There's a better tool available: Boycott the companies that are leaky
Please define "leaky". I got a letter from my bank a few weeks ago saying that someone somewhere had leaked my debit card number, and that I would be receiving a new one within a few days. I don't know where they fault lies - most likely it was vendor where I had used my card that had some kind of security breach - but my bank took care of the issue quickly, so aside from the 2 minute hassle of activating a new card, there wasn't really any problem. My guess is that the vendor realized the error, and called visa or my bank and gave them a list of cards that may have been compromised. If the bank were going to tell customers exactly which company had compromised my card, the vendor would be less forthcoming - maybe nothing bad would happen and they'd get off without damaging their reputation. Frankly, I'd rather have them contact my bank and be able to maintain a cloak of privacy than risk having my debit card compromised because they didn't want bad advertising.
You're incredibly naive if your really believe that. I've had to explain to my girlfriend on three separate occasions that her music will only work on iTunes or an iPod, and that I can't play it on my Linux computer. I had to convince her sister that if she bought a Creative mp3 player, her music from iTunes wouldn't work on it. Apple makes it easy for people to play their music and transfer it to their iPod. Unless somebody has bought a music player other than an iPod and tried to transfer music, tried to burn an mp3 cd, or tried to use Linux, most likely they're only loosely aware that there are some things they can't do with their iTunes music. Apple's DRM is not nearly as restrictive as it could be. If nothing else just burn a regular CD and rip it back. You may care about quality, but the difference isn't enough for most users to care.
The greed of the artist, the publisher and the listener are all played to create a dishonest deal in which none have real choices.
Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. The artist often gets a very minimal cut of sales on iTunes, and only complies because otherwise they could lose other contracts. I'd hardly call it greedy to try and keep your job. The listener has a choice between driving to the store and buying a CD, downloading something illegally (the greediest option), or downloading it from iTunes. Then they have as many choices as they have with a CD, because they can in fact burn the music to a CD. There are two groups that could be construed as particularly greedy. The publisher, who chose DRM in an attempt to prevent piracy, would go under if everyone shared digital music freely. Then there's Apple, the distributor, who seems to have the most to gain by locking people to a platform. But Apple is saying that decision lies with the distributors.
As far as why Apple doesn't sell some tracks without DRM, I don't think its so much a matter of confusion as not wanting to advertise DRM. As I've stated, there are iTunes users out there who don't realize there are restrictions on their music. If the music store didn't distinguish between DRM free tracks and tracks with DRM, users would never know for sure what they're getting until they'd bought it. But if they put anything to indicate that some tracks have DRM and some tracks don't, it would call attention to DRM, and users would begin to realize their music had restrictions on them. Whether you'll admit it or not, right now most iTMS customers are blissfully ignorant towards DRM, and the only way Apple is going to make sure every user knows about DRM is going to be in the context that the iTMS is now DRM Free.
Actually, the way the license is phrased you can't run Windows Vista in a virtual machine within a Windows Vista virtual machine of that same license. My interpretation of it is that you probably could boot Windows Vista, and run that same installation in a virtual machine (as parallels allows) so long as the host OS is OSX.
Microsoft may have had a different intention, but until a judge has ruled otherwise, I think it's safe to run Vista on Parallels on OSX. (Note, the example case, if there is one, will be a business, not a home user, so individuals shouldn't be concerned about becoming the example).
Apple provides a Windows client in part to expose Windows users to Apple products, and draw attention to their other, larger products. If people heard they could get iTunes for Windows (which they probably have), OSX (which Apple wants them to buy) or Linux (which is competition to OSX in the alternatives-to-windows category, but many people have never heard of it), they'd be calling attention to the fact that there are alternatives to Windows other than OSX, which isn't going to help them at all.
Certainly the fragmentation of Linux is a discouragement, however projects like Google's Picasa and Google Earth, as well as Mozilla Firefox and Adobe's Flash have exhibited that if you make packages available, people can either install them on their own, or individual distros will find a way to distribute it - the vendor doesn't have to do a lot to support the distribution of the package. The sound system would also take some work, and a Linux version of iTunes probably wouldn't yield much (if any) profit, especially as Linux users tend to be adamantly anti-DRM. As far as virtualization as a workaround for iTunes on Linux, it really isn't practical to virtualize an entire Windows machine just to listen to your music, and presently it's not possible to update an iPod using VMWare.
