Slashdot Mirror

mdeb writes "Broadband Reports has a story on the FCC opening up a portion of the 3.6 GHz spectrum. "This initiative would reserve 50 megahertz in the 3.6 GHz band for unlicensed wireless Internet operations. Setting aside this spectrum would make it easier for vendors to build devices that would work across all Wi-Fi frequencies and create new wireless Internet opportunities in rural America. The new proposal would allow transmissions at power levels higher than currently permitted for Part 15 unlicensed devices.""

Saidin writes, "According to this story at news.com, AOL plans to open access to their cable lines for all ISPs to share. Good will, or just an attempt to keep the anti-trust demons off their back?" Well, AOL and Time-Warner are testifying in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee today, so draw your own conclusion. But, motive aside, competition is good. The full text of the AOL/Time-Warner "memorandum of understanding" is below if you're into reading such things.

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

Between Time Warner Inc. And America Online, Inc.

REGARDING OPEN ACCESS BUSINESS PRACTICES

February 29, 2000

1. This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") sets out the commitments that AOL Time Warner will make to provide open access (i.e., to make a choice of multiple Internet Service Providers ("ISPs") available to consumers) on its broadband cable systems. It is the intention of the parties to enter into as quickly as possible a binding definitive agreement to provide broadband AOL service on Time Warner's cable systems, which will be used as a model for the commercial agreements that will be available to other ISPs.

2. AOL Time Warner is committed to offer consumers a choice among multiple ISPs. Consumers will not be required to purchase service from an ISP that is affiliated with AOL Time Warner in order to enjoy broadband Internet service over AOL Time Warner cable systems. AOL Time Warner intends to encourage actively other cable operators similarly to provide consumers with a choice of broadband ISP offerings.

3. AOL Time Warner will effectuate such choice for consumers by negotiating arms-length commercial agreements with both affiliated (such as AOL) and unaffiliated ISPs that wish to offer service on the AOL Time Warner broadband cable systems. Pursuant to such commercial agreements, AOL Time Warner will partner with ISPs to offer consumers a choice of competing broadband Internet service offerings.

4. AOL Time Warner will not place any fixed limit on the number of ISPs with which it will enter into commercial arrangements to provide broadband service to consumers. AOL Time Warner will provide its consumers with a broad choice among ISPs, consistent with providing a quality consumer experience and any technological limitations in providing multiple ISPs on its broadband cable systems.

5. The terms of the commercial agreements between AOL Time Warner and ISPs wishing to provide broadband service will not discriminate on the basis of whether the ISP is affiliated with AOL Time Warner. Thus, while the economic arrangements reached by AOL Time Warner and ISPs wishing to provide broadband service will vary depending on a number of factors (such as the speed, marketing commitments, and nature and tier of the service desired to be offered), AOL Time Warner will not discriminate in those economic arrangements based upon whether or not the ISP is affiliated with AOL Time Warner. In addition, AOL Time Warner will operate its broadband cable systems in a manner that does not discriminate among ISP traffic based on affiliation with AOL Time Warner.

6. AOL Time Warner will allow ISPs to provide video streaming. AOL Time Warner recognizes that some consumers desire video streaming, and AOL Time Warner will not block or limit it.

7. AOL Time Warner will allow ISPs to connect to its broadband cable systems without purchasing broadband backbone transport from AOL Time Warner.

8. Consistent with technological capability, AOL Time Warner will offer ISPs the choice to partner with it to offer broadband Internet service on a national (on all AOL Time Warner cable systems), regional or local basis, in order to facilitate the ability of consumers to choose among ISPs of different size and scope. AOL Time Warner is committed to bring the benefits of the Internet to all Americans, and will not allow ISPs to offer "redlined" service to only a portion of an AOL Time Warner cable system that is fully enabled to provide broadband service.

