vivaelamor 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1585) comment rss

  • On the post: Microsoft's Comparison To Linux In The Server Market Conveniently Leaves Out Free

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 01 Jul, 2010 @ 03:39pm

    Re: Re: Re: You need to have a "market" before you can have a market share

    "when I was running my own IT support company, I can tell you the number of Linux servers compared to the number of windows servers would be easily 100 or more to 1."

    You mean, the ones that called you in for support, presumably? I am not disagreeing, it is my experience that a lot of small businesses use Windows Server, but then all that may prove is that those who don't tend not to need third party IT support.

    "Most companies will have hundreds of computers on site, lots of servers, and may be ONE linux box for some basic function like web fire will, or INET server. Just for the basic stuff."

    The basic stuff that all those Windows servers couldn't do? Odd, that.

    "All the backoffice operations are dont with windows enterprise applications. for which there is a vast level of technical support from MS and third parties."

    The same could be said for Linux, with the added bonus of public bug trackers and source repositories.

    "If you want to get 2 linux "experts" onsite for a day, you wont see any change from AUS$1000, and probably very little change from A$2000 dollars."

    If, as you imply, they're not experts then isn't the price moot? Plus, assuming you are talking about Australian dollars (I thought it was aud not aus), that seems equivalent to £45 per hour per person for six hours. If you think that is a rip off for onsite experts.. here is the first result on Google UK for onsite IT support: "Our rates for PC & Server repairs during office hours start from
    £60 + VAT per hour"    . Btw, that is for MCP's.

    "Usually more cost for linux "experts" (if you can find them) than it is to BUY MS's product, where support is as close as the phone book,"

    This makes no sense, are you saying people don't need to pay for support with Microsoft stuff? Yet you ran a Microsoft orientated IT support company?

  • On the post: Microsoft's Comparison To Linux In The Server Market Conveniently Leaves Out Free

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 01 Jul, 2010 @ 02:46pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: You need to have a "market" before you can have a market share

    "Your experience of having hundreds of Windows servers on site with one Linux server serving as Firewall is also extremely suspicious. If Windows can take the brunt of handling possibly thousands of requests per minute, why can't it handle the Firewall? Are you just making stuff up? Or are you admitting that Windows servers are naturally insecure? Probably all of them should be running Linux then."

    I run a Windows network (pity is welcome) and we have a token Linux machine. Not as the firewall of course, we have a router for that. The Linux machine is a virtual machine on the Windows Server, with Davical installed. The fact that I can add Linux to a Windows network to provide extra functionality at zero cost is a big point in favour of Linux as far as I am concerned. If it was a dedicated Linux server then I can't imagine anything that only runs on Windows Server which would be worth the cost. WSUS would be an arguable one, presuming we still had majority of Windows client machines. On the other hand I don't like WSUS anyway and bet that a proxy cache could handle at least half of that problem.

  • On the post: Microsoft's Comparison To Linux In The Server Market Conveniently Leaves Out Free

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 01 Jul, 2010 @ 02:11pm

    Re: Re: You need to have a "market" before you can have a market share

    "To update a windows server, you often need to restart it. That causes down-time. And that cost you money. In a Linux server, you only really need to restart if you recompile the kernel...and even then, I've read that it might be possible to do it without restarting. That means virtually no down-time."

    This isn't as significant as non admins may first think, especially for web servers. If you run a Windows network then server redundancy is all but required (just try upgrading a domain without a second domain controller, for instance). In the case of web servers it is extremely easy to share loads seamlessly. Having said that, your point still stands in that it is far easier, in my experience, to manage Linux machines of any sort rather than Windows equivalents.

    "To run a windows server, you need a bulky OS that eats a ton of resources, while I've read that it is possible to have an HTML sever, fully configured and ready to run, that fits in a diskette or less."

    Theoretically you could do a pretty darn slim version of Windows, especially if you encouraged Microsoft to help you (I question the need for a super slim OS, though). They have already incorporated a 'headless' (non GUI) install option in the latest server software. Why you'd want to, when there are pre-configured Linux alternatives, is another matter.

