On the other hand, I've been using Microsoft's "
Freedom to Innovate
" channel to send hardcopy protests to elected officials with a strictly anti-MS and anti-DMCA
tone. Note: it does require a hotmail/passport account.
Elected officials don't read email anymore. Orrin Hatch (the DMCA's writer)
bounces email sent to him -- you're supposed to fill out an online form that doesn't mention IP or the MS antitrust suit under "topics".
The FTN sends my verbiage snail mail hardcopy. If you sound mad, like "damn
DMCA", and "Tell Orrin Hatch to take personal responsibility for Sklyarov"
they send back two-page responses telling you they don't agree with you (except
for Borin' Orrin himself, who always agrees with me).
It's a reference platform. It's got every piece of junk in it any board maker would want. All reference platforms are like this. It's not intended for general sale.
You started the pissing contest... I just don't let up on WinDoh's lemmings.
I find your tantrums entertaining!
One problem with the conversation is, I've addressed your concerns,
yet you continue to baselessly rant. At that point, I can't address
anything but your character. If you say something intelligent, I'll
gladly address that (but I'm not holding my breath)!
While you may find you resemble WTP, that was not my intent. Let
me interpret:
"WinDoh's" refers to products made by Microsoft used by people with
the "Homer Simpson" mentality.
"Lemming's" are creatures that, without question, follow their god (Ballmer)
where ever he forces them to go.
If you don't see the fit, you lack introspection.
For example, the only verbiage on your "Opinions" page:
is: "I have no opinion at this time."... Doh! You don't need opinions
of your own, Ballmer can tell you what they are!
Maybe, if Ballmer is successful in owning every port and protocol on
the net, you won't have to play NetTrek with Unix folks (who made NetTrek
~15 years ago), thereby cutting out the competition! Trying to make
people think Ballmer isn't ruthlessly competitive may just get you your
reward!
And, finally, as for FUD, you need to read more than one sentence before
passing judgment. The sentence you chose, out of context, could be
mistaken as not tentative enough... and I have addressed that concern (showing
you some other sentences you missed). You have seemingly agreed with
the rest of the argument (if not, lets hear why you think the work ranks
as "Science Fiction"), yet seem highly agitated.
So, all I can conclude is that I wrote something that said something
bad about your God Ballmer, and that made you rant; not because it's untrue,
you just don't want to know about it.
I've browsed your work -- you do have problems communicating! And you're a died-in-the-wool WinDoh's lemming too! Take heart: these things will pass as you mature.
So, you don't have a problem with my saying that Compaq started the open
hardware PC revolution by reverse engineering the bios.
Nor do you have a problem with my saying that the current IP laws would
make that illegal today.
Nor do you have a problem with my saying that this is an important difference
between the open hardware historical perspective and the impending
Open Source revolution that the Open Source movement must be aware of.
Nor do you have a problem with my argument that compatibility is crucial
to winning the hearts and minds of Windows users.
Nor do you have a problem with my saying that current IP laws can be
used to stop Open Source *nix/Windows compatibility projects.
You don't even have a problem with my saying that Ballmer is ruthlessly
competitive.
Your only reason for calling my entire writing FUD and me a troll rests
on the statement (I'm guessing it may be the only one you read):
"Now, Microsoft is going to require a license for the encryption
algorithm for their password verification and modification. "
Which was predicated with statements (that you missed) like: "with
today's IP laws, Microsoft can patent a portion of their protocols, API's,
or file formats, and make compatible competition illegal..." and "From
the recent ".net" news, it looks like that's exactly what Microsoft intends
to do..."
That's not tentative enough? Was it really worth degrading the
whole writing? Was it worth bitching and ranting about?
You call my writing bad, and cut down two prominent IT authors to help
prove your case.
You're either one of the trolls sent in from Redmond (Why do I always
get them?), or you're suffering from "writer-envy"!
If you were an advocate of Open Source, your criticism would be, at
worst: "it's a good argument but nobody can prove Microsoft is pursuing
this course (outside of Redmond)" rather than labeling the entire writing
"FUD".
Better yet: you should be trying to figure out ways to fight what may
become a serious problem for Open Source. If Ballmer were to do this
to Samba, most every IT manager would say "switch the Linux file server
to XP now!"? Are the Open Source projects you work on ready for a
response? The NetBSD folks got rid of their AC3 link the moment they
got a letter from Dolby's lawyers -- even though Dolby might not have a
legal leg to stand on.
