All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software

Windows Sucks

<< < (47/51) > >>

piratePenguin:

--- Quote from: Jenda ---A little (OK, very) o/t, but NOT TRUE.:thumbdwn: This is math. If [(x > y) and (y < z)], then all [(x < z), (x > z) and (x = z)] are possible. Try substituting with numbers, you will see that both [x=5, y=3, z=8] and [x=7, y=2, z=8] comply with the original statement that [(x > y) and (y < z)].
--- End quote ---
oh yer right :thumbup:

--- Quote from: Jenda ---I hope this rant doesn't annoy you too much (just a little...).:)
--- End quote ---
I stand corrected, too.


--- Quote from: toadlife ---I'm so sick if this argument. It amounts to little more than FUD. This type of thing you worry so much about hardly ever happens. I challenge you to find more than one or two examples of this happening over the last twenty years.
--- End quote ---
Little more than FUD eh? I said that it "could" happen, could it not?
As for the examples, the only one that I know of is X (although it didn't use the BSD licence).
But if all the GPLed programs suddenly switched to the BSD licence, wouldn't you think someone (eg, the evil bastards that are MS) would take advantage, especially when the licence allows it (I'm talking about using the BSD licenced code in some program, and distribute it in binary form)?
For a start, people/companies have been caught violating the GPL for using GPL licenced code, http://www.gpl-violations.org/.

Cedega and Wine would probably be another (more recent) example (rather than X) but I dunno what licence Wine used to use.

--- Quote from: toadlife ---It's not illegal to buy Cedega and then give it out to your friends. The Cedega license specifically permits it. They also permit you to build it yourself from the source. I found a few detailed howtos on how to build it from the CVS on linux, so if your so mad about having to pay, build it yourself.
--- End quote ---
It doesn't matter. It's still not free software.
And I'm not mad about having to pay, I'm mad that it's not free software.
It uses the "Aladdin Free Public License" (bottom of http://www.transgaming.com/license.php?source=1), to quote from it:

--- Quote ---[/color][/color]This License is not an Open Source license: among other things, it places restrictions on distribution of the Program, specifically including sale of the Program. While Aladdin Enterprises respects and supports the philosophy of the Open Source Definition, and shares the desire of the GNU project to keep licensed software freely redistributable in both source and object form, we feel that Open Source licenses unfairly prevent developers of useful software from being compensated proportionately when others profit financially from their work. This License attempts to ensure that those who receive, redistribute, and contribute to the licensed Program according to the Open Source and Free Software philosophies have the right to do so, while retaining for the developer(s) of the Program the power to make those who use the Program to enhance the value of commercial products pay for the privilege of doing so.
--- End quote ---
Seems fair enough, but it won't suffice for moi :D

--- Quote from: toadlife ---[/color][/color]"I would never do _x. Unless I really wanted to do _x. Then I would do _x"
--- End quote ---
You appear to have misinterpreted what I said.

--- Quote from: me ---Unless I needed it and could not afford it.
--- End quote ---


--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---I consider the features, cost and compatability with my hardware before I even think about the licence. I don't care whether it's BSD, GPL, or closed source as long as it represents good value for money.
--- End quote ---
I only consider that other stuff after I know that the program is free software. And as far as I'm concerned, when I'm picking programs, BSD licence == GNU GPL.
Closed source... Some chance :D

toadlife:

--- Quote from: piratePenguin --- Little more than FUD eh? I said that it "could" happen, could it not?
--- End quote ---
Sure it could, and from time to time, it does, but you speak with the premise that it is a universally bad thing and/or that only bad can come out of a company adopting and relicensing BSD licensed software.


--- Quote from: piratePenguin --- As for the examples, the only one that I know of Well, it doesn't matter weather it was "the" BSD license. It's was a "BSD Style" license. People still use X today, no? If I'm not mistaken, the picture on my screen is being rendered by Xorg 6.8.x as I type. Companies have taken X, modified it, and sold it, but it has hardly hampered the success of open source X.