9. AOL Time Warner is also committed to allow both the cable operator and the ISP to have the opportunity to have a direct relationship with the consumer. Accordingly, both the cable operator and the ISP will be allowed to market and sell broadband service directly to customers. When AOL Time Warner's cable systems sell broadband Internet service to a customer, they will be entirely responsible for billing and collection. When an ISP sells broadband Internet service directly to a customer, it may, if it so chooses, bill and collect from the customer directly.

10. This MOU represents an initial step by Time Warner and AOL to articulate the terms, conditions and parameters under which a combined AOL Time Warner will offer consumers access to multiple ISPs on its broadband cable systems. It is the intention of the parties to continue to refine those particulars in a manner that is responsive to, and consistent with, the desire of consumers to have a choice among multiple ISPs offering broadband service and the still-evolving nature of the cable infrastructure.

11. All of the foregoing is subject to all pre-existing obligations of Time Warner, including without limitation Time Warner's agreements with Serviceco, LLC (d/b/a Road Runner) and its fiduciary and other obligations to its partners. However, Time Warner will endeavor to reach agreements and accommodations with third parties to which pre-existing obligations are due that would permit the full implementation of the commitments described herein as quickly as possible.

--------------------------
Stephen M. Case
Gerald M. Levin
America Online, Inc.
Time Warner Inc.
-----------------------------

Thanks to attorney Don Weightman for providing the above text.

This week, for your questioning pleasure, we have assembled a four-member panel of antitrust experts who are willing to speculate on what might happen to Microsoft next - if anything. But before you start posting questions, please hit some of the links we've provided to several other stories about the potential results of Judge Jackson's Nov. 5 Findings of Fact. (more below)

First, let's introduce our guests:

Don Weightman was the gentleman who did our Instant Legal Analysis immediately after the Findings of Fact announcement. We had many requests for him as an interview guest. So here he is.

Richard Hawkins engaged in the general practice of law for five years prior to obtaining his Ph.D. in Economics and Statistics. He is currently a visiting assistant professor of economics at the University of Northern Iowa, and practices only in antitrust and other economic issues in the law. His past includes both hardware and software development, including the mail-merge patch for LyX.

John Lederer is a retired lawyer in Oregon, Wisconsin. He is currently active in technology and intellectual property issues. He practiced in the antitrust and transportation areas and argued three U.S., Supreme Court cases.

David Niemi is a system engineer with a background in economics as well as software. He has been administering and developing for UNIX and Linux since 1987, and has been following Microsoft's antitrust adventures closely since 1993.

Next, a few selected stories about the Microsoft Saga that you may not have read:

• Findings of Fact, A Two-Themed Opus (from The Linux Show.)
• Jerry's Take On The Microsoft Decision: Wrong! (Jerry Pournelle in Byte.)
• Microsoft willing to settle antitrust case (from the Boston Globe.)
• Now bust Microsoft's trust (from The Economist.)
• Militant Microsofties Bunker mentality... (from SF Gate.)
• Don't You Sass Me, Mr. Micro-Smartypants! is a humor piece we couldn't resist including that talks about how things might go if Judge Judy was in charge of the Microsoft trial. It's from - believe it or not - The New York Times. (Free registration required to read.)

Necessary Legal Disclaimer: Although three out of our four panelists are attorneys, all they are providing here is speculation. While our panelists are smart and well-read, no one can predict the future accurately, so you should not base business or personal decisions on their answers to Slashdot readers' questions. For legal or investment advice, please arrange a personal consultation with a qualified professional.

Now Let's Get Down to Business

As usual, moderators will select the most interesting questions, and Tuesday afternoon Slashdot editors will do the final "cut" and forward 10 - 15 chosen questions to the panelists - who are all Slashdot readers, just so you know. Answers will appear Friday. So ask away!

As soon as Judge Jackson's decision was available for download (from this mirror site, among others), I was on the phone with Washington DC attorney Don Weightman, who often serves as the informal "Slashdot legal interpreter" on federal law, especially for antitrust and regulatory matters. Click below for a transcript of the phone conversation Don and I had as we read the decision together. Don makes some great points!