To fill you in on pyMusique, it was a client written in Python which allowed users on Linux or Windows to create an iTMS account and download music. Initially, the developers assumed the DRM was implemented on Apple's servers, but actually found that the DRM was applied to the music as it was downloaded. They simply piped it to a DRM-free container. They also did not mark the download as completed, which meant the music store thought the user hadn't completed the download successfully, and would allow them to re-download at any time. Apple obviously had to protect their investment in Fairplay (and bandwidth), so they made changes to the iTMS protocol, breaking pyMusique. If DRM weren't an issue, I see no reason for Apple to disallow programs like pyMusique, or perhaps iTMS plugins could become available for clients like Amarok and Rythmbox, perhaps even WinAmp.
I feel that there are numerous reasons Apple won't be developing a Linux iTMS client, but I'm hopeful that Apple will ultimately drop DRM and allow third party clients so I could expand my music collection legitimately and easily.
Yes, it's wasteful to make pointless flights like this, but the great-grandparent to this post made it sound like you should take your SUV from New York to Denver rather than flying, and cited articles to that effect. Taking a plane from New York to Denver is more efficient than taking an SUV, and the grandparent was trying to set the record straight on that. They also addressed unnecessary travel as wasteful. If anyone missed the point, it was the great-grandparent, who suggested plane flight in general is wasteful.
If you're using encryption to hide things you could be tortured to death for, I'd hope you'd be cautious enough to delete your history files. You're correct that plausible deniability doesn't work if the opponent knows you're trying to use it, but it assumes you're bright enough to cover your tracks. Just because it has risks associated with it doesn't make it worthless or bad.
I'd be quite doubtful that every police department in every country would have the ability to decrypt every Bitlocker drive on the planet. From what I understand, the NSA is currently the only government organization that will have the proper keys. Further, many (most?) encryption methods have methods for revoking keys, so if there were a leak, Microsoft could release an update that revoked the given key.
I'm skeptical that this will ever actually happen, but if the iTMS starts selling tracks without DRM, it seems that would re-open the doors for projects like pyMusique. I highly doubt Apple will release a Linux iTunes client, as they want to promote themselves as the alternative to Windows (can't say I blame them), but they wouldn't have as much incentive to break projects that provide alternative methods for buying from the store.
This page does a better job explaining it than I did.
The first encrypted volume is obvious. If someone can find the drive, it's quite clear that the data is encrypted. The plausible deniability allows you to give up the password for the first encrypted volume. There can also be a second volume that is indistinguishable from the random bits that fill the empty space. If you know it's there and know the password for that volume, you can open it and mount it. If you don't know it's there, you could keep writing data to the first volume and eventually write over the second.
Supposedly even using encryption can be deemed "criminal intent" in Minnesota.
So does that mean logging into my bank's website is illegal in Minnesota? While there has certainly been some stupid legislation running around, I'm not going to believe that until I see a more detailed summary of the legislation from a semi-reputable source.
I don't really have any "sensitive" information on my computer, but I've played around with a program called TrueCrypt. TrueCrypt is open source, so you can be sure there aren't any hidden keys. It has the added bonus of plausible deniability - the entire partition is encrypted and the bits past where files were are random. You can create a hidden partition that gets lost in the random bits, so you have to know its there (and know the key) to find it.
Really though, I'd say Bitlocker is probably adequate for most purposes. If you're concerned about siblings, co-workers, rival companies, etc. it will hide your data. If you're trying to hide something from legal authorities, you'd best find another way to hide your data.
teachers, at least in the US, are paid better than most white collar workers.
I don't know many teachers who do all their work on the clock (as that editorial seems to assume). Grading papers, helping students after school are generally required by schools, but goes unpaid if it goes past the end of the work day. Sponsoring after school activities gets a little more, but definitely less than the daily wage. Most of the teachers I know put in a good 10 hours a day but get paid for 8. The article notes that they get 20% more per hour than comparable professions, but if they only get paid for 80% of their time, it balances out.
