Actually, over the past few months, I've been pleasantly surprised by the number of apps WINE can run. Most of the apps I need for my engineering classes are, at the very least, mostly functional, and the majority are completely functional, with only minor glitches here and there. In all, I would say that WINE hitting a 1.0 milestone is entirely plausible.
Why not hide it behind a "more options" button/tab/similar widget? My biggest beef with Gnome and Gnome developers is the idea that nobody except the developers will ever want to configure anything. Why hide these options in XML files, so that only the most advanced users have any hope of customizing their desktop? Sometimes it is nice to configure my desktop without using regular expressions.
Don't invite GNOME trolls. They may not seem formidable, since they tend to wear only the bear minimum armor and carry only a single sword, all in the name of not have a confusing interface, but they are dangerous nonetheless.
I hold out hope that, at the very least, those vendors with decent OSS support will slowly start to be favored, especially for basic hardware like network or graphics cards. I can't tell you how annoying it is to discover that, with no warning from the manufacturer, I find a Broadcom wireless card in a computer and have to come up with a kludgish workaround. Vendors may not be able to simply cancel contracts, but they certainly can show favoritism, especially when there is not much of a price difference (for the most part, basic hardware costs are even across the board).
I do agree, however, that until there is a "requirement" rather than a "strong recommendation," we aren't go to see much real change. Hope...
It is all about the userland. If Mac became more popular, it is likely that MS Office for Macs would become more popular, and we would see many of the same exploits. This is not a "windows or mac" issue, this is a general computer security issue.
They are already draconian. The only people who don't consider Apple's practices to be tyrannical are Apple fanboys and people who don't know or care about anything beyond whether or not their computers gets them to Facebook/Myspace/whatever.
In reality, though, Apple could never keep a dominant position for long, at least not with their current practices. The word "antitrust" comes to mind...
Actually, FOSS tends to save companies more than just the cost of proprietary software. It has been estimated that the loss from malfunctioning IT is greater than the loss caused by the real estate crisis, but FOSS packages have been shown to be more reliable in the long run than proprietary packages (and therefore contribute less per server to that economic loss than proprietary software).
Perhaps the authors of the report mean to vaporize those savings by charging $1000 per copy of the report? I'm not even kidding, trying to find the actual report resulted in my confronted by that price...
Anyone that can read and understand English sees the difference between technical specifications and legal agreements. Example: I purchased some CMOS ICs yesterday, and they have an operating voltage range of up to 18 volts. That does not legally prevent me from trying to run those ICs on 30V, it just means that I cannot sue Motorola when the thing explodes.
The problem here is that while Apple has been very forthcoming with the technical specifications of their software, they have not been forthcoming with the legal requirements. If I was not aware of the license before buying the software, I might buy it and try running it on non-Apple hardware, which may be outside of the specifications but is not necessarily illegal. Imagine my surprise when I find out that in doing so, I broken the law, because of a contract that I could not read until after I purchased the (cheap POS) product.
Microsoft designs software for newer computers, not necessarily more powerful ones. In general, new desktops are more powerful than old desktops, but when the market moves in the less powerful but more portable direction, Microsoft will follow suit. And no, this will not be generally available.
Microsoft bundled apps that they produced. Xandros (who supplies Linux for the Eee) does not produce OpenOffice.org or any other application that comes with the Eee. Furthermore, Asus would be doing the bundling, not Microsoft.
Since these items are generally produced by the same factories and from the same designs as the originals, it is not very likely to cause a problem. No more than the originals are, anyway.
Actually, in most cases this stuff isn't stolen, at least not in the traditional sense. Usually, a factory in China or India is given an order for some number of goods (say, 5000 motherboards), and they produce more than that (6000), then sell the extras on their own (counterfeits). It is only stealing if you believe in the concept of intellectual property.
Your hypothesis fails to explain why oil companies have also obtained patents on high density batteries that could have made feasible electric cars a reality. Nobody is saying that oil itself is evil (yet), but rather, that the tactics employed by oil companies are designed to stall the use of new energy source for as long as possible. The patents these companies are obtaining on batteries and solar power are not being licensed on a large scale, most likely because there is more money in selling oil than there is in licensing alternative technologies.
Considering that many of the medicines that are routinely used these days were discovered before drug patents, I would say that you are just completely misinformed. Drug patents have one interesting side effect though: some people are unable to get the medicine they need, because the drug companies refuse to sell it in a region where they are not likely to turn a profit, and the governments of those regions are told they face economic sanctions if they tolerate patent infringement. Drug patents are a disgrace that worsen an already bad medical situation in Africa.
No offense, but this cure should be general knowledge. Medical patents are below software patents on the scale of grotesque abuses of the patent system. First of all, if this cure was patented, it is unlikely that it would ever find its way to third world countries, especially unstable nations in Africa. This has been the case with AIDS medication in the past -- the governments of those countries are told that they risk economic sanctions if they try to infringe on the patents, and medical companies refuse to sell the medicines in countries where they are unlikely to turn a profit.
There are a very, very limited set of cases where patents are a good thing, and medicine is about as far as you can get from those cases. Telling people that they cannot make the medicine they need because you have a patent on it and it wouldn't be profitable to sell it in a poor region is a disgrace.
However, that would require such users to know how to do that. Experienced users rarely install random software on their computers, and it is very unlikely that someone who is not experienced would be setting up private bin directories.
The danger in nuclear power plants is not limited to the Chernobyl-type events. The real danger is the transport of nuclear fuel and nuclear waste, which are extremely hazardous and, in the wrong hands, could be used to kill or severely injure thousands of people. There was a report (ahref=http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=17422378&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=we-plant--bomb--on-nuke-train-name_page.htmlrel=url2html-15191http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=17422378&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=we-plant--bomb--on-nuke-train-name_page.html>recently about trains carrying nuclear waste in the UK, and a report did nothing more than put on a safety vest and walk right up to a boxcar with a nuclear transport container inside, even planting a bomb-sized device on the train car. These casks were tested to withstand a typical railroad crash, but they are not indestructible and a powerful enough explosion could cause a breach.
