It suddenly occurred to me that most of physics is based on reverse-engineering the universe.
And psychology, sociology and the like are reverse engineering of the human brain. And biology is reverse engineering of plants & animals & such. And...
Just think what would have happened if Johannes Guttenberg had disallowed the reverse engineering of his invention in the fifteenth century!
I do not think that Digital Convergence has any intention of following through on their threats of litigation. The reverse engineering of the CueCat has put their entire business model in jeopardy in the same way that the hacking of the I-opener challenged Netpliance's.
Both companies gave away/sold loss-leaders in the hope of having customers sign up for a service. In Netpliance's case, the service was charged to the consumer while DC requires the customer to use the service so it can sell info to advertisers, but the net effect is the same: if the consumers obtain the loss-leader but do not sign up for the service, they are screwed.
But remember, the law does not guarantee that your business model will pan out. These guys have a strange business model - give away cool geek toys and hope to sell advertising - that they expect to work. I certainly won't be screwed if this company's business plan fails.
If you think about it, though, this really is pretty cool technology. Now we indeed have what amounts to a URL from meatspace into cyberspace.
That's pretty freakin' cool. Some people here have been making their own "URLs" by writing decoder software and scanning book barcodes, translating those into ISBNs and then looking the book up at amazon.com. There you effectively have a barcode on a book that is a "url" to a page at amazon.com.
Since there is software to print your own barcodes, and since we can now read the CueCat's output, we can effectively write our own URLs in the form of barcodes that CueCat can read. Perhaps that is what worries them. Writing some sort of competing barcode-to-URL system using a CueCat for commercial use would probably be problematic, legally, but for personal use I don't know what they're fussing about: as has been pointed out, they give these things away.
I certainly wish Michael the best and will keep watching this saga.
Way kewl, d00d. I was telling my wife and a good friend yesterday that this would be my next project for our house.
I had been working on the MP3 player system that Linux Journal detailed in their March 2000 issue, and as soon as I get a new PC my existing K6/233 will be dedicated to that. Now, however, I envision something more detailed, kinda like this Adomo system. Music on demand, that's my goal. Of course, what I'm talking about doing is so trivial, it's pathetic that I don't have it done already. Later, when I get above 10Mbps network, video on demand. My biggest conceptual problem right now is: what to use for the receiving end of the streaming music/video? PCs are too big and costly. Perhaps Adomo will have something I can use.
When I was at a doctor's office the other day, I read about a similar system in Stereo Review, I think (January 2000 issue). This guy has a way kewl setup at his house. Someone knocks at the door, his wife turns the nearby ceiling-mounted TV (which she had been using to watch her kids in their playroom) to another CC channel - a view out the front door. She picks up the phone and dials the extension of the front door intercom. She then instructs the delivery guy to leave the package on the doorstep, then flips back to watch her kids again. Too cool.
Perhaps there SHOULD be a secure format that can be used for things like limited listening. I know we all cringe about self-destroying CDs and the like, but really it could be a great method of exposure -- 2 listens, and the disc is done, and then you can buy a PERMANENT CD.
This was tried before, for DVDs. It was called DIVX (though I may have capitalization and/or punctuation incorrect). Consumers voted a resounding NO. Same with music. NO.
As for your other comments on what might actually happen if... secure initiatives come out:
1) they WON'T be used wisely. We might be forced to pay per every viewing/listening/reading.
2) that it will somehow be made illegal and/or very difficult to freely view/distribute stuff you actually have the rights to.
Depends on whose definition of "wise" you mean. In capitalism, producers create things to make money. In the past, this has always meant that a product was sold to a consumer. Today, every content producer wants to move us toward a pay-per-use/pay-per-view system as you rightly suspect.
In my opinion this would be a Bad Thing. But how do we stop it? I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader. (Translation: minimize government.)
I certainly won't buy one of those digital TVs with these restrictions. Kinda like I won't buy a DVD player with the region coding and CSS "access" controls.
I don't need no stinkin' digital TV anyway. As long as we have libraries & bookstores (well for paper-paged books anyway) I'm all set.
Yes, it was. And apparently we'll have to go for another fight in front of the Supremes. Maybe we all should send some money to EFF to help get the ball rolling!
So what is going to happen when little Johnny gets to see porn even with the filtering software installed in the library computers and his parents complain?
Isn't that why software companies are pushing UCITA - so they can't be held responsible for any problems with their software?!