This tactic can be used to stop Open Source compatibility; that's a
serious threat that should have us (if you are an "us" and not a Redmond
"them") circling the wagons. Wouldn't it be better to start preparing
a response now rather than bickering about the non-tentative nature of
a statement taken out of context? Should we just wait and provide our
standard knee-jerk reaction when it happens? Should we just bend-over
now and say: "Ballmer is right -- we are un-American, we can't handle licensing
at all -- we're just a bunch of hackers that deserved to die"? Do
you really have a point or are you just mad because you lack any talent
for writing?
The trolls from Redmond are getting thick around here:
>Did you read the article?
It only covers password modification (not verification), but that's very important. Try implementing a file server where the users can't change their password without an NT SMB server anyway, and you've lost the cost benefit of a Linux/Samba Windows file server.
From the article:
" One patent is believed to underlie Windows' file transfer protocol, which will probably be used in.Net. The patent covers only the encryption procedures for how a user password is changed, but as part of the transfer protocol, it is a potential dependency for all developers who have to mimic the Windows file system and seek to interoperate with it. For example, successful interoperation with Samba might make the Samba project subject to Microsoft demands for patent licenses and royalties."
>IBM took an open standard (the ISA bus) and tried to take it closed
But, they'd already lost market share to the clone makers when they tried changing the bus standard. Everybody could see this was a ploy to get customers under a proprietary hardware lock again, and nobody was stupid enough to bite.
On the other hand...
The software market is still under Microsoft's domination. They can create a patent that's merely different, not necessarily novel, use it in their protocols and formats, and force it on their customers who have no choice but to use MS software, then require competitors seeking compatiblity to be licensed; thus killing the Open Source threat.
Quite a different circumstance, given todays IP laws.
> So please tell me you've figured out IBMs Linux story
IBM can get back their golden ring, the same way Microsoft got it from them (thru Open Source rather than open hardware). I'm sure IBM loves the irony.
Furthermore, Open Source has a great service-oriented business model -- extremely compatible with IBM's business methods.
As long as they're working with the community, adding enhancements and fixes, then this is just the sort of company we want on our side. And note: they are helping the community.
ZDNet's article
"Will open source get snagged in.Net?
" talks of Microsoft's method of using licensing to undermine both Samba and Open Source
competition to ".net".
PBS/Cringley's "Triumph of
the Nerds" (search for "compaq" in the transcript) talks of the hardware
revolution started by Compaq's reverse engineering IBM's PC bios. The
"Purple Book" may have taught folks how to build on top of IBM's platform,
but IBM controlled the platform through their control of the bios.
They were the only ones who could make systems. Intel's proprietary
control of the processor and Microsoft's proprietary control of the OS were
necessary to get the box out on time. Little did IBM realize the flaw
in this strategy, and that they'd cough-up their golden ring to these partners.
And, of course, mentioning Uncle Fester (Ballmer) is incomplete without his
recent ape-dance
(I apologize in advance for TheRegister's router problems --
try here too). Play it in slow motion and watch the look on his
face; it would be less scary if it were dripping blood.
The author needs a history lesson. I won't even bother to correct his
"Bill Gates wrote DOS" misinformation.
But, the part that really needs clarifying is: the "Purple Book" ignited
the PC revolution. While it is true that Microsoft owes it's monopoly
to an open hardware platform, the "Purple Book" was not the key.
IBM owned the motherboard and system by holding the IP to the bios.
People could build on top of the PC platform with the "Purple Book", but only
IBM could build the systems -- Until Compaq (and soon after, others) reverse
engineered the bios.
Then anyone could build motherboards and systems, and the PC revolution was
ignited; hardware became more functional and faster at a furious pace.
If IBM still controlled the platform, then 8088's would still be hot technology.
And here is where the real lesson for Open Source starts.
If today's IP laws favoring those with popular software were in place in the
80's, then Compaq would never have been legally able to reverse engineer the
IBM PC bios, and IBM would still be in control of their platform.
Open source indeed has the potential to put all software application's competition
on a level playing field (where no one vendor can leverage the operating system
to favor their applications and break other's applications).
But, in order to get people to switch from Microsoft to Open Source, we need
some degree of compatibility. Customers are slow to change old habits.
They fear training. They fear that old data won't make the transition
exactly correctly. They trust that Microsoft won't shoot itself in the
foot as often as they kill their competition... usually Microsoft applications work
with their OS, as long as you keep upgrading on their schedule. If you
want to gauge how quickly the US market will switch to an Open Source OS,
just look athow quickly the US has embraced the metric system: it may be a
world standard,it may be superior, it may be compatible, but the thought of
change scares people.