    It is ironic that Microsoft is considered by many to be the 'turnkey' solution to any problem, yet tends to require far more investment to do equivalent tasks. I place a fair amount of blame on education establishments. When Microsoft offer 'free' software for education what effectively happens is that they get subsidised training.

  • On the post: Copyright And The First Amendment: Lack Of Satire Coverage Leads To Stifling Of Speech

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 28 Jun, 2010 @ 01:54pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What about Weird Al?

    "weird al doesnt lose his rights, nobody stifles him. he takes his satire and uses other music, and moves forward. his satire is not lost, just changes or different. his free speech and other rights dont extend past and over those of the original artists."

    Hang on, a post ago you were claiming he had no rights to lose. One of yous is incorrect (well, more incorrect). I would hazard a guess that the former would be the least missed in the consistency wreck.

    What is the source of this inconsistency? Your lack of distinction between rights given by law and natural rights. Until you are able to make that distinction, I don't see how you can even discuss the issue.

  • On the post: Supreme Court Rules Narrowly In Bilski; Business Method & Software Patents Survive

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 28 Jun, 2010 @ 09:39am

    Re: Law sucks when you want to break it.

    "So the courts have ruled, and even then you dont like it, you seem to think that you as a non-steakholder in these issues are right, and everyone else, including the highest courts are wrong !."

    If its even relevant to whether someone should comment on an issue, why is Mike less of a stakeholder than anyone else? Not only is he a businessman; who, at least partly, relies on software development; but he also tries to facilitate business innovation.

    "Oh well, each to their own, but trying to lump software patent issues with a business patent case backfired bigtime dont you think."

    Backfired how? It would seem the issue was left unresolved. Back to square one hardly seems like a backfire. Uh, forgive the mixed metaphor. I don't do cars very well.

    "Which you have now lost, so not only did software patents reformers failed in compelling the courts that they are right, they have shown the courts that they are wrong, which is worse."

    Would it be too much to ask for you to read at least part of the article, instead of just the title and making assumptions from there on?

    "yea right, if by innovation you mean copying off what someone else has done, then yes, your right.
    But if you can actually INVENT something yourself, not just copy, you would want some protection of your brillant idea."

    This whole issue is about people getting patents for innovations, rather than inventions. You seem to be arguing against people that you agree with.

    "It must really suck when courts actually listen to those to actually create new and innovative things, who actually improve our lot in life, and make it a bit easier, and the same courts disregard those that just want to take that innovative thing and copy it for a quick buck."

    Didn't you just make the distinction between invention and innovation? Now you're saying something that conflicts with what you said barely a paragraph above.

  • On the post: EU Pushing For Criminalizing Non-Commercial Infringement In ACTA

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 26 Jun, 2010 @ 05:48pm

    Re: Is there an option?

    "just like every other law in every other country, live lawfully and it will be as if this law doesn’t even exist for you" I'm guessing you've never been subjected to a search?

  • On the post: New Research Suggests Digital Economy Act & ACTA Will Stifle Creativity

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 26 Jun, 2010 @ 05:29pm

    Re: Sorry to bring up TAM but..

    "i can't help noticing that he/she hasn't commented on these last 2 posts. So can i guess that he/she is british and has finished up for the night? Sleep well TAM, you can start clogging up the comments again on monday." Eh? I'm British and it's 1:25AM right now. I've often been up posting until past 2am and I don't even work odd hours.

  • On the post: Administration Went From Supporting Copyright Exceptions For The Blind… To Working To Block Them

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 26 Jun, 2010 @ 05:23pm

    Re:

    "3. No one disputes providing help to persons with disabilities. The issue is which among 4 competing proposals provides such help with minimal gaming of the system by persons claiming to have disabilities."

    Gaming of the system for the purpose of copyright infringement?! Do you live in a country without disability benefits or something? We have a simple check: is the person registered as blind?

  • On the post: Administration Went From Supporting Copyright Exceptions For The Blind… To Working To Block Them

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 26 Jun, 2010 @ 05:19pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "no i tend to think it absolutely disgusting that able bodied people will support rights for a group like the blind only because it serves their own purposes. anti-copyright types are just looking to drill another hole through the dam to let more water leak through. it is disgusting and shameful to work that way."

    That only works if you offer an alternative. Otherwise you just sound like a moron.

