Just my opinion, don't take any of this seriously. Think of it like a brainstorming session where there are different variables offered up on the table in a variety of ways. Neat things come from it sometimes.
We'll see this more and more overseas, especially in developing countries who wish to find their place within the current IP related markets. It's just a sign that an acceleration towards a shift has already started. Funny thing about this is that MS just outsourced a research lab to another country to remain competitive.(Needs to be cited or have clarification) Unfortunately, it's a catch 22 when it comes to globalization. Companies need to be competitive as much as any other company needs to be. While we have a certain advantage, we might have to take some losses due to new competitive forces on the horizon. While I only support Microsoft insomuch as to keep a certain level of wealth within the states, it sucks to see that the market might marginalize the company to obscurity. It will take a lot to get there but you never know. Given any opportunity for certain developing countries to succeed, something might pop up here and there which would give us a run for the money. I would hate the world to be homogenized but with the amount of diversity in resources for each area, it shouldn't be too much of a problem. I hate the concept of interdependence but it's been that way for quite a while and I doubt that will change any time soon.
Well, with IBM, Novell, Sun, and Red Hat being US companies, there is a certain technical advantage that will help the US over time in terms of *n(i/u)x related IP. Who knows what OpenSuSE (Germany), Ubuntu (Britain/Isle of Man), Mandriva (France) might come up with over time. I would like to mention a Chinese distribution of Linux but I can't seem to find one yet. If India ever gets a sense of entitlement outside of their dependency on MS outsourcing, I wonder where they will put their interest towards. Swaraj can be a double edge sword sometimes.
Don't mean to sounds ominous but I think its time to bring this conversation to the table in an open manner. We see very little of it because when someone talks about globalization they come off as wearing a tin foil hat. Somethings happening, don't really know what but I do think there should be a certain invested interest in certain things that are currently going on in the market. At least have some reasonable argument to pacify certain concerns. Spreading democracy is one thing but spreading capitalism is another. Not that I necessarily disagree (double negative, I know) with what's going on, my main concern is what's keeping it together. Simple answers bind truths further than any excuse or reason.
Regardless of trying to see the current problem with privacy and other issues, such as using the software like a sniffer, this type of software isn't new to the software industry and not necessarily new to the open source community as well. CNet provided a service back in 1999 which scanned the hard drive and reported back to CNet which applications were installed so it could inform the end user whether they needed to upgrade their software. They terminated the program after a year into the project probably for a variety of reasons. This software would only last as long as how unreliable OSS support is for operating on other operating systems other than Linux.
IMHO I think this article is in response to this one posted earlier on the/. forums: http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/09/ 1424259linux.slashdot.org While this article isn't an adequate argument against the following reply within this article, it does put things into perspective:
Because many companies have explicit policies forbidding open source, period.
I've seen it get so stupid as to call it "shareware", ie: unlicensed software. The lack of a vendor really freaks out a lot of PHBs, and heck, a LOT of older IT folks who still are scared by open source. Don't forget, OSS is less secure because everyone can see the source code, and it's less reliable because you don't have a multi-billion dollar vendor backing you when things go wrong. (not sure if I really need the sarcasm tag with that last sentence or if it's obvious enough)
"As Is" really hurts the OSS industry and needs a solid business model to provide adequate support to ease a lot of concerns within the market. I deal with a lot of open source software, but the problem is that I know how to code which means the coding process is easier to overlook than the average joe that just wants the software to work. For the general populous whose job it is to do other things than just play with code all day, they have to have a solid reason to be productive with the tools available to them. To complicate their tasks, complicates their ability and/or stability. To simply state that the software works but any problems you have are you own is a bold statement that would turn anyone off. Linux Distributions offer one method of providing support but what about people that have invested a lot of money into other Operating Systems? They can use the software but with no support outside of signing up with a Linux Distribution Company what are they expected to shift towards and how much will it cost them, not just with software and support but time and training as well? All in all, what good is a product without support and if OSS is to ever make a mark, there has to has to be appropriate support on other operating systems.