Yeah, a few comments.;) Look at what Nader stands for. I say: do NOT vote for that man! Libertarian is definitely the way to go this year.
Check out Nader's views at his site. He is very much more socialist than anything. (For a quick look at the five points in the political field, check out the libertarian party's main page. Quickly, though, they are: libertarian, authoritarian, conservative, liberal, and centrist.)
In every one of his views, Nader supports giving government more control, and removing control from us. Want an example? Just pick ANY of his issues. Taxation: "we should tax things we don't like." WHO DECIDES the "things we don't like"? Government, that's who! On EVERY issue, he supports giving control to government.
Please, please, dear Slashdotters, vote Libertarian this year. Our political system has been so corrupted by corporate influence that it barely resembles what our forefathers had in mind. They were a bunch of libertarians, favoring personal responsibility over government control. This is obvious in everything they did. Don't believe me? Go read the constitution of the United states and other documents found there (the Magna Carta (on which our constitution is based), Federalist Papers, Bill of Rights, and the declaration of independence). These are amazing documents.
Today, we have a two party system by design. We have been socially engineered to (as has been pointed out earlier) not vote. We have been socially engineered to think that political activism is wrong. Political activism is not wrong. It is not bad or immoral. Political activism is what got us our great country today, courtesy of George, and many others.
For the first time in my life, I will not vote with my party (and will be changing my affiliation soon). I supported Ronnie in the 80s, and George after him. Most recently, I supported Mr. Bob Dole. This year, I do not support my party's nomination. Why? OK, I have changed somewhat, but my party and this political system have changed radically over the last few years.
Today, (as I said earlier) our system is ruled by corporations. We must vote this year for a return to the land our forefathers built. We must vote the way they would have us vote. We must vote libertarian.
Join me, dear Slashdotters, in a vote to send this message to our congressmen (and women). If we continue to vote for the status quo, status quo is what we'll get. And it seems that status quo is not what many of us here on Slashdot want. So there it is, Slashdotters. A call to action. Either vote your heart - let them know how you feel - or SHUT UP.
There are more than two points of believe in this system (I mentioned them earlier), but that's not what the system has taught us to believe. We have more than two "choices," sure, but I see only one choice. And it's not one of the "big two" any more. The "big two" (republicans and democrats, which a friend calls republicrats) don't stand for us any more. They stand for corporate interests and their own interests.
Let them know who is boss. Vote to return our nation to its great beginnings.
Pshew. If you read this far, you have my thanks. If you vote with me, you have my sincerest gratitude.
On the internet there is less information being given out then your Credit Card company.
Not so - for me at least. I request that my name and address be removed from all mailing list sales and rentals by every vendor with whom I do business - and yes, it gets very tiring doing this.
In meatspace, we can request that our personal information not be shared, and there are laws that require companies to abide by that request. This isn't true in cyberspace, which is why people are so up in arms. There are companies like DoubleClick that don't tell you what they're doing and alluvasudden you're overwhelmed with junkmail and other targeted advertising.
I do not want targeted advertising. Look, you do not have to advertise to me. If I want your service, I'll seek you out.
I'd like to have the same rights to privacy in cyberspace that I do have in meatspace. That's all.
Also, remember that way back when (somewhere between the 1920s and the 1950s I think), movie production companies owned both the studios AND the movie theatres. For antitrust reasons, the companies were told to choose one or the other (production studios or theatres). That is, they could make the movies, or they could play them back, but not do both.
It seems to me that nowadays, we still have production companies in the MPAA, but we now have home "theatres" using equipment that the Judge said in his decision must be approved by the MPAA. That means that playback is now controlled by MPAA companies.
How is this different from the situation 50+ years ago? It seems to me that the judge, in this decision, basically said that movie production companies ARE allowed to own both the studio and theatre, essentially nullifying the antitrust breakup 50 years ago.
This works in both UNIX and Windows. Make your cookie file read-only. I have my NY Times login, my slashdot login, and my OPT_OUT DoubleClick cookies in my read-only cookie file.
What other cookies do I need? I have my browser set to accept all cookies, so I never get bothered with the "accept this cookie?" prompt, but I never have to trim my cookies file either because it's read-only.
Now, when I -do- want to keep a cookie, I unfortunately have to shut down Netscape, chmod the file, and restart, but it's an extreme rarity that I actually want to add a cookie to the file.