The argument can certainly be made that teachers don't have to put in that extra time. But that's largely the reason people believe teachers are underpaid. To ensure good educations, we need teachers who are willing to put in more time than 8 hours a day. A teacher who is really committed to their students may frequently put in a 60 hour work week, (I know I had teachers who did). If we want more teachers like that, we need to pay more.
Lastly, that article considers hourly wages, but teachers don't work summers. Many teach summer school or have other jobs during the summer (often working retail), because just teaching the normal schedule barely provides enough to live on. Teachers ultimately make about 60% as much money as other comparable professions.
If someone is completely happy with Windows, I don't try to change them. I don't know too many people who fit into that category though.
I don't run around trying to convert people. When I hear people complaining about one thing or another, I can't resist saying "Oh, I don't have that problem with Linux." And if they ask for more information, I'm happy to oblige. I've given away more than one Ubuntu Shipit CD this way.
Most of the people I talk to about Linux are people who are already looking for a change. I try and make clear that there is a learning curve, and while Linux isn't necessarily harder to learn than Windows, it's definitely different, which means changing some habits. If people are looking for a free version of Windows, I don't waste my time. Switching to Linux isn't something that can be done half-heartedly. You have to make people really want to switch, which you can't do in 5 minutes.
That's because it only runs on Macs right now. Apple's already gotten paid for the hardware, which is their main goal. If Apple started selling OSX for regular PCs (as was suggested by the post I was responding to), they'd need to find some way to prevent people from installing one copy on every PC they can get their hands on.
You think Apple wouldn't require activation keys? Then it's only a matter of time until some activation key gets stuck in the wrong box and doesn't work for what it's shipped with. The only viable solution is to issue a correct activation key or offer a refund (Microsoft is doing the latter). They're not going to be able to fix the install DVD they've already given you. I'm not a Microsoft fan in the least - I've spent the last year shifting to Linux and have been running it exclusively for a few months - but anybody who is going to require an activation key has the potential of such a mistake, even Apple.
I might also note, that the article is based on a phone call to customer service, not a statement from a Microsoft official. The customer service rep at a call center isn't going to have the authority to issue new activation keys the first time someone calls in with this problem, and isn't going to be able to give a time frame.
There are plenty of things I don't like about Microsoft, but to suggest Apple would have handled this particular case better seems a bit absurd. The only surefire way to avoid problems with activation keys is to not have activation keys. Just one more reason I like Linux.
Give me a story where grandma bought a computer and installed linux and has it running for a few years without any problems, then we'll talk.
You give me a story where grandma bought a computer and installed Windows and has had it running for a few years without any problems.
My mother (the equivalent of grandma in many of these stories) gets along on Windows alright, but she didn't install it herself. She bought an HP computer with Windows pre-installed along with an anti-virus. If she'd had to install Windows herself, she would have given up and called me. She wouldn't have thought to install an anti-virus, and we would have been reinstalling a couple months down the line. Almost every time I'm home from school my mom has something on her computer she needs me to install/fix/show her how to do.
Now take Ubuntu. The Ubuntu installer asks a few straightforward questions (language, keyboard layout, location, name and password, and the most difficult is which drive to install to), and is booted to a functional installation of Ubuntu less than 45 minutes after putting in the install CD. No need for an anti-virus. Office Suite comes pre-installed, along with web browsing utilities, media players, etc. If a family member needed my support, I could probably step them through installing SSH on the phone or by e-mail, then SSH into their box to install programs or fix things.
I'm not saying Linux is right for every user. For example, my dad has been hearing me rave about Linux for a good year now, and thinks he might like to try it. I'm more than happy to help him set it up, but I know he'll be back to Windows before too long because the HVAC simulation software he uses for work won't run on Linux and his investment software is also Windows only. I don't fault him for using Windows, because he actually has things he needs out of his computer that Linux can't offer.
What I am saying is I'd much rather install and support Linux for a family member than install and support Windows. Grandma is going to need help getting her computer up and keeping it running whether she's using Windows or Linux. If I'm going to be providing that help, I'd rather she use Linux.
My guess is it will be like the frog in the pot scenario, where there is a little bit of this at first and then as people accept it, it gets ratcheted up.
