If Bill Gates puts his money into an ING Direct savings account, earning him 5.4% interest per annum, his daily income will exceed $5 million.
I don't think he's too worried about going bankrupt at the moment, but I guess you should probably send him and email to make sure he's okay and has a place to stay tonight...
I don't disagree, but I'd like to know what some of the most important things are that OpenOffice is missing. I'm not a heavy user of any office suite, and to me, OpenOffice appears mostly the same as MS Office.
Some things I think should be in the ad: - A screenshot of the UI. - Emphasis on it being a free (in price, since businesses care about that more) Office suite that can import/export MS Office files. - Emphasis on it being able to completely replace MS Office. - A "download it for free from" and then a URL.
Indeed. Especially since both these new formats come with new encryption that will try to stop me from watching movies that I (would) have purchased. I put "would" in brackets because I'm not going to buy encrypted stuff.
It'll be an even colder day in hell if Microsoft refuses to support a file format that everyone is going to use. Doing so would force people to use non-Microsoft software. Microsoft are not stupid. They would rather let their software read/write open file formats than have no one using their software.
Why do you feel that GPL3 shouldn't defend people from DRM?
The most important idea in the GPL is freedom. The GPL aims to give people as much freedom as possible, to the extent that they do not take away the freedoms of others.
Provisions in the GPL against DRM seem like they should've been there in the first place.
I think what the parent was trying to say was that many people who consider themselves part of the "Open Source community" actually think of themselves as part of the Free Software community, now that the differences are becoming more apparent. Stallman's DRM argument is an excellent example of the difference between the Free Software movement and the Open Source community.
If people agree with his ideals, he does not need them to agree with his behaviour. His behaviour, in this case, is solely aimed at making more people aware of his ideals.
I think publicity stunts are a very good way of furthering a cause. Although everyone will think you're a nutcase, it greatly increases awareness. The results might take time, perhaps 20 years, but it will work. If you think DRM will be stopped because a few nerds didn't buy music online, you're very wrong. Protests are very much required so that regular people can find out about what DRM is.
Remember, Stallman started all of this 22 years ago, and it has become huge. He's extremely important to the Free Software movement.
Have you ever been to one of his speeches? He's completely sane. His methods are what enable his ideals to become a reality.
You need to understand that although we both know about Free Software and DRM, most people haven't ever heard of these things. Activists don't mind people thinking that they are crazy as long as they are able to get people interested/curious enough to research what they are protesting for themselves.
If people see a protest outside an Apple store, they will naturally think the people involved are nutcases, but they will also wonder what all the fuss is about. If they go home and type "DRM" into Google or Wikipedia, then the protest was a complete success.
Stallman isn't extreme. He has a goal, (computers/devices always doing what the user wants, guaranteed via Free Software) and works towards those goals in quite productive ways. In just 22 years, he has created a movement that has so much momentum that proprietary software seems doomed.
I like to think that this will eventually become something larger than just Free Software. I want to see society working together for the benefit of society, rather than individual profit.
Let's pretend this guy wasn't a sex offender, since that isn't necessarily related to what he was doing.
This seems like a bad business idea, to me. Why do they care so much about him using the internet for free? If I owned a large coffee shop, I would encourage people to use the internet for free even if they weren't buying anything. Why?... because then there's more people around my shop who MIGHT buy something! If my shop was busy, I might need to ask anyone who hadn't purchased anything to not use a table, but why get potential customers arrested when they haven't even entered your store?! That's just stupid. People like this will get hungry/thirsty eventually, and when they do, they will become customers.
Why can't people try to get copyright overhauled at the same time as having fun?
When people see "copyright overhaul party" on their voting forms, they might not be sure about what that party does. When they see something like "internet pirates", they know exactly what that means.
This isn't charity, though. That's my point. This is a good business decision.
Maintaining a monopoly is important for Microsoft's future because the biggest advantage of using Microsoft software at the moment is that Word and Excel files will always open, drivers will always be available, and you'll always be able to play DVDs/video files/MP3s.
Proprietary file formats are incredibly important for Microsoft. By getting people to use Microsoft software, even if it's being given away, Microsoft are benefiting. More people will be using proprietary file formats, the kids will probably continue using Microsoft software after they've left school, and no one is introduced to Free Software via their school.
It's probably possible for schools to demand money from Microsoft in return for using Microsoft software, and if schools did do that, Microsoft would be nuts not to pay up. Not because they're charitable, but because it'd be a good business decision.
They want the schools to use Microsoft everything. They failed to change policy that would give people choice, so now they're just giving people Microsoft software.
Having a software monopoly helps to hold the monopoly together. They're smart, so they seek to maintain their monopoly even when it causes them to lose money.
In short, this is just a good investment for Microsoft.