--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---But if all the GPLed programs suddenly switched to the BSD licence, wouldn't you think someone (eg, the evil bastards that are MS) would take advantage, especially when the licence allows it (I'm talking about using the BSD licenced code in some program, and distribute it in binary form)?
--- End quote ---

Well, yeah, some "evil companies" might do this, but again I point out your premise. Your focus of your argument is wrapped entirely around the theme of possesion. "Take", "Steal", "Mine", and "Yours" are frequently used words/terms found in GPL advocates' arguments. When making arguments as to why the BSD license, GPL advocates get so wrapped up in these ideas of possesion, that they miss the point of BSD style licenses. Back to the point of why I label the argument FUD. Many people throw the term FUD around a lot without realizing (or conveniently ignoring) the fact that "FUD" is a standard marketing technique that has been used for eons to promote things.

The defenition of FUD from dictionary.com:

"An acronym invented by Gene Amdahl after he left IBM to found his own company: "FUD is the fear, uncertainty, and doubt that IBM sales people instill in the minds of potential customers who might be considering products." The idea, of course, was to persuade them to go with safe IBM gear rather than with competitors' equipment. This implicit coercion was traditionally accomplished by promising that Good Things would happen to people who stuck with IBM, but Dark Shadows loomed over the future of competitors' equipment or software."

When promoting GPL by pointing out a possible bad things that might happen by using a BSD style license, then you are by definition spreading FUD.

Every company partakes in the spreading of FUD.

Here are some examples:
Intel(fanboy) FUD: "AMD chips might not be fully compatible with your software."
linux FUD: "If you use Microsoft products, you can't see the code, and are at the mercy of Microsoft to fix security problems."
Microsoft FUD: "If you use linux, you might have to spend lots of money re-training your sysadmins or hiring new sysadmins to support it."
Political FUD: My opponent wants to take away your Social Security.  

These are common examples of Marketing by FUD. The primary focus lies not on the positive aspects of using the marketer's products, but around the possible negative consequences of using the other guy's product.


--- Quote ---For a start, people/companies have been caught violating the GPL for using GPL licenced code, http://www.gpl-violations.org/.
--- End quote ---
No doubt, the majority of violations stem directly from the complexity of the GPL license. Most violators of the GPL do so in ignorance.


--- Quote ---Cedega and Wine would probably be another (more recent) example (rather than X) but I dunno what licence Wine used to use. It doesn't matter. It's still not free software. And I'm not mad about having to pay, I'm mad that it's not free software.
--- End quote ---

Perhaps you should be more angry that the free software community has failed on this front. If you feel that Cedega should be free, then feel free to take the original Wine and build your own "WineX". The original Wine is still alive and kicking. I took a look at the WinHQ site and noticed that it is licensed under the LGPL. AFAIK, the LGPL is compatible with what Cedega is doing.
--- End quote ---

piratePenguin:

--- Quote from: toadlife ---Sure it could, and from time to time, it does, but you speak with the premise that it is a universally bad thing and/or that only bad can come out of a company adopting and relicensing BSD licensed software.


--- Quote from: piratePenguin --- As for the examples, the only one that I know of Well, it doesn't matter weather it was "the" BSD license. It's was a "BSD Style" license. People still use X today, no? If I'm not mistaken, the picture on my screen is being rendered by Xorg 6.8.x as I type. Companies have taken X, modified it, and sold it, but it has hardly hampered the success of open source X.



Well, yeah, some "evil companies" might do this, but again I point out your premise. Your focus of your argument is wrapped entirely around the theme of possesion. "Take", "Steal", "Mine", and "Yours" are frequently used words/terms found in GPL advocates' arguments. When making arguments as to why the BSD license, GPL advocates get so wrapped up in these ideas of possesion, that they miss the point of BSD style licenses. Back to the point of why I label the argument FUD. Many people throw the term FUD around a lot without realizing (or conveniently ignoring) the fact that "FUD" is a standard marketing technique that has been used for eons to promote things.

The defenition of FUD from dictionary.com:

"An acronym invented by Gene Amdahl after he left IBM to found his own company: "FUD is the fear, uncertainty, and doubt that IBM sales people instill in the minds of potential customers who might be considering products." The idea, of course, was to persuade them to go with safe IBM gear rather than with competitors' equipment. This implicit coercion was traditionally accomplished by promising that Good Things would happen to people who stuck with IBM, but Dark Shadows loomed over the future of competitors' equipment or software."

