Most likely he'll end up in private practice again or become like Jack Thompson, a incensed crazed freak hell bent on enforcing his morals on everyone.
This guy in SC is a real bozo. He claims this is the first time they have taken the matter seriously. He's being a idiot. He's making idiotic statements.
Craigslist was always in the right. They were protecting freedom of speech and to be able to conduct business without the interference if right wing politicians bent on making a name for themselves while seeking higher office.
These SC residents need to vote this guy out of office and he needs to pay some with is personal income for violation of the constitution by trying to enforce prior restraint against free speech.
I was going to point that out but you caught it. These are guys that feel jilted by something and they will fight to the death to protect Microsoft, for whatever reason.
The plaintiff has always had the burden of proof. It must show by a preponderance of evidence. This is a solid decision and it shows the RIAA that they should have to work for their supp.
I would have to disagree. Your post is full of incorrect leading conclusions.
First, if this were the case then we wouldn't be where we are with Linux, and to say we are not accomplishing anything in Linux is to deny the facts and the truth. Linux has progressed to (by some counts) just over 4% of the desktop market, which is pretty significant. That equates to many millions of installs.
Second, programs necessary to do what the average person does exists widely under Linux and those are strong, well polished programs with lots of future potential. 99% of what 90% of us do can easily be accomplished with Linux. There's no need to ask a regular consumer to set up Linux on their own. Even so, doing so is incredibly simple, much simpler than doing it in Windows--though arguably OS X is easier.
Third, gaming is not the catalyst to acceptance. Yes there are gamers that demand a lot of their computer but it doesn't drive the average consumer. What drives them is the question of whether they can browse the web, do their mail, listen to music, watch their videos, etc.
You are not representative of the average consumer. Go to a computer repair shop and sit and watch and listen to the people that come in. Those are the average consumers that use computers day in and day out.
Consumers had no idea there was a choice and that it was this caliber of product. They didn't know that it was exceeding the capabilities of even the latest version of Windows and to some extent even the version due to be released soon. The lack of knowledge that there is a competing product and that product is available to anyone is the main reason that Linux doesn't have the acceptance it should have. (With that knoweldge brings wider acceptance and accelerated commercial application development).
Most of that failure is due to monopolistic practices by the major IP violator in the world--Microsoft.
Tetris was invented in Russia (Soviet Union) and the original authors never got a dime for it. It was simply stolen by the west and implemented a thousand times over.
There's no need to really address anything other than your first premise. The Linux folks say that because it is true. It's not hatred. These people are proud of the fact that they came up 15 years after Microsoft and have achieved feature parity and then some. It's no different than saying that your son or daughter graduated from Harvard while you only graduated from a community college. That fact says things about you and your child.
The rest of what you wrote is pretty much superfluous in that it really has no bearing in the real world. We know you are unhappy. It's not right for you to be unhappy because the Linux folks are happy.
The fast changing pace of Linux is it's greatest strength. In half the time of Windows (from DOS to current) Linux has grown to exceed Windows in many regards. There are issues but then again there are issues with every OS, including OS X.
In the next 10 years that fast changing pace will exceed Windows in every incarnation quite easily, and we're just talking about the desktop. I think most would agree that the server side of things Linux has them already beat, hands down.
The pre-fab boxes are generally less powerful, use older technology, etc than one built from scratch. From the beginning of microcomputing the preferences has always been to build your own. When the computer became a commodity where you would toss it in the trash because it became infected with malware that reversed the preference somewhat but it didn't change the facts that a custom built rig is always more powerful, more modern, and has more features and is targeted to a longer life-cycle if not for it as a whole but for the parts as well.
Pre-fabs from the likes of Dell or HP generally come with 90 day to 1 year warranty, whereas the custom builts generally have 3 years on the mobo, 5 years on the hard drive, 3 years on the cpu, and lifetime on the ram and video.
What I learned years ago was that the chipsets/bios in these pre-fabs preclude certain updates whereas the custom built rigs always seemed to be on top of things for upgrades (modern bioses released to support new CPUs, etc). A custom built rig will last longer and the parts that are swapped out when upgrades come in are generally used in another rig. Little goes to waste.