With fears of the 'because it is open, hackers can see what is wrong' argument, the first problem is that hackers already have the source for almost all proprietary software out in the market. If they don't they could just decompile the software to gain a general idea of how the software works and how to exploit it. So obscurity never works within the software market because there are legal ways of obtaining any type of encrypted code and it's been that way ever since VB 1.0 came out (at least to my recollection and I apologize for referring to that thing as a point of reference). For programmers who say that they don't care to understand how hackers work, then they aren't good programmers. If you don't know how software can be improved beyond any current market doubt, then you are setting yourself up for failure IMO.
Stuff like this disturbs me. Why doesn't anyone fight back outside of an appeal? There should be limitations that people like this should adhere to. I'm all for music but these people are bankrupting the industry by doing stuff like this. If I was a dominant shareholder in the company, I would kick all the leadership out and reinvest in finding new management. The way I see it, the industry is as low can get it because what they are doing is racketeering. It can't get any lower than this.
Even with or without embargoes it will depend whether or not how popular the US is overseas. Bad image means the oversea consumers will think twice before using American products. Unfortunately, the overseas markets are emerging at an alarming rate and things will get more competitive over time. If a company isn't adaptive they might just go under.
I've seen them. If you ever go to forum sites for various Linux distributions, you can find them everywhere. Not only do they imply that MS creates better products but promotes MS's new products about to be rolled out. The worst thing about it during their discussions is that they imply that they are the first to come out with ideas. I.E.: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=458883&hi ghlight=microsoft+surface
While I believe that opinion can promote developing better technologies, a slanted opinion with no intrinsic value whatsoever takes a lot away from the overall quality of what that community is trying to do.
Checked my sources for vulnerabilities and it does look as though MS has spent some time improving their methods on security. It's good because they wish to be competitive. That's what this community is about anyways. How long this holds up will be based on how they handle their internal policies within an ever changing market.
But to be honest, security has always been a black eye for MS. They lost a lot of big accounts due to lack of ingenuity and concern for their consumers. This includes two hacks within the US government systems in which I am aware of. While they trumpet improvements, how long will that last and how will that affect their base with their own specific interest in the MS product. It's hard to make one single product to please everyone especially when you have to sacrifice stability with features.
What sense of entitlement allows college students to download illegally? For that matter, what allows it for the average Joe as well?
I was up in arms when the RIAA ignored technology and went straight to the courts. Everybody was and still is for that matter. The RIAA is a bunch of idiots that won't suck it up and do the right thing for a change.
Now we have a bunch of people that go as far as not appreciating the artist for the sake of their sense of lifestyle. If I like a band and their product, I go that extra length to buy it because good artists deserve it. Is it really control or is it the consumers idea of what their value is to them.
While the RIAA really has destroyed the entire market, I find it pathetic that people still hide behind the defense that they have a right to do this. Let the artists join together and lobby the government to go against the RIAA. Make alternative distribution methods for the artists and fuck the RIAA. While all of this costs money, find a way to do it. There are 6 billion+ minds in the world, surely one of them can come up with a good idea.
In the end, what they are doing is wrong but we can do something right for a change instead of trying to justify illegality because of their wrongdoing.
The problem with your statement is that you could be and the probability of occurrence runs higher with people that don't appreciate their limitations. I know a lot of people who have lived with either lifelong disabilities or who have been injured in an accident due to either their negligence or someone else's. Losing someone you care about is a horrible thing to go through. If you have someone you care about, you would know what I'm talking about. If someone you knew cared about you that way, they would know too. To believe that the world would be a better place without you is a wrong statement. It seems like the easy way out. Sometimes you just have to wait it out so the technology to fix the problem can emerge. Until then whatever can make a little bit more comfort in your life should at least be welcomed to a certain extent. While this technology isn't as good as being able to walk on one's own ability, it's a substitute till a cure can be created. Who knows, maybe there might never be but as long as there is a demand for people to live, you never know.
Why Mars? Why not Antarctic glaciers, Gobi desert, Kazakh wastelands, Belarus swamps and Alaskan tundra?
We don't terra-form these places because of their unique qualities. If we wish to kill off all the current life existing in those areas, then it would be best not to have a conscience. Albeit the life in those areas may be minimal, but it is still there. Currently there is no known life living on Mars. The only evidence of life on Mars was some bacteria fossil found somewhere in the Antarctic.
I would suggest terraforming the moon first by attempting to jump start the moon's core and let the damage ensue. Of course with Mars being so far away, if there was a way to strengthen the atmosphere of Mars then any gravitational force would have minimal effect to our own climate here on earth.
