Mircosoft does a lot of bad things, but giving away software is not one of them. Their competitors (various open source projects) give away much higher quality code for free. Every time Microsoft tries to add a new feature, they get their asses sued off by every company that hacked in that new feature before, and are now charging ridiculous amounts of money for it.
The first part is that it isn't that Microsoft gives it away for free that is the problem, its that they bundle it, make it the default, and even integrate it with the OS.
If Microsoft limited their free giveaways to software that had to be downloaded from their website and installed manually, their competitors would have a lot less to bitch about.
And the second part is that the rules CHANGE when you have a monopoly. What are perfectly acceptable business practices in a competitive market are abusive and illegal in a monopoly. In a competitive market if you don't like what a company is doing you just stop buying from them... in a monopoly you can't, so market forces cease to be effective.
However, there are those who are biased, and those who are biased and also throw all logic to the wind.
AND there are those who are biased, know they are biased, and do their best to present the other side of the story and choose neutral words...to help mitigate their bias and be as balanced as humanly possibly.
Not only that, what could be "trivial" for one people is really informative for others.
True, but surely there is a limit. Are the contents of my lunch today 'informative'. Sure if I happen to become a celebrity on the scale of Lincoln someday, scholars will delight in knowing I had 'Kraft dinner' for lunch because my 4 year old wanted it more than anything... and that will somehow reveal to them something profound... but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia today. Hell, even a page about me or even my entire immediate family probably doesn't belong in wikipedia -- although there is certainly plenty to say, and some people would probably even find it interesting.
And one day, maybe, if one of us becomes pivotal in history, we'll be glad its there... but while any of the billions of people alive today could become pivotally important in the future... we really don't need 6 billion articles covering what we all had for lunch, or thought of sports, or what music we liked...
I would suggest that having 30 tasks open and being worked simultaneously does not represent you average business user. I have been in this business for coming up on 30 years, and I have yet to see a business user have more the 4 or 5 programs running at once.
Oh I'm not claiming to be a multitasking god... 4-5 'programs' is probably not far off the mark. But I'll have 5+ browser windows open, and 5+ folder windows open, and a few notepad instances, then email, etc... so I'll be at 15-20 windows before I start working, and even if they're minimized they all stack up in the task bar.
As to the rest, I certainly don't dispute that there is a time and place for 'maximum control for maximum uptime with minimum risk'; I just think that half the IT shops out there seem to think the time is 'always' and the place is 'everywhere', while the other half wishes they had 'maximum control' but just can't seem to get there thanks to all the fires they're wasting their time putting out.
There seems to be a pretty small sliver in the middle that's got the balance right for the industry they are in.
It seems we mostly agree.
EDirectory... Hmm think AD except far better and it runs on pretty much every platform you can buy.
Right! eDirectory, the Novell NDS productline/evolution. Thanks, that makes sense now.
Its like reading one idiot correct another idiot... fta:
In this case, the unsupported assertion starts with market share numbers pulled out of thin air. Under the heading "Disabling of Functionality," Gutmann writes:...For example many sound cards built on C-Media chipsets (which in practice is the vast majority of them) support Steinberg's ASIO (Audio Stream I/O), a digital audio interface that completely bypasses the Windows audio mixer and other audio-related driver software...
See how he slipped that little statement in there to make the problem he's discussing seem like something that will affect "the vast majority" of Windows systems? The trouble is, the vast majority of sound cards are not "built on C-Media chipsets." Don't take my word for it; that's what the company itself says. In reporting on a 2006 deal between C-Media and Asus, DigiTimes quotes a report in the Chinese-language Economic Daily News (EDN)
C-Media anticipates that its market share in the high-end audio IC market will hit 10%, up from the current 1-3%, according to the company...
The last time I looked, 1-3% was a tiny blip, not the "vast majority."
So the first idiot says the vast majority of audio chipsets are C-media... and the 2nd idiot thinks he's counting him by quoting C-media claim they have well under 10% of the 'hign-end audio ICs'. The two assertions aren't even in conflict for crying out loud.
Consider Toyota... both the worlds largest car company and simultaneously barely represented in the exotic high end car segment. So C-Media is a Toyota of audio chips; sounds about right. This is like a bad slashdot debate, not journalism. On both sides.
Now at some point there yes new machine will have ONLY Vista, but hopefully by then Vista will be on sp2 and be something worth using.
Does Vista actually really not work with your infrastructure/systems? I am not familiar with 'Edir'; and I'm not suggesting Vista will just work, but had you actually tried it?
I still see absolutely no reason for Aero in a business environment.
Lets see... I have some 30 odd tasks open, I click the firefox task and it shows me a list of 15, I hover the mouse over any of them and it shows me a preview of whats in the window. That little aero feature has slightly increased productivity. The new Vista start menu... another slightly increased productivity boost. At least for me. The sidebar widgets thing, I have a decent calculator and a notepad in there amongst other items, again, slight boost to productivity. Shadows? Slightly more obvious window stacking. The ability to move a window without the training video clip/sound to cut out... It all adds up.
