Slashdot Mirror

Hmm... supported by said zealots, like....

Like IBM ?
Like HP ?
Like Oracle ?
Like Novell ?

And primarily only used by zealots, like....

Like Amazon?
Like Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, and E*Trade?
Like Autozone and DaimlerChrysler?
Like the 60% of all websites, which are powered by open source software? (admittedly, some Apache servers run on commercial unix, freebsd, and some even run on windows).

Yep... a bunch of slashdot obsessed zealots, who only need to....

So I say, it's time to wake up and realize that what this guy is describing is accurate.

Yes, Daniel Lyons is mostly likely accurate in reporting that FACT that SCO claims to have discovered new evidence.

Wether Danial's OPINION, characterizing it as a "smoking gun", turns out to be an accurate remains to be seen. So far, Daniel Lyons, Laura Didio and Rob Enderle have "cried wolf" many times and not once has a so-called "smoking gun" turned out to be of any consequence. Maybe, just maybe, it will turn out to be important. Until then, perhaps you should "wake up and realize" that Danial, Laura and Rob are themselves zealots who've published many alarmist articles about the merits of SCO's case.

Even if SCO finally has found some evidence to support their case... which is a pretty big "if" considering the history of their performance to date, the impact on Linux of a contractual obligation regarding code released in AIX, but not in Linux, remains to be seen.

In the meantime, zealots here on slashdot, on groklaw, and at Forbes, Yankee group and Rob's one-man-show, the Enderle Group will make their predictions.

Hmm... supported by said zealots, like....

Like IBM ?
Like HP ?
Like Oracle ?
Like Novell ?

And primarily only used by zealots, like....

Like Amazon?
Like Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, and E*Trade?
Like Autozone and DaimlerChrysler?
Like the 60% of all websites, which are powered by open source software? (admittedly, some Apache servers run on commercial unix, freebsd, and some even run on windows).

Yep... a bunch of slashdot obsessed zealots, who only need to....

So I say, it's time to wake up and realize that what this guy is describing is accurate.

Yes, Daniel Lyons is mostly likely accurate in reporting that FACT that SCO claims to have discovered new evidence.

Wether Danial's OPINION, characterizing it as a "smoking gun", turns out to be an accurate remains to be seen. So far, Daniel Lyons, Laura Didio and Rob Enderle have "cried wolf" many times and not once has a so-called "smoking gun" turned out to be of any consequence. Maybe, just maybe, it will turn out to be important. Until then, perhaps you should "wake up and realize" that Danial, Laura and Rob are themselves zealots who've published many alarmist articles about the merits of SCO's case.

Even if SCO finally has found some evidence to support their case... which is a pretty big "if" considering the history of their performance to date, the impact on Linux of a contractual obligation regarding code released in AIX, but not in Linux, remains to be seen.

In the meantime, zealots here on slashdot, on groklaw, and at Forbes, Yankee group and Rob's one-man-show, the Enderle Group will make their predictions.

Gartner also found that IBM was number one and the fastest growing in Linux servers with 32.4 percent worldwide revenue share, an increase of 1 point of share and 55 percent growth in the first quarter compared to the same quarter a year earlier.

Sales of Linux servers increased 63 percent from 2001 to 2002, from $1.3 billion to $2 billion, Gartner said. The move mirrors a more dramatic 90 percent growth in the United States in the fourth quarter.

Also, IBM's global services will come in and do anything you want. You want them to build a big LAMP implementation for you? They will do it. They will try and push IBM products first, but they don't care if you want Linux, AIX or MS Windows, they will do it for you for a pretty penny.

IBM is doing a great job with Linux IMO by playing in many different fields of the Linux market. Sure they want WebSphere and DB2 on every Linux server. But if not, they would be glad to sell you the server, support and services.

I'm sorry to tell you... Microsoft will never release all source code, but also is looking foward to destroy linux.
IBM is the first BIG company that supports linux, but be carefull, it still holds the ownership of the patents.
HP memo forecasts MS patent attacks on free software
This was also published in Znet

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5188012.html

I googled for "Sun microsoft patents". First hit.

You should probaby look at this as well:

http://meh.ogreboy.org/google.gif

Here's a relevant excerpt since I doubt you have the integrety to back up your bluster with actual action and take the time to read the thing:

Actually, I have read it, or at least the relevant portions of it. You quote it correctly, but you misunderstand exactly what a "finding of fact" is. It is not a verdict, and if you'll check this article commenting on the finding of fact, you'll realize that.

