Asterisk VoIP ordered not to sell Skype interaction module
Chris Ahlstrom
Having suspended disbelief for as long as I could, my ability to take
Microsoft at their word over Skype was shattered yesterday on hearing the
announcement by Digium, sponsors of the widely-used Asterisk VoIP
project, that they have been told they can no longer sell their
Asterisk-Skype interaction module after July 26. That means it will
become impossible for this VoIP PBX to connect to Skype.
Wottasurprise.
--
May a hundred thousand midgets invade your home singing cheesy lounge-lizard
versions of songs from The Wizard of Oz.
Homer
> http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2011/05/a-liberating-betrayal/
>
> Having suspended disbelief for as long as I could, my ability to
> take Microsoft at their word over Skype was shattered yesterday on
> hearing the announcement by Digium, sponsors of the widely-used
> Asterisk VoIP project, that they have been told they can no longer
> sell their Asterisk-Skype interaction module after July 26. That
> means it will become impossible for this VoIP PBX to connect to
> Skype.
>
> Wottasurprise.
I'm shocked and amazed.
Maybe now the "pragmatists" will shut up and listen. Expecting thugs
like Microsoft to "do the right thing" is like expecting a snake not
to bite. Moreover, this is a perfect example of why it's very stupid
to become dependent on proprietary software. One day you wake up and
find it's simply not there any more. Game over.
--
K. | "The poor have flat-screen TVs."
http://slated.org | ~ Libertarian propagandist Keith
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky | Curtis, explaining why he thinks
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 2 days | we shouldn't tax the rich.
chrisv
>Verily I say unto thee, that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:
>> http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2011/05/a-liberating-betrayal/
>>
>> Having suspended disbelief for as long as I could, my ability to
>> take Microsoft at their word over Skype was shattered yesterday on
>> hearing the announcement by Digium, sponsors of the widely-used
>> Asterisk VoIP project, that they have been told they can no longer
>> sell their Asterisk-Skype interaction module after July 26. That
>> means it will become impossible for this VoIP PBX to connect to
>> Skype.
>>
>> Wottasurprise.
>
>I'm shocked and amazed.
>
>Maybe now the "pragmatists" will shut up and listen. Expecting thugs
>like Microsoft to "do the right thing" is like expecting a snake not
>to bite. Moreover, this is a perfect example of why it's very stupid
>to become dependent on proprietary software. One day you wake up and
>find it's simply not there any more. Game over.
This makes me think about mono.
--
"Mono is a wonderful attempt to bring applications developed for
Windows to the Linux desktop" - "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark
Wendy Toiletwater
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:260qt6hspj6ambajn...@4ax.com...
>
> This makes me think about mono.
I wish you would think about sliting 'em long and deep.
"chrisv" is a liar. "chrisv" is a useless piece of shit.
flatfish+++
> http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2011/05/a-liberating-betrayal/
>
> Having suspended disbelief for as long as I could, my ability to take
> Microsoft at their word over Skype was shattered yesterday on hearing the
> announcement by Digium, sponsors of the widely-used Asterisk VoIP
> project, that they have been told they can no longer sell their
> Asterisk-Skype interaction module after July 26. That means it will
> become impossible for this VoIP PBX to connect to Skype.
>
> Wottasurprise.
Maybe they don't want Linux crap ware slowing down the system.
Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
--
flatfish+++
Please visit our hall of Linux idiots.
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Watching Linux Fail:
http://limuxwatch.blogspot.com/
Desktop Linux: The Dream Is Dead
"By the time Microsoft released the Windows 7 beta
in January 2009, Linux had clearly lost its chance at desktop glory."
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/207999/desktop_linux_the_dream_is_dead.html
Tom Shelton
> http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2011/05/a-liberating-betrayal/
>
> Having suspended disbelief for as long as I could, my ability to take
> Microsoft at their word over Skype was shattered yesterday on hearing the
> announcement by Digium, sponsors of the widely-used Asterisk VoIP
> project, that they have been told they can no longer sell their
> Asterisk-Skype interaction module after July 26. That means it will
> become impossible for this VoIP PBX to connect to Skype.
>
> Wottasurprise.
I'm not sure what influance MS could have had on this... The deal
hasn't even been approved yet - so, at this point MS doesn't officially
own Skype. And looking at some other articles on this, it maybe that
Skype is developing a new generic SIP based interface to skype that can
then be used in pretty much any PBX.
Anyway, I guess it remains to be seen.
--
Tom Shelton
cc
> Verily I say unto thee, that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:
>
>
> > Having suspended disbelief for as long as I could, my ability to
> > take Microsoft at their word over Skype was shattered yesterday on
> > hearing the announcement by Digium, sponsors of the widely-used
> > Asterisk VoIP project, that they have been told they can no longer
> > sell their Asterisk-Skype interaction module after July 26. That
> > means it will become impossible for this VoIP PBX to connect to
> > Skype.
>
> > Wottasurprise.
>
> I'm shocked and amazed.
>
> Maybe now the "pragmatists" will shut up and listen. Expecting thugs
> like Microsoft to "do the right thing" is like expecting a snake not
> to bite. Moreover, this is a perfect example of why it's very stupid
> to become dependent on proprietary software. One day you wake up and
> find it's simply not there any more. Game over.
>
One day you wake up and you find your favorite yogurt simply is not
there any more. Game over.
One day you wake up and you find your favorite brand of chips simply
is not there any more. Game over.
One day you wake up and you find your favorite brand of car simply is
not there any more. Game over.
One day you wake up and you find your favorite brand of TV simply is
not there any more. Game over.
One day you wake up and you find your favorite band simply is not
there any more. Game over.
One day you wake up and you find your favorite brand of chair simply
is not there any more. Game over.
One day you wake up and you find your favorite Linux distro simply is
not there any more and no one is taking up the support/development.
Game over.
I could go on and on. What you should have said was, "Moreover, this
is a perfect example of why it's very stupid to be dependent on a very
specific thing created by anyone else whether open or proprietary
because shit happens that you have no control over. Learn to be
comfortable with alternatives."
flatfish+++
> One day you wake up and you find your favorite yogurt simply is not
> there any more. Game over.
> One day you wake up and you find your favorite brand of chips simply
> is not there any more. Game over.
> One day you wake up and you find your favorite brand of car simply is
> not there any more. Game over.
> One day you wake up and you find your favorite brand of TV simply is
> not there any more. Game over.
> One day you wake up and you find your favorite band simply is not
> there any more. Game over.
> One day you wake up and you find your favorite brand of chair simply
> is not there any more. Game over.
> One day you wake up and you find your favorite Linux distro simply is
> not there any more and no one is taking up the support/development.
> Game over.
>
> I could go on and on. What you should have said was, "Moreover, this
> is a perfect example of why it's very stupid to be dependent on a very
> specific thing created by anyone else whether open or proprietary
> because shit happens that you have no control over. Learn to be
> comfortable with alternatives."
The sitcom Married With Children actually did an episode on this
concept.
Peg's favorite bra, the XYZ6923 (or something like that) was
discontinued and she was having a break down because of it.
Life goes on.
If Windows disappeared tomorrow, I would move to a Mac.
In the FOSS/Linux world though they are so used to supporting that never
extinct 9 pin dot matrix printer circa 1983 that they haven't learned to
let go and move on.
It's their mindset.
Tom Shelton
> http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2011/05/a-liberating-betrayal/
>
> Having suspended disbelief for as long as I could, my ability to take
> Microsoft at their word over Skype was shattered yesterday on hearing the
> announcement by Digium, sponsors of the widely-used Asterisk VoIP
> project, that they have been told they can no longer sell their
> Asterisk-Skype interaction module after July 26. That means it will
> become impossible for this VoIP PBX to connect to Skype.
>
> Wottasurprise.
Ok a little more research... I think you and this blogger are confused:
<quote>
Skype's decision not to renew the agreement with Digium is a sign it
going forward will "open up" to the external community more through
Skype Connect, rather than continuing to support specific proprietary
solutions for individual vendors, Steve Blood, research vice president
and agenda manager at Gartner, said via e-mail.
Connect allows Skype to be integrated with PBXs based on SIP (Session
Initiation Protocol), including products from Avaya, Cisco Systems and
3CX. There are also gateways -- from, for example, AudioCodes and
Grandstream -- that allow Skype to be integrated with PBXs that are not
SIP-enabled.
</quote>
They are moving away from one-off proprietary solutions. They are
moving to use Skype Connect - a SIP based interface - that allows them
to focus on the larger market. There is nothing to see here - Astrisk
will still be able to connect to skype, through the SIP interface.
As the article says:
<quote>
Asterisk expert Olle E. Johansson, CEO at Swedish consultancy Edvina,
agrees: "It may be tempting to come up with elaborate conspiracy
theories, but I think the announcement comes too close to the deal with
Microsoft for it to have had an effect," he said.
</quote>
You guys are just paranoid... It seems to me skype is making a sound
business move that in the end, really shouldn't hurt Astrisk at all. I
would think a more generic open solution is in everyones best interest.
--
Tom Shelton
cc
How many distros/open source apps have gone belly up? Sure the
possibility exists that someone could continue the work, but that's
the only difference between that and proprietary software being
discontinued (and it's a small difference since someone could always
buy out the proprietary stuff and continue developing as well). In
practice how often has that happened anyway? I guess I'm just
reinterating your point, life goes on. This isn't an inherent problem
with proprietary software, just life in general.
Chris Ahlstrom
> Chris Ahlstrom was thinking very hard :
>> http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2011/05/a-liberating-betrayal/
>>
>> Having suspended disbelief for as long as I could, my ability to take
>> Microsoft at their word over Skype was shattered yesterday on hearing the
>> announcement by Digium, sponsors of the widely-used Asterisk VoIP
>> project, that they have been told they can no longer sell their
>> Asterisk-Skype interaction module after July 26. That means it will
>> become impossible for this VoIP PBX to connect to Skype.
>>
>> Wottasurprise.
>
> Ok a little more research... I think you and this blogger are confused:
Not me, since I simply took the fellow at his word.
> http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/228624/skype_kills_integration_with_open_source_pbx_asterisk.html
>
> <quote>
> Skype's decision not to renew the agreement with Digium is a sign it
> going forward will "open up" to the external community more through
> Skype Connect, rather than continuing to support specific proprietary
> solutions for individual vendors, Steve Blood, research vice president
> and agenda manager at Gartner, said via e-mail.
>
> Connect allows Skype to be integrated with PBXs based on SIP (Session
> Initiation Protocol), including products from Avaya, Cisco Systems and
> 3CX. There are also gateways -- from, for example, AudioCodes and
> Grandstream -- that allow Skype to be integrated with PBXs that are not
> SIP-enabled.
> </quote>
>
> They are moving away from one-off proprietary solutions. They are
> moving to use Skype Connect - a SIP based interface - that allows them
> to focus on the larger market. There is nothing to see here - Astrisk
> will still be able to connect to skype, through the SIP interface.
Well, that's a relief (I think), and thanks for the follow-on info.
> As the article says:
>
> <quote>
> Asterisk expert Olle E. Johansson, CEO at Swedish consultancy Edvina,
> agrees: "It may be tempting to come up with elaborate conspiracy
> theories, but I think the announcement comes too close to the deal with
> Microsoft for it to have had an effect," he said.
> </quote>
>
> You guys are just paranoid...
You guys always paint with too broad a brush.
Arno Jolink, CEO at Dutch communications technology vendor IsraPunt,
thinks the deal with Microsoft affected Skype's decision.
> It seems to me skype is making a sound
> business move that in the end, really shouldn't hurt Astrisk at all. I
> would think a more generic open solution is in everyones best interest.
I'll be a little more watchful of this Simon Phipps blogger.
--
Do you know Montana?
Tom Shelton
> Tom Shelton wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> Chris Ahlstrom was thinking very hard :
>>>
>>> http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2011/05/a-liberating-betrayal/
>>>
>>> Having suspended disbelief for as long as I could, my ability to take
>>> Microsoft at their word over Skype was shattered yesterday on hearing
>>> the announcement by Digium, sponsors of the widely-used Asterisk VoIP
>>> project, that they have been told they can no longer sell their
>>> Asterisk-Skype interaction module after July 26. That means it will
>>> become impossible for this VoIP PBX to connect to Skype.
>>>
>>> Wottasurprise.
>>
>> Ok a little more research... I think you and this blogger are confused:
>
> Not me, since I simply took the fellow at his word.
>
Ok :)
>> http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/228624/skype_kills_integration_with_open_source_pbx_asterisk.html
>>
>> <quote>
>> Skype's decision not to renew the agreement with Digium is a sign it
>> going forward will "open up" to the external community more through
>> Skype Connect, rather than continuing to support specific proprietary
>> solutions for individual vendors, Steve Blood, research vice president
>> and agenda manager at Gartner, said via e-mail.