  • On the post: Copyright And The First Amendment: Lack Of Satire Coverage Leads To Stifling Of Speech

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 26 Jun, 2010 @ 04:55pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: What about Weird Al?

    "no, to stifle free speech would mean that he never made it, nor did he have any other outlet to do so. his free speech wasnt limited, at worst somewhat redirected. remember, he didnt have the right to start with, so it isnt like something was taken away. in each case, when the artist agrees to allow the parody or reuse of the material, weird al gained something he didnt have under the law."

    Weird Al never made me laugh so much. More please. Seriously though.. free speech is a natural right, copyright is not. You have things entirely the wrong way around. To quote Sir Robin Jacob: "An Intellectual Property Right is essentially negative and private. It is negative in that it entitles its owner to stop other people doing things, an entitlement which will, if necessary, be enforced by the courts. And it is private because it is vested in a private owner, generally, an individual (real or corporate). The ‘right of free speech’ on the other hand is neutral or positive. Traditionally, under the common law, I suppose the ‘right’ rested essentially on the absence of any law, public or private, forbidding the conduct concerned––all that is not expressly forbidden is permitted. But in many countries the law now goes further––providing some sort of positive right of free speech. Such a law may, and indeed is intended to, come into conflict with any other law which is a law suppressing free speech: the First Amendment is an old example and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, given fresh life in this country by incorporation into domestic law, is more recent".

  • On the post: Copyright And The First Amendment: Lack Of Satire Coverage Leads To Stifling Of Speech

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 26 Jun, 2010 @ 04:26pm

    Re: Re: Re: A Better Question

    "Why does it matter if the copyright holder is the target of the parody? Can you provide any rationale for this that isn't circular?"

    From Campbell v. Acuff Rose: "If, on the contrary, the commentary has no critical bearing on the substance or style of the original composition, which the alleged infringer merely uses to get attention or to avoid the drudgery in working up something fresh, the claim to fairness in borrowing from another's work diminishes accordingly (if it does not vanish), and other factors, like the extent of its commerciality, loom larger.[14] Parody needs to mimic an original to make its point, and so has some claim to use the creation of its victim's (or collective victims') imagination, whereas satire can stand on its own two feet and so requires justification for the very act of borrowing."

    Although they say satire, the same reasoning would apply equally to a parody that may infringe on a copyright which is not a subject of the parody. So, it matters to the courts at least, but the GP's dismissal of fair use altogether is a load of nonsense (and what's with the jibe about poorly done comedy? That has even less relevance).

  • On the post: Copyright And The First Amendment: Lack Of Satire Coverage Leads To Stifling Of Speech

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 26 Jun, 2010 @ 04:03pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "Since I am the one who happened to mention the Campbell case, one never mentioned by name in the article, I believe you give Mr. Opsahl far too much credit."

    Never mentioned by name? Let me introduce you to the concept of hyperlinks: See the words underlined and often in a different colour? Click on one to navigate to a related page. Try this one for example, which was used in Mr. Opsahl's article.

    "If some courts are "misguided", it seems appropriate to at the very least give one or more examples, and to then very briefly try and explain why you believe this is so."

    Pot, kettle; black. On the other hand, I found Mr. Opsahl's reference entirely clear; yet I am still struggling to see past the obvious conclusion that you disagree with him and are merely trying to pin an oversight or inconsistency where there is none.

  • On the post: Copyright And The First Amendment: Lack Of Satire Coverage Leads To Stifling Of Speech

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 26 Jun, 2010 @ 10:32am

    Re: Re:

    '"you cannot use characters from a to make fun of b. that isnt fair use, not even close"

    You're not a lawyer, so your opinion on this is worthless.'

    That isn't why their opinion is worthless..

  • On the post: Copyright And The First Amendment: Lack Of Satire Coverage Leads To Stifling Of Speech

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 26 Jun, 2010 @ 10:30am

    Re:

    "It would certainly help if Mr. Opsahl at EFF made mention of the fact that the Supreme Court, in its Campbell v. Acuff Rose decision, took a position diametrically opposed to the position he espouses, and if he then attempted in some manner to reconcile his position with that decision."