I took the liberty of actually calling the Judge's office on this matter (his Chambers phone number is listed). His office confirmed that this is not a legal verdict and has no weight, it is merely a finding of fact that can be used to determine a verdict.

So, legally, Microsoft has still never been determined to be a monopoly. Judge Jackson's FoF letter is evidence, but it is not a ruling. So, while you've made an interesting literary diversion for me, you still have not found a verdict or ruling calling Microsoft a monopoly. Please try again, this is starting to get interesting.

The best I could find was an article on news.com reversing a california judge's 1999 order barring posting of the code on the internet, because it violated the defendants first ammendment rights. Check it out http://news.com.com/2100-1026_3-5166887.html?tag=n efd_top

What puzzles me is how plain text (the source code) that COULD encourage someone to do something "illegal" is not allowed, yet things like the anarchist's cookbook are allowed to be published online (I dont think access to either should be restricted, I just think that decss is just a good way to show how weak encryption can be easily defeated)

I still wear my DeCSS shirt from, i think it was copyleft.net, occationally. Made the mistake of doing so at a family reunion, and got lots of strange looks from my law enforcement parts of the family.

I thought Dell was the first to offer linux preinstalled on laptops? Guess Dell wasn't a "major PC maker" back then...

This is clearly a mainstream push to be announced in the SFGate.

Cool stuff all around. It looks like fewer and fewer companies are willing to do Microsoft's "careful dance". That's one more company in the revolt. With each entry, M$ is rendered less potent.

Heh. Intel has been very careful about choosing its words. They're doing press releases that say things like "Xeon 64 will run software currently being developed for the AMD Opteron with very little modification." They categorically refuse to call their new chips "AMD64 compatible" even though that's exactly what they are. They licensed the AMD64 instruction set and renamed it.

Ben Williams of AMD even said, "AMD welcomes Intel to the world of AMD64." Heh.

As always, those of you who whine about Debian being out of date have probably never looked at the packages available in unstable and testing. Debian is a very fine distro for even desktop use.

And to top off including 13,000+ packages, they've even beaten the release times between Microsoft's barebones desktop OSes Windows XP and Longhorn

Corrected link: http://news.com.com/Group%3A+Linux+potentially+inf ringes+283+patents/2100-7344_3-5291403.html?tag=ne fd.top

Pellston technology, which will be inside Montecito, will allow a computer to kill malfunctioning sections of a chip's cache, a pool of memory embedded in the chip, and continue to use the chip. Currently, users have to replace these chips to prevent recurring errors.

On July 31 of this year, those taking an evening stroll beneath a cloudless sky will have the opportunity to look up and see what modern folklore refers to as a "blue moon." Though the moon itself will not actually be blue--or likely even appear blue--it will be the second full moon in the same calendar month of July, which is what qualifies this Saturday's lunar view as a blue moon, at least by today's standards.

That's not to say that the moon has never appeared blue in color to the average, unaided, ground-bound observer. The moon can and has shone blue or even green in color whenever a sufficient quantity of micron-sized particulates is present in the atmosphere, usually after a volcanic eruption.

The micron-sized debris (specifically, any particles slightly larger than the wavelength of red light, about 0.7 microns) refracts the moonlight, turning it green or blue, based on certain atmospheric factors. For an example of this phenomenon, one need look no further than accounts of blue moons following the eruption of the island of Krakatau in 1883.

While instances of actual blue-tinted moons represent one of several documented meanings of the term, using blue moon to describe the second full moon in one calendar month is a fairly recent practice. This definition arose in the 20th century, and it didn't really become part of the widespread public consciousness until the 1980s.

We can attribute this sudden proliferation of a previously undocumented and unused definition for blue moon to three otherwise reputable sources of fine information and fun trivia, all of which were working off bad information.

WHAT THREE MASS-MEDIA TRIVIA SOURCES ARE MOST RESPONSIBLE FOR THE NEWEST DEFINITION OF A "BLUE MOON"?

What three reputable mass-media trivia resources are most responsible for the current popular definition of a "blue moon" to mean the second full moon in the same calendar month, and what is the likely origin of this "mistaken" definition?