The newer pre-fabs from the likes of Dell, Gateway, etc are being built around the BTX case design whereas all others are being built around the ATX case design. The difference is that the BTX case designs have everything turned around making it near impossible to get a replacement motherboard from anyone other than the manufacturer of the original pre-fab unit.
There are just so many reasons to stay away from the pre-fabs it isn't funny. There are so many reasons to go with a custom built rig isn't downright cheery.
What is forgotten is that when a pre-fab's HDD goes out or it is so badly infected with malware that you have to start over doing so with a clean install brings with it the fact that you have no video drivers, no sound drives (and good luck on that high def audio bus driver), no network, no wireless, etc. You have to find a way to download and install them and hope they work.
I know this because I own and operate a computer repair shop and my last choice on these things is to wipe and start over, but sometimes, a lot of times, you have to and you are saddled with this.
I have a number of friends that have a masters or a doctorate and I can guarantee you that most know nothing at all about the inner workings of computers and would be at a real loss to build their own or resolve issues.
Even if you have the OEM recovery CD from the pre-fab manufacturer it will simply install Windows. It's still up to you to do the drivers, etc.
I think I'm saying you have no rational position behind your suggestion other than for the most basic person who can't do it themselves, but then they can take it to a shop like mine to resolve these issues.
His view is from a Windows person as is demonstrated time and again by his comments. He's thinking like a windows person. Linux is not windows. The intent of linux is not to be Windows.
Much of what he says is just flat out wrong and shows that he hasn't looked at linux in a very long time.
He's not a qualified programmer in Linux environment and that of Windows to give a comparative summary, because if he was qualified he would be stating otherwise in most regards, including his apparent inability to get simple things like sound working.
If you look at Windows from the perspective of installation of a system from the box you'll see his comments are so far off that he's no real idea what he's talking about. His comments regarding mixer are so badly presented as to seem mostly like he's biased and searching for things--otherwise it is apparent that he doesn't understand Windows itself because if he did he'd know his comments regarding audio are very misplaced and when comparing Windows sound issues to Linux he should have been concluding that, for the most part, Linux beats Windows.
Basically he seemed a simple mind incapable of actually understanding Linux and wants to box it into the Windows mold.
There are other web server type apps in the Apple store and have been there for some time. They provide a way, mostly, of moving data on and off the device, but nonetheless they still act as a web server.
This one would be more objectionable to the ISP than any other as they hate having consumers operate servers out of their homes. That's the primary reason they capped the upload speed of cable internet.
Being that this is pressure by the government to change their service in order to censure the public, regardless of whether legal or illegal activities are taking place, this puts Craigslist in the position of violating the US Constitution by acting as the arm of the police authority.
This is no different than a civilian such as the property owner being sent in by the police authorities to search a suspects premises. They can't do it without warrant but police have tried. The courts have ruled that those private individuals then become an agent of the police and are bound by the laws governing their actions.
The Attorney General is doing the same thing here by forcing a private entity to search in order to monitor the users and stop activity that may or may not be illegal.
Had Craigslist done this without the influence of the government it would have just been a company covering their ass, but because they are doing it as a direct result of the government coercion they are now acting as an agent of the government.
BSD style licenses allow some changes to exist behind locked gates. The GPL doesn't allow you to lock the code. You take the code that someone else toiled over and you use it to make a profit you really should give something back to the guy that wrote the original code. Otherwise, create your own and give that away BSD style.
I think the GPL is a more popular license this is indicative as to why.
Netscape was a product that was introduced as paid software. You purchased it. Microsoft's IE was a paid product also. You purchased it. It was the competitor to Netscape.
Microsoft then decided, while IE was still a stand-alone browser, to give it away for free.
In order to compete for market share this move put Netscape in a position to have to give theirs away for free.
Clearly, we can see from this that Microsoft has given software away for free for a long time and hence has no leg to stand on by complaining that free software is a cancer on the industry. We can't give Ballmer any credit for having a long memory and must say of him that he has a selective memory, or even that much of what he says in public is meant to prey on the fact that the average person doesn't know the history.
In an effort to get better market penetration Netscape tried to ink deals with vendors to have them pre-install it on the computers they were selling. This is where the justice department comes in.
