IF it's not supported by the install package. The point is, while there are more Windows drivers available, the vast majority of them won't be on your Windows install disc.
And most of the time you buy a system, or a peripheral, it comes with a little thing called a driver installation cd. The point was, for the average user, Linux will *not* support their entire system "out of the box." Windows probably won't, either. But at least you can find working drivers for Windows.
Weird. I just type "apt-get install package" or "emerge package" to install a program called "package".
So you think it's appropriate to tell your dear old ma & pa to do that? Once again: for the average user, the Linux install process is hard. Figure out what package you want to install. Then start a terminal session. Then make sure apt-get or emerge is configured properly to access the repository that has the package you want to install. Then type a command on the command line, and hope it all works. You think that's somehow "easy" for an average user?
I use the commandline a lot [ . . . ] I can dig inside my Linux, and do quite often [ . . . ] Source code matters, I'm a programmer [ . . . ] it uses an open standard [ . . . ]"
Apparently you didn't read the part of my post where I referenced the "average" user. Like it or not, you're not an "average" user. If Linux wants to make inroads on the desktop, it needs to become far more user friendly as a desktop system, and address the use cases of the typical home user. And for the linux fans who dont' grasp this, let me make it very explicit: the typical home user doesn't give a flying fornication whether their standards are open, or whether they can dig inside their source code, or whether they have a posix command line, or whether they have complete flexibility & freedom to customize their software.
Yes, you can make an argument that they probably *should* care about these things... but most of the Linux 'evangelists' I've ever talked to or heard from seem blind to the notion that wishing things were different doesn't make them so.
The first thing I have to do is to go and hunt for the diverse drivers for nearly every device that it has. Graphics, sound, wireless
You're either exaggerating for effect, or you've only ever tried installing Windows XP on a ridiculously old piece of hardware, or a "fresh from the R&D lab" piece of hardware. Driver support is always going to be a problem when installing an O/S on a piece of hardware... but if you know what hardware you have, chances are you will find Windows drivers for your hardware quickly. Whereas with Linux, if it's not supported by the install package, you're often shit outta luck, or you'll spend 3 weeks tweaking and trying the poorly written instructions in some ridiculously antiquated HOWTO written by some guy who claims that he once got your wireless chipset working with ndiswrap, but it was also a full moon in may in the southern hemisphere, so that MAY have an impact...
For the AVERAGE user, the the Linux driver search would be like this: "Hmm... no drivers? Bollocks to that. I'll bring it to CompUSA and have them reinstall Windows."
And yes, I'm aware that the driver support is not the *fault* of the Linux developers. But it's a fact of life that Linux has to overcome if it ever wants to make inroads with "AVERAGE" users. You know, the people like yours & my parents, who just want a computer that they can send emails, and browse the web on. Most people are not trying to write java middleware to deploy in a production environment. For THOSE people, Linux might be a decent operating system today. For the people who just want to push a button and send an email, and have things "just work", it's still got a long way to go.
As for your quotes around Linux application installations being harder, most of them *are* "harder". Download this package. Make sure you check the MD5 signature! Unzip. Untar. make config. Now go edit this Makefile or that. Now make && make test && make install. Didn't work? Okay, start wading through the instructions to figure out what YOU screwed up, you dumb n00b. The *best* that most Linux distributions can claim is that some of their applications that are installable via binary distributions are "about equal" to the state of the art with Windows applications.
ObLinuxFanboyisms: I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux every day on servers that I support at work. I love it *as a server system.* If I had to use RHEL or Fedora as my desktop system? Don't think I'd like it as much. Even for a guy who has spent the last 8 years administering and working with Unix & Linux systems as his day job, Linux has too many little weird-isms on the desktop to make me comfortable. Part of it is the inertia of Windows -- I know Windows' weird-isms, and so I'm comfortable with them. But if Linux can't offer me a compelling alternative, why should I switch? Would you really claim that "Switch so you can learn a whole new set of weird behaviours, and then end up with a system that's... pretty much exactly the same as the Windows system you left behind," is a valid marketing pitch?
And frankly, for day to day use, I think you're right: Apple definitely has better usability. I picked up a Mac Mini for home use, and I've found myself a lot more productive in day-to-day "home use" with it than I ever have been with Windows or Linux as a home desktop. After adjusting to changes to the keystrokes that I use all the time, I've almost never swapped my KVM switch back over to my Windows system.
I've got to agree with this. What I'd love to see is for MSFT to conform to the letter of Google's complaint. On setup of IE7, pop up a dialog that essentially says:
"Choose a default search engine:
!* MSN *!
Altavista
Ask
Google
"
What would Google have to complain about then? I can't POSSIBLY imagine that they'd have a problem with this arrangement, would they?
Let's call a spade a spade here -- GOOG is acting in its own self interest by making this an issue... if MSFT gains search market share, GOOG's revenues will decline. I think Google's time & effort would be a lot better spent in other areas, but hey, if they want to bitch at Microsoft for making such a no-brainer decision (Let's see... Microsoft's new browser will default to... Apple's home page, and Google as search! Duh!?), it's their time wasted, not mine. I know how to change the target of my autosearches, and I will.
Well said. And god, I wish I had a bunch of mod points to give.
While the claim of "Microsoft is a convicted Monopolist," has been repeated ad nauseam here, I've yet to see anybody advance any sound legal reasoning as to how Microsoft setting a default value that can be changed quite easily in the browser constitutes "monopolistic competition." Just because Microsoft has been convicted of coercively monopolistic competition in the past does not mean that EVERYTHING the company does is monopolistic.
Absolutely... the live cd thing is something I haven't messed around with much, but it seems like it would make a fantastic "sales tool" for Linux.
My big issue with Linux is that, I'm a reasonably computer-savvy guy, and I attempted to set up my home desktop with Fedora (and later, Gentoo), and use that desktop exclusively. I managed for about 2 months before I bagged it and went back to Windows, because it was just too frustrating -- usability, missing software functionality that I use all the time, no hardware support for some peripherals, etc.
And I don't fault the Linux people for this... it was my own risk & experiment. But when I brought this up here on Slashdot previously as an example of how difficult it was to convert to Linux (as in, "i'm a software guy, and here's all the issues *I* ran into... now how my my dear old mom & dad going to succeed?"). The overwhelming response I got from Linux-y folks was along the lines of, "Well it's your fault for trying to install Fedora on a system with hardware that's unsupported. What did you expect?" And that's the high-handed snobbery the original article decries.
Microsoft, and Apple (to a far greater extent than the Linux community) have gotten it right: a desktop PC is, to most users, simply an appliance. They don't care what makes it work, as long as it works when they hit the power button. Linux has made usability strides, but it's still got this "do-it-yourself" ethos that scares off a lot of people.
Asking a Mac user which is the best operating system will result in one answer, asking a linux user to discuss the various distros is another.
Well, the actual answer to that question is another question: What do you need to do with it?
