Didn't a good portion of the Xbox 360's brick themselves?
And it's not like Microsoft has "disabled" things for legitimate customers and claimed they were thieves and pirates before... right?
Genuine Advantage, anyone?
The problem is: you cannot install a fresh Windows installation without put Media Player, IE, or the MS Search Engine. Or worse, you cannot remove them.. Heh, why didn't I think of that?
This makes the "grip" of their products somewhat tighter, but still I don't se a good reason to force a change unless they decide that you are no longer allowed to use a different browser\media player\search.
Maybe, as someone else pointed out, it's all more complicated than this (Economics and monopolies etc.), but I know I would be pissed if I wasn't allowed to make my own software depend on different parts of itself or some other piece of software that I wrote.
Sure, a monopoly is no way to go, and I don't think Microsoft wants anything but, and maybe it is better for the law to start fighting it earlier rather than later.
Again, this is just like requiring Microsoft to let users plug in whatever browser they want. Who is stopping Me or You from running Windows and using an alternative browser?
You are right, of course, but I still think it is a bit childish to complain about the search engine used by default (Or the Media player or the Browser or mspaint.exe). Where do we draw the line between Microsoft giving you (the consumer, that is) something you ask for and the same Microsoft attempting to force you into using something?
Perhaps I just see it a bit differently since my country isn't quite as infested with monoplistic villains as the U.S.
I can choose whatever phone I want.
I can expect my ISP to stay the f*ck out of my business and not discriminate traffic.
Looking at it from afar (I'll get to eat these words eventually) the U.S. looks like one big "SUPRISE! BUTTRAPE!" for the customers.
Still, my point is that in my book, shipping your OS with a certain Browser that uses a certain search engine by default - even if you happen to own both the browser and the search engine - should not be punisehed as such for being "Anticompetitive". Microsoft has done plenty of stuff that we can punish them for already, but this seems like something one should be allowed to do.
My distro of choice comes with Xine but not Mplayer, and if the Slackware folks had developed their own media player, I'm quite certain they would ship that instead. How is that any different?
Is it just me, or are we treating Microsoft differently from all the other mega corporations?
I never quite understood the rationale behind, for example, trying to force Windows Media Player out of the Windows XP bundle. Really, Microsoft sells an OS and its customers want a somewhat functional system at that. These days, a PC isn't really complete until it can play some digital media and thus MS includes a media player with its OS.
I don't use windows unless I really have to. I don't use Windows media player unless I happen to find myself on a deserted island in the body of an evil zombie pirate with two matching pink socks.
I also don't encourage others to use Windows Media Player or Internet Explorer or any of the other crud that MS ships with their (Others, that is) new computers.
Still, isn't this a bit out of line? Why on earth should they not be allowed to supply a search function in their own OS (And as far as I understand, they still claim that Windows => IE?) Why is anyone at all listening to the people who complain about Opera/VLC/whatever not getting a fair chance on the windows market?
I say "no" to Microsoft products, but I don't think we should force anyone to come to the same conclusion like this.
When the fuck are THE CHILDREN not involved at all?
More specifically, TFS mentioned that the credit card checks (and even charges) are supposedly to ensure that minors (Who don't have the guts to borrow their dad's VISA) don't get their hands on the dirty dirty content they "create".
Surely, the grandparent post couldn't have been trying to counter that claim?
The point, if I may take a wild guess, was probably something like this:
These sites don't really have any good reason to charge money for their content, since it's mostly just crap.
The idea of having credit card requirements for the sake of age verification is bullshit
If MS were genuinely interested in Open Source, they'd use a known approved license instead of coming up with their own. Perhaps, assuming it is just with good intentions, it's just the microsoft way?
I don't recall them ever playing well within a previously established framework, when they could just choose to barge in and change everything possible to be on their terms instead. Much like the rest of you, I don't trust this for a second. I am quite confident that Microsoft will use this to their advantage and, more importantly, to the disadvantage of the FOSS community.
What happens, for example, if some MS-LPL licensed code is mistakenly used in an open project?
What happens if they use some miniscule algorithm in their "open" code to take legal action against some other open project, simply pointing at similarities (Think "Hello World!" and larger) to their own, predating code?
What if studying their "open" code infects or taints developers of legitimate projects (Such that the point above could be applied?)
Or is this maybe as simple as another take at lock-in, where people use their "open" programs which will later be relicensed (at the whim of each developer, of course) under MS-PLv2 and then suddenly is no longer "open" or "free" (Assuming that they were even with this current license?)
I say any developer who appreciates her freedom should avoid this like the plague and stick with clean, non-microsoft code.
Remember, kids: There is always a monetary interest involved. What's their plan?
Top posting is when people intentially respond to a post that is close to the top in order to achieve higher visibility.
Here, maybe. Go back a few years and you'll find that "top-posting" was (and is) used to describe someone who, in a newsgroup post, puts his or her own answer above the quote it responds to, making the discussion hard to follow by the quotes in one single post.
Re:Following the M$ example. Re:BWAHAHAHA...
on
Ubuntu Servers Hacked
·
· Score: 5, Funny
No, but if M$ can't guard their precious source code, what can they guard?