Compatibility with Microsoft requires reverse engineering of their API's,
file formats, and protocols.
Competitors are used to chasing Microsoft's tail: every release and patch
has changes that make compatible software obsolete, and competitors have to
scurry to be compatible again. But, this game just took a turn forthe worse:
with today's IP laws, Microsoft can patent a portion of their protocols, API's,
or file formats, and make compatible competition illegal. They don't need
to patent something novel, just different: Microsoft customers are forced to
follow like lemmings.
From the recent ".net" news, it looks like that's exactly what Microsoft intends
to do with Samba. Samba is usually a foot-in-the-door for the Linux OS in
corporate america. It's easy to show management the savings on a Linux based
file server running Samba.
Now, Microsoft is going to require a license for the encryption algorithm
for their password verification and modification.
That will kill Samba.
No Open Source project can afford a license. Usually when pressed fora license,
the Open Source project ends compatibility immediately. For Unisys's LZH patent
on GIFs, we just switched to other image compression algorithms. We've still
yet to see how far Dolby will go to stop distribution of Open Source AC3 decoders.
The mere letter from the lawyer is usually enough to stop anOpen Source project.
Worse: even if Microsoft were to grant a license, it would probably require
that the licensed algorithm's source not be distributed.
Even worse: this license covers encryption. Most data is copyrighted by default,
even if you don't include the circle-"C", therefor: it falls under the DMCA's
prohibition on unlicensed decryption; it will be a criminal offense to even
discuss compatible software.
What if Microsoft were to preemptively change the html or ftp protocols likewise?
Microsoft customers are forced to follow; the standard rules of competition
won't apply. Microsoft can end up owning every port and protocol on the net as their
proprietary IP.
Microsoft will use our maligned IP laws to kill any Open Source project that
attempts to be compatible. The Antitrust laws have failed; Microsoftis on
a shooting spree. Samba will be first. Wine and compatible word processors
and office suites will be next. But, they won't stop until every client and
server is a Windows machine running MS applications.
If you don't think Ballmer is that ruthlessly competitive, then you haven't
been watching him.
These folks
are using standard rack mounts, fitting 5 standard ATX motherboards in 8u
of rack space (no special motherboard needed). They mount them vertically
which makes cooling much more efficient when piling large numbers of CPU's
into a small space.
McAfee does make a linux server tool for detecting WinDoh's viri on the server side (before the user gets it)... along with a few other Linux-based tools to try to protect WinDoh's lusers from thier idiocy.
>people can't get to their accounts that are filled up with SirCam
I was out of town for a week (two weeks ago), when I returned, the Hotmail Janitor had deleted all my saved mail in all my folders, and all I had left was that weeks spam/sircam.
In complaining to Hotmail support, they replied, to my Hotmail account, asking what the name of my Hotmail account was. I'm not joking -- they're that stupid.
In further correspondence, they have said that they can't recover anything deleted by their "auto janitor".
They have said that Hotmail should not be trusted to store valuable mail (and that I should use outlook instead -- the damn software responsible for SirCam in the first place).
They think this is my problem, and I should upgrade my anti-virus software (I've repeatedly assured them that I've been WinDoh's free for four years -- I can't find McAfee's Linux download site).
They say their anti-virus protection is sufficient -- yet I rec'd two more SirCam laced spams today. They won't let me download the contents (even though it won't hurt my Linux system).
I've told them that their anti-virus protection kicks in too late -- they need to not stick any email into the Inbox that has the SirCam virus (they don't let you download the attachment anyway -- why bother letting it fill up your quota).
I've told them they should shut down their Janitor and make backups until this problem is resolved, or more Hotmail customer's are going to get their accounts wiped out without backup.
I've also told them that the correct solution is to bounce new incoming emails headed for an over-quota user, rather than allowing the incoming email and deleting the existing, saved, mail.
They don't get it. They don't understand.
And, if any Microsoft troll cares to say I'm a liar about this (like they did the last time I reported this in Slashdot)... I have the email transcripts to proove that this is Hotmail's behavior.
I have found two solutions:
www.mail.com
www.graffiti.net
Both provide free email excellent (and web hosting) service, and are smart enough to not run Microsoft products.
The strange thing is the flood of ARP "who-has" requests.
I'm on 24... too, and my activity light is blinking like my son's running a gnutella client (but he's not), and tcpdump is showing a flood of arp "who-has" packets... for a couple hours now.
