Average Joe types are going to hate this - they'll start it, the wife will set the kitchen on fire, they'll hit eject and run to put it out - and come back to find the disk no longer works. Or something like that.
The only folks it will be popular with are the 'pirates' that will stick it in the drive, rip it once, and then watch it any time they feel like it, in addition to sharing it with a few thousand of their closest friends. It might be a huge hit with that crowd, however.
Don't yell. Don't get mad. Do explain clearly and firmly that the CD is defective and they have a legal obligation here. If they refuse to see reason, come back with a summons to small claims court.
Hey, I agree with you on the documentation issue. It's generally in a pretty sorry state. The system's worth it, but it could definately be improved.
As to the cam, there ARE working 2.6 drivers for it. Might not have been when 2.6 first became available, but if you don't want to mess with things like this why not wait until your OS (Suse, Debian, Slack, RH, whatever) has an official upgrade ready that takes care of these issues? Most of the problems like you describe seem to only hit people that somehow get this idea they have to live on the bleeding edge, rolling out the new kernel the day it's posted or whatever, but don't expect to actually have trouble doing so. That's just unrealistic.
There's a reason we have Distributions, instead of just all rolling our own OS.
See that? Right there... "you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License". GPL, not LGPL. And that was linked to by default. Yes, there is the "special exception" at the end, but can we be 100% certain that there is no such "default includes" that are GPL and *don't* have the special exception?
Umm one way would be to look.
Most people probably don't feel any need to, considering how many teams have already looked it over carefully. Not one problem found. Find something else to troll about.
In the windows world I recall the standard way of dealing with that is to package the.dll with your app. You can do the same exact thing on *nix, only it's better, because you have version control so you can call your QT4 libraries without screwing up any other programs that are relying on QT3.
You do bring up a good point, but it's a different point - which is that each linux-based OS is different. Too many people speak loosely and give and/or get the impression that there's just one 'Linux' OS, but linux is a kernel, one a lot of different entities use to build their own OS. Yes, Redhat is different from Debian. That's because they're different Operating Systems, even though they do share quite a bit of code. Supporting a program on multiple Operating Systems is always going to be more work than supporting it on just one (all other things being equal.) I fail to see how that has anything to do with the issue of.dll hell vs. versioned libraries on *nix systems that avoid the problems of.dll hell, however.
Funny thing, the the official name of the State currently controlling Taiwan is indeed 'the Republic of China' and their Constitution does indeed claim Taiwan as a province of China. It just happens to the only province that wasn't lost to the Communists.
Exposé may be able to substitute for multiple desktops, but there's nothing on a Mac that can substitute for focus-on-pointer and quick pasting. And yes, I'm writing this on a Mac. It's a good machine (and I figured out how to turn off a lot of the useless eye-candy and did most of the customisations Tog recommends, which improves it quite a bit for my use) but in the end it's not really Workstation quality IMOP.
I really don't think it's that good a point. *nix systems have had version control for libraries for ages. I really wonder everytime I see people saying this is a problem with linux-systems if the people posting have ever even used a linux system. I've been using them for many years and I've never once seen such a problem, on my system or anyone elses. Only very rarely have I seen a problem that could have been confused with it, but was actually a package-manager issue.
Windows, on the other hand, has only recently even attempted in any way to make provisions to deal with it - and done it rather badly I am told.
I have tons and tons of books. I don't have a license for any of them. And I don't need a license for them. Same for music, same for software.
The only time you need a license is if you're going to do something normally disallowed by copyright law. Like distributing copies, or modified works. I can't legally take my books, or my music, and make copies and take them out and sell them, sure. For that I would actually need a license. But to read the books, to listen to the music, to think about the contents and talk about them and even include limited quotes in my own works do not require a license.
The only difference with software is that the proprietary stuff tends to come with something which purports to be a license, but clearly isn't, while the Free Software comes with a license offer I can accept if I ever want to do something that would require a license. Neither the music nor the books comes with either of those. But I no more need a license to use my software than I need a license to read my books.
