or community development.
3 - If you choose to alter the material, if requested, you must pass your changes upstream to be reviewed.
4 - You may not distribute forks or derived materials without explicit permission. For this there would be a specific license to grant a "fork" which also must remain open to allow changes to drift back upstream.
Wouldn't a license like this be absolutely perfect for a great deal of scenarios?
Java, Flash, and PDF technologies could be protected from forks and theft, but we could compile plugins for any OS and architecture. This license would also be perfect for NVidia or ATI's drivers. ATI could open their drivers without fear of NVidia stealing technology, because NVidia can't fork it, or take part of it without explicit permission, and vice-versa. This would save these companies money by allowing the community to develop and maintain ports of their software products.
Imagine how this would apply to Tivo.
Let's say Tivo and the software they use is now part of license X. Since the source is open, you can install upgrades, recompile, or even tweak and extend the software on your personal box. Tivo wants to protect themselves that they aren't losing on the service. They can ask to see modifications that people make, which is a provision of the license, and thusly keep on pace with the hackers to make sure they aren't circumventing the Tivo service.
Honestly, if Tivo did such a thing, most of the hackers would buy Tivo boxes, and likely even pay for the service instead of circumventing it. Now they'd have an easier, and legal method to extend their boxes, fully supported by Tivo. Add new codecs, or features, or heck run an emulator on your Tivo box.
Seriously, someone with any legal knowledge should draft such a simple license.
Apple would never consider forking KHTML!
Really?
I don't own an iPod, but all my very early Qualcomm cell phones WAY back in the day had jog-dials. It made it easy to control and navigate all the menus in your phone with simply your thumb. I never understand why it disappeared.
Even then, wouldn't the new license only apply to new releases?
If the GPL v3 was retroactive, Tivo would have to recall all their boxes right this second. However, I don't think you can have a retroactive license. You can't invent terms today and say that people agreed to them in the past.
Can you imagine what that would open the door to?
I'm sorry, you inherently agreed to anything Microsoft ever wants from you when you agreed to use any flavor of Windows at any point in your life. We can invent new licenses and terms that go back and override any previous license agreements.
That is a big aspect of the GPL v3, the Tivoization clause, allowing you to do whatever you want with the hardware you purchase if it includes any GPL-based software.
However, that does not apply to earlier versions of the license.
That is why Tivo can still operate.
I won't bother to argue whether or not the clause is good, or if Tivo is evil, rather I would refer you to the huge lkml.org flamefest from the past two weeks. However, I should clarify this is clearly FUD. Even if the iPhone has GPL or LGPL'ed content, and there is no evidence to suggest that, it wouldn't be a violation, unless it was GPL v3 content, and Apple decided to lock people out.
Can I file a patent on a business strategy to make money simply by carefully tracking what companies have patents in various areas, looking for overlapping patents, possible infringements, and basically blackmail companies with the threat of such a patent nuclear war, that I could live a wealthy life without ever once inventing anything of my own, or doing any real honest work?
And then I can demand royalties from anyone else who attempts to follow a similar line of work, or a lack thereof.
I call this soon-to-be-patented technique:
1. Googling with too much free time
2. ???
3. Profit!
Some simple, real basic cheap tests. He had various samples of the film.
Place it directly over a cell phone, and the signal disappears, for instance. Place it directly between a wireless router, and your wireless card, and you cease to get a signal.
He insisted he had seen proper rooms done up with the material when he met with the manufacturer, and you could maintain a network inside a building without signal loss, but it would block the signal from getting out.
We had worked together at a casino where they put 50 access points directly over the new table games section to put in their first ever wireless network. I was arguing that we didn't need 50 access points to cover a very small area, and also arguing the security holes this created, to which the executives said "we'll simply buy another $200,000 firewall to plug the wireless network into. That will make it secure!"
I kept explaining how I could sit the parking lot (or likely a few blocks away with those 50 access points (salesmen are always objective with how much you need to buy from them) and pick up the signal, and do all kinds of naughty things with it. No one listened, and the casino wasted their money on a very insecure system. My friend (who was then a manager in Slots) remembered all that, and when he discovered this film, he gave me a call and asked me to research it.
There is little to no information online about it, even though it has been around a long time. However, if I recall the manufacturer (assuming it is the same company in this article, which I can't pull up to the Slashdot effect) insists their product is in the Pentagon, the FBA, CIA, NSA, and all the three-letter agencies.
A few months back a friend introduced me to this. He isn't big into technology. He runs a window tinting company and wanted to know how legit this was, so we got some samples and tested it. I'm going to have to send him the link. This could be really big money for him, as he is getting in on the ground floor.
It appears to work exactly as promised, and honestly, in certain applications it is the only real way to secure wireless data.
The government declassifies technology all the time, usually after they've developed something better.
I had been trying to convince my wife to go back to Linux and I was suggesting SuSe because of Yast, the nifty SuSe K-menu, AppArmor, etc.
However she finally switched, and we used Kubuntu instead. I'm not 100% happy with Kubuntu, but I wouldn't use a Novell product anymore.