Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Red Hat Linux Summit Day By Day

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the love-those-swanky-chapeaus dept.

Joe Barr writes "NewsForge (also owned by OSTG) has complete coverage of the second annual Red Hat Summit, covering everything from the announcements of Mugshot and 108, Eben Moglen's inspirational and FUD-countering defense of free software and the GPL, to One Laptop Per Child's Nicholas Negroponte asserting that Intel is 'pissing on us.'" From the defense of Free Software: "He spoke primarily about freedom, and the American legacy inherent in free software. He reminded us that there was a day when the word 'yankee' was not automatically preceded by the word 'damn' or followed by the words 'go home.' In fact, he noted, it was once most often followed by the word ingenuity. He also spent a lot of time discussing patents, and explaining why they were added to our legal system so that the world's brightest, most creative people, would move here. Today, however, Moglen says, 'the patent system is an unbridled and unnecessary headache.' He then went on to describe how patents stifle innovation and creativity today. "

59 comments

  1. Intel by suv4x4 · · Score: 2, Funny

    One Laptop Per Child's Nicholas Negroponte asserting that Intel is 'pissing on us.'

    It'll be quicker to list the persons and organisations Intel's not pissing on or it'll take forever.

    1. Re:Intel by -Brodalco- · · Score: 1

      They're pissing on consumers too... They Call it "Intel Viiv".

      --
      I regret spilling a glass of ginger ale on an achritect!
    2. Re:Intel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, I read TFA in order to try and find out just what exactly Negroponte believes intel is doing by his "pissing on us" statement, only to find the article detail consisted of exactly the same line with no detail at all. Maybe someone could actually just tell us how intel is 'pissing' on Negroponte? I thought the vaporous OLPC was AMD driven?

    3. Re:Intel by hdparm · · Score: 1

      He is angry because Intel argued that MIT's machine design is lacking too many regular PC capabilities (which really was missing the whole point of this project), while at the same time trying to sell cheap PCs to the poor of this world.

    4. Re:Intel by suv4x4 · · Score: 1

      Maybe someone could actually just tell us how intel is 'pissing' on Negroponte?

      Intel is actually competing with the OLPC project by producing the SUV of modern computing: big bulky boxes with CRT-s, the boxes have built-in UPS and "sand filters" and other special stuff.

      The idea is Intel sells those to "internet caffee" shops in poor countries, while Negroponte makes Intel's efforts obsolete.

      Intel and their CEO are publicaly making fun on Negroponte and his project and calling the $100 laptop "a useless gadget, people dont' want gadgets, they want computers".

      Which like another poster noted is completely missing the point. Business is business, however, it wouldn't hurt Intel too much to behave decently in the sitation but they have just put their business interest in front of decency.

  2. Unnecessary headache? by packetmon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    the patent system is an unbridled and unnecessary headache. I think the patent system just needs revamping to conform to today's rapid changes. The fundamentals of the patent system is to protect the author's idea and inventions. Without it many corporations with deep pockets could possibly collapse since their intellectual property would be carbon copied dissolving their efforts and work. I'm not one "for big business" on an abusive scale, but I can empathize with them. If I had my own business and paid someone a lot of money for their ideas and creations, I should be entitled to the benefits of them. Without someone to intervene, businesses could collapse, economical and industrial warfare would be off the meter. For someone in the business world to wish away the patenting system is irresponsible. Much to much economical damage could occur from it. When an economy is damaged to an extreme the snowball effect tends to lead to poverty, crime, disease, etc. I don't know where this guy's head was at when he made his comment.

    --
    Infiltrated dot Net
    1. Re:Unnecessary headache? by madcow_bg · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I guess he means software patents. And everybody on /. knows they are *EVIL*.

      No, really. They are. I am mathematican and I think it is just plain STUPID to have algorithms patented. So, I cannot think a certain way? Just because someone else did? And (with patents) even though I did it first???

