1. A Linux distro comes with so much more than a windows install does (windows comes with IE, linux comes with mozilla, galeon, konqueror; linux comes with koffice, abiword, openoffice, windows doesn't; etc etc etc. There's a reason that debian is 8+ CDs and Windows is 1 CD).
You are correct, but when was the last time you heard someone refer to a Mozilla bug as a Linux bug? If there is a bug in IE, it is usually considered a windows bug (even ones where you must be actively running and surfing with IE). No one ever says "there is a bug in IE, but that shouldn't count against windows", whereas every Mozilla bug is counted as completely seperate from a Linux bug. A true comparison would be to take everything that comes with windows and compare it the most popular version of the same app that runs on Linux. That means Windows would include IIS, IE, mail, ftp, etc, but that Linux would also include Apache, Mozilla, Sendmail, ftp, etc. That would be a fair comparison. To compare every app that comes with Windows versus only the base Linux install isn;t a fair comparison at all.
This is comparing Apples to Apples for the most part. Saying Apache doesn't count, but IIS does is not comparing correctly. One reason MS appears to have so many more bugs is that their OS includes a lot more components that are thought of as part of the OS. Whever there is a problem with anything that ships with Windows, it is considered a Windows bug by most people. Yet when there is a Linux bug, people tend to saying it's an X bug (be it Apache, or Sendmail, or FTP, etc).
If you are never able to extend a spec, how do things advance? Most of the web is built un things that are not in the basic HTML specs. Browsers support things that are not in the specs, and if enough browsers support than advancement and it becomes popular enough, it then gets rolled into the specs. Should we ban everything browser than supports things that are not in the HTML spec?
The key is that it will support anything written for the spec. It also gives you some options if you choose to use them. It is not breaking the spec, it is complying and adding addition, optional features.
Maybe my memory is slipping, but wasn't the original problem that the MS version of Java had extra features that only worked on their version? It was compatible with regular Java, and would run all regular Java apps, but it had "extra features" that programmers could use that would make the Java app only work on their JRE. If this is truly the case, why would they have to include Java at all? They were originally told they couldn't ship their Java because it was "broken" (which having extra features is far from broken, not fair maybe, but not broken). So they decided not to ship a JRE at all and Sun sued because they weren't distributing Java at all. It seems when they were distributing a version of Java (although an "extended" one) Sun said don't do that. then when they decided not to ship Java if they couldn;t ship their version, Sun said they have to ship Java. They can't have it both ways. If MS's Java was compliant with the standards, but had extras, it was completely acceptable.
I'm not usre how you can call it passing the mom test because she can figure out how to write a document in Openoffice, with some coaching, and with OpenOffice having been previously installed. To be any kind of real test, at the very least it should have been a default install and lasted longer that 15 minutes. Let's see if mom can figure out how to install OpenOffice, because she will have to if she buys a Lindows computer.
Jimmy drummaster and his band is offered a "big deal" from a record label. They then ask him and his band sign off all the rights to their music to the record label for measly quantity of money, or they walk and goto another hopeful band. If jimmy and his band doesn't like it, they can stuff it becuase the record company has the rights to his music and he has no right to distribute it anymore. He makes his money by touring; letting the music company sell his music is just promotion.
How it should work is that jimmy makes the music, the company promotes it and they cut the profits. If the label isn't willing to take the risk, they can stuff it.
No one is sayign that isn't how it should work, but the reason it works the way it does now is that the artists agree to it. They sign an agreement that let's the record companies take most of the profits and keep control of their music, and then complain later about an agreeement they willingly signed. If they don;t want to agree to the terms of the deal, then they shouldn't sign with a major label. I think Ani Difranco (one of the few real indie artists around) said it best "and don't tell me what they did to you/as though you had no choice/tell me, isn't that your picture?/isn't that your voice?" You give up all rights to complain about the deal when you agree that the deal is fair and sign off on it.
