Slashdot Mirror

"Java IS compiled to native instructions, and has been for about 7 years!"

You understand what the original poster is saying of course. Java is compiled to bytecode. The bytecode is only compiled to native instructions at runtime. This will always be a significant performance hit. gcj rules of course, but nobody uses it yet.

Nonsense. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how Hotspot works. Compilation to native code is done in the background. There is no performance hit, which is why Java can now be used successfully for things like real-time control.

You're wrong.

http://www.internetweek.com/newslead01/lead011101. htm

Note, in particular, "EBay uses Sun Enterprise Servers in tightly integrated clusters..." Ebay does run Java on big iron.

You need to update your facts. That was from years ago. EBay has been migrating off of such so-called 'big iron' to Linux.

"Right. So no-one is ever going to be allowed to add features to Java because you are insisting that 'write once run anywhere' means that you want to only have, say Java 1.1.8 installed?"

Yes, absolutely. Write once, run ANYWHERE. That's what "anywhere" means.

No it absolutely is not. This has to be the silliest definition I have ever heard.

I'll put it another way. How many times have you had to upgrade your PC physical machine because a new version of GCC came out? Since 1987, maybe twice.

That is a very poor analogy. The appropriate question is 'how many times have you had to upgrade your libc to run newer software since Linux was released'. The answer is many times. Does that mean that Linux is not a portable platform? Of course not! It just means that the libraries get updated on all platforms.

Yet today I'm forced to download two separate virtual machines (1.3.1, and 1.4.2) to install the full Oracle suite. Even you must admit that this indicates a pretty serious problem.

Of course it isn't serious - and exaggerating for effect like this does not help your point. Just because Oracle embed different versions of Java does not mean that other companies don't write very successful portable Java apps. A good example is NetBeans which not only runs on a range of platforms, it even runs on VMs which aren't Sun's (like IBMs) and VMs that aren't even based on Sun's code (HPs). This is as it should be.

That's an even stranger statement! Are you really claiming that, of all programmers in the world, 1 in 3 actively use Java?? That's simply wrong. You'll have to back that assertion up.

It is not simply wrong - it is a simple fact. It is backed by the job market, surveys of developers, surveys of managers, book sales, the TIOBE index, download statistics for development tools.

You may not like it, but the development world today for most people is a Java world.

Java IS compiled to native instructions, and has been for about 7 years!

You understand what the original poster is saying of course. Java is compiled to bytecode. The bytecode is only compiled to native instructions at runtime. This will always be a significant performance hit. gcj rules of course, but nobody uses it yet.

Perhaps you should actually take a look at the e-Bay infrastructure before you comment? Those specs are, of course, nonsense.

You're wrong.

http://www.internetweek.com/newslead01/lead011101. htm

Note, in particular, "EBay uses Sun Enterprise Servers in tightly integrated clusters..." Ebay does run Java on big iron.

A strange statement, as about three quarters of 'real' programmers use Java.

That's an even stranger statement! Are you really claiming that, of all programmers in the world, 1 in 3 actively use Java?? That's simply wrong. You'll have to back that assertion up.

Right. So no-one is ever going to be allowed to add features to Java because you are insisting that 'write once run anywhere' means that you want to only have, say Java 1.1.8 installed?

Yes, absolutely. Write once, run ANYWHERE. That's what "anywhere" means.

I'll put it another way. How many times have you had to upgrade your PC physical machine because a new version of GCC came out? Since 1987, maybe twice. Yet today I'm forced to download two separate virtual machines (1.3.1, and 1.4.2) to install the full Oracle suite. Even you must admit that this indicates a pretty serious problem.

While I accept that Google doesn't show much of the copyrighted work on one page, they are really publishing much of the work within the Google site. I can imagine a program being written to query google over and over again to reverse engineer a full work.

That method will not work according to Google in this article:
"Anybody who's clever enough can download the entire book," Hull said. Not true, said Jim Gerber, director of content partnerships for Google. "Martin Heidegger On The Way," for example, was submitted to Google by the publisher. Under those circumstances, people would only be allowed to see a maximum of 20 percent of the book, and a percentage of random pages are blocked completely.