Don - This decision from Judge Jackson is the best legal field guide I've seen to the new economy. It's great. This judge really gets it!

Robin - What do you mean?

Don - The judge appears to understand why and how people have been fighting the battle they've been fighting about software. Where Microsoft has been getting its competitive advantage and what it's been doing to keep it. What's more, there's a clear account of the relationship between big fish like MS and perhaps Sun and Netscape and the thousands of smaller developer who have to cope with program interfaces and live and die on the the competitive possibilities that the big fish allow them.

Note: Don says to pay particular attention to Paragraph 18 of Judge Jackson's ruling, which says the market MS controls is for PC operating systems, and also says Mac, Linux, and handheld appliances aren't in the same "ballpark" as PC OSes. Two other critical paragraphs Don notes are numbers 33 & 34, where the Judge describes why he considers that MS controls that market.

Paragraph 38 talks about the economics of software and #39 talks about positive network effect, or "why if everybody else has a piece of critical software you have to get it too." Paragraph 50 specifically mentions Linux, but Don says "I'll leave that one to you guys to decide how spot-on it is." :)

Beyond that, you might as well read the decision yourself. Don says, again, "This Judge really gets it!

Now back to the questions...

Robin - Now what happens? Does every software company that feels MS ever abused it file on them?

Don - I'm going to read to you from paragraph 93 ... "It is Microsoft's corporate practice to pressure other firms to halt software development that either shows the potential to weaken the applications barrier to entry or competes directly with Microsoft's most cherished software products." These are Judge Jackson's words for what happens to you if you try to compete with Microsoft. A lot of software company will be sharpening their word processors tonight...

Robin - How do you think consumers will react?

Don - When they realize that they've had to pay more for computers because MS has charged high prices for their OS, they may take the issue more personally. It's close to certain that someone, somewhere will file a class action suit.

Robin - What about the "browser wars" that actually started the whole thing? Where do they fit into all this?

Don - It looks as if (he stops for a moment to laugh some more) the Judge is finding that MS went after Netscape with both guns blazing, giving Explorer away with one hand and preventing Netscape's installation on new computers with the other, and that all of this was done for anti-competitive purposes. The other thing I'm seeing on the browser wars is that it's pretty clear that the Judge did not buy MS's story on why MSIE was bundled with Windows. He says, "Microsoft's actions have inflicted [collateral] harm on consumers who have no interest in using a Web browser at all" because Win98 runs more slowly it would if they hadn't put the browser in.

Also in paragraph 173 -- which I just quoted part of -- it says,"Microsoft has forced Windows 98 users uninterested in using [it] to carry software that, while providing them with no benefits, brings with it all the costs associated with carrying addtional software on a system. These include performance degradation, increased risk of incompatibilities, and the introduction of bugs."

Note: (At this point Don starts laughing and says, "It gets even better..") Really, you do need to read the decision for yourself! Don says, "You get the feeling that the Judge is a disgruntled Windows user!" But unlike most disgruntled Windows users, this one has the power to do something about it. Right on, Judge Jackson!

Robin - But Don, all the lovely legal language and Windows-knocking aside, isn't this decision going to end up getting appealed forever?

Don - Yes. However, it is unlikely that an appellate court will want to get its hands under the hood of the relationship between Windows and browsers and between MS and its competitors at level of detail shown by Judge Jackson's findings. It's possible to overturn this but it would be hard.

Robin - Don, how much do you figure MS has spent on legal fees so far, and how much more are they going to spend before this is over?

Don - I'm guessing that they've spent more than $50 million so far. And when you say "when all this is over," if you include the industry suits and class action suits brought by private plaintiffs, you could could be talking about real money. Even for MS.

Robin - What's "real money"?

Don - It depends on whether someone nails them for damages. A $10 rebate for each customer who has bought Windows would run into billions. When you add in the damages that could be claimed by other software makers besides Netscape [like Corel], and by users who ended up with MS products, perhaps at excessive prices, because others weren't available, then only the sky is the limit.