Sure the Windows 3.1 GUI might be adequate, but its hardly a reason to stop improving.
I agree its not worth paying $300 in hardware + $150 in licenses + $xxx in labor to upgrade. But choosing between Vista or XP on a new unit? I'd say Vista is already generally worth it, unless you need to work with legacy software or hardware which isn't compatible (yet?)
These are not play toys, these are tools for employee's to use and as such Aero provides no value, only additional resource requirements, just generally slows everything down and gets in the way.
On suitable hardware, Aero makes no discernable difference in performance. And 'suitable' hardware is not expensive. An entry level modern CPU duo with a budget aero capable video card does just fine. There was even a study done on it as I recall. Microsoft funded as i recal, but the tech community generally didn't disagree with the results.
As to UAC it is pretty pointless as these machines are locked down hard and I have encouraged these companies to implement IT policies that say in nice terms, You install software, you are fired,
Most companies employing even remotely skilled people rarely exercise that policy.
Yeah its draconian but these companies were pushed to that extreme by stupid users who tried to or installed any bit of virus spreading, mal-ware installing, root-kitting bit of garbage from places like Facebook, Yahoo, MySpace
You yourself admit its draconian and extreme. Doesn't that represent a FAILURE to you?
Its like your running an office that was so plagued by fires that you flooded the whole thing with water and make your staff where scuba gear to work. And then someone comes along as says, hey we've got this new fire-resistant office equipment and you say... "its useless".
Maybe, just maybe, you shouldn't need your office flooded and manned by frogmen. Maybe switching to fireresistent equipment will let you impose a less extreme and draconian solution? I'm not saying Vista is going to eliminate all your security concerns... but it does move the bar forward in a lot of ways; maybe even enough that you can afford to be "less draconian".
"When downtime costs upwards of $200.00 per hour per employee" do you really want your employees spending time writing business cases for a handy utility they need right now, then waiting to have it vetted by the IT guys, then waiting for it to be deployed? Wouldn't it be better if they could just download and install it and get on with being productive?? As it stands, most probably just forego the utility, and slog through it manually, or do it at home or on their laptop where the restrictions are less onerous... I personally consider a situation where an employee does something at home because doing it at work is too much hassle to represent the absolute failure of IT. And I've seen a lot of sites where this is the norm.
I've even seen one where more employees than not, brought there own l
Perhaps if you then told them that the 20th century has been over for nearly a decade, they might ponder on why older versions of Windows have a 19th century security model.
I said 20th century not 21st on purpose. I don't consider not running as an administrator a new 21st century idea. So, yes, I think we should *all* ponder why XP still has a 19th century security model.:)
The guy was talking about assembly programming, so that wouldn't be applicable here.
Hmmm... I didn't start into assembly until DOS3.0, but at that point the standard BIOS and DOS interrupt references were indispensible. As were the references for some of the common 'drivers' like for creating sound on a soundblaster, or using a mouse for input.
I'd call all of those genuine APIs. Software library functions your progam could invoke.
Not to mention the guides covering CGA/EGA/VGA which had "API - like" features; in terms of mode setting, and so on.
I told them 95% of your machines will require a memory upgrade and a new video card, since the on-board video system will not handle Aero and with parts and labor that is going to cost you about $300.00 per machine so that's going to be around $30K PLUS the upgrade licenses, training costs, etc. To a client, they all said, "And I would do this why?".
You answered their question in the previous paragraph:
I told every customer I had, "Look, what Vista is bringing to the table, you really don't need".
First you told them there was no benefit, then you told them there was huge cost. And then, big surprise, none of them went for it.
But were you truthful? Is there no benefit? Perhaps if you'd told them Vista moved the security model of Windows into the 20th century, they might have seen more value in an upgrade?
But sure even then, if you've already got XPSP2 and locked it down reasonably well, and are subscribing to an A/V product with rootkit detection, and you run everyone as normal users, then yeah you've already done most of the legwork to get to the benefits that Vista has out of the box with its forced run as user and driver signing on by default, and yeah an upgrade wouldn't be worth much and would cost a fair chunk. So it would be right to conclude you don't need to upgrade... but at the same time, there is no reason to avoid it when replacing the hardware.
What does this mean in normal human language, rather than lawyerspeak???
It means 'we called our customers mindless sheep that go where they're led, and called our VAR partners our bitches that will do what they're told, and we called our 'MVPs our whores that... well... anyway... we really don't want them finding out this how we refer to them internally...
After rereading the FAQ, and the GPLv2, I agree with you.