The most recent and most widely known source of the "new" blue moon definition is none other than the king daddy of all trivia board games, Trivial Pursuit. Specifically, the Trivial Pursuit Genus II edition published in 1986 included this definition as a question in the Science and Nature category.

Given the popularity of the game, it's little wonder that folklorists witnessed this definition enter widespread usage in the 1980s. But where did the game makers get their information?

Trivial Pursuit archives (yes, they exist) cite The Kids' World Almanac of Records and Facts, published in 1985, as the source of the question. The book's authors, however, can't trace their own source for this "fact."

So where did the Almanac authors get it? Folklorist Philip Hiscock suggests it came from our second mass-media source.

In January 1980, the National Public Radio (NPR) program "Star Date" featured a piece by Deborah Byrd that noted the "second full moon in one calendar month" definition of blue moon. Byrd cited a 1946 article in Sky & Telescope magazine as her source. Hiscock considers the "Star Date" broadcast as the likely source of the Almanac entry, and thus NPR is the second mass-media source to get blue moon "wrong."

The third, obviously, is the usually reliable Sky & Telescope magazine. A March 1946 article by amateur astronomer James Hugh Pruett titled "Once in a Blue Moon" contains the modern definition of the term, but it cites the 1937 Maine Farmers' Almanac as its source. No edition of that Almanac, however, contains the modern definition of a blue moon.

Several editions of the Almanac do list a different definition of a blue moon--the third, extra full moon of an agricultural season. The Maine Farmers' Almanacs of tha

KEY: "summary of what it says (paraphrase, not an actual quote)" - what it means - what it means from a perhaps slightly biased POV

1. "Talk at Microsoft's Meltdown conference: DX Futures"

2. "Talked about Longhorn's 'Windows Graphics Foundation'" - quote from powerpoint: 'WGF is the "next Direct3D"' - a 3d architecture for both games and for the OS (and maybe for non-rendering tasks)

3. "Unifying vertex/pixel shaders; support multiplexing by multiple apps" - Microsoft is going to continue driving the process of specifying what next generation hardware's feature sets should be (only natural, since Talisman and Fahrenheit were such succesful designs ).

4. "remove fixed-function pipeline features; everything must be done by shaders" - Because obviously everyone wants to write shaders themselves for everything, even in the simple cases! Yes, please make me look up the Phong lighting formula every time I write a throwaway 3d app! Actually, the article doesn't make clear but the presentation above does that they're continuing to support the legacy DirectX interfaces, and improving support for OpenGL, so at least you can use those interfaces for fixed-function support. But the ppt above does seem to say that the hardware won't implement fixed-function stuff (which makes perfect sense--the drivers can supply an equivalent shader), and it states that a high-level shading language "will be the only methodology for Windows Graphics Foundation", with an example showing a shader iterating over multiple lights and computing the results itself.

5. "no more caps bits (capability bits)" - Hey, it's yet another of the things that OpenGL got right all along. Not sure what prevents someone from accessing a legacy D3D API and getting at the caps bits there, but at least there won't be any new ones.

6. "stability; if we're using 3d graphics hardware for basic desktop rendering, it's got to be super stable, and when it crashes, it needs to be able to reset trivially without the machine going down." - the ppt says the new architecture design is trying to reduce driver complexity. I am extremely doubtful about this.

The new system is a dramatic change in Intel's marketing approach because it takes emphasis away from using clock speed as a main measure of performance. Instead, the system will strive to create a scenario in which a person choosing between several 300 series chips, for example, equates the decision to an exercise in choosing a good, better or best processor, sources familiar with the plan said.

You mean fast user switching that's been in XP since RTM? Or Dashboard that's a rip off of Konfabulator?

It seems like you might as well just run the free Beta.

the future is calling via a pokia phone.

So far, SCO hasn't sued anybody that wasn't contractually tied to them in some way. DaimlerChrysler is a former SCO customer. AutoZone is a former SCO customer. They were getting ready to sue former customer Bank of America. IBM was a former "strategic partner" in the Sequent project.

Doesn't anybody get it? Every single lawsuit bar none (correct me if I'm wrong) that SCO has initiated over Linux was against former clients/partners. If you've never had anything to do with SCO, you're safe. Use Linux all day every day. Darl's threat to sue end users has been nothing but bluster. I can't believe a journalist would fail to put 2 + 2 together like that and foster more ignorance that big companies like Lockheed somehow have something to fear.

