16 posts • joined Tuesday 30th September 2008 11:15 GMT
What they're worried about in this case is probably that Microsoft could be seen (depending on a court's interpretation) to be the distributor the app. If that app then includes some GPL code along with some close-source bits of Microsoft runtime, then a court could conclude that Microsoft has violated the GPL, and require that the source to the runtime be distributed as well.
I doubt this is really an issue, but lawyers get paid big bucks to think of every possible way their customers might be screwed.
> The GNOME Project has updated its desktop barely six months
> after the controversial introduction of version 3.0.
Not the best choice of lede, IMHO. Gnome has been on a six month time-based release cycle forever. There was never any doubt about when 3.2 would be release, nor is there much question about when 3.4 will come out. Or 3.6, or 3.8, etc.
The article seems to conflate loyalty to Android with loyalty to a particular phone manufacturer.
This line suggests we're talking about manufacturer loyalty:
> The next highest figure was 39 per cent, the number of HTC handset owners who will said they'll stay with that vendor when they upgrade.
But then it goes on to talk about Android vs. iOS:
> But that still leaves nearly half of people currently owning an Android handset who will defect to iOS, BlackBerry or Windows Phone.
Since there are several vendors of Android phones, these don't amount to the same thing at all.
It's a feature
Not being able to post on other people's walls is a feature. It means that your drinking buddy can't write embarrassing stuff on your wall for your boss to see.
I missed being able to do that as well, at first. But the added control over who gets to see what makes me far more comfortable sharing stuff on G+ and adding relative strangers to my circles.
It's a bit of a trade-off between privacy and social interaction. The Facebook model is like being in a big noisy party with everybody you know all in the same room. Fun in a way, but a little unnerving.
Inventing your own language or making he UI different wouldn't help. Software patents are so broad and trivial that everybody infringes on everything. You can't avoid them. The only way to stay in the game is to have your own portfolio of obvious patents to wave about.
So the defensive patent portfolio doesn't need to be of high quality either. Just enough force the other side to settle instead of risking a fate similar to Samsung.
The Nokia example is actually pretty informative. Sure Apple only ended up paying 400M or so, but without Nokia's patent portfolio Nokia would have had to pay Apple instead. Obviously the strategy worked for Nokia.
I think this is the only one of Andrew's Anti-Nokia rants that I've ever agreed with.
Nokia's product naming has been a disaster, basically forever. Which is odd because all of their phones have internal code names, many of which would be perfect as real product names. The N900 is called "Rover" internally, for example. A brilliant name. Why couldn't they keep it?
Go through Finland!
Beijing to Moscow: 7 days,
Moscow to Helsinki: 1 day
From Helsinki you still have to get to the rest of Europe, but there are lots of boats/trains/trucks along those routes. I think anywhere in Europe can be got to within a couple of days.
Copying other peoples products is a proven business model...
... with Microsoft being the most successful example.
For those of us who were around to see the likes of WordPerfect and CPM eclipsed by inferior MS products, what Google is doing feels like poetic justice.
And the Google products are often damn good, which is a truly novel twist on the old copy and undercut business model.
It doesn't need to make sense
Wile E: you're assuming that these patents make some sort of sense and actually embody some sort of innovation.
In reality anybody can file a patent for anything software-based and have it approved. Then it's up to the patent victim to prove (and pay the needed legal fees) that the patent is obvious/has prior art/etc. That's why Microsoft keeps the details of the claimed infringement a secret. If they let the cat out of the bag then a few interested parties with deep pockets can start challenging the patents in court. As long as nobody knows what the patents are, they can be used for FUD.
So using *BSD won't help. Just take any 40-year-old software technique, tack "on a mobile phone" on the end, and you've got a patentable innovation useful for patent trolling. "Multitasking", not patentable. "multitasking on a mobile phone", a goldmine! *BSD on a phone infringes too.
Password changing is security theatre
Nobody has ever explained to me why I should change my password regularly. I much prefer to choose a good, secure password once, and then keep it. If I have to change my password regularly, inevitably I have to resort to simpler passwords, since there's no way I can come up with a new memorable-but-secure password every few months.
Yes, I have had to resort to this on several occasions - I choose a nice secure password the first time I create an account, then some brain-dead administrator forces me to change it. After three or four password changes, I end up having to resort to "StupidFirstPassword", "StupidSecondPassword", etc., or writing the password on a post-it in my desk drawer. Not very secure, but the only realistic way to keep all the passwords straight.
Obviously this assumes you don't do stupid things, like enter your password into unencrypted forms. But if you do that sort of thing, changing your password regularly isn't going to help you.
It has to be big enough to hurt
If the fine is to act as a deterrent, it has to hurt. And since it's a company and not an individual, it has to be big enough to cause real anguish for the executives, who make the decisions even though they're not personally paying the fine.
So how big is big enough for the CEO and the board of directors to think "wow, that was really stupid, I could lose my cushy job over this, and other companies will be afraid to hire me because I do stupid shit"? Certainly more than a billion. Maybe 10 billion would be enough to get some of the top management fired and put a good scare into the ones who are left.
Wildly underestimates the cost.
Linux inherited a well-tested basic design (though no actual code) from Unix in 1991 and has accumulated 17 years worth of real world experience since then. X and the GNU tools have matured for over twenty years (I remember installing the GNU toolset on Sun boxes in 1990 because they were so much better, even then, than what Sun offered at the time with SunOS). There's no way to value that experience.
Plus, Linux vendors choose what they think is the optimal subset of the universe of free software to include in their distributions. Most software (whether Free or commercial) is crap. The fact that the code has been included in a distribution means that it's much better than average.
If you just gave a team of 2000 thousand developers the money and time to produce something like a Linux distribution (as suggested by these models) 1) the code wouldn't have the decades to mature and learn from mistakes, 2) it would be of merely average quality (mostly crap, some good stuff) and not comparable to a distribution that only chooses the best software to include.
To make it more concrete, there's a huge selection of Free window managers to choose from (http://xwinman.org/). They all work (they do what a window manager needs to do). A Linux distribution gets to choose the best from these pre-existing applications.
If you had to create a window manager from scratch you could give some money to developers and get something that worked. But if you wanted to duplicate what goes into a Linux distribution, you'd have to pay 20(ish) teams to develop window managers and then choose the best.
- It's true, the START MENU is coming BACK to Windows 8, hiss sources
- iSPY: Apple Stores switch on iBeacon phone sniff spy system
- Chinese gamer plays on while BMW burns to the ground
- Pic NASA Mars tank Curiosity rolls on old WET PATCH, sighs, sniffs for life signs
- How UK air traffic control system was caught asleep on the job