They claim they only want to ensure that if you've come onto the binaries you are able to get the source, but yes, they way it is written, they are deliberately overshooting that mark... so that even if you you don't have the binaries you can still request and receive the source.
My former understanding was that the offer was extended to anyone who had the software. But you are right, while they rationalize that they only really want to protect people who have the binaries, they've created this protection by entitling anyone to request the software, whether they have the binaries or not.
The upshot of this is that if you want to 'restrict' distribution of GPL code, you must distribute it with the source code. ie... suppose I give mary a copy of my gpl program with the source code on a separate CD and she installs the binaries on her laptop, and leaves the source in a cabinet on her desk. Then... you come along and read about the software on a blog... you can't request the source. Or if you use Mary's laptop you can't request the source.
However, if I don't give Mary a source CD, and instead provide a 'written offer' then you can request the source, even if you've never met Mary nor seen or laptop.
After all the news is not that bittorrent lowers distribution costs. The news is that somebody else figured it out. Some PHB out there somewhere just discovered how he's going to make his quarterly bonus by cutting distribtion costs, and he's got this 'study' that will show him the way.
Read that first line carefully. It doesn't say that only people who got the binary gets access to the code, it says anybody.
Yes, the written offer applies to *anyone*... anyone who has the written offer can make use of it, regardless of where they got it, ie -- even if they didn't get it directly from the company that originally created the written offer.
They are saying in the FAQ that "yes, its possible that anyone in the world may come back and ask for the source", because by making a written offer, and giving it to someone, that someone else may in turn pass it on to anyone... so at the end of the day, anyone might have it. And you have to honor anyone who has it.
Technically however, you do actually have to have received the offer to act on it. So not its not automatically available to EVERYONE.
That said, pretty much anyone can GET an offer if the distribution was wide enough, and someone who had received it was willing to redistribute it. Like in the case of Tivo, for example.
However, if I take GPL code, modify it and redistribute to some close friends in binary form along with a written offer for source, YOU can't get the source unless either I give you the software/written offer or they do. If none of us are willing to redistribute to you, you can't get the offer. And when you come asking for the source I can tell you where to stuff it.
The term user as used by the FSF isn't an end user of the program, it can be anyone who uses the program or source code of the program for any reason that is compatible with the GPL
Precisely. If you aren't a 'user' of the program because no one will distribute to you a copy, then you don't qualify for the written offer of the source. If you can legally get a copy, then we'll talk.
I can't wait for some TEACHER to get busted doing something inappropriate on camera and then the teachers union will demand these camera's be removed as an invasion of the teacher privacy.
Or perhaps the parents will demand access to the feeds so they can monitor their own kids, and open a whole new can of worms. Once the technology is in place, its only natural that the parents should take an interest in monitoring their own kids education. What good parent wouldn't? And I'm sure all sorts of unexpected 'interesting' things would come out of the woodwork... sexual harrassment incidents, inappropriate teacher behaviour, bullying,... all sorts of stuff the kids almost never come forward with on display in plain sight for the parents... what a riot that would be.
We made money by selling 30 cents of popcorn and 10 cents worth of soda for $5.50. The numbers may have changed a little now that tickets are $10, but I'm sure the percentages are similar.
Now its 30cents of popcorn for $4.50 and 10cents of pop for $5.50, or you can get the pop+popcorn combo for $9.00, and for $11.50 it comes with a chocolate bar too...
Really, they should just jack the base ticket price by a dollar and include a small popcorn with every ticket. That will be more profitable than selling overpriced popcorn to a fraction of the guests, and it will increase demand for the over-priced pop, which should be available for another $2.00 for 12-16oz. (350-500ml) (still overpriced, but not obscenely overpriced)
And of course let people 'upgrade' their complimentary popcorn to a larger size for a fee. And the people who don't want the popcorn? They don't have to claim it. After all its only 10 cents worth of popcorn and if they bitch about the value, you can tell them that, and offer to give them a dime refund if they fill out some forms...
So you would prevent them from entering into a legal contract to have someone else SELL the copies? Why? Aside from being cheap.
Yes, and I'd make sure he was actually holding the rights whiles doing it too. And I'm not sure how a corporation is going to work, given that it can neither "hold" things, and will probably want to use employees to facilitate the sales of copies, which of course would be forbidden.
ie... Your being pedantic.
Of course I have no issue if the rights holder delegates that right. And my statement that the rights holder be the only one who can sell copies is merely shorthand for a wide variety of commercialization endeavours that might be contemplated.
The problem with the argument is that, according to Hollywood, no film ever makes money.
Ah well in that case they should stop making movies. And with them out of the way someone can come along and make a profitable worth watching. Everybody wins.
In light of this, it would seem that having extended copyright terms actually makes it impossible for Hollywood to make a profit. If they didn't enjoy a perpetual royalty on creative works, they would have to employ more creative talent in order to remain in business.