What a crock!

For those that are too lazy to RTFA, this is probably the most important part of it :

The push for more patents comes as Microsoft is trying to boost the licensing of its intellectual property to other companies, an effort that began last year.

That pretty much sums it up right there. Exactly what do these guys want? Being one of the largest, most proliferated company on the planet isn't enough, apparently.

Don't think this is freaky yet? Check out this article and realize the strategic use of patents in influencing a market. They have all the money to do this too, which is the scariest part. Patents aren't about protection any more, it's about CONTROL.

Someone's the bad guy here ... Or did I miss the part where restricting how we could use our own hardware became "cool".

*ahem*
cool or not, restricting public use of hardware seems to be the new fad. and speaking of bad guys....

Looks like a few other sources have some info on this.

There was a posting to the Full Disclosure list this morning, which mentioned that a Yahoo security-awareness group had a posting referring to a ZDnet article yesterday. (ie this has been all over the net before slashdot covered it)

In an interview from Germany, where he lives with his wife, a U.S. Army officer, Wallace said he had contacted local military intelligence about the issue. They forwarded the information to a higher level, but there was little further response until he contacted the office of Sen. Conrad Burns, who represents Wallace's home state of Montana, Wallace said.
...
Shortly after Wallace got in contact with Burns' office, the file of classified documents disappeared from Gnutella.

Intel has led the desktop market in shipments of graphics chipsets for over a year now.

http://news.com.com/Intel%2C+AMD+market+shares+rem ain+stable/2100-1006_3-5205102.html

Or has Google gotten a lot of bad press lately....
It's even more interesting considering this was recently started...

--tinfoil hat size: 7 3/8

Or has Google gotten a lot of bad press lately....
It's even more interesting considering this was recently started...

--tinfoil hat size: 7 3/8

NASA has picked computer maker Silicon Graphics Inc. and chipmaker Intel to develop a major supercomputer based on Linux to simulate space exploration and conduct other research, SGI announced Tuesday.

Read it here

The ZDNet story they link in the article is actually for eBay's problem with double charging fees, but mentions the PayPal situation near the end...

THIS is the actual PayPal story (from 6/14/04), which is referenced at the bottom of the eBay one linked in the article.

I never was all that impressed with Apple's cube.

I always wanted the Intel version of Cobalt's Qube

Not too long! what you REALLY need is this Motorola phone.. one for the home and the same one for the road! Motorola's Wifi Phone

Some embedded Linux providers even outsource their development to China and Russia.

GASP! Some XYZ providers even outsource their development to ABC and DEF (insert your favorite company and terrorist sponsoring country where necessary).

It would be incredibly naive to believe that other countries and terrorist organizations would not exploit an easy opportunity to sabotage our military or critical infrastructure systems when we have been doing the same to them for more than 20 years!

I think it has been proven that closed-source development doesn't help to change the possibilities that a "mole" has been planted or that a "hole" will be discovered.

One of the greatest misconceptions about Linux is that the free availability of its source code ensures that the "many eyes" with access to it will surely find any attempt at sabotage. Yet, despite the "many eyes," new security vulnerabilities are found in Linux every week in addition to dozens of other bugs. Many of these flaws have eluded detection for years. It is ridiculous to claim that the open source process can eradicate all of the cleverly hidden intentional bugs when it can't find thousands of unintentional bugs left lying around in the source code.

And it is ridiculous to claim that a closed development enviornment will make it any different.

In addition, under the internationally recognized Common Criteria for IT Security Evaluation (ISO 15408), Windows has been certified to Evaluation Assurance Level 4 (EAL 4), a higher level of security than the EAL 2 that Linux has achieved.

According to this article, obtaining EAL2 certification typically costs between $400,000 and $500,000. Looks like it is more money than security. In their infancy, why would Linux vendors decide to shell out large sums of money when the government wasn't interested in using Linux anyway?

This whole article is FUD. He's annoyed because Linux is making leaps and bounds and will possibly affect his market-share in the lucrative Defense and Aerospace industries. At least he came out and said it on his own legs and not by paying off a third party to "investigate" the "problems" with Linux and post their results to the world.

The multi-million dollar cell-phone ringer market ...

Wrote this on my blog a while ago...