While there will be a lot of thought into how we can even do this, we do have computers which can compile a lot more data than any other time in human history. Considering age old complex problems can currently take a month to solve, why can't we apply the same technology to this problem. 100 years might be more than reasonable than we realize, especially if we use the tools we already have to their full potential.
Wait, is this Jesus we're talking about or some businessman? I make latex products and latex related products (not really), and congress makes laws that affect my company all the time. There has never been a time when either the senate or the house have considered a law that would affect only Google. Never. You are talking out of your ass.
Through the sarcasm, you do make a good point though. There's not just one interest vying for attention, there are thousands plus. Some of them disagree on certain issues that would divide the Red Sea. Some come out with sincere motives while there are others that provide realistic goals and opportunities. If morality was truly an issue or even a reasonable goal, whose responsibility is it for these effects to make itself known within the market? Demand is a good motivator for companies to lobby for things in which the majority would agree upon.
What happened to grassroots? What happened to educating the public? With the current technological capability, what are we doing to voice our concern? I don't raise these questions because we aren't doing this stuff. I'm raising these questions to re-evaluate the stance so the scope can be broadened to accomplish greater things and to provide better mobility to reach the audience that should be reached. If google has the power, what should that power be for us.
Another problem I see is with use of a cell phone other than the person driving. So are passengers going to be affected by this? Are paintballs going to fly if anyone in the car will not obey to no-call zone? Right now, the laws for cell phone driving are different from state to state, but the states with the greater restrictions still allow the use of hands-free kits. I would rather spend $20 on a hands free kit than a bloated system designed solely for masochists. Even it was state imposed, who is going to end up paying the repair bills?
If any device should be disabled when driving, it should be the blackberry. Reading/typing while driving has always been a bad idea.
Amen, every solution has it's place and fundamentalism shouldn't be the motivating factor when providing solutions.
IMHO, look, every elitist it seemed came out when Some group from the Linux community made an agreement with a certain notorious competitor. I'm a capitalist by nature and if I limited myself to any one sector I would fail the people who depend on my services. To criticize one product to popularize another doesn't provide a reasonable argument for people using the said criticized product to switch to another. It takes a lot of patience in order to bridge that gap between the end user and the service provider. If there is a niche to exploit, I'd say take it.
I think Novell was trying to take the less risky path in dealing with its competition but at the same time Ubuntu has taken a more aggressive stance. I was stuck on SuSE up until Ubuntu 6.10 and 7.04 came out. Based on stability and features, SuSE did shine above the majority of Linux competitors. Red Hat was starting to lose its luster because there was internal frustration that was made evident with adaptation within the repositories. Ubuntu gave other distros a run for their money because all the new developments were rushed into their repositories at an amazing rate. Ubuntu adoption was consistent and aggressive enough to make it what it is today. While Ubuntu provided amazing stable adoption, SuSE provided a lot of innovation which allowed greater weight against Microsoft, ie. Compiz (Beryl is pretty much embedded with Novell code), Evolution (even though I do prefer Sylpheed because of the extensibility and speed), and Mono (if you remember what it took to get this thing on the market you know what this whole MS agreement brouhaha is about).
While it's easy to criticize someone for signing a very loose agreement with a notorious competitor, its harder to realize what they have done to the longevity for the community. The perspective on right or wrong on this subject is extremely subjective. I see Novell as a way to hold down the fort while Ubuntu will end up taking control of the Linux market. While Red Hat provided a lot of interest for the Linux market, if they don't change their image and/or efforts they can become marginalized the way Apple was when Windows 95 came out. With Debian, well, it's hard to say anything without getting attacked so I'll leave it at that.
Typical IMO statement from my own personal experience, it's hard to say what will happen but instead of resorting to attacks that have no substance we really need to start looking at the real problem here. How do we realistically find a prominent place for Linux within the market? It's not about selling out, it's about helping people who really need our product.
I can't remember which article it was but it was a while back. It was during the time when the Novell / MS deal was going down. They made the deal in order to protect each other from patent issues. I believe it stated that Linux violated around 250 patents but on the other end of the spectrum, MS violated around 440 patents. I would love someone to cite the article. I'm just to lazy to do a search at the moment.