I think that might be true of personal property too though,
I think it is. I think its called 'theft'.
As in: "Hey, give that back, its mine."
Granted, you'd have to be awfully petty to want to bust someone over a few staples out of your stapler, or some ink out of your pen, but really that's what it would be.
Content will become more locked down and centralized and you'll only be able to access it under ceratain conditions.
That is not 'competing with free'. That presumes free has been removed from the equation.
How does hollywood compete in a world where exchanging movies via p2p/torrent for noncommercial purposes or gain is 100% recognized legal. A locked down restrictive centralised system is not going to make a dime, ever.
So, you would support moving every work into public domain once said work has made back the money invested in creating the work, yes?
I said 'big blockbuster movies' make their money back before being released to DVD, so its not like hollywood would stop making them even if they went into the public domain after their theatre run. But I didn't actually say they should go into the public domain at that point.
Which would mean that Linux gets put in the public domain because it has made back the money invested in creating it.
I didn't say anything of the sort. However, if you want to apply what I did say to Linux, it would be the case that anyone could make a copy of it themselves. (Which they can anyway.)
Why should anyone invest in creating CDs and DVDs if one is not going to make money?>
Do mean CD's and DVD's or 'music' and 'movies'?
If the former, I'm fine if only the copyright holder can SELL copies. And I think think they will be able to sell copies even if people can make their own copies for free. It takes time, and a blank disc, and its a hassle and if I want cover art its a bigger hassle... I'd pay a reasonable fee to have that all done for me. And I have no problem if only the rightsholder is authorized to charge for that service/product and saves me the hassle of doing it myself, and giving me a better product as a result too.
If the latter, music and movies can be made for the money earned on public performances, and for the service/convenience of making copies of those CDs for users who don't want to do it themselves or who otherwise want to 'support the band'/etc and have 'official merchandise'.
There is no reason to criminalize non-commercial copying except that it 'lessens' the rights holders profitability. But society has no obligation or reason to care about that. As long as their is a significant incentive to create works the public will come out fine... and we don't need to criminalize non-commercial copying to achieve that -- even in this age of internet and p2p.
My point is that personal property has a lot in common with real property too, at least as much as intellectual property... and we don't go around asserting that it too should be taxed, now do we?
Why should IP be considered real property and taxed, but not personal property? What's the compelling trait shared by IP and real-P that is not also shared by personal-P?
Are you really that ignorant of context? Property in this sense means land. Does that clear things up for you?
Not at all.
My point is that personal property has a lot in common with real property too, at least as much as intellectual property... and we don't go around asserting that it too should be taxed, no do we.
Why should IP be considered real property and taxed, but not personal property? What's the compelling trait shared by IP and real-P that is not also shared by personal-P?
It is hard to imagine, for example, that Hollywood studios would spend tens of millions of dollars producing a new blockbuster if the law didn't grant them exclusive rights in its commercial reproduction.
Its not that hard to imagine at all. Its hard to imagine they would spend tens of millions of dollars producing new movies if they couldn't make their money back and profit from it. But that has nothing to do with a "law that gives them exclusive rights in its commercial reproduction".
They could always find a new way of making their money back. -gasp-
Hell, "blockbuster movies" generally make their money back from theatre ticket sales, before even going to DVD. As long as you had a law in place that gave them control over public displays at theatres, in airplanes, satellite subscription services, etc they'd survive, and there would still be adequate incentive to make new movies.
And even if consumers were free to copy movies provided they did it non-commercially that wouldn't kill DVD/bluray sales anytime soon, and when the internet is fast enough that physical media is actually threatened, they can sell copies of them via itunes music store type services. A lot of people will pay a modest amount for a copy even if they can get it free legitimately, if the paid version invariably meets a high level of quality and is more convenient and is always available.
All the industry has to ask is: how do you compete with free? And the answer: better service. As long as copyright gives them the monopoly to charge for content they will always be able to compete, and profit.
If they don't want to, fine, they can get out of the business, and someone else will come along see the money on the table, and get in on this 'making movies thing'. Its not our job to ensure that something becomes increasingly lucrative as time goes on, and that's what hollywood is essentially demanding... that their profits not be allowed to fall... at all... ever.
if they are arguing property is property no matter what, then it would seem to me it should be taxed as such.
Really? I have stapler on my desk that I don't pay property taxes on.
On this desk alone I also have a mouse, a telephone, a can of coke, a screwdriver, a keyboard, 2 monitors, a flashlight, a spindle of blank DVDs... all property, all completely exempt from 'property taxes'.
I'm curious what idiot convinced you that all real property is taxed.
Slashdot Mirror
Mircosoft does a lot of bad things, but giving away software is not one of them. Their competitors (various open source projects) give away much higher quality code for free. Every time Microsoft tries to add a new feature, they get their asses sued off by every company that hacked in that new feature before, and are now charging ridiculous amounts of money for it.