>>
>> Connect allows Skype to be integrated with PBXs based on SIP (Session
>> Initiation Protocol), including products from Avaya, Cisco Systems and
>> 3CX. There are also gateways -- from, for example, AudioCodes and
>> Grandstream -- that allow Skype to be integrated with PBXs that are not
>> SIP-enabled.
>> </quote>
>>
>> They are moving away from one-off proprietary solutions. They are
>> moving to use Skype Connect - a SIP based interface - that allows them
>> to focus on the larger market. There is nothing to see here - Astrisk
>> will still be able to connect to skype, through the SIP interface.
>
> Well, that's a relief (I think), and thanks for the follow-on info.
>
NP.
>> As the article says:
>>
>> <quote>
>> Asterisk expert Olle E. Johansson, CEO at Swedish consultancy Edvina,
>> agrees: "It may be tempting to come up with elaborate conspiracy
>> theories, but I think the announcement comes too close to the deal with
>> Microsoft for it to have had an effect," he said.
>> </quote>
>>
>> You guys are just paranoid...
>
> You guys always paint with too broad a brush.
>
Yeah - your right.
> Arno Jolink, CEO at Dutch communications technology vendor IsraPunt,
> thinks the deal with Microsoft affected Skype's decision.
>
Well, it might have indirectly. I read somewhere else, that Skype may
be trying to get it's financial house in order before it's new
overlords take over :)
--
Tom Shelton
DFS
That's something an adult would say. These cola "advocates" are
shrieking spoiled freetard children who think MS\proprietary world owes
them something.
JEDIDIAH
Nope.
That's a very common corporate and military general policy.
You should strive not to make yourself dependent on a single source of
something. It might go away or be altered to the point where it's not of
any use to you any more. The supplier might discontinue the product or go
out of business entirely.
--
Apple: Because if it's not from the iTunes store,
then it's pirated. |||
/ | \
JEDIDIAH
I liked someone's response to ARM where they were mocking that
proprietary app scattershot approach. Take that and apply it to MacOS.
>
> In the FOSS/Linux world though they are so used to supporting that never
> extinct 9 pin dot matrix printer circa 1983 that they haven't learned to
You like to belittle stuff like this but it is actually in current use
by businesses that actually generate revenue, employ people and otherwise
are of benefit to the economy.
The fact that you can't imagine why someone outside of your basement
might find something useful is not terribly relevant.
Homer
> One day you wake up and you find your favorite yogurt simply is not
> there any more. Game over.
Yoghurt is not encumbered by "IP" that suppresses the knowledge and
rights necessary to make and distribute it. I can exactly recreate my
favourite yoghurt at home, and even sell it to others, under a different
name. I cannot do that with proprietary software. The software is
copyrighted and published under a monopolistic license that prohibits
copying. The software and protocols are invariably also patented.
Neither yoghurt nor the method necessary to make it is copyrighted or
patented. I have the right to see it, use it, know how it's made, make
it, modify it, distribute it, sell it, and continue doing so
autonomously for as long as I want. I have no such rights with
proprietary software.
> [ chips, car, TV, band, chair, Linux distro ]
The same goes for all the other items in your list, except (notably) the
one that produces restrictive "IP" - the band.
"IP" is anti-capitalist, in fact it's a very cynical attack on
capitalism. It undermines the basic principle of the sale of goods,
transforming it into a sort of rental scam. Were this to be applied to
all forms of real property, real property would simply cease to exist.
We'd be left with a society of people who own nothing, and were just
slaves to an elite minority of Intellectual Monopolists.
flatfish+++
> "IP" is anti-capitalist, in fact it's a very cynical attack on
> capitalism. It undermines the basic principle of the sale of goods,
> transforming it into a sort of rental scam. Were this to be applied to
> all forms of real property, real property would simply cease to exist.
> We'd be left with a society of people who own nothing, and were just
> slaves to an elite minority of Intellectual Monopolists.
I don't recall you ever telling that to Mark Kent [Homer]......
Maybe I missed it?
Homer
> Homer wrote:
>> Maybe now the "pragmatists" will shut up and listen. Expecting thugs
>> like Microsoft to "do the right thing" is like expecting a snake not
>> to bite. Moreover, this is a perfect example of why it's very stupid
>> to become dependent on proprietary software. One day you wake up and
>> find it's simply not there any more. Game over.
>
> This makes me think about mono.
That is just one "IP" problem from just one company, albeit one of the
most vicious and ruthless.
It's always more prudent to choose the unencumbered solution /if/ that
solution is available. If it isn't, then it's a matter of urgency that
you help create it, if you value your own freedom.
Tom Shelton
> Verily I say unto thee, that chrisv spake thusly:
>> Homer wrote:
>
>>> Maybe now the "pragmatists" will shut up and listen. Expecting thugs
>>> like Microsoft to "do the right thing" is like expecting a snake not
>>> to bite. Moreover, this is a perfect example of why it's very stupid
>>> to become dependent on proprietary software. One day you wake up and
>>> find it's simply not there any more. Game over.
>>
>> This makes me think about mono.
>
> That is just one "IP" problem from just one company, albeit one of the
> most vicious and ruthless.
>
> It's always more prudent to choose the unencumbered solution /if/ that
> solution is available. If it isn't, then it's a matter of urgency that
> you help create it, if you value your own freedom.
You know Homer - why don't you go do some research before you start
flinging wild accusations and conspiracy theories.
Discontinuation of this product has nothing to do with MS...
--
Tom Shelton
Homer
> Tom Shelton wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>> <quote>
>> Skype's decision not to renew the agreement with Digium is a sign it
>> going forward will "open up" to the external community more through
>> Skype Connect, rather than continuing to support specific proprietary
>> solutions for individual vendors, Steve Blood, research vice
>> president and agenda manager at Gartner, said via e-mail.
>>
>> Connect allows Skype to be integrated with PBXs based on SIP (Session
>> Initiation Protocol), including products from Avaya, Cisco Systems
>> and 3CX. There are also gateways -- from, for example, AudioCodes and
>> Grandstream -- that allow Skype to be integrated with PBXs that are
>> not SIP-enabled.
>> </quote>
>>
>> They are moving away from one-off proprietary solutions. They are
>> moving to use Skype Connect - a SIP based interface - that allows
>> them to focus on the larger market. There is nothing to see here -
>> Astrisk will still be able to connect to skype, through the SIP
>> interface.
>
> Well, that's a relief (I think), and thanks for the follow-on info.
It's a nice spin but the reality is that Asterisk has been booted out of
Skype, and must join the back of the queue for Skype's SIP gateway, as a
second-class citizen. It remains to be seen how well this "beta" gateway
performs compared to using Skype's protocols natively on the PBX, and it
also remains to be seen how well (and how long) Skype will support these
third parties.
But frankly, this is all Asterisk's fault for depending on a proprietary
protocol, and a proprietary software vendor, in the first place.
Lesson learned.
Tom Shelton
I thought you were a big supporter of standards? Skype is moving to a
standard SIP interface. Are you saying that Astrick doesn't support
SIP? Or, do you think it's better to continue to support a one-off,
proprietary interface?
--
Tom Shelton
Snit
> Verily I say unto thee, that chrisv spake thusly:
>> Homer wrote:
>
>>> Maybe now the "pragmatists" will shut up and listen. Expecting thugs
>>> like Microsoft to "do the right thing" is like expecting a snake not
>>> to bite. Moreover, this is a perfect example of why it's very stupid
>>> to become dependent on proprietary software. One day you wake up and
>>> find it's simply not there any more. Game over.
>>
>> This makes me think about mono.
>
> That is just one "IP" problem from just one company, albeit one of the
> most vicious and ruthless.
>
> It's always more prudent to choose the unencumbered solution /if/ that
> solution is available. If it isn't, then it's a matter of urgency that
> you help create it, if you value your own freedom.
Wait: are you concerned with your own freedom or the freedom of the code?
In the past you talked about the latter, which makes no more sense than
talking about the freedom of chairs.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
flatfish+++
hehehehe!
Can't wait to see [Homer]'s answer on this one....
An Old Friend
CA02EA3F.993C0%use...@gallopinginsanity.com in stone using Trajan:
But they deserve to be free too!! It's the only chair-itable thing to
do! :)
In all seriousness, I do feel Homer is trying to say that when the code is
free, people are freer overall.
Snit
PM:
You have to be chairful how you say such things!
> In all seriousness, I do feel Homer is trying to say that when the code is
> free, people are freer overall.
But he talks about restricting what people can do to make sure the code is
free.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Homer
> On Wed, 25 May 2011 17:17:51 -0700, Snit chiseled
> CA02EA3F.993C0%use...@gallopinginsanity.com in stone using Trajan:
>> Homer stated in post 40g0b8-...@sky.matrix on 5/25/11 4:29 PM:
>>> It's always more prudent to choose the unencumbered solution /if/
>>> that solution is available. If it isn't, then it's a matter of
>>> urgency that you help create it, if you value your own freedom.
>>
>> Wait: are you concerned with your own freedom or the freedom of the
>> code? In the past you talked about the latter, which makes no more
>> sense than talking about the freedom of chairs.
>
> But they deserve to be free too!! It's the only chair-itable thing to
> do! :)
>
> In all seriousness, I do feel Homer is trying to say that when the
> code is free, people are freer overall.
Snit is an idiot if he thinks freedom is anything to do with inanimate
objects. The GPL, copyrights, the law, and every moral argument about
freedom pertains to /people/ and /their/ rights, not the objects they
use. The freedom of Free Software is /my rights/ to that software, not
the "rights" of the software itself.
I knew Snit was obtuse, but he's now reached a new low in stupidity.
An Old Friend
CA03012C.993EC%use...@gallopinginsanity.com in stone using Trajan:
Sometimes making small concessions puts everyone on the same level;
offering the same freedoms to everyone. The best example I can think of
outside software is this: we in the US agree that making some restrictions
to free speech (shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, libel and slander)
allows everyone to exercise freedom of speech within those restrictions.
But our speech isn't truly "free" because of those restrictions.
Tom Shelton
> Verily I say unto thee, that An Old Friend spake thusly:
>> On Wed, 25 May 2011 17:17:51 -0700, Snit chiseled
>> CA02EA3F.993C0%use...@gallopinginsanity.com in stone using Trajan:
>>> Homer stated in post 40g0b8-...@sky.matrix on 5/25/11 4:29 PM:
>
>>>> It's always more prudent to choose the unencumbered solution /if/
>>>> that solution is available. If it isn't, then it's a matter of
>>>> urgency that you help create it, if you value your own freedom.
>>>
>>> Wait: are you concerned with your own freedom or the freedom of the
>>> code? In the past you talked about the latter, which makes no more
>>> sense than talking about the freedom of chairs.
>>
>> But they deserve to be free too!! It's the only chair-itable thing to
>> do! :)
>>
>> In all seriousness, I do feel Homer is trying to say that when the
>> code is free, people are freer overall.
>
> Snit is an idiot if he thinks freedom is anything to do with inanimate
> objects. The GPL, copyrights, the law, and every moral argument about
> freedom pertains to /people/ and /their/ rights, not the objects they
> use. The freedom of Free Software is /my rights/ to that software, not
> the "rights" of the software itself.
>
> I knew Snit was obtuse, but he's now reached a new low in stupidity.
Well Homer - you don't have the RIGHT to some elses work. If someone
wants to give it away, that's their business - but to imply there is
something immoral about profiting from your own hardwork... Well,
that's just plain stupid.
--
Tom Shelton
Snit
> Verily I say unto thee, that An Old Friend spake thusly:
>> On Wed, 25 May 2011 17:17:51 -0700, Snit chiseled
>> CA02EA3F.993C0%use...@gallopinginsanity.com in stone using Trajan:
>>> Homer stated in post 40g0b8-...@sky.matrix on 5/25/11 4:29 PM:
>
>>>> It's always more prudent to choose the unencumbered solution /if/
>>>> that solution is available. If it isn't, then it's a matter of
>>>> urgency that you help create it, if you value your own freedom.
>>>
>>> Wait: are you concerned with your own freedom or the freedom of the
>>> code? In the past you talked about the latter, which makes no more
>>> sense than talking about the freedom of chairs.
>>
>> But they deserve to be free too!! It's the only chair-itable thing to
>> do! :)
>>
>> In all seriousness, I do feel Homer is trying to say that when the
>> code is free, people are freer overall.
>
> Snit is an idiot if he thinks freedom is anything to do with inanimate
> objects.
