This is about suing the little guy in an attempt to scare others. It's is about forcing these ISP to police for the movie studios.
They can't do this in the US where we have certain protections on our ISPs. Otherwise the movie studios and recording mafia would be attacking every company. These movie studios researched for a country which either had odd laws that permit this sort of legal action or that were so lax that there's no protection for the communications industry.
A troll is someone who patently states false things in order to aggravate others. Good for you for marking this a troll and using your head about all my lies.
You can't win a war without staying on the offensive. The best you can attain with that strategy is a stalemate. A loss is more likely.
At digg.com it appears that either Microsoft has paid people to come and digg down negative comments and/or digg up positive ones. Even if you comment stating your belief or feeling (and your points are valid) you'll get dugg way down. This just started happening about the time that Microsoft announced Windows 7. I guess they understand the digg effect and how sites such as slashdot and digg play a big part in perceptions about technology.
I'm not the only one that recognized that. Others have commented as well. I do believe that it will be the start of the decline of digg as people will loose trust in it if that behavior continues.
Now maybe they didn't pay anyone and it is just a few people that have set up multiple accounts to alter the vote. Who knows, but something is going wrong.
Maybe you are just reading too much digg.com regarding Microsoft products and you noticed the effect too, attributing it to the wrong thing.
But, no, really, slashdot has not been coming down harder on Microsoft that they deserve. In reality, they haven't even begun to touch the breadth of the insanity Microsoft has caused to the software industry.
Many of the studies that were done had merit, though the merit applies to that point in time. Unless we have a reevaluation of those studies on a continuous basis those studies are meaningless.
In their day they were somewhat valid, though the argument was pretty flip-flop depending on the variables and how you chose to apply them to the study group.
If you bought a PC with Windows you bought a ready to go unit. This is a valid point and over the long haul if little goes wrong then you are right. The total cost of ownership is lower. But we all know that things go wrong, and under Windows things can go seriously wrong, even dangerously wrong. When you consider serious issues such as BSODs, costs of maintaining legality with the one-sided EULA contracts, updates that disable units, flaky and unrealistic WGA type programs, etc these are serious. On the dangerous side of things are the malware and the update cycle created by Microsoft to attempt to undo their Swiss cheese OS.
Under Linux, back then, the philosophy of those creating the distro, etc were that if you couldn't build it you shouldn't come to the party. This was a total fallacy on their part and it was cause for greater costs in maintenance of the OS and created havoc with the total cost of ownership. On the plus side there's little left in terms of installing Linux that even a 90 year old great grandmother couldn't do. Most modern Linux distributions install with a few clicks of a mouse and filling in fewer blanks than this grandmother might have to fill out on an insurance form. It is down right simple to install it. That sort of cuts into the argument that Linux has a greater total cost of ownership.
Back in the day that these studies took place one was considered unworthy if they couldn't build their own install from scratch (source code). It was a total fallacy as one could use that argument about building one's own TV, refrigerator, car/engine, air conditioner, etc. If you couldn't build your own you should be considered unworthy under their logic. Luckily today cooler heads have prevailed and we know how that argument lacked complete and total mental competence. These zealots felt the same about software applications.
You were once required to compile your programs. Today it isn't that way at all. You can easily install a program with all dependencies in a few clicks of a mouse. Previously, though, that added to the total cost of ownership. They were right. It did cost a lot because you had to train people or learn to do it yourself or pay someone to perform for you.
So, those studies are wrong and out of date. Once a Linux box is up and running it needs little expenditure to maintain it (unless you keep messing with things that you know nothing about).
The issues with Windows still exist. It is still a swiss cheese of security. The stability of it is still quite questionable,and you need to spend great deals of money training people to relearn to maintain the OS and to train employees to understand how to use Office 2007 vs. what they thought they already knew about Office 2003.
"From our standpoint, those governments, and indeed every customer, should always decide which software solutions meet their needs most appropriately. We strongly believe that governments must carefully consider all costs of acquiring and using a PC, along with the benefits of widespread application availability, maintenance, and training," he said.