    2. Re:Unnecessary headache? by Peter+La+Casse · · Score: 1
      I think the patent system just needs revamping to conform to today's rapid changes. The fundamentals of the patent system is to protect the author's idea and inventions. Without it many corporations with deep pockets could possibly collapse since their intellectual property would be carbon copied dissolving their efforts and work.

      Corporations without products would suffer, but corporations with products would continue to make money as they always have: by selling products.

      I don't think our society is at risk of running out of inventions or of having useful trade secrets being lost to the mists of time, and those are the reasons for the existence of the patent system.

      If I had my own business and paid someone a lot of money for their ideas and creations, I should be entitled to the benefits of them.

      Wouldn't you rather be able to build on the ideas and creations of others without paying them money? More realistically, wouldn't you rather be able to make use of your own ideas and creations without someone else stopping you by virtue of having a patent on similar ideas or creations?

    3. Re:Unnecessary headache? by packetmon · · Score: 1
      When patenting "algorithms", most of the times those algorithms go hand in hand with a program. For example take RSA and PGP...
      Anyone who "makes, uses, offers to sell or sells" a patented invention without the permission of the patent owner can be liable for patent infringement. The boundaries of the patent are defined in the claims portion of the patent. Accordingly, in order to determine whether a particular product, method or process infringes a patent, one must start with the text of the claims themselves. There are 40 claims in the RSA Patent, but only ten of them are independent claims. Independent claims are claims which do not incorporate other claims by reference. To infringe a dependent claim, one must first infringe the independent claim (or claims) incorporated by reference in the dependent claim. Conversely, if one does not infringe the independent claim(s) incorporated by the dependent claim, by definition one does not infringe the dependent claim. (source
      In just about every case - and you can look them up instead of taking anyone's word for it - in just about all cases, the infringement when it comes down to algorithms and similar patents, comes from the use of the algorithm to mimic an already invented program. IANAL and I could honestly care less about patents, but I understand the need for them, and the damages that can arise from abolishing the patent system. Mod the post down, doesn't make a difference to me, common logic dictates the cause and effects of doing away with patents.
      --
      Infiltrated dot Net
    4. Re:Unnecessary headache? by suv4x4 · · Score: 1

      For someone in the business world to wish away the patenting system is irresponsible. Much to much economical damage could occur from it.

      Surely patents bring no economical damage right now? When you change the status quo, damage occurs, but it heals. You can either change the status quo or slowly die with your problems unsolved.

      Patents sent away will bring less catastrophic results than one could imagine, companies will be a lot more secreteive about their works and release products early and often with less of a bigger innovations at a time (instead of spending 10 years researching , producing nothing). But the overal market, being free to come up with an idea and let it happen without beaing threatenet by a patent troll will liberate new forces in innovation as a whole.

      Every little innovation a company does, the other companies can follow later. You could think it's not fair to the innovator, but it's gives them advantage of them being first on the market with a new product. And they've also used innovations from other companies as an integral part of their product.

      There's of course also the medical industry. This is a whole topic on its own, but let me just say this: as a society, we're far less dependant on the medical industry for our regular lifes and survival than we think. The grand "innovations" that produce cancer "treatment" programs with over 70% lethality and a ridiculous cost (you could save hundreds of other people with) won't be missed.

    5. Re:Unnecessary headache? by packetmon · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't you rather be able to build on the ideas and creations of others without paying them money? More realistically, wouldn't you rather be able to make use of your own ideas and creations without someone else stopping you by virtue of having a patent on similar ideas or creations? You're under the impression that I would be opposed to it. No I would not be opposed to someone creating something better, but give credit were credit is due. Whether via mention, joint venture, financially, etc. Again, most patents are just records that can be used to curtail abuse. I would hope most patent holders would be honored to have their ideas BETTERED instead of just carbon copied. One doesn't necessarily have to pay a patent holder, that is where permissions come in. Not everyone is charging to share patented information.