The first part is that it isn't that Microsoft gives it away for free that is the problem, its that they bundle it, make it the default, and even integrate it with the OS.
If Microsoft limited their free giveaways to software that had to be downloaded from their website and installed manually, their competitors would have a lot less to bitch about.
And the second part is that the rules CHANGE when you have a monopoly. What are perfectly acceptable business practices in a competitive market are abusive and illegal in a monopoly. In a competitive market if you don't like what a company is doing you just stop buying from them... in a monopoly you can't, so market forces cease to be effective.
However, there are those who are biased, and those who are biased and also throw all logic to the wind.
AND there are those who are biased, know they are biased, and do their best to present the other side of the story and choose neutral words...to help mitigate their bias and be as balanced as humanly possibly.
Not only that, what could be "trivial" for one people is really informative for others.
True, but surely there is a limit. Are the contents of my lunch today 'informative'. Sure if I happen to become a celebrity on the scale of Lincoln someday, scholars will delight in knowing I had 'Kraft dinner' for lunch because my 4 year old wanted it more than anything... and that will somehow reveal to them something profound... but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia today. Hell, even a page about me or even my entire immediate family probably doesn't belong in wikipedia -- although there is certainly plenty to say, and some people would probably even find it interesting.
And one day, maybe, if one of us becomes pivotal in history, we'll be glad its there... but while any of the billions of people alive today could become pivotally important in the future... we really don't need 6 billion articles covering what we all had for lunch, or thought of sports, or what music we liked...
I would suggest that having 30 tasks open and being worked simultaneously does not represent you average business user. I have been in this business for coming up on 30 years, and I have yet to see a business user have more the 4 or 5 programs running at once.
Oh I'm not claiming to be a multitasking god... 4-5 'programs' is probably not far off the mark. But I'll have 5+ browser windows open, and 5+ folder windows open, and a few notepad instances, then email, etc... so I'll be at 15-20 windows before I start working, and even if they're minimized they all stack up in the task bar.
As to the rest, I certainly don't dispute that there is a time and place for 'maximum control for maximum uptime with minimum risk'; I just think that half the IT shops out there seem to think the time is 'always' and the place is 'everywhere', while the other half wishes they had 'maximum control' but just can't seem to get there thanks to all the fires they're wasting their time putting out.
There seems to be a pretty small sliver in the middle that's got the balance right for the industry they are in.
It seems we mostly agree.
EDirectory... Hmm think AD except far better and it runs on pretty much every platform you can buy.
Right! eDirectory, the Novell NDS productline/evolution. Thanks, that makes sense now.
Its like reading one idiot correct another idiot... fta:
...For example many sound cards built on C-Media chipsets (which in practice is the vast majority of them) support Steinberg's ASIO (Audio Stream I/O), a digital audio interface that completely bypasses the Windows audio mixer and other audio-related driver software...
In this case, the unsupported assertion starts with market share numbers pulled out of thin air. Under the heading "Disabling of Functionality," Gutmann writes:
See how he slipped that little statement in there to make the problem he's discussing seem like something that will affect "the vast majority" of Windows systems? The trouble is, the vast majority of sound cards are not "built on C-Media chipsets." Don't take my word for it; that's what the company itself says. In reporting on a 2006 deal between C-Media and Asus, DigiTimes quotes a report in the Chinese-language Economic Daily News (EDN)
C-Media anticipates that its market share in the high-end audio IC market will hit 10%, up from the current 1-3%, according to the company...
The last time I looked, 1-3% was a tiny blip, not the "vast majority."
So the first idiot says the vast majority of audio chipsets are C-media... and the 2nd idiot thinks he's counting him by quoting C-media claim they have well under 10% of the 'hign-end audio ICs'. The two assertions aren't even in conflict for crying out loud.
Consider Toyota... both the worlds largest car company and simultaneously barely represented in the exotic high end car segment. So C-Media is a Toyota of audio chips; sounds about right. This is like a bad slashdot debate, not journalism. On both sides.
Other than
Now at some point there yes new machine will have ONLY Vista, but hopefully by then Vista will be on sp2 and be something worth using.
Does Vista actually really not work with your infrastructure/systems? I am not familiar with 'Edir'; and I'm not suggesting Vista will just work, but had you actually tried it?
I still see absolutely no reason for Aero in a business environment.
Lets see... I have some 30 odd tasks open, I click the firefox task and it shows me a list of 15, I hover the mouse over any of them and it shows me a preview of whats in the window. That little aero feature has slightly increased productivity. The new Vista start menu... another slightly increased productivity boost. At least for me. The sidebar widgets thing, I have a decent calculator and a notepad in there amongst other items, again, slight boost to productivity. Shadows? Slightly more obvious window stacking. The ability to move a window without the training video clip/sound to cut out... It all adds up.