Above is a quote from the article.
The main problem with their statement is that they believe the main qualifier is "widespread application availability". With Linux they have greater availability of applications because everyone can freely take and distribute them, redistribute them, use them, do whatever they want with them including modify them.
Then to a lesser extent they talk about maintenance. Well, as has already been stated there's plenty of maintainability of open source code for anyone that wants to use it. In fact, the government employees of any country in the world can maintain the code at will. There's absolutely no issue with maintainability whatsoever in the open source community as anyone can do anything they want to the code at their own convenience.
Training is the last part of their statement. One must understand that parity amongst applications is a reality. Applications that support the Open Doc format will be programs that function in a known manner. For instance, there are only so many ways to bold face text or copy and paste text. The concept of formatting a paragraph, numbering, inserting formulas into a cell, etc are all pretty standardized. Not to mention what's primarily being talked about here is the use of Linux in schools, thus students are going to get all the training they could desire on using Linux and other Open Source programs.
The interface is what they may consider to be the main element of training aside from individual applications and that has little to do with the OS (rather applications which Microsoft must feel they are entitled to sell after the fact, and that will cost those government (their government) a considerable sum). With Linux you learn the interface and then train on any given application. If the application's interface had been a significant issue for training then in Office 2007 Microsoft would not have forced everyone in the world to undergo a retraining of sorts, one that was a major pain for a lot of people. Using programs such as Open Office 3.0 you need not go through the hard costly training that you'd require to go from Office 2003 to Office 2007.
As well, the broader community in Africa in that region has decided on Linux. That means that anyone using Windows would technically be at a disadvantage. Using their logic, they should learn Linux or be left behind.
There are other reasons one would not want to use Windows in those areas. For instance, if they use Windows they will be saddled with draconian restrictions management, which we all know is a method used to protect markets and to lock you into technology and thus the monopolistic businesses that created them. Many countries don't have our copyright and IP laws and many don't believe in them. By using Windows with DRM they'll effectively be forced to comply with those monopolistic company's interpretation of US law concerning copyright and IP.
And finally, it should always be cheaper to purchase a PC without an OS. Though someone must install an OS on a PC without an OS the task is part of the maintenance cycle and becomes rather rote. As well, today's distributions are relatively simple to install on solid hardware and generally the cost of a Linux distribution support contract + the PC + the long term affect in the region on training + the freedom to do what they want with the code + the fact that they know no one will be spying on them + the freedom to follow their own laws on copyright and IP makes Linux the prime choice, as it should for everyone.
Everything is hampered by the DRM crap Microsoft added to Vista. This has been tested, proven, and acknowledged by Microsoft. An example is when you play MP3 files your network file transfer drag to a crawl. Microsoft has acknowledge this and refused to correct it.
Windows 7 is just Win Vista with some changes, most notably a new task bar. We don't buy an upgrade PC's OS for a new task bar.
Vista is still as problematic as it ever was. Nothing so far from any modifications to Vista has it cleared up issues that everyone has been having. Most of the updates appear to be around the WGA (Windows Genuine Agony) and were adjusted to give Microsoft even more control over your computer.
There is no need for Windows 7 at this point. Essentially the brand is dying as it rightly should considering that Microsoft got into their position as a monopoly using illegal practices.
As long as Vista contains 47+ programs and a massive DRM infection it is a no go for anyone. Your computer is an extension of your home and there's no reason, no need, to provide Microsoft with a hidden camera view into what you are doing.
As long as Microsoft doesn't understand this they'll loose. There are options. Ubuntu is a solid well designed OS with all the necessary features necessary to take full advantage of your computer for every day (day in and day out) use.
People need to be made aware of the choices and the simplification of Linux. We all benefit, we all win, when you use the resources provided by the community instead of using an OS that is riddled with lock-in technologies meant to deny you choice. Windows is designed to deny you choice due to the vendor lock in. Choose that which gives you choice.
Windows 7 is Vista with tweaks. There's no need to purchase it as Vista is simply a pig with lipstick.
I used Vista, XP, Linux, and OSX. I own and operate a computer store.