I am glad to see you changed your mind to agree with me that software is not
what should have freedom.
Homer:
-----
A vendor merely using Free Software should not endanger that
software's freedom. Unfortunately that isn't the case with
the BSD license.
-----
As I told you then, it is not the software's freedom that matters, but
*people's* freedom. And the BSD license has fewer restrictions - thus it
offers people more freedom. You prefer a license with greater restrictions
- and I have no problem with that.
> The GPL, copyrights, the law, and every moral argument about freedom pertains
> to /people/ and /their/ rights, not the objects they use. The freedom of Free
> Software is /my rights/ to that software, not the "rights" of the software
> itself.
Good to see your thinking on this has grown. Excellent, really.
> I knew Snit was obtuse, but he's now reached a new low in stupidity.
Huh? You are the one who has, in the past, talked about the importance of
software having freedoms. Not me. And you used to claim it was so
important for the software to be free that it was worth it to you to limit
the freedom of people (as the GPL does).
What is your current view?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
Homer has spoken in length about how the freedom of the code is more
important to him than the freedom of the people - hence why he supports
limiting freedom to people through the GPL as opposed to offering more
choice and freedom with the BSD license. Now he calls me names because he
claims to have had a change of heart and agree with me that it is not the
software where the freedom lies.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
PM:
There are times when limiting freedoms is best for all. Sure. And frankly
I think people should be free to use whatever license they want: GPL, BSD or
a more common commercial type (though I do think some stipulations can be
immoral and/or illegal). When Homer talks about how people should be forced
to use the GPL (or to be forced to use similar licenses), he is limiting
human freedom for the sake of freedom for code... which is sorta silly. And
when he speaks against the GPL because it allows too much freedom for people
at the expense of freedom for the code, that is a bit loony. Not that there
are not reasons to support the GPL over the BSD license - like and use what
you want - but his past comments about software freedom were a bit loony.
> The best example I can think of outside software is this: we in the US agree
> that making some restrictions to free speech (shouting "fire" in a crowded
> theater, libel and slander) allows everyone to exercise freedom of speech
> within those restrictions. But our speech isn't truly "free" because of those
> restrictions.
Sure. No proble, with that at all.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
flatfish+++
But sadly that's the freetard way.....
Homer
> Sometimes making small concessions puts everyone on the same level;
> offering the same freedoms to everyone. The best example I can think
> of outside software is this: we in the US agree that making some
> restrictions to free speech (shouting "fire" in a crowded theater,
> libel and slander) allows everyone to exercise freedom of speech
> within those restrictions. But our speech isn't truly "free" because
> of those restrictions.
This is hardly a radical concept, it's the basis for every law in the
world. People's freedoms must be limited to preclude the "freedom" to
do harm. That's why people are not free to commit murder for example.
Free Software gives people the freedom to use, modify, distribute and
study the software, provided they extend those same freedoms to those
who use their modifications and contributions, and don't "do harm" by
removing those freedoms.
Proprietary software offers no freedoms at all, beyond the ability to
use the software under highly restrictive conditions.
Freedom of speech in the US goes too far in the other direction. It's
/too/ free, because it permits the freedom to do harm. There are laws
that prohibit violent behaviour, but /none/ that prohibit racism, for
example. And whilst laws restricting violent speech are non-existent,
laws inhibiting basic liberties have spiralled out of control, to the
extent that a police officer's disabled child is treated worse than a
terrorist at the airport, just because he needs crutches.
The only people who seem to have difficulty understanding the concept
of freedom are those with no moral conscience who are intent on doing
harm, and either begrudge laws that prohibit them doing so, or berate
those who campaign for the law to be changed to stop them. Discussing
freedom with such people is a futile exercise. They're not interested
in justice, they're only interested in their "right" to do wrong, for
their own selfish benefit.
DFS
MS is far too big and important to fail. It has been since the mid-90s.
But you keep hope alive, you heah me JED!?!
Chris Ahlstrom
> Homer wrote on 5/25/2011 :
>> Verily I say unto thee, that An Old Friend spake thusly:
>>>
>>> In all seriousness, I do feel Homer is trying to say that when the
>>> code is free, people are freer overall.
>>
>> Snit is an idiot if he thinks freedom is anything to do with inanimate
>> objects. The GPL, copyrights, the law, and every moral argument about
>> freedom pertains to /people/ and /their/ rights, not the objects they
>> use. The freedom of Free Software is /my rights/ to that software, not
>> the "rights" of the software itself.
>>
>> I knew Snit was obtuse, but he's now reached a new low in stupidity.
>
> Well Homer - you don't have the RIGHT to some elses work. If someone
> wants to give it away, that's their business - but to imply there is
> something immoral about profiting from your own hardwork...
That's a strange deduction.
--
Computer Science is merely the post-Turing decline in formal systems theory.
Snit
Homer has repeatedly said he finds it immoral for people to want to keep
their own work to themselves - or, on the opposite side, to make their work
too free with a license such as the BSD license. He thinks people have an
obligation to use something like the GPL when protecting their IP rights.
He repeats this over and over and over - but offers no real defense for his
view.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
> Verily I say unto thee, that An Old Friend spake thusly:
>
>> Sometimes making small concessions puts everyone on the same level;
>> offering the same freedoms to everyone. The best example I can think
>> of outside software is this: we in the US agree that making some
>> restrictions to free speech (shouting "fire" in a crowded theater,
>> libel and slander) allows everyone to exercise freedom of speech
>> within those restrictions. But our speech isn't truly "free" because
>> of those restrictions.
>
> This is hardly a radical concept, it's the basis for every law in the
> world. People's freedoms must be limited to preclude the "freedom" to
> do harm. That's why people are not free to commit murder for example.
The idea that freedoms should be limited is not in question.
> Free Software gives people the freedom to use, modify, distribute and
> study the software, provided they extend those same freedoms to those
> who use their modifications and contributions, and don't "do harm" by
> removing those freedoms.
You are not doing harm to protect your IP in some other way. You are not
doing harm by allowing greater openness - or less - with your own work.
> Proprietary software offers no freedoms at all, beyond the ability to
> use the software under highly restrictive conditions.
You love to make it sound like people are obligated to put their own
property into communal hands. But why? For those of us who do not accept
these Communist ideals by the same intuition you do, why should we?
> Freedom of speech in the US goes too far in the other direction. It's
> /too/ free, because it permits the freedom to do harm. There are laws
> that prohibit violent behaviour, but /none/ that prohibit racism, for
> example.
You cannot outlaw racism. You can outlaw racist acts... though it is often
hard to prove.
> And whilst laws restricting violent speech are non-existent,
Huh? Where? Inciting a riot, for example, is illegal.
> laws inhibiting basic liberties have spiralled out of control, to the
> extent that a police officer's disabled child is treated worse than a
> terrorist at the airport, just because he needs crutches.
>
> The only people who seem to have difficulty understanding the concept
> of freedom are those with no moral conscience who are intent on doing
> harm, and either begrudge laws that prohibit them doing so, or berate
> those who campaign for the law to be changed to stop them.
You assume anyone who does not share your intuition about community
ownership is immoral. But you cannot defend it. And since you do not
extend your Communist ideals to other forms of property, you are
inconsistent in your views.
> Discussing freedom with such people is a futile exercise. They're not
> interested in justice, they're only interested in their "right" to do wrong,
> for their own selfish benefit.
Your belief that private ownership is "wrong" is not shared by others.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Hadron
> Chris Ahlstrom was thinking very hard :
>> http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2011/05/a-liberating-betrayal/
>>
>> Having suspended disbelief for as long as I could, my ability to take
>> Microsoft at their word over Skype was shattered yesterday on hearing the
>> announcement by Digium, sponsors of the widely-used Asterisk VoIP
>> project, that they have been told they can no longer sell their
>> Asterisk-Skype interaction module after July 26. That means it will
>> become impossible for this VoIP PBX to connect to Skype.
>>
>> Wottasurprise.
>
> Ok a little more research... I think you and this blogger are
> confused:
Confused? The nasty little hypocrite didnt even read the article he
responded to.
You give Ahlstrom FAR too much credit.
Hadron
He doesnt know. He once claimed he was going to make a GPL 3 compliant
Linux distro.
When Android started supporting closed source Flash and Apple continued
to oppose it suddenly Adobe was "ok". See the recent Essentials thread
to see how the denser "advocates", like Ahlstrom, quickly forget their
previous claims. Liars need to have good memories.
Chris Ahlstrom
Sure I did, "Hadron". Did you?
> You give Ahlstrom FAR too much credit.
Pfffft. You're a goober.
--
The game of life is a game of boomerangs. Our thoughts, deeds and words
return to us sooner or later with astounding accuracy.
Chris Ahlstrom
> When Android started supporting closed source Flash and Apple continued
> to oppose it suddenly Adobe was "ok". See the recent Essentials thread
> to see how the denser "advocates", like Ahlstrom, quickly forget their
> previous claims. Liars need to have good memories.
What the fsck is this troll yammering about?
--
If your happiness depends on what somebody else does, I guess you do
have a problem.
-- Richard Bach, "Illusions"
chrisv
>>
>> One day you wake up and you find your favorite yogurt simply is not
>> there any more. Game over.
Listen up, ccretin.
It's a one thing to switch brands of yogurt or whatever, quite another
thing to switch a key component that your business relies-upon. One
is a mere annoyance, the other can be tragically expensive.
When your livelihood depends on something being there, it's smart
business to know that the supplier can't pull the rug out from under
you.
William Poaster
> Hadron wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> When Android started supporting closed source Flash and Apple continued
>> to oppose it suddenly Adobe was "ok". See the recent Essentials thread
>> to see how the denser "advocates", like Ahlstrom, quickly forget their
>> previous claims. Liars need to have good memories.
>
> What the fsck is this troll yammering about?
The usual drivel from the M$ zealot.
--
XPN :: http://xpn.altervista.org
"Microsoft has vast resources, literally billions of dollars in cash, or liquid assets reserves.
Microsoft is an incredibly successful empire built on the premise of market dominance with low-quality goods."
-- Former White House adviser Richard A. Clarke --
chrisv
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> When Android started supporting closed source Flash and Apple continued
>> to oppose it suddenly Adobe was "ok". See the recent Essentials thread
>> to see how the denser "advocates", like Ahlstrom, quickly forget their
>> previous claims. Liars need to have good memories.
>
>What the fsck is this troll yammering about?
Who the fsck knows? Flash is a reality today, and there's nothing
wrong with having the ability to view it, while pushing for more open
standards. It's cross-platform, at least.
--
"the amount of major Android releases in the past 2 years suggests
something wasn't done properly" - "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark
Homer
Tom must be popping stoopid pills this week.
I quite clearly stated I was referring to my rights to /Free/ Software,
not /all/ software. That's exactly why I prefer Free Software, after
all, because it grants me those rights.
Then there's his even stranger deduction that my having rights to
others' software somehow precludes them from profiting by it.
I have the rights granted by the GPL, and other liberal software
licences, to software sold by Red Hat and others, and yet I don't
exactly see them losing money ... quite the contrary.
He has the unsurprisingly narrow-minded and indoctrinated world view of
an archetypal Microsoft thinker. It's a disease. Psychologists should
devote a whole branch of medical science to its pathology.
--
K. | "The poor have flat-screen TVs."
http://slated.org | ~ Libertarian propagandist Keith
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky | Curtis, explaining why he thinks
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 3 days | we shouldn't tax the rich.
Homer
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> When Android started supporting closed source Flash and Apple
>>> continued to oppose it suddenly Adobe was "ok". See the recent
>>> Essentials thread to see how the denser "advocates", like Ahlstrom,
>>> quickly forget their previous claims. Liars need to have good
>>> memories.
>>
>> What the fsck is this troll yammering about?
>
> Who the fsck knows? Flash is a reality today, and there's nothing
> wrong with having the ability to view it, while pushing for more open
> standards. It's cross-platform, at least.
And there are Free implementations of it, unlike the Skype protocol.
flatfish+++
> Verily I say unto thee, that chrisv spake thusly:
>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>
>>>> When Android started supporting closed source Flash and Apple
>>>> continued to oppose it suddenly Adobe was "ok". See the recent
>>>> Essentials thread to see how the denser "advocates", like Ahlstrom,
>>>> quickly forget their previous claims. Liars need to have good
>>>> memories.
>>>
>>> What the fsck is this troll yammering about?
>>
>> Who the fsck knows? Flash is a reality today, and there's nothing
>> wrong with having the ability to view it, while pushing for more open
>> standards. It's cross-platform, at least.
>
> And there are Free implementations of it, unlike the Skype protocol.
Yea.
If you don't mind buggy software.