Microsoft was inking deals with the vendors in a way that denied them the ability to include any other company's product to be pre-installed, and no icons other than Microsoft icons were allowed on the desktop for a new machine sold to the public. They had also been doing something similar in the DOS world. If the vendors didn't agree to this they lost their volume pricing deals and as a consequence couldn't compete with everyone else. Microsoft also limited vendor's ability to sell computers with no operating system on it.
When Netscape was forced to give away their browser for free (as Microsoft was), it was clear that people were still downloading and installing Netscape. So, in an attempt to overcome this Microsoft chose to integrate IE into the OS giving it a huge advantage.
Then Java came along. Microsoft felt that Netscape and Java were the threat that could kill their OS business.
Netscape then decided that they'd change their business model by giving away Netscape for free and making money as a portal. Marc Andreesen saw the light early and sold his shares--he took the money and ran.
That was the end of Netscape. With IE integrated into the OS, with Microsoft incorporating proprietary extensions to HTML it all but killed Netscape.
This is why we have industry standards. This is why standards are utterly important. It was also the first time we acknowledged Microsoft using Embrace, Extend, Extinguish as a tactic.
The problem with Microsoft's attempt to get Netscape to agree on standards was ill fated because it was forcing Netscape into giving up years of work in designing enhancements to HTML and there were many parties out there that felt Netscapes extensions were better as they were targeted at cross platform. Microsoft's were targeted at only Windows in a way of further entrenching Windows as the only OS for the desktop.
The W3C took a look at both submissions and chose to incorporate both into the standard--rather than one over the other.
Microsoft never made their MFC shared source. Microsoft was about binaries.
Slashdot Mirror
This makes the device look thiner than it is. It is actually pretty thick. I guess they couldn't get everything into a slim package.
Lol.
Haha, too much French in you guys, lol. Just kidding. Brings the thought that that might make you surrender too much/easily.
He appears to be in a child's state of mind. He can't answer that because he can't understand what you are saying.
Luckily we don't have to rely on your trust mechanism. Just like we don't have to rely on Jack Thomspon's.
Most likely he'll end up in private practice again or become like Jack Thompson, a incensed crazed freak hell bent on enforcing his morals on everyone.
This guy in SC is a real bozo. He claims this is the first time they have taken the matter seriously. He's being a idiot. He's making idiotic statements.
Craigslist was always in the right. They were protecting freedom of speech and to be able to conduct business without the interference if right wing politicians bent on making a name for themselves while seeking higher office.
These SC residents need to vote this guy out of office and he needs to pay some with is personal income for violation of the constitution by trying to enforce prior restraint against free speech.
He's incompetent.
I was going to point that out but you caught it. These are guys that feel jilted by something and they will fight to the death to protect Microsoft, for whatever reason.
It's a result of the fact that that is where it is focused and the fact that we want to see competition everywhere.
Haha, then use KDE and paint your monitor brown.
The plaintiff has always had the burden of proof. It must show by a preponderance of evidence. This is a solid decision and it shows the RIAA that they should have to work for their supp.
I would have to disagree. Your post is full of incorrect leading conclusions.
First, if this were the case then we wouldn't be where we are with Linux, and to say we are not accomplishing anything in Linux is to deny the facts and the truth. Linux has progressed to (by some counts) just over 4% of the desktop market, which is pretty significant. That equates to many millions of installs.
Second, programs necessary to do what the average person does exists widely under Linux and those are strong, well polished programs with lots of future potential. 99% of what 90% of us do can easily be accomplished with Linux. There's no need to ask a regular consumer to set up Linux on their own. Even so, doing so is incredibly simple, much simpler than doing it in Windows--though arguably OS X is easier.
Third, gaming is not the catalyst to acceptance. Yes there are gamers that demand a lot of their computer but it doesn't drive the average consumer. What drives them is the question of whether they can browse the web, do their mail, listen to music, watch their videos, etc.
You are not representative of the average consumer. Go to a computer repair shop and sit and watch and listen to the people that come in. Those are the average consumers that use computers day in and day out.
Consumers had no idea there was a choice and that it was this caliber of product. They didn't know that it was exceeding the capabilities of even the latest version of Windows and to some extent even the version due to be released soon. The lack of knowledge that there is a competing product and that product is available to anyone is the main reason that Linux doesn't have the acceptance it should have. (With that knoweldge brings wider acceptance and accelerated commercial application development).