And this link (PDF) in the blog response explains how Google's program is probably going to be allowed to proceed.

They must have added them after some people complained. I can't find the link right now, but originally Amazon had made a public statement stating that they didn't need to solicit donations because the American Red Cross was already.

I could be wrong. Oh wait I wasn't.
--
But mainstream Web sites that had jumped to pull in money for the tsunami victims showed no evidence of repeating it here in the U.S. for Katrina's. Amazon.com, which raised more than $14 million for the American Red Cross in January via a donation link on its home page, didn't have one as of mid-day Monday. Nor did Google, Yahoo, MSN, or eBay, all of which hustled earlier in the year to put up donation links on their portals. (Google slapped up an "Information about Hurricane Katrina" link on its Spartan home page, but that led to news sources and stories.)

An Amazon spokesperson said that the online retailer had no plans to post a donation link on its site. "Each case is different," she said. "The Red Cross has essentially given over its entire site to donations. The tsunami came out of the blue, so it was an 'all hands on deck' situation, but the Red Cross has been getting ready for this and getting its message out there for several days."
--
Looks like that has changed. Link here.

Guess they decided the bad PR wasn't worth it and added a link. :)

http://www.internetweek.com/news/170101492

Although it's sad that Red Cross has to issue out warnings for scammers, particulary in email form. It's ludacris that WIndows has impacted, impeded even, the donation process for people in dire need.

However, why stop here? Other people are in great need of help after receiving a harsh sentence. So I suggest the USPTO should use the financial services of the Gambino family to handle the trademark registration payments on their web sites. After all, if they give business to one federally-convicted firm, why not support another?

Here is the related article on internetweek: http://www.internetweek.com/news/168600599/

How come most /. stories I read these days appeared in the "mainstream" media first.

This is old news!

As part of a continuous effort of karma prostitution, I offer this related story:

"Company Bypasses Cookie-Deleting Consumers"
http://www.internetweek.com/showArticle.jhtml?arti cleID=160400749

Pertinent Sentence:
"United Virtualities's PIE helps combat this consumer behavior by leveraging a feature in Flash MX called local shared objects."

This site has interesting numbers. It seems the Nokia smart devices outsold the others (combined) in Q12005, with a 50% market share.

Antone Gonsalves from InternetWeek gives some advice to avoid this:

Internet shoppers who want the best prices should delete cookies as often as possible. That's because the less online merchants know about you, the less likely they'll be able to figure out how much you're willing to pay.

Anyway, I'm not against companies taking advantage of technology to boost revenues. Heck, it would be naive to expect businesses to do anything else. But I do have a problem with failing to disclose the information you gather and the reasons for gathering it.

I agree with the study's recommendation that retailers be required by law to disclose their data-gathering practices. Companies that don't have full disclosure, while continuing to take what they can from customers, are the real "bottom feeders."

I personally don't, but there's a good article on Internet Week about it.

http://www.internetweek.com/showArticle.jhtml?arti cleID=163106005

I'm going to be biased and stick with my Firefox for now.

I have read on some places now and then that Google runs a modified version of Linux and a modified version of Apache. It had some differences, I just remember a 64Kb disk cluster size, I think.

http://www.internetweek.com/lead/lead060100.htm

Another good article on using flash for tracking:

http://www.internetweek.com/showArticle.jhtml?arti cleID=160400749

It's interesting that someone figured out how flash could support e-commerce tracking tools. It would be far more interesting if someone actually implemented it. I doubt any company will seriously consider using flash to track. PIE's are too bleeding edge and there are too many potential problems.

maybe, but maybe not

okay back to work ;)

No surprises here; the Costa Rican telephone system is owned and runned by the government. Many ill conceived democracies will center their financial support on the utilities of utility companies rather than taxation (it helps the ruling party on elections). The excrement hits the cooling device for these mockup states when the company is doing bad or technology threatens the business model.

Hopefully this little trip down memory lane will correct your misconceptions.