It is different because the director (or whoever he signs his rights away to ) get to make the cuts. The director gets to decide what the cuts are, and can at least try to keep the integraty of the film. If someone else makes the cuts, they are basically making the film into an image of what they want, not what the director wants.
Really? Unless they see the original, they have no idea what is cut out. What if Cleanflicks decides to cut out all references to Islam? How would the customers ever know, since they won't see the original to know what was removed. The problem with having someone else censor something that you haven't seen is that you have no idea what they are censoring. Is it just sex and violence, or is it political speech? What if the majority of CleanFlicks customers are Republicans (which I would bet dollars to donuts is true) so they edit out gay characters and liberal political ideas? Even if you don't want these things editted out, you won't even know they are gone, unless you view the uneditted version of the film, which is what you are trying to avoid.
I have no problem with home-editting equipment that lets a person edit a movie that they have purchased in their own home (although I find the idea repulsive in general). But editting movies and reselling them is definitely a bad idea IMO. Yes, they can label the movie as being editted, but there isn't a way to know what was editted, so there they are basically selling a copy of the movie that is butchered, and no one knows what was butchered. If something in the movie doesn't make sense, is it because of the editting, or because of the movie? People then make assumptions about the movie and director/producer/actors/whoever based on a product they didn't create. It would be like taking LoTR and rewriting select parts of the book. I then sell that book (with a note saying parts were "editted") and people refuse to by any other Tolkien books because that one made no sense (because of my rewrites). I am changing the artists vision.
But junk mail is completely legal. The arguement that is always used is that spam should be illegal because the receiver pays for the connection (by paying for a net connection), but junk mail is paid for by the sender (by paying the post office to send it) so that can't be made illegal. If you do not pay for incoming SMS messages, and the sender does pay for outgoing SMS messages, then it seems it would be exactly like junk mail and be legal.
Annoyance should not be a legal reason to ban something or punish someone. I find SUVs EXTREMELY annoying, and their drivers moreso. I know many people feel the same way I do. So can we ban SUVs and fine the drivers because they annoy us, even if they follow all the laws?
I was incorrect about the Enterprise version being on their site for d/l, but you can still get a copy from anywhere else and install it without the EULA. It is still GPL, so if I buy a copy, I can freely give a copy to you.
As for them violating the GPL, no where in the GPL does it mention support. To follow the GPL, they have to make the source available to anyone who gets the binaries, that's all. They can't make people stop using the software if they violate their agrrement for the support services, but they can charge them for the support services. The agreement is that if you receive support services for this software, you must pay for and recieve support services for all servers in your organiztion that run the software. You can opt ot use the software without the support services and just abide by the basic GPL, but if you want the support services, you must abide by the agreement for the support services.
The support services and the software are basically 2 seperate items. I can get the software through the GPL and use it following the GPL (it's free and I can distribute it). If I want the support services, I have to take out a contract with RedHat and agree to the terms that they set. They can't stop me from using the software as long as I comply with the GPL, but they can stop me from using the support services and charge me for it if I don;t abide by the support services contract. Support services and the software are tied only because they are coming from the same company, not because they must follow the rules of the GPL
Re:People, the license is available online... READ
on
Red Hat License Challenged
·
· Score: 2, Informative
This only applies if you have purchased support services from Red Hat. If you download the software and install it, without any support services from Red Hat, then none of this applies. So it is not a general restriction on the software itself, but on the service. If you purchase support services from Red Hat, then you must purchase support services for every server you have (to avoid people purchasing it for one server and then always claiming the problem is on that 1 server, not the 30 others they have installed). If you do not purchase support services from Red Hat, then the EULA doesn't apply at all (and I believe you never even encounter it in the downloaded version). The GPL still applies, but if you want support services, you have to agree to purchase support services for ever installation.