I interact with five different operating systems on a daily basis, and have at least mild administrative experience on all of them:
Windows XP (work desktop, personal laptop)
Mac OS X (personal desktop at home)
IBM AIX (work servers)
Sun Solaris (work servers)
Red Hat Enterprise Server (work servers)
I also have some fairly recent experience with Gentoo & Fedora Core on my personal laptop.
In my experience, for the *average* home user (and here, I'm thinking of people like my parents) -- the type of person who wants to send a few pictures to family & friends, write an email, browse the web, download some music... OS X or Windows XP is the way to go. I'm fairly new to the Mac world, but I've been very impressed so far with how simply & easily it "just works". Windows "just works" most of the time as well, but it requires more user intervention in the way of updates, security, and things like that.
Linux has its place... as a server operating system at work (Red Hat), I love it. It's rock-solid, and it "just works" in that scenario. With that said, Gentoo & Fedora Core are still not there as desktop systems for the "average" user. Too much work to get them running, and unless you buy new hardware that you've verified is absolutely, completely supported by Linux, then you're taking a real crapshoot. The reason I'm running OS X & Windows still today, rather than Fedora or Gentoo, is because I couldn't get half of the peripherals I already owned to work under Linux, and I'll be damned if I'm going to go out and spend hundreds of dollars replacing peripherals that I use infrequently just so I can reap the benefits of a free operating system.
The reason why it's "random" is that there's limited manpower to enforce the traffic laws -- with traffic stops, you have to be doing something illegal where the officer can see you. If they had a way to automate the monitoring with a reasonable degree of certainty, you'd start seeing a lot more people getting tickets.
Perhaps... like I said, I'm not a legal scholar.:) Though my understanding of the regulatory powers of the FCC is that it applies to "public" transmission bands -- Satellite radio, like cable tv, is a pay service, and is therefore, not "public" in the view of the courts. This is the reason why HBO, Showtime, and all those other pay channels can show softcore porn, use harsh language, etc. -- the FCC has no regulatory oversight on their content, because it's private...
So, unless they were to revoke the ability of a satellite provider to broadcast at all on a given frequency (or band of frequencies), then I don't see how they could regulate the content -- in other words, the "all or none" principle applies. I don't think they can't apply "public decency" standards, because it's not a public utility... and I'd imagine that Congress, with 8 million or so very angry constituents (3 mil. Sirius, ~5 mil. XM, I believe as of the last counts I heard) yelling at them about the issue, would probably step in and rein in the FCC if they tried shutting off all satellite services.
I'm not sure when it was added, but I can confirm that, at least the $699 G4 Mac Mini has Bluetooth & 802.11[a|b|g] on it... I purchased one about a month ago (woe is me, I would've loved to have gotten the additional USB ports & faster processor, guess I'll live without for a bit), and it's got bluetooth & 802.11 integrated.
I'm still happy with the Mini... it's my first hands-on experience with OS X, and Mac hardware in general... and my impressions so far are:
Wow. Easy to install new software!
Wow. Silent!
Wow. Takes up no space on my desk!
Wow. Burns DVDs!
Wow. UNIX-y goodness on the command line! And is that BASH I spy?
Wow. It supports all my other peripheral devices!
I'm really impressed... and for a total of about $800 (I bought a KVM Switch and a USB + Firewire Hub for it), I have a system about 20% of the size, and 1% of the noise of my old Windows system, and it has all of the functionality that I use on my home system -- email (via Mail), im (adium x), music/ipod (itunes), photo organization (iPhoto), web browsing (firefox & opera), and some other assorted utilities, plus a functional command line for some occasional light-duty perl programming... the only thing I still need is to get a copy of Quicken for OS X so I can do my financial stuff.
I am not a legal expert, but I did read through the text of the bill, and it seems to be specific to regulating receivers & transmitters of the signal, not about the contents of the signal being transmitted or received.
To me, it doesn't sound like it would give the FCC the ability to impose decency standards on satellite radio, just gives them the ability to mandate the use of this "broadcast flag" so that you can't record the signal.
I have a Sirius receiver presently, and it has an integrated FM transmitter... I also happen to have an FM tuner hooked up to my computer... so I guess as long as my *current* hardware works, at least, I'd be immune from this, since it's not supposed to be obsoleted by this measure.
Absolutely, I agree with that sentiment -- just kind of funny that this is being reported as "news", when it's in effect, a press release. "Microsoft Competitors Endorse Non-Microsoft Solution." Of course it's partisan, and of course they're "anti-Microsoft".
I don't have any issue with OpenDocument becoming the dominant standard, because I'm a fan of transparency & openness... and in fact, I wish them well in their endeavour... but let's also call a spade a spade, and admit that, if 90% of government documents are in Microsoft format, then Microsoft will stay in business, at least in a size large enought to support Office / Word / Powerpoint, etc, simply because it's the "de facto" standard. Even if Windows, IE, MSN Messenger, and every other thing you can think of that Microsoft produces blows up and dies a flaming, spectacular death, Office products will continue to exist, even if they're sold off to another company to maintain & support.
This PRESS RELEASE might as well be titled, "Sun, IBM, other disinterested parties seek to muscle in on lucrative government contracts using scare tactics."
Is there anybody here who, for a second, believes this is anything but a hypocritical attempt to use the same FUD tactics that Microsoft is so often accused of using against open source? I mean, perhaps there are benefits to the OpenDocument format, but come on... these people are not being motivated by some grand notion of "helping the little man." Sun, IBM, and others see a lot of dollar signs, and they're pushing their chosen format... just like MSFT does.
FTFA:
"This is not a partisan, anti-Microsoft group," said Simon Phipps of Sun.
Yeah, that's rich. I'm sure Sun & IBM are spending money creating OpenDocument implementations because they don't care about competing with MSFT's Office Suite.
I'd prefer it if they simply said, "We're competing with Microsoft, and we aim to win."
Your post just identified a huge barrier to linux adoption -- "Why would you want to switch when you already have Windows, then?"
For most people (i.e., the majority of people who are not IT professionals and tech geeks who read Slashdot) Windows is "good enough," and Linux does not provide a much better (i.e., compellingly different) user experience. So what reason do they have to switch? Avoiding your disdain probably isn't enough for most people, and if that's all you can offer someone you're trying to convince to make the switch, don't be surprised when they gripe that it doesn't work.
Most home users of Linux don't care to treat booting up their computer as a learning opportunity which is going to involve rigorous experimentation and research using Google.
From TFA, they describe him as an "Office Assistant". On a whim, I went over to Monster and plugged in a search for "Office Assistant" in the Albany area. Here's a representative sample of what came back: Office Assistant Job Description.
For everybody complaining about "thought breaks" and the like, this guy was NOT being paid to think deeply... he was being paid to do things like answer the phone... file, fax, and copy... type correspondence, etc. I don't mean to be disrespectful here, but the guy was doing a $13.50 an hour job that doesn't look like it's exactly going to put a lot of stress on the mental faculties. How much of a "thought break" does he need?