Although I'm not a particular "conspiracy theory" freak, I'm starting to smell a rat on the latest moves on the DVD arena. First, the industry tries to play good sport and announces (also here and here, and discussed on Slashdot) out of a sudden it's going to "tolerate" limited copy of DVD, allowing them to be backed up and to transfer content to portable devices. The "gift" is based on technology being developed by a consortium that includes IBM, Microsoft, Intel, Sony, Toshiba, Matsushita, Warner Bros. and Disney, and is being labeled Advanced Access Content System (AACS). Trying the usual PR stunt of passing a consumer right, upheld by most Worldwide copyright laws that for a long time have entitled consumers to private copy (something that has up to now, and as you will see, in the future, been denied), as their "gift" to society, they have just, as usual, forgot to mention some "little details".

The same industry that brought us region encoding, supposedly to avoid the possibility of buying a movie in a given place before it premieres at the cinema, although it is available elsewhere, in practice a cover-up to allow regional pricing of DVD (what else justifies 20, 30, 40 year old movies being region encoded?), has "forgot" to stress that this "feature" will only be available on the upcoming new-generation DVD format, still being cooked up by the DVD Forum, former DVD Consortium. So, to keep it short, they want us to buy all over again our DVD collection, now in a neat DRM crippled format.

After failing miserably with the CSS content encryption of current DVD, quickly cracked by the uber-reverse-engineer DVD Jon, and being at the present time little more than a nuisance, they want to have another go. But this time they are making their homework. Lets take the steps and see.

A little more than one year ago, Microsoft unveiled its plans for a new DRM system, nicknamed Janus. One year later it is confirmed and Microsoft lets out a few more details on the features, licensing and partners. A few weeks later, the DVD Forum announces it is going to include Microsoft WM9 codec in its upcoming HD-DVD specification (as a mandatory requirement). Although it may seem they are going down the same road and bound again to be reverse-engineered and fail miserably all over again, things are now different: of course Microsoft is going to patent its DRM scheme. So, while CSS was qualified as a "trade secret", not allowing the ones who cracked it to be prosecuted, reverse-engineering Microsoft DRM scheme will be violating patent law, and the all-mighty DMCA, what makes it a completely different scenario.

Microsoft has already shown it is very interested in the media turf. After developing its own audio and video codecs and using its dominating position to spread them to the web and hardware devices like portable players and even some standalone players, and after including its Media Player in all current Windows version (earning them the current EU law suit), that will of course support both the WM9 codec and the Janus DRM, we can already see they are trying to broaden their scope. This can be seen on their Windows XP Media Center Edition 2004, and it would not surprise me to see it ported to standalone devices, either on its current packaging or by porting it to Windows CE.

So what can we see as the outcome of this scenario?

Wrote this on my blog a while ago...

Although I'm not a particular "conspiracy theory" freak, I'm starting to smell a rat on the latest moves on the DVD arena. First, the industry tries to play good sport and announces (also here and here, and discussed on Slashdot) out of a sudden it's going to "tolerate" limited copy of DVD, allowing them to be backed up and to transfer content to portable devices. The "gift" is based on technology being developed by a consortium that includes IBM, Microsoft, Intel, Sony, Toshiba, Matsushita, Warner Bros. and Disney, and is being labeled Advanced Access Content System (AACS). Trying the usual PR stunt of passing a consumer right, upheld by most Worldwide copyright laws that for a long time have entitled consumers to private copy (something that has up to now, and as you will see, in the future, been denied), as their "gift" to society, they have just, as usual, forgot to mention some "little details".

The same industry that brought us region encoding, supposedly to avoid the possibility of buying a movie in a given place before it premieres at the cinema, although it is available elsewhere, in practice a cover-up to allow regional pricing of DVD (what else justifies 20, 30, 40 year old movies being region encoded?), has "forgot" to stress that this "feature" will only be available on the upcoming new-generation DVD format, still being cooked up by the DVD Forum, former DVD Consortium. So, to keep it short, they want us to buy all over again our DVD collection, now in a neat DRM crippled format.

After failing miserably with the CSS content encryption of current DVD, quickly cracked by the uber-reverse-engineer DVD Jon, and being at the present time little more than a nuisance, they want to have another go. But this time they are making their homework. Lets take the steps and see.