There are limits on telemarketers, but only that they must remove you from their list if you request it (and only then if you can prove you requested it), at least until the new laws go into effect. There is no law that I know of against calling your number and offering to sell you a subscription to Juggs magazine (or any other "adult" magazine you can think of). And I can do it through a prerecorded message that plays when the phone is answered. So even if a 10 year old answers the phone, my message will play, and I will not be accountable by law (because it is safe to assume that you must be 18 to have a phone line). I'm not saying this is right, this is just how it works. You can't be held responisble (and probably shouldn;t be held responsible) for sending some thing "adult" when there is no way to tell if the user is and adult.
While in theory this sounds like a good idea, this is how things like the CDA get passed. Since we don't know who goes to a site, unless you have completely banal material that no one would ever object to, you need to make sure everyone who visits your site is over 18. Want to talk about homosexuality? Need to verify age. Want to talk about breat cancer? Need to verify age. Want to talk about STDs? Need to verify age.
Not everything can or should be brought down to a childhood level. Hell, you shoudl verify everyone is 18 before reading your post because of the comments you made (mine too).
Of course it is, but the source of the pornographic spam is probably not the ISP. Hence, signing up for email service is not the same as signing up to receive unsolicited pornographic email.
Actually, signing up for an email address is signing up for anyone to send you anything at any time. An email address is an open invatation for anyone to send you email. It is not a "white-list" service (unless you make it one using filters on your end). Email is set up to take any mail from anyone, with any subject. Signing up for an email account is the same as signing up for every piece of email you receive. Unless the way email works is changed, having an email address is an open invation to send you mail.
The problem being there is no way to tell how old the person who checks the email address is. An email address is just an alias, the person who checks that box could be 8 or 80, there is no way to tell. Unless there is some way to tell how old the person who checks the mailbox is, there is no way to hold people responsible for sending emails inappropriate for children to that mailbox. You can send porn to a physical mailbox, and the person who gets the mail may be a minor, but you can't be held responsible for that minor seeing "inappropriate" material.
They should e charged for sending spam (where applicable) but trying to prosecute them because they are sending mail to an emailbox where a child has access is very slippery, because there is no way to know who the box belongs to.
Most places use Outlook because it is one of a few programs that integrates email, calendar, contacts, etc into one easy format. Also, any company that runs MS Office (read almost every one) already has a copy of Outlook, so all they need to purchase and install is MS Exchange itself. Overall, Outlook in the corporate environment isn;t that bad, as long as you have a virus filter on your email server (which is a good idea for all email servers to stop viruses from getting to the end user). Outlook blocks most common virus formats by default (exe, com, pif, reg, etc) so if you are using it correctly, you won;t have many problems. And the advantages of having your calendar, tasks, contacts, and email all integrated make it worth the risk.
There are lots of people who *do* use some of those programs for personal enjoyment. Photoshop is one of them -- some serious amateur photographers/desktop publishers want to be able to edit their photos digitally 'just like the pros do.' What about people who are pirating the software to learn? I know...ermmm...some people... who pirated professional software development packages when they were younger in order to learn software development to obtain employment skills, and later when he became employed as a developer he PAID for those tools by buying a full copy of the latest version. What about that guy?:)
There are other products on the market they can use. Instead of pirating PhotoShop, use the Gimp or Paint Shop Pro. There are multiple tools for every job, just because PhotoShop is the best doesn't mean you have to use it, especially if you can't afford it. Use one of the alternatives, and help out the smaller company or OSS.
First, you leave out that most software packages have demos. You can try out most software packages without piratng them.
Second, you also neglect that even if the situation works as you portray it, many smaller companies and OSS are hurt by this very pirating. Pirate A wants to edit an image. HE goes and gets a pirated copy of Photoshop and uses it. He would never buy Photoshop, because it is extrrmely expensive. But if he did not pirate PhotoShop, he may have used the Gimp, or Paint Shop Pro, or some other program that has similar function to PhotoShop, but is either much less expensive or free (as in beer and/or speech). Both smaller software companies and OSS are thus hurt by letting this person pirate a copy of PhotoShop, because they have lost a potential user.