If you wanna have more fun with DoubleClick and the like, do what I did above, but remove the DoubleClick OPT_OUT cookie. That way, each individual browser session (e.g. every separate time you run Netscape) will get a unique DoubleClick cookie, but you can't be tracked between sessions because the cookie won't be saved.
But it's still a big step from being a nasty neigbour or complete bastard to being a criminal.
My point about the gun thing was that if you are trying the windows and doors of my house, chances are very high that you are going to then enter my house. As soon as you do that, I can legally pull my gun on you for my own protection - you are trespassing on my property.
Same goes for my computer. If you are scanning my computer (as has been pointed out: without my permission), chances are good you are attempting to locate an open "door" through which to enter my computer. Don't expect me to respond kindly.
I feel port-scanning is similar to looking at a house. Looking is OK as long as you don't try to break-in.
But isn't port scanning akin to trying all the doors and windows on the house, to see which ones are open? Say I come by and try to open all your house's doors and windows, then find some are unlocked. So what if I never actually enter your house - simply my checking all your doors and windows would probably bother you. I know it would me. Let me put it this way: if you try that on my house, get ready to meet my Glock. Likewise with my computer.
I think the people complaining are probably doing so because there isn't any reason to port scan someone else's computers except to determine a way to break in to those computers. Please let me know if you can think of any reason such activity would be legitimate.
I was a long-time customer of Don at Clearlight.com, and he is (from what I can tell anyway) a great guy. I had my email with him for several years, until I was able to host my own domain at my office. He's a little more expensive than the ones already mentioned, but his customer service is great, and he always responded to my issues (and still responds to my occasional email) with incredible speed and accuracy for a hosting operation.
In other words, what good will a victory here do us if IP owners like the MPAA simply protect their materials with strong encryption that isn't likely to be broken by sloppy redistributors? Remember that Jon Johansen only managed to crack CSS because a private key was accidentally left in the clear!
A victory here will make it clear to copyright holders that the DMCA is not meant to tip the scales of Fair Use versus Copyright protection so unfairly in their favor. That is one of the biggest problems with the DMCA: by placing this lame CSS encryption on DVDs, the MPAA is now trying to claim "effective control" over the contents of the DVD. Sure, they might get it "right in CSS 2.0," but that's not the point. The point is, prior to the DMCA, they never even HAD this much control.
Now that's Pretty Freakin' Cool. IBM has certinly been doing some cool development around Linux - first their 41,000 "machine" super server, now a wristwatch. PFC.
It's interesting how changing a few words (highlighted in bold below) we then have today's situation with Microsoft:
Geez, people seem to think that they can expect any ethics when dealing with Microsoft. In the past Microsoft has been known to:
Bait and switch OEM's
Play favorites with PC manufacturers
Perform unfair comparisons (Windows beats Linux in (take your pick) because Linux doesn't do something... on slow CPUs the Linux OS would win)
Tell reviewers not to benchmark the Operating System in slow machines/play down slow machine stats (because of Linux's strong numbers there), or not to test on 386s
Provide tweaked drivers to reviewers to improve performance
Promise one OS price as their best to an OEM, and then turn around and give another a slightly-better-price on the OS
And now we know they do something nasty with reviewers and other operating systems. Big suprise.
Insert U.S. political flamebait here: This is the reason why people need to hold their nose and vote for Democrats. Republicans are so much in the pocket of large corporations that they try to elminate all methods of redress that individuals have.
Actually people need to vote for something other than the Big Two Parties. Both the Republicans and the Democrats are so corrupt that they have, in effect, met in the back room. Vote Libertarian - get the government and corporations off our backs and let's get back to the America that our men fought for that we won during the Revolution!
If you don't want your info given out to other companies don't give it to anyone in the first place. Anytime I submit my info I assume that it's going to be sold to other companies.
I'm all about that, but this is getting impossible in this increasingly connected world. I was off the junkmail...er...DMA...lists for nearly a year until I moved. I was assured - several times, mind you - by US Postal Service staff that my new address would not be bought or sold.
Just think of all the people who have your info already: creditors (revolving credit), other creditors such as the phone company, power company, cellular service provider, cable company, magazine producers, banks, your ISP, InterNIC - the list is so long I can't name them all.
You have to tell every one of these companies that you don't want them to sell or rent your name. Companies are getting around that, however. They still share your information - but this time it's with "business partners." Look - don't fucking give my information to anyone without explicitly asking me first.