If MS looks towards licensing deals, it would be a move towards protecting their end, otherwise they would focus on retribution solely. I don't want to naysay MS because of certain dislikes, but I do have to agree with what Novell said about their product. Windows is imperfect but some things run quite a bit faster. Again, too lazy to cite but search around/. it's there.
I find it frustrating though to position a sector of the market so it can be competitive on one single company's terms. While providing the violated material in public to ensure their case, it benefits the open source community more than it does the proprietary based structure of MS's software model. All the community would have to do is exclude the code, move on and come up with something new. Really that's what this is all about is buying time for MS. A lot of time has been invested in making oss the way it is and it will take some time for the oss movement to accommodate these changes.
Another sad and distressing argument that's been going on for quite some time. There's so much psychology involved with the right to bear arms it's not even funny. Ultimately it's the very few that abuse the privilege. As with this case, his motive was probably out of touch with moral responsibility. It's a shame that it wasn't recognized earlier. It's one of those situations where nobody could have moderated their lives considering they were university students. People have to have more sense to do things like this.
Truly amazing and embarrassing, not with the whole website but with everything. Well, maybe the website has a lot to do with it. I mean it brought this whole thing out into the public in a very ugly, UGLY way. Need to repeat that one more time. U-G-L-Y! If you want a soapbox to stand from take it first to a forum. Get beat up a bit so you know what's going on. Then re-evaluate your arguments true merit. Once you got a clear idea, show it to the world and get feedback. If there are problems, find ways of fixing those problems. One last bit of advice, if you are going to use a media to promote an idea and then set limitations in which you cannot completely comprehend, it's best to educate yourself of what that media can do before you start throwing your weight around. If no one wants to help you, then there's probably a good reason for it. It might not be the issue that keeps things from going forward, it might just be how you want to express the issue that gets you no where.
One last side-note, when clicking the "Problems viewing this website? Why can't I print?" link it goes to a page listing the reasons why the browsers won't print. Short and simple answer, printing is allowed in Firefox, Internet Explorer 7 and probably a lot of other browsers. I think she needs to point her misdirected rage at her coding skills instead of at the legal system. IMHO at least.
Very good point. Well made argument. Yes, I agree that the problem is with the companies who wish to maintain some form of ownership of their products. While I'm all for having control over my computer, I do want access to files that I can't get without some sort of compromise. I can't wait for an alternative if I wish to make the plunge. DRM sucks, I have to deal with it all the time. I wouldn't mind a Linux DRM until an equivalent solution can be offered to the copyright owners. They do have their interests and there are artists out there locked into a contract which we are directly effected by. RIAA sucks but I'm not going to penalize anyone with a skill in which I find value in.
Forum, yes I get it. It's all about discussion here. Discussion about worthwhile topics that can make an impact in our lives. While I understand this persons conundrum, I don't find anything newsworthy about it. IMO it seems like a good way to spam more then it does to offer solutions.
Kind of have to agree with the parent on this one. The alternative was better because adoption was practically guaranteed. If you are serious about implementing open source solutions, you do have to put your $0.02 worth in to get the most out of it. Doing it solo seems a bit irresponsible. Ask around, I'm sure someone would have loved to offer their services.
If he starts bitching about a game, I know people who will rush out to buy it.
Negative advertising is one thing, but pursuing legal action is another. Court costs, PR, research, etc. . . After a while it's more like a nuisance than it is a marketing ploy.
Slashdot Mirror
We'll see this more and more overseas, especially in developing countries who wish to find their place within the current IP related markets. It's just a sign that an acceleration towards a shift has already started. Funny thing about this is that MS just outsourced a research lab to another country to remain competitive.(Needs to be cited or have clarification) Unfortunately, it's a catch 22 when it comes to globalization. Companies need to be competitive as much as any other company needs to be. While we have a certain advantage, we might have to take some losses due to new competitive forces on the horizon. While I only support Microsoft insomuch as to keep a certain level of wealth within the states, it sucks to see that the market might marginalize the company to obscurity. It will take a lot to get there but you never know. Given any opportunity for certain developing countries to succeed, something might pop up here and there which would give us a run for the money. I would hate the world to be homogenized but with the amount of diversity in resources for each area, it shouldn't be too much of a problem. I hate the concept of interdependence but it's been that way for quite a while and I doubt that will change any time soon.