So why do you continue to use Windows? By your own admission there are better operating systems, yet you will pirate a copy of an "inferior" OS until it meets your standard instead of buying a copy of these other OSes which presumably do meet your standards? It seems that either you like Windows and believes it meets your criteria enough to use it (in which case you should be paying for it) or it doesn't meet your criteria, in which case you should be using a different OS that does meet your criteria (since you have stated there are OSes that meet your criteria). It once again seems to come down to "I don't want to pay for anything, so I'll steal it."
Re:it's not my kind of hobby, but...
on
Geocaching Crackdown?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Doesn't that defeat part of the purpose of caching? The idea is to hide the cache, and you need to use a GPS to find it. If parks set up nice "caching areas", then anyone can come along and find the cache, as it must be in that area. Part of the fun of geo-caching is finding the hidden prize that most people don't know is there.
Oh, I'll hapiily pay!... For quality software against a reasonable price, that is. Now if Windows XP didn't cost me a kidney but 50 euros or something OR MS would drastically improve/cough up some versions of their OS worth the money, (stable*, secure*, fast*, bloat-free, no evil licensing schemes/integrated crap) then I'd happily pay! Unfortunately, right now, I'm not going to fork over 300 euros for Win XP Pro only so I can have one huge piece of bloat slow down my computer while MS monkeys/lawyers are constantly trying to think up the holy grail of licenses which in legal terms state that MS will own my house, car, wife, first born and have the right to sell my soul to Satan for favours.
* = Surprisingly, they already managed this. A windows machine CAN be made fairly stable if properly taken care of, same with security. And XP Pro boots pretty fast on my Celeron 300, faster then 2k on an AMD XP 1900:\ Remember kids, while MS is still evil, most faults can be attributed to human error/incompetence still!
So let me get this straight. You'll pay if the software is stable, secure, fast, bloat-free, and has licensing you like. You admit Windows XP is stable, secure, and fast (even though you later go on to contradict yourself and say that it will slow down your computer). If it is stable, secure and fast (as you admit it is), bloat just means it has extra features you don't use, which don't affect any of the previous 3 apparently. So because you don't like the licensing terms (but apparently approve of the rest of the product) you will pirate the software. This seems like the whiniest protest I've ever heard. The software is great, but until they change their licensing and price (which I can afford, since I can afford a computer) I'm going to steal their software. Jesus, and people wonder why non-geeks think/, and other geek sites make all geeks look like a bunch of whiney little children who are just looking for everything for free...
That depends on the how Nullsoft usually gets approval (if at all) to release software. Are they supposed to clear anything they release through AOL? Clear any new program they release through AOL? In these cases, if they didn't clear it through AOL, then it was released illegally. If they have never had to receive the OK from AOL to release anything before now, then this release will probably stand as legal.
As for whether they can come after you, if the release is illegal, they can certainly come after you if you use code they posted. They can't come after you for downloading it, but if you repost it or use it in another program they can certainly come after you (mainly they will be able to stop you from using or posting the code, but if you continue to do so after they have informed you to stop, then they can go after you monetarily). To use your example, MS could make you stop using the free copy of VS if the PR person didn;t have authorization to give it out. If you ignored them and kept using it, then they could try and get license fees out of you. Once you are informed of the facts (that the guy didn't have the authorization to give it out), then you can be held responsible for your actions.
While it is true that outright purchasing of music iTMS wins, everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that you can listen to any song in Real's catalog without paying anything more than the $9.95 fee. So while I can listen to a 30 second clip on iTMS (which everyone claims isn't good enough and that is why they need to download the whole song from Kazaa), I can listen to the whole thing, easily and as many times as I want, with the Real service. Real is offering a service that let's you purchase music per song, but also listen to unlimited music in their catalog for a fixed price.
I appeals to anyone that has cable and watches the movie channels. A subscription music service worls along the same lines. You can pay a monthly fee and watch as many different movies as you want, but you don't own any of the movies. If I wast a movie that I permanently own, I have to go buy that movie seperately. The same process applies here. I can listen to as many songs as I want, but if I want to own one permanently, I have to buy it. People watch movies all the time and don't want to own them, why would listening to music the same way not appeal to some people?