If you had one iota of intellect you'd have been following what happened with the Justice Department trial, Microsoft's conviction, and what the States themselves uncovered and disclosed to the American public. If you had one iota of intellect you'd have followed that Japan, South Korea, and the EU have all found Microsoft guilty of unfair trade practices and deemed them a monopoly. If you had followed Microsoft's action after the EU conviction you would not be questioning the motivation of those who are trying to bring some balance back to this market.
If you had one iota of intellect you'd have some understanding that you can't overcome a monopoly and the very bad influences of that monopoly on any given market by ignoring it. People must take action. That action starts with a few, and hopefully many others will follow suit.
If you had any clue about life at all you'd fight for that which is greater than you.
I am angry but not in the way you try to assuage with your humiliation tactic. So, you don't have a brain and you can't think for yourself or you are being paid in some way to try to block the advances of other OSes.
As much as I despise Microsoft I also despise the lack of effort I see in people in the Open Source arena. But, with Microsoft I can do nothing but give them more money, whereas with Open Source I can give them my commitment to help them make things better.
You, you're just a dog. Go lay in your own shit and stop tramping it around here for everyone else to smell.
Everyone that comes into my computer shop gets Firefox installed. I then explain to them the pitfalls of using IE. I demonstrate things for them and explain IE's integration into the OS itself. In the end most use it after they leave and they like it. Most can't tell the difference they say so there's no reason to not use it.
Everyone should be doing this--spreading it little by little. Everyone should be taught about lock ins and how Microsoft is a convicted predatory monopolist.
As time goes by more and more will understand and realize there's more out there in the world than Microsoft's products.
This is only partially true. The implementation of hardware on the Mac is now the same hardware found in the world at large. The hard drives can be swapped with impunity, video cards the same, etc. It only takes the proper drivers (just like linux and wind) to make them work properly. The processors are the same, the memory is the same, the chipsets for wireless and networking is the same.
Yes, Apple has tested them to ensure that they work and have proper drivers but the Mac is nothing more now than a clone manufactured by the likes of Foxconn in China just as other pre-fab manufacturers do. HP, Dell, Gateway, Sony, Toshiba, etc all do it the same way. Does any other manufacturer have access to the source code to produce bug fixes and improved integration? No. But in reality the hardware is exactly the same.
We desire far less to have Microsoft's code in open source products. Microsoft is not an open source implementor. Microsoft is an opened source museum. You can't take their code to other platforms. With the threats of lawsuits against any user of Linux over the alleged 235+ patent violations, the open source community with impunity and with all imperativeness should shun any contribution by Microsoft. Any Microsoft involvement is a tainting of the water so to speak.
The goal of Open Source is to create an environment where none have to fear the likes of Microsoft and their proprietard ways of life. The Open Source community will move forward on its own with adequate time given.
This is a just say no to Microsoft imperative. Shortly after the time they announced the threats to everyone over the 235+ patents one notable party at Microsoft stated that 2008 was the year of the death of Open Source. What that means is that they fundamentally had their plans laid out to destroy Open Source, most likely through embrace, extend, extinguish.
NO to Microsoft means no to this type of decrepit deceit of those that care about having a choice and being free of the encumbrances and lock ins from MS.
The Open Source community created and has perfected webkit. To have Microsoft implement it is the embrace part. Not to mention they are the largest profiteer of software on the planet. As a consequence they can afford to fix their own product and have no need to have other unpaid contributors produce code for them to make more profit.
In order to win one must be willing to fight the hard fight and endure. One can not long endure if they do not understand that once Microsoft embraces this they will extend it (just like they tried to do with Java). Any extension will kill the product finally by extinguishing Open Source actual efforts because Microsoft will have taken control. This is no different than what they did with OOXML to Open Doc--why use Open Doc when the rest of the world uses OOXML?
And even the guy that wrote the bill stated not long ago that he was unhappy about how organizations such as the RIAA and others have been perverting the intent of the law and abusing it.
The DMCA has done more harm than any law regarding the internet. The internet would have become much larger, grown at a faster pace, had more free content, better business models, significantly less abuse.
