3419 posts • joined 5 Oct 2007
Richard Posted Tuesday 10th February 2009 14:40 GMT
Look how far you HAVE dome. You CAN have pop-tarts. And instead of eating the local fauna after running the little bastards down and killing them with your stick, you can make a living typing in a room without predators eating your ringpiece. And then BUY pop tarts to keep that ringpeice from getting too close to the seat.
And Chris, if you are going to be an arsehole, how com YOU get paid for it??? Fuckwit El Reg team.
Anonymous Coward Posted Tuesday 10th February 2009 15:59 GMT
YOU fail to take one pertinent FACT into account
Rest of that is bollocks. But then again, what would you expect from someone afraid that their posting history could be found out if they didn't "post anonymously".
How long ad IE 5 been left to pasture?
MS killed the project at that time. No updates, no IE7 or 8. No support. No bugfixes. Ended the project, disbanded the team.
That was the reason they gave.
Are you calling them liars?
re: chicken - egg problem
Hmm. How did they get a browser before IE was in the OS? Write their own???
1) Setup disk for ISP comes with a browser
2) OEM installs one for the customer
4) cover disks
6) OTS package comes with a browser (Norton Internet Security with Firefox, for example).
7) cat /net/www.theregister.co.uk and I no longer see the tags, I see goatse, tubgirl, cialis...
Shit you're dumb when you want to be.
Anonymous Coward Posted Monday 9th February 2009 15:30 GMT
Yup, so kill off the copyright. Let each company do as they will. First option prefered...?
Well, MS agrees with the court and Mozilla
When dropping IE for Mac in OSX they stated the reason was that they could not compete with a browser built into the operating system.
Are you all goldfish or something? Or is MTV generation taking over???
Anonymous Coward Posted Tuesday 10th February 2009 15:09 GMT
And Ronnie Reagan hearts Pinochet.
Hey, come on she was right
She doesn't know a *single* community who've been against it. She knows hundreds.
That's not single.
What SW patents are Linux distros infringing?
re: Linux needs to get professional
So "Professional" software doesn't include "Works efficiently", then?
Linux can stay non-professional then. I'd prefer a GOOD OS than one that has features that don't enhance the OS.
" inkscape ? you're joking right ? Try going to a publisher with drawings made in inkscape... Sorry bud its AI or EMF files they want... none of which inkscape can produce"
Rather like saying "You MUST use CMYK or print shops won't take it". Plenty of printers now have RGB entry capability. They will accept it.
"And until Linux is made into an easy out-of-the-box solution like Win or OSX AND has major software houses writing for it, Linux will fail."
Nope, because, if you actually tried COMPREHENSION, there is no way for some users to make Linux right, no matter how out-of-the-box it is. NEVER. They, like you, Vincent Hippo and the various AC's talking out their arses will NEVER accept Linux. If it ever managed to be 100% compatible, you or others would kill it as merely a "me too" product. Because it is 100% compatible, that includes all the bugs that meant Linux was inherently safer. And at that point, what the fuck's the point of writing the OS?
And you and your pals spreading lies and shite "reasons" why Linux won't work ensures that someone who may have tried (and, maybe, failed) to move to Linux will be scared off.
Through Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. And even if they failed, that would have been an honest failure. Where you are trying to ensure the attempt is never made.
Why? I dunno. You make lots of money off the status quo and so any change may reduce it (anyone doing better than average is likely to lose in ANY change, since a change will reset all players default standing).
Anonymous Coward Posted Tuesday 3rd February 2009 16:35 GMT
Really, what irony? Just because you say "that's the sound of irony" doesn't make it ironic.
Just say "***I*** don't want to use Linux. I don't like it". That is fine. That is YOUR opinion. But don't make shit up about it not being YOUR decision.
"What you have summed up in one line is everything that's wrong with Linux marketing/evangelism: the user is always wrong. Or the developer. Anyone or anything except the product not being fit for purpose."
And talk about reading from a parallel dimension. It was all about it being the USERS DECISION. AND that that was OK. What is NOT right is making crap up about why when it really is just their personal decision.
What the flying fuck were YOU reading???
re: Car interface!
And if you want to transport a nuclear sub with that car, what bit do you fiddle on the gear lever to do this? How about if you want to run it in an F1 race? How about destruction derby or RAC rally?
A car is a single-porpose machine. That makes the UI a simple task.
And have a look at how many people have a problem intuitively in someone else's car:
a) open the door to get out
b) set the seat forward/back
with your "simple interface"!