Snit
> Verily I say unto thee, that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:
>> Tom Shelton wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>> Homer wrote on 5/25/2011 :
>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that An Old Friend spake thusly:
>>>>>
>>>>> In all seriousness, I do feel Homer is trying to say that when the
>>>>> code is free, people are freer overall.
>>>>
>>>> Snit is an idiot if he thinks freedom is anything to do with
>>>> inanimate objects. The GPL, copyrights, the law, and every moral
>>>> argument about freedom pertains to /people/ and /their/ rights, not
>>>> the objects they use. The freedom of Free Software is /my rights/ to
>>>> that software, not the "rights" of the software itself.
>>>>
>>>> I knew Snit was obtuse, but he's now reached a new low in stupidity.
>>>
>>> Well Homer - you don't have the RIGHT to some elses work. If someone
>>> wants to give it away, that's their business - but to imply there is
>>> something immoral about profiting from your own hardwork...
>>
>> That's a strange deduction.
>
> Tom must be popping stoopid pills this week.
>
> I quite clearly stated I was referring to my rights to /Free/ Software,
> not /all/ software. That's exactly why I prefer Free Software, after
> all, because it grants me those rights.
But elsewhere you have made it clear you think it is immoral for people to
not place their own software into communal hands.
> Then there's his even stranger deduction that my having rights to
> others' software somehow precludes them from profiting by it.
If you have the rights to their software without paying for it, it greatly
reduces their ability to sell it to you.
> I have the rights granted by the GPL, and other liberal software
> licences, to software sold by Red Hat and others, and yet I don't
> exactly see them losing money ... quite the contrary.
They sell support.
> He has the unsurprisingly narrow-minded and indoctrinated world view of
> an archetypal Microsoft thinker. It's a disease. Psychologists should
> devote a whole branch of medical science to its pathology.
This has nothing to do with Microsoft. You are just paranoid.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
tuco
useless shit "chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:ibjst65hmkjf30o2t...@4ax.com...
>> ccretin wrote:
>>>
>>> One day you wake up and you find your favorite yogurt simply is not
>>> there any more. Game over.
>
> Listen up, ccretin.
>
listen up, turd. fsck off and die you worthless piece of shit.
"chrisv" is a liar. "chrisv" is a worthless piece of shit.
tuco
fscking asshole "chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:43lst6lr05vf96caa...@4ax.com...
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> When Android started supporting closed source Flash and Apple continued
>>> to oppose it suddenly Adobe was "ok". See the recent Essentials thread
>>> to see how the denser "advocates", like Ahlstrom, quickly forget their
>>> previous claims. Liars need to have good memories.
>>
>>What the fsck is this troll yammering about?
>
> Who the fsck knows?
who the fsck knows why your whore mother did not flush when she shat you out
into the toilet.
"chrisv" is a liar. "chrisv" is a piece of shit.
JEDIDIAH
That's preferable to being forced to pay for nothing.
Much software demand is artificial created by these proprietary compatability
barriers and is driven by crass need of corporations to keep on milking their
cash cow rather than providing some economic benefit to the customer or to the
economy at large.
Forced obsolesence and vendor-lock.
I have the right to own my own data.
I should not be forced to use any product I don't want.
I should be able to communicate with and interact with the rest of the world
without paying tolls to some particular monopoly vendor.
Open Standards are good enough but they typically don't exist because
MacPeons such as yourself love to actively defend the rights of corporations
and place those rights above the individual.
--
Apple: Being able to install Firefox or VLC makes you a power user. |||
/ | \
Snit
AM:
>>> Well Homer - you don't have the RIGHT to some elses work. If someone
>>> wants to give it away, that's their business - but to imply there is
>>> something immoral about profiting from your own hardwork... Well,
>>> that's just plain stupid.
>>
>> But sadly that's the freetard way.....
>
> That's preferable to being forced to pay for nothing.
Who is forcing you to pay for something?
> Much software demand is artificial created by these proprietary compatability
> barriers and is driven by crass need of corporations to keep on milking their
> cash cow rather than providing some economic benefit to the customer or to the
> economy at large.
>
> Forced obsolesence and vendor-lock.
>
> I have the right to own my own data.
>
> I should not be forced to use any product I don't want.
Nor are you forced. Granted, there are advantages to using many product,
but it is your choice.
> I should be able to communicate with and interact with the rest of the world
> without paying tolls to some particular monopoly vendor.
You can. Of course, some people my opt to use proprietary ad-hoc standards.
As is their choice.
> Open Standards are good enough but they typically don't exist because
> MacPeons such as yourself love to actively defend the rights of corporations
> and place those rights above the individual.
Huh? What are you talking about? Corporations should not be allowed to
make better products?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Eric Pozharski
> Verily I say unto thee, that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:
>> http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2011/05/a-liberating-betrayal/
>>
>> Having suspended disbelief for as long as I could, my ability to
>> take Microsoft at their word over Skype was shattered yesterday on
>> hearing the announcement by Digium, sponsors of the widely-used
>> Asterisk VoIP project, that they have been told they can no longer
>> sell their Asterisk-Skype interaction module after July 26. That
>> means it will become impossible for this VoIP PBX to connect to
>> Skype.
>>
>> Wottasurprise.
>
>
> Maybe now the "pragmatists" will shut up and listen. Expecting thugs
> like Microsoft to "do the right thing" is like expecting a snake not
> to become dependent on proprietary software. One day you wake up and
> find it's simply not there any more. Game over.
Does Android triger anything?
--
Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination
Stallman's goal for GNU is even simpler: Freedom
Hadron
He doesn't know anymore. He's a complete fucking idiot. His view is that
something stamped with "standard" is superior. Luckily his "standards"
aren't the level to which most of us aspire..
Snit
10:40 AM:
Well, all else being equal, I would prefer something that is an open
standard.
But not all else is equal.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Homer
> with <pcava8-...@sky.matrix> Homer wrote:
>> Maybe now the "pragmatists" will shut up and listen. Expecting thugs
>> like Microsoft to "do the right thing" is like expecting a snake not
>> to bite. Moreover, this is a perfect example of why it's very stupid
>> to become dependent on proprietary software. One day you wake up and
>> find it's simply not there any more. Game over.
>
> Does Android triger anything?
Not really, since it's licensed under Apache 2.0.
Tom Shelton
> Verily I say unto thee, that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:
>> Tom Shelton wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>> Homer wrote on 5/25/2011 :
>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that An Old Friend spake thusly:
>>>>>
>>>>> In all seriousness, I do feel Homer is trying to say that when the
>>>>> code is free, people are freer overall.
>>>>
>>>> Snit is an idiot if he thinks freedom is anything to do with
>>>> inanimate objects. The GPL, copyrights, the law, and every moral
>>>> argument about freedom pertains to /people/ and /their/ rights, not
>>>> the objects they use. The freedom of Free Software is /my rights/ to
>>>> that software, not the "rights" of the software itself.
>>>>
>>>> I knew Snit was obtuse, but he's now reached a new low in stupidity.
>>>
>>> Well Homer - you don't have the RIGHT to some elses work. If someone
>>> wants to give it away, that's their business - but to imply there is
>>> something immoral about profiting from your own hardwork...
>>
>> That's a strange deduction.
>
> Tom must be popping stoopid pills this week.
>
It's the overall attitude you have portrayed in you many, many posts.
It comes through even when you don't explicitly say it.
> I quite clearly stated I was referring to my rights to /Free/ Software,
> not /all/ software. That's exactly why I prefer Free Software, after
> all, because it grants me those rights.
>
Good. I have no problem with that - but, you constantly equate the
choice of a vendor NOT to proivde "Free" software as some how immoral.
I call that their choice and they are free to do so. There is nothing
immoral about it. You are only for freedom when it works in your
favor.
> Then there's his even stranger deduction that my having rights to
> others' software somehow precludes them from profiting by it.
>
> I have the rights granted by the GPL, and other liberal software
> licences, to software sold by Red Hat and others, and yet I don't
> exactly see them losing money ... quite the contrary.
>
> He has the unsurprisingly narrow-minded and indoctrinated world view of
> an archetypal Microsoft thinker. It's a disease. Psychologists should
> devote a whole branch of medical science to its pathology.
Bullcrap. You are a parnoid delusional socialist - that's what I
disagree with - MS could die tomorrow, and it wouldnt' really bother
me. And, I don't care if you want to use "Free" software, and I don't
care if people wnat to make "Free" software - what I object to is your
constant whining that it is somehow wrong for someone to NOT want to
make "Free" software.
--
Tom Shelton
Snit
...
>>> That's a strange deduction.
>>
>> Tom must be popping stoopid pills this week.
>>
>
> It's the overall attitude you have portrayed in you many, many posts.
> It comes through even when you don't explicitly say it.
>
>> I quite clearly stated I was referring to my rights to /Free/ Software,
>> not /all/ software. That's exactly why I prefer Free Software, after
>> all, because it grants me those rights.
>>
>
> Good. I have no problem with that - but, you constantly equate the
> choice of a vendor NOT to proivde "Free" software as some how immoral.
> I call that their choice and they are free to do so. There is nothing
> immoral about it. You are only for freedom when it works in your
> favor.
Exactly: Homer is amazingly anti-choice. Even the choice to make things
*more* free with, for example, the BSD license.
>> Then there's his even stranger deduction that my having rights to
>> others' software somehow precludes them from profiting by it.
>>
>> I have the rights granted by the GPL, and other liberal software
>> licences, to software sold by Red Hat and others, and yet I don't
>> exactly see them losing money ... quite the contrary.
>>
>> He has the unsurprisingly narrow-minded and indoctrinated world view of
>> an archetypal Microsoft thinker. It's a disease. Psychologists should
>> devote a whole branch of medical science to its pathology.
>
> Bullcrap. You are a parnoid delusional socialist - that's what I
> disagree with - MS could die tomorrow, and it wouldnt' really bother
> me. And, I don't care if you want to use "Free" software, and I don't
> care if people wnat to make "Free" software - what I object to is your
> constant whining that it is somehow wrong for someone to NOT want to
> make "Free" software.
A point Homer struggles with no matter who tells him.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Eric Pozharski
> Verily I say unto thee, that Eric Pozharski spake thusly:
>> with <pcava8-...@sky.matrix> Homer wrote:
>
>>> Maybe now the "pragmatists" will shut up and listen. Expecting thugs
>>> like Microsoft to "do the right thing" is like expecting a snake not
>>> to bite. Moreover, this is a perfect example of why it's very stupid
>>> to become dependent on proprietary software. One day you wake up and
>>> find it's simply not there any more. Game over.
>>
>> Does Android triger anything?
>
> Not really, since it's licensed under Apache 2.0.
And bootloader? And the list of Free apps looks quite pathetic too.
However, I'm about a bit different thing. I'm currently reading through
archives of xda-developers for my device. On first page I've read
almost everything. I've skipped almost 3/4 of 4th. It's full of
"Upgraded to 2.1, now icons have stripes", "I can't enter uderscore.
Aren't you running this app?", "Can I run interwebs over USB? Yes, run
that app". Not to mention that in order to get root I should crack *my*
device. And in the latter case it's a way ahead of The Crap what
provides root by default. I've seen rumors (here) that root can be lost
but, honestyly, it's quite uncommon.
Does Android trigger anything?
flatfish+++
> Homer explained on 5/26/2011 :
>> I quite clearly stated I was referring to my rights to /Free/ Software,
>> not /all/ software. That's exactly why I prefer Free Software, after
>> all, because it grants me those rights.
>>
>
> Good. I have no problem with that - but, you constantly equate the
> choice of a vendor NOT to proivde "Free" software as some how immoral.
> I call that their choice and they are free to do so. There is nothing
> immoral about it. You are only for freedom when it works in your
> favor.
Bingo.
It's only considered "freedom" when it's the same "freedom" that the
Linux cabal chooses.
IOW you think act and agree 100 percent with them or you are the enemy.
This is precisely what scares Liarmutt so much and causes him to agree
with and support what he knows are total liars.
>> Then there's his even stranger deduction that my having rights to
>> others' software somehow precludes them from profiting by it.
>>
>> I have the rights granted by the GPL, and other liberal software
>> licences, to software sold by Red Hat and others, and yet I don't
>> exactly see them losing money ... quite the contrary.
>>
>> He has the unsurprisingly narrow-minded and indoctrinated world view of
>> an archetypal Microsoft thinker. It's a disease. Psychologists should
>> devote a whole branch of medical science to its pathology.
>
> Bullcrap. You are a parnoid delusional socialist - that's what I
> disagree with - MS could die tomorrow, and it wouldnt' really bother
> me. And, I don't care if you want to use "Free" software, and I don't
> care if people wnat to make "Free" software - what I object to is your
> constant whining that it is somehow wrong for someone to NOT want to
> make "Free" software.