This guy underestimates the amount of abuse the DMCA has created. He is pretty much clueless. The only thing he has on the mark are the safe harbor provisions except that the laws regarding telecommunications already cover that. As long as the tele companies don't interfere with anything they are immune. Once the get involved they are no longer immune.
So, all and all this guy is either heavily influenced or paid by the lobbyists.
I'm pretty sure it isn't the exceeding of the 250gig limit most customers are worried about. It is about getting less for more. The price has steadily risen when features have gone down and restrictions have gone up.
Also, on a system as large as one that has to exist for Comcast clearly few if any exceed the limit, particularly all the time.
What do I mean. Well, to create such limits and enforce them (meaning putting people and systems in place to monitor and judge) they are actually costing themselves more money to stop what has to be only a few abusers. Otherwise, if it isn't just a few abusers they are worried about then there will be a lot of regular users that exceed their limits.
But it isn't just the 250 gig limit, it is the throttling of users down if their usage exceeds x percent of the bandwidth, which can easily happen. Not to mention their draconian methods of purging the system of those people if they exceed, which of course will result in offers to make these people active again if they pay a stiffer fee.
So, because a few people can't possibly be putting a dent in their system (unless it is so incapable that a few can, meaning they haven't done a damn thing to fix their archaic system over the past decade, instead opting to line their penthouses with hundred dollar bills) they are trying to find ways to make people pay more, period.
They think we are stupid and we can't tell when they are creating a system to increase fees: such as, "we implement this tier pricing system for alleged abusers, then we later introduce it when we update our system". People will end up paying a hundred or more dollars a month just for cable instead of the $50.00 they pay now. That's a big boon to a monopoly--a way to increase prices while blaming it on the few. In reality they want all of us to pay more.
Being the monopoly that Comcast is in my area, I cannot discontinue my cable internet. My town has divided itself between a local provider and Comcast. Unfortunately I'm at Comcast's mercy in this regard as my part of town is handled by them. I can only overcome it by moving.
Instead of canceling my internet I have chosen to cancel my Cable TV. The cable TV costs more than the internet access does so they loose more than if I were to cancel the internet.
At the very earliest opportunity I will cancel Comcast altogether and go with something else.
Their draconian penalty to customers, rather than update their system to increase bandwidth (instead choosing to offer us less for more money) (by upgrading their systems nationwide as they should have done and should have continued to do for the past decade), results in them loosing my money, however indirectly.
The guys at MS blamed everyone but themselves. they could have owned up to the massive DRM infestation in Vista, the 47+ programs that collect information and report it back to Microsoft, etc. You should no more let Microsoft into your home to invade your privacy with their hidden programs that you would allow the police to put a hidden camera in your home to monitor you. You should no more let Microsoft do this than let say a large screen LCD TV manufacturer monitor what you watch and do on your $3,000 to $7,000 HD wide screen TV, especially since the cost of Microsoft's product is no where near the cost of the TV.
I have vista as I inherited it on some used computers. I also have over 20 years of experience working with computers and performing repairs, doing custom builds, etc.
Vista is just horrible and it is no where near as stable as as he makes it out to be.
In the article there was little to no mention of anything Microsoft said except maybe some rehashed interpreted and probably highly restricted wordage. I would also have to say that the guy was nothing more than propaganda writer for Microsoft. He talked about WGA but he didn't talk about the other massive DRM infestation. He talked about WGA but he didn't tell them that having WGA means Microsoft insists that everyone is a thief and must prove their innocence.
This isn't necessarily true. Look at the ruling against AT&T recently on their one sided EULA that restricted your ability to seek redress against their actions in any other venue than they see fit. There were others. When that sort of covenant is ruled unconscionable that's that--it's not legal.
Slashdot Mirror
This is about suing the little guy in an attempt to scare others. It's is about forcing these ISP to police for the movie studios.
They can't do this in the US where we have certain protections on our ISPs. Otherwise the movie studios and recording mafia would be attacking every company. These movie studios researched for a country which either had odd laws that permit this sort of legal action or that were so lax that there's no protection for the communications industry.