My bandwidth seems good... in fact, better than normal... probably because I don't do WinDoh's.
> Serves ya right for using hotmail for critical communications!
I agree, but this is where lots of my old email addresses from previous employers gets routed -- don't quite feel like calling them up and having them change it again.
There is a program, "gotmail", that I've used for copying hotmail email to my local inbox -- it looks very good on the recieving end (not all the hotmail crap you'd get in your message if you forwarded it).
I don't want to use this automatically/periodically on my Inbox because of all the junk mail that gets delivered to that address (more than a decade of Usenet posts with my old addresses gets about 20 spams per day).
I was out of town for a week... didn't check my hotmail account.
During that time, my hotmail Inbox filled up with these sorts of messages (large attachements with the text: "I send you this file in order to have your advice").
Once it reached the maximum size for hotmail diskspace, hotmail started automatically deleteing older messages: all the messages in all of my folders had been deleted by the time I checked my hotmail account.
Even with "Hard evidence" that Hatch had help writting the bill, the evidence is the "... distinguished gentleman..." river of BS they spew in public.
Hatch kissing democratic ass is a political tactic, not a sign he's a moderate. This is the same fellow who read from the Exorsist during the hearings for Clarence Thomas' spot on the supremes.
There are plenty of border towns in Canada and Mexico that would attract US programmers and would be safe for foriegn programmers.
>This all happened in a hugely Democratic administration.
Whoa. What planet were you living on. Two of the three government branches were safely in the hands of the Republicans -- the democrats had to pick their fights carefully. The DMCA was the brainchild of Borin' Orin, and was pushed heavily by the Republicans. I'll agree Democrats are as slimey, but this was Hatch's work. Ask him -- he takes credit, and finds nothing wrong with his baby. This is a bold line-item on his resume to get on the Supremes.
>There would be dozens of arrests anywhere else in the world
So China and Russia's acts are good excuse for bad laws in the US. Great logic.
As Franklin said: those who would trade their freedom for security deserve neither.
The US needs to be made aware of what Hatch has created, and understand the problems with this law. Any good boycott you can think of is a good start. Non-techie awareness must be raised.
I'd think the folks in Las Vegas who promote conventions would be a little pissed at Adobe & the DMCA too.
The next Defcon conference should be outside the US... and other conferences should think twice before having a US based conference attended by programmers from outside the US.
Since the DMCA is protecting wealthy capitalists by disallowing any programs that compete with their popular programs, it is only prudent to avoid putting your programmers in harms way.
It was the ultra-conservative Republican, Orin Hatch (representing ultra-conservative Utah) that wrote the DMCA. Strange that these republicans say they want to "open markets", then pass laws to protect wealthy capitalists instead.
Maybe this is cause to boycott the 2002 Winter Olympic games in Utah too (it's worth boycotting since they won't let outsiders bring in their own booze, and must purchase booze from the limited variety offerred by the state store).
Could someone summerize the setup procedure (what happens when you run the 5MB setup.exe)?
You don't have to agree to licensing terms to get the setup file, so I guess that agreement comes while running the exe. Is that correct?
Is the WinCE source in the setup.exe, or does it get downloaded while running the setup?
If it's in the setup.exe file, does anybody have a routine to extract the code without having to run setup.exe?
Finally, does setup.exe run under Wine -- I don't know anybody still using Windows, and I haven't used Wine in a long time (the apps I need are not available in Windows). It won't run under my old version of Wine.
Remember that Congress and the Senate are getting too much email... they throw it away. Sending snail mail has a better chance of getting read.
The best way I've found to contact your elected officials is via Microsoft's FIN ("Freedom To Innovate Network"). They'll print out and snail mail the correspondence for you. Since they promise to mail, it would be a fedral offense for them to read this mail, figure it wasn't in MS's best interest, and throw it in/dev/null. The law dictates that they faithfully mail whatever you desire.
You have to agree to sign up for passport:(
You can send mail once per day per official.
Make sure to un-check the box that says they can read it -- you don't want MS to know what you're using them for;)
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, I've been using Microsoft's " Freedom to Innovate " channel to send hardcopy protests to elected officials with a strictly anti-MS and anti-DMCA tone. Note: it does require a hotmail/passport account.
Elected officials don't read email anymore. Orrin Hatch (the DMCA's writer) bounces email sent to him -- you're supposed to fill out an online form that doesn't mention IP or the MS antitrust suit under "topics".