It's classic behavior for radical fringe groups.
cc
> Verily I say unto thee, that "cc" spake thusly:
>
> > One day you wake up and you find your favorite yogurt simply is not
> > there any more. Game over.
>
> rights necessary to make and distribute it. I can exactly recreate my
> favourite yoghurt at home, and even sell it to others, under a different
> name. I cannot do that with proprietary software. The software is
> copyrighted and published under a monopolistic license that prohibits
> copying. The software and protocols are invariably also patented.
> Neither yoghurt nor the method necessary to make it is copyrighted or
> patented.
There is nothing stopping you from duplicating Windows exactly and
using it at home. You can't sell it, but I don't think you'd find it
was so easy to exactly duplicate your favorite yogurt and sell it
either, without legal problems I mean. It would be harder to duplicate
proprietary software, yes. But I'm not talking about the ease of
doing, just that you can do it. And not just duplicate the look and
feel, I mean everything. So I don't see what the issue is, unless you
planned on selling it or redistributing it. But you're not going to
make your own Samsung TV and sell it without trouble either.
cc
> > ccretin wrote:
>
> >> One day you wake up and you find your favorite yogurt simply is not
> >> there any more. Game over.
>
> Listen up, ccretin.
>
> It's a one thing to switch brands of yogurt or whatever, quite another
> thing to switch a key component that your business relies-upon. One
> is a mere annoyance, the other can be tragically expensive.
No shit. I never said they were equals.
> When your livelihood depends on something being there, it's smart
> business to know that the supplier can't pull the rug out from under
> you.
It's also smart business to prepare for the worst. If your livelihood
depends on a specific something being there, then you damn well better
control it, or be prepared to lose your livelihood. No supplier is
under any obligation to provide a service for life.
Homer
> with <lc73b8-...@sky.matrix> Homer wrote:
>> Verily I say unto thee, that Eric Pozharski spake thusly:
>>> with <pcava8-...@sky.matrix> Homer wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Maybe now the "pragmatists" will shut up and listen. Expecting thugs
>>>> like Microsoft to "do the right thing" is like expecting a snake not
>>>> to bite. Moreover, this is a perfect example of why it's very stupid
>>>> to become dependent on proprietary software. One day you wake up and
>>>> find it's simply not there any more. Game over.
>>>
>>> Does Android triger anything?
>>
>> Not really, since it's licensed under Apache 2.0.
>
> And bootloader?
That's supplied by the manufacturer, not Google, and is specific to each
device. It has nothing to do with Android, any more than Tivo has
anything to do with Linux. Manufacturers who choose to "tivoise" their
Android bootloaders are wasting their time anyway, since the Android
community simply replaces them. HTC seems to understand that, which is
why it has just reversed its policy:
[quote]
Android handset hackers are rejoicing today as HTC has backed down on
its plans to lock the bootloader on its smart phones. It means you'll
continue to be able to load whichever version of Android you choose on
your phone.
Posting a message on Facebook, HTC CEO Peter Chou said, "overwhelming
customer feedback that people want access to open bootloaders on HTC
phones" led the Taiwanese firm to slam on the handbrake and pull a sharp
U-turn.
[/quote]
> And the list of Free apps looks quite pathetic too.
You must be looking at the wrong list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open_source_Android_applications
And that's not even a complete list, since I can name several more
Free Software apps for Android, including the Groundhog newsreader,
Firefox 4 and MPlayer, three of the best apps I have on my Android.
> However, I'm about a bit different thing. I'm currently reading
> through archives of xda-developers for my device.
Which device?
> On first page I've read almost everything. I've skipped almost 3/4 of
> 4th. It's full of "Upgraded to 2.1, now icons have stripes", "I can't
> enter uderscore. Aren't you running this app?", "Can I run interwebs
> over USB? Yes, run that app".
The above is either bugs or noobs' ignorance (typically if they don't do
a factory reset after flashing custom firmware), but either way this has
nothing to do with licensing.
> Not to mention that in order to get root I should crack *my* device.
Yes, I strongly agree that manufacturers should not try to prevent
customers accessing their own property, but again you need to complain
to those manufacturers (as HTC's customers did), not Google, who merely
provides the Free Software.
In the case of /my/ Android (a Samsung Galaxy S), the only "cracking" I
needed to do was a one-click install of "su".
> And in the latter case it's a way ahead of The Crap what provides root
> by default.
Sorry, I don't understand that statement at all.
> I've seen rumors (here) that root can be lost but, honestyly, it's
> quite uncommon.
It's not a rumour. You can lose root if you overwrite the files
necessary to gain root, such as with custom firmware that fails to
include those files. That was the case with certain early versions of
custom firmware, but I haven't seen anything like that for a long time.
Most custom Android firmware today is extremely sophisticated, indeed
far superior to the manufacturer-supplied firmware. The one I use for my
Samsung Galaxy S (DarkyROM) speeds up the device by a factor of four
(mostly filesystem and cache enhancements, but also kernel
optimisations), and adds many useful features like a TUN device for
using OpenVPN (essential for insecure open Wi-Fi hotspots).
> Does Android trigger anything?
Yes, 350,000 activations per day, and climbing.
But in terms of licensing issues, no.
--
K. | "The poor have flat-screen TVs."
http://slated.org | ~ Libertarian propagandist Keith
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky | Curtis, explaining why he thinks
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 4 days | we shouldn't tax the rich.
Tom Shelton
> Verily I say unto thee, that Eric Pozharski spake thusly:
>> with <lc73b8-...@sky.matrix> Homer wrote:
>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Eric Pozharski spake thusly:
<snip>
>
>> Does Android trigger anything?
>
> Yes, 350,000 activations per day, and climbing.
>
> But in terms of licensing issues, no.
Apparently it does - as today the big news is that HTC is paying MS $5
bucks for every Android handset sold.
--
Tom Shelton
Chris Ahlstrom
> Homer explained :
You're confusing licensing with patent issues, used as a form of
extortion.
--
"I once witnessed a long-winded, month-long flamewar over the use of
mice vs. trackballs...It was very silly."
(By Matt Welsh)
Tom Shelton
> Tom Shelton wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> Homer explained :
>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Eric Pozharski spake thusly:
>>>> with <lc73b8-...@sky.matrix> Homer wrote:
>>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Eric Pozharski spake thusly:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> Does Android trigger anything?
>>>
>>> Yes, 350,000 activations per day, and climbing.
>>>
>>> But in terms of licensing issues, no.
>>
>> Apparently it does - as today the big news is that HTC is paying MS $5
>> bucks for every Android handset sold.
>
> You're confusing licensing with patent issues, used as a form of
> extortion.
I'm not confusing anything. If the patents turn out to be valid, then
there is a licensing issue.
--
Tom Shelton
Chris Ahlstrom
Not until then. Or until Google knuckles under to lawsuits.
--
Two golfers were being held up as the twosome of women in front of them
whiffed shots, hunted for lost balls and stood over putts for what seemed
like hours.
"I'll ask if we can play through," Bill said as he strode toward
the women. Twenty yards from the green, however, he turned on his heel
and went back to where his companion was waiting.
"Can't do it," he explained, sheepishly. "One of them's my wife
and the other's my mistress!"
"I'll ask," said Jim. He started off, only to turn and come back
before reaching the green.
"What's wrong?" Bill asked.
"Small world, isn't it?"
Tom Shelton
> Tom Shelton wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> Chris Ahlstrom formulated the question :
>>> Tom Shelton wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>
>>>> Homer explained :
>>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Eric Pozharski spake thusly:
>>>>>> with <lc73b8-...@sky.matrix> Homer wrote:
>>>>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Eric Pozharski spake thusly:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>>> Does Android trigger anything?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, 350,000 activations per day, and climbing.
>>>>>
>>>>> But in terms of licensing issues, no.
>>>>
>>>> Apparently it does - as today the big news is that HTC is paying MS $5
>>>> bucks for every Android handset sold.
>>>
>>> You're confusing licensing with patent issues, used as a form of
>>> extortion.
>>
>> I'm not confusing anything. If the patents turn out to be valid, then
>> there is a licensing issue.
>
> Not until then. Or until Google knuckles under to lawsuits.
I should have been a little more clear - I meant, that until they are
proven to be invalid, then there is an issue. And I don't think any
company hands over $130 Million dollars with more to come - without
being fairly convinced that they are in a precarious postion...
But, we shall see. Motorola is fighting it - so, maybe it will all go
away.
--
Tom Shelton
Sinister Midget III
> I should have been a little more clear - I meant, that until they are
> proven to be invalid, then there is an issue. And I don't think any
> company hands over $130 Million dollars with more to come - without
> being fairly convinced that they are in a precarious postion...
Sometimes the "precarious position" is that they're afraid to spend
multiples of that to settle it in court, even if they think they would
eventually win.
> But, we shall see. Motorola is fighting it - so, maybe it will all go
> away.
Good. Either MICROS~1 will have to produce something that stands up to
scrutiny, dump the idea, drag it on until Motorola decides to pay and
end it, or Micrslop admits (in a sealed document, of course) that they
don't have a leg to stand on then settle out of court. That third
possibility could be called a "precarious situation" for Motorola if
the eventual finding is too expensive to reach.
--
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.
Aspire One, Ubuntu 11.04
Friends don't let friends use Windows
Homer
> Tom Shelton wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>> Chris Ahlstrom formulated the question :
>>> Tom Shelton wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>> Homer explained :
>>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Eric Pozharski spake thusly:
>>>>>> Does Android trigger anything?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, 350,000 activations per day, and climbing.
>>>>>
>>>>> But in terms of licensing issues, no.
>>>>
>>>> Apparently it does - as today the big news is that HTC is paying MS
>>>> $5 bucks for every Android handset sold.
>>>
>>> You're confusing licensing with patent issues, used as a form of
>>> extortion.
>>
>> I'm not confusing anything. If the patents turn out to be valid,
>> then there is a licensing issue.
>
> Not until then. Or until Google knuckles under to lawsuits.
Trust the MS shill to support Microsoft's software patent racketeering.
flatfish+++
> Verily I say unto thee, that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:
>> Tom Shelton wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>> Chris Ahlstrom formulated the question :
>>>> Tom Shelton wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>>> Homer explained :
>>>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Eric Pozharski spake thusly:
>
>>>>>>> Does Android trigger anything?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, 350,000 activations per day, and climbing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But in terms of licensing issues, no.
>>>>>
>>>>> Apparently it does - as today the big news is that HTC is paying MS
>>>>> $5 bucks for every Android handset sold.
>>>>
>>>> You're confusing licensing with patent issues, used as a form of
>>>> extortion.
>>>
>>> I'm not confusing anything. If the patents turn out to be valid,
>>> then there is a licensing issue.
>>
>> Not until then. Or until Google knuckles under to lawsuits.
>
> Trust the MS shill to support Microsoft's software patent racketeering.
Nurse Ratchet!
[Homer] is loose again!
Get the net.....
Homer
>
> I should have been a little more clear - I meant, that until they are
> proven to be invalid, then there is an issue.
It's innocent unless proven guilty, not the other way round, unless
you've already made up your mind. So no, there /is/ no "issue", except
the one Microsoft would like people to believe is true. Even those
morally bankrupt enough to consider /any/ software patents valid should
consider Microsoft's patents highly questionable, since apparently they
were obtained by withholding prior art. Frankly, given Microsoft's
documented history of corruption, I'm surprised anyone would believe any
claims they make, even without that revelation.
Snit
> Even those
> morally bankrupt enough to consider /any/ software patents valid
What?!?!?!?!?!?!?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
flatfish+++
> Homer stated in post ei56b8-...@sky.matrix on 5/27/11 8:08 PM:
>
>> Even those
>> morally bankrupt enough to consider /any/ software patents valid
>
> What?!?!?!?!?!?!?
I think [Homer]'s medication dosage needs to be increased.
Nurse Ratchet!
More chlorpromazine for [Homer]!
Tom Shelton
> Verily I say unto thee, that Tom Shelton spake thusly:
>>
>> I should have been a little more clear - I meant, that until they are
>> proven to be invalid, then there is an issue.
>
> It's innocent unless proven guilty,
But, by giving in HTC has admited guilt.
> not the other way round, unless
> you've already made up your mind.
I have not - I will withold judgment until the matter is decided in
court. I'm not 100% opposed to software patents - BUT, I certainly
think most are bogus. I definately think that there needs to be a lot
more review - by people who know the field - then there is now.