Most of that failure is due to monopolistic practices by the major IP violator in the world--Microsoft.
Bad boy. Go sit back in the corner. NO, no dunce hat this time. But you should know better.
My response is as bad as yours. You never should have been modded insightful. Spank their mom.
Tetris was invented in Russia (Soviet Union) and the original authors never got a dime for it. It was simply stolen by the west and implemented a thousand times over.
There's no need to really address anything other than your first premise. The Linux folks say that because it is true. It's not hatred. These people are proud of the fact that they came up 15 years after Microsoft and have achieved feature parity and then some. It's no different than saying that your son or daughter graduated from Harvard while you only graduated from a community college. That fact says things about you and your child.
The rest of what you wrote is pretty much superfluous in that it really has no bearing in the real world. We know you are unhappy. It's not right for you to be unhappy because the Linux folks are happy.
The fast changing pace of Linux is it's greatest strength. In half the time of Windows (from DOS to current) Linux has grown to exceed Windows in many regards. There are issues but then again there are issues with every OS, including OS X.
In the next 10 years that fast changing pace will exceed Windows in every incarnation quite easily, and we're just talking about the desktop. I think most would agree that the server side of things Linux has them already beat, hands down.
The pre-fab boxes are generally less powerful, use older technology, etc than one built from scratch. From the beginning of microcomputing the preferences has always been to build your own. When the computer became a commodity where you would toss it in the trash because it became infected with malware that reversed the preference somewhat but it didn't change the facts that a custom built rig is always more powerful, more modern, and has more features and is targeted to a longer life-cycle if not for it as a whole but for the parts as well.
Pre-fabs from the likes of Dell or HP generally come with 90 day to 1 year warranty, whereas the custom builts generally have 3 years on the mobo, 5 years on the hard drive, 3 years on the cpu, and lifetime on the ram and video.
What I learned years ago was that the chipsets/bios in these pre-fabs preclude certain updates whereas the custom built rigs always seemed to be on top of things for upgrades (modern bioses released to support new CPUs, etc). A custom built rig will last longer and the parts that are swapped out when upgrades come in are generally used in another rig. Little goes to waste.
The newer pre-fabs from the likes of Dell, Gateway, etc are being built around the BTX case design whereas all others are being built around the ATX case design. The difference is that the BTX case designs have everything turned around making it near impossible to get a replacement motherboard from anyone other than the manufacturer of the original pre-fab unit.
There are just so many reasons to stay away from the pre-fabs it isn't funny. There are so many reasons to go with a custom built rig isn't downright cheery.
What is forgotten is that when a pre-fab's HDD goes out or it is so badly infected with malware that you have to start over doing so with a clean install brings with it the fact that you have no video drivers, no sound drives (and good luck on that high def audio bus driver), no network, no wireless, etc. You have to find a way to download and install them and hope they work.
I know this because I own and operate a computer repair shop and my last choice on these things is to wipe and start over, but sometimes, a lot of times, you have to and you are saddled with this.
I have a number of friends that have a masters or a doctorate and I can guarantee you that most know nothing at all about the inner workings of computers and would be at a real loss to build their own or resolve issues.
Even if you have the OEM recovery CD from the pre-fab manufacturer it will simply install Windows. It's still up to you to do the drivers, etc.
I think I'm saying you have no rational position behind your suggestion other than for the most basic person who can't do it themselves, but then they can take it to a shop like mine to resolve these issues.
So be a windows gaming boxer and dual boot. Play your games under windows and use linux for the rest like the rest of us.
His view is from a Windows person as is demonstrated time and again by his comments. He's thinking like a windows person. Linux is not windows. The intent of linux is not to be Windows.
Much of what he says is just flat out wrong and shows that he hasn't looked at linux in a very long time.
He's not a qualified programmer in Linux environment and that of Windows to give a comparative summary, because if he was qualified he would be stating otherwise in most regards, including his apparent inability to get simple things like sound working.
If you look at Windows from the perspective of installation of a system from the box you'll see his comments are so far off that he's no real idea what he's talking about. His comments regarding mixer are so badly presented as to seem mostly like he's biased and searching for things--otherwise it is apparent that he doesn't understand Windows itself because if he did he'd know his comments regarding audio are very misplaced and when comparing Windows sound issues to Linux he should have been concluding that, for the most part, Linux beats Windows.