Sure the Windows 3.1 GUI might be adequate, but its hardly a reason to stop improving.
I agree its not worth paying $300 in hardware + $150 in licenses + $xxx in labor to upgrade. But choosing between Vista or XP on a new unit? I'd say Vista is already generally worth it, unless you need to work with legacy software or hardware which isn't compatible (yet?)
These are not play toys, these are tools for employee's to use and as such Aero provides no value, only additional resource requirements, just generally slows everything down and gets in the way.
On suitable hardware, Aero makes no discernable difference in performance. And 'suitable' hardware is not expensive. An entry level modern CPU duo with a budget aero capable video card does just fine. There was even a study done on it as I recall. Microsoft funded as i recal, but the tech community generally didn't disagree with the results.
As to UAC it is pretty pointless as these machines are locked down hard and I have encouraged these companies to implement IT policies that say in nice terms, You install software, you are fired,
Most companies employing even remotely skilled people rarely exercise that policy.
Yeah its draconian but these companies were pushed to that extreme by stupid users who tried to or installed any bit of virus spreading, mal-ware installing, root-kitting bit of garbage from places like Facebook, Yahoo, MySpace
You yourself admit its draconian and extreme. Doesn't that represent a FAILURE to you?
Its like your running an office that was so plagued by fires that you flooded the whole thing with water and make your staff where scuba gear to work. And then someone comes along as says, hey we've got this new fire-resistant office equipment and you say... "its useless".
Maybe, just maybe, you shouldn't need your office flooded and manned by frogmen. Maybe switching to fireresistent equipment will let you impose a less extreme and draconian solution? I'm not saying Vista is going to eliminate all your security concerns... but it does move the bar forward in a lot of ways; maybe even enough that you can afford to be "less draconian".
"When downtime costs upwards of $200.00 per hour per employee" do you really want your employees spending time writing business cases for a handy utility they need right now, then waiting to have it vetted by the IT guys, then waiting for it to be deployed? Wouldn't it be better if they could just download and install it and get on with being productive?? As it stands, most probably just forego the utility, and slog through it manually, or do it at home or on their laptop where the restrictions are less onerous... I personally consider a situation where an employee does something at home because doing it at work is too much hassle to represent the absolute failure of IT. And I've seen a lot of sites where this is the norm.
I've even seen one where more employees than not, brought there own l
Perhaps if you then told them that the 20th century has been over for nearly a decade, they might ponder on why older versions of Windows have a 19th century security model.
:)
I said 20th century not 21st on purpose. I don't consider not running as an administrator a new 21st century idea. So, yes, I think we should *all* ponder why XP still has a 19th century security model.
as well as the specs etc for the various API's?
The guy was talking about assembly programming, so that wouldn't be applicable here.
Hmmm... I didn't start into assembly until DOS3.0, but at that point the standard BIOS and DOS interrupt references were indispensible. As were the references for some of the common 'drivers' like for creating sound on a soundblaster, or using a mouse for input.
I'd call all of those genuine APIs. Software library functions your progam could invoke.
Not to mention the guides covering CGA/EGA/VGA which had "API - like" features; in terms of mode setting, and so on.
I told them 95% of your machines will require a memory upgrade and a new video card, since the on-board video system will not handle Aero and with parts and labor that is going to cost you about $300.00 per machine so that's going to be around $30K PLUS the upgrade licenses, training costs, etc. To a client, they all said, "And I would do this why?".
You answered their question in the previous paragraph:
I told every customer I had, "Look, what Vista is bringing to the table, you really don't need".
First you told them there was no benefit, then you told them there was huge cost. And then, big surprise, none of them went for it.
But were you truthful? Is there no benefit? Perhaps if you'd told them Vista moved the security model of Windows into the 20th century, they might have seen more value in an upgrade?
But sure even then, if you've already got XPSP2 and locked it down reasonably well, and are subscribing to an A/V product with rootkit detection, and you run everyone as normal users, then yeah you've already done most of the legwork to get to the benefits that Vista has out of the box with its forced run as user and driver signing on by default, and yeah an upgrade wouldn't be worth much and would cost a fair chunk. So it would be right to conclude you don't need to upgrade... but at the same time, there is no reason to avoid it when replacing the hardware.
What does this mean in normal human language, rather than lawyerspeak???
... well... anyway... we really don't want them finding out this how we refer to them internally...
;)
It means 'we called our customers mindless sheep that go where they're led, and called our VAR partners our bitches that will do what they're told, and we called our 'MVPs our whores that
That's my guess, at least.
After rereading the FAQ, and the GPLv2, I agree with you.
... you come along and read about the software on a blog... you can't request the source. Or if you use Mary's laptop you can't request the source.
They claim they only want to ensure that if you've come onto the binaries you are able to get the source, but yes, they way it is written, they are deliberately overshooting that mark... so that even if you you don't have the binaries you can still request and receive the source.