--
Tom Shelton
Tom Shelton
> Verily I say unto thee, that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:
>> Tom Shelton wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>> Chris Ahlstrom formulated the question :
>>>> Tom Shelton wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>>> Homer explained :
>>>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Eric Pozharski spake thusly:
>
>>>>>>> Does Android trigger anything?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, 350,000 activations per day, and climbing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But in terms of licensing issues, no.
>>>>>
>>>>> Apparently it does - as today the big news is that HTC is paying MS
>>>>> $5 bucks for every Android handset sold.
>>>>
>>>> You're confusing licensing with patent issues, used as a form of
>>>> extortion.
>>>
>>> I'm not confusing anything. If the patents turn out to be valid,
>>> then there is a licensing issue.
>>
>> Not until then. Or until Google knuckles under to lawsuits.
>
> Trust the MS shill to support Microsoft's software patent racketeering.
I am not supporting it. But, see unlike you, I believe that
intellectual property has validity. And IF the patents are ruled
valid, then yes, I believe that MS (or google or apple or [insert
inventer here]) is entitled to be compensated. I'm sorry, but I don't
see how else in a digital world one can be compenstated for hardwork
and inovation. Again, I don't think the current system works right - I
believe that there needs to be much more review and higher standards in
the granting of a patent of this nature.
--
Tom Shelton
Chris Ahlstrom
And what I meant is that, with patents, *any* license is an issue. GPLv3
included.
--
Imbalance of power corrupts and monopoly of power corrupts absolutely.
-- Genji
Chris Ahlstrom
> Homer has brought this to us :
>> Verily I say unto thee, that Tom Shelton spake thusly:
>>>
>>> I should have been a little more clear - I meant, that until they are
>>> proven to be invalid, then there is an issue.
>>
>> It's innocent unless proven guilty,
>
> But, by giving in HTC has admited guilt.
Not really.
> I have not - I will withold judgment until the matter is decided in
> court. I'm not 100% opposed to software patents - BUT, I certainly
> think most are bogus. I definately think that there needs to be a lot
> more review - by people who know the field - then there is now.
Agreed, except that patenting math and algorithms goes too far.
--
"Calling J-Man Kink. Calling J-Man Kink. Hash missile sighted, target
Los Angeles. Disregard personal feelings about city and intercept."
-- The Firesign Theatre movie, _J-Men Forever_
Chris Ahlstrom
> Homer wrote :
>
>> Trust the MS shill to support Microsoft's software patent racketeering.
>
> I am not supporting it. But, see unlike you, I believe that
> intellectual property has validity. And IF the patents are ruled
> valid, then yes, I believe that MS (or google or apple or [insert
> inventer here]) is entitled to be compensated. I'm sorry, but I don't
> see how else in a digital world one can be compenstated for hardwork
> and inovation. Again, I don't think the current system works right - I
> believe that there needs to be much more review and higher standards in
> the granting of a patent of this nature.
Has anyone patented "addition" yet? Or even "a method of implementing
addition in silicon"?
--
Sometimes a man will tell his bartender things he'll never tell his doctor.
-- Dr. Phillip Boyce, "The Menagerie" ("The Cage"),
stardate unknown.
Snit
5/27/11 8:36 PM:
> On Fri, 27 May 2011 20:29:12 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> Homer stated in post ei56b8-...@sky.matrix on 5/27/11 8:08 PM:
>>
>>> Even those
>>> morally bankrupt enough to consider /any/ software patents valid
>>
>> What?!?!?!?!?!?!?
>
> I think [Homer]'s medication dosage needs to be increased.
>
> Nurse Ratchet!
> More chlorpromazine for [Homer]!
He is... different.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Homer
> Homer has brought this to us :
>> Verily I say unto thee, that Tom Shelton spake thusly:
>>>
>>> I should have been a little more clear - I meant, that until they
>>> are proven to be invalid, then there is an issue.
>>
>> It's innocent unless proven guilty,
>
> But, by giving in HTC has admited guilt.
Good grief! Are you serious?
What crime is a mugger's victim guilty of, when he hands over his
wallet?
Or if that's too melodramatic for you, try this: Did SCO ever repay the
money they took to fraudulently "license" Linux to companies like
EV1Servers and (according to SCO) a "handful" of others?
What "crime" was EV1Servers guilty of, exactly?
The only thing HTC and the rest of Microsoft's victims are guilty of, is
the fear of being bled to death in court by a morally bankrupt corporate
bully with vast financial resources, an army of lawyers, a massive
portfolio of trivial and illegitimate "patents", and a brass neck.
And /that/ is the sort of company and behaviour you make excuses for,
and support on the "principle" that these goons have the mythical
"right" to attack their victims, because of some supposed commodity
called "hardwork®" they lay dubious claim to.
You have the mentality of a thug.
--
K. | "The poor have flat-screen TVs."
http://slated.org | ~ Libertarian propagandist Keith
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky | Curtis, explaining why he thinks
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 5 days | we shouldn't tax the rich.
Snit
> Verily I say unto thee, that Tom Shelton spake thusly:
>> Homer has brought this to us :
>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Tom Shelton spake thusly:
>>>>
>>>> I should have been a little more clear - I meant, that until they
>>>> are proven to be invalid, then there is an issue.
>>>
>>> It's innocent unless proven guilty,
>>
>> But, by giving in HTC has admited guilt.
>
> Good grief! Are you serious?
>
> What crime is a mugger's victim guilty of, when he hands over his
> wallet?
>
> Or if that's too melodramatic for you, try this: Did SCO ever repay the
> money they took to fraudulently "license" Linux to companies like
> EV1Servers and (according to SCO) a "handful" of others?
>
> What "crime" was EV1Servers guilty of, exactly?
>
> The only thing HTC and the rest of Microsoft's victims are guilty of, is
> the fear of being bled to death in court by a morally bankrupt corporate
> bully with vast financial resources, an army of lawyers, a massive
> portfolio of trivial and illegitimate "patents", and a brass neck.
>
> And /that/ is the sort of company and behaviour you make excuses for,
> and support on the "principle" that these goons have the mythical
> "right" to attack their victims, because of some supposed commodity
> called "hardworkŽ" they lay dubious claim to.
>
> You have the mentality of a thug.
Hmmm, where did you get the inside and secret info on this?
Oh.
You made it up.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Ala
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:CA0644E7.99A47%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
sadly
Eric Pozharski
> Verily I say unto thee, that Eric Pozharski spake thusly:
> Android handset hackers are rejoicing today as HTC has backed down on
> its plans to lock the bootloader on its smart phones. It means you'll
> continue to be able to load whichever version of Android you choose on
> your phone.
But I don't choose Android. I choose debian. Now what?
*SKIP*
>> And the list of Free apps looks quite pathetic too.
> You must be looking at the wrong list.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open_source_Android_applications
That's what I've seen. ssh? zsh? perl? elinks? I understand, I can
port, find, hack any specific piece of software. But I've better stay
with debian. I've got used to 'apt-get install'.
> And that's not even a complete list, since I can name several more
> Free Software apps for Android, including the Groundhog newsreader,
"Starring" -- yeah, sure. I'll stay with slrn.
> Firefox 4 and
2.0 and up. Not an option.
> MPlayer,
SIGSEGV. Missing dependencies?
> three of the best apps I have on my Android.
Omission of terminal noted.
*CUT*
I've tried to say, that for me (clearly; however, that seems, I have no
company) android exposes behavioural pattern of windopws. And in that
sense, who really need WM7? They already have android. Same eggs,
profile view.
RonB
Coming from the crank Snit, the label "different" is a generous compliment.
--
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.6 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0
Snit
You think it is a compliment for someone to be whacked out enough to think
one must be "morally bankrupt" to consider any software patent valid.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Homer
> with <uia5b8-...@sky.matrix> Homer wrote:
>> Verily I say unto thee, that Eric Pozharski spake thusly:
> *SKIP*
>> Android handset hackers are rejoicing today as HTC has backed down on
>> its plans to lock the bootloader on its smart phones. It means you'll
>> continue to be able to load whichever version of Android you choose
>> on your phone.
>
> But I don't choose Android. I choose debian. Now what?
Debian has been available for Android for at least two years:
http://lanrat.com/android/debian
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9zwd3r6UQQ
>>> And the list of Free apps looks quite pathetic too.
>>
>> You must be looking at the wrong list.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open_source_Android_applications
>
> That's what I've seen. ssh? zsh? perl? elinks? I understand, I
> can port, find, hack any specific piece of software. But I've better
> stay with debian. I've got used to 'apt-get install'.
Then use 'apt-get install' with Debain on Android.
It seems like you want the freedom to to customise your Android, but
then you don't actually want to exercise that freedom to customise.
Strange.
If you want to just sit back and let others do your work for you, then
you have to accept the results of their work. If you don't like that
then you must either do it yourself or employ people to do your bidding.
>> And that's not even a complete list, since I can name several more
>> Free Software apps for Android, including the Groundhog newsreader,
>
> "Starring" -- yeah, sure.
Why are you quoting a word I didn't use?
Personally I really like Groundhog, but each to his own.
> I'll stay with slrn.
You can if you either a) use Debian on Android or b) port slrn yourself
or c) convince someone else to do it for you.
>> Firefox 4 and
>
> 2.0 and up. Not an option.
All software has dependencies. If you don't currently have those
dependencies then you need to get them, or use software with different
dependencies.
So why is Android 2.0+ not an option?
>> MPlayer,
>
> SIGSEGV. Missing dependencies?
I've been using it for months with no problem.
>> three of the best apps I have on my Android.
>
> Omission of terminal noted.
No, you can have that too:
https://market.android.com/details?id=jackpal.androidterm
And OpenSSH (client):
https://market.android.com/details?id=org.connectbot
And OpenSSH (server):
https://market.android.com/details?id=com.teslacoilsw.quicksshd
Or build it yourself for free:
http://teslacoilsw.com/dropbear
And Bash (binary supplied):
http://roycormier.net/2010/11/03/how-to-cross-compile-bash-for-android/
And Perl:
http://code.google.com/p/perldroid/
Still alpha, but then you're free to help with this, and any other
software you want to see ported.
> *CUT*
>
> I've tried to say, that for me (clearly; however, that seems, I have
> no company) android exposes behavioural pattern of windopws.
Not really. Developing Free Software for a proprietary OS like Windows
is rather different to developing Free Software for a Free OS like
Android, not least of which because much of the former is undocumented
and/or restricted by proprietary license.
The reason many GNU/Linux apps have not yet been ported to Android is
not because of such restrictions, it's because android is relatively new
compared to GNU/Linux, and these things take time (and motivation). New
platforms also encourage the innovation of new software more suited to
that platform, rather than porting existing software more suited to
older platforms. In particular the smaller screen size and the lack of a
full-size keyboard and mouse means developers are more likely to develop
something more suitable for mobile devices. This is just as true for
Android as it is for the iPhone or WP7.
Porting a GNU/Linux application to Android only requires the motivation
to do so. If an app has not yet been ported, then it's simply because
nobody wanted to do it. If you want that app, then you should port it
yourself, or try to encourage others to do so, but don't pretend this is
some inherent failure of the platform.
> And in that sense, who really need WM7? They already have android.
> Same eggs, profile view.
Hardly. WP7 is a proprietary, dysfunctional mess that nobody wants, and
GPL apps are explicitly banned by Microsoft. Android is a solid, Free
Software platform with 350,000 activations per day, and offers you the
opportunity to provide applications of any license, including the GPL,
many of which have already been provided for you by others.
--
K. | "The poor have flat-screen TVs."
http://slated.org | ~ Libertarian propagandist Keith
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky | Curtis, explaining why he thinks
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 5 days | we shouldn't tax the rich.
Eric Pozharski
> Verily I say unto thee, that Eric Pozharski spake thusly:
>> *SKIP*
>>> Android handset hackers are rejoicing today as HTC has backed down on
>>> its plans to lock the bootloader on its smart phones. It means you'll
>>> continue to be able to load whichever version of Android you choose
>>> on your phone.
>> But I don't choose Android. I choose debian. Now what?
> Debian has been available for Android for at least two years:
> http://lanrat.com/android/debian
That's chroot. That's not install.
*SKIP*
>> "Starring" -- yeah, sure.
> Why are you quoting a word I didn't use? Personally I really like
> Groundhog, but each to his own.
That's what it says about itself.
*SKIP*
> So why is Android 2.0+ not an option?
I'm not going to risk root.
*SKIP*
>> I've tried to say, that for me (clearly; however, that seems, I have
>> no company) android exposes behavioural pattern of windopws.
> Not really. Developing Free Software for a proprietary OS like Windows
> is rather different to developing Free Software for a Free OS like
> Android, not least of which because much of the former is undocumented
> and/or restricted by proprietary license.