This is the US RIAA using the French labels as a proxy.
A troll is someone who patently states false things in order to aggravate others. Good for you for marking this a troll and using your head about all my lies.
Yes, you are retarded.
Sweet looking camera but I don't see any photos. Anyone have a link to the photos that show off the benefits of this camera?
I think you mean Microsoft == retard.
No, it's just you. Truthfully.
You can't win a war without staying on the offensive. The best you can attain with that strategy is a stalemate. A loss is more likely.
At digg.com it appears that either Microsoft has paid people to come and digg down negative comments and/or digg up positive ones. Even if you comment stating your belief or feeling (and your points are valid) you'll get dugg way down. This just started happening about the time that Microsoft announced Windows 7. I guess they understand the digg effect and how sites such as slashdot and digg play a big part in perceptions about technology.
I'm not the only one that recognized that. Others have commented as well. I do believe that it will be the start of the decline of digg as people will loose trust in it if that behavior continues.
Now maybe they didn't pay anyone and it is just a few people that have set up multiple accounts to alter the vote. Who knows, but something is going wrong.
Maybe you are just reading too much digg.com regarding Microsoft products and you noticed the effect too, attributing it to the wrong thing.
But, no, really, slashdot has not been coming down harder on Microsoft that they deserve. In reality, they haven't even begun to touch the breadth of the insanity Microsoft has caused to the software industry.
Many of the studies that were done had merit, though the merit applies to that point in time. Unless we have a reevaluation of those studies on a continuous basis those studies are meaningless.
In their day they were somewhat valid, though the argument was pretty flip-flop depending on the variables and how you chose to apply them to the study group.
If you bought a PC with Windows you bought a ready to go unit. This is a valid point and over the long haul if little goes wrong then you are right. The total cost of ownership is lower. But we all know that things go wrong, and under Windows things can go seriously wrong, even dangerously wrong. When you consider serious issues such as BSODs, costs of maintaining legality with the one-sided EULA contracts, updates that disable units, flaky and unrealistic WGA type programs, etc these are serious. On the dangerous side of things are the malware and the update cycle created by Microsoft to attempt to undo their Swiss cheese OS.
Under Linux, back then, the philosophy of those creating the distro, etc were that if you couldn't build it you shouldn't come to the party. This was a total fallacy on their part and it was cause for greater costs in maintenance of the OS and created havoc with the total cost of ownership. On the plus side there's little left in terms of installing Linux that even a 90 year old great grandmother couldn't do. Most modern Linux distributions install with a few clicks of a mouse and filling in fewer blanks than this grandmother might have to fill out on an insurance form. It is down right simple to install it. That sort of cuts into the argument that Linux has a greater total cost of ownership.
Back in the day that these studies took place one was considered unworthy if they couldn't build their own install from scratch (source code). It was a total fallacy as one could use that argument about building one's own TV, refrigerator, car/engine, air conditioner, etc. If you couldn't build your own you should be considered unworthy under their logic. Luckily today cooler heads have prevailed and we know how that argument lacked complete and total mental competence. These zealots felt the same about software applications.
You were once required to compile your programs. Today it isn't that way at all. You can easily install a program with all dependencies in a few clicks of a mouse. Previously, though, that added to the total cost of ownership. They were right. It did cost a lot because you had to train people or learn to do it yourself or pay someone to perform for you.
So, those studies are wrong and out of date. Once a Linux box is up and running it needs little expenditure to maintain it (unless you keep messing with things that you know nothing about).
The issues with Windows still exist. It is still a swiss cheese of security. The stability of it is still quite questionable,and you need to spend great deals of money training people to relearn to maintain the OS and to train employees to understand how to use Office 2007 vs. what they thought they already knew about Office 2003.
"From our standpoint, those governments, and indeed every customer, should always decide which software solutions meet their needs most appropriately. We strongly believe that governments must carefully consider all costs of acquiring and using a PC, along with the benefits of widespread application availability, maintenance, and training," he said.