My former understanding was that the offer was extended to anyone who had the software. But you are right, while they rationalize that they only really want to protect people who have the binaries, they've created this protection by entitling anyone to request the software, whether they have the binaries or not.
The upshot of this is that if you want to 'restrict' distribution of GPL code, you must distribute it with the source code. ie... suppose I give mary a copy of my gpl program with the source code on a separate CD and she installs the binaries on her laptop, and leaves the source in a cabinet on her desk. Then
However, if I don't give Mary a source CD, and instead provide a 'written offer' then you can request the source, even if you've never met Mary nor seen or laptop.
Thanks for enlightening me.
-best regards
It may not be new. But its still news.
After all the news is not that bittorrent lowers distribution costs. The news is that somebody else figured it out. Some PHB out there somewhere just discovered how he's going to make his quarterly bonus by cutting distribtion costs, and he's got this 'study' that will show him the way.
Read that first line carefully. It doesn't say that only people who got the binary gets access to the code, it says anybody.
;)
Yes, the written offer applies to *anyone*... anyone who has the written offer can make use of it, regardless of where they got it, ie -- even if they didn't get it directly from the company that originally created the written offer.
They are saying in the FAQ that "yes, its possible that anyone in the world may come back and ask for the source", because by making a written offer, and giving it to someone, that someone else may in turn pass it on to anyone... so at the end of the day, anyone might have it. And you have to honor anyone who has it.
Technically however, you do actually have to have received the offer to act on it. So not its not automatically available to EVERYONE.
That said, pretty much anyone can GET an offer if the distribution was wide enough, and someone who had received it was willing to redistribute it. Like in the case of Tivo, for example.
However, if I take GPL code, modify it and redistribute to some close friends in binary form along with a written offer for source, YOU can't get the source unless either I give you the software/written offer or they do. If none of us are willing to redistribute to you, you can't get the offer. And when you come asking for the source I can tell you where to stuff it.
The term user as used by the FSF isn't an end user of the program, it can be anyone who uses the program or source code of the program for any reason that is compatible with the GPL
Precisely. If you aren't a 'user' of the program because no one will distribute to you a copy, then you don't qualify for the written offer of the source. If you can legally get a copy, then we'll talk.
IT isn't complicated.
Precisely.
I can't wait for some TEACHER to get busted doing something inappropriate on camera and then the teachers union will demand these camera's be removed as an invasion of the teacher privacy.
Or perhaps the parents will demand access to the feeds so they can monitor their own kids, and open a whole new can of worms. Once the technology is in place, its only natural that the parents should take an interest in monitoring their own kids education. What good parent wouldn't? And I'm sure all sorts of unexpected 'interesting' things would come out of the woodwork... sexual harrassment incidents, inappropriate teacher behaviour, bullying,... all sorts of stuff the kids almost never come forward with on display in plain sight for the parents... what a riot that would be.
We made money by selling 30 cents of popcorn and 10 cents worth of soda for $5.50. The numbers may have changed a little now that tickets are $10, but I'm sure the percentages are similar.
Now its 30cents of popcorn for $4.50 and 10cents of pop for $5.50, or you can get the pop+popcorn combo for $9.00, and for $11.50 it comes with a chocolate bar too...
Really, they should just jack the base ticket price by a dollar and include a small popcorn with every ticket. That will be more profitable than selling overpriced popcorn to a fraction of the guests, and it will increase demand for the over-priced pop, which should be available for another $2.00 for 12-16oz. (350-500ml) (still overpriced, but not obscenely overpriced)
And of course let people 'upgrade' their complimentary popcorn to a larger size for a fee. And the people who don't want the popcorn? They don't have to claim it. After all its only 10 cents worth of popcorn and if they bitch about the value, you can tell them that, and offer to give them a dime refund if they fill out some forms...
So you would prevent them from entering into a legal contract to have someone else SELL the copies? Why? Aside from being cheap.
Yes, and I'd make sure he was actually holding the rights whiles doing it too. And I'm not sure how a corporation is going to work, given that it can neither "hold" things, and will probably want to use employees to facilitate the sales of copies, which of course would be forbidden.
ie... Your being pedantic.
Of course I have no issue if the rights holder delegates that right. And my statement that the rights holder be the only one who can sell copies is merely shorthand for a wide variety of commercialization endeavours that might be contemplated.
Two ships enter. One ship leaves.
Two ships enter. One ship leaves!
TWO SHIPS ENTER. ONE SHIP LEAVES!!
I dunno whether your idea has any merit, but I gotta admit its got a catchy rhythm. I can already hear the PR campaign...
The problem with the argument is that, according to Hollywood, no film ever makes money.
Ah well in that case they should stop making movies. And with them out of the way someone can come along and make a profitable worth watching. Everybody wins.