Robin - Do you think Bill Gates will have a "House For Sale" ad in the Seattle newspapers next Sunday?

Don - It depends on how fast and far Microsoft's stock price drops. It's already started to drop, according to a story that just went up on ZDNet.

Robin - Don't forget: all that happened today was that Judge Jackson decided MS was naughty. He didn't say what kind of punishment they should get, which he won't do until he hears a whole new set of arguments. Don's best guess is that the ruling on punishment won't come out "until early next year."

Don Weightman and I will try to get a "Microsoft antitrust legal issues" follow-up together by sometime next week. Or perhaps you would like to do it? If so -- and if you're qualified -- e-mail roblimo@slashdot.org and we'll talk about it.

- Robin "roblimo" Miller

Like it or not, the FCC and other government agencies make decisions every day that affect the way the Internet works. Don Weightman is a Washington, DC attorney who is currently in the middle of the ongoing regulatory dispute over who controls the "last mile" of online access in the USA. Don's strong words make it unlawyerly obvious which side he's on, but the only disclaimer he asked us to add was, "The following opinions are mine and not my clients'."

The Broadband Internet Wars
byDonald Weightman,
attorney-at law,
Washington, DC, USA

The broadband wars, which are being fought right now, will determine whether, when, and on what conditions you will be able to reach broadband applications on the Internet for years to come; things like gaming, large downloads, and streaming media. If you have a multimedia or data-rich Web site, the broadband wars will decide which audiences you can reach, and whether you have to strike deals with intermediaries to reach them. If you are an ISP these battles will likely decide whether you can offer broadband services. If you work in the Internet economy, the battle is about how to break through the "last mile" bandwidth bottleneck, and sustain the Net's growth.

Put it this way: being able to choose your broadband ISP is just as important as being able to choose the operating system for your computer. If you lose that choice, and your ISP is bundled with the cable modem, you lose control over what you can and can't do with the Net, just as having no choice of OS means losing control over what you can and can't do with the box.

The players in the broadband wars are looking for a mix of legislation and regulations which will give them an advantage in the race to control that delivery point.

One camp consists of AOL, some other ISPs, consumer groups, and a few state and local political leaders. Their battle cry is "open access." They claim that just as you can choose your ISP for 28 and 56K dial-up, you should be able to choose your ISP for cable modem or any other high-speed Net access service. AOL has emphasized lobbying and grassroots organizing and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on campaign contributions during the 1997 - 1998 election. Election records suggest that it has stepped up the flow of money to lawmakers since then.

AOL is the major force behind the Open Net Coalition headed by well- connected lobbyists Greg Simon and Rich Bond. (After a heavy telemarketing campaign directed at ISPs, the coalition announced recently that since the Portland decision against AT&T, its membership has doubled.) AOL wants new legislation requiring ISP choice, no matter who owns the pipe through the last mile, and supports a bill sponsored by home-state Virginia legislators Rich Boucher and Robert Goodlatte that would do just that.

AOL and its allies argue that the Internet has succeeded as an open platform, while cable, including Internet cable, has always been a closed system. They say that innovations like browsers, eBay, and Yahoo would not have been feasible if they had to negotiate entry through a monopoly bottleneck.

AOL and company add that competition, which has served the Net well, should be sustained in broadband. After all, there are now 40 million American Net users in part because AOL saturated the country with floppy discs, and because local ISPs competed with each other to walk new users through the set-up process. The open access camp adds that the additional sales channels like AOL and the independent ISPs may kick-start broadband deployment.

Charles Brewer of MindSpring thinks that Net access is the core telecom service of the future. He claims that access will have three critical features: consumer-friendly price, 'always on' two-way connectivity, and true broadband throughput. Wireless NET will fail to meet at least one of these criteria for foreseeable future; therefore broadband equals wireline. A competitive broadband wireline market requires open access. Brewer concludes that non-discrimination requirements presently imposed on telephone service should apply to two-way cable Net access as "telecommunications service."