    Mr. Opsahl references Campbell v. Acuff Rose as an example following: 'The trouble is the misguided way that some courts have distinguished "parody” from “satire” in when measuring fair use'. Did you not read the paragraph properly, or did you fail to reference anything specific because you knew your point was bogus?

  • On the post: CEO Of UK Collection Society: We Don't Want Gov't Handouts, But The Gov't Must Give Us Everything We Ask For!

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 15 Jun, 2010 @ 10:25am

    Re:

    "I love it when Mike rips into people. I would LOVE to see a live debate between Mike and anyone of the guys he shreds."

    I think you can tell how angry he is getting by the worsening of his prose. Jumping from talking about someone in the third person to addressing them directly is a sure sign of boiling blood.

  • On the post: More People Realizing That ASCAP And BMI Are Killing Local Music Scenes

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 12 Jun, 2010 @ 03:23am

    Re: ASCAP & BMI are good

    "sorry, but i hate to be a naysayer here"

    Why be sorry? If it's your honest opinion.

    "ASCAP and BMI provide a valuable function to help protect valuable performance rights for songwriters"

    Where's my band of thugs to extort money for all the work I didn't think to get paid for?

    "The fees for basic coverage for a coffee house or other locations are usually very reasonable and small."

    Compared to a kick in the teeth, perchance?

    "also, it is helping to support artists/songwriters. More often than not, music will be played in an establishment, but no music royalties will be paid at all, but it is good to support, especially now that revenues are dropping because of illegal filesharing and cause people buy singles instead of albums."

    I'm sorry, I was being too harsh on you. Have a cookie.

    "important thing is that it is the right thing to do, instead Techdirt spins it like it is evil. "

    Who do you have to pay for use of 'The Right Thing' (TM)?

    "just ridiculous."

    Now we agree.

  • On the post: More People Realizing That ASCAP And BMI Are Killing Local Music Scenes

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 12 Jun, 2010 @ 03:15am

    Re: Do you have to pay?

    "I remember a post about a collection agency forcing an owner to pay even though he had signed agreements from the musicians that they would only play songs they owned the rights to themselves."

    http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Music/2009/0109/p14s01-almp.html was the original story.

    "Is that actually the law?"

    No, of course it isn't. If you read the BMI FAQ you will get the distinct impression that they know they are bluffing. The licensing schemes are a means to an end, and that end is the concerned copyright laws. If none of their copyrighted material is being used then they have no legal basis for any claim. Just apply the principles from the file sharing cases to this situation; they have to prove infringement for file sharers and they would have to do the same here.

    The issue of course is that establishments often find it cheaper to pay than to put up with harassment from the organisations involved. What establishments need is an organisation to fight their own interests.

  • On the post: More People Realizing That ASCAP And BMI Are Killing Local Music Scenes

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 12 Jun, 2010 @ 02:55am

    Re:

    "As I read the fee terms, it at first blush appears to total $332 annually for business establishments of the type that regularly appear in articles such as to ones linked here."

    $332 annually is the minimum fee. Without occupancy figures I don't see how you can assert that $332 is going to cover all concerned situations (establishments of which type, by the way?). If you divide $332.00 by the lowest cost live single performer ($3.00 - 1 night per week) then you have a baseline occupancy of 111 (fire-code occupancy, not number of seats). It is pretty easy to see how the fee can jump up fast if you have a regular band, or aren't a small coffee shop.

  • On the post: More Casinos Succeeding With The 'That Jackpot You Won Was Really A Computer Glitch' Claim

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 07 Jun, 2010 @ 01:18pm

    Re: A "glitch"? Yeah right...

    Exactly my first thought. Unless they can prove that they make equivalent checks for losses as they do for wins, then they should be liable for every payout.

    Also, are they hiring monkeys to programme for them? If it were that hard to deal with errors then it'd be a miracle to boot the average PC.

  • On the post: Can We Please Put The 'Amateur Brain Surgeon' Strawman To Rest?

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 22 May, 2010 @ 03:02am

    Re: Re:

    "...

    I'm sorry, what side of this issue are you trying to support here?

    I really can't tell :-S"

    If it helps: 1000 * 0 = 0 but 1 * >0 = >0

Next >>