Well, with IBM, Novell, Sun, and Red Hat being US companies, there is a certain technical advantage that will help the US over time in terms of *n(i/u)x related IP. Who knows what OpenSuSE (Germany), Ubuntu (Britain/Isle of Man), Mandriva (France) might come up with over time. I would like to mention a Chinese distribution of Linux but I can't seem to find one yet. If India ever gets a sense of entitlement outside of their dependency on MS outsourcing, I wonder where they will put their interest towards. Swaraj can be a double edge sword sometimes.
Don't mean to sounds ominous but I think its time to bring this conversation to the table in an open manner. We see very little of it because when someone talks about globalization they come off as wearing a tin foil hat. Somethings happening, don't really know what but I do think there should be a certain invested interest in certain things that are currently going on in the market. At least have some reasonable argument to pacify certain concerns. Spreading democracy is one thing but spreading capitalism is another. Not that I necessarily disagree (double negative, I know) with what's going on, my main concern is what's keeping it together. Simple answers bind truths further than any excuse or reason.
IMHO I think this article is in response to this one posted earlier on the /. forums: http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/09/ 1424259linux.slashdot.org While this article isn't an adequate argument against the following reply within this article, it does put things into perspective:
Because many companies have explicit policies forbidding open source, period.I've seen it get so stupid as to call it "shareware", ie: unlicensed software. The lack of a vendor really freaks out a lot of PHBs, and heck, a LOT of older IT folks who still are scared by open source. Don't forget, OSS is less secure because everyone can see the source code, and it's less reliable because you don't have a multi-billion dollar vendor backing you when things go wrong. (not sure if I really need the sarcasm tag with that last sentence or if it's obvious enough)
"As Is" really hurts the OSS industry and needs a solid business model to provide adequate support to ease a lot of concerns within the market. I deal with a lot of open source software, but the problem is that I know how to code which means the coding process is easier to overlook than the average joe that just wants the software to work. For the general populous whose job it is to do other things than just play with code all day, they have to have a solid reason to be productive with the tools available to them. To complicate their tasks, complicates their ability and/or stability. To simply state that the software works but any problems you have are you own is a bold statement that would turn anyone off. Linux Distributions offer one method of providing support but what about people that have invested a lot of money into other Operating Systems? They can use the software but with no support outside of signing up with a Linux Distribution Company what are they expected to shift towards and how much will it cost them, not just with software and support but time and training as well? All in all, what good is a product without support and if OSS is to ever make a mark, there has to has to be appropriate support on other operating systems.
With fears of the 'because it is open, hackers can see what is wrong' argument, the first problem is that hackers already have the source for almost all proprietary software out in the market. If they don't they could just decompile the software to gain a general idea of how the software works and how to exploit it. So obscurity never works within the software market because there are legal ways of obtaining any type of encrypted code and it's been that way ever since VB 1.0 came out (at least to my recollection and I apologize for referring to that thing as a point of reference). For programmers who say that they don't care to understand how hackers work, then they aren't good programmers. If you don't know how software can be improved beyond any current market doubt, then you are setting yourself up for failure IMO.
Stuff like this disturbs me. Why doesn't anyone fight back outside of an appeal? There should be limitations that people like this should adhere to. I'm all for music but these people are bankrupting the industry by doing stuff like this. If I was a dominant shareholder in the company, I would kick all the leadership out and reinvest in finding new management. The way I see it, the industry is as low can get it because what they are doing is racketeering. It can't get any lower than this.
Even with or without embargoes it will depend whether or not how popular the US is overseas. Bad image means the oversea consumers will think twice before using American products. Unfortunately, the overseas markets are emerging at an alarming rate and things will get more competitive over time. If a company isn't adaptive they might just go under.
Within these articles you can dig a little deeper and see how many MS posts they make from their profile history. I.E.: http://ubuntuforums.org/search.php?searchid=228391 45
While I believe that opinion can promote developing better technologies, a slanted opinion with no intrinsic value whatsoever takes a lot away from the overall quality of what that community is trying to do.
But to be honest, security has always been a black eye for MS. They lost a lot of big accounts due to lack of ingenuity and concern for their consumers. This includes two hacks within the US government systems in which I am aware of. While they trumpet improvements, how long will that last and how will that affect their base with their own specific interest in the MS product. It's hard to make one single product to please everyone especially when you have to sacrifice stability with features.