A little more than one year ago, Microsoft unveiled its plans for a new DRM system, nicknamed Janus. One year later it is confirmed and Microsoft lets out a few more details on the features, licensing and partners. A few weeks later, the DVD Forum announces it is going to include Microsoft WM9 codec in its upcoming HD-DVD specification (as a mandatory requirement). Although it may seem they are going down the same road and bound again to be reverse-engineered and fail miserably all over again, things are now different: of course Microsoft is going to patent its DRM scheme. So, while CSS was qualified as a "trade secret", not allowing the ones who cracked it to be prosecuted, reverse-engineering Microsoft DRM scheme will be violating patent law, and the all-mighty DMCA, what makes it a completely different scenario.

Microsoft has already shown it is very interested in the media turf. After developing its own audio and video codecs and using its dominating position to spread them to the web and hardware devices like portable players and even some standalone players, and after including its Media Player in all current Windows version (earning them the current EU law suit), that will of course support both the WM9 codec and the Janus DRM, we can already see they are trying to broaden their scope. This can be seen on their Windows XP Media Center Edition 2004, and it would not surprise me to see it ported to standalone devices, either on its current packaging or by porting it to Windows CE.

So what can we see as the outcome of this scenario?

You are grossly misinformed .

As a condition to Microsoft before it could establish VC-9 as a standard, it had to strip VC-9 of proprietary status, Majidimehr said.

From CNET.com story on google outage

"Google representatives confirmed that the MyDoom worm affected performance of the search engine, but, despite numerous e-mail complaints received by CNET News.com, said the attack had a limited impact."

"At no point was the Google Web site significantly impaired, and service for all users and networks is expected to be restored shortly," the company said in a statement.

I guess to google's marketing shills it all depends on the meaning of the term "significant" ...

FYI,

My office in Boston has been affected by the 503 Server Error issue for at least the past two hours. I submitted a "news tip" to CNET News.com an hour-and-a-half ago, and it only took them that long to respond :-)

http://news.com.com/Visitors+can't+reach+Google+se arch/2100-1023_3-5283750.html?tag=nefd.top

-Mike

Rambus, it was revealed during the trial, charges a 3.5 percent royalty on DDR DRAM and a 0.75 percent royalty on SDRAM, fairly high by industry standards. In the end, that means Rambus gets about $2 per PC with DDR DRAM and 17 to 20 cents of SDRAM-equipped PCs.

MS wants to get paid a cut for every PC sold.

Virtually all major PC manufacturers find it necessary to offer Microsoft operating systems on most of their PCs. Microsoft's monopoly power allows it to induce these manu- facturers to enter into anticompetitive, long-term licenses under which they must pay royalties to Microsoft not only when they sell PCs containing Microsoft's operating systems, but also when they sell PCs containing non-Microsoft operating systems.

With Rambus it was all about the money.

But MS already has an incredible cash cow, so with microsoft, its all about control. Most of the shenanigins we see are just BG making sure no body screws with that cow. Tying future versions of a 100% standards compliant email server to windows would be one such way.

Try writing microsoft to get a license for an opensource, gpl'd, linux based email server compatible with "sendit-id".

There wont be a lawsuit. No theatrics, no RABMUS or SCO styled lawsuits. But there also wont be that license. Because by default, the new "standard" will not be compatible with GPL.

MS wins without a fight. Look to see alot more of MS tactics like this one.

1) announce big dividend, get $3 billion dollars and donate it all
2) ????
3) Profit

some scam

Anyway, saying a vote for *fringe candidate* is a vote for *bad politician* is very simplistic and not always true.

Most spammers don't use large ISPs.

This is complete BS. Where did you pull that from? Where do you think the bulk of those compromised machines reside? Unless there are significant differences between the customers of small ISPs vs. big ISPs (there aren't), it is simple statistics.

Besides using logic, you can read these for empirical evidence:
Comcast reports 53 percent decline in spam
Top Senders by Domain

I'm sure you can find more if you want to spend a couple of minutes on it. Sorry for the strident tone, but as someone who works for a small ISP, this is personal.

It was A-OK for there to be big media conglomerates when he was in on them, but now that he's on the outside looking in they "need to be busted up".

The Microsoft licensing terms, which were put in place on Aug. 1 [2002], specify that PC makers must ship PCs with an operating system.

...
Many large companies pre-buy Windows through licensing programs and thus have to erase all the software that comes on factory-shipped PCs and reinstall their own. Buying a PC without an OS saves a step and prevents inadvertent dual purchasing.