As to your idiotic post about "changing resolution" when was the last time you ran Linux? Here's how you do it in Linux:
Right click on desktop (same as windows)
Configure Desktop (similar, names changed to protect the indecent)
Select Display (you have to select the Display tab in Windows)
In the "Size and Orientation" section, select the size, refresh rate for the screen.
Someone who can manage the task in Windows but not in Linux is a computer image-recognition scheme that automates clicking on things, not a human being.
Where the fuck do you get your info from? MS Knowledge Base???
"No, because you can't expect a developer of an older piece of software to go back and rewrite their install mechanisms to cope with different operating systems."
And these older programs work on Windows 98 and not on Vista/XP. So by your reasoning, Vista/XP are not ready for the market.
Pretty strict, aren't you.
PS: re: Car interface!
"Going back to the cars analogy, anybody with a driver's license from any country can drive a car built anywhere on the planet"
Get an automatic driving license and you are illegally driving a manual unless you're a learner.
Anonymous Coward Posted Friday 6th February 2009 04:08 GMT
Talk about whine.
Can't even dare to say who you are, and whether you're the same AC that spouted ~100 Pro-MS/Anti-Linux diatribes/whines on this one thread (as AC).
Yes, there is no guarantee of profit.
No matter how much I think I should get paid for it, no matter how much effort I put in, I will not make a profit selling house jerseys (a jersey that fits around your house).
NO MATTER HOW MUCH EFFORT.
".>A Heinlen quote is appropriate. I will let you find it yourself.
Essentially you just want to be allowed to get somebody's work for free."
What? You want me to find it for you? I'm not paid to teach idiots.
"They create, you buy, you're not allowed to re-sell or give away I don't see that it's so one sided."
What is one-sided is that the terms of copyright have changed to enhance the value of copyright to the copyright owners but there is no commensurate increase to the value to the public from the change to contract.
The contract was changed to a one-sided benefit.
E.g. computer programs didn't used to be copyrightable. Are now. Personal copying was A-OK (and a turning copy is OK too) and you were not blocked from doing so either technically or legally. Piracy laws were crafted for commercial scale infringement and applied to non-commercial use.
And much, much more.
For which we, the publc, get less value from the copyrights (they do not expire in our lifetime anymore). We have to pay more and more taxes to policing, enforcing and prosecuting pissant scale copyright infringement. We get DRM which ignores copyright and time-bomb programs that die before copyright expires.
Says someone without the courage to identify themselves
> "so why should I obey a contract that is only one-sided? Ever heard of "contract of adhesion"? Or UCTTA?"
> Go on then mighty mouth - argue that in court.
> Put your money where you mouth is.
And I have, not in a court of law but to FOX. I mailed them and told them that I did not care if the DVD was protected, I would break that protection and if they didn't like it they could take me to court.
Funnily enough, no court case ensued.
I'm not going to take FOX to court just to say "I am breaking your encryption", but it seems like they don't want to either (so where's the damage?)
Anonymous Coward Posted Friday 6th February 2009 13:13 GMT
"A musician is entitled to seek investment for production, promotion and marketing. Whether "the recording industry" is owned EMI, Coca Cola or Verizon is irrelevant. It's going to be there."
He's not entitled to any guaranteed profit from it. A Heinlen quote is appropriate. I will let you find it yourself.
The rest of what you post is bullshit, pulling what ideas you think will make your case stronger and mine weaker, not because you think they may be true, but because you wish to lie to bolster your case.
You don't know how successful I am.
"What is it you want to do with the CD though?"
What's it to do with you?
"Stick it online and give it to anyone who might want it? - Surely you can see the issue there?"
Only in terms of breaking the copyrights, but the owners have already done that, so why should I obey a contract that is only one-sided? Ever heard of "contract of adhesion"? Or UCTTA?
re: *yawn* This old chestnut again.
Heck, before reliable recording, the recording industry didn't exist. Music was made. Before radio, the industry had to spend a LOT to advertise to a small number of people and had to rely on a lot of word-of-mouth. Music was made. When fragile shellac was changed to robust plastic polymer, breakage rates went down to nearly nil, but the accounting for losses didn't change. Now we see the beginnings of the future. For when digital downloads are assessed, you STILL have "breakage" reductions of the sales figures. How does one break a digital download? And can you ask for a new one for free if you happen to get one?
Now the internet is wider spread than the radio, there's no need for connections in meatspace to let people know of your music. The replication is done by others, so no need to buy time in a pressing factory.
What need is there for a recording industry?
Not acceptable to the recording industry.