Oh.. and Go Josh! Woohoo! Congrats!

The 2004 election revealed many problems with electronic voting: lost votes, undervotes, overvotes, and votes rolling over into negative numbers. These links are taken from the group blog E-voting experts:

• Broward Co., FL - ESS software on their machines only reads 32,000 votes at a precinct then it starts counting backwards: http://www.news4jax.com/politics/3890292/detail.ht ml
• Wichita Co., TX - Nearly 6,900 of 26,000 total early votes had 'undervote' for President. Human error to blame. County has software problems that need ESS to fix before they can run ballots: http://www.timesrecordnews.com/trn/local_news/arti cle/0,1891,TRN_5784_3303816,00.html
• Lancaster Co., SC - Unilect Patriot voting machines were used and failed. Printouts of votes had to be taken from the machines memories and hand-counted: http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/local/1 0094349.htm
• Mecklenburg Co., NC - More votes registered than voters: http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/politi cs/10094165.htm
• Volusia Co., FL - Diebold optical-scan machines had another failure with 6 machines having memory card failures. "Ion Sancho, the elections supervisor in Leon County, said officials with Diebold told him that the new, higher-capacity memory cards tend to have more glitches than older cards.": http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/elections/orl- asecvolusiaglitches04110404nov04,1,3289659.story?c oll=orl-news-headlines
• Craven Co., NC - Software glitch forces a recount which changes the outcome in one race.: http://www.newbernsj.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Templat e=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfmStoryID=18297Section =Local
• San Francisco, CA - A glitch in the new tabulation software made by ESS to handle IRV/RCV voting (more here) stoped the counting and forced a recount of 81,000 ballots.: http://www.internetweek.com/allStories/showArticle .jhtml?articleID=52200321
• Sarpy County, NE - 3000 phantom votes show up after an audit reveals that some tabulation equipment counted votes twice. (Im not sure if this is optical scan or some other system they used optical scan in 2002): http://www.wowt.com/news/headlines/1161971.html
• Willacy County, TX - Human error in reading results reports causes presidential votes for John Kerry to be counted twice and subsequently misreported to the Texas Secretary of State.: http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/state/101 23432.htm?1c
• Columbus, OH - An error with an electronic voting system gave President Bush 3,893 extra votes in suburban Columbus, elections officials said. Franklin County's unofficial results had Bush receiving 4,25

Of course it is possible to keep a Windows machine naked on the net without it getting cracked.

1. You can't connect an unpatched MS-Windows machine to the 'Net. Even Redmond admits that in their blame-the-admin campaign. See also articles like, "Unpatched {Windows} PC "Survival Time" Just 16 Minutes".

2. Even if you download the patch and install it before exposing the MS-Windows machine to the 'Net, the patch may not work. MS Patches are infamous for being incomplete, breaking 3rd party applications, failing to patch what they claim to patch, or even resurrecting old security problems. e.g. Attack pierces fully patched Windows XP

3. Even if the patch does work, there are many widely known problems left unaddressed by the patch, such as this problem that MS still hasn't acknowledged.

4. Even if the points above are magically resolved, you still have reality bite you: You can't patch fast enough.

A lot of folks are heavily in denial about just how bad shape MS really is in. It's been a great ride, but it's time to get off. If you weren't early in and at the top of the pyramid scheme, then don't even think about it. Either way it's time to look away from Redmond and back to software that works and is actually designed to work.

• The perpetrator (a spammer) is almost universally hated.
• Spammers do real damage.
• They are doing this damage for a pure profit motive.
• They are operating out in the open, making for an easy arrest.

Nobody has ever brought together the world of documents, media and structured information in giving you one simple set of verbs that lets you richly find, move around and replicate those things.

Someone please call Oracle and tell Larry that Bill says that IFS (The Oracle Internet File System) doesn't exist.

What is iFS?
iFS can manage all content -- which is scattered across PC desktops, document management systems, and websites -- in a single repository, he said. It supports the storage and management of more than 150 different file types, including documents created using XML.

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.