Slashdot Mirror
1. A Linux distro comes with so much more than a windows install does (windows comes with IE, linux comes with mozilla, galeon, konqueror; linux comes with koffice, abiword, openoffice, windows doesn't; etc etc etc. There's a reason that debian is 8+ CDs and Windows is 1 CD).
You are correct, but when was the last time you heard someone refer to a Mozilla bug as a Linux bug? If there is a bug in IE, it is usually considered a windows bug (even ones where you must be actively running and surfing with IE). No one ever says "there is a bug in IE, but that shouldn't count against windows", whereas every Mozilla bug is counted as completely seperate from a Linux bug. A true comparison would be to take everything that comes with windows and compare it the most popular version of the same app that runs on Linux. That means Windows would include IIS, IE, mail, ftp, etc, but that Linux would also include Apache, Mozilla, Sendmail, ftp, etc. That would be a fair comparison. To compare every app that comes with Windows versus only the base Linux install isn;t a fair comparison at all.
This is comparing Apples to Apples for the most part. Saying Apache doesn't count, but IIS does is not comparing correctly. One reason MS appears to have so many more bugs is that their OS includes a lot more components that are thought of as part of the OS. Whever there is a problem with anything that ships with Windows, it is considered a Windows bug by most people. Yet when there is a Linux bug, people tend to saying it's an X bug (be it Apache, or Sendmail, or FTP, etc).
If you are never able to extend a spec, how do things advance? Most of the web is built un things that are not in the basic HTML specs. Browsers support things that are not in the specs, and if enough browsers support than advancement and it becomes popular enough, it then gets rolled into the specs. Should we ban everything browser than supports things that are not in the HTML spec?
The key is that it will support anything written for the spec. It also gives you some options if you choose to use them. It is not breaking the spec, it is complying and adding addition, optional features.
Maybe my memory is slipping, but wasn't the original problem that the MS version of Java had extra features that only worked on their version? It was compatible with regular Java, and would run all regular Java apps, but it had "extra features" that programmers could use that would make the Java app only work on their JRE. If this is truly the case, why would they have to include Java at all? They were originally told they couldn't ship their Java because it was "broken" (which having extra features is far from broken, not fair maybe, but not broken). So they decided not to ship a JRE at all and Sun sued because they weren't distributing Java at all. It seems when they were distributing a version of Java (although an "extended" one) Sun said don't do that. then when they decided not to ship Java if they couldn;t ship their version, Sun said they have to ship Java. They can't have it both ways. If MS's Java was compliant with the standards, but had extras, it was completely acceptable.
I'm not usre how you can call it passing the mom test because she can figure out how to write a document in Openoffice, with some coaching, and with OpenOffice having been previously installed. To be any kind of real test, at the very least it should have been a default install and lasted longer that 15 minutes. Let's see if mom can figure out how to install OpenOffice, because she will have to if she buys a Lindows computer.
Jimmy drummaster and his band is offered a "big deal" from a record label. They then ask him and his band sign off all the rights to their music to the record label for measly quantity of money, or they walk and goto another hopeful band. If jimmy and his band doesn't like it, they can stuff it becuase the record company has the rights to his music and he has no right to distribute it anymore. He makes his money by touring; letting the music company sell his music is just promotion.
How it should work is that jimmy makes the music, the company promotes it and they cut the profits. If the label isn't willing to take the risk, they can stuff it.
No one is sayign that isn't how it should work, but the reason it works the way it does now is that the artists agree to it. They sign an agreement that let's the record companies take most of the profits and keep control of their music, and then complain later about an agreeement they willingly signed. If they don;t want to agree to the terms of the deal, then they shouldn't sign with a major label. I think Ani Difranco (one of the few real indie artists around) said it best "and don't tell me what they did to you/as though you had no choice/tell me, isn't that your picture?/isn't that your voice?" You give up all rights to complain about the deal when you agree that the deal is fair and sign off on it.