And even if you do tell everyone to not sell your info, you'll probably still get junkmail and telemarketing calls - especially if you have a legitimate address in your InterNIC record. There are some jerks who poll InterNIC WHOIS records for addresses to add to junkmail lists. Also if you try to sell a car in a newspaper you'll get calls from people all over the country who use computers to poll online classifieds and -- illegally, mind you (see Junkbusters regarding the TCPA) -- use automated systems to call any phone numbers listed. I know - I got over 10 calls -- ALL automated -- from businesses trying to get me to pay them 40 bucks to have my vehicle ad blasted all over creation.
I'm sure it's no wonder to you that I'm all about the FTC going after these pricks.
See my response to the other comment. I didn't try to install it - I'm running an installed Quicken 99 Deluxe out of my VFAT partition (my Win95 partition). I'll have to check but I think the DLLs are all Wine except for the Quicken specific ones.
It runs pretty much OK. There are minor graphics problems but nothing I can't live with. It doesn't back up to floppy for some reason (Wine complains that it can't stat/floppy so it ignores drive A). Sometimes the "home page" doesn't redraw all the time, but I see that in Win95 too. Sometimes I have to pass my cursor over a graphics item to get it to draw - the menu bar comes to mind here.
Some fonts are screwed up so Debt Reducer doesn't work properly (some buttons are off the dialog box and aren't visible). The wierdest part is that you MUST go to the Accounts list to select an account - you can't press the "link" on the "home page" because that in effect IS a URL and Wine doesn't cope with it very well, and complains with a dialog box: "http://qw.exe?___ not responding" or something like that.
I regularly use Scheduled transactions, the accounts registers, the Reconciliation part, reports, graphs (Net Worth and some others), the Calendar feature, and Budgeting. All work just fine in Wine. Otherwise, I wouldn't have switched to Wine from Win95.
I'll have to check to be sure, but I think I use all Wine DLLs except the Quicken-specific ones of course. I use GNOME and have an icon on my desktop (I wish I could use the Quicken 99 icon - anybody know how to rip an icon out of a.EXE?) to start "wine C:\\software\\quickenw\\qw.exe" so I don't see any of Wine's output any more. I am using a Wine build dated mid-June. At work I do a periodic Wine rebuild from the daily CVS (I download CVS then rebuild) and I sometimes take the resultant wineserver and wine executables home for an update.
As I said, it works great overall and I'm glad for it!
A quick side trip: I have the same resolution and background image for Win95 and GNOME. My icons are in similar places between the two interfaces, so my wife can't tell if the machine is running Win95 or Linux! It's kinda fun having it that close...even sometimes I have to do a double take, because my lone Windows app runs in both places, and it runs just as well either place.
Slashdot Mirror
And psychology, sociology and the like are reverse engineering of the human brain. And biology is reverse engineering of plants & animals & such. And ...
Just think what would have happened if Johannes Guttenberg had disallowed the reverse engineering of his invention in the fifteenth century!
Both companies gave away/sold loss-leaders in the hope of having customers sign up for a service. In Netpliance's case, the service was charged to the consumer while DC requires the customer to use the service so it can sell info to advertisers, but the net effect is the same: if the consumers obtain the loss-leader but do not sign up for the service, they are screwed.
But remember, the law does not guarantee that your business model will pan out. These guys have a strange business model - give away cool geek toys and hope to sell advertising - that they expect to work. I certainly won't be screwed if this company's business plan fails.
If you think about it, though, this really is pretty cool technology. Now we indeed have what amounts to a URL from meatspace into cyberspace.
That's pretty freakin' cool. Some people here have been making their own "URLs" by writing decoder software and scanning book barcodes, translating those into ISBNs and then looking the book up at amazon.com. There you effectively have a barcode on a book that is a "url" to a page at amazon.com.
Since there is software to print your own barcodes, and since we can now read the CueCat's output, we can effectively write our own URLs in the form of barcodes that CueCat can read. Perhaps that is what worries them. Writing some sort of competing barcode-to-URL system using a CueCat for commercial use would probably be problematic, legally, but for personal use I don't know what they're fussing about: as has been pointed out, they give these things away.
I certainly wish Michael the best and will keep watching this saga.