      --
      Infiltrated dot Net
    6. Re:Unnecessary headache? by packetmon · · Score: 1

      Wanna hear something offpost but sad. For most people that don't know, AZT (what is used to treat AIDS patients) was created by the US government. The dosage portions is patented by the pharm company. So guess what... Now one has to pay the pharm company for dosage information. Sad isn't it. Yes there is abuse, but all in all I would think there would be more abuse without it. I envision corporate warfare where facilities are firebombed, etc. Sabatoge galore. Call it extreme, but its nothing short of what big business has done in the past and continue to do now to some degree.

      --
      Infiltrated dot Net
    7. Re:Unnecessary headache? by suv4x4 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      in just about all cases, the infringement when it comes down to algorithms and similar patents, comes from the use of the algorithm to mimic an already invented program.

      You should really check the JPEG patent case, the EOLAS patent case, the "algorithm" of e-commerce patent cases, the "three-columns interface" patent of Creative sues Apple case and more and more.

      Half of those have no product involved. The other half has patented ridiculously basic stuff you can't call an algorithm even if you tried real hard. What they do, is wave their patents in court and go after the successful businesses, since they have the money to pay up the ransom.

    8. Re:Unnecessary headache? by suv4x4 · · Score: 1

      I envision corporate warfare where facilities are firebombed, etc. Sabatoge galore.

      Bombing facilities would still be illegal, so the police/FBI/CIA would have the tools to fight with that.
      Of course there will be some unpleasantr situations, but at least it won't be SO DAMN EASY to lock up knowledge in a box and extort the entire world for a ransom.

      Once something is known, it can be used. This alone is worth all the negative sites of a patent-free world.

    9. Re:Unnecessary headache? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mr Packetmon; you didn't understand a dime.

      Without patents, you'd still had what ever was: secrecy.

      So you did invent a new kola-based drink? Well, you don't patent it; you just go secret with the recipy, so you can take advantage from your invention.

      Now, you are soooo sucessful, others try to take that market niche from you. They maybe can try to introduce a spy within your company. You don't need patents to protect against it. Robbery of intelectual property is a crime no matter what.

      Or they can try to imitate you and thus, competing against you. There's a word for it: "free market". And, well, you know, here in the USA we are suppoused to be in favour of free market, don't we?

      Of course, that won't protect you if your "invention" is so trivial anyone that see it can just copy -and, god save us, even make it better than yourself, forcing you to -hathred word, compete!

      The truth is that the one that developed the invention is *always* at advantage: he knows it better than anyone. Again, no need for patents.

      Patents were a good idea, back in their day; economy was not money-centered but productivity-centered, so a big capitalist could overhelm your invention by means of better ability to produce it. Currently, IBM or GM wouldn't even try that path; they'd just buy your company or subcontract that item production to you; again, no patents needed.

      Even then, patents could survive just as a legacy (like kings in Europe) was it not that they pose obvious and big problems within current economy.

    10. Re:Unnecessary headache? by kfg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I was sitting around one day, cold, damp and miserable. Then I had a brainstorm - fire is hot! Perhaps if I could find a way of creating a small fire at my own will I could get; and remain, dry and toasty.

      The exhaltation soon passed, however, when I realized I wouldn't benefit from this because anybody else could use my idea as well.

      And that's why we're all sitting here, cold, damp and miserable today when if we only had a patent system you could all be paying me a tribute to be dry and toasty.

      Damn I hate being cold and damp. I wish I could just build a fire. You guys suck.

      KFG

    11. Re:Unnecessary headache? by mickwd · · Score: 1

      "Without it many corporations with deep pockets could possibly collapse since their intellectual property would be carbon copied dissolving their efforts and work."

      Complete rubbish. What about copyright? What about simply not publishing the source code?

      "For someone in the business world to wish away the patenting system is irresponsible."

      Unless they live in Europe, of course. Or various other places which aren't the USA.

      "Without someone to intervene, businesses could collapse, economical and industrial warfare would be off the meter."

      ".....Much to much economical damage could occur from it. When an economy is damaged to an extreme the snowball effect tends to lead to poverty, crime, disease, etc."

      Disease ???

      Well-trolled, sir. Congratulations on your +5, and shame on the moderators.