If typing, filing, copying, and faxing is too much for him, I'm sure there's plenty of candidates who would be happy to step in and take over; We're not talking about skilled labor or a highly trained technical person here... this is a pretty basic, straightforward job.
Who gave you that idea? Licenses are very much why F/OSS has been able to prosper as much as it has, especially RMS's GPL.
I never denied that the licenses are an important means to the end of producing free software. But the licenses are NOT the end in and of themselves. The problem is, the zealotry of people like RMS is counterproductive. Do your own thing... stop worrying about what other people are doing. If you disagree with Creative Commons, here's a solution: simply don't use it!
the zillions of CC-licenses are counter-productive...
Whether or not they're counter-productive depends on what your aim is, doesn't it?
You cannot espouse "freedom and choice" as a principle, and then turn around and blast people for making the "wrong" choice, if you wish to maintain a shred of integrity or credibility. If it's fundamentally about choice, then it's fundamentally about the right to make a BAD choice if you so desire.
Oh, and FWIW, I was modded "Interesting", not "Insightful".
This is a huge problem I see with the F/OSS "movement" in general. There's so much bullshit quibbling, infighting, and general friction. As it grows, it runs the very real risk of self-destructing under it's own weight, because of big egos, lack of a cohesive vision, and any fundamental agreement on aims & goals.
Has anybody stopped to think that Microsoft, and other proprietary ("Evil! Evil!") software companies out there are laughing all the way to the bank while RMS bitches about obscure licensing terms? Does anybody in F/OSS aside from the people writing the code realize that maybe 5% of the people who actually use the software really care about whether it uses a CC, GPL, LGPL, or whatever license?
F/OSS professes to want to provide the world with a viable alternative to the Microsofts. A noble endeavor to free society from the tyranny and oppression of Non-free software! You're not going to do that with a fucking license. You're going to do that by writing, and distributing, software that's good. Software that works, and works better than any other alternative. Software that presents a compelling vision of computing to the rest of the world. You can only license code after it's written... it's the quality of the code that will determine whether or not anybody wants to copy the code in the first place. Apache anyone? Perl? Python? Ant? There are plenty of other open-source projects out there that are de facto standards over any analogous Microsoft product in that market segment, simply because they're fundamentally better, or they fill a niche that Microsoft didn't think to try and fill.
What RMS is doing is stupid, and counter-productive. Focus on what *you* do, do it well, and release it with a license you agree with. Who cares if Microsoft keeps writing proprietary software, if you're not using it, affected by it, or supporting a style of software development you disagree with? If I want to spend $100 bucks a year buying new versions of Microsoft Money, well, it's my money, isn't it? If you have a free alternative that does the same or better job than MS Money, then tell me about it. Show it to me. But until then, why do you give a flying fornication what I choose to use? This is what I just don't get.
You say you want to provide a choice, and then you pitch a fit when people choose to do something you don't agree with? Hmm... maybe you should have told us it was a rhetorical question, then.
However, the work I actually do seems to be a waste of my CS education. My current project right now involves hooking up Excel and Access with a little VBA and some macros. The other day I was asked to export a Lotus Notes database into an Excel file and format it. The most programming-intensive project that I've done here was an ASP.NET webapp, for the company intranet.
I don't understand why it has to be a "Stay here and do boring work," or "Go somewhere else and do exciting work," proposition. If everything else about your job is perfect, then talk to your boss, and tell him/her you'd like to do more interesting work. If they ask you to implement something, try to negotiate on the technologies you can use... if you can't, ask to be assigned to projects where you can be creative & have a free hand with the technology choices you make. In other words, don't sit there like a lump waiting for someone else to make your job interesting.
If you have to export a Notes db to Excel, then find ways to make that an interesting task. Just because the word "Microsoft" is involved doesn't mean it has to be boring. If you have to write a web app for your intranet, then find a way to do it using technology you think is more interesting. Propose new projects for your "spare" time to your boss. Or better still, in your spare time, find a problem, and solve it, and then show the results to your boss.
Just because your job is boring today, doesn't mean it has to be boring tomorrow... and no job is going to be 100% Fun, 100% of the time. The TPS reports, or their equivalent, will have to be filed no matter *what* job you're working: I still have to send project plan updates, fill in timesheets, and do other administrative B.S. that I absolutely loathe, and you probably will have to, as well. The key is, finding other ways to compensate for that by identifying unsolved problems, and then finding creative ways to make them less painful.
Bottom Line: If your job is otherwise perfect, then find a way to make the work more interesting. If your boss actively tries to thwart your attempts, then you've got a problem, and then you might want to consider a new gig.
If you're talking about project managers, I think they ought to know more than their underlings. Management that deal in budgets, communicating with higher management, etc, seem totally different. [ . . . ] I would feel dispirited if someone were promoted past me because they couldn't function at the lower level. I've seen it several times (well, a couple times, but I haven't been in the corp. world long) where the clueless employee is promoted because mgmt doesn't want to risk taking the best guys off the lower-rung jobs.
I disagree with this sentiment. There seems to be, amongst technical people especially, a preconceived notion that being promoted into management is some sort of a reward for a job poorly done. I won't argue that this *never* happens, but look at the skill sets that are required to be a good developer, project manager, or plain-old manager. They're vastly different. In the ~9 years I've been working as a software engineer, I've known a bunch of good managers, good project managers, and good developers. And I've seen plenty of people who are, at best, *mediocre* software engineers, who turn out to be absolutely brilliant project managers and managers, and conversely, plenty of brilliant software engineers who end up being complete hacks when they're given proj. mgmt or management responsibilities.
I certainly wouldn't want to see a bad software engineer getting promoted into a senior *technical* role. But your logic that bad developers cannot be good managers is kind of like claiming that a brilliant doctor must also make a fantastic lawyer... or someone who's bad at being a fireman would also be a terrible chef.
It sounds to me like you're more likely wishing for a senior TECHNICAL person on your team, i.e., an Architect-level job, who knows more than you, who can mentor you, and so on. And to that I say, "AMEN!"
Don't make the mistake of assuming your boss is a complete moron just because he doesn't understand the minute details of your work. If he can't understand the general thrust of what you do, then take a step back, and figure out what you need to do to educate him, and communicate more effectively. However, it's not necessary for him to be able to replace you tomorrow in your job, and in fact, any boss who would purposely hire a staff that isn't better at development than he is, is going to wind up with a terrible product on his hands.
I still can't decide where I stand on this issue, to be honest...
Take the case of music -- I can see the argument from both sides, and I guess I just haven't seen enough data one way or another to indicate that one way is "bad" and the other is "good", because I think there does need to be some sort of balance made between the rights of the content creator, and the rights of the content "consumer". Take music for example:
If some singer writes an amazing song that everybody should share, where's the incentive for them to record & release that song for sale, if they sell 3 copies at $0.99 apiece, and then everybody else on the planet rips off the song? (Yes, that's an exaggeration, I'm aware that piracy probably isn't that rampant.) Doesn't the content creator have some right to profit from their hard work, and to "own" their song in such a way that they don't have to spend the next 30 years in court, spending any money they make trying to stop people from pirating their work? In the past (i.e., pre-digital-music), it was harder to pirate on a massive scale... but now when the cost of stealing a song is a few cents worth of bandwidth and a 20 second download? Easy to do, and cheap...
