Which crypto methods are at risk?
Did someone just say civilization could possibly be extinguished in 600 years?
Are they saying that in 600 years we'll be in the danger zone, or are they saying in 600 years we have a solid prediction or near certainty?
I think this article is referring to corporate tax, which is like a double-tax. First, Google the corporation collects money and their profits are taxed (but apparently they use some clever trickery to get around several billion in taxes). And then it's taxed *again* when the employees collect their wages, or the investors collect their dividends.
If Google was a sole proprietorship (Like a mom and pop business), then they would be able to avoid 100% of their corporate taxes.
Google's founders must have believed that the benefits of incorporation outweighed all the extra tax burden, but they didn't take it lying down, it seems. They're doing whatever they can to reduce how much they have to pay.
I avoid officially supported Linux versions, because vendors tend to modify the stock linux distributions in unfortunate ways (such as binary kernel modules and other hacks).
If I had to choose between a laptop with all open hardware, but windows vs. a laptop with binary drivers and crapware, with linux.. I would choose the former every time, because I can just wipe that out and put a shiny new stock Linux on it.
I'm not saying that I know for sure that this particular product is one way or another, but I've been burned in the past so now I'm wary of officially supported Linux products.
If you don't want to pay the $50, just order the windows version and wipe it when it arrives. It's not that hard.
My fear is that they'll consider that a signal that nobody wants Linux.
I would agree with your sentiment if making it work with Windows was free, but it's not.
It's true that getting it to work with two operating systems is more expensive for them than getting it to work with one operating system, but after they did all that work, they chose to increase the price of only one of the two offerings.
I'm going to sell a light switch, and if you pay an extra $50 you can even buy one that's pre-set into the 'on' position!
When that doesn't sell, I'm going to use it as evidence that nobody wants light switches that turn to the 'on' position, and I'll remove it from future models.
When I show non-technical Windows users what it's like to try Linux, almost invariably the complaint I'll get back is 'I expected to see X, but instead I see Y. I don't like having to learn a new way to do things. This is frustrating and alien to me."
Now Windows is emulating several areas which Linux pioneered, such as a willingness to adopt adventurous new user interfaces, and centralized software repositories. (Although they're doing these things in a bastardized form)
Now either way you look at it, this is a victory for the Linux enthusiast trying to convince people to switch. If they hate Windows 8, then that's all the more ammunition for them to try Linux in order to get away from it. If they love Windows 8, then they just completely destroyed their own position that 'different is automatically worse.'
Maybe some smaller Linux distros could do something like this (with the option to turn it off of course), and use the cash infusion to accelerate development?
Man this is going to be so sweet in 25 years when the patents expire
I also hope they use this as an excuse to popularize SCTP.
There are methods which exist where you can 'spoof' your machine's hardware to appear as though it's a genuine Windows OEM, using a 'wrapper' boot loader.
A secure UEFI prevents that method, and a hack needs to be found in the Windows boot-up chain of trust (Much like how you would hack an XBox 360, which is very hard.)
Since the most recent UEFI standards permit the option to turn off secure boot on intel machines, some might consider this to all be moot anyway, since people will be running unsigned code whether this 'pre-loader' exists or not. However, the UEFI standard merely *permits* an insecure mode. It doesn't enforce it. The hardware manufacturers are allowed to require secure mode, if they so choose, and still remain complaint with UEFI. Also, the ARM UEFI standard completely forbids an insecure mode, and Linux runs there too, so the Linux Foundation should by all rights be planning on getting a similar loader signed on ARM as well.
Long story short, if Microsoft chooses to sign this, it would be a win for both Linux, and for people who like to get unauthorized copies of Windows. Perhaps this means they will refuse to sign it, and invent some excuse that it will compromise their user's security or something equally absurd.
Nope, I meant proprietary as in enforced copyright preventing copying.
I want all derivative work, even multi-generational derivatives, to be covered under the same, completely permissive license.
I want the license to be completely permissive, with no exceptions (Except for copyleft). That includes any clause that forces binary distributors to release their source code.
The difference between a binary which is proprietary and a binary which is copylefted, is you can redistribute the latter without the permission of the author(s), but not the former.
I might just do that.
I want copyleft (Licence which, unlike public domain, doesn't allow you to include the code in proprietary, copyright restricted, software)
I don't want to require open source.
I think by proprietary he meant commercial. I suggested http://pigale.sourceforge.net/license_Qt.html
No I meant proprietary. I don't want my code to be in proprietary software. It can be in commercial software and that doesn't bother me.
But it can be closed source copyright free software and that's not a problem for me.
I can't find any license that suits this