Above is a quote from the article.
The main problem with their statement is that they believe the main qualifier is "widespread application availability". With Linux they have greater availability of applications because everyone can freely take and distribute them, redistribute them, use them, do whatever they want with them including modify them.
Then to a lesser extent they talk about maintenance. Well, as has already been stated there's plenty of maintainability of open source code for anyone that wants to use it. In fact, the government employees of any country in the world can maintain the code at will. There's absolutely no issue with maintainability whatsoever in the open source community as anyone can do anything they want to the code at their own convenience.
Training is the last part of their statement. One must understand that parity amongst applications is a reality. Applications that support the Open Doc format will be programs that function in a known manner. For instance, there are only so many ways to bold face text or copy and paste text. The concept of formatting a paragraph, numbering, inserting formulas into a cell, etc are all pretty standardized. Not to mention what's primarily being talked about here is the use of Linux in schools, thus students are going to get all the training they could desire on using Linux and other Open Source programs.
The interface is what they may consider to be the main element of training aside from individual applications and that has little to do with the OS (rather applications which Microsoft must feel they are entitled to sell after the fact, and that will cost those government (their government) a considerable sum). With Linux you learn the interface and then train on any given application. If the application's interface had been a significant issue for training then in Office 2007 Microsoft would not have forced everyone in the world to undergo a retraining of sorts, one that was a major pain for a lot of people. Using programs such as Open Office 3.0 you need not go through the hard costly training that you'd require to go from Office 2003 to Office 2007.
As well, the broader community in Africa in that region has decided on Linux. That means that anyone using Windows would technically be at a disadvantage. Using their logic, they should learn Linux or be left behind.
There are other reasons one would not want to use Windows in those areas. For instance, if they use Windows they will be saddled with draconian restrictions management, which we all know is a method used to protect markets and to lock you into technology and thus the monopolistic businesses that created them. Many countries don't have our copyright and IP laws and many don't believe in them. By using Windows with DRM they'll effectively be forced to comply with those monopolistic company's interpretation of US law concerning copyright and IP.
And finally, it should always be cheaper to purchase a PC without an OS. Though someone must install an OS on a PC without an OS the task is part of the maintenance cycle and becomes rather rote. As well, today's distributions are relatively simple to install on solid hardware and generally the cost of a Linux distribution support contract + the PC + the long term affect in the region on training + the freedom to do what they want with the code + the fact that they know no one will be spying on them + the freedom to follow their own laws on copyright and IP makes Linux the prime choice, as it should for everyone.
Everything is hampered by the DRM crap Microsoft added to Vista. This has been tested, proven, and acknowledged by Microsoft. An example is when you play MP3 files your network file transfer drag to a crawl. Microsoft has acknowledge this and refused to correct it.
Windows 7 is just Win Vista with some changes, most notably a new task bar. We don't buy an upgrade PC's OS for a new task bar.
Vista is still as problematic as it ever was. Nothing so far from any modifications to Vista has it cleared up issues that everyone has been having. Most of the updates appear to be around the WGA (Windows Genuine Agony) and were adjusted to give Microsoft even more control over your computer.
There is no need for Windows 7 at this point. Essentially the brand is dying as it rightly should considering that Microsoft got into their position as a monopoly using illegal practices.
As long as Vista contains 47+ programs and a massive DRM infection it is a no go for anyone. Your computer is an extension of your home and there's no reason, no need, to provide Microsoft with a hidden camera view into what you are doing.
As long as Microsoft doesn't understand this they'll loose. There are options. Ubuntu is a solid well designed OS with all the necessary features necessary to take full advantage of your computer for every day (day in and day out) use.
People need to be made aware of the choices and the simplification of Linux. We all benefit, we all win, when you use the resources provided by the community instead of using an OS that is riddled with lock-in technologies meant to deny you choice. Windows is designed to deny you choice due to the vendor lock in. Choose that which gives you choice.
Windows 7 is Vista with tweaks. There's no need to purchase it as Vista is simply a pig with lipstick.
I used Vista, XP, Linux, and OSX. I own and operate a computer store.