I had been working on the MP3 player system that Linux Journal detailed in their March 2000 issue, and as soon as I get a new PC my existing K6/233 will be dedicated to that. Now, however, I envision something more detailed, kinda like this Adomo system. Music on demand, that's my goal. Of course, what I'm talking about doing is so trivial, it's pathetic that I don't have it done already. Later, when I get above 10Mbps network, video on demand. My biggest conceptual problem right now is: what to use for the receiving end of the streaming music/video? PCs are too big and costly. Perhaps Adomo will have something I can use.
When I was at a doctor's office the other day, I read about a similar system in Stereo Review, I think (January 2000 issue). This guy has a way kewl setup at his house. Someone knocks at the door, his wife turns the nearby ceiling-mounted TV (which she had been using to watch her kids in their playroom) to another CC channel - a view out the front door. She picks up the phone and dials the extension of the front door intercom. She then instructs the delivery guy to leave the package on the doorstep, then flips back to watch her kids again. Too cool.
Is it discontinued? I see it at http://www.x10.com/products/x10_mk19a.htm and it looks like they still sell it.
This was tried before, for DVDs. It was called DIVX (though I may have capitalization and/or punctuation incorrect). Consumers voted a resounding NO . Same with music. NO .
As for your other comments on what might actually happen if ... secure initiatives come out:
1) they WON'T be used wisely. We might be forced to pay per every viewing/listening/reading.
2) that it will somehow be made illegal and/or very difficult to freely view/distribute stuff you actually have the rights to.
Depends on whose definition of "wise" you mean. In capitalism, producers create things to make money. In the past, this has always meant that a product was sold to a consumer. Today, every content producer wants to move us toward a pay-per-use/pay-per-view system as you rightly suspect.
In my opinion this would be a Bad Thing. But how do we stop it? I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader. (Translation: minimize government.)
I certainly won't buy one of those digital TVs with these restrictions. Kinda like I won't buy a DVD player with the region coding and CSS "access" controls.
I don't need no stinkin' digital TV anyway. As long as we have libraries & bookstores (well for paper-paged books anyway) I'm all set.
Yes, it was. And apparently we'll have to go for another fight in front of the Supremes. Maybe we all should send some money to EFF to help get the ball rolling!
Isn't that why software companies are pushing UCITA - so they can't be held responsible for any problems with their software?!
Unfortunately Jon Katz failed to provide a link to the poll, and I was unable to find one at businessweek.com. Can anyone else find it?
Check out Nader's views at his site. He is very much more socialist than anything. (For a quick look at the five points in the political field, check out the libertarian party's main page. Quickly, though, they are: libertarian, authoritarian, conservative, liberal, and centrist.)
In every one of his views, Nader supports giving government more control, and removing control from us. Want an example? Just pick ANY of his issues. Taxation: "we should tax things we don't like." WHO DECIDES the "things we don't like"? Government, that's who! On EVERY issue, he supports giving control to government.
Please, please, dear Slashdotters, vote Libertarian this year. Our political system has been so corrupted by corporate influence that it barely resembles what our forefathers had in mind. They were a bunch of libertarians, favoring personal responsibility over government control. This is obvious in everything they did. Don't believe me? Go read the constitution of the United states and other documents found there (the Magna Carta (on which our constitution is based), Federalist Papers, Bill of Rights, and the declaration of independence). These are amazing documents.
Today, we have a two party system by design. We have been socially engineered to (as has been pointed out earlier) not vote. We have been socially engineered to think that political activism is wrong. Political activism is not wrong. It is not bad or immoral. Political activism is what got us our great country today, courtesy of George, and many others.
For the first time in my life, I will not vote with my party (and will be changing my affiliation soon). I supported Ronnie in the 80s, and George after him. Most recently, I supported Mr. Bob Dole. This year, I do not support my party's nomination. Why? OK, I have changed somewhat, but my party and this political system have changed radically over the last few years.
Today, (as I said earlier) our system is ruled by corporations. We must vote this year for a return to the land our forefathers built. We must vote the way they would have us vote. We must vote libertarian.
Join me, dear Slashdotters, in a vote to send this message to our congressmen (and women). If we continue to vote for the status quo, status quo is what we'll get. And it seems that status quo is not what many of us here on Slashdot want. So there it is, Slashdotters. A call to action. Either vote your heart - let them know how you feel - or SHUT UP.
There are more than two points of believe in this system (I mentioned them earlier), but that's not what the system has taught us to believe. We have more than two "choices," sure, but I see only one choice. And it's not one of the "big two" any more. The "big two" (republicans and democrats, which a friend calls republicrats) don't stand for us any more. They stand for corporate interests and their own interests.
