Linspire will be releasing some Microsoft tech like audio and video codecs along with some document formating stuff and a few other things in their releases.
Linspire says that for now they won't charge users for these things. They may charge for upgrades and maintenance releases of their Microsoft proprietized "click-and-run" (CNR) distributed packages. If a Linspire user doesn't pay any charges set by Linspire, or Linspire doesn't pay Microsoft even if the user pays Linspire, the user is not covered by the Microsoft pledge not to sue (and the agreement actually doesn't protect users anyway). When a Linspire user downloads a CNR package, Microsoft now will be able to track the users identity. If the user gets a Microsoft tainted CNR component, Microsoft can then demand the user allows Microsoft or their agent (BSA, perhaps?) to audit all their software. If the user refuses, Microsoft can sue them for infringement, aided by the CNR server records.
This deal is nowhere near as benign as you try and describe. Remember, this is a deal with Microsoft. If they can't find IP violations in a linux distribution, they'll put it there and then cry "victim".
The fact is that ODF, while a great office format for new documents, falls flat on its face when it comes to preserving legacy documents, something that is required by LAW in many cases. The whole purpose of the new file format standards is to allow documents to be read long after the applications that created them are dead and buried. ODF forgets about legacy documents, which means that unless a document converts perfect, or you hire a lot of staff to reformat documents that don't convert correctly, you're stuck keeping them in proprietary formats if you want to meet your archival responsibilities. ODF, and it's proponents, ignore this vital issue.
Nice astroturf. Microsoft -- pack the committees and turf the boards.
Legacy document support in Microsoft OOXML is based on patent encumbered proprietary format tags. The "standard" only preserves legacy documents by keeping them in the proprietary format they were made in. And it took Microsoft 6000 pages to say, "if you want to open a Word 95 document, buy a copy of Word 95," and then in fine print, "just because there is a reference to Word 95 in our patent unencumbered, pledge protected standard doesn't mean that you can use the patent encumbered and highly proprietary Microsoft Word 95 format in any implementation other than one purchased from Microsoft, now or at any time in the future."
ODF has not ignored the issue of legacy formats, and neither has Microsoft. Microsoft wants to keep legacy formats closed and preserve the lock in mechanism you blamed on ODF. ODF objects to referencing closed, proprietary formats in standards that are supposed to be open.
Looks like linux systems on Intel can generate a kernel panic. However, it would be interesting to know if this is only on systems from big vendors that also ship windows software (i.e. Dell), because the microsoft update filenames all have the word "genuine" in them. Big vendors use custom bios that may be the same whether they are shipping a linux server or a microsoft server, and ship versions of windows that will only run on their machines.
Given the level of secrecy that Intel and Microsoft are giving to the nature of the bug, I still think that DRM is the true culprit.
Good grief, put two and two together. No information about what the patch does, it's a Microsoft update, and Apple and Linux aren't affected. It's the DRM, stupid! -- (borrowed from the Bill Clinton 1992 campaign).
And what probably occurred is that the recipient realized what happened, and reported it.
Or the recipient was expecting it and had been instructed to report it when recieved. How better to make the Iranians think it's genuine information regarding ancillary nuclear weapons components? The CIA slipped bugs to Soviets before, and there have been reports that the US and European countries have been doing the same kind of thing to Iran to slow their nuclear program.
At Mach 6.1, this thing will be traveling over a mile per second.
So will the ammo, before fired. Doubt if you could use lead for the projectile, however.
That said, at Mach 6.1, the thing is actually a guided missile itself, capable of trailing an incoming ICBM warhead. This would allow a longer time window for locking on to the warhead and an easier trajectory to target.