If you had one iota of intellect you'd have been following what happened with the Justice Department trial, Microsoft's conviction, and what the States themselves uncovered and disclosed to the American public. If you had one iota of intellect you'd have followed that Japan, South Korea, and the EU have all found Microsoft guilty of unfair trade practices and deemed them a monopoly. If you had followed Microsoft's action after the EU conviction you would not be questioning the motivation of those who are trying to bring some balance back to this market.
If you had one iota of intellect you'd have some understanding that you can't overcome a monopoly and the very bad influences of that monopoly on any given market by ignoring it. People must take action. That action starts with a few, and hopefully many others will follow suit.
If you had any clue about life at all you'd fight for that which is greater than you.
I am angry but not in the way you try to assuage with your humiliation tactic. So, you don't have a brain and you can't think for yourself or you are being paid in some way to try to block the advances of other OSes.
As much as I despise Microsoft I also despise the lack of effort I see in people in the Open Source arena. But, with Microsoft I can do nothing but give them more money, whereas with Open Source I can give them my commitment to help them make things better.
You, you're just a dog. Go lay in your own shit and stop tramping it around here for everyone else to smell.
Everyone that comes into my computer shop gets Firefox installed. I then explain to them the pitfalls of using IE. I demonstrate things for them and explain IE's integration into the OS itself. In the end most use it after they leave and they like it. Most can't tell the difference they say so there's no reason to not use it.
Everyone should be doing this--spreading it little by little. Everyone should be taught about lock ins and how Microsoft is a convicted predatory monopolist.
As time goes by more and more will understand and realize there's more out there in the world than Microsoft's products.
They just want someone else to write their code so they can profit far and wide.
This is only partially true. The implementation of hardware on the Mac is now the same hardware found in the world at large. The hard drives can be swapped with impunity, video cards the same, etc. It only takes the proper drivers (just like linux and wind) to make them work properly. The processors are the same, the memory is the same, the chipsets for wireless and networking is the same.
Yes, Apple has tested them to ensure that they work and have proper drivers but the Mac is nothing more now than a clone manufactured by the likes of Foxconn in China just as other pre-fab manufacturers do. HP, Dell, Gateway, Sony, Toshiba, etc all do it the same way. Does any other manufacturer have access to the source code to produce bug fixes and improved integration? No. But in reality the hardware is exactly the same.
We desire far less to have Microsoft's code in open source products. Microsoft is not an open source implementor. Microsoft is an opened source museum. You can't take their code to other platforms. With the threats of lawsuits against any user of Linux over the alleged 235+ patent violations, the open source community with impunity and with all imperativeness should shun any contribution by Microsoft. Any Microsoft involvement is a tainting of the water so to speak.
The goal of Open Source is to create an environment where none have to fear the likes of Microsoft and their proprietard ways of life. The Open Source community will move forward on its own with adequate time given.
This is a just say no to Microsoft imperative. Shortly after the time they announced the threats to everyone over the 235+ patents one notable party at Microsoft stated that 2008 was the year of the death of Open Source. What that means is that they fundamentally had their plans laid out to destroy Open Source, most likely through embrace, extend, extinguish.
NO to Microsoft means no to this type of decrepit deceit of those that care about having a choice and being free of the encumbrances and lock ins from MS.
The Open Source community created and has perfected webkit. To have Microsoft implement it is the embrace part. Not to mention they are the largest profiteer of software on the planet. As a consequence they can afford to fix their own product and have no need to have other unpaid contributors produce code for them to make more profit.
In order to win one must be willing to fight the hard fight and endure. One can not long endure if they do not understand that once Microsoft embraces this they will extend it (just like they tried to do with Java). Any extension will kill the product finally by extinguishing Open Source actual efforts because Microsoft will have taken control. This is no different than what they did with OOXML to Open Doc--why use Open Doc when the rest of the world uses OOXML?
And even the guy that wrote the bill stated not long ago that he was unhappy about how organizations such as the RIAA and others have been perverting the intent of the law and abusing it.