"...arguably the best laptop display currently on the market," said Rob Enderle, an independent industry analyst with The Enderle Group.

This thing has GOT to suck now, if Enderle likes it! Some Enderle-isms:

"I have a hard time seeing the Linux Zealots as any different from terrorists"

"The biggest myths about Microsoft are that its desktop products are overpriced, it doesn't respect its customers, and reliability and security are poor"

"So I called SCO and personally found that they did have evidence."

Concerning the lock-in, take Microsoft Word for an example. How many people can't use another word-processor because it doesn't read MS Word files correctly? That's an example of lock-in.

You mention support for Windows, note that Microsoft has extended its support for earlier versions of Windows mostly due to the fact that fact that users may defect to Linux.

Concerning upgrading or being left behind, lets take Microsoft Office again for an example:

When you're an MS Office user who doesn't have the latest version of MS Office, what happens when you need to read a file somebody has sent you in Word 2003 format? You have to upgrade your copy of MS Office, right? Maybe you don't, but many do.

To upgrade or get left behind isn't in itself a problem, it's when you have to pay for frequent upgrades where you have a problem. Needless 'superficial' upgrades to Microsoft's Office suite that cause incompatibility with older versions is different to incompatibilities due to a worthwhile overhaul of the application.

When you have to pay hundreds of dollars for something, you don't want to have to needlessly upgrade each year. Not for something like an Office suite. Just because Microsoft rakes in the majority of its cash from sales of MS Office, does this mean that Microsoft should try to force people to upgrade just to remain compatible with everybody else? Is this form of 'marketing' generous or thoughtful toward the end user? Or could this really be a way of forcing upgrades to maintain the cash flow?

Microsoft Office 2003 will not run on earlier versions of Windows. What about the people who will have to upgrade Windows to the latest version just to be able to run Office 2003? If you're desperate for compatibility then it could work out expensive.

Drop the attitude and find me an example of even one case of a virus that spread as a result of the fix being a forced upgrade.

What are you talking to me about that for? Go talk to Craig Mundie. Why? Read here . This is one of Microsoft's ways of marketing, making people feel guilt, making them believe that they should upgrade for the benefit of others.

Also, take a look at what Microsoft says of itself here . Read the bit at the end titled An "exclusive franchise".

Comparing your baker to a charitable foundation is comparing apples to oranges.

Compare your baker to Bill Gates. You can't have Bill without Microsoft. When Bill does something good, it reflects on Microsoft.

If your baker was known as a nasty guy, people would be less likely to want to buy from his bakery - regardless of how good his bread was. On the other hand, if people know he gives out free bread, they could buy from his bakery because of this, showing their support.

The thing is, your baker probably doesn't need to give out free bread in order to help sales, but Bill Gates needs to paint himself as a nice guy, especially in this day and age. What better way to do it?

I'm not questioning the reason for his giving, rather, I'm questioning the reason for his taking - which doesn't seem to fit in with his 'generous' side. The two are contrary to one another, and they remain that way regardless of how I feel about Bill Gates.

Just outsource the work to Indian programmers. I mean, if politicians think it's such a boon for the economy, then what's the problem? What could possibly go wrong?

McBride says he and his company have become targets of both physical and virtual aggression. A man allegedly called his office to challenge him to a fistfight, he says. When McBride's secretary called back to get time and place, and the guy said he was just kidding.

The Page 2 of his "Microsoft is misunderstood" article contains a few things that made me say "huh"?

The one I really noticed was "Don't copy entire software images from old PCs to new ones; leave that to the hardware OEMs, who have testing and procedures in place to make sure the imaging is done right"

If he is saying we should use factory images, that makes no sense, and would hurt security, since the from the factory images I've seen usually 1)do not have up to date patches/service packs and 2)don't have antivirus software.

He also says never to upgrade memory, which would majorly increase costs. Where I work we have P2 and P3 boxes still running with 2K or XP on them, and they would be useless if we hadn't upgraded the RAM, since they probably shipped with 64 or 128.