    12. Re:Unnecessary headache? by NetSettler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The fundamentals of the patent system is to protect the author's idea and inventions

      Actually, the patent system does not protect ideas. No intellectual property does. The patent system protects a way of doing something useful and novel as a way of incentivizing creation. The problem is that ways of doing things are being cranked out so fast that their very speed of being cranked out is a prove of non-novelty, yet people are capitalizing them economically as if they were a proof of "infringement", which they often are not. That an idea about how to do something is easy to recreate should be proof of non-novelty and a defense against infringement, not a source of income. And that's why the software patent system is broken: because in the digital marketplace, a lot of the good algorithms are practically forced. It's like giving patents on addition and subtraction, when you know these ideas would come anyway.

      I agree that software patents are an unnecessary headache, but I think it's because software patents are just different than things like material process patents, and I propose dealing with them very differently, more like the Nobel prizes, but I'm not so sure I have a strong position on patents in general, as long as they run in a reasonable period of time and don't start doing like copyrights where they keep getting extended all the time to last closer and closer to forever.

      It bugs me though, that people move so fluidly between discussions of software patents and discussions of GPL as if it were all one kind of thing. Copyrights are protections of work done, and the likelihood that two people will write the same software system is close to zero, so there's little harm in protecting the expression of someone's program. If they want to let someone use it, let them. If they don't, let that person write something else.

      I don't see that someone's copyright protection infringes the world, since recreation of an idea in another form is not an infringement, only direct copying. It's the fact that patents make even independent creation into an offense that makes it a problem where copyright is not. People who need to get around a copyright can just head to a clean room and work their way through. People who need to get around a patent can't even claim as a defense "we raised the authors on Alpha Centauri and they never heard of this patent, so couldn't have infringed it". In fact, I suspect the whole patent system will necessarily collapse as soon as we open trade relations with another intelligent race, who will surely have a different theory of what has and has not been invented and will think different things to have "prior art" (not to mention different things to be "obvious"). When is First Contact scheduled for again?

      --

      Kent M Pitman
      Philosopher, Technologist, Writer

    13. Re:Unnecessary headache? by theonetruekeebler · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The fundamentals of the patent system is to protect the author's idea and inventions.

      Close, but there's a critical flaw in that oversimplification. Patents, like copyrights, were designed to strike a balance between the rights of creators and the rights of everybody else. But like any other legal fiction, the concept of "intellectual property" has been distorted far beyond its original intent, in the ways most profitable to those who already profit from it.

      Patent systems were meant to help you protect your invention and make it exclusively yours for a limited time. After that, it belongs to everybody. You invent something, and make what money as you can, then a few years later it's just another thing anybody can use.

      But patents expire. After you've been protected from us, the rest of us are now protected from you. This is good. If you don't think it is, consider what the world would be like if one big company that still held a patent on "the use of electrical signals to convey a message."

      --
      This is not my sandwich.
    14. Re:Unnecessary headache? by Peter+La+Casse · · Score: 1
      most patents are just records that can be used to curtail abuse.

      Cite? It looks like most patents are used to curtail competition. They're made as broad as possible to try to slow down or stop competitors, or to try to extract license fees from actual inventors.

      How *should* patents be used, and what do you propose to move things in that direction?

      I would hope most patent holders would be honored to have their ideas BETTERED instead of just carbon copied.

      It would be nice if that were true, but most patent holders are corporations that don't have the ability to feel honored.

    15. Re:Unnecessary headache? by madcow_bg · · Score: 1
      I see your point. IANAL also, but I think with my own head. Patenting ideas is stupid and always counterproductive. Correct me if I'm wrong, but RSA was invented BEFORE software patents came along. Furthermore, should EVERYTHING be patentable? Sure not, then why software? Software should be protected by copyright and only by copyright like every other piece of written work.


      IMHO there are things that should not be protectable. For inctance, ideas. There is nothing on earth that will change my mind. So, if I read a book, I can do with MY ideas that the book just INSPIRED. End of story. If the author describes a patented invention, the invention is patented and protected, not the IDEA behind it. Patents are for PHYSICAL devices, not thoughts.