(let me tell the same story differently, again) I'm reading COLA for ~8
years now. All that time (although, a usage ratio decreases) one of
arguments was that linux distributions provide means for dependencies
resolution (more or less automatic). While "packages" of the other OS
bring all dependecies with itself, blah-blah-blah. Back to MPlayer.
It's ~5MB .apk. There's a directory inside: lib/armeabi/. It contains
two files libmplayer.so (~10MB) and libwrap.so (~3KB). My understanding
is that those are native binaries; while whatever else code of MPlayer
is written in JavaME. And this JavaME isn't can of patent worms? And I
need that "codec pack"? The filesystem layout is a total mess. Where
is my $HOME? Is your SD card formatted with VFAT (mine isn't, it's a
pain)? Yesterday, I've crashed OS with mere browsing (my browsing
haven't ever been mere, probably); I can't say what exactly failed,
/data/crashsms/crashes had been empty; its filling now :) I fail to
see any major difference with windopws.
> The reason many GNU/Linux apps have not yet been ported to Android is
> not because of such restrictions, it's because android is relatively
> new compared to GNU/Linux, and these things take time (and
> motivation). New platforms also encourage the innovation of new
> software more suited to that platform, rather than porting existing
> software more suited to older platforms. In particular the smaller
> screen size and the lack of a full-size keyboard and mouse means
> developers are more likely to develop something more suitable for
> mobile devices. This is just as true for Android as it is for the
> iPhone or WP7.
Indeed. Obsession with Gtk and others is unhealthy.
> Porting a GNU/Linux application to Android only requires the
> motivation to do so. If an app has not yet been ported, then it's
> simply because nobody wanted to do it. If you want that app, then you
> should port it yourself, or try to encourage others to do so, but
> don't pretend this is some inherent failure of the platform.
I beg to differ. I think you've met that proverb "I'm standing on
shoulder of giants" (that should be properly attributed though). I base
my work, my job, my time, and, finally, my life on Free software
provided by others (I know, I haven't paid my debts and arguable I would
ever will). Now, let's suppose someone (probably, kind of idiot) would
port coreutils to android. For what reason? It's going to be installed
to /data/data/ that has surprising permissions 0771-system-system. And
any .apk installed is granted its own user-group pair
('ls -l /data/data' to the resque). And run as that very own user-group
pair and secondary groups as mapped from its requested upon installation
permissions. Thus making that coreutils port unusable for any other
.apk (except if run as root). Face it, android architecture inhibits
cooperation by design. You call that Free?
>> And in that sense, who really need WM7? They already have android.
>> Same eggs, profile view.
> Hardly. WP7 is a proprietary, dysfunctional mess that nobody wants,
> and GPL apps are explicitly banned by Microsoft. Android is a solid,
> Free Software platform with 350,000 activations per day, and offers
> you the opportunity to provide applications of any license, including
> the GPL, many of which have already been provided for you by others.
I fully understand that I'm alone on that challenge. Right now I can
safely hide behind phone-is-for-making-calls mantra. Just one thing,
can you make me a favor? If you ever spot a location where could be
people obsessed with Freedom the way I am -- drop me an url.
Homer
> with <6or8b8-...@sky.matrix> Homer wrote:
>> Verily I say unto thee, that Eric Pozharski spake thusly:
>>> with <uia5b8-...@sky.matrix> Homer wrote:
>>>> Android handset hackers are rejoicing today as HTC has backed down
>>>> on its plans to lock the bootloader on its smart phones. It means
>>>> you'll continue to be able to load whichever version of Android you
>>>> choose on your phone.
>>>
>>> But I don't choose Android. I choose debian. Now what?
>>
>> Debian has been available for Android for at least two years:
>> http://lanrat.com/android/debian
>
> That's chroot. That's not install.
Is there a practical difference? It's still Debian running on the
Android, and the only reason the author has chosen this method is
because it's less work.
You might as well argue that GNU/Linux on a desktop is not really an
install either, because it's preceded by a BIOS.
>>> "Starring" -- yeah, sure.
>>
>> Why are you quoting a word I didn't use? Personally I really like
>> Groundhog, but each to his own.
>
> That's what it says about itself.
The only reference I can find to "starring" on Groundhog's web pages is
the "starring of users and authors" feature, which is not self praise,
but a description of a method of scoring articles.
Do you have some objection to that?
>> So why is Android 2.0+ not an option?
>
> I'm not going to risk root.
So you only want to exercise your freedom if the results are done for
you by others, then happens to fall out of the sky into your lap. You
don't sound very highly motivated. This "risk" is no greater than wiping
Windows and installing GNU/Linux on a desktop, in fact considerably less
so, since you're already starting with a Free OS. Are you going to
berate desktop GNU/Linux too, because nearly every PC in the world comes
preinstalled with Windows?
>>> I've tried to say, that for me (clearly; however, that seems, I
>>> have no company) android exposes behavioural pattern of windopws.
>>
>> Not really. Developing Free Software for a proprietary OS like
>> Windows is rather different to developing Free Software for a Free OS
>> like Android, not least of which because much of the former is
>> undocumented and/or restricted by proprietary license.
>
> (let me tell the same story differently, again) I'm reading COLA for
> ~8 years now. All that time (although, a usage ratio decreases) one
> of arguments was that linux distributions provide means for
> dependencies resolution (more or less automatic). While "packages" of
> the other OS bring all dependecies with itself, blah-blah-blah. Back
> to MPlayer. It's ~5MB .apk. There's a directory inside:
> lib/armeabi/. It contains two files libmplayer.so (~10MB) and
> libwrap.so (~3KB). My understanding is that those are native
> binaries; while whatever else code of MPlayer is written in JavaME.
It's Dalvik, and that /is/ the design of Android. If you don't like it
then redesign it or use something else. Android has both an SDK and an
NDK, so the MPlayer developers could have chosen either method or a
combination of both, and could have implemented it such that it provides
service to other software. They chose not to do that, for whatever
reason, but frankly I'm not exactly going to lose any sleep over it. It
was simply a design decision. If you don't like it, then do something
about it.
> And this JavaME isn't can of patent worms?
In jurisdictions that support this sinister thing called software
patents, /all/ software is a "can of patent worms", so singling out
JavaME is disingenuous. If you want to single something out, I suggest
you start with the immoral laws in the US that facilitated software
patents in the first place.
> And I need that "codec pack"?
Avcodec is needed on desktop GNU/Linux too, so I don't really see your
point. It's Free, and that's all that matters.
> The filesystem layout is a total mess.
Much of it is the same as GNU/Linux. The main difference is Google seems
to have dispensed with "var" for some reason, and dumped its contents
into the filesystem root. That may be because much of it has been
isolated into unique filesystems for performance and recovery reasons,
but I agree there's no particular reason to do this. Nonetheless it's
not especially difficult to work with.
> Where is my $HOME?
Users only have a $HOME if they're explicitly given one. Google
apparently did not anticipate many people needing a home directory on a
system specifically designed as a single user system, although again I
agree it would be useful. I much prefer having all my user data in a
single location, for both security and convenience. But then I don't
really need to care about that if I use Google's cloud services, as
Android was intended to be used. Nonetheless, backing up my user data is
easy enough. I have a tar script for that very purpose. There's also a
number of commercial and free backup applications available in the
Android Market, and one in particular called Nandroid that completely
images the device (part of ClockWorkMod).
> Is your SD card formatted with VFAT (mine isn't, it's a pain)?
The kernel I use has support for multiple filesystems, including FAT32
and ext4. I've chosen to format my SD card with ext4, since I don't have
any Windows systems, and therefore don't need FAT32 support. Even if I
/did/ have any Windows systems, I still wouldn't need FAT32 support,
since there are numerous other ways of retrieving data from the Android,
besides just mounting the SD card on the client, such as WebDAV; ftp;
scp; Bluetooth; and Google's own Cloud services (the latter being the
main point of Android, after all).
> Yesterday, I've crashed OS
I'm sure you did.
Personally, I've been using my Android very heavily for over a year,
during which time I've completely wiped it, repartitioned it, installed
various different custom firmwares, heavily customised it, installed
dozens of applications (many of which were beta releases), and even
cross-compiled software for it, and at no time did it ever crash or lose
data. The worst that ever happened was one particular custom firmware
was rather slow, so I quickly replaced it. If Android can withstand that
level of abuse from someone like me, I doubt very much if it'll have
much difficulty with "normal" use cases.
> with mere browsing (my browsing haven't ever been mere, probably); I
> can't say what exactly failed, /data/crashsms/crashes had been empty;
> its filling now :) I fail to see any major difference with windopws.
Let me guess. You have a Sony Xperia X10.
>> Porting a GNU/Linux application to Android only requires the
>> motivation to do so. If an app has not yet been ported, then it's
>> simply because nobody wanted to do it. If you want that app, then you
>> should port it yourself, or try to encourage others to do so, but
>> don't pretend this is some inherent failure of the platform.
>
> I beg to differ. I think you've met that proverb "I'm standing on
> shoulder of giants" (that should be properly attributed though). I
> base my work, my job, my time, and, finally, my life on Free software
> provided by others (I know, I haven't paid my debts and arguable I
> would ever will). Now, let's suppose someone (probably, kind of
> idiot) would port coreutils to android. For what reason?
Busybox has already been ported, and that contains most of the same
tools as coreutils, and a whole lot more besides.
> It's going to be installed to /data/data/ that has surprising
> permissions 0771-system-system.
Are you sure? I only have Android application data in /data/data/, it's
owned by various accounts, and mostly has the 666 perm. Native apps are
stored elsewhere.
$ adb shell
$ su -
# bash
bash-3.2# uname -a
Linux localhost 2.6.32.9 #24 Sun Feb 20 18:21:44 SGT 2011 armv7l
GNU/Linux
bash-3.2# bash-3.2# which busybox
/system/xbin/busybox
bash-3.2# ls -l /system/xbin/busybox
-rwxr-xr-x root root 2015660 2008-08-01 13:00 busybox
bash-3.2# busybox
BusyBox v1.19.0.git (2010-12-20 01:08:42 MST) multi-call binary.
Copyright (C) 1998-2009 Erik Andersen, Rob Landley, Denys Vlasenko
and others. Licensed under GPLv2.
See source distribution for full notice.
Usage: busybox [function] [arguments]...
or: busybox --list[-full]
or: function [arguments]...
BusyBox is a multi-call binary that combines many common Unix
utilities into a single executable. Most people will create a
link to busybox for each function they wish to use and BusyBox
will act like whatever it was invoked as.
Currently defined functions:
[, [[, acpid, add-shell, addgroup, adduser, adjtimex, arp,
arping, ash, awk, base64, basename, beep, blkid, blockdev, bootchartd,
brctl, bunzip2, bzcat, bzip2, cal, cat, catv, chat, chattr, chgrp,
chmod, chown, chpasswd, chpst, chroot, chrt, chvt, cksum, clear, cmp,
comm, cp, cpio, crond, crontab, cryptpw, cttyhack, cut, date, dc, dd,
deallocvt, delgroup, deluser, depmod, devmem, df, dhcprelay, diff,
dirname, dmesg, dnsd, dnsdomainname, dos2unix, du, dumpkmap, dumpleases,
echo, ed, egrep, eject, env, envdir, envuidgid, ether-wake, expand,
expr, fakeidentd, false, fbset, fbsplash, fdflush, fdformat, fdisk,
fgconsole, fgrep, find, findfs, flock, fold, free, freeramdisk, fsck,
fsck.minix, fsync, ftpd, ftpget, ftpput, fuser, getopt, getty, grep,
gunzip, gzip, halt, hd, hdparm, head, hexdump, hostid, hostname, httpd,
hush, hwclock, id, ifconfig, ifdown, ifenslave, ifplugd, ifup, inetd,
init, insmod, install, ionice, iostat, ip, ipaddr, ipcalc, ipcrm, ipcs,
iplink, iproute, iprule, iptunnel, kbd_mode, kill, killall, killall5,
klogd, last, length, less, linux32, linux64, linuxrc, ln, loadfont,
loadkmap, logger, login, logname, logread, losetup, lpd, lpq, lpr, ls,
lsattr, lsmod, lspci, lsusb, lzcat, lzma, lzop, lzopcat, makedevs,
makemime, man, md5sum, mdev, mesg, microcom, mkdir, mkdosfs, mke2fs,
mkfifo, mkfs.ext2, mkfs.minix, mkfs.vfat, mknod, mkpasswd, mkswap,
mktemp, modinfo, modprobe, more, mount, mountpoint, mpstat, mt, mv,
nameif, nbd-client, nc, netstat, nice, nmeter, nohup, nslookup, ntpd,
od, openvt, passwd, patch, pgrep, pidof, ping, ping6, pipe_progress,
pivot_root, pkill, pmap, popmaildir, poweroff, powertop, printenv,
printf, ps, pscan, pstree, pwd, raidautorun, rdate, rdev, readahead,
readlink, readprofile, realpath, reboot, reformime, remove-shell,
renice, reset, resize, rev, rm, rmdir, rmmod, route, rpm, rpm2cpio,
rtcwake, run-parts, runlevel, runsv, runsvdir, rx, script, scriptreplay,
sed, sendmail, seq, setarch, setconsole, setfont, setkeycodes,
setlogcons, setsid, setuidgid, sh, sha1sum, sha256sum, sha512sum,
showkey, slattach, sleep, smemcap, softlimit, sort, split,
start-stop-daemon, stat, strings, stty, su, sulogin, sum, sv, svlogd,
swapoff, swapon, switch_root, sync, sysctl, syslogd, tac, tail, tar,
tcpsvd, tee, telnet, telnetd, test, tftp, tftpd, time, timeout, top,
touch, tr, traceroute, traceroute6, true, tty, ttysize, tunctl, udhcpc,
udhcpd, udpsvd, umount, uname, unexpand, uniq, unix2dos, unlzma, unlzop,
unxz, unzip, uptime, usleep, uudecode, uuencode, vconfig, vi, vlock,
volname, wall, watch, watchdog, wc, wget, which, who, whoami, xargs, xz,
xzcat, yes, zcat, zcip
bash-3.2# which rpm
/system/xbin/rpm
bash-3.2# ls -l /system/xbin/rpm
lrwxrwxrwx root root 2011-03-02 07:37 rpm -> /system/xbin/busybox
> And any .apk installed is granted its own user-group pair ('ls -l
> /data/data' to the resque).