I'm pretty doubtful Microsoft could pull that off. Microsoft has lots of customers, but I hardly know anybody who likes Windows. Many of them aren't aware of alternatives, but Apple has become a house-hold name with iPods, and lots of people know they also make computers. I can't tell you how many people I know who are planning on a Mac for their next computer. Linux is also becoming a much more viable option for the desktop. I've run into more and more people recently who are in fields completely unrelated to computers, but run Linux (usually Ubuntu or Suse) and like it.
The frog is already pretty uncomfortable. If Microsoft plans to ratchet up the heat, they need to do a better job at silencing the other options, or it will be more of a rats off a sinking ship scenario.
I think the point is that when XP becomes to outdated, they're not going to Vista. ReactOS is a novelty operating system. Functionally, it's behind Windows 95. It's fun to play with and see how far they can get, but it's a long way from being an upgrade from XP.
I heard about this quite a while ago. A quick google search reveals: Gmail Trademark in Dispute (if you don't want to click it, it's an article on the subject dated August 12, 2004). This may be another instance of someone claiming rights to it, but it certainly isn't the first place Google has lost the GMail trademark.
Yeah, there are some places CFLs just don't work well. Every light in my house is a CFC except the ones in the bathrooms. We found that CFLs didn't come on as quickly as incandescents, and when the whole purpose of the light is to make sure you hit the toilet, it doesn't help if it takes 30 seconds to become bright enough to take aim. For every other purpose I've found in our household, CFLs are great - they last longer and save money, but when you need a quick response, CFLs don't have quite cut it.
Big-name computers with windows are NOT the only option a consumer has.
True, but is there any legitimate reason that big name computer companies should have to pay Microsoft for every computer they sell, rather than every Windows license they sell? If anybody is being manhandled, it's the OEMs, who were told for quite some time that if they want to sell Windows, they don't get to sell computers without Windows. They were forced to choose between selling Windows exclusively, or not selling it all, and there's enough demand for Windows it was a pretty clear choice.
If all the big OEMs chose to support Windows exclusively, then I wouldn't fault Microsoft for it, but Microsoft's OEM licensing contracts were extremely anti-competitive. There have been some improvements since they've started facing anti-trust suits, and there are more OS-free and free-OS computers coming from the big manufacturers, but it's still hard to find a solid laptop without paying for Windows. I'm sure you're going to claim otherwise, and I'd appreciate links. I may go laptop shopping in the near future, and right now the only reliable Linux laptops I'm aware of come from System76.
I'm glad to hear the expressly stated by a kernel developer, but is this really anything new? I'd been under the impression for quite some time that any product with specifications had decent open source drivers, and that the manufacturers knew it. I have several pieces of hardware that have open source drivers because the hardware manufacturers released specs. I thought the main reason we didn't have more drivers was that the hardware developers were more interested in protecting trade secrets than catering to Linux users. Several hardware manufacturers have already figured out that the drivers will be written at no cost to them (and no obligation for them to provide support), and that all they have to do is release some specifications. So is there really anything new here?
Slashdot Mirror
Please define "leaky". I got a letter from my bank a few weeks ago saying that someone somewhere had leaked my debit card number, and that I would be receiving a new one within a few days. I don't know where they fault lies - most likely it was vendor where I had used my card that had some kind of security breach - but my bank took care of the issue quickly, so aside from the 2 minute hassle of activating a new card, there wasn't really any problem. My guess is that the vendor realized the error, and called visa or my bank and gave them a list of cards that may have been compromised. If the bank were going to tell customers exactly which company had compromised my card, the vendor would be less forthcoming - maybe nothing bad would happen and they'd get off without damaging their reputation. Frankly, I'd rather have them contact my bank and be able to maintain a cloak of privacy than risk having my debit card compromised because they didn't want bad advertising.