People need to examine the ENTIRE picture when it comes to nuclear power. Yes, within the power plant, you are safe, and the chance of an explosion is small. But the fuel and exhaust from these plants is very hazardous, and represents an attack vector for someone wishing to cause a nuclear disaster. Simply put, nuclear power is not "clean and safe," it is just "cleaner and safer than certain other forms of power." I'd feel a hell of a safer with a thousand windmills surrounding my home, personally.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, over the past few months, I've been pleasantly surprised by the number of apps WINE can run. Most of the apps I need for my engineering classes are, at the very least, mostly functional, and the majority are completely functional, with only minor glitches here and there. In all, I would say that WINE hitting a 1.0 milestone is entirely plausible.
We have quality control also. Also, this language pack trojan was caught early on...
I guess I was the only one who thought "infected with trojans" was funny. Especially since many of the condoms I've seen are made in south Asia.
Why not hide it behind a "more options" button/tab/similar widget? My biggest beef with Gnome and Gnome developers is the idea that nobody except the developers will ever want to configure anything. Why hide these options in XML files, so that only the most advanced users have any hope of customizing their desktop? Sometimes it is nice to configure my desktop without using regular expressions.
Don't invite GNOME trolls. They may not seem formidable, since they tend to wear only the bear minimum armor and carry only a single sword, all in the name of not have a confusing interface, but they are dangerous nonetheless.
I do agree, however, that until there is a "requirement" rather than a "strong recommendation," we aren't go to see much real change. Hope...
http://weblog.infoworld.com/udell/2004/03/23.html
Granted, this vulnerability can be mitigated by other email clients...but Outlook is pretty popular, especially among non-technical users.
It is all about the userland. If Mac became more popular, it is likely that MS Office for Macs would become more popular, and we would see many of the same exploits. This is not a "windows or mac" issue, this is a general computer security issue.
In reality, though, Apple could never keep a dominant position for long, at least not with their current practices. The word "antitrust" comes to mind...
http://www.gnu.org/software/reliability.html (and check out their references...)
Actually, FOSS tends to save companies more than just the cost of proprietary software. It has been estimated that the loss from malfunctioning IT is greater than the loss caused by the real estate crisis, but FOSS packages have been shown to be more reliable in the long run than proprietary packages (and therefore contribute less per server to that economic loss than proprietary software).
Perhaps the authors of the report mean to vaporize those savings by charging $1000 per copy of the report? I'm not even kidding, trying to find the actual report resulted in my confronted by that price...
Oh right, you meant things like Ubuntu. Complain to them about it.
(Sorry for being offtopic).
The problem here is that while Apple has been very forthcoming with the technical specifications of their software, they have not been forthcoming with the legal requirements. If I was not aware of the license before buying the software, I might buy it and try running it on non-Apple hardware, which may be outside of the specifications but is not necessarily illegal. Imagine my surprise when I find out that in doing so, I broken the law, because of a contract that I could not read until after I purchased the (cheap POS) product.
Microsoft designs software for newer computers, not necessarily more powerful ones. In general, new desktops are more powerful than old desktops, but when the market moves in the less powerful but more portable direction, Microsoft will follow suit. And no, this will not be generally available.
Microsoft bundled apps that they produced. Xandros (who supplies Linux for the Eee) does not produce OpenOffice.org or any other application that comes with the Eee. Furthermore, Asus would be doing the bundling, not Microsoft.
Since these items are generally produced by the same factories and from the same designs as the originals, it is not very likely to cause a problem. No more than the originals are, anyway.
Actually, in most cases this stuff isn't stolen, at least not in the traditional sense. Usually, a factory in China or India is given an order for some number of goods (say, 5000 motherboards), and they produce more than that (6000), then sell the extras on their own (counterfeits). It is only stealing if you believe in the concept of intellectual property.
Your hypothesis fails to explain why oil companies have also obtained patents on high density batteries that could have made feasible electric cars a reality. Nobody is saying that oil itself is evil (yet), but rather, that the tactics employed by oil companies are designed to stall the use of new energy source for as long as possible. The patents these companies are obtaining on batteries and solar power are not being licensed on a large scale, most likely because there is more money in selling oil than there is in licensing alternative technologies.
Considering that many of the medicines that are routinely used these days were discovered before drug patents, I would say that you are just completely misinformed. Drug patents have one interesting side effect though: some people are unable to get the medicine they need, because the drug companies refuse to sell it in a region where they are not likely to turn a profit, and the governments of those regions are told they face economic sanctions if they tolerate patent infringement. Drug patents are a disgrace that worsen an already bad medical situation in Africa.
There are a very, very limited set of cases where patents are a good thing, and medicine is about as far as you can get from those cases. Telling people that they cannot make the medicine they need because you have a patent on it and it wouldn't be profitable to sell it in a poor region is a disgrace.
Read further, and you see that SES wants to collect insurance money for satellite.
However, that would require such users to know how to do that. Experienced users rarely install random software on their computers, and it is very unlikely that someone who is not experienced would be setting up private bin directories.
People need to examine the ENTIRE picture when it comes to nuclear power. Yes, within the power plant, you are safe, and the chance of an explosion is small. But the fuel and exhaust from these plants is very hazardous, and represents an attack vector for someone wishing to cause a nuclear disaster. Simply put, nuclear power is not "clean and safe," it is just "cleaner and safer than certain other forms of power." I'd feel a hell of a safer with a thousand windmills surrounding my home, personally.