Well, understandable, but not our problem, kids.
re: Bottom line
"When I purchase a piece of music, or a song, I wish to purchase a licence to listen to *this performance*. Not "this CD" or "this MP3" or whatever, but "this performance of song Z by artist Y recorded on date Z". That's it."
Alternatively, if I've bought the CD or whatever, it is now MY PROPERTY. Stop being all communist and telling me what I can do t o MY PROPERTY.
Don't like it? Stop selling.
"Both persons may “want” $50 p/h but the market will determine the value of the creation. I really don't see any “money-grubber” in either of these persons."
Except when the only reason why they went into their respective fields was the chance to get $50ph. When the dot-com boom was underway, LOTS of people took computer science courses. Why? Because you could leave with a degree and jump straight into a $150,000 job.
They went into it for the money, not for the work.
And when the dot-com bust turned up, was the government all on about how all these poor starving computer science graduates were unable to get the job they wanted and that there should be laws put in place to make sure that they get a cut from ANY website revenue?
No. They were left to find out that if you go for a job for the money, there's nothing to do but retrain when the money moves elsewhere.
I have no problem with that.
Before computers, I could not be a computer programmer. When computers program themselves, there will no longer be computer programmers.
Shift happens. Get over it.
re: Who gives them the right???
WE did. WE gave them the right. And in return we wanted to be able to learn from it and use it ourselves AFTER A LIMITED TIME.
Then you wanted it extended in scope, power and time.
Well, you broke the contract. We take back the right we have to do with our property as we wish. If you don't want to sing in case someone sings it too, then do something else.
"On top of that artists from the last 5- or 6-hundred years have had to feed themselves and required money in order to do this: Some have been fortunate enough to do exactly and only what they like but most of those have had to compromise in order to get there."
And despite all that and the complete dearth of copyright for most of that time, we still had music. People still created it, listened to it, performed it and got paid for it (or had the time).
So why should copyright he here now?
Legislating someone to make money is as bad as any quango, yet doesn't get the same bad press.
..GAFL Get A F****** LIFE.
Says someone with so little life they spend what must be 20 minutes on this thread complaining about how people on this thread who think FOSS is good need to get a life.
Ask Codeweavers who buys their product (based on Wine). They make money from it.
And only NOW do you say "Oh, no, not THAT sort of company". You keep changing so that you can bever be wrong, because as soon as it has been proven wrong, you change.
You ignorant pig fucker.
Uk, the Loki installer (still available, despite Loki going titsup because the CEO ran off with the money because it was OPEN SOURCE) lets you
a) click on a Setup icon
b) Select where to install it
In fact, when you select your home area to install (so as not to run as root), IT ONLY INSTALLS THERE. It doesn't put shite in the system directories or anywhere else. Just in the area related to where you have asked it. Unlike Windows which update and stuff things in Windows/SYSTEM.
You don't have to do all your a-f either. Your distribution has "Add packages" rather like your MS's "Add New Programs". However, unlike "Add New Programs", the "Add packages" application will add from other repositories but is configured for you to use the standard repositories. So rather than one app to add programs and a different one for updates, you have the one program for doing both.
Simpler than MS.
And I've corrected you: the same issues are the case for migration from Windows to a newer version of windows.
ALL OF THEM the same issues.
Pixar use wine A LOT.
That sort of company.
A sensible one.
"Oh, and by the by, Mark. Yes, Win2k is no longer officially available. It does not, however, mean that you absolutely, positively cannot get it!"
And what company would put their business critical needs on an operating system that is unsupported (which is worse than beta-quality)?
So when there's a discussion about mobile phones and car accidents, you get tired that someone ALWAYS mentions the idea of turning the mobile phone off?
Migrating to Linux is a viable solution.
If it were being said in a discussion about Windows 7 sales figures, THEN you'd have something to complain about, but it is completely appropriate here.
re: Just like XP was when it first came out...
"Why are people complaining about vista still? Remember when XP came out, everyone was like "oh my god it requires so much more hardware than Win2000""
Well it does.
Vista and Windows 7 use a lot more hardware than XP and FAR MORE than Win2000. This doesn't stop XP using more than Windows2000, though.
But you can't GET Win2K any more. Applications are now becoming dated and unsupported for Win2K. So comparing 7 to 2K is not possible: it is no longer available.
In 12 years time when XP is unable to be an OS, come back.
re: It's their own fault
"This is unfortunately necessary because your grandma hasn't the slightest idea..."
Nope, the problem is that grandma doesn't want a computer. She wants something to email pictures of her grandchildren and look up cooking recipes on AOL. If she's the sort of grandma you posit.
And Windows, to sell newer versions, is getting further and further away from that.