You're incredibly naive if your really believe that. I've had to explain to my girlfriend on three separate occasions that her music will only work on iTunes or an iPod, and that I can't play it on my Linux computer. I had to convince her sister that if she bought a Creative mp3 player, her music from iTunes wouldn't work on it. Apple makes it easy for people to play their music and transfer it to their iPod. Unless somebody has bought a music player other than an iPod and tried to transfer music, tried to burn an mp3 cd, or tried to use Linux, most likely they're only loosely aware that there are some things they can't do with their iTunes music. Apple's DRM is not nearly as restrictive as it could be. If nothing else just burn a regular CD and rip it back. You may care about quality, but the difference isn't enough for most users to care.
Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. The artist often gets a very minimal cut of sales on iTunes, and only complies because otherwise they could lose other contracts. I'd hardly call it greedy to try and keep your job. The listener has a choice between driving to the store and buying a CD, downloading something illegally (the greediest option), or downloading it from iTunes. Then they have as many choices as they have with a CD, because they can in fact burn the music to a CD. There are two groups that could be construed as particularly greedy. The publisher, who chose DRM in an attempt to prevent piracy, would go under if everyone shared digital music freely. Then there's Apple, the distributor, who seems to have the most to gain by locking people to a platform. But Apple is saying that decision lies with the distributors.
As far as why Apple doesn't sell some tracks without DRM, I don't think its so much a matter of confusion as not wanting to advertise DRM. As I've stated, there are iTunes users out there who don't realize there are restrictions on their music. If the music store didn't distinguish between DRM free tracks and tracks with DRM, users would never know for sure what they're getting until they'd bought it. But if they put anything to indicate that some tracks have DRM and some tracks don't, it would call attention to DRM, and users would begin to realize their music had restrictions on them. Whether you'll admit it or not, right now most iTMS customers are blissfully ignorant towards DRM, and the only way Apple is going to make sure every user knows about DRM is going to be in the context that the iTMS is now DRM Free.
Microsoft may have had a different intention, but until a judge has ruled otherwise, I think it's safe to run Vista on Parallels on OSX. (Note, the example case, if there is one, will be a business, not a home user, so individuals shouldn't be concerned about becoming the example).
Certainly the fragmentation of Linux is a discouragement, however projects like Google's Picasa and Google Earth, as well as Mozilla Firefox and Adobe's Flash have exhibited that if you make packages available, people can either install them on their own, or individual distros will find a way to distribute it - the vendor doesn't have to do a lot to support the distribution of the package. The sound system would also take some work, and a Linux version of iTunes probably wouldn't yield much (if any) profit, especially as Linux users tend to be adamantly anti-DRM. As far as virtualization as a workaround for iTunes on Linux, it really isn't practical to virtualize an entire Windows machine just to listen to your music, and presently it's not possible to update an iPod using VMWare.
To fill you in on pyMusique, it was a client written in Python which allowed users on Linux or Windows to create an iTMS account and download music. Initially, the developers assumed the DRM was implemented on Apple's servers, but actually found that the DRM was applied to the music as it was downloaded. They simply piped it to a DRM-free container. They also did not mark the download as completed, which meant the music store thought the user hadn't completed the download successfully, and would allow them to re-download at any time. Apple obviously had to protect their investment in Fairplay (and bandwidth), so they made changes to the iTMS protocol, breaking pyMusique. If DRM weren't an issue, I see no reason for Apple to disallow programs like pyMusique, or perhaps iTMS plugins could become available for clients like Amarok and Rythmbox, perhaps even WinAmp.
I feel that there are numerous reasons Apple won't be developing a Linux iTMS client, but I'm hopeful that Apple will ultimately drop DRM and allow third party clients so I could expand my music collection legitimately and easily.
Yes, it's wasteful to make pointless flights like this, but the great-grandparent to this post made it sound like you should take your SUV from New York to Denver rather than flying, and cited articles to that effect. Taking a plane from New York to Denver is more efficient than taking an SUV, and the grandparent was trying to set the record straight on that. They also addressed unnecessary travel as wasteful. If anyone missed the point, it was the great-grandparent, who suggested plane flight in general is wasteful.
If you're using encryption to hide things you could be tortured to death for, I'd hope you'd be cautious enough to delete your history files. You're correct that plausible deniability doesn't work if the opponent knows you're trying to use it, but it assumes you're bright enough to cover your tracks. Just because it has risks associated with it doesn't make it worthless or bad.