And then on the other hand, as a consumer, shouldn't I be allowed to do "whatever I want within reason" with the media & content that I've paid for (burn a CD for my car, put it on my iPod, copy it to my work computer, etc.)? I mean, so long as I'm not sharing the file all over to anybody who wants it, and I'm keeping it for my own "private use", then I think a DRM scheme is more a kill-joy for me than anything else.
I can see both sides of the argument, as someone who purchases a lot of music, and as someone who plays a little music (strictly amateur, but I know how much work & practice it takes to *play* someone else's material... the effort & thought that go into creating a good song is, I'm sure, orders of magnitude greater), I can see the argument both ways, and I'm really not sure which side I come down on.
I guess to me, it's not a question of "DRM: Good or Bad?", it's more a question of "DRM: How do you protect the rights of the content creator while still allowing the consumers to make fair & reasonable use of the content they've purchased?" Is ANYBODY answering this question these days? I know the RIAA is just sueing the shit out of everybody, and I hear lots of griping about DRM here on Slashdot, but I don't hear much about any "middle paths" being broken open...
You know, I don't understand this objection at all. If you're using a copy of Windows that you've paid for, then you're simply allowing Microsoft to validate that it *is*, in fact, a paid-for copy of Windows. If you didn't pay for your copy of Windows, then maybe you should consider the fact that you've stolen the software... like it or not, Windows is NOT free, and Microsoft (as the owner & copyright holder) has chosen to say, "If you want our software, you must pay." And they're well within their rights to make that demand. You may disagree on moral & philosophical grounds, but if that's the case, then you should be using one of the free alternatives to Windows, chock full of Linuxy goodness.
b) Requires a reboot,
Is this really that onerous? REALLY? I have trouble believing you'd choose to install IE7 BETA on a system you're doing important, long-running work on. If you've been calculating the meaning of life, the universe, and everything on your computer, maybe that's important enough to delay installing that unstable, buggy Beta software for a couple days?
And if you're not doing anything that important, really, how much of an interruption is a single reboot? I've got an older system running Windows XP, and it takes me maybe a minute to reboot my system, and another 2 minutes until I'm signed in and ready to work again... yes, it's an inconvenience... but seriously -- is this reboot issue THAT much of a surprise or an inconvenience?
c) Actually attempts to pass off things like tabbed browsing and a search bar as innovative
In a Microsoft browser, that *is* innovative... they're significant new features in the release. I don't personally care for the tabbed browsing implementation in IE7 -- but compared to IE6? Light years of difference. And do you really expect them to write in their marketing & promotional materials, "With these features, we're almost as good as Firefox and Opera now. Here at Microsoft, we strive to bring you the state of yesterday's art in browser technology!"?? Come on.
I know, I know. This is Slashdot, everybody who's anybody bashes Microsoft. Rather than admit that Microsoft is doing something (*competing*) that will end up being good for users, let's criticize their business model and marketing materials. If this is the harshest criticism we hear about IE7, I'd say that Microsoft is doing a halfway decent job, considering it's still a Beta release.
Well, sure, if you can explain your -- nonsensical -- apparent claim that Microsoft has no business profiting from the sale of an operating system that it created & owns...?
I know that here on Slashdot, bashing Microsoft is always in vogue (it's the new black!), but I can only see a couple meanings to your comment, and neither of them are even remotely reasonable.
1. You feel that Microsoft "forces" you to buy a computer with Windows on it. Last I checked, you could build your own, or buy stock hardware with no Operating System preinstalled. You're not compelled by Microsoft to do anything you don't want to do in that case.
2. You feel that Microsoft has no right to its Windows code base, because they've jacked most of their concepts from someone else. Which is kind of like saying that the people who work on Linux & it's associated applications have no rights to their code because they jacked their concepts from various Unix implementations. [Re-]Implementation of an existing good concept != Theft.
Slashdotters: find yourself an artsy chick to get down with; one who's pretty smart and asthetically pleasing. Add a little creativity to them logical sperm you've been carrying around
Paraphrase: "Come on Slashdotters, find yourselves an artsy chick! They might not be good for much practical purpose -- how could they be if they don't know who Kernighan & Ritchie are, much less how to properly apply Boyle's law? -- but they sure can be fun to hump!"
And when it's put like that, how could a special lady NOT be turned on?:)
Actually, for it to be entrapment, the government would have had to coerce or induce him to sell the source code when he was otherwise unwilling to do so. A conversation like this would be entrapment:
Gov't == Government Agent; DF == Dumb Fuck
Gov't: Psst. Hey. I want to buy the source code to the Microsoft Windows operating system, I hear you have it.
DF: No, I don't have it. And I wouldn't sell it anyway, even if I did. I'm a law-abiding citizen.
Gov't: Awww, come on. We KNOW you have it. You better sell it to us, or we'll break your kitten's knees.
DF: No, seriously, I don't want to!
Gov't: You sure? I really want to buy it from YOU. How about if I sweetened the offer -- I'll leave your pets alone, and I'll pay you one bazillion dollars for it.
DF: Well........ if you make it two bazillion dollars, and throw in a puppy, I'll think about it.
Gov't: Okay, great. Two bazillion dollars and one pokey little puppy for the source code? Deal!
DF: Okay, here it is. Where's my two bazillion? Hey! Wait! What?! Who are these guys in FBI coats?
[crashing, thumping, sound of handcuffs closing around DF's wrists]
Gov't: Ha ha ha... we knew we'd entrap you by offering you two bazillion dollars... you're going to jail son. Sippowitz! Take him down town.
It's not just a matter of approaching him with an offer to buy stolen source code... it's the inducement and/or coercion that constitutes entrapment.
In jurisprudence, entrapment is a procedural defense by which a defendant may argue that they should not be held criminally liable for actions which broke the law, because they were induced (or entrapped) by the police to commit said acts. For the defense to be successful, the defendant must demonstrate that the police induced an otherwise unwilling person to commit a crime. However, when a person is predisposed to commit a crime, offering opportunities to commit the crime is not entrapment, such as in the widely held misconception that policemen must answer questions truthfully if they are asked the same question three times, or that they must say "yes" if asked if they are a police officer.
This guy offered the code for sale. He was not unwillingly "induced", or "coerced" to sell it. This is NOT entrapment.
That said, he is also not a simple downloader. Before your heart starts bleeding for him too badly, look at his criminal history, discussed in the article. Mostly small-time stuff, but, FTFA:
Government court filings show the Connecticut man has an extensive record of mostly petty crimes, beginning with a 1996 conviction for criminal trespass for spray painting a bridge, followed by a rash of thefts from motor vehicles and a burglary conviction. In 1999 he was convicted of "breaching the peace" by assaulting the mother of his child, according to court records. At the time of the source-code sale, Genovese was on probation for computer trespass and eavesdropping after breaking into some private computers and installing keystroke-logging software.