It is different because the director (or whoever he signs his rights away to ) get to make the cuts. The director gets to decide what the cuts are, and can at least try to keep the integraty of the film. If someone else makes the cuts, they are basically making the film into an image of what they want, not what the director wants.
Really? Unless they see the original, they have no idea what is cut out. What if Cleanflicks decides to cut out all references to Islam? How would the customers ever know, since they won't see the original to know what was removed. The problem with having someone else censor something that you haven't seen is that you have no idea what they are censoring. Is it just sex and violence, or is it political speech? What if the majority of CleanFlicks customers are Republicans (which I would bet dollars to donuts is true) so they edit out gay characters and liberal political ideas? Even if you don't want these things editted out, you won't even know they are gone, unless you view the uneditted version of the film, which is what you are trying to avoid.
I have no problem with home-editting equipment that lets a person edit a movie that they have purchased in their own home (although I find the idea repulsive in general). But editting movies and reselling them is definitely a bad idea IMO. Yes, they can label the movie as being editted, but there isn't a way to know what was editted, so there they are basically selling a copy of the movie that is butchered, and no one knows what was butchered. If something in the movie doesn't make sense, is it because of the editting, or because of the movie? People then make assumptions about the movie and director/producer/actors/whoever based on a product they didn't create. It would be like taking LoTR and rewriting select parts of the book. I then sell that book (with a note saying parts were "editted") and people refuse to by any other Tolkien books because that one made no sense (because of my rewrites). I am changing the artists vision.
But junk mail is completely legal. The arguement that is always used is that spam should be illegal because the receiver pays for the connection (by paying for a net connection), but junk mail is paid for by the sender (by paying the post office to send it) so that can't be made illegal. If you do not pay for incoming SMS messages, and the sender does pay for outgoing SMS messages, then it seems it would be exactly like junk mail and be legal.
Annoyance should not be a legal reason to ban something or punish someone. I find SUVs EXTREMELY annoying, and their drivers moreso. I know many people feel the same way I do. So can we ban SUVs and fine the drivers because they annoy us, even if they follow all the laws?
I was incorrect about the Enterprise version being on their site for d/l, but you can still get a copy from anywhere else and install it without the EULA. It is still GPL, so if I buy a copy, I can freely give a copy to you.
As for them violating the GPL, no where in the GPL does it mention support. To follow the GPL, they have to make the source available to anyone who gets the binaries, that's all. They can't make people stop using the software if they violate their agrrement for the support services, but they can charge them for the support services. The agreement is that if you receive support services for this software, you must pay for and recieve support services for all servers in your organiztion that run the software. You can opt ot use the software without the support services and just abide by the basic GPL, but if you want the support services, you must abide by the agreement for the support services.
The support services and the software are basically 2 seperate items. I can get the software through the GPL and use it following the GPL (it's free and I can distribute it). If I want the support services, I have to take out a contract with RedHat and agree to the terms that they set. They can't stop me from using the software as long as I comply with the GPL, but they can stop me from using the support services and charge me for it if I don;t abide by the support services contract. Support services and the software are tied only because they are coming from the same company, not because they must follow the rules of the GPL
This only applies if you have purchased support services from Red Hat. If you download the software and install it, without any support services from Red Hat, then none of this applies. So it is not a general restriction on the software itself, but on the service. If you purchase support services from Red Hat, then you must purchase support services for every server you have (to avoid people purchasing it for one server and then always claiming the problem is on that 1 server, not the 30 others they have installed). If you do not purchase support services from Red Hat, then the EULA doesn't apply at all (and I believe you never even encounter it in the downloaded version). The GPL still applies, but if you want support services, you have to agree to purchase support services for ever installation.
There are limits on telemarketers, but only that they must remove you from their list if you request it (and only then if you can prove you requested it), at least until the new laws go into effect. There is no law that I know of against calling your number and offering to sell you a subscription to Juggs magazine (or any other "adult" magazine you can think of). And I can do it through a prerecorded message that plays when the phone is answered. So even if a 10 year old answers the phone, my message will play, and I will not be accountable by law (because it is safe to assume that you must be 18 to have a phone line). I'm not saying this is right, this is just how it works. You can't be held responisble (and probably shouldn;t be held responsible) for sending some thing "adult" when there is no way to tell if the user is and adult.