Let them know who is boss. Vote to return our nation to its great beginnings.
Pshew. If you read this far, you have my thanks. If you vote with me, you have my sincerest gratitude.
Not so - for me at least. I request that my name and address be removed from all mailing list sales and rentals by every vendor with whom I do business - and yes, it gets very tiring doing this.
In meatspace, we can request that our personal information not be shared, and there are laws that require companies to abide by that request. This isn't true in cyberspace, which is why people are so up in arms. There are companies like DoubleClick that don't tell you what they're doing and alluvasudden you're overwhelmed with junkmail and other targeted advertising.
I do not want targeted advertising. Look, you do not have to advertise to me. If I want your service, I'll seek you out.
I'd like to have the same rights to privacy in cyberspace that I do have in meatspace. That's all.
It seems to me that nowadays, we still have production companies in the MPAA, but we now have home "theatres" using equipment that the Judge said in his decision must be approved by the MPAA. That means that playback is now controlled by MPAA companies.
How is this different from the situation 50+ years ago? It seems to me that the judge, in this decision, basically said that movie production companies ARE allowed to own both the studio and theatre, essentially nullifying the antitrust breakup 50 years ago.
Will this have any impact on your appeal?
What other cookies do I need? I have my browser set to accept all cookies, so I never get bothered with the "accept this cookie?" prompt, but I never have to trim my cookies file either because it's read-only.
Now, when I -do- want to keep a cookie, I unfortunately have to shut down Netscape, chmod the file, and restart, but it's an extreme rarity that I actually want to add a cookie to the file.
If you wanna have more fun with DoubleClick and the like, do what I did above, but remove the DoubleClick OPT_OUT cookie. That way, each individual browser session (e.g. every separate time you run Netscape) will get a unique DoubleClick cookie, but you can't be tracked between sessions because the cookie won't be saved.
My point about the gun thing was that if you are trying the windows and doors of my house, chances are very high that you are going to then enter my house. As soon as you do that, I can legally pull my gun on you for my own protection - you are trespassing on my property.
Same goes for my computer. If you are scanning my computer (as has been pointed out: without my permission), chances are good you are attempting to locate an open "door" through which to enter my computer. Don't expect me to respond kindly.
But isn't port scanning akin to trying all the doors and windows on the house, to see which ones are open? Say I come by and try to open all your house's doors and windows, then find some are unlocked. So what if I never actually enter your house - simply my checking all your doors and windows would probably bother you. I know it would me. Let me put it this way: if you try that on my house, get ready to meet my Glock. Likewise with my computer.
I think the people complaining are probably doing so because there isn't any reason to port scan someone else's computers except to determine a way to break in to those computers. Please let me know if you can think of any reason such activity would be legitimate.
I was a long-time customer of Don at Clearlight.com, and he is (from what I can tell anyway) a great guy. I had my email with him for several years, until I was able to host my own domain at my office. He's a little more expensive than the ones already mentioned, but his customer service is great, and he always responded to my issues (and still responds to my occasional email) with incredible speed and accuracy for a hosting operation.
A victory here will make it clear to copyright holders that the DMCA is not meant to tip the scales of Fair Use versus Copyright protection so unfairly in their favor. That is one of the biggest problems with the DMCA: by placing this lame CSS encryption on DVDs, the MPAA is now trying to claim "effective control" over the contents of the DVD. Sure, they might get it "right in CSS 2.0," but that's not the point. The point is, prior to the DMCA, they never even HAD this much control.
And they shouldn't have it today. Or ever.
Now that's Pretty Freakin' Cool. IBM has certinly been doing some cool development around Linux - first their 41,000 "machine" super server, now a wristwatch. PFC.
I neglected to put in a smiley for I thought that my post would be taken for what it was: humor. Maybe it wasn't as funny as I thought it was.
Geez, people seem to think that they can expect any ethics when dealing with Microsoft. In the past Microsoft has been known to:
And now we know they do something nasty with reviewers and other operating systems. Big suprise.
This is the reason why people need to hold their nose and vote for Democrats. Republicans are so much in the pocket of large corporations that they try to elminate all methods of redress that individuals have.
Actually people need to vote for something other than the Big Two Parties. Both the Republicans and the Democrats are so corrupt that they have, in effect, met in the back room. Vote Libertarian - get the government and corporations off our backs and let's get back to the America that our men fought for that we won during the Revolution!