The FTN sends my verbiage snail mail hardcopy. If you sound mad, like "damn DMCA", and "Tell Orrin Hatch to take personal responsibility for Sklyarov" they send back two-page responses telling you they don't agree with you (except for Borin' Orrin himself, who always agrees with me).
It's a reference platform. It's got every piece of junk in it any board maker would want. All reference platforms are like this. It's not intended for general sale.
One problem with the conversation is, I've addressed your concerns, yet you continue to baselessly rant. At that point, I can't address anything but your character. If you say something intelligent, I'll gladly address that (but I'm not holding my breath)!
While you may find you resemble WTP, that was not my intent. Let me interpret:
"WinDoh's" refers to products made by Microsoft used by people with the "Homer Simpson" mentality.
"Lemming's" are creatures that, without question, follow their god (Ballmer) where ever he forces them to go.
If you don't see the fit, you lack introspection.
For example, the only verbiage on your "Opinions" page:
http://www.sodablue.org/Opinion/Default.asp
is: "I have no opinion at this time."... Doh! You don't need opinions of your own, Ballmer can tell you what they are!
Maybe, if Ballmer is successful in owning every port and protocol on the net, you won't have to play NetTrek with Unix folks (who made NetTrek ~15 years ago), thereby cutting out the competition! Trying to make people think Ballmer isn't ruthlessly competitive may just get you your reward!
And, finally, as for FUD, you need to read more than one sentence before passing judgment. The sentence you chose, out of context, could be mistaken as not tentative enough... and I have addressed that concern (showing you some other sentences you missed). You have seemingly agreed with the rest of the argument (if not, lets hear why you think the work ranks as "Science Fiction"), yet seem highly agitated.
So, all I can conclude is that I wrote something that said something bad about your God Ballmer, and that made you rant; not because it's untrue, you just don't want to know about it.
Your turn....
I've browsed your work -- you do have problems communicating! And you're a died-in-the-wool WinDoh's lemming too! Take heart: these things will pass as you mature.
So, you don't have a problem with my saying that Compaq started the open
hardware PC revolution by reverse engineering the bios.
Nor do you have a problem with my saying that the current IP laws would
make that illegal today.
Nor do you have a problem with my saying that this is an important difference
between the open hardware historical perspective and the impending
Open Source revolution that the Open Source movement must be aware of.
Nor do you have a problem with my argument that compatibility is crucial
to winning the hearts and minds of Windows users.
Nor do you have a problem with my saying that current IP laws can be
used to stop Open Source *nix/Windows compatibility projects.
You don't even have a problem with my saying that Ballmer is ruthlessly
competitive.
Your only reason for calling my entire writing FUD and me a troll rests
on the statement (I'm guessing it may be the only one you read):
"Now, Microsoft is going to require a license for the encryption
algorithm for their password verification and modification. "
Which was predicated with statements (that you missed) like: "with
today's IP laws, Microsoft can patent a portion of their protocols, API's,
or file formats, and make compatible competition illegal..." and "From
the recent ".net" news, it looks like that's exactly what Microsoft intends
to do..."
That's not tentative enough? Was it really worth degrading the
whole writing? Was it worth bitching and ranting about?
You call my writing bad, and cut down two prominent IT authors to help
prove your case.
You're either one of the trolls sent in from Redmond (Why do I always
get them?), or you're suffering from "writer-envy"!
If you were an advocate of Open Source, your criticism would be, at
worst: "it's a good argument but nobody can prove Microsoft is pursuing
this course (outside of Redmond)" rather than labeling the entire writing
"FUD".
Better yet: you should be trying to figure out ways to fight what may
become a serious problem for Open Source. If Ballmer were to do this
to Samba, most every IT manager would say "switch the Linux file server
to XP now!"? Are the Open Source projects you work on ready for a
response? The NetBSD folks got rid of their AC3 link the moment they
got a letter from Dolby's lawyers -- even though Dolby might not have a
legal leg to stand on.
This tactic can be used to stop Open Source compatibility; that's a
serious threat that should have us (if you are an "us" and not a Redmond
"them") circling the wagons. Wouldn't it be better to start preparing
a response now rather than bickering about the non-tentative nature of
a statement taken out of context? Should we just wait and provide our
standard knee-jerk reaction when it happens? Should we just bend-over
now and say: "Ballmer is right -- we are un-American, we can't handle licensing
at all -- we're just a bunch of hackers that deserved to die"? Do
you really have a point or are you just mad because you lack any talent
for writing?
Cringely and Petrely are reporting similarly.