I'd be quite doubtful that every police department in every country would have the ability to decrypt every Bitlocker drive on the planet. From what I understand, the NSA is currently the only government organization that will have the proper keys. Further, many (most?) encryption methods have methods for revoking keys, so if there were a leak, Microsoft could release an update that revoked the given key.
I'm skeptical that this will ever actually happen, but if the iTMS starts selling tracks without DRM, it seems that would re-open the doors for projects like pyMusique. I highly doubt Apple will release a Linux iTunes client, as they want to promote themselves as the alternative to Windows (can't say I blame them), but they wouldn't have as much incentive to break projects that provide alternative methods for buying from the store.
The first encrypted volume is obvious. If someone can find the drive, it's quite clear that the data is encrypted. The plausible deniability allows you to give up the password for the first encrypted volume. There can also be a second volume that is indistinguishable from the random bits that fill the empty space. If you know it's there and know the password for that volume, you can open it and mount it. If you don't know it's there, you could keep writing data to the first volume and eventually write over the second.
So it would seem. It's been a long day.
So does that mean logging into my bank's website is illegal in Minnesota? While there has certainly been some stupid legislation running around, I'm not going to believe that until I see a more detailed summary of the legislation from a semi-reputable source.
Really though, I'd say Bitlocker is probably adequate for most purposes. If you're concerned about siblings, co-workers, rival companies, etc. it will hide your data. If you're trying to hide something from legal authorities, you'd best find another way to hide your data.
I don't know many teachers who do all their work on the clock (as that editorial seems to assume). Grading papers, helping students after school are generally required by schools, but goes unpaid if it goes past the end of the work day. Sponsoring after school activities gets a little more, but definitely less than the daily wage. Most of the teachers I know put in a good 10 hours a day but get paid for 8. The article notes that they get 20% more per hour than comparable professions, but if they only get paid for 80% of their time, it balances out.
The argument can certainly be made that teachers don't have to put in that extra time. But that's largely the reason people believe teachers are underpaid. To ensure good educations, we need teachers who are willing to put in more time than 8 hours a day. A teacher who is really committed to their students may frequently put in a 60 hour work week, (I know I had teachers who did). If we want more teachers like that, we need to pay more.
Lastly, that article considers hourly wages, but teachers don't work summers. Many teach summer school or have other jobs during the summer (often working retail), because just teaching the normal schedule barely provides enough to live on. Teachers ultimately make about 60% as much money as other comparable professions.
I don't run around trying to convert people. When I hear people complaining about one thing or another, I can't resist saying "Oh, I don't have that problem with Linux." And if they ask for more information, I'm happy to oblige. I've given away more than one Ubuntu Shipit CD this way.
Most of the people I talk to about Linux are people who are already looking for a change. I try and make clear that there is a learning curve, and while Linux isn't necessarily harder to learn than Windows, it's definitely different, which means changing some habits. If people are looking for a free version of Windows, I don't waste my time. Switching to Linux isn't something that can be done half-heartedly. You have to make people really want to switch, which you can't do in 5 minutes.
That's because it only runs on Macs right now. Apple's already gotten paid for the hardware, which is their main goal. If Apple started selling OSX for regular PCs (as was suggested by the post I was responding to), they'd need to find some way to prevent people from installing one copy on every PC they can get their hands on.
I might also note, that the article is based on a phone call to customer service, not a statement from a Microsoft official. The customer service rep at a call center isn't going to have the authority to issue new activation keys the first time someone calls in with this problem, and isn't going to be able to give a time frame.
There are plenty of things I don't like about Microsoft, but to suggest Apple would have handled this particular case better seems a bit absurd. The only surefire way to avoid problems with activation keys is to not have activation keys. Just one more reason I like Linux.
You give me a story where grandma bought a computer and installed Windows and has had it running for a few years without any problems.
My mother (the equivalent of grandma in many of these stories) gets along on Windows alright, but she didn't install it herself. She bought an HP computer with Windows pre-installed along with an anti-virus. If she'd had to install Windows herself, she would have given up and called me. She wouldn't have thought to install an anti-virus, and we would have been reinstalling a couple months down the line. Almost every time I'm home from school my mom has something on her computer she needs me to install/fix/show her how to do.