So let's see. He downloaded a copy of proprietary source code. He then tried to make money by selling it on his "hacking-related" web site which he operates. He also is on probation for breaking into some private computers & installing key logging software. In the very BEST light possible, he's a small-time cracker & pirate, with a history of stupid criminal behavior.
Just because Microsoft chooses not to release its source code does NOT give someone else the right to take it, and then attempt to profit by reselling that source code. Like it or not, whether or not they open-source their operating system is their CHOICE (isn't that one of the fundamental principals of the F/OSS movement?), not yours. You may not like their choice, but that doesn't give anyone the right to "correct" Microsoft's choice because it's not the same choice RMS would make.
Actually no... that would put you in jail for some type of fraud.
If Microsoft offered to sell YOU something that they had no right to profit from selling (i.e., The Brooklyn Bridge -- it's not their property, and they have no legal right to sell it, or profit from the sale of it), and you paid for it, then you would have a case against them, and could probably take them to court.
And you would then be roundly praised on/. for being The Man Who Took On Microsoft. Which would give you serious geek cred... as long as you wouldn't mind that everybody else would think you were just a dumb asshole who tried to purchase the Brooklyn Bridge.
Slashdot Mirror
IF it's not supported by the install package. The point is, while there are more Windows drivers available, the vast majority of them won't be on your Windows install disc.
And most of the time you buy a system, or a peripheral, it comes with a little thing called a driver installation cd. The point was, for the average user, Linux will *not* support their entire system "out of the box." Windows probably won't, either. But at least you can find working drivers for Windows.
Weird. I just type "apt-get install package" or "emerge package" to install a program called "package".
So you think it's appropriate to tell your dear old ma & pa to do that? Once again: for the average user, the Linux install process is hard. Figure out what package you want to install. Then start a terminal session. Then make sure apt-get or emerge is configured properly to access the repository that has the package you want to install. Then type a command on the command line, and hope it all works. You think that's somehow "easy" for an average user?
I use the commandline a lot [ . . . ] I can dig inside my Linux, and do quite often [ . . . ] Source code matters, I'm a programmer [ . . . ] it uses an open standard [ . . . ]"
Apparently you didn't read the part of my post where I referenced the "average" user. Like it or not, you're not an "average" user. If Linux wants to make inroads on the desktop, it needs to become far more user friendly as a desktop system, and address the use cases of the typical home user. And for the linux fans who dont' grasp this, let me make it very explicit: the typical home user doesn't give a flying fornication whether their standards are open, or whether they can dig inside their source code, or whether they have a posix command line, or whether they have complete flexibility & freedom to customize their software.
Yes, you can make an argument that they probably *should* care about these things... but most of the Linux 'evangelists' I've ever talked to or heard from seem blind to the notion that wishing things were different doesn't make them so.
You're either exaggerating for effect, or you've only ever tried installing Windows XP on a ridiculously old piece of hardware, or a "fresh from the R&D lab" piece of hardware. Driver support is always going to be a problem when installing an O/S on a piece of hardware... but if you know what hardware you have, chances are you will find Windows drivers for your hardware quickly. Whereas with Linux, if it's not supported by the install package, you're often shit outta luck, or you'll spend 3 weeks tweaking and trying the poorly written instructions in some ridiculously antiquated HOWTO written by some guy who claims that he once got your wireless chipset working with ndiswrap, but it was also a full moon in may in the southern hemisphere, so that MAY have an impact...
For the AVERAGE user, the the Linux driver search would be like this: "Hmm... no drivers? Bollocks to that. I'll bring it to CompUSA and have them reinstall Windows."
And yes, I'm aware that the driver support is not the *fault* of the Linux developers. But it's a fact of life that Linux has to overcome if it ever wants to make inroads with "AVERAGE" users. You know, the people like yours & my parents, who just want a computer that they can send emails, and browse the web on. Most people are not trying to write java middleware to deploy in a production environment. For THOSE people, Linux might be a decent operating system today. For the people who just want to push a button and send an email, and have things "just work", it's still got a long way to go.
As for your quotes around Linux application installations being harder, most of them *are* "harder". Download this package. Make sure you check the MD5 signature! Unzip. Untar. make config. Now go edit this Makefile or that. Now make && make test && make install. Didn't work? Okay, start wading through the instructions to figure out what YOU screwed up, you dumb n00b. The *best* that most Linux distributions can claim is that some of their applications that are installable via binary distributions are "about equal" to the state of the art with Windows applications.
ObLinuxFanboyisms: I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux every day on servers that I support at work. I love it *as a server system.* If I had to use RHEL or Fedora as my desktop system? Don't think I'd like it as much. Even for a guy who has spent the last 8 years administering and working with Unix & Linux systems as his day job, Linux has too many little weird-isms on the desktop to make me comfortable. Part of it is the inertia of Windows -- I know Windows' weird-isms, and so I'm comfortable with them. But if Linux can't offer me a compelling alternative, why should I switch? Would you really claim that "Switch so you can learn a whole new set of weird behaviours, and then end up with a system that's... pretty much exactly the same as the Windows system you left behind," is a valid marketing pitch?
And frankly, for day to day use, I think you're right: Apple definitely has better usability. I picked up a Mac Mini for home use, and I've found myself a lot more productive in day-to-day "home use" with it than I ever have been with Windows or Linux as a home desktop. After adjusting to changes to the keystrokes that I use all the time, I've almost never swapped my KVM switch back over to my Windows system.
I've got to agree with this. What I'd love to see is for MSFT to conform to the letter of Google's complaint. On setup of IE7, pop up a dialog that essentially says:
"Choose a default search engine:
!* MSN *!
Altavista
Ask
Google
"
What would Google have to complain about then? I can't POSSIBLY imagine that they'd have a problem with this arrangement, would they?
Let's call a spade a spade here -- GOOG is acting in its own self interest by making this an issue... if MSFT gains search market share, GOOG's revenues will decline. I think Google's time & effort would be a lot better spent in other areas, but hey, if they want to bitch at Microsoft for making such a no-brainer decision (Let's see... Microsoft's new browser will default to... Apple's home page, and Google as search! Duh!?), it's their time wasted, not mine. I know how to change the target of my autosearches, and I will.
Well said. And god, I wish I had a bunch of mod points to give.
While the claim of "Microsoft is a convicted Monopolist," has been repeated ad nauseam here, I've yet to see anybody advance any sound legal reasoning as to how Microsoft setting a default value that can be changed quite easily in the browser constitutes "monopolistic competition." Just because Microsoft has been convicted of coercively monopolistic competition in the past does not mean that EVERYTHING the company does is monopolistic.
Absolutely... the live cd thing is something I haven't messed around with much, but it seems like it would make a fantastic "sales tool" for Linux.