Basically he seemed a simple mind incapable of actually understanding Linux and wants to box it into the Windows mold.
There are other web server type apps in the Apple store and have been there for some time. They provide a way, mostly, of moving data on and off the device, but nonetheless they still act as a web server.
This one would be more objectionable to the ISP than any other as they hate having consumers operate servers out of their homes. That's the primary reason they capped the upload speed of cable internet.
Being that this is pressure by the government to change their service in order to censure the public, regardless of whether legal or illegal activities are taking place, this puts Craigslist in the position of violating the US Constitution by acting as the arm of the police authority.
This is no different than a civilian such as the property owner being sent in by the police authorities to search a suspects premises. They can't do it without warrant but police have tried. The courts have ruled that those private individuals then become an agent of the police and are bound by the laws governing their actions.
The Attorney General is doing the same thing here by forcing a private entity to search in order to monitor the users and stop activity that may or may not be illegal.
Had Craigslist done this without the influence of the government it would have just been a company covering their ass, but because they are doing it as a direct result of the government coercion they are now acting as an agent of the government.
Or possibly Satan and his minions in certain massive high tech companies continually under investigation for criminal monopolistic behavior.
We would loose GM if that were to happen as no one wants to be driving their vehicle down the interstate and get a BSOD.
More likely it is to pay for the EU fines and then try to hedge that against what they believe, and falsely that is, at a successful Win7 launch.
As PC Mag indicated Win7 is just about 5% faster than Vista where that increase is imperceptible to the average user.
BSD style licenses allow some changes to exist behind locked gates. The GPL doesn't allow you to lock the code. You take the code that someone else toiled over and you use it to make a profit you really should give something back to the guy that wrote the original code. Otherwise, create your own and give that away BSD style.
I think the GPL is a more popular license this is indicative as to why.
Much of what you are saying here is inaccurate.
Netscape was a product that was introduced as paid software. You purchased it. Microsoft's IE was a paid product also. You purchased it. It was the competitor to Netscape.
Microsoft then decided, while IE was still a stand-alone browser, to give it away for free.
In order to compete for market share this move put Netscape in a position to have to give theirs away for free.
Clearly, we can see from this that Microsoft has given software away for free for a long time and hence has no leg to stand on by complaining that free software is a cancer on the industry. We can't give Ballmer any credit for having a long memory and must say of him that he has a selective memory, or even that much of what he says in public is meant to prey on the fact that the average person doesn't know the history.
In an effort to get better market penetration Netscape tried to ink deals with vendors to have them pre-install it on the computers they were selling. This is where the justice department comes in.
Microsoft was inking deals with the vendors in a way that denied them the ability to include any other company's product to be pre-installed, and no icons other than Microsoft icons were allowed on the desktop for a new machine sold to the public. They had also been doing something similar in the DOS world. If the vendors didn't agree to this they lost their volume pricing deals and as a consequence couldn't compete with everyone else. Microsoft also limited vendor's ability to sell computers with no operating system on it.
When Netscape was forced to give away their browser for free (as Microsoft was), it was clear that people were still downloading and installing Netscape. So, in an attempt to overcome this Microsoft chose to integrate IE into the OS giving it a huge advantage.
Then Java came along. Microsoft felt that Netscape and Java were the threat that could kill their OS business.
Netscape then decided that they'd change their business model by giving away Netscape for free and making money as a portal. Marc Andreesen saw the light early and sold his shares--he took the money and ran.
That was the end of Netscape. With IE integrated into the OS, with Microsoft incorporating proprietary extensions to HTML it all but killed Netscape.
This is why we have industry standards. This is why standards are utterly important. It was also the first time we acknowledged Microsoft using Embrace, Extend, Extinguish as a tactic.
The problem with Microsoft's attempt to get Netscape to agree on standards was ill fated because it was forcing Netscape into giving up years of work in designing enhancements to HTML and there were many parties out there that felt Netscapes extensions were better as they were targeted at cross platform. Microsoft's were targeted at only Windows in a way of further entrenching Windows as the only OS for the desktop.
The W3C took a look at both submissions and chose to incorporate both into the standard--rather than one over the other.
Microsoft never made their MFC shared source. Microsoft was about binaries.