    16. Re:Unnecessary headache? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't you rather be able to build on the ideas and creations of others without paying them money?

      You mean wouldn't I like to steal their ideas? Thats what it is when you don't pay. How about I take your ideas and money out of your pocket and away from your family? Everyone is ok with this idea until it affects them, its called being a "Liberal"

    17. Re:Unnecessary headache? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      So, I cannot think a certain way? Just because someone else did? And (with patents) even though I did it first???

      How does that not describe the world of physical patents? Sure, you eventually have to go to the machine shop and grind some iron into the proper shape for your invention, but the thing being invented is really some great unique thought that somebody had. I don't know how the patents on it played out, but when one of Edison's scientists invented the light bulb the patent on making glass or hooking up electrodes isn't really interesting - what's patent-worthy is that some guy thought, "y'know, if we ran electricity through a resistive substance that exhibited black body radiation and suspended in a vaccuum, it could burn for a very long time and provide useful light."

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    18. Re:Unnecessary headache? by Peter+La+Casse · · Score: 1
      You mean wouldn't I like to steal their ideas?

      What makes something your idea or my idea? Answer: if you or I know an idea, it is our idea.

      How can anyone steal an idea? Answer: it can't be done. You sharing an idea with someone else doesn't eliminate your possession of that idea.

      If anything is "stealing an idea", it's using patent law to prevent somebody from using an idea that they came up with independently.

    19. Re:Unnecessary headache? by madcow_bg · · Score: 1

      The differnce is EXACTLY that I need to go to a machine shop and create the bloody thing.
      I am for patents where they are needed. Can you give me ONE example of an algorithm that was invented BECAUSE of the patents, not DESPITE?
      Anyway, patents used to be about inventions, not ideas. Patenting ideas is stupid. You know, Edison patented the light bulb, not the idea of electric light? See the difference? By the way, first electric (usable) light was made by the russian inventor Nikolai Tesla. Tesla Coils from RedAlert anyone?
      Just... the bastards should keep the precious IP from ideas. They ARE NOT PRIVATE PROPERTY, nor should they. If you want to preserve your ideas, don't tell them to anyone.

      By the way, I read somewhere that EU (officials) are going to abolish patents. Way to go, guys. :)

  3. Redhat? by flogic42 · · Score: 2, Funny

    If I was a ninja, I'd throw a dagger that would remove all the bugs in redhat, decapitate bill gates, free Tibet, and make me a sandwich before returning to my hand.

    --
    Check out my women's designer clothing store.
  4. We need more Moglen talks by nlago · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Free Software, at least for a part of this community, is a matter of principle, ethics, morality, you name it. Unfortunately, such approach to free software is currently not very fashionable.

    Yet, I believe we are headed for some serious turbulence in the not-too-distant future, and the "use the best tool for the job" crowd, the "I use it because it is free (as in beer)" crowd or even the corporations currently making money from free software are not going to be the ones solving the difficult technical/legal problems that are to come for software to be truly free. It will be the idealistic crowd. And that's why we need, more than ever, a lot of evangelization.

    According to TFA, Moglen's speech was the only one not "business"-focused; all the other speakers addressed "the wonders of open-source software", as a means of making money while involving a community (which means "reducing costs"). While there is nothing wrong with that, it is important to realize there are ethical reasons for some people to spend a lot of time on something that is not reverted to them in the form of money.

    When difficulties arise, are these companies to back-up the free software community, investing developer and lawyer time, or are they going to go the short-term solution of reverting to the closed-software business model? While expecting moral decisions on the part of a company is unreal, it may make business sense to stick to free software, specially if there is a strong enough community behind it to actually have an influence on the market.

    Of particular importance, IMHO, is the GPL v3 subject. A lot of ignorance, misinformation, prejudice and even FUD seems to be currently associated with GPL v3. The new GPL is going to be very important, but the community needs to understand it *correctly* ASAP. And I surely hope more *accurate* stuff is written about it, and Moglen is probably the person to do it.