Refuting an opposing position with facts, when the opposing position is factless, is often futile and counterproductive -- you end up giving credence to that which deserves none. If he critiques their analysis because of a dearth of facts, then take it at that: He doesn't have to present his own to call bullshit to theirs.

Obviously this guy's angle is "defend Microsoft". By the same token you can find countless pundits whose angle is the opposite position -- attack Microsoft -- and every article they author is a perpetual diatribe "exposing" the evil that is Microsoft (many such pieces are linked on Slashdot regularly).

I'm neither for or against this guy or his article (I didn't read it -- sounds like a another factless bunch of tripe. I felt the same way about the similar anti-Microsoft article that got the sheep excited a few days ago.

Don't trust any of that 'free software' crap you read on the internet - those Linux guys are a bunch of hacks.

But still I would have expected a bit more. Not just "oh, and if Rob Enderle is from Microsoft everythingh he says is bad".

But still I would have expected a bit more. Not just "oh, and if Rob Enderle is from Microsoft everythingh he says is bad".

But still I would have expected a bit more. Not just "oh, and if Rob Enderle is from Microsoft everythingh he says is bad".

You can just even use the other articles he has written for Internet Week:

PREVIOUSLY BY ROB ENDERLE:
- Microsoft: Hated Because It's Misunderstood
- Reasons To Shun Open Source-ry
- Linux Is Not Ready For the Enterprise

Those are all "Opinion" columns, btw.

You can just even use the other articles he has written for Internet Week:

PREVIOUSLY BY ROB ENDERLE:
- Microsoft: Hated Because It's Misunderstood
- Reasons To Shun Open Source-ry
- Linux Is Not Ready For the Enterprise

Those are all "Opinion" columns, btw.

You can just even use the other articles he has written for Internet Week:

PREVIOUSLY BY ROB ENDERLE:
- Microsoft: Hated Because It's Misunderstood
- Reasons To Shun Open Source-ry
- Linux Is Not Ready For the Enterprise

Those are all "Opinion" columns, btw.

on the subject, there's a great article over at InternetWeek.com by David Strom, entitled Java On The Desktop: An Idea Whose Time Has Come ... And Gone.

Basically: Sun should give up trying to win the desktop wars; if they want a good, non-MS desktop, they should back OS X and focus on the stuff that they've always done well. This is just a diversion for Sun, it's going to sap their resources and when it doesn't work it's just going to be another feather in the cap for the "Sun is dying" camp.

-- james

http://www.internetweek.com/question03/DumpMicroso ft.jhtml?_DARGS=/GLOBAL/apps/quickPolls/showQuesti onPoll.jhtml

It looks like other /.ers haven't yet noticed that the author of the pro-Microsoft article actually does work for Microsoft.

From http://enderlegroup.com/profile.asp

"For over 20 years Rob has worked for and with companies like Microsoft...".

I particularly like the "for and with" which sounds even more like he is still affiliated with them even when he's not officially working for them.

For those who didn't know, this is also the dude who wrote the InternetWeekly article Linux isn't ready for the Enterprise: Reasons to Shun Open Sourcery

It's also funny that on the same page as he talks about working "for and with" Microsoft, he claims that he accurately predicted "the failure of Netscape months in advance of the actual events"! Boy, I wonder WHERE he got information about Microsoft's plans "to cut off Netscape's air supply"?

I now honestly believe that Linux and open source are big, bald-faced lies perpetrated on the industry by itself. This isn't the first time; the dot-com boom was like this as well. How many credible people told each other with a straight face that profit didn't matter? This seems much too similar to "free software" to me.

IT organizations are simply not equipped to deal with intellectual property theft issues within a product they have deployed widely. They have neither the legal expertise nor the budget to even properly assess the risk, let alone effectively mitigate it. The key licenses that surround Linux, for the most part, have yet to be fully tested in court. These initial tests seldom go the way the drafters intended, because judges are not technical and the issues are complex. With the proliferation of firms whose existence is supported solely by the protection of intellectual property they have acquired, these tests are fast approaching and will likely, over time, identify the weaknesses in the current approach. The SCO-IBM lawsuit is the latest example of these kinds of tests, as are NTP's patent lawsuit against Research in Motion, Intergraph's litigation against Intel, and even Sun's Java lawsuit against Microsoft. The market may soon be defined by the ability to litigate rather than the ability to develop, and products like Linux, which have a weak defense, may simply not survive this market phase.