Well, I heard that Ubuntu isn't very good at that either...
...For me it works just fine, Firefox 1.5.0.7 under Slacware 11.0 with JRE 1506 or something like that enabled. Goes to 100% CPU load for a second or two maybe, then the page is loaded nicely.
Slashdot Mirror
Did I just score?
Thanks a lot, now I have to shake my luggage all over again!
Didn't a good portion of the Xbox 360's brick themselves?
And it's not like Microsoft has "disabled" things for legitimate customers and claimed they were thieves and pirates before... right?
Genuine Advantage, anyone?
This makes the "grip" of their products somewhat tighter, but still I don't se a good reason to force a change unless they decide that you are no longer allowed to use a different browser\media player\search.
Maybe, as someone else pointed out, it's all more complicated than this (Economics and monopolies etc.), but I know I would be pissed if I wasn't allowed to make my own software depend on different parts of itself or some other piece of software that I wrote.
Sure, a monopoly is no way to go, and I don't think Microsoft wants anything but, and maybe it is better for the law to start fighting it earlier rather than later.
You are right, of course, but I still think it is a bit childish to complain about the search engine used by default (Or the Media player or the Browser or mspaint.exe). Where do we draw the line between Microsoft giving you (the consumer, that is) something you ask for and the same Microsoft attempting to force you into using something?
Perhaps I just see it a bit differently since my country isn't quite as infested with monoplistic villains as the U.S.
I can choose whatever phone I want.
I can expect my ISP to stay the f*ck out of my business and not discriminate traffic.
Looking at it from afar (I'll get to eat these words eventually) the U.S. looks like one big "SUPRISE! BUTTRAPE!" for the customers.
Still, my point is that in my book, shipping your OS with a certain Browser that uses a certain search engine by default - even if you happen to own both the browser and the search engine - should not be punisehed as such for being "Anticompetitive". Microsoft has done plenty of stuff that we can punish them for already, but this seems like something one should be allowed to do.
My distro of choice comes with Xine but not Mplayer, and if the Slackware folks had developed their own media player, I'm quite certain they would ship that instead. How is that any different?
Is it just me, or are we treating Microsoft differently from all the other mega corporations?
I never quite understood the rationale behind, for example, trying to force Windows Media Player out of the Windows XP bundle. Really, Microsoft sells an OS and its customers want a somewhat functional system at that. These days, a PC isn't really complete until it can play some digital media and thus MS includes a media player with its OS.
I don't use windows unless I really have to. I don't use Windows media player unless I happen to find myself on a deserted island in the body of an evil zombie pirate with two matching pink socks.
I also don't encourage others to use Windows Media Player or Internet Explorer or any of the other crud that MS ships with their (Others, that is) new computers.
Still, isn't this a bit out of line? Why on earth should they not be allowed to supply a search function in their own OS (And as far as I understand, they still claim that Windows => IE?)
Why is anyone at all listening to the people who complain about Opera/VLC/whatever not getting a fair chance on the windows market?
I say "no" to Microsoft products, but I don't think we should force anyone to come to the same conclusion like this.
More specifically, TFS mentioned that the credit card checks (and even charges) are supposedly to ensure that minors (Who don't have the guts to borrow their dad's VISA) don't get their hands on the dirty dirty content they "create".
Surely, the grandparent post couldn't have been trying to counter that claim?
The point, if I may take a wild guess, was probably something like this:
These sites don't really have any good reason to charge money for their content, since it's mostly just crap.
The idea of having credit card requirements for the sake of age verification is bullshit
I don't recall them ever playing well within a previously established framework, when they could just choose to barge in and change everything possible to be on their terms instead. Much like the rest of you, I don't trust this for a second. I am quite confident that Microsoft will use this to their advantage and, more importantly, to the disadvantage of the FOSS community.
What happens, for example, if some MS-LPL licensed code is mistakenly used in an open project?
What happens if they use some miniscule algorithm in their "open" code to take legal action against some other open project, simply pointing at similarities (Think "Hello World!" and larger) to their own, predating code?
What if studying their "open" code infects or taints developers of legitimate projects (Such that the point above could be applied?)
Or is this maybe as simple as another take at lock-in, where people use their "open" programs which will later be relicensed (at the whim of each developer, of course) under MS-PLv2 and then suddenly is no longer "open" or "free" (Assuming that they were even with this current license?)
I say any developer who appreciates her freedom should avoid this like the plague and stick with clean, non-microsoft code.
Remember, kids: There is always a monetary interest involved. What's their plan?
Here, maybe. Go back a few years and you'll find that "top-posting" was (and is) used to describe someone who, in a newsgroup post, puts his or her own answer above the quote it responds to, making the discussion hard to follow by the quotes in one single post.
Well, I heard that Ubuntu isn't very good at that either...
...For me it works just fine, Firefox 1.5.0.7 under Slacware 11.0 with JRE 1506 or something like that enabled. Goes to 100% CPU load for a second or two maybe, then the page is loaded nicely.