    1. Re:We need more Moglen talks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.

      Computers are important. Software to run on those computers is important. Ensuring that control of computers remains with the people is important.

      With non-free software you can't rely on being around in (1 year, 5 years, 10 years). You can't rely on it being ported to new platforms (think new processors that have been developed, but company is not interested or is no longer around). If a company is no longer around or it justs isn't cost effective you can't expect them to add features or fix bugs even if they are extremely critical for you. Moreover, you can't control the
      You can't even *trust* non-free software. Think NSA wiretaps. Think about being the Iranian or Chinese government running American software.

      This is about control of computers.

      This is about freedom.

      This is about social responsibility.

      Wake up.

    2. Re:We need more Moglen talks by lamp540 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Why is Moglen so important? It's assholes like him(lawyers) who made all these problems to begin with. There was a time when if someone had a good idea it was copied and everyone was better for it. Now we have these geeks, like Moglen, who don't even know how to DO anything...law geeks...they just dance around and chant their incantations(statutes) and pretend like they are doing something.

  5. Moglen's Deany Boppers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's easy to picture the crowd whipped into a frenzy as Moglen screams, "Not only are we going to bring GPL to the masses, Bill Gates, we're going to Redmond and Silicon Valley and San Jose and New Delhi and Denmark, and we're going to farms in the heartland... And we're going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan. And then we're going to Washington, D.C., to take back the OS choice! Yeaaaaagggggh!!!"

  6. Redhat by dwalsh · · Score: 0, Troll

    Redhat? Are they still around?

    --
    ${YEAR+1} is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop!
    1. Re:Redhat by 0racle · · Score: 1

      Hm, they have Red Hats for Computers now.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
  7. Patents do not protect individual creators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The classic example of why patents do not protect the little guy is Edwin Armstrong. He invented most of the important parts of modern radio. In particular, he invented FM. He had patents but couldn't protect them against RCA. He died a broken man. Patents haven't achieved their intended purpose for a long time. The idea that patents make it possible to attract individual creators to America is risable.

    In order to reform the system and protect the little guy, they started granting automatic injunctions to patent holders. That's what enabled NTP to rob RIM of half a billion dollars. Tampering with the system doesn't fix it. It should be mostly junked.

    http://www.wsone.com/fecha/armstrong.htm

    For more information on why patents don't work for the individual creator, check out Don Lancaster:
    http://www.tinaja.com/

  8. Yankee, not proceeded by... by hackwrench · · Score: 2, Informative

    Rrally? When was that? I just bought a used copy of "The Great Conteporary Issues Series, Set I Vol. 7. 1978 edition, which has a newspaper article dated Nov 2, 1924, entitled "U.S. Indicted as the Most Lawless Country", byline Evans Clark.

    1. Re:Yankee, not proceeded by... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I concur. Claims like this are terribly embarrassing, because now that we found out everyone has ALWAYS hated us, what to do?

    2. Re:Yankee, not proceeded by... by 0racle · · Score: 1

      The term "Damn Yankees" dates to at least the American Civil War and was used (obviously) by the southern rebels. It's funny that he decided to, while partnered with a company based in Raleigh, take issue with that particular phrase.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    3. Re:Yankee, not proceeded by... by lamp540 · · Score: 0, Troll

      It's because he's a _damn jew_ who knows nothing about our country.

  9. Red Hat's attack on GPL'ed Qt/KDE is hypocritical by billybob2 · · Score: 0, Troll

    For about 7 years now, Red Hat has been badmouthing the Free & Open Source K Desktop Environment and the Qt framework that KDE is built on. Both KDE and Qt are licensed under the GPL, the Free Software license with the strongest copyleft/forced sharing protections that ensure the users' rights to control their own computers.

    I know for a fact that Red Hat employees have embarked on a FUD campaign against KDE by spreading outright lies about its licensing. One such lie that they've been perpetuating is that thrid-party companies can't write proprietary software using Qt and KDE: this is plain wrong, because a company that wants to write proprietary software based on Qt can simply play by the proprietary rules and buy a proprietary license from Trolltech (the makers of Qt). This arrangement is only fair, and it provides a financial incentive for companies to write open source software. Furthermore, revenues from prorietary development go directly into improving the Free & Open Source Qt framework. This dual-licensing arrangement is a WIN-WIN situations for ordinary users like you and me.