One of the things that most concerns me, because it was major failing in previous anti-establishment (read "anti-Microsoft") initiatives, is the behavior of the most visible advocates for these alternative platforms. Microsoft has clearly been blessed with challengers who apparently never learned not to run around blindfolded with sharp objects pointed at their own hearts.

I now honestly believe that Linux and open source are big, bald-faced lies perpetrated on the industry by itself. This isn't the first time; the dot-com boom was like this as well. How many credible people told each other with a straight face that profit didn't matter? This seems much too similar to "free software" to me.

IT organizations are simply not equipped to deal with intellectual property theft issues within a product they have deployed widely. They have neither the legal expertise nor the budget to even properly assess the risk, let alone effectively mitigate it. The key licenses that surround Linux, for the most part, have yet to be fully tested in court. These initial tests seldom go the way the drafters intended, because judges are not technical and the issues are complex. With the proliferation of firms whose existence is supported solely by the protection of intellectual property they have acquired, these tests are fast approaching and will likely, over time, identify the weaknesses in the current approach. The SCO-IBM lawsuit is the latest example of these kinds of tests, as are NTP's patent lawsuit against Research in Motion, Intergraph's litigation against Intel, and even Sun's Java lawsuit against Microsoft. The market may soon be defined by the ability to litigate rather than the ability to develop, and products like Linux, which have a weak defense, may simply not survive this market phase.

One of the things that most concerns me, because it was major failing in previous anti-establishment (read "anti-Microsoft") initiatives, is the behavior of the most visible advocates for these alternative platforms. Microsoft has clearly been blessed with challengers who apparently never learned not to run around blindfolded with sharp objects pointed at their own hearts.

According to Rob Enderle, Microsoft is hated because it's misunderstood.

So please, try to understand their side -- those poor, misunderstood folks in Redmond need your support. Really.

It hurts their feelings when we make fun of them, and talk about the methods they use to achieve their goals in unkind ways.

C'mon, lighten up. They're good guys.

</not>

We all know that the ISO is better than Sun. We all know that C++ is better than Java :-)

Here is a news bite I found thru Tom's Hardware . It talks about Microsoft using a Linux device to protect its domain. Rather interesting...

"Taylor says he plans to focus on (and fund) studies that 'will highlight Microsoft's advantages in areas such as security, feature-completeness and total cost of ownership.'"

You mean like this one, this one, or this one How about this one?

My-my-my-my (U can't touch us)
SCO tries to bill me so hard
Makes me say, "Oh my Lord, thank you for blessing me
With a mind to think about the O from SC"
It feels good
When you know you're right
A superdope winner in a court fight
And SCO knows as much
And they'd just get beat-uh!
U can't touch us

I told you homeboys
U can't touch us
Yeah, that's how we livin' and you know
U can't touch us
Look in the GPL, man
U can't touch us
Yo, let me bust the funky code
U can't touch us

Stop! RICO time!

(With some apologies to MC Hammer, but mostly to the people who read this.)

At least, he works for clients who want him to say that linux sucks, which can be seen here for instance (thanks to Anon on osnews for that link)

"Linux and other open source projects require too much customization, and doubts about the legitimacy of open source code could get users tangled up in lawsuits. Besides, many Linux supporters are a bunch of potty-mouthed malcontents. Enterprises are better off staying away from Linux and open source -- or at least thinking through the possible liabilities, argues guest columnist Rob Enderle."

Here's your all of the OEM Training that the sales force needs, courtesy of Microsoft's chief sales executive Orlando Ayala.

-B

They do know who at least one is: George Moore aka "Dr. Fatburn". Who is also being dragged into court by Symantec as well.

I wonder if his own actions to try to gag a web site turned him into a lawsuit magnet?

Google runs on Linux