While in theory this sounds like a good idea, this is how things like the CDA get passed. Since we don't know who goes to a site, unless you have completely banal material that no one would ever object to, you need to make sure everyone who visits your site is over 18. Want to talk about homosexuality? Need to verify age. Want to talk about breat cancer? Need to verify age. Want to talk about STDs? Need to verify age.
Not everything can or should be brought down to a childhood level. Hell, you shoudl verify everyone is 18 before reading your post because of the comments you made (mine too).
And email is not a subscription service?
Of course it is, but the source of the pornographic spam is probably not the ISP. Hence, signing up for email service is not the same as signing up to receive unsolicited pornographic email.
Actually, signing up for an email address is signing up for anyone to send you anything at any time. An email address is an open invatation for anyone to send you email. It is not a "white-list" service (unless you make it one using filters on your end). Email is set up to take any mail from anyone, with any subject. Signing up for an email account is the same as signing up for every piece of email you receive. Unless the way email works is changed, having an email address is an open invation to send you mail.
The problem being there is no way to tell how old the person who checks the email address is. An email address is just an alias, the person who checks that box could be 8 or 80, there is no way to tell. Unless there is some way to tell how old the person who checks the mailbox is, there is no way to hold people responsible for sending emails inappropriate for children to that mailbox. You can send porn to a physical mailbox, and the person who gets the mail may be a minor, but you can't be held responsible for that minor seeing "inappropriate" material.
They should e charged for sending spam (where applicable) but trying to prosecute them because they are sending mail to an emailbox where a child has access is very slippery, because there is no way to know who the box belongs to.
Most places use Outlook because it is one of a few programs that integrates email, calendar, contacts, etc into one easy format. Also, any company that runs MS Office (read almost every one) already has a copy of Outlook, so all they need to purchase and install is MS Exchange itself. Overall, Outlook in the corporate environment isn;t that bad, as long as you have a virus filter on your email server (which is a good idea for all email servers to stop viruses from getting to the end user). Outlook blocks most common virus formats by default (exe, com, pif, reg, etc) so if you are using it correctly, you won;t have many problems. And the advantages of having your calendar, tasks, contacts, and email all integrated make it worth the risk.
There are lots of people who *do* use some of those programs for personal enjoyment. Photoshop is one of them -- some serious amateur photographers/desktop publishers want to be able to edit their photos digitally 'just like the pros do.' :)
What about people who are pirating the software to learn? I know...ermmm...some people... who pirated professional software development packages when they were younger in order to learn software development to obtain employment skills, and later when he became employed as a developer he PAID for those tools by buying a full copy of the latest version. What about that guy?
There are other products on the market they can use. Instead of pirating PhotoShop, use the Gimp or Paint Shop Pro. There are multiple tools for every job, just because PhotoShop is the best doesn't mean you have to use it, especially if you can't afford it. Use one of the alternatives, and help out the smaller company or OSS.
First, you leave out that most software packages have demos. You can try out most software packages without piratng them.
Second, you also neglect that even if the situation works as you portray it, many smaller companies and OSS are hurt by this very pirating. Pirate A wants to edit an image. HE goes and gets a pirated copy of Photoshop and uses it. He would never buy Photoshop, because it is extrrmely expensive. But if he did not pirate PhotoShop, he may have used the Gimp, or Paint Shop Pro, or some other program that has similar function to PhotoShop, but is either much less expensive or free (as in beer and/or speech). Both smaller software companies and OSS are thus hurt by letting this person pirate a copy of PhotoShop, because they have lost a potential user.