Now take Ubuntu. The Ubuntu installer asks a few straightforward questions (language, keyboard layout, location, name and password, and the most difficult is which drive to install to), and is booted to a functional installation of Ubuntu less than 45 minutes after putting in the install CD. No need for an anti-virus. Office Suite comes pre-installed, along with web browsing utilities, media players, etc. If a family member needed my support, I could probably step them through installing SSH on the phone or by e-mail, then SSH into their box to install programs or fix things.
I'm not saying Linux is right for every user. For example, my dad has been hearing me rave about Linux for a good year now, and thinks he might like to try it. I'm more than happy to help him set it up, but I know he'll be back to Windows before too long because the HVAC simulation software he uses for work won't run on Linux and his investment software is also Windows only. I don't fault him for using Windows, because he actually has things he needs out of his computer that Linux can't offer.
What I am saying is I'd much rather install and support Linux for a family member than install and support Windows. Grandma is going to need help getting her computer up and keeping it running whether she's using Windows or Linux. If I'm going to be providing that help, I'd rather she use Linux.
I'm pretty doubtful Microsoft could pull that off. Microsoft has lots of customers, but I hardly know anybody who likes Windows. Many of them aren't aware of alternatives, but Apple has become a house-hold name with iPods, and lots of people know they also make computers. I can't tell you how many people I know who are planning on a Mac for their next computer. Linux is also becoming a much more viable option for the desktop. I've run into more and more people recently who are in fields completely unrelated to computers, but run Linux (usually Ubuntu or Suse) and like it.
The frog is already pretty uncomfortable. If Microsoft plans to ratchet up the heat, they need to do a better job at silencing the other options, or it will be more of a rats off a sinking ship scenario.
I think the point is that when XP becomes to outdated, they're not going to Vista. ReactOS is a novelty operating system. Functionally, it's behind Windows 95. It's fun to play with and see how far they can get, but it's a long way from being an upgrade from XP.
Any recommendations for a particular brand?
I heard about this quite a while ago. A quick google search reveals: Gmail Trademark in Dispute (if you don't want to click it, it's an article on the subject dated August 12, 2004). This may be another instance of someone claiming rights to it, but it certainly isn't the first place Google has lost the GMail trademark.
Yeah, there are some places CFLs just don't work well. Every light in my house is a CFC except the ones in the bathrooms. We found that CFLs didn't come on as quickly as incandescents, and when the whole purpose of the light is to make sure you hit the toilet, it doesn't help if it takes 30 seconds to become bright enough to take aim. For every other purpose I've found in our household, CFLs are great - they last longer and save money, but when you need a quick response, CFLs don't have quite cut it.
True, but is there any legitimate reason that big name computer companies should have to pay Microsoft for every computer they sell, rather than every Windows license they sell? If anybody is being manhandled, it's the OEMs, who were told for quite some time that if they want to sell Windows, they don't get to sell computers without Windows. They were forced to choose between selling Windows exclusively, or not selling it all, and there's enough demand for Windows it was a pretty clear choice.
If all the big OEMs chose to support Windows exclusively, then I wouldn't fault Microsoft for it, but Microsoft's OEM licensing contracts were extremely anti-competitive. There have been some improvements since they've started facing anti-trust suits, and there are more OS-free and free-OS computers coming from the big manufacturers, but it's still hard to find a solid laptop without paying for Windows. I'm sure you're going to claim otherwise, and I'd appreciate links. I may go laptop shopping in the near future, and right now the only reliable Linux laptops I'm aware of come from System76.
What's your IP? I've got a buddy who... Nevermind.
I'm glad to hear the expressly stated by a kernel developer, but is this really anything new? I'd been under the impression for quite some time that any product with specifications had decent open source drivers, and that the manufacturers knew it. I have several pieces of hardware that have open source drivers because the hardware manufacturers released specs. I thought the main reason we didn't have more drivers was that the hardware developers were more interested in protecting trade secrets than catering to Linux users. Several hardware manufacturers have already figured out that the drivers will be written at no cost to them (and no obligation for them to provide support), and that all they have to do is release some specifications. So is there really anything new here?