Do you really think we should not consider this until Microsoft makes the official announcement?
> Oh? So your history is all correct, then?
Yes, it is!
Just follow the link I provided. There's plenty of interviews with folks that were there. Compaq did reverse engineer the bios before Phoenix.
The trolls from Redmond are getting thick around here:
.Net. The patent covers only the encryption procedures for how a user password is changed, but as part of the transfer protocol, it is a potential dependency for all developers who have to mimic the Windows file system and seek to interoperate with it. For example, successful interoperation with Samba might make the Samba project subject to Microsoft demands for patent licenses and royalties."
>Did you read the article?
It only covers password modification (not verification), but that's very important. Try implementing a file server where the users can't change their password without an NT SMB server anyway, and you've lost the cost benefit of a Linux/Samba Windows file server.
From the article:
" One patent is believed to underlie Windows' file transfer protocol, which will probably be used in
So, what did I miss?
>IBM took an open standard (the ISA bus) and tried to take it closed
But, they'd already lost market share to the clone makers when they tried changing the bus standard. Everybody could see this was a ploy to get customers under a proprietary hardware lock again, and nobody was stupid enough to bite.
On the other hand...
The software market is still under Microsoft's domination. They can create a patent that's merely different, not necessarily novel, use it in their protocols and formats, and force it on their customers who have no choice but to use MS software, then require competitors seeking compatiblity to be licensed; thus killing the Open Source threat.
Quite a different circumstance, given todays IP laws.
> So please tell me you've figured out IBMs Linux story
IBM can get back their golden ring, the same way Microsoft got it from them (thru Open Source rather than open hardware). I'm sure IBM loves the irony.
Furthermore, Open Source has a great service-oriented business model -- extremely compatible with IBM's business methods.
As long as they're working with the community, adding enhancements and fixes, then this is just the sort of company we want on our side. And note: they are helping the community.
Some links for further information...
.Net?
" talks of Microsoft's method of using licensing to undermine both Samba and Open Source
competition to ".net".
ZDNet's article "Will open source get snagged in
PBS/Cringley's "Triumph of the Nerds" (search for "compaq" in the transcript) talks of the hardware revolution started by Compaq's reverse engineering IBM's PC bios. The "Purple Book" may have taught folks how to build on top of IBM's platform, but IBM controlled the platform through their control of the bios. They were the only ones who could make systems. Intel's proprietary control of the processor and Microsoft's proprietary control of the OS were necessary to get the box out on time. Little did IBM realize the flaw in this strategy, and that they'd cough-up their golden ring to these partners.
And, of course, mentioning Uncle Fester (Ballmer) is incomplete without his recent ape-dance (I apologize in advance for TheRegister's router problems -- try here too). Play it in slow motion and watch the look on his face; it would be less scary if it were dripping blood.
Did ZDNet lay off it's editors?
The author needs a history lesson. I won't even bother to correct his "Bill Gates wrote DOS" misinformation.
But, the part that really needs clarifying is: the "Purple Book" ignited the PC revolution. While it is true that Microsoft owes it's monopoly to an open hardware platform, the "Purple Book" was not the key.
IBM owned the motherboard and system by holding the IP to the bios. People could build on top of the PC platform with the "Purple Book", but only IBM could build the systems -- Until Compaq (and soon after, others) reverse engineered the bios.
Then anyone could build motherboards and systems, and the PC revolution was ignited; hardware became more functional and faster at a furious pace.
If IBM still controlled the platform, then 8088's would still be hot technology.
And here is where the real lesson for Open Source starts.
If today's IP laws favoring those with popular software were in place in the 80's, then Compaq would never have been legally able to reverse engineer the IBM PC bios, and IBM would still be in control of their platform.
Open source indeed has the potential to put all software application's competition on a level playing field (where no one vendor can leverage the operating system to favor their applications and break other's applications).
But, in order to get people to switch from Microsoft to Open Source, we need some degree of compatibility. Customers are slow to change old habits. They fear training. They fear that old data won't make the transition exactly correctly. They trust that Microsoft won't shoot itself in the foot as often as they kill their competition... usually Microsoft applications work with their OS, as long as you keep upgrading on their schedule. If you want to gauge how quickly the US market will switch to an Open Source OS, just look athow quickly the US has embraced the metric system: it may be a world standard,it may be superior, it may be compatible, but the thought of change scares people.
Compatibility with Microsoft requires reverse engineering of their API's, file formats, and protocols.