I'm all about that, but this is getting impossible in this increasingly connected world. I was off the junkmail...er...DMA...lists for nearly a year until I moved. I was assured - several times, mind you - by US Postal Service staff that my new address would not be bought or sold.
Just think of all the people who have your info already: creditors (revolving credit), other creditors such as the phone company, power company, cellular service provider, cable company, magazine producers, banks, your ISP, InterNIC - the list is so long I can't name them all.
You have to tell every one of these companies that you don't want them to sell or rent your name. Companies are getting around that, however. They still share your information - but this time it's with "business partners." Look - don't fucking give my information to anyone without explicitly asking me first.
And even if you do tell everyone to not sell your info, you'll probably still get junkmail and telemarketing calls - especially if you have a legitimate address in your InterNIC record. There are some jerks who poll InterNIC WHOIS records for addresses to add to junkmail lists. Also if you try to sell a car in a newspaper you'll get calls from people all over the country who use computers to poll online classifieds and -- illegally, mind you (see Junkbusters regarding the TCPA) -- use automated systems to call any phone numbers listed. I know - I got over 10 calls -- ALL automated -- from businesses trying to get me to pay them 40 bucks to have my vehicle ad blasted all over creation.
I'm sure it's no wonder to you that I'm all about the FTC going after these pricks.
Here's the DLL setup from my .winerc file, for those who asked:
[DllDefaults]
EXTRA_LD_LIBRARY_PATH=${HOME}/wine/cvs/lib
DefaultLoadOrder = native, elfdll, so, builtin
[DllPairs]
krnl386 = kernel32
gdi = gdi32
user = user32
commdlg = comdlg32
commctrl= comctl32
ver = version
shell = shell32
lzexpand= lz32
mmsystem= winmm
msvideo = msvfw32
winsock = wsock32
[DllOverrides]
kernel32, gdi32, user32 = builtin
krnl386, gdi, user = builtin
toolhelp = builtin
comdlg32, commdlg = elfdll, builtin, native
version, ver = elfdll, builtin, native
shell32, shell = builtin, native
lz32, lzexpand = builtin, native
commctrl, comctl32 = builtin, native
wsock32, winsock = builtin
advapi32, crtdll, ntdll = builtin, native
mpr, winspool = builtin, native
ddraw, dinput, dsound = builtin, native
winmm, mmsystem = builtin
msvideo, msvfw32 = builtin, native
mcicda.drv, mciseq.drv = builtin, native
mciwave.drv = builtin, native
mciavi.drv, mcianim.drv = native, builtin
w32skrnl = builtin
wnaspi32, wow32 = builtin
system, display, wprocs = builtin
wineps = builtin
See my response to the other comment. I didn't try to install it - I'm running an installed Quicken 99 Deluxe out of my VFAT partition (my Win95 partition). I'll have to check but I think the DLLs are all Wine except for the Quicken specific ones.
Some fonts are screwed up so Debt Reducer doesn't work properly (some buttons are off the dialog box and aren't visible). The wierdest part is that you MUST go to the Accounts list to select an account - you can't press the "link" on the "home page" because that in effect IS a URL and Wine doesn't cope with it very well, and complains with a dialog box: "http://qw.exe?___ not responding" or something like that.
I regularly use Scheduled transactions, the accounts registers, the Reconciliation part, reports, graphs (Net Worth and some others), the Calendar feature, and Budgeting. All work just fine in Wine. Otherwise, I wouldn't have switched to Wine from Win95.
I'll have to check to be sure, but I think I use all Wine DLLs except the Quicken-specific ones of course. I use GNOME and have an icon on my desktop (I wish I could use the Quicken 99 icon - anybody know how to rip an icon out of a .EXE?) to start "wine C:\\software\\quickenw\\qw.exe" so I don't see any of Wine's output any more. I am using a Wine build dated mid-June. At work I do a periodic Wine rebuild from the daily CVS (I download CVS then rebuild) and I sometimes take the resultant wineserver and wine executables home for an update.
As I said, it works great overall and I'm glad for it!
A quick side trip: I have the same resolution and background image for Win95 and GNOME. My icons are in similar places between the two interfaces, so my wife can't tell if the machine is running Win95 or Linux! It's kinda fun having it that close...even sometimes I have to do a double take, because my lone Windows app runs in both places, and it runs just as well either place.