Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Every Proprietary Company Goes Bad Eventually

Reply
Thread Tools

Every Proprietary Company Goes Bad Eventually

 
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-25-2009
This time it’s the turn of Opera
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/24/opera_mini_and_china/>, to plug a
“hole” that allowed its Chinese customers to evade Government censorship of
the Internet.

Every company, at some point, is going to be tempted to prioritize its own
interests over those of its customers. When this happens with proprietary
software, you’re screwed. Free Software is your defence.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
peterwn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-25-2009
On Nov 25, 11:01*pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> This time its the turn of Opera
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/24/opera_mini_and_china/>, to plug a
> hole that allowed its Chinese customers to evade Government censorship of
> the Internet.
>
> Every company, at some point, is going to be tempted to prioritize its own
> interests over those of its customers. When this happens with proprietary
> software, youre screwed. Free Software is your defence.


Opera no doubt faced having its compression servers outside China
firewalled.

There is going to be increasing political pressure to regulate
internet access. Stopping kiddie porn provides a very plausible excuse
for this.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
victor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-25-2009
peterwn wrote:
> On Nov 25, 11:01 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>> This time its the turn of Opera
>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/24/opera_mini_and_china/>, to plug a
>> hole that allowed its Chinese customers to evade Government censorship of
>> the Internet.
>>
>> Every company, at some point, is going to be tempted to prioritize its own
>> interests over those of its customers. When this happens with proprietary
>> software, youre screwed. Free Software is your defence.

>
> Opera no doubt faced having its compression servers outside China
> firewalled.
>
> There is going to be increasing political pressure to regulate
> internet access. Stopping kiddie porn provides a very plausible excuse
> for this.


So its a service issue on mobile phone browsers, nothing to do with
proprietary vs free software at all.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-26-2009
In message <hek505$k6r$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>, victor wrote:

> So its a service issue on mobile phone browsers, nothing to do with
> proprietary vs free software at all.


Their browser doesn’t seem to support the use of alternative compression
servers. And customers in China were forced to upgrade to the new version
that used Chinese-based servers.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-26-2009
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Allistar wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In message <hek505$k6r$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>, victor wrote:
>>
>>> So its a service issue on mobile phone browsers, nothing to do with
>>> proprietary vs free software at all.

>>
>> Their browser doesn’t seem to support the use of alternative compression
>> servers. And customers in China were forced to upgrade to the new version
>> that used Chinese-based servers.

>
> What has that got to do with proprietary vs. open source though? The exact
> same issue could happen with an open source browser.


No it couldn’t.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sailor Sam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-26-2009
Allistar wrote:
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In message <hek505$k6r$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>, victor wrote:
>>
>>> So its a service issue on mobile phone browsers, nothing to do with
>>> proprietary vs free software at all.

>> Their browser doesn’t seem to support the use of alternative compression
>> servers. And customers in China were forced to upgrade to the new version
>> that used Chinese-based servers.

>
> What has that got to do with proprietary vs. open source though? The exact
> same issue could happen with an open source browser.


Dear Usenet, I have no idea how someone could change the code of an open
source application to suit their needs.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sailor Sam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-26-2009
whoisthis wrote:
> In article <heko1o$mlm$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
> Sailor Sam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Allistar wrote:
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <hek505$k6r$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>, victor wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So its a service issue on mobile phone browsers, nothing to do with
>>>>> proprietary vs free software at all.
>>>> Their browser doesn’t seem to support the use of alternative compression
>>>> servers. And customers in China were forced to upgrade to the new version
>>>> that used Chinese-based servers.
>>> What has that got to do with proprietary vs. open source though? The exact
>>> same issue could happen with an open source browser.

>> Dear Usenet, I have no idea how someone could change the code of an open
>> source application to suit their needs.

>
> Dear Usenet, I failed to recognise that better than 95% of people who
> own a computer are incapable of writing any code at all, thus making
> open source no better than closed source.You may as well have given them
> a bicycle pump, more people would have a use for it.