My big issue with Linux is that, I'm a reasonably computer-savvy guy, and I attempted to set up my home desktop with Fedora (and later, Gentoo), and use that desktop exclusively. I managed for about 2 months before I bagged it and went back to Windows, because it was just too frustrating -- usability, missing software functionality that I use all the time, no hardware support for some peripherals, etc.
And I don't fault the Linux people for this... it was my own risk & experiment. But when I brought this up here on Slashdot previously as an example of how difficult it was to convert to Linux (as in, "i'm a software guy, and here's all the issues *I* ran into... now how my my dear old mom & dad going to succeed?"). The overwhelming response I got from Linux-y folks was along the lines of, "Well it's your fault for trying to install Fedora on a system with hardware that's unsupported. What did you expect?" And that's the high-handed snobbery the original article decries.
Microsoft, and Apple (to a far greater extent than the Linux community) have gotten it right: a desktop PC is, to most users, simply an appliance. They don't care what makes it work, as long as it works when they hit the power button. Linux has made usability strides, but it's still got this "do-it-yourself" ethos that scares off a lot of people.
Well, the actual answer to that question is another question:
What do you need to do with it?
I interact with five different operating systems on a daily basis, and have at least mild administrative experience on all of them:
I also have some fairly recent experience with Gentoo & Fedora Core on my personal laptop.
In my experience, for the *average* home user (and here, I'm thinking of people like my parents) -- the type of person who wants to send a few pictures to family & friends, write an email, browse the web, download some music... OS X or Windows XP is the way to go. I'm fairly new to the Mac world, but I've been very impressed so far with how simply & easily it "just works". Windows "just works" most of the time as well, but it requires more user intervention in the way of updates, security, and things like that.
Linux has its place... as a server operating system at work (Red Hat), I love it. It's rock-solid, and it "just works" in that scenario. With that said, Gentoo & Fedora Core are still not there as desktop systems for the "average" user. Too much work to get them running, and unless you buy new hardware that you've verified is absolutely, completely supported by Linux, then you're taking a real crapshoot. The reason I'm running OS X & Windows still today, rather than Fedora or Gentoo, is because I couldn't get half of the peripherals I already owned to work under Linux, and I'll be damned if I'm going to go out and spend hundreds of dollars replacing peripherals that I use infrequently just so I can reap the benefits of a free operating system.
The reason why it's "random" is that there's limited manpower to enforce the traffic laws -- with traffic stops, you have to be doing something illegal where the officer can see you. If they had a way to automate the monitoring with a reasonable degree of certainty, you'd start seeing a lot more people getting tickets.
Perhaps... like I said, I'm not a legal scholar. :) Though my understanding of the regulatory powers of the FCC is that it applies to "public" transmission bands -- Satellite radio, like cable tv, is a pay service, and is therefore, not "public" in the view of the courts. This is the reason why HBO, Showtime, and all those other pay channels can show softcore porn, use harsh language, etc. -- the FCC has no regulatory oversight on their content, because it's private...
So, unless they were to revoke the ability of a satellite provider to broadcast at all on a given frequency (or band of frequencies), then I don't see how they could regulate the content -- in other words, the "all or none" principle applies. I don't think they can't apply "public decency" standards, because it's not a public utility... and I'd imagine that Congress, with 8 million or so very angry constituents (3 mil. Sirius, ~5 mil. XM, I believe as of the last counts I heard) yelling at them about the issue, would probably step in and rein in the FCC if they tried shutting off all satellite services.
I'm not sure when it was added, but I can confirm that, at least the $699 G4 Mac Mini has Bluetooth & 802.11[a|b|g] on it... I purchased one about a month ago (woe is me, I would've loved to have gotten the additional USB ports & faster processor, guess I'll live without for a bit), and it's got bluetooth & 802.11 integrated.
I'm still happy with the Mini... it's my first hands-on experience with OS X, and Mac hardware in general... and my impressions so far are:
Wow. Easy to install new software!
Wow. Silent!
Wow. Takes up no space on my desk!
Wow. Burns DVDs!
Wow. UNIX-y goodness on the command line! And is that BASH I spy?
Wow. It supports all my other peripheral devices!
I'm really impressed... and for a total of about $800 (I bought a KVM Switch and a USB + Firewire Hub for it), I have a system about 20% of the size, and 1% of the noise of my old Windows system, and it has all of the functionality that I use on my home system -- email (via Mail), im (adium x), music/ipod (itunes), photo organization (iPhoto), web browsing (firefox & opera), and some other assorted utilities, plus a functional command line for some occasional light-duty perl programming... the only thing I still need is to get a copy of Quicken for OS X so I can do my financial stuff.
I am not a legal expert, but I did read through the text of the bill, and it seems to be specific to regulating receivers & transmitters of the signal, not about the contents of the signal being transmitted or received.
To me, it doesn't sound like it would give the FCC the ability to impose decency standards on satellite radio, just gives them the ability to mandate the use of this "broadcast flag" so that you can't record the signal.
I have a Sirius receiver presently, and it has an integrated FM transmitter... I also happen to have an FM tuner hooked up to my computer... so I guess as long as my *current* hardware works, at least, I'd be immune from this, since it's not supposed to be obsoleted by this measure.
Absolutely, I agree with that sentiment -- just kind of funny that this is being reported as "news", when it's in effect, a press release. "Microsoft Competitors Endorse Non-Microsoft Solution." Of course it's partisan, and of course they're "anti-Microsoft".
I don't have any issue with OpenDocument becoming the dominant standard, because I'm a fan of transparency & openness... and in fact, I wish them well in their endeavour... but let's also call a spade a spade, and admit that, if 90% of government documents are in Microsoft format, then Microsoft will stay in business, at least in a size large enought to support Office / Word / Powerpoint, etc, simply because it's the "de facto" standard. Even if Windows, IE, MSN Messenger, and every other thing you can think of that Microsoft produces blows up and dies a flaming, spectacular death, Office products will continue to exist, even if they're sold off to another company to maintain & support.
Is there anybody here who, for a second, believes this is anything but a hypocritical attempt to use the same FUD tactics that Microsoft is so often accused of using against open source? I mean, perhaps there are benefits to the OpenDocument format, but come on... these people are not being motivated by some grand notion of "helping the little man." Sun, IBM, and others see a lot of dollar signs, and they're pushing their chosen format... just like MSFT does.
FTFA:
Yeah, that's rich. I'm sure Sun & IBM are spending money creating OpenDocument implementations because they don't care about competing with MSFT's Office Suite.
I'd prefer it if they simply said, "We're competing with Microsoft, and we aim to win."
Your post just identified a huge barrier to linux adoption -- "Why would you want to switch when you already have Windows, then?"
For most people (i.e., the majority of people who are not IT professionals and tech geeks who read Slashdot) Windows is "good enough," and Linux does not provide a much better (i.e., compellingly different) user experience. So what reason do they have to switch? Avoiding your disdain probably isn't enough for most people, and if that's all you can offer someone you're trying to convince to make the switch, don't be surprised when they gripe that it doesn't work.