I was up in arms when the RIAA ignored technology and went straight to the courts. Everybody was and still is for that matter. The RIAA is a bunch of idiots that won't suck it up and do the right thing for a change.
Now we have a bunch of people that go as far as not appreciating the artist for the sake of their sense of lifestyle. If I like a band and their product, I go that extra length to buy it because good artists deserve it. Is it really control or is it the consumers idea of what their value is to them.
While the RIAA really has destroyed the entire market, I find it pathetic that people still hide behind the defense that they have a right to do this. Let the artists join together and lobby the government to go against the RIAA. Make alternative distribution methods for the artists and fuck the RIAA. While all of this costs money, find a way to do it. There are 6 billion+ minds in the world, surely one of them can come up with a good idea.
In the end, what they are doing is wrong but we can do something right for a change instead of trying to justify illegality because of their wrongdoing.
Yeah, internet gaming/sexual addiction is bad enough, but something like this inside the mass market will take it to a whole new level.
The problem with your statement is that you could be and the probability of occurrence runs higher with people that don't appreciate their limitations. I know a lot of people who have lived with either lifelong disabilities or who have been injured in an accident due to either their negligence or someone else's. Losing someone you care about is a horrible thing to go through. If you have someone you care about, you would know what I'm talking about. If someone you knew cared about you that way, they would know too. To believe that the world would be a better place without you is a wrong statement. It seems like the easy way out. Sometimes you just have to wait it out so the technology to fix the problem can emerge. Until then whatever can make a little bit more comfort in your life should at least be welcomed to a certain extent. While this technology isn't as good as being able to walk on one's own ability, it's a substitute till a cure can be created. Who knows, maybe there might never be but as long as there is a demand for people to live, you never know.
We don't terra-form these places because of their unique qualities. If we wish to kill off all the current life existing in those areas, then it would be best not to have a conscience. Albeit the life in those areas may be minimal, but it is still there. Currently there is no known life living on Mars. The only evidence of life on Mars was some bacteria fossil found somewhere in the Antarctic.
I would suggest terraforming the moon first by attempting to jump start the moon's core and let the damage ensue. Of course with Mars being so far away, if there was a way to strengthen the atmosphere of Mars then any gravitational force would have minimal effect to our own climate here on earth.
While there will be a lot of thought into how we can even do this, we do have computers which can compile a lot more data than any other time in human history. Considering age old complex problems can currently take a month to solve, why can't we apply the same technology to this problem. 100 years might be more than reasonable than we realize, especially if we use the tools we already have to their full potential.
Through the sarcasm, you do make a good point though. There's not just one interest vying for attention, there are thousands plus. Some of them disagree on certain issues that would divide the Red Sea. Some come out with sincere motives while there are others that provide realistic goals and opportunities. If morality was truly an issue or even a reasonable goal, whose responsibility is it for these effects to make itself known within the market? Demand is a good motivator for companies to lobby for things in which the majority would agree upon.
What happened to grassroots? What happened to educating the public? With the current technological capability, what are we doing to voice our concern? I don't raise these questions because we aren't doing this stuff. I'm raising these questions to re-evaluate the stance so the scope can be broadened to accomplish greater things and to provide better mobility to reach the audience that should be reached. If google has the power, what should that power be for us.
What? No mention of the threat generated from Lynx/ELinks... Those Bastards!!!
If any device should be disabled when driving, it should be the blackberry. Reading/typing while driving has always been a bad idea.
IMHO, look, every elitist it seemed came out when Some group from the Linux community made an agreement with a certain notorious competitor. I'm a capitalist by nature and if I limited myself to any one sector I would fail the people who depend on my services. To criticize one product to popularize another doesn't provide a reasonable argument for people using the said criticized product to switch to another. It takes a lot of patience in order to bridge that gap between the end user and the service provider. If there is a niche to exploit, I'd say take it.