So why do you continue to use Windows? By your own admission there are better operating systems, yet you will pirate a copy of an "inferior" OS until it meets your standard instead of buying a copy of these other OSes which presumably do meet your standards? It seems that either you like Windows and believes it meets your criteria enough to use it (in which case you should be paying for it) or it doesn't meet your criteria, in which case you should be using a different OS that does meet your criteria (since you have stated there are OSes that meet your criteria). It once again seems to come down to "I don't want to pay for anything, so I'll steal it."
Doesn't that defeat part of the purpose of caching? The idea is to hide the cache, and you need to use a GPS to find it. If parks set up nice "caching areas", then anyone can come along and find the cache, as it must be in that area. Part of the fun of geo-caching is finding the hidden prize that most people don't know is there.
Oh, I'll hapiily pay! ... For quality software against a reasonable price, that is. Now if Windows XP didn't cost me a kidney but 50 euros or something OR MS would drastically improve/cough up some versions of their OS worth the money, (stable*, secure*, fast*, bloat-free, no evil licensing schemes/integrated crap) then I'd happily pay! Unfortunately, right now, I'm not going to fork over 300 euros for Win XP Pro only so I can have one huge piece of bloat slow down my computer while MS monkeys/lawyers are constantly trying to think up the holy grail of licenses which in legal terms state that MS will own my house, car, wife, first born and have the right to sell my soul to Satan for favours.
:\ Remember kids, while MS is still evil, most faults can be attributed to human error/incompetence still!
/, and other geek sites make all geeks look like a bunch of whiney little children who are just looking for everything for free...
* = Surprisingly, they already managed this. A windows machine CAN be made fairly stable if properly taken care of, same with security. And XP Pro boots pretty fast on my Celeron 300, faster then 2k on an AMD XP 1900
So let me get this straight. You'll pay if the software is stable, secure, fast, bloat-free, and has licensing you like. You admit Windows XP is stable, secure, and fast (even though you later go on to contradict yourself and say that it will slow down your computer). If it is stable, secure and fast (as you admit it is), bloat just means it has extra features you don't use, which don't affect any of the previous 3 apparently. So because you don't like the licensing terms (but apparently approve of the rest of the product) you will pirate the software. This seems like the whiniest protest I've ever heard. The software is great, but until they change their licensing and price (which I can afford, since I can afford a computer) I'm going to steal their software. Jesus, and people wonder why non-geeks think
That depends on the how Nullsoft usually gets approval (if at all) to release software. Are they supposed to clear anything they release through AOL? Clear any new program they release through AOL? In these cases, if they didn't clear it through AOL, then it was released illegally. If they have never had to receive the OK from AOL to release anything before now, then this release will probably stand as legal.
As for whether they can come after you, if the release is illegal, they can certainly come after you if you use code they posted. They can't come after you for downloading it, but if you repost it or use it in another program they can certainly come after you (mainly they will be able to stop you from using or posting the code, but if you continue to do so after they have informed you to stop, then they can go after you monetarily). To use your example, MS could make you stop using the free copy of VS if the PR person didn;t have authorization to give it out. If you ignored them and kept using it, then they could try and get license fees out of you. Once you are informed of the facts (that the guy didn't have the authorization to give it out), then you can be held responsible for your actions.
While it is true that outright purchasing of music iTMS wins, everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that you can listen to any song in Real's catalog without paying anything more than the $9.95 fee. So while I can listen to a 30 second clip on iTMS (which everyone claims isn't good enough and that is why they need to download the whole song from Kazaa), I can listen to the whole thing, easily and as many times as I want, with the Real service. Real is offering a service that let's you purchase music per song, but also listen to unlimited music in their catalog for a fixed price.
I appeals to anyone that has cable and watches the movie channels. A subscription music service worls along the same lines. You can pay a monthly fee and watch as many different movies as you want, but you don't own any of the movies. If I wast a movie that I permanently own, I have to go buy that movie seperately. The same process applies here. I can listen to as many songs as I want, but if I want to own one permanently, I have to buy it. People watch movies all the time and don't want to own them, why would listening to music the same way not appeal to some people?