When promoting GPL by pointing out a possible bad things that might happen by using a BSD style license, then you are by definition spreading FUD.

Every company partakes in the spreading of FUD.

Here are some examples:
Intel(fanboy) FUD: "AMD chips might not be fully compatible with your software."
linux FUD: "If you use Microsoft products, you can't see the code, and are at the mercy of Microsoft to fix security problems."
Microsoft FUD: "If you use linux, you might have to spend lots of money re-training your sysadmins or hiring new sysadmins to support it."
Political FUD: My opponent wants to take away your Social Security.  

These are common examples of Marketing by FUD. The primary focus lies not on the positive aspects of using the marketer's products, but around the possible negative consequences of using the other guy's product.
--- End quote ---
So you obviously think it'd be pretty safe for all the copyright holders using the GPL to relicence their code under the BSD licence. I disagree. If mplayer used the BSD licence, MS could (and probably would, seeing as NOBODY can stop them (the licence allows it)) help themselves and make a kick-ass next WMP release. They'd be ALLOWD to. With the GPL, they are NOT allowd to (unless they used a free software licence (I think that's the way it goes), like the GPL, which they would NOT). That's why I prefer the GPL.



--- Quote from: toadlife ---No doubt, the majority of violations stem directly from the complexity of the GPL license. Most violators of the GPL do so in ignorance.
--- End quote ---
So they run through the code, change a few error messages (not all of them, of course), mess it up a bit, and release it (under some shit non-free software licence). Without looking at the original (GPL) licence? As if the GPL would allow such a thing. Unlike the BSD licence.




--- Quote from: toadlife ---Perhaps you should be more angry that the free software community has failed on this front. If you feel that Cedega should be free, then feel free to take the original Wine and build your own "WineX". The original Wine is still alive and kicking. I took a look at the WinHQ site and noticed that it is licensed under the LGPL. AFAIK, the LGPL is compatible with what Cedega is doing.
--- End quote ---
GNU LGPL qualifies is a free software licence. Cedega's licence does NOT.
The LGPL is used for libraries mainly, so non-free programs can link with them. Other than that I think it's pretty much the same as the GPL.
Wine probably needs the LGPL so Windows applications can link with it's libraries, I think.
Wine wasn't always GPL. If it was, Cedega would either not exist (improvements would go straight into Wine), or it WOULD HAVE TO BE free software (probably with the same subscription fee, which I wouldn't mind paying (if I wanted to play Windows games, which ATM I don't) or recommending).
--- End quote ---

toadlife:

--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---So you obviously think it'd be pretty safe for all the copyright holders using the GPL to relicence their code under the BSD licence. I disagree.

--- End quote ---

I never said that. The GPL can be very usefull (Ask IBM) in certain situations. I just disagree with the idea that not using is inherently bad.


--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---If mplayer used the BSD licence, MS could (and probably would, seeing as NOBODY can stop them (the licence allows it)) help themselves and make a kick-ass next WMP release. They'd be ALLOWD to.
--- End quote ---

Mplayer? Mplayer sucks rocks compared to WMP. You may not agree, but I guarantee you Microsoft would.

You seem to have a deep misunderstanding of Microsoft, it's culture, and it's history. I was going to touch on this in my last post, but forgot. If you look at the roots of the NT kernel you'll notice that it is based upon VMS, which is widely regarded by people who had the pleasure of using or administering it as one of those most stable/kick-ass operating systems ever made.

Dave Cutler, who was the chief architect of VMS, and the cheif architect (read: evil nazi dictator) of NT in it's early days, hated Unix with a passion. Alot of NT's design is based around the widely held belief in the scientific community that UNIX is an old, tired Operating System design which has absoultely no place in today's computing world. For Microsoft to take an OS like BSD and base their next OS on it, would contradict their goals. Their current TCP stack isn't even based on the BSD stack. In earlier versions of NT, it was, but later on, they ended up buying a TCP stack from another company to integrate into Windows 2000 and XP.

Refalm:

--- Quote from: toadlife ---Mplayer? Mplayer sucks rocks compared to WMP.
--- End quote ---

VideoLAN player kicks the ass of WMP, although it can't play WMV's (yet).

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page