You will also see this group says a lot about consumer choice. Sometimes they will add another dig at cable video, where consumers have lacked choices. Cable operators have long been charged with price gouging and anticompetitive conduct. The open access camp concludes that the risk of such problems in broadband should not be ignored with a "wait and see" approach.

The other camp is headed by cable TV industry giant AT&T, which kicked out $3 million in Congressional campaign funding in 1997 - 1998. It has former FCC Commissioner Reed Hundt as part of its lobbying team. It uses lawsuits like the one At&T filed against Portland, Oregon when that city mandated open access, and it is the major force behind Hands Off the Net.

The cable industry claims that investment in system upgrades needed to bring near-universal cable modem access will come only if it can guarantee returns under a business model with assured users and proprietary content. The cable industry argues that with only 600,000 broadband users, it cannot be said to dominate a market with 40 million American Internet users. Sometimes their publicity tries to demonize AOL, pointing out that any company with 17 million customers shouldn't be allowed to say that it is being bullied. After all, they say, if AOL wants broadband access, why doesn't it just buy some?

The cable industry also says that open access regulation is not necessary because competing technologies, including DSL over telephone lines, wireless transmission, and satellite delivery will provide consumer choices. Somewhere in here you will also hear and read a lot of anti-government rhetoric. There is also a technical argument: the cable modem platform envisions a sort of neighborhood area network, where introducing multiple ISPs would create serious coordination and service problems.

The regional phone companies, eager to put a stick into AT&T's spokes and slow down cable's Internet momentum, rely on former Senators Bob Packwood, Larry Pressler, and and Bennett Johnson, and have hired ex-White House spokesman Mike McCurry to lead iAdvance. They claim that deregulating them will give them competitive parity with the cable companies, and that deregulation will allow them to reach under-served farm country and other communities with high-speed access using DSL technologies. (Reaching the under-served communities where there is little Net use, an issue known as the "Digital Divide," is a current political hot button.)

The telcos are pushing legislation proposed by Senate Commerce Committee Chairman (and Presidential candidate) John McCain, and Representatives John Dingell and Billy Tauzin. The telephone industry spent $14.2 million during the last election cycle. Some key lawmakers have received hundreds of thousands of dollars each in campaign money from the telcos over the last five years.

There is another, much smaller player on the scene, one with a slightly different take. Startup broadband ISP Internet Ventures has a cable-down telco-return platform, and wants to use Section 612 of the cable statute to argue that Internet video is "video programming" under that provision, which requires cable companies to lease channels to their competitors.

I represent Internet Ventures, and I have been lobbying for it. It has made no campaign contributions, and rather than seeking new legislation, has filed with the FCC for a ruling under that, under present law, ISPs have the right to lease access from the cable companies.

Internet Ventures' main argument is that this platform can be deployed quickly using today's infrastructure. The balance of its arguments parallel those used by the open access camp, with a different take on the digital divide. Internet Ventures claims that leased access gives consumers more choices, will promote broadband competition, and also help break the last mile bottleneck. The part on the "Digital Divide" is that leased access can be delivered to under-served communities now, at a price comparable to or lower than that charged by other Internet access and cable television service providers.

The cable operators respond that this is stretching the "leased access" provision too far, that they are doing a fine job, and that leased access for ISPs will hurt demand for and investment in upgrading cable systems for high speed interactivity.

The broadband wars started with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which said that the local telephone companies would be allowed to offer long distance, but only on condition that they open their home markets to competition. None of the local phone monopolies has done so, and many of them have used their lawyers to delay the competitive process by litigating every regulatory issue whenever and wherever possible.