I think what we're trying to point out here is that you "own" Linux in exactly the same way as you "own" windows.
If we take the position (as I am inclined to) that the EULA is unenforceable gibberish, that would be true. If we take the position, as MS and their legions of well-paid lawyers may be predicted to take, that the EULA is completely proper and enforceable, however, it's not true at all.
Both are licensed to you, under somewhat different terms, you don't own copyright on either.
Not true. A license is offered for linux, which you are free to accept or not. That license does not purport to interfere with your normal ownership rights of the software, or to be mandatory. It's simply available to anyone that wants it, anyone that wishes to do things with the software that require a license - such as distribution and creation of derivative works.
MS Windows, on the other hand, comes with something called an 'End User License Agreement' which purports, not to give you a license to engage in any activity you would need a license for, but rather to give you permission to use the software, a right which you have already having bought it. It also purports to do so under a huge list of conditions, requiring you to treat the software you bought and own as if, indeed, you did not own it, requiring that you refrain from using it in many ways that would otherwise be perfectly legal.
So the distinction between the two platforms in this respect is quite clear, assuming only that the Windows EULA is somehow enforceable.
And while a strong case can be made that the EULA is null and void in the case of an individual (although one wonders what individual would have the resources to oppose MS' team of lawyers, if it came to that) - large institutional customers are required to sign real contracts, certainly enforceable, to the same effect. So for those customers, there is no doubt at all - if they run linux, they own their software, if they run Windows, they only lease it, under a very one-sided contract.
I'm sure the joke he sensed was with reference to activist judges, with whom the Republicans attempt to slander the Democrats.
If so it's no more of a joke. It's quite the same situation, in fact. All of our politically appointed judges are 'activist' because both the Democrats and the Republicans would never consider nominating anyone that wasn't. They just want judges that are activist towards different ends. The Republicans are probably the more deceptive about it, though, loudly proclaiming their dislike of activist judges and talking about 'strict constructivism' and the like, but only in the contexts where it favours their policies. Where constructivism puts up roadblocks to Republican activism they won't tolerate it. Just look at the medical marijuana situation, for instance - where do those 'states rights' advocates on the Republican side suddenly disappear to when that's the issue?
I'm assuming the 'joke' you perceive is the opposition of right-wing and capitalist.
While it's true that the right-wing sometimes purports to be capitalist, it's debateable whether that's ever been the case. The claim seems to be cyclical, but the right-wing is just as often anti-capitalist, when capitalism is inconvenient for the ancien regime it is considered left-wing. The whole right-left political language goes back to the early days of the French assembly, when the conservative aristocracy sat on the right, and the liberal mercantile class of capitalists on the left, in fact.
And the right wing party in America today is just as opposed to liberal capitalism as the left wing party, if not more so. Granted they like to claim the word, but watch their actions, not their words.
FreeBSD/NetBSD/OpenBSD. Dragonfly? Something like that. Two or three other BDS OSs out there too, probably more I've never heard of.
When you say 'FreeBSD' you're not qualifying anymore than when someone else says 'Debian' or 'Slackware' or even lord help us 'Redhat.'
It's true, 'Linux' doesn't qualify all that - but then again 'Linux' is a kernel, not an OS, and when someone tells you their OS is 'Linux' that just means they're a little clueless. Just like if someone says 'BSD' that doesn't really qualify everything either - FreeBSD? NetBSD? OpenBSD? etc. have some serious differences too.
In either case, you just need to get the actual OS name, not the kernel or lineage name.
While you might think this is true, my experience contradicts it. It seems that the *AA types have it in their heads that the networks only purpose is to distributed their stuff (typical 'world revolves around me' childishness) and therefore they see fit to jam any and all transmissions on it. Further, of course, what's illegal for a person in one country to download is not necessarily illegal for someone in a different country to download.
Now, go one step further, and ask yourself why millions of people feel their lives are so empty that they'll pay astronomical prices to go sit in a chair and be force-fed bad fantasy for a couple hours.