What happens when the analogue recording devices (yes, cameras and microphones) stop being made, or create content that is locked with DRM, preventing you from spreading it? What happens when the signal is encrypted even as it enters your TV/monitor and speakers?
These sorts of things are not just me speculating. They're the goals of the organisations pushing DRM.
One problem I run into when trying to explain DRM to people is that they think I'm mistaken or don't believe me. They think they will always be able to record TV shows, and that nothing can stop them from doing so. They think that they will always be able to find a way to break encryption and use music they've purchased however they like.
There can never be another successful music DRM. If people do switch to a different music player, they're soon going to realise that their iTunes Music Store songs won't work on that music player due to the Digital Restrictions Management. Microsoft, by launching another music DRM service, is hoping that people can be tricked twice.
It's possible that companies trying to break into the music download service market might turn against DRM, since that's what guarantees Apple their monopoly.
First the FUD: "One of the things I have learned is that engineers who work on commercial software really can't work on open source on GPL and engineers who work on GPL can't work on commercial software. You really have to separate the two," he said.
That's a load of crap, unless Microsoft is the one not letting GPL programmers also work on commercial software. Has Microsoft ever heard of Red Hat, or are they really that out of touch with what is going on in their industry?
Ahh, and then the trick: "A commercial company has to build intellectual property, while the GPL, by its very nature, does not allow intellectual property to be built, making the two approaches fundamentally incompatible, Muglia said. Licenses like the BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) and commercial software, on the other hand, are quite compatible with one another, he observed."
What's the main difference between the BSD license and the GPL? If Microsoft were to use the GPL in a piece of their software, they would have to give us the code for that piece of software, and with BSD they would be able to just take the code, use it, and never have any further obligations.
In other words, this call for a "truce" just translates to "stop using a license that would make us share our code with you if we use some of your code!"
He doesn't understand what the Free Software movement is: The goal, from both sides, is to meet customer needs, he said
The goal on the GPL side is to provide everyone with Free (as in 'freedom') Software that they can use and contribute to. The goal on Microsoft's side is to make as much money as possible, however they can.
Slashdot Mirror
Well he's helping people, too, so he's also a communist.
If Bill Gates puts his money into an ING Direct savings account, earning him 5.4% interest per annum, his daily income will exceed $5 million.
I don't think he's too worried about going bankrupt at the moment, but I guess you should probably send him and email to make sure he's okay and has a place to stay tonight...
I don't disagree, but I'd like to know what some of the most important things are that OpenOffice is missing. I'm not a heavy user of any office suite, and to me, OpenOffice appears mostly the same as MS Office.
Some things I think should be in the ad:
- A screenshot of the UI.
- Emphasis on it being a free (in price, since businesses care about that more) Office suite that can import/export MS Office files.
- Emphasis on it being able to completely replace MS Office.
- A "download it for free from" and then a URL.
Indeed. Especially since both these new formats come with new encryption that will try to stop me from watching movies that I (would) have purchased. I put "would" in brackets because I'm not going to buy encrypted stuff.
Blu-ray (and HD-DVD) sucks!
It'll be an even colder day in hell if Microsoft refuses to support a file format that everyone is going to use. Doing so would force people to use non-Microsoft software. Microsoft are not stupid. They would rather let their software read/write open file formats than have no one using their software.
Why do you feel that GPL3 shouldn't defend people from DRM?
The most important idea in the GPL is freedom. The GPL aims to give people as much freedom as possible, to the extent that they do not take away the freedoms of others.
Provisions in the GPL against DRM seem like they should've been there in the first place.
I think what the parent was trying to say was that many people who consider themselves part of the "Open Source community" actually think of themselves as part of the Free Software community, now that the differences are becoming more apparent. Stallman's DRM argument is an excellent example of the difference between the Free Software movement and the Open Source community.
If people agree with his ideals, he does not need them to agree with his behaviour. His behaviour, in this case, is solely aimed at making more people aware of his ideals.
I think publicity stunts are a very good way of furthering a cause. Although everyone will think you're a nutcase, it greatly increases awareness. The results might take time, perhaps 20 years, but it will work. If you think DRM will be stopped because a few nerds didn't buy music online, you're very wrong. Protests are very much required so that regular people can find out about what DRM is.
Remember, Stallman started all of this 22 years ago, and it has become huge. He's extremely important to the Free Software movement.
Have you ever been to one of his speeches? He's completely sane. His methods are what enable his ideals to become a reality.
You need to understand that although we both know about Free Software and DRM, most people haven't ever heard of these things. Activists don't mind people thinking that they are crazy as long as they are able to get people interested/curious enough to research what they are protesting for themselves.