Closed out of local telecom markets, and worried about the long-range viability of stand- alone long-distance service, AT&T has gone on a $120 billion shopping spree, acquiring cable companies TCI and MediaOne. These acquisitions gave it practical control over cable ISP @Home (now Excite@Home), and a minority stake (with media conglomerate TimeWarner and others) in the other major cable ISP, RoadRunner. The business model calls for a closed platform, with preferred space (on viewers' screen and cached on local servers) given to paid advertisers and proprietary content. The closed platform would eventually deliver television, telephone, interactive video as well as broadband Net.

The outcome of the mergers is that AT&T, which claims 80 million customers worldwide, has now added from 20 to 40 million cable customers, depending how you count. Even before gearing up the marketing drive that goes with delivery of Internet interactivity, cable has a base of 67 million broadband (video) customers, which makes this group (cable plus AT&T's long distance customers), with a customer base in nine figures, nearly equal in size to all U.S. local telephone companies combined.

The telcos have about 150 million telephone lines to work from. Pursuing an objective of unifying local, long-distance, wireless, and, belatedly, Internet through a single provider for every customer, the Bell companies did not seriously try to deploy their broadband DSL technology until the threat of cable modems kicked them into action. And DSL has some handicaps. It cannot serve users who are more than three miles or so from the nearest company office, and it cannot be offered over some phone lines at all. As many as a third of American homes may never be able to get DSL.

Cable, too, has its problems. As the number of users on a neighborhood node increases, congestion soon follows. In fact, Excite@Home has had to impose a 128 Kbps limit on uploads because of heavier home-user traffic than expected. Add to this the still-unresolved security problems which make cable Internet unattractive for business, and the picture resolves to technologies which are still developing.

The other thing to keep in mind about the 1996 statute is what it didn't do: address where we are now, when many players from different industries all seek to offer some mix of broadband Net, telephone and television, but on different technological platforms. Aside from some language which has given the lawyers room to maneuver in their arguments, a critical piece left out was the status of Internet delivered over cable. This has meant that the FCC is left to deal with the relevant policy questions without much of a lead from Congress. The resulting vacuum is a major reason for all the lobbying now going on.

Another factor which kept broadband in the background until last year is that, as long-time computer industry observer John Dvorak points out,

"Neither the phone company nor the cable company is used to the pace of the computer industry. Worse, they have no interest in getting used to the pace."

The AT&T merger with TCI, which gave Internet-over-cable's closed business model its prominence, helped bring broadband issues to the front of the stage. AT&T had to pass regulatory muster with the Justice Department and the FCC in Washington. It also had to get permission from the hundreds of cities and other local governments which had granted local franchises to TCI. Last December, the Portland, Oregon City Council required, as a condition of the merger, that AT&T open its broadband network to competitors.

In the meantime, AOL, thwarted in talks with cable operators, formed the OpenNet Coalition and lobbied hard to push open access to the top of the FCC's regulatory agenda, both in the agency's review of the AT&T/TCI deal, and in a separate proceeding on "advanced" (i.e. broadband) services. After fierce resistance from AT&T, the effort failed on both fronts, and the FCC decided, for the time being, to take a hands-off approach to cable access. The FCC tried to justify this refusal to act by finding that AT&T and cable broadband delivery generally were not in a position to dominate the markets for these advanced services. It indicated, however, that it might revisit the issue if it looks like cable is gaining a monopoly position.

One result of the FCC's "hands-off-cable" decision was that AT&T and other cable stock prices spiked on the assumption that they would be able to get turbo-charged returns on their closed systems and captive eyeballs. This spike gave the companies a lot of new market capitalization to play with. Instead of using the inflow to fund the $30 billion needed to upgrade the cable infrastructure for full two-way high-speed connectivity, the industry spent the new money on another wave of mergers, including the recent AT&T acquisition of MediaOne and some other, smaller deals. If the consolidations are approved, AT&T will own access to about 30% of the cable subscriber base, with a partial interest in systems reaching another 30%. This threat to control broadband has prompted the telephone company counterattack.