That's not the point. Comcast cut her service level without notification -- basically like getting slammed on cellphone service. What they did was drop the package that she subscribed to (again, without telling her that her package was discontinued) even though her account was in good standing. Just because that package was "grandfathered in" from AT&T before Comcast took over the cable in that area doesn't mean that Comcast can just drop the package that current subscribers have. They can raise the price of that package along with system wide rate hikes, but if the channels in that package are available on the system, they have to be included in that package. I had a similar situation with COX about two years ago, so unless the FCC regulations have changed, Comcast may be violating some rules. Comcast probably changed the lineups without making provisions for legacy packages. This may have been unintentional, but the fact that they did not notify legacy package subscribers of the change should raise questions. The lack of notification could be an oversight, or it could be because they realized they made a mistake and thought they could quietly get away with it, or it could be the result of a plan to illegaly force subscribers to "upgrade" their packages. In any case, there are probably other packages that have been affected, and the FCC should investigate the matter. It may just be TV, but TV is part of the fabric of modern society just the same.
You'd think that editors would strip out such biased garbage from submissions and let, you know, the community make those statements instead of reporting them as news.
A common question or misconception in the comments is saying that if didn't want extensibility we should have provided technical limitations to prevent extensibility (see comments: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18).
Holy cow, and this is the company that says it can't document it's code?
...any politician to appoint himself dictator-for-life, destroy the fundamental principles on which this nation was founded, and eradicate democracy, then maybe freedom is too much for them to comprehend and they deserve Big Brother/Sister to think for them.
Yes, you have just described Hugo Chavez and Venezuela.
She's more conservative than a lot of Republicans.
I can barely hold in the belly laugh when I hear right-wing friends and acquaintances refer to that "far-left socialist Clinton."
The crack must really be good where you guys are at. Hillary "we're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good," Clinton is more than the champion of nanny government, she's a Marxist. Her actions now are just posturing to hide her agenda.
So have you followed Microsoft's advice to "run Visual Studio 2005 elevated"?
Who is a developer supposed to listen to -- Microsoft or Ian Griffiths? It seems to me that Griffiths has a lot of nerve blaming developers for following Microsoft's recommendations.
If you really want your precious little GPLv2'd operating system to come down out of the ivory tower and make a run for it in the real world, then you're going to have to get your hands dirty with this thing called "The Free Market".
Microsoft doesn't seem to think that linux is "little," and neither does Novell. If they did, they wouldn't have spent so much legal time trying to find a way to circumvent the GPL terms meant to preserve the integrity of the community system in which linux and the applications which run on it were developed.
There is no "ivory tower." That along with the "that's the way business works" lecturing is just a bunch of self-justification and rationalization often used to attempt to marginalize the opinions of those who do not want to "get their hands dirty" for the sake of a quick buck or anything else. What you try to characterize as an ivory tower is better characterized as a prison cell in the tower holding a falsely accused person. This could not happen if the market were truly free.
There's always people around who think that profit can justify anything. That is why there's going to be a GPL v3, and why eternal vigilance is required from the open source community. Sometimes it's easier to get your hands dirty by doing nothing than to keep them clean by washing after a hard days work. Dealing with people like you just makes the scrubbing time a little longer.
In 1991, Eugene Mallove who was the chief science writer with the MIT News office, said that he believes the negative report issued by MIT's Plasma Fusion Center in 1989, which was highly influential in the controversy, was fraudulent because "data was shifted" without explanation, and as a consequence, this action obscured a possible positive excess heat result at MIT. In protest of MIT's failure to discuss and acknowledge the significance of this data shift, he resigned from his post of chief science writer at the MIT News office on June 7, 1991. He maintained that the data shift was biased to both support the conventional belief in the nonexistence of the cold fusion effect as well as to protect the financial interests of the plasma fusion center's research in hot fusion.
Also in 1991, Nobel Laureate Julian Schwinger said that he had experienced "the pressure for conformity in editor's rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous reviewers. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science". He resigned as Member and Fellow of the American Physical Society, in protest of its peer review practice on cold fusion.
What does the Microsoft Novel deal do that is just so damn bad?
Novell gets (real) money for "intellectual property" (ip) in linux which may have been used by microsoft, but since the "infringing" ip is never identified, Novell may in fact be keeping money for ip that rightfully belongs to other linux community developers.