It's a non-story because it needs action, fast. It needs action because it is very broadly written, but it's supporters (who with the blessing of BSA et al) do not. (The evidence? They think that the iPod would not be harmed by such a bill).

We cannot risk something this ridiculous to even have the opportunity at being fast tracked. Why?

1. A post like this, could have the author thrown in jail if the INDUCE Act becomes law.

2. For more titulating (sp?) examples, see Hatches List

I guess they are hoping we are asleep. I hope to God that we are not.

Taken from news.com story: DirecTV sells its TiVo stake "There are about 1.6 million TiVo subscribers in total. About a million of those are DirecTV subscribers signed up for the TiVo service. TiVo has a contract with DirecTV for DVRs that runs through February 2007, according to TiVo's annual report for the period ending Jan. 31, 2004."

and from: DirecTV exec quits TiVo board "TiVo in late May reported strong subscriber growth, adding about 264,000 subscribers in its first quarter. The majority of those came from DirecTV customers. There are about 1.6 million TiVo subscribers in total."

TiVo owes a good chunk of its current subscriber population to it's relationship with DirecTV. Unfortunately, in my experience, DirecTV has had it's head up it's ass. I've had consistent hardware issues (2 bad hard drives) I've not seen reflected in TiVo forums as well as horrendous experience with their customer service. And I've never opened the unit. (Is that the problem?)

I sincerely hope Tivo has built enough of a name for itself to stand without continued DirecTV support. I've refrained from buying the new HD DVR for fear of complete lack of future support.

Taken from news.com story: DirecTV sells its TiVo stake "There are about 1.6 million TiVo subscribers in total. About a million of those are DirecTV subscribers signed up for the TiVo service. TiVo has a contract with DirecTV for DVRs that runs through February 2007, according to TiVo's annual report for the period ending Jan. 31, 2004."

and from: DirecTV exec quits TiVo board "TiVo in late May reported strong subscriber growth, adding about 264,000 subscribers in its first quarter. The majority of those came from DirecTV customers. There are about 1.6 million TiVo subscribers in total."

TiVo owes a good chunk of its current subscriber population to it's relationship with DirecTV. Unfortunately, in my experience, DirecTV has had it's head up it's ass. I've had consistent hardware issues (2 bad hard drives) I've not seen reflected in TiVo forums as well as horrendous experience with their customer service. And I've never opened the unit. (Is that the problem?)

I sincerely hope Tivo has built enough of a name for itself to stand without continued DirecTV support. I've refrained from buying the new HD DVR for fear of complete lack of future support.

I've been pissed for years about the moronic school IT bureaucrats blowing my tax money on Macs. Even if they get them free, they still have to spend money to admin them. You teach kids all this Mac stuff, then they get in the real world and it's 98% Windows and their Mac skills were a waste of time.

I administer approximately 700 macs among 7 buildings. During my work week, the actual time spent on problems with the macs is less than 8 hours. If a machine is acting funky and cannot be fixed in 15 minutes, it is restored over the network. Every user (2350 students and teachers) have their own user accounts. Hardware issues are practically nonexistent (most of the time it's a hard drive failure). I do not have any virus or spyware problems. At the HS the business lap is running thin-clients through the K12 Linux Terminal Server Project. The ltsp server mounts their home directories from the OS X server and authenticates over LDAP on the OS X server.

And when we start talking about the real world, what version of Windows should we have? According to this News.com only 62% of companies ($50 million or more) have moved to XP and 80% of companies still have Win95 or Win98. If people do not have problems going from 95/98 to XP, they will not have problems going from OS X and XP.

Hey wait a minute:

Here is an excerpt from an article about NARM (the National Association of Recording Merchandisers) charging that Sony is using unfair business practices:

"The complaint also charges that Sony plans to uses its market muscle to push consumers toward buying CDs and digital music tracks from the soon-to-be merged Columbia House record club and online music retailer CDNow. Sony and Time Warner will each own a 37 percent stake in the combined company.

BMG and Columbia House are the two of the biggest mail-order record clubs out there. If Sony already has a 37% stake in Columbia House, and now they're going to own(be) BMG too, isn't this a BAD thing for competition within the mail-order music industry? Why wouldn't that fact alone cause the EC to thwart this?