Unfortunately for most 'entities' in the world today, any solution that requres actual knowledge and judgement is out of the question. Humans are treated as replaceable parts, and thus cannot be expected to do anything over the head of a trained chimpanzee. Sad but, increasingly, true. And that's why such trivialities as these are perceived in many quarters as impenetrable roadblocks.
Their reasoning for not implementing OpenDocument in Office just isn't sound.
Their ostensible reasons, yes, those are an obvious bunch of BS.
It seems pretty clear to me the real reason is the one they dare not admit. If they make their Office read and write OpenOffice formats, everyone will standardise on those, and there's no more lock-in. The next step, people all over the world, not geeks or techies, ordinary people, start to realise they're paying big bucks for MS Office for nothing, and start using OpenOffice instead. The gravy-train from the forced-upgrade treadmill evaporates. Then the next stage, these same people start realising that they're paying for Windows for nothing too, since OpenOffice runs just fine on GNU. Boom, game over for MS. No more forced sales. They have to compete on their merits. And they've NEVER been able to do that.
So, using your definition, in order to determine whether a defendent was guilty of producing/distributing/possessing porn or not, the judge and/or jury would be obliged to take the material in question 'backstage' somewhere and spank the monkey to completion. Only after release would he (any females would, by your definition, be unqualified to make this judgment) be able to say definitively whether or not the material in question 'really is' pornography.
Somehow, I don't see that getting adopted, but I have to admit it's creative.
Yes, I'm told you can filter the flag out relatively easily. This is what the Tivo defenders suggest, in fact. 'They had no choice but to implement the flag, just buy a filter and ignore it. '
Umm no schön in Swedish is skön. Skåne is a very old name, I know in English it's Scania, I'm not sure what it is in German and have no clue whatsoever what it might have originally meant I'm afraid.
Slashdot Mirror
My predictions:
Average Joe types are going to hate this - they'll start it, the wife will set the kitchen on fire, they'll hit eject and run to put it out - and come back to find the disk no longer works. Or something like that.
The only folks it will be popular with are the 'pirates' that will stick it in the drive, rip it once, and then watch it any time they feel like it, in addition to sharing it with a few thousand of their closest friends. It might be a huge hit with that crowd, however.
Don't yell. Don't get mad. Do explain clearly and firmly that the CD is defective and they have a legal obligation here. If they refuse to see reason, come back with a summons to small claims court.
Hey, I agree with you on the documentation issue. It's generally in a pretty sorry state. The system's worth it, but it could definately be improved.
As to the cam, there ARE working 2.6 drivers for it. Might not have been when 2.6 first became available, but if you don't want to mess with things like this why not wait until your OS (Suse, Debian, Slack, RH, whatever) has an official upgrade ready that takes care of these issues? Most of the problems like you describe seem to only hit people that somehow get this idea they have to live on the bleeding edge, rolling out the new kernel the day it's posted or whatever, but don't expect to actually have trouble doing so. That's just unrealistic.
There's a reason we have Distributions, instead of just all rolling our own OS.
Umm one way would be to look.
Most people probably don't feel any need to, considering how many teams have already looked it over carefully. Not one problem found. Find something else to troll about.
In the windows world I recall the standard way of dealing with that is to package the .dll with your app. You can do the same exact thing on *nix, only it's better, because you have version control so you can call your QT4 libraries without screwing up any other programs that are relying on QT3.
You do bring up a good point, but it's a different point - which is that each linux-based OS is different. Too many people speak loosely and give and/or get the impression that there's just one 'Linux' OS, but linux is a kernel, one a lot of different entities use to build their own OS. Yes, Redhat is different from Debian. That's because they're different Operating Systems, even though they do share quite a bit of code. Supporting a program on multiple Operating Systems is always going to be more work than supporting it on just one (all other things being equal.) I fail to see how that has anything to do with the issue of .dll hell vs. versioned libraries on *nix systems that avoid the problems of .dll hell, however.