Competitors are used to chasing Microsoft's tail: every release and patch has changes that make compatible software obsolete, and competitors have to scurry to be compatible again. But, this game just took a turn forthe worse: with today's IP laws, Microsoft can patent a portion of their protocols, API's, or file formats, and make compatible competition illegal. They don't need to patent something novel, just different: Microsoft customers are forced to follow like lemmings.
From the recent ".net" news, it looks like that's exactly what Microsoft intends to do with Samba. Samba is usually a foot-in-the-door for the Linux OS in corporate america. It's easy to show management the savings on a Linux based file server running Samba.
Now, Microsoft is going to require a license for the encryption algorithm for their password verification and modification.
That will kill Samba.
No Open Source project can afford a license. Usually when pressed fora license, the Open Source project ends compatibility immediately. For Unisys's LZH patent on GIFs, we just switched to other image compression algorithms. We've still yet to see how far Dolby will go to stop distribution of Open Source AC3 decoders. The mere letter from the lawyer is usually enough to stop anOpen Source project.
Worse: even if Microsoft were to grant a license, it would probably require that the licensed algorithm's source not be distributed.
Even worse: this license covers encryption. Most data is copyrighted by default, even if you don't include the circle-"C", therefor: it falls under the DMCA's prohibition on unlicensed decryption; it will be a criminal offense to even discuss compatible software.
What if Microsoft were to preemptively change the html or ftp protocols likewise? Microsoft customers are forced to follow; the standard rules of competition won't apply. Microsoft can end up owning every port and protocol on the net as their proprietary IP.
Microsoft will use our maligned IP laws to kill any Open Source project that attempts to be compatible. The Antitrust laws have failed; Microsoftis on a shooting spree. Samba will be first. Wine and compatible word processors and office suites will be next. But, they won't stop until every client and server is a Windows machine running MS applications.
If you don't think Ballmer is that ruthlessly competitive, then you haven't been watching him.
>My prediction - RIAA sues Felten and co
It doesn't matter: as the DOJ said when Adobe "dropped out" of the Sklyrov case: it's a criminal offence.
Why isn't the FBI arresting this guy?
I'd much rather see an american professor in jail for breaking US laws than a russian student.
Do US laws only pertain to foreigners?
These folks are using standard rack mounts, fitting 5 standard ATX motherboards in 8u of rack space (no special motherboard needed). They mount them vertically which makes cooling much more efficient when piling large numbers of CPU's into a small space.
Mr Troll:
That's because there are no Linux viri!
McAfee does make a linux server tool for detecting WinDoh's viri on the server side (before the user gets it)... along with a few other Linux-based tools to try to protect WinDoh's lusers from thier idiocy.
>people can't get to their accounts that are filled up with SirCam
I was out of town for a week (two weeks ago), when I returned, the Hotmail Janitor had deleted all my saved mail in all my folders, and all I had left was that weeks spam/sircam.
In complaining to Hotmail support, they replied, to my Hotmail account, asking what the name of my Hotmail account was. I'm not joking -- they're that stupid.
In further correspondence, they have said that they can't recover anything deleted by their "auto janitor".
They have said that Hotmail should not be trusted to store valuable mail (and that I should use outlook instead -- the damn software responsible for SirCam in the first place).
They think this is my problem, and I should upgrade my anti-virus software (I've repeatedly assured them that I've been WinDoh's free for four years -- I can't find McAfee's Linux download site).
They say their anti-virus protection is sufficient -- yet I rec'd two more SirCam laced spams today. They won't let me download the contents (even though it won't hurt my Linux system).
I've told them that their anti-virus protection kicks in too late -- they need to not stick any email into the Inbox that has the SirCam virus (they don't let you download the attachment anyway -- why bother letting it fill up your quota).
I've told them they should shut down their Janitor and make backups until this problem is resolved, or more Hotmail customer's are going to get their accounts wiped out without backup.
I've also told them that the correct solution is to bounce new incoming emails headed for an over-quota user, rather than allowing the incoming email and deleting the existing, saved, mail.
They don't get it. They don't understand.
And, if any Microsoft troll cares to say I'm a liar about this (like they did the last time I reported this in Slashdot)... I have the email transcripts to proove that this is Hotmail's behavior.
I have found two solutions:
www.mail.com
www.graffiti.net
Both provide free email excellent (and web hosting) service, and are smart enough to not run Microsoft products.
The strange thing is the flood of ARP "who-has" requests.