However, have a look at the Nokia N800. Apart from being the wrong HARDWARE, it IS what gramma wants. It doesn't do as much out of the box but it does what Aunt Tillie needs and is secure BECAUSE of it.
And only possible because there are "a hundred different Linuxes". One of which is tied down.
Netbooks do the same.
Windows can't do that since
a) their OS doesn't modularise like that
b) they won't be able to charge as much for the OS
Anonymous Coward Posted Friday 6th February 2009 13:44 GMT
"I use AC under an assumption that those that need to know or want to know probably jolly well know already."
Nope. Someone may want to know just so they can say WHICH AC you are when you post. Or even just so that they don't have to point out WHICH AC they are responding to (e.g. "AC @13:44").
re: Re: Stand up and be counted
Aye. One AC stated that they were an AC deliberately because their comments would reflect badly. They then said they didn't believe either side.
What sort of place do they work where "I have no opinion on the subject" could reflect badly???
re: think for a second
And after thinking, discover that you put a false dichotomy before us.
Those are not the two options.
And, unless we are no better than the Taliban, what THEY won't agree to doesn't mean we don't have to.
'Freedom' my arse
However, it should be possible to run on an emulator for the XBox360. There's a REASON why an XBox game won't work on a PS.
What is the reason why an AAC file whose ONLY PURPOSE is to be listened to, not be usable on anything capable of playing an AAC? Why, when we're in a global economy, is it OK to say "you cannot buy this because you are in the wrong country"?
Seems we're free to lose our jobs in a global market but not spend our money likewise.
And people DO NOT know the deal when they buy a DRM'd product. Because they are not educated about it, don't have the time to learm and until they get fucked up the arse, don't see it as a problem.
E.g. an iTunes store user doesn't realise how badly he is fucked until their iPod breaks and they buy an AAC player that isn't compatible with iPod DRM. Or their Windows machine breaks and the service goes down.
Until they get screwed like the buyers of Gears Of War (who would have figured DRM would kill your game if it went past Jan28?), they don't see DRM as a problem because they are TOLD *deliberately* that DRM is only to get at those pesky pirates. And, not being a pesky pirate do not think that the DRM would affect them.
Until it does.
"That's because that's what a Trademark is. It's the whole point of a trademark since Bass in 1875 (fancy naming your beer after a fish)."
But only in a context. Apple vs Apple ring a bell? One a computer company, the other a music publisher.
didn't ask who you worked for Pierre. PaulM seems to be fixated on OTHER people answering that, though he never answers or even acknowledges the question.
Paul is displaying the NEED for an ad hominem by demanding he must know who I work for. If the answers given are true, it doesn't matter who I work for. If the answers are false, then that falsity needs to be exposed, not who I work for.
Worse are the ACs. Not even willing to give a unique name (so you can see whether there is a pattern to the posts), but still insinuating and demanding information that is not needed, but gives an easier argument to say "don't listen to them!". Takes a lot less work than finding the flaws.
re: FFS People!
Ryan, do you work for an MS VIP partner?
The problem is that UAC wasn't the way to secure the OS. The OS should BE secure.
But marketing want, nay DEMAND, the OS be easy to use for someone who knows nothing. Which means that a clever person can fake it so that the OS does what this nefarious individual wants.
And having made this OS do it, they can't UNDO it because that would be, like, admitting they were wrong, wouldn't it. And where would their bonuses go then???
So instead of fixing the OS, the wrap a layer on top that then, instead of securing the OS, makes the user responsible for any insecurity.
Which is nice.
re: Look to the obvious
Hmmm. The police all wear the same gang uniform. So do the various branches of the armed forces.
Then again, individuals are easier for the gangs of police to intimidate than groups of people.
Oh, and what about the grey pinstripe suit "gang colours" on Saville Row?
Isn't this a threat of violence?
Or is this like Monty Python has it, a case of the police saying "Stop! Or I'll say 'Stop!' again!".
Someone please put her out of our misery.
re: Code signing != timebomb (if done properly)
Well, there's no benefit for the company to DO it properly. By the time the custard finds out, the company has been bought sold, gone bankrupt and bought again. Several times. And it costs them more.
So the "if done properly" is WHY "PANIC" is right.
- Batten down the hatches, Ubuntu 14.04 LTS due in TWO DAYS
- FOUR DAYS: That's how long it took to crack Galaxy S5 fingerscanner
- Did a date calculation bug just cost hard-up Co-op Bank £110m?
- Feast your PUNY eyes on highest resolution phone display EVER
- Wall St's DROOLING as Twitter GULPS DOWN analytics firm Gnip