I think Novell was trying to take the less risky path in dealing with its competition but at the same time Ubuntu has taken a more aggressive stance. I was stuck on SuSE up until Ubuntu 6.10 and 7.04 came out. Based on stability and features, SuSE did shine above the majority of Linux competitors. Red Hat was starting to lose its luster because there was internal frustration that was made evident with adaptation within the repositories. Ubuntu gave other distros a run for their money because all the new developments were rushed into their repositories at an amazing rate. Ubuntu adoption was consistent and aggressive enough to make it what it is today. While Ubuntu provided amazing stable adoption, SuSE provided a lot of innovation which allowed greater weight against Microsoft, ie. Compiz (Beryl is pretty much embedded with Novell code), Evolution (even though I do prefer Sylpheed because of the extensibility and speed), and Mono (if you remember what it took to get this thing on the market you know what this whole MS agreement brouhaha is about).
While it's easy to criticize someone for signing a very loose agreement with a notorious competitor, its harder to realize what they have done to the longevity for the community. The perspective on right or wrong on this subject is extremely subjective. I see Novell as a way to hold down the fort while Ubuntu will end up taking control of the Linux market. While Red Hat provided a lot of interest for the Linux market, if they don't change their image and/or efforts they can become marginalized the way Apple was when Windows 95 came out. With Debian, well, it's hard to say anything without getting attacked so I'll leave it at that.
Typical IMO statement from my own personal experience, it's hard to say what will happen but instead of resorting to attacks that have no substance we really need to start looking at the real problem here. How do we realistically find a prominent place for Linux within the market? It's not about selling out, it's about helping people who really need our product.
If MS looks towards licensing deals, it would be a move towards protecting their end, otherwise they would focus on retribution solely. I don't want to naysay MS because of certain dislikes, but I do have to agree with what Novell said about their product. Windows is imperfect but some things run quite a bit faster. Again, too lazy to cite but search around /. it's there.
I find it frustrating though to position a sector of the market so it can be competitive on one single company's terms. While providing the violated material in public to ensure their case, it benefits the open source community more than it does the proprietary based structure of MS's software model. All the community would have to do is exclude the code, move on and come up with something new. Really that's what this is all about is buying time for MS. A lot of time has been invested in making oss the way it is and it will take some time for the oss movement to accommodate these changes.
Another sad and distressing argument that's been going on for quite some time. There's so much psychology involved with the right to bear arms it's not even funny. Ultimately it's the very few that abuse the privilege. As with this case, his motive was probably out of touch with moral responsibility. It's a shame that it wasn't recognized earlier. It's one of those situations where nobody could have moderated their lives considering they were university students. People have to have more sense to do things like this.
It's seems greedy to think they can get something without some compensation. The anti-trust suit was expected but concessions are concessions.
Something like a Lucy Liu Bot?
One last side-note, when clicking the "Problems viewing this website? Why can't I print?" link it goes to a page listing the reasons why the browsers won't print. Short and simple answer, printing is allowed in Firefox, Internet Explorer 7 and probably a lot of other browsers. I think she needs to point her misdirected rage at her coding skills instead of at the legal system. IMHO at least.
Very good point. Well made argument. Yes, I agree that the problem is with the companies who wish to maintain some form of ownership of their products. While I'm all for having control over my computer, I do want access to files that I can't get without some sort of compromise. I can't wait for an alternative if I wish to make the plunge. DRM sucks, I have to deal with it all the time. I wouldn't mind a Linux DRM until an equivalent solution can be offered to the copyright owners. They do have their interests and there are artists out there locked into a contract which we are directly effected by. RIAA sucks but I'm not going to penalize anyone with a skill in which I find value in.
Forum, yes I get it. It's all about discussion here. Discussion about worthwhile topics that can make an impact in our lives. While I understand this persons conundrum, I don't find anything newsworthy about it. IMO it seems like a good way to spam more then it does to offer solutions.
About marketing; while marketing OSS is a process in itself, some projects do have marketing materials available, just have to know where to find them. Then have to take some time to pick out what works and what doesn't. Examples: http://marketing.openoffice.org/ , http://www.ubuntu.com/products/casestudies , http://www.redhat.com/solutions/intelligence/
Finally, don't see why this is on the front page. This is a question to the public, not news. Take it to a freakin forum.
Negative advertising is one thing, but pursuing legal action is another. Court costs, PR, research, etc. . . After a while it's more like a nuisance than it is a marketing ploy.
So what's Viacom's alternative to what Google/YouTube already have? Seems like a lack of ingenuity on Viacom's part.
For all your answers to all the questions of the universe please refer to the Galaxy Song by Monty Python. ANFSCD . . .