Yes, that called privilege separation, a standard Unix feature, and it's
a very good thing. Of course you can change that with chown, if you
really want to. Note that some of those apps are already owned by "root"
or "system" too.
But /data/data is not where APKs are installed. They're in /data/app.
Incidentally, how are you able to see this if you're not root, since
according to you you're "not going to risk root"?
> And run as that very own user-group pair and secondary groups as
> mapped from its requested upon installation permissions. Thus making
> that coreutils port unusable for any other .apk (except if run as
> root).
Not at all. As you can see from the above, busybox tools have the
execute bit set for everyone, not just the owner. There's no reason that
couldn't also apply to coreutils.
> Face it, android architecture inhibits cooperation by design.
I don't know where you draw that strange conclusion from. All you've
pointed out so far is the standard Unix permissions system and the fact
that Android is written in a form of Java - a system specifically
designed for cross-platform cooperation.
> You call that Free?
Very much so.
Your lack of familiarity with the mechanics of Android does not make it
non-Free. The sources are available and freely licensed. Handsets can be
wiped and installed with any software of one's choosing, including
custom versions of Android or something completely different, if someone
chooses to develop alternative software. So far there are hundreds of
custom firmware modifications, and at least three different GNU/Linux
distros have been ported using the simplest method, Debian; Ubuntu and
MeeGo. Booting directly requires bootloader modifications that are
possible, but not currently implemented, just like anything else you
want, but you - or somebody - needs to actually do that work. Don't
whine about this unless you're prepared to expend some kind of effort to
make it happen. Nobody owes you any favours.
>>> And in that sense, who really need WM7? They already have android.
>>> Same eggs, profile view.
>>
>> Hardly. WP7 is a proprietary, dysfunctional mess that nobody wants,
>> and GPL apps are explicitly banned by Microsoft. Android is a solid,
>> Free Software platform with 350,000 activations per day, and offers
>> you the opportunity to provide applications of any license, including
>> the GPL, many of which have already been provided for you by others.
>
> I fully understand that I'm alone on that challenge.
Hardly. There are 4 million users registered on xda-developers alone.
Have you tried actually talking to any of them?
> Right now I can safely hide behind phone-is-for-making-calls mantra.
I've barely made any voice calls at all on my Android. AFAIAC it's
basically just a mobile, general-purpose computer, that coincidentally
can also make phone calls.
> Just one thing, can you make me a favor? If you ever spot a location
> where could be people obsessed with Freedom the way I am -- drop me an
> url.
Yes, here's one:
http://twitter.com/#!/Arubin/status/27808662429
--
K. | "The poor have flat-screen TVs."
http://slated.org | ~ Libertarian propagandist Keith
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky | Curtis, explaining why he thinks
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 7 days | we shouldn't tax the rich.
Eric Pozharski
Q: Why do you lock the boot loader of your devices? Isn’t Android
supposed to be open source?
A: Yes, Android is an open source platform. Anyone can download it,
modify it to their liking and install it on hardware they have designed.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A mobile device is much more than the operating system. In our phones
there are functionality that have to be secure such as SIM-lock and
DRM. We currently don’t have a solution in place to secure that while
opening the bootloader and therefore it would break legal agreements
with many of our partners if we do.”
http://blogs.sonyericsson.com/products/2011/02/25/questions-and-answers-from-mwc2011/
Hadron
Very true.
ps your .sig delimiter is wrong. It should be "-- " to enable auto clip
by clients.
Homer
>
> Q: Why do you lock the boot loader of your devices? Isn’t Android
> supposed to be open source?
>
> A: Yes, Android is an open source platform. Anyone can download it,
> modify it to their liking and install it on hardware they have
> designed. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ^^^^^^^^
> phones there are functionality that have to be secure such as
> SIM-lock and DRM. We currently don’t have a solution in place to
> secure that while opening the bootloader and therefore it would
> break legal agreements with many of our partners if we do.”
>
> http://blogs.sonyericsson.com/products/2011/02/25/questions-and-answers-from-mwc2011/
Yes, the OS is Free, the hardware is not. That would still be true even
if the OS installed by the manufacturers were a GNU/Linux distro like
Debian. So like I said, blame the manufacturers, not Google.
The manufacturers' (and their "partners'") attitude stems from ignorance
and paranoia, and has no bearing on reality. It's the same ridiculous
argument the MSBBC's Ashley Highfield used as an excuse for not
initially releasing a GNU/Linux version of iPlayer:
"How can you have DRM if it's open source? ... open source people
would be able to know how it works and get around it"
It's a stupid and ignorant argument that ignores the fact that the
sources for GPG, dmcrypt, OpenSSH, pam, and other security software has
not magically caused their security to be broken. Manufacturers could
release their sources and every detail of their hardware and security
mechanisms to the public, and it would not make a blind bit of
difference, unless they're stupidly depending on security through
obscurity (i.e. no security at all).
I suspect their own laziness and lack of any real security is part of
the reason, combined with mindless "IP" indoctrination, but mostly
it's just ignorance and paranoia. It certainly has nothing to do with
legal requirements:
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/fcc-sdr-whitepaper.html
If these manufacturers were to expend a little more effort implementing
/real/ security measures, rather than trying to protect their insecure
devices with obfuscation, then maybe they wouldn't be so paranoid, and
jump to stupid conclusions about Free Software. Their current method is
a complete waste of time anyway, since their makeshift barricades can
and are easily removed, despite not being Free. That should tell them
something.
But none of this is an inherent failure in Android, or any other Free
Software, and it makes no practical difference to those of us determined
to gain access to our own property. We'll do so with or without the
manufacturers' permission. At least the software is Free, even if almost
/no/ hardware currently is, smartphone or otherwise. Until Open
Specification Hardware becomes commonplace, we'll need to keep battling
manufacturers for access to our own property, regardless of what
software we use.
chrisv
>But, by giving in HTC has admited guilt.
What a *stupid* thing to say. Are you *really* that *stupid*?
What kind of immoral jerk could be such an unabashed supporter of
corporate thuggery?
DFS
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.92/32.572
"I buy a lot of Windows PC's to use as test stations, and I've been
buying refurbished XP machines and have no plans to change."
Good one, turd. You hypocrite slimeball.
Tom Shelton
> Tom Shelton wrote:
>
>> But, by giving in HTC has admited guilt.
>
> What a *stupid* thing to say. Are you *really* that *stupid*?
>
Well what would you call it? Guilt might not be the best word for it -
but, they did decide to pay the royalty with out fighting the claim.
As to if these claims are valid or not - I can't say because they
haven't gone to court. And until they do, I can only assume them
valid.
> What kind of immoral jerk could be such an unabashed supporter of
> corporate thuggery?
I am not supporting anything one way or the other. It is true, I am
not necissarily against software patents - I don't see anyother way for
an inventor to protect their investments in R&D. That said, I do think
the current system is broken and needs to be overhauled - patents
should be for non-obvious solutions to real problems, not just any old
thing like clicking a button to make an online payment.
--
Tom Shelton
flatfish+++
These people are nuts.
It's probably cheaper to just pay the fee.
That's what many clubs and major cover bands do wrt to public
performance or distribution of music as a cover.
It's not expensive at all and this way things are legal, the
songwriter/performer/publisher get their royalties and the band makes
their money as well.
--
flatfish+++
Please visit our hall of Linux idiots.
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Watching Linux Fail:
http://limuxwatch.blogspot.com/
Linux's dismal desktop market share:
http://royal.pingdom.com/2011/05/12/the-top-20-strongholds-for-desktop-linux/
chrisv
> chrisv wrote :
>>
>> Tom Shelton wrote:
>>
>>> But, by giving in HTC has admited guilt.
>>
>> What a *stupid* thing to say. Are you *really* that *stupid*?
>
> Well what would you call it? Guilt might not be the best word for it -
> but, they did decide to pay the royalty with out fighting the claim.
I would not call it an "admission" of *anything* other than they don't
want a legal battle with Micro$oft.
You *really* don't know that it is *common* to settle lawsuits, even when
the "loser" thinks that they are right, and, if it were to go to court,
might win?
> As to if these claims are valid or not - I can't say because they
> haven't gone to court. And until they do, I can only assume them valid.
I would not "assume" anything of the kind.
I would "assume" that M$ has stepped-on as many patents as anyone else in
the industry, but, since it's closed-source, it's difficult to prove.
I would "assume" that *real* justice would force the monopolists to show
*their* code.
Tom Shelton
> Tom Shelton wrote:
>
>> chrisv wrote :
>>>
>>> Tom Shelton wrote:
>>>
>>>> But, by giving in HTC has admited guilt.
>>>
>>> What a *stupid* thing to say. Are you *really* that *stupid*?
>>
>> Well what would you call it? Guilt might not be the best word for it -
>> but, they did decide to pay the royalty with out fighting the claim.
>
> I would not call it an "admission" of *anything* other than they don't
> want a legal battle with Micro$oft.
>
Ok, so we call it "No contest"... Which is essentially the same thing
as admiting guilt. But, I guess it doesn't matter either way, since
there was no legal battle. So, I'll go with you on that one.
> You *really* don't know that it is *common* to settle lawsuits, even when
> the "loser" thinks that they are right, and, if it were to go to court,
> might win?
>
I know that is common. I'm sure there is a cost benifit-analysis that
is going on here. And maybe they decided it was cheaper to just give
MS a $5/handset premuim - to the tune of at least $150M so far. This
is an ongoing payment, so I guess we can expect much more over the next
several quarters. So, when does the hundreds of millions going out in
royalties become worth fighting for if you think your right?
>> As to if these claims are valid or not - I can't say because they
>> haven't gone to court. And until they do, I can only assume them valid.
>
> I would not "assume" anything of the kind.
>
Well, until proven other wise, they are valid under the law.
--
Tom Shelton
chrisv
> Which is essentially the same thing as admiting guilt.
No, it is not the same thing, essentially or otherwise, troll.
> So, when does the hundreds of millions going out in
> royalties become worth fighting for if you think your right?
Have you really done the math on that, troll?
Also, have you inside knowledge of that the per-phone fee would have been,
and thus the risk, had HTC fought and lost?
Eric Pozharski
*SKIP*
> But none of this is an inherent failure in Android, or any other Free
> Software, and it makes no practical difference to those of us
> determined to gain access to our own property. We'll do so with or
> without the manufacturers' permission. At least the software is Free,
> even if almost /no/ hardware currently is, smartphone or otherwise.
> Until Open Specification Hardware becomes commonplace, we'll need to
> keep battling manufacturers for access to our own property, regardless
> of what software we use.
I should admit that I'm somewhat exhausted with that shizophrenic
thread (plus I must do something for living, you know). I've failed to
convert you in my religion (I doubt I would ever will) but you should
admit, the android world isn't that bright and shiny as it was a week
ago, I hope. I think, that google and friends will provide us with
options to quarrel again shortly. Stay tuned.