Fact: money was paid.
Fact: the ip supposedly paid for has not been identified.
Fact: Ballmer says linux contains microsoft ip.
Fact: Ballmer says the infringing ip is also contained in linux distributions other than just Novell.
Conclusion: Novell and microsoft claim that the only linux ip infringed upon by microsoft is ip that belongs to Novell, or Novell has received payment for ip that does not belong to them, or Novell licensed the use of technology from microsoft without the consent of the copyright/patent holder of the code licensed.
In short, the Novell-microsoft deal has clouded the title to the entire linux codebase.
Slashdot Mirror
This deal is nowhere near as benign as you try and describe. Remember, this is a deal with Microsoft. If they can't find IP violations in a linux distribution, they'll put it there and then cry "victim".
Linspire should just expire.
Legacy document support in Microsoft OOXML is based on patent encumbered proprietary format tags. The "standard" only preserves legacy documents by keeping them in the proprietary format they were made in. And it took Microsoft 6000 pages to say, "if you want to open a Word 95 document, buy a copy of Word 95," and then in fine print, "just because there is a reference to Word 95 in our patent unencumbered, pledge protected standard doesn't mean that you can use the patent encumbered and highly proprietary Microsoft Word 95 format in any implementation other than one purchased from Microsoft, now or at any time in the future."
ODF has not ignored the issue of legacy formats, and neither has Microsoft. Microsoft wants to keep legacy formats closed and preserve the lock in mechanism you blamed on ODF. ODF objects to referencing closed, proprietary formats in standards that are supposed to be open.
Looks like linux systems on Intel can generate a kernel panic. However, it would be interesting to know if this is only on systems from big vendors that also ship windows software (i.e. Dell), because the microsoft update filenames all have the word "genuine" in them. Big vendors use custom bios that may be the same whether they are shipping a linux server or a microsoft server, and ship versions of windows that will only run on their machines.
Given the level of secrecy that Intel and Microsoft are giving to the nature of the bug, I still think that DRM is the true culprit.
Good grief, put two and two together. No information about what the patch does, it's a Microsoft update, and Apple and Linux aren't affected. It's the DRM, stupid! -- (borrowed from the Bill Clinton 1992 campaign).
That said, at Mach 6.1, the thing is actually a guided missile itself, capable of trailing an incoming ICBM warhead. This would allow a longer time window for locking on to the warhead and an easier trajectory to target.
and that one may be Solaris.
:)
hehe... covered two movies in one post.
Who is a developer supposed to listen to -- Microsoft or Ian Griffiths? It seems to me that Griffiths has a lot of nerve blaming developers for following Microsoft's recommendations.
There is no "ivory tower." That along with the "that's the way business works" lecturing is just a bunch of self-justification and rationalization often used to attempt to marginalize the opinions of those who do not want to "get their hands dirty" for the sake of a quick buck or anything else. What you try to characterize as an ivory tower is better characterized as a prison cell in the tower holding a falsely accused person. This could not happen if the market were truly free.
There's always people around who think that profit can justify anything. That is why there's going to be a GPL v3, and why eternal vigilance is required from the open source community. Sometimes it's easier to get your hands dirty by doing nothing than to keep them clean by washing after a hard days work. Dealing with people like you just makes the scrubbing time a little longer.
--bold added
Fact: money was paid.
Fact: the ip supposedly paid for has not been identified.
Fact: Ballmer says linux contains microsoft ip.
Fact: Ballmer says the infringing ip is also contained in linux distributions other than just Novell.
Conclusion: Novell and microsoft claim that the only linux ip infringed upon by microsoft is ip that belongs to Novell, or Novell has received payment for ip that does not belong to them, or Novell licensed the use of technology from microsoft without the consent of the copyright/patent holder of the code licensed.
In short, the Novell-microsoft deal has clouded the title to the entire linux codebase.