In light of this, it would seem that having extended copyright terms actually makes it impossible for Hollywood to make a profit. If they didn't enjoy a perpetual royalty on creative works, they would have to employ more creative talent in order to remain in business.
Kidding aside, thats a good point.
I think that might be true of personal property too though,
I think it is. I think its called 'theft'.
As in: "Hey, give that back, its mine."
Granted, you'd have to be awfully petty to want to bust someone over a few staples out of your stapler, or some ink out of your pen, but really that's what it would be.
Content will become more locked down and centralized and you'll only be able to access it under ceratain conditions.
That is not 'competing with free'. That presumes free has been removed from the equation.
How does hollywood compete in a world where exchanging movies via p2p/torrent for noncommercial purposes or gain is 100% recognized legal. A locked down restrictive centralised system is not going to make a dime, ever.
So, you would support moving every work into public domain once said work has made back the money invested in creating the work, yes?
I said 'big blockbuster movies' make their money back before being released to DVD, so its not like hollywood would stop making them even if they went into the public domain after their theatre run. But I didn't actually say they should go into the public domain at that point.
Which would mean that Linux gets put in the public domain because it has made back the money invested in creating it.
I didn't say anything of the sort. However, if you want to apply what I did say to Linux, it would be the case that anyone could make a copy of it themselves. (Which they can anyway.)
Why should anyone invest in creating CDs and DVDs if one is not going to make money?>
Do mean CD's and DVD's or 'music' and 'movies'?
If the former, I'm fine if only the copyright holder can SELL copies. And I think think they will be able to sell copies even if people can make their own copies for free. It takes time, and a blank disc, and its a hassle and if I want cover art its a bigger hassle... I'd pay a reasonable fee to have that all done for me. And I have no problem if only the rightsholder is authorized to charge for that service/product and saves me the hassle of doing it myself, and giving me a better product as a result too.
If the latter, music and movies can be made for the money earned on public performances, and for the service/convenience of making copies of those CDs for users who don't want to do it themselves or who otherwise want to 'support the band'/etc and have 'official merchandise'.
There is no reason to criminalize non-commercial copying except that it 'lessens' the rights holders profitability. But society has no obligation or reason to care about that. As long as their is a significant incentive to create works the public will come out fine... and we don't need to criminalize non-commercial copying to achieve that -- even in this age of internet and p2p.
My point is that personal property has a lot in common with real property too, at least as much as intellectual property... and we don't go around asserting that it too should be taxed, now do we?
Why should IP be considered real property and taxed, but not personal property? What's the compelling trait shared by IP and real-P that is not also shared by personal-P?
Are you really that ignorant of context? Property in this sense means land. Does that clear things up for you?
Not at all.
My point is that personal property has a lot in common with real property too, at least as much as intellectual property... and we don't go around asserting that it too should be taxed, no do we.
Why should IP be considered real property and taxed, but not personal property? What's the compelling trait shared by IP and real-P that is not also shared by personal-P?
It is hard to imagine, for example, that Hollywood studios would spend tens of millions of dollars producing a new blockbuster if the law didn't grant them exclusive rights in its commercial reproduction.
Its not that hard to imagine at all. Its hard to imagine they would spend tens of millions of dollars producing new movies if they couldn't make their money back and profit from it. But that has nothing to do with a "law that gives them exclusive rights in its commercial reproduction".
They could always find a new way of making their money back. -gasp-
Hell, "blockbuster movies" generally make their money back from theatre ticket sales, before even going to DVD. As long as you had a law in place that gave them control over public displays at theatres, in airplanes, satellite subscription services, etc they'd survive, and there would still be adequate incentive to make new movies.
And even if consumers were free to copy movies provided they did it non-commercially that wouldn't kill DVD/bluray sales anytime soon, and when the internet is fast enough that physical media is actually threatened, they can sell copies of them via itunes music store type services. A lot of people will pay a modest amount for a copy even if they can get it free legitimately, if the paid version invariably meets a high level of quality and is more convenient and is always available.
All the industry has to ask is: how do you compete with free? And the answer: better service. As long as copyright gives them the monopoly to charge for content they will always be able to compete, and profit.
If they don't want to, fine, they can get out of the business, and someone else will come along see the money on the table, and get in on this 'making movies thing'. Its not our job to ensure that something becomes increasingly lucrative as time goes on, and that's what hollywood is essentially demanding... that their profits not be allowed to fall... at all... ever.
if they are arguing property is property no matter what, then it would seem to me it should be taxed as such.
Really? I have stapler on my desk that I don't pay property taxes on.
On this desk alone I also have a mouse, a telephone, a can of coke, a screwdriver, a keyboard, 2 monitors, a flashlight, a spindle of blank DVDs... all property, all completely exempt from 'property taxes'.
I'm curious what idiot convinced you that all real property is taxed.