I'm on 24... too, and my activity light is blinking like my son's running a gnutella client (but he's not), and tcpdump is showing a flood of arp "who-has" packets... for a couple hours now.
My bandwidth seems good... in fact, better than normal... probably because I don't do WinDoh's.
> Serves ya right for using hotmail for critical communications!
I agree, but this is where lots of my old email addresses from previous employers gets routed -- don't quite feel like calling them up and having them change it again.
There is a program, "gotmail", that I've used for copying hotmail email to my local inbox -- it looks very good on the recieving end (not all the hotmail crap you'd get in your message if you forwarded it).
I don't want to use this automatically/periodically on my Inbox because of all the junk mail that gets delivered to that address (more than a decade of Usenet posts with my old addresses gets about 20 spams per day).
>But when it did, I wrote them and they restored my account back to a certain date. I got all of my stuff back.
I've tried writting them, they haven't responded -- but, it's only been three days, much to quick for Microsoft.
I was out of town for a week... didn't check my hotmail account.
During that time, my hotmail Inbox filled up with these sorts of messages (large attachements with the text: "I send you this file in order to have your advice").
Once it reached the maximum size for hotmail diskspace, hotmail started automatically deleteing older messages: all the messages in all of my folders had been deleted by the time I checked my hotmail account.
All that was left was spam in my Inbox.
Thanks, Microsoft!
Even with "Hard evidence" that Hatch had help writting the bill, the evidence is the "... distinguished gentleman ..." river of BS they spew in public.
Hatch kissing democratic ass is a political tactic, not a sign he's a moderate. This is the same fellow who read from the Exorsist during the hearings for Clarence Thomas' spot on the supremes.
>Less folks will go, it will be more expensive.
There are plenty of border towns in Canada and Mexico that would attract US programmers and would be safe for foriegn programmers.
>This all happened in a hugely Democratic administration.
Whoa. What planet were you living on. Two of the three government branches were safely in the hands of the Republicans -- the democrats had to pick their fights carefully. The DMCA was the brainchild of Borin' Orin, and was pushed heavily by the Republicans. I'll agree Democrats are as slimey, but this was Hatch's work. Ask him -- he takes credit, and finds nothing wrong with his baby. This is a bold line-item on his resume to get on the Supremes.
>There would be dozens of arrests anywhere else in the world
So China and Russia's acts are good excuse for bad laws in the US. Great logic.
As Franklin said: those who would trade their freedom for security deserve neither.
The US needs to be made aware of what Hatch has created, and understand the problems with this law. Any good boycott you can think of is a good start. Non-techie awareness must be raised.
I'd think the folks in Las Vegas who promote conventions would be a little pissed at Adobe & the DMCA too.
The next Defcon conference should be outside the US... and other conferences should think twice before having a US based conference attended by programmers from outside the US.
Since the DMCA is protecting wealthy capitalists by disallowing any programs that compete with their popular programs, it is only prudent to avoid putting your programmers in harms way.
It was the ultra-conservative Republican, Orin Hatch (representing ultra-conservative Utah) that wrote the DMCA. Strange that these republicans say they want to "open markets", then pass laws to protect wealthy capitalists instead.
Maybe this is cause to boycott the 2002 Winter Olympic games in Utah too (it's worth boycotting since they won't let outsiders bring in their own booze, and must purchase booze from the limited variety offerred by the state store).
Could someone summerize the setup procedure (what happens when you run the 5MB setup.exe)?
You don't have to agree to licensing terms to get the setup file, so I guess that agreement comes while running the exe. Is that correct?
Is the WinCE source in the setup.exe, or does it get downloaded while running the setup?
If it's in the setup.exe file, does anybody have a routine to extract the code without having to run setup.exe?
Finally, does setup.exe run under Wine -- I don't know anybody still using Windows, and I haven't used Wine in a long time (the apps I need are not available in Windows). It won't run under my old version of Wine.
Remember that Congress and the Senate are getting too much email... they throw it away. Sending snail mail has a better chance of getting read.
/dev/null. The law dictates that they faithfully mail whatever you desire.
:(
;)
s p? subject=20
The best way I've found to contact your elected officials is via Microsoft's FIN ("Freedom To Innovate Network"). They'll print out and snail mail the correspondence for you. Since they promise to mail, it would be a fedral offense for them to read this mail, figure it wasn't in MS's best interest, and throw it in
You have to agree to sign up for passport
You can send mail once per day per official.
Make sure to un-check the box that says they can read it -- you don't want MS to know what you're using them for
http://www.freetoinnovate.com/contact/default.a