Most home users of Linux don't care to treat booting up their computer as a learning opportunity which is going to involve rigorous experimentation and research using Google.
From TFA, they describe him as an "Office Assistant". On a whim, I went over to Monster and plugged in a search for "Office Assistant" in the Albany area. Here's a representative sample of what came back: Office Assistant Job Description.
For everybody complaining about "thought breaks" and the like, this guy was NOT being paid to think deeply... he was being paid to do things like answer the phone... file, fax, and copy... type correspondence, etc. I don't mean to be disrespectful here, but the guy was doing a $13.50 an hour job that doesn't look like it's exactly going to put a lot of stress on the mental faculties. How much of a "thought break" does he need?
If typing, filing, copying, and faxing is too much for him, I'm sure there's plenty of candidates who would be happy to step in and take over; We're not talking about skilled labor or a highly trained technical person here... this is a pretty basic, straightforward job.
Who gave you that idea? Licenses are very much why F/OSS has been able to prosper as much as it has, especially RMS's GPL.
I never denied that the licenses are an important means to the end of producing free software. But the licenses are NOT the end in and of themselves. The problem is, the zealotry of people like RMS is counterproductive. Do your own thing... stop worrying about what other people are doing. If you disagree with Creative Commons, here's a solution: simply don't use it!
the zillions of CC-licenses are counter-productive...
Whether or not they're counter-productive depends on what your aim is, doesn't it?
You cannot espouse "freedom and choice" as a principle, and then turn around and blast people for making the "wrong" choice, if you wish to maintain a shred of integrity or credibility. If it's fundamentally about choice, then it's fundamentally about the right to make a BAD choice if you so desire.
Oh, and FWIW, I was modded "Interesting", not "Insightful".
This is a huge problem I see with the F/OSS "movement" in general. There's so much bullshit quibbling, infighting, and general friction. As it grows, it runs the very real risk of self-destructing under it's own weight, because of big egos, lack of a cohesive vision, and any fundamental agreement on aims & goals.
Has anybody stopped to think that Microsoft, and other proprietary ("Evil! Evil!") software companies out there are laughing all the way to the bank while RMS bitches about obscure licensing terms? Does anybody in F/OSS aside from the people writing the code realize that maybe 5% of the people who actually use the software really care about whether it uses a CC, GPL, LGPL, or whatever license?
F/OSS professes to want to provide the world with a viable alternative to the Microsofts. A noble endeavor to free society from the tyranny and oppression of Non-free software! You're not going to do that with a fucking license. You're going to do that by writing, and distributing, software that's good. Software that works , and works better than any other alternative. Software that presents a compelling vision of computing to the rest of the world. You can only license code after it's written... it's the quality of the code that will determine whether or not anybody wants to copy the code in the first place. Apache anyone? Perl? Python? Ant? There are plenty of other open-source projects out there that are de facto standards over any analogous Microsoft product in that market segment, simply because they're fundamentally better, or they fill a niche that Microsoft didn't think to try and fill.
What RMS is doing is stupid, and counter-productive. Focus on what *you* do, do it well, and release it with a license you agree with. Who cares if Microsoft keeps writing proprietary software, if you're not using it, affected by it, or supporting a style of software development you disagree with? If I want to spend $100 bucks a year buying new versions of Microsoft Money, well, it's my money, isn't it? If you have a free alternative that does the same or better job than MS Money, then tell me about it. Show it to me. But until then, why do you give a flying fornication what I choose to use? This is what I just don't get.
You say you want to provide a choice, and then you pitch a fit when people choose to do something you don't agree with? Hmm... maybe you should have told us it was a rhetorical question, then.
If you have to export a Notes db to Excel, then find ways to make that an interesting task. Just because the word "Microsoft" is involved doesn't mean it has to be boring. If you have to write a web app for your intranet, then find a way to do it using technology you think is more interesting. Propose new projects for your "spare" time to your boss. Or better still, in your spare time, find a problem, and solve it, and then show the results to your boss.
Just because your job is boring today, doesn't mean it has to be boring tomorrow... and no job is going to be 100% Fun, 100% of the time. The TPS reports, or their equivalent, will have to be filed no matter *what* job you're working: I still have to send project plan updates, fill in timesheets, and do other administrative B.S. that I absolutely loathe, and you probably will have to, as well. The key is, finding other ways to compensate for that by identifying unsolved problems, and then finding creative ways to make them less painful.
Bottom Line: If your job is otherwise perfect, then find a way to make the work more interesting. If your boss actively tries to thwart your attempts, then you've got a problem, and then you might want to consider a new gig.
If you're talking about project managers, I think they ought to know more than their underlings. Management that deal in budgets, communicating with higher management, etc, seem totally different. [ . . . ] I would feel dispirited if someone were promoted past me because they couldn't function at the lower level. I've seen it several times (well, a couple times, but I haven't been in the corp. world long) where the clueless employee is promoted because mgmt doesn't want to risk taking the best guys off the lower-rung jobs.
I disagree with this sentiment. There seems to be, amongst technical people especially, a preconceived notion that being promoted into management is some sort of a reward for a job poorly done. I won't argue that this *never* happens, but look at the skill sets that are required to be a good developer, project manager, or plain-old manager. They're vastly different. In the ~9 years I've been working as a software engineer, I've known a bunch of good managers, good project managers, and good developers. And I've seen plenty of people who are, at best, *mediocre* software engineers, who turn out to be absolutely brilliant project managers and managers, and conversely, plenty of brilliant software engineers who end up being complete hacks when they're given proj. mgmt or management responsibilities.
I certainly wouldn't want to see a bad software engineer getting promoted into a senior *technical* role. But your logic that bad developers cannot be good managers is kind of like claiming that a brilliant doctor must also make a fantastic lawyer... or someone who's bad at being a fireman would also be a terrible chef.
It sounds to me like you're more likely wishing for a senior TECHNICAL person on your team, i.e., an Architect-level job, who knows more than you, who can mentor you, and so on. And to that I say, "AMEN!"
Don't make the mistake of assuming your boss is a complete moron just because he doesn't understand the minute details of your work. If he can't understand the general thrust of what you do, then take a step back, and figure out what you need to do to educate him, and communicate more effectively. However, it's not necessary for him to be able to replace you tomorrow in your job, and in fact, any boss who would purposely hire a staff that isn't better at development than he is, is going to wind up with a terrible product on his hands.
I still can't decide where I stand on this issue, to be honest...
Take the case of music -- I can see the argument from both sides, and I guess I just haven't seen enough data one way or another to indicate that one way is "bad" and the other is "good", because I think there does need to be some sort of balance made between the rights of the content creator, and the rights of the content "consumer". Take music for example:
If some singer writes an amazing song that everybody should share, where's the incentive for them to record & release that song for sale, if they sell 3 copies at $0.99 apiece, and then everybody else on the planet rips off the song? (Yes, that's an exaggeration, I'm aware that piracy probably isn't that rampant.) Doesn't the content creator have some right to profit from their hard work, and to "own" their song in such a way that they don't have to spend the next 30 years in court, spending any money they make trying to stop people from pirating their work? In the past (i.e., pre-digital-music), it was harder to pirate on a massive scale... but now when the cost of stealing a song is a few cents worth of bandwidth and a 20 second download? Easy to do, and cheap...