And I forget that it only takes one person to change the code, and then
distribute it to the rest of the 95%.
(Esp. in china where there is an organised network that distributes this
type of 'subversive' material)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sailor Sam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-26-2009
whoisthis wrote:
> In article <hekt3q$nqq$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
> Sailor Sam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> whoisthis wrote:
>>> In article <heko1o$mlm$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
>>> Sailor Sam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Allistar wrote:
>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <hek505$k6r$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>, victor wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So its a service issue on mobile phone browsers, nothing to do with
>>>>>>> proprietary vs free software at all.
>>>>>> Their browser doesn⤁t seem to support the use of alternative
>>>>>> compression
>>>>>> servers. And customers in China were forced to upgrade to the new
>>>>>> version
>>>>>> that used Chinese-based servers.
>>>>> What has that got to do with proprietary vs. open source though? The
>>>>> exact
>>>>> same issue could happen with an open source browser.
>>>> Dear Usenet, I have no idea how someone could change the code of an open
>>>> source application to suit their needs.
>>> Dear Usenet, I failed to recognise that better than 95% of people who
>>> own a computer are incapable of writing any code at all, thus making
>>> open source no better than closed source.You may as well have given them
>>> a bicycle pump, more people would have a use for it.

>> And I forget that it only takes one person to change the code, and then
>> distribute it to the rest of the 95%.
>> (Esp. in china where there is an organised network that distributes this
>> type of 'subversive' material)

>
> Which is still irrelevant as that same 95% would not know how to report
> a bug or ask for changes.



Um, from the network they received it from???

> Therefore for 95% of people there is no
> discernible difference between open and closed source.



??????
Pray tell, how do they ask for the illicit copy from the closed source
vendor?

> Equally ignored
> is the fact that the Major developers (Redhat, Google,Novell,Intel,
> IBM,Apple,etc) have their own agenda,



???????

> and that these companies primary
> agenda is to make money. Open source is NOT free, someone is paying for
> it.


?????
What ****ing planet are you on????
 
Reply With Quote
 
victor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-26-2009
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message <hek505$k6r$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>, victor wrote:
>
>> So its a service issue on mobile phone browsers, nothing to do with
>> proprietary vs free software at all.

>
> Their browser doesn’t seem to support the use of alternative compression
> servers. And customers in China were forced to upgrade to the new version
> that used Chinese-based servers.

Then the users should change to an open source browser which supports
the "alternative compression servers" of which you speak.
I expect that whatever they do they are at the mercy of their mobile
phone company, not Opera.
 
Reply With Quote
 
victor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-26-2009
whoisthis wrote:
> In article <hekt3q$nqq$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
> Sailor Sam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> whoisthis wrote:
>>> In article <heko1o$mlm$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
>>> Sailor Sam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Allistar wrote:
>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <hek505$k6r$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>, victor wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So its a service issue on mobile phone browsers, nothing to do with
>>>>>>> proprietary vs free software at all.
>>>>>> Their browser doesn⤁t seem to support the use of alternative
>>>>>> compression
>>>>>> servers. And customers in China were forced to upgrade to the new
>>>>>> version
>>>>>> that used Chinese-based servers.
>>>>> What has that got to do with proprietary vs. open source though? The
>>>>> exact
>>>>> same issue could happen with an open source browser.
>>>> Dear Usenet, I have no idea how someone could change the code of an open
>>>> source application to suit their needs.
>>> Dear Usenet, I failed to recognise that better than 95% of people who
>>> own a computer are incapable of writing any code at all, thus making
>>> open source no better than closed source.You may as well have given them
>>> a bicycle pump, more people would have a use for it.

>> And I forget that it only takes one person to change the code, and then
>> distribute it to the rest of the 95%.
>> (Esp. in china where there is an organised network that distributes this
>> type of 'subversive' material)

>
> Which is still irrelevant as that same 95% would not know how to report
> a bug or ask for changes. Therefore for 95% of people there is no
> discernible difference between open and closed source. Equally ignored
> is the fact that the Major developers (Redhat, Google,Novell,Intel,
> IBM,Apple,etc) have their own agenda, and that these companies primary
> agenda is to make money. Open source is NOT free, someone is paying for
> it.




There are other browsers available, the Nokia Web Browser is open source.
http://opensource.nokia.com/projects/S60browser/
Built on open source WebKit like the Apple Safari browser.
That still doesn't help access Opera's compression servers, and they are
quite entitled to control subscription services in any way they like,
Its got nothing to do with their software licensing.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Will subprocess eventually deprecate popen2 ? Daniel Klein Python 1 11-16-2006 03:55 PM
Will Linux eventually take over the desktop market? Lucas Tam Digital Photography 76 06-05-2004 11:17 AM
Re: Digital bodies eventually reaching Film body prices? Charlie Self Digital Photography 2 09-07-2003 12:40 AM
Re: Digital bodies eventually reaching Film body prices? DaVidaMundi Digital Photography 3 09-06-2003 04:29 PM
Re: Digital bodies eventually reaching Film body prices? Tony Spadaro Digital Photography 13 09-06-2003 02:36 AM



Advertisments