If people see a protest outside an Apple store, they will naturally think the people involved are nutcases, but they will also wonder what all the fuss is about. If they go home and type "DRM" into Google or Wikipedia, then the protest was a complete success.
You don't understand his methods. Of course he knew what was going to happen in that situation. Ever heard of a "publicity stunt"?
Stallman isn't extreme. He has a goal, (computers/devices always doing what the user wants, guaranteed via Free Software) and works towards those goals in quite productive ways. In just 22 years, he has created a movement that has so much momentum that proprietary software seems doomed.
I like to think that this will eventually become something larger than just Free Software. I want to see society working together for the benefit of society, rather than individual profit.
Let's pretend this guy wasn't a sex offender, since that isn't necessarily related to what he was doing.
... because then there's more people around my shop who MIGHT buy something! If my shop was busy, I might need to ask anyone who hadn't purchased anything to not use a table, but why get potential customers arrested when they haven't even entered your store?! That's just stupid. People like this will get hungry/thirsty eventually, and when they do, they will become customers.
This seems like a bad business idea, to me. Why do they care so much about him using the internet for free? If I owned a large coffee shop, I would encourage people to use the internet for free even if they weren't buying anything. Why?
Why can't people try to get copyright overhauled at the same time as having fun?
When people see "copyright overhaul party" on their voting forms, they might not be sure about what that party does. When they see something like "internet pirates", they know exactly what that means.
Hopefully Blu-Ray won't catch on.
This isn't charity, though. That's my point. This is a good business decision.
Maintaining a monopoly is important for Microsoft's future because the biggest advantage of using Microsoft software at the moment is that Word and Excel files will always open, drivers will always be available, and you'll always be able to play DVDs/video files/MP3s.
Proprietary file formats are incredibly important for Microsoft. By getting people to use Microsoft software, even if it's being given away, Microsoft are benefiting. More people will be using proprietary file formats, the kids will probably continue using Microsoft software after they've left school, and no one is introduced to Free Software via their school.
It's probably possible for schools to demand money from Microsoft in return for using Microsoft software, and if schools did do that, Microsoft would be nuts not to pay up. Not because they're charitable, but because it'd be a good business decision.
They want the schools to use Microsoft everything. They failed to change policy that would give people choice, so now they're just giving people Microsoft software.
Having a software monopoly helps to hold the monopoly together. They're smart, so they seek to maintain their monopoly even when it causes them to lose money.
In short, this is just a good investment for Microsoft.
What happens when the analogue recording devices (yes, cameras and microphones) stop being made, or create content that is locked with DRM, preventing you from spreading it? What happens when the signal is encrypted even as it enters your TV/monitor and speakers?
These sorts of things are not just me speculating. They're the goals of the organisations pushing DRM.
One problem I run into when trying to explain DRM to people is that they think I'm mistaken or don't believe me. They think they will always be able to record TV shows, and that nothing can stop them from doing so. They think that they will always be able to find a way to break encryption and use music they've purchased however they like.
There can never be another successful music DRM. If people do switch to a different music player, they're soon going to realise that their iTunes Music Store songs won't work on that music player due to the Digital Restrictions Management. Microsoft, by launching another music DRM service, is hoping that people can be tricked twice.
It's possible that companies trying to break into the music download service market might turn against DRM, since that's what guarantees Apple their monopoly.
They will notice. The BBC is blocked in China, and I imagine that many westerners will go there between their porn searches.
Stop telling them what to do.
Now lets see you convince the United State's Congress, and the Pentagon.
Let's see them convince Iran.
Let's get rid of old nukes, and not build any new ones! That way, the number of nukes will be decreasing even more!
First the FUD: "One of the things I have learned is that engineers who work on commercial software really can't work on open source on GPL and engineers who work on GPL can't work on commercial software. You really have to separate the two," he said.
That's a load of crap, unless Microsoft is the one not letting GPL programmers also work on commercial software. Has Microsoft ever heard of Red Hat, or are they really that out of touch with what is going on in their industry?
Ahh, and then the trick: "A commercial company has to build intellectual property, while the GPL, by its very nature, does not allow intellectual property to be built, making the two approaches fundamentally incompatible, Muglia said. Licenses like the BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) and commercial software, on the other hand, are quite compatible with one another, he observed."
What's the main difference between the BSD license and the GPL? If Microsoft were to use the GPL in a piece of their software, they would have to give us the code for that piece of software, and with BSD they would be able to just take the code, use it, and never have any further obligations.
In other words, this call for a "truce" just translates to "stop using a license that would make us share our code with you if we use some of your code!"
He doesn't understand what the Free Software movement is: The goal, from both sides, is to meet customer needs, he said
The goal on the GPL side is to provide everyone with Free (as in 'freedom') Software that they can use and contribute to. The goal on Microsoft's side is to make as much money as possible, however they can.