But the monopolists don't always win. In early June, a federal judge ruled that Portland was within its rights in imposing the open access requirement. AT&T has appealed, but this ruling has encouraged other local governments to reopen similar cases. Last week, Canadian cable regulators issued rules requiring cable companies there to open their networks to independent ISPs. And earlier this week, Broward County, Florida voted to require AT&T to open its system to competing ISPs.

But these are just a few battles. The war continues -- in the courts, in Congress, in State Legislatures, in front of local cable TV regulators, and most importantly, at the FCC.

If you think the open access issue is important, then you should know that the best way to get the FCC off the dime is a show of genuine popular support. And if you want to help, here are some places to start:

www.nogatekeepers.org
www.opennetcoalition.org
www.ivn.net/strat/access.html
www.handsofftheinternet.org
www.iadvance.org

After a long night in the darkroom working on photography projects, nothing will make me happier than cleaning out the submissions box. So hit the link below and read the huge flood of stuff that has been accumulating while I've been trying to vanquish my end-of-the-semester projects. There is a ton of cool stuff in there worth checking out. Realcosmo commented that OpenBios Project Is looking for a logo. Visit their page for info. James Keller wrote in to send us an entertaining article about using Microsoft Manuals as Targets . Idan Shoham wrote in to say that the The Linux in business reference page has grown to 300 entries of companies that use Linux in a mission-critical setting. Good PHB data.

jahn wrote in to send us a link to Linus and RMS in a techno remix of Join us Now and Share the Software. I think we mentioned this a few months ago, but probably bears repeating anyway. I'm on a total MP3 craze again (4.5 gigs and growing) so this is entertaining me all over again.

[-SwM-] wrote in to send us a link to an online version of Rock Paper Scissors. Goofy. DaveWhitinger from Linux Today wrote in to say that Linux Mandrake 5.2 is available. Gordon Delp sent a link to a new FreeBSD news site called (appropriately enough) FreeBSD Rocks

acb wrote in to send us an entertaining parody of O'Reilly book covers. Several folks commented that WindowMaker v0.20.3 is now out, and several other folks commented that it has a new logo "Well, as you can see the new official logo has been put in place, and the logo contest is officially over. We appreciate all the logo submissions and the people who took time to vote. You can read about the winning entries here." LynXmaN wrote in to send us a link to Sololinux.com, a Spanish Linux News site. have opened. Ant wrote in to send us a link to Quake 2 Penguin Models for you penguin nuts. YogSothoth writes "I've always been interested in fractals, but what I always thought would be fun would be a scripting language-based approach that would give you a lot flexibility (with regard to choosing equations, bailout conditions, coloring techniques) without requiring a math degree to enjoy. Its hot off the presses but works quite well." you can check out Samples or Source Code. Vorx wrote in to warn everyone that this weeks User Friendly has been featuring a strange Star Wars/Linux/ESR takeoff that folks might enjoy reading. Bain wrote in to send us a link to a company that is selling Tux Stuffed Animals that actually look like tux.

Nate, My roommate and all around swell guy, has put a bunch of his Gimp Artwork online if you're interested in that sorta stuff. Its pretty excellent. Chris DiBona wrote in to send us a link to Chick Magnet which has some cool essays including one that explains that the best place for women to pick up guys is at Linux User Group Meetings. Quite funny. J. David Eisenberg wrote in to send us A response to his article on Linux and the Consumer Market. This addresses comments made by Slashdot Readers. Also, his opinions on the KDE thing which probably isn't all that relevant anymore.

See? Lots of good stuff! Anyway, I'm gonna get some sleep so I can get up nice and early and get back on the grind. The zany thing is that in 340 or so hours, I'm ton. Forever. No more school. Then I can finally finish Slash v0.3, fix the rest of the bugs in Slashdot, and actually start working on all the new stuff thats coming. Yee haw. In the meantime, I just wanna beg folks to go easy on the email. Don't hesitate if its important, but please read FAQ first and save us all some time.