Funny thing, the the official name of the State currently controlling Taiwan is indeed 'the Republic of China' and their Constitution does indeed claim Taiwan as a province of China. It just happens to the only province that wasn't lost to the Communists.
You can use API calls till the cows come home - that's just use and use is unrestricted.
If, on the other hand, you find you need to alter something in the kernel for some reason - those changes would have to be covered by the GPL.
Exposé may be able to substitute for multiple desktops, but there's nothing on a Mac that can substitute for focus-on-pointer and quick pasting. And yes, I'm writing this on a Mac. It's a good machine (and I figured out how to turn off a lot of the useless eye-candy and did most of the customisations Tog recommends, which improves it quite a bit for my use) but in the end it's not really Workstation quality IMOP.
I really don't think it's that good a point. *nix systems have had version control for libraries for ages. I really wonder everytime I see people saying this is a problem with linux-systems if the people posting have ever even used a linux system. I've been using them for many years and I've never once seen such a problem, on my system or anyone elses. Only very rarely have I seen a problem that could have been confused with it, but was actually a package-manager issue.
Windows, on the other hand, has only recently even attempted in any way to make provisions to deal with it - and done it rather badly I am told.
This is not true, and it's a pestilential meme.
I have tons and tons of books. I don't have a license for any of them. And I don't need a license for them. Same for music, same for software.
The only time you need a license is if you're going to do something normally disallowed by copyright law. Like distributing copies, or modified works. I can't legally take my books, or my music, and make copies and take them out and sell them, sure. For that I would actually need a license. But to read the books, to listen to the music, to think about the contents and talk about them and even include limited quotes in my own works do not require a license.
The only difference with software is that the proprietary stuff tends to come with something which purports to be a license, but clearly isn't, while the Free Software comes with a license offer I can accept if I ever want to do something that would require a license. Neither the music nor the books comes with either of those. But I no more need a license to use my software than I need a license to read my books.
If we take the position (as I am inclined to) that the EULA is unenforceable gibberish, that would be true. If we take the position, as MS and their legions of well-paid lawyers may be predicted to take, that the EULA is completely proper and enforceable, however, it's not true at all.
Not true. A license is offered for linux, which you are free to accept or not. That license does not purport to interfere with your normal ownership rights of the software, or to be mandatory. It's simply available to anyone that wants it, anyone that wishes to do things with the software that require a license - such as distribution and creation of derivative works.
MS Windows, on the other hand, comes with something called an 'End User License Agreement' which purports, not to give you a license to engage in any activity you would need a license for, but rather to give you permission to use the software, a right which you have already having bought it. It also purports to do so under a huge list of conditions, requiring you to treat the software you bought and own as if, indeed, you did not own it, requiring that you refrain from using it in many ways that would otherwise be perfectly legal.
So the distinction between the two platforms in this respect is quite clear, assuming only that the Windows EULA is somehow enforceable.
And while a strong case can be made that the EULA is null and void in the case of an individual (although one wonders what individual would have the resources to oppose MS' team of lawyers, if it came to that) - large institutional customers are required to sign real contracts, certainly enforceable, to the same effect. So for those customers, there is no doubt at all - if they run linux, they own their software, if they run Windows, they only lease it, under a very one-sided contract.
No, I own the software I run.
That does not mean I own the copyright to the software.
You're conflating two entirely different things. Go back to your analogy with the book.
I have boxes and boxes of books. I own every single book.
I don't own any copyrights in most of them, but I still own the books.
Just like I own the software on my computer.
If so it's no more of a joke. It's quite the same situation, in fact. All of our politically appointed judges are 'activist' because both the Democrats and the Republicans would never consider nominating anyone that wasn't. They just want judges that are activist towards different ends. The Republicans are probably the more deceptive about it, though, loudly proclaiming their dislike of activist judges and talking about 'strict constructivism' and the like, but only in the contexts where it favours their policies. Where constructivism puts up roadblocks to Republican activism they won't tolerate it. Just look at the medical marijuana situation, for instance - where do those 'states rights' advocates on the Republican side suddenly disappear to when that's the issue?