And then on the other hand, as a consumer, shouldn't I be allowed to do "whatever I want within reason" with the media & content that I've paid for (burn a CD for my car, put it on my iPod, copy it to my work computer, etc.)? I mean, so long as I'm not sharing the file all over to anybody who wants it, and I'm keeping it for my own "private use", then I think a DRM scheme is more a kill-joy for me than anything else.
I can see both sides of the argument, as someone who purchases a lot of music, and as someone who plays a little music (strictly amateur, but I know how much work & practice it takes to *play* someone else's material... the effort & thought that go into creating a good song is, I'm sure, orders of magnitude greater), I can see the argument both ways, and I'm really not sure which side I come down on.
I guess to me, it's not a question of "DRM: Good or Bad?", it's more a question of "DRM: How do you protect the rights of the content creator while still allowing the consumers to make fair & reasonable use of the content they've purchased?" Is ANYBODY answering this question these days? I know the RIAA is just sueing the shit out of everybody, and I hear lots of griping about DRM here on Slashdot, but I don't hear much about any "middle paths" being broken open...
a) Requires you to validate windows to install,
You know, I don't understand this objection at all. If you're using a copy of Windows that you've paid for, then you're simply allowing Microsoft to validate that it *is*, in fact, a paid-for copy of Windows. If you didn't pay for your copy of Windows, then maybe you should consider the fact that you've stolen the software... like it or not, Windows is NOT free, and Microsoft (as the owner & copyright holder) has chosen to say, "If you want our software, you must pay." And they're well within their rights to make that demand. You may disagree on moral & philosophical grounds, but if that's the case, then you should be using one of the free alternatives to Windows, chock full of Linuxy goodness.
b) Requires a reboot,
Is this really that onerous? REALLY? I have trouble believing you'd choose to install IE7 BETA on a system you're doing important, long-running work on. If you've been calculating the meaning of life, the universe, and everything on your computer, maybe that's important enough to delay installing that unstable, buggy Beta software for a couple days?
And if you're not doing anything that important, really, how much of an interruption is a single reboot? I've got an older system running Windows XP, and it takes me maybe a minute to reboot my system, and another 2 minutes until I'm signed in and ready to work again... yes, it's an inconvenience... but seriously -- is this reboot issue THAT much of a surprise or an inconvenience?
c) Actually attempts to pass off things like tabbed browsing and a search bar as innovative
In a Microsoft browser, that *is* innovative... they're significant new features in the release. I don't personally care for the tabbed browsing implementation in IE7 -- but compared to IE6? Light years of difference. And do you really expect them to write in their marketing & promotional materials, "With these features, we're almost as good as Firefox and Opera now. Here at Microsoft, we strive to bring you the state of yesterday's art in browser technology!"?? Come on.
I know, I know. This is Slashdot, everybody who's anybody bashes Microsoft. Rather than admit that Microsoft is doing something (*competing*) that will end up being good for users, let's criticize their business model and marketing materials. If this is the harshest criticism we hear about IE7, I'd say that Microsoft is doing a halfway decent job, considering it's still a Beta release.
Well, sure, if you can explain your -- nonsensical -- apparent claim that Microsoft has no business profiting from the sale of an operating system that it created & owns...?
I know that here on Slashdot, bashing Microsoft is always in vogue (it's the new black!), but I can only see a couple meanings to your comment, and neither of them are even remotely reasonable.
1. You feel that Microsoft "forces" you to buy a computer with Windows on it. Last I checked, you could build your own, or buy stock hardware with no Operating System preinstalled. You're not compelled by Microsoft to do anything you don't want to do in that case.
2. You feel that Microsoft has no right to its Windows code base, because they've jacked most of their concepts from someone else. Which is kind of like saying that the people who work on Linux & it's associated applications have no rights to their code because they jacked their concepts from various Unix implementations. [Re-]Implementation of an existing good concept != Theft.
And when it's put like that, how could a special lady NOT be turned on?
Actually, for it to be entrapment, the government would have had to coerce or induce him to sell the source code when he was otherwise unwilling to do so. A conversation like this would be entrapment:
Gov't == Government Agent; DF == Dumb Fuck
Gov't: Psst. Hey. I want to buy the source code to the Microsoft Windows operating system, I hear you have it.
DF: No, I don't have it. And I wouldn't sell it anyway, even if I did. I'm a law-abiding citizen.
Gov't: Awww, come on. We KNOW you have it. You better sell it to us, or we'll break your kitten's knees.
DF: No, seriously, I don't want to!
Gov't: You sure? I really want to buy it from YOU. How about if I sweetened the offer -- I'll leave your pets alone, and I'll pay you one bazillion dollars for it.
DF: Well........ if you make it two bazillion dollars, and throw in a puppy, I'll think about it.
Gov't: Okay, great. Two bazillion dollars and one pokey little puppy for the source code? Deal!
DF: Okay, here it is. Where's my two bazillion? Hey! Wait! What?! Who are these guys in FBI coats?
[crashing, thumping, sound of handcuffs closing around DF's wrists]
Gov't: Ha ha ha... we knew we'd entrap you by offering you two bazillion dollars... you're going to jail son. Sippowitz! Take him down town.
It's not just a matter of approaching him with an offer to buy stolen source code... it's the inducement and/or coercion that constitutes entrapment.
Entrapment:
This guy offered the code for sale. He was not unwillingly "induced", or "coerced" to sell it. This is NOT entrapment.
That said, he is also not a simple downloader. Before your heart starts bleeding for him too badly, look at his criminal history, discussed in the article. Mostly small-time stuff, but, FTFA:
So let's see. He downloaded a copy of proprietary source code. He then tried to make money by selling it on his "hacking-related" web site which he operates. He also is on probation for breaking into some private computers & installing key logging software. In the very BEST light possible, he's a small-time cracker & pirate, with a history of stupid criminal behavior.
Just because Microsoft chooses not to release its source code does NOT give someone else the right to take it, and then attempt to profit by reselling that source code. Like it or not, whether or not they open-source their operating system is their CHOICE (isn't that one of the fundamental principals of the F/OSS movement?), not yours. You may not like their choice, but that doesn't give anyone the right to "correct" Microsoft's choice because it's not the same choice RMS would make.
Actually no... that would put you in jail for some type of fraud.
/. for being The Man Who Took On Microsoft. Which would give you serious geek cred... as long as you wouldn't mind that everybody else would think you were just a dumb asshole who tried to purchase the Brooklyn Bridge.
If Microsoft offered to sell YOU something that they had no right to profit from selling (i.e., The Brooklyn Bridge -- it's not their property, and they have no legal right to sell it, or profit from the sale of it), and you paid for it, then you would have a case against them, and could probably take them to court.
And you would then be roundly praised on