The DMCA has done more harm than any law regarding the internet. The internet would have become much larger, grown at a faster pace, had more free content, better business models, significantly less abuse.
This guy underestimates the amount of abuse the DMCA has created. He is pretty much clueless. The only thing he has on the mark are the safe harbor provisions except that the laws regarding telecommunications already cover that. As long as the tele companies don't interfere with anything they are immune. Once the get involved they are no longer immune.
So, all and all this guy is either heavily influenced or paid by the lobbyists.
A company that makes billions a quarter is going to pump out a lot of stuff. ...and it is going to pump out a lot of crap.
I'm pretty sure it isn't the exceeding of the 250gig limit most customers are worried about. It is about getting less for more. The price has steadily risen when features have gone down and restrictions have gone up.
Also, on a system as large as one that has to exist for Comcast clearly few if any exceed the limit, particularly all the time.
What do I mean. Well, to create such limits and enforce them (meaning putting people and systems in place to monitor and judge) they are actually costing themselves more money to stop what has to be only a few abusers. Otherwise, if it isn't just a few abusers they are worried about then there will be a lot of regular users that exceed their limits.
But it isn't just the 250 gig limit, it is the throttling of users down if their usage exceeds x percent of the bandwidth, which can easily happen. Not to mention their draconian methods of purging the system of those people if they exceed, which of course will result in offers to make these people active again if they pay a stiffer fee.
So, because a few people can't possibly be putting a dent in their system (unless it is so incapable that a few can, meaning they haven't done a damn thing to fix their archaic system over the past decade, instead opting to line their penthouses with hundred dollar bills) they are trying to find ways to make people pay more, period.
They think we are stupid and we can't tell when they are creating a system to increase fees: such as, "we implement this tier pricing system for alleged abusers, then we later introduce it when we update our system". People will end up paying a hundred or more dollars a month just for cable instead of the $50.00 they pay now. That's a big boon to a monopoly--a way to increase prices while blaming it on the few. In reality they want all of us to pay more.
Being the monopoly that Comcast is in my area, I cannot discontinue my cable internet. My town has divided itself between a local provider and Comcast. Unfortunately I'm at Comcast's mercy in this regard as my part of town is handled by them. I can only overcome it by moving.
Instead of canceling my internet I have chosen to cancel my Cable TV. The cable TV costs more than the internet access does so they loose more than if I were to cancel the internet.
At the very earliest opportunity I will cancel Comcast altogether and go with something else.
Their draconian penalty to customers, rather than update their system to increase bandwidth (instead choosing to offer us less for more money) (by upgrading their systems nationwide as they should have done and should have continued to do for the past decade), results in them loosing my money, however indirectly.
fuck wine
The guys at MS blamed everyone but themselves. they could have owned up to the massive DRM infestation in Vista, the 47+ programs that collect information and report it back to Microsoft, etc. You should no more let Microsoft into your home to invade your privacy with their hidden programs that you would allow the police to put a hidden camera in your home to monitor you. You should no more let Microsoft do this than let say a large screen LCD TV manufacturer monitor what you watch and do on your $3,000 to $7,000 HD wide screen TV, especially since the cost of Microsoft's product is no where near the cost of the TV.
I have vista as I inherited it on some used computers. I also have over 20 years of experience working with computers and performing repairs, doing custom builds, etc.
Vista is just horrible and it is no where near as stable as as he makes it out to be.
In the article there was little to no mention of anything Microsoft said except maybe some rehashed interpreted and probably highly restricted wordage. I would also have to say that the guy was nothing more than propaganda writer for Microsoft. He talked about WGA but he didn't talk about the other massive DRM infestation. He talked about WGA but he didn't tell them that having WGA means Microsoft insists that everyone is a thief and must prove their innocence.
This isn't necessarily true. Look at the ruling against AT&T recently on their one sided EULA that restricted your ability to seek redress against their actions in any other venue than they see fit. There were others. When that sort of covenant is ruled unconscionable that's that--it's not legal.
I won't buy a game nor any product ever that sports even a microscopic hint of DRM, period.