You've got it precisely backwards.
It's the regulation that protects those who are already rich from competition, and guarantees that they continue to grow richer - not the lack of it.
There is no joke.
I'm assuming the 'joke' you perceive is the opposition of right-wing and capitalist.
While it's true that the right-wing sometimes purports to be capitalist, it's debateable whether that's ever been the case. The claim seems to be cyclical, but the right-wing is just as often anti-capitalist, when capitalism is inconvenient for the ancien regime it is considered left-wing. The whole right-left political language goes back to the early days of the French assembly, when the conservative aristocracy sat on the right, and the liberal mercantile class of capitalists on the left, in fact.
And the right wing party in America today is just as opposed to liberal capitalism as the left wing party, if not more so. Granted they like to claim the word, but watch their actions, not their words.
No, that was no joke.
Eh? Flamebait or clueless advocacy?
FreeBSD/NetBSD/OpenBSD. Dragonfly? Something like that. Two or three other BDS OSs out there too, probably more I've never heard of.
When you say 'FreeBSD' you're not qualifying anymore than when someone else says 'Debian' or 'Slackware' or even lord help us 'Redhat.'
It's true, 'Linux' doesn't qualify all that - but then again 'Linux' is a kernel, not an OS, and when someone tells you their OS is 'Linux' that just means they're a little clueless. Just like if someone says 'BSD' that doesn't really qualify everything either - FreeBSD? NetBSD? OpenBSD? etc. have some serious differences too.
In either case, you just need to get the actual OS name, not the kernel or lineage name.
While you might think this is true, my experience contradicts it. It seems that the *AA types have it in their heads that the networks only purpose is to distributed their stuff (typical 'world revolves around me' childishness) and therefore they see fit to jam any and all transmissions on it. Further, of course, what's illegal for a person in one country to download is not necessarily illegal for someone in a different country to download.
Right.
Now, go one step further, and ask yourself why millions of people feel their lives are so empty that they'll pay astronomical prices to go sit in a chair and be force-fed bad fantasy for a couple hours.
Just because we have a dumbed-down population full of morons that will pay to see this junk doesn't make it not junk.
And as to 'piracy' - I doubt very much it decreased the profits made here, very likely the opposite.
Unfortunately for most 'entities' in the world today, any solution that requres actual knowledge and judgement is out of the question. Humans are treated as replaceable parts, and thus cannot be expected to do anything over the head of a trained chimpanzee. Sad but, increasingly, true. And that's why such trivialities as these are perceived in many quarters as impenetrable roadblocks.
Their ostensible reasons, yes, those are an obvious bunch of BS.
It seems pretty clear to me the real reason is the one they dare not admit. If they make their Office read and write OpenOffice formats, everyone will standardise on those, and there's no more lock-in. The next step, people all over the world, not geeks or techies, ordinary people, start to realise they're paying big bucks for MS Office for nothing, and start using OpenOffice instead. The gravy-train from the forced-upgrade treadmill evaporates. Then the next stage, these same people start realising that they're paying for Windows for nothing too, since OpenOffice runs just fine on GNU. Boom, game over for MS. No more forced sales. They have to compete on their merits. And they've NEVER been able to do that.
Lovely. So it's a copy prevention system that really only screws the deaf!
So, using your definition, in order to determine whether a defendent was guilty of producing/distributing/possessing porn or not, the judge and/or jury would be obliged to take the material in question 'backstage' somewhere and spank the monkey to completion. Only after release would he (any females would, by your definition, be unqualified to make this judgment) be able to say definitively whether or not the material in question 'really is' pornography.
Somehow, I don't see that getting adopted, but I have to admit it's creative.
Yes, I'm told you can filter the flag out relatively easily. This is what the Tivo defenders suggest, in fact. 'They had no choice but to implement the flag, just buy a filter and ignore it. '
Umm no schön in Swedish is skön. Skåne is a very old name, I know in English it's Scania, I'm not sure what it is in German and have no clue whatsoever what it might have originally meant I'm afraid.