    Now, I'd understand if Microsoft were spreading this FUD, but for a company like Red Hat that pretends to be 100% for open source to be doing this is downright hypocritical.

  10. Re:Red Hat's attack on GPL'ed Qt/KDE is hypocritic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Red Hat is so yesterday. Other distros are quickly making them irrelevant.

  11. Pissing against the wind by bstadil · · Score: 1

    Right now Intel is mainly pissing against the wind or on an electric fence.

    --
    Help fight continental drift.
  12. Why not just PODCAST each session, already? by ivi · · Score: 1

    I don't think ticket-sales would be any less, &
    we could all partake, OK, as 1-way participants

    Bandwidth cost an issue? So, BitTorrentCast 'em

    Simple

  13. $100 Pirate machine by jon287 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Well, if he thinks Intel and Micky-soft are bad, just wait till the Riaa gets wind of the fact that the entire third world will be turned into a giant mesh network of children eager for "American culture".
    $100 laptops = the worlds largest network of "pirates" "stealing" from the RIAA. Egads! 100's of millions of CROOKS who will blatently STEAL from the poor starving artists represented by the Labels!!! This must be stopped! We must spend years developing DRM for these machines before we can even think of releasing them!

    Lets face it, if that band of brigands, the so called "Doctors Without Borders" will stoop to the outright theft of patented life saving drugs by using so called "generics", whats to stop a bunch of kids from doing the same? Not to mention the the devestation caused by the mass release of computers infected with this so called "Linux" which clearly has ties to pedophiles, terrorists, and organized crime.

    And don't be lecturing me about this "Zero marginal cost" communist crap. The poor are supposed to lead horrible lives and die gruesome deaths. If they don't, us rich people won't feel quite as, well, rich.

    Ok, that's all the irony I can handle for the moment.

    --
    To boldly use to and too two times and get it right too! They're not gonna believe their eyes when they see it there!
  14. Is RedHat even relevent any more? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously... ever since they started charging absurd price-per-seat-per-year, how many people are really using Red Hat Linux anymore? (And as Virtualization becomes even more common, their prices just get that more absurd) From what I can see, Fedora has been getting it's ass handed to it by Ubuntu. The code purists are mostly on Gentoo and never touched Red Hat to begin with...

    So who cares what Red Hat has to say anymore? They represent the past, not the future.

    1. Re:Is RedHat even relevent any more? by iccaros · · Score: 0

      hmm. price per seat...
      I just took the Red Hat System's Maintenance and support class. in this class Red Hat shows you how to buy only one support contract (that is all you buying) and use a satellite server to get updates for all the rest. They have a desktop per(50) seat license for the desktop software, but in comparison it cheep. This is for large corporations who do not understand buy one use on all. nothing stops you from doing this.

      also you have enterprise and centOS that are build on red hats source.

      and Fedora 5, well the new SeLinux with a soon to be PL 4 rated system, is very useful for government systems. and built in ZEN for virtualization, you have now opened up a whole new way to run servers and securing them.

      There change went from a per version license to a time support license. This helped companies be assured that they could buy it and it would be supported. They felt they could write code and not have it change next week. Also there support is for free upgrades during the support time. But you still use the software when you stop paying.

      Unlike Microsofts...... where when you stop paying you must .. well let them tell you...
      "At the end of the subscription the rights to use the software end and the customer must either uninstall the software or renew its Enterprise Subscription enrollment."


      the whole thing..
      Enterprise Subscription Agreement is designed for organizations that prefer to standardize their Microsoft software throughout their organization based on the Microsoft enterprise products (Microsoft Office Professional, Microsoft Windows Professional desktop operating system upgrade, and Core Client Access License) at prices based on a three-year agreement term. At the end of the subscription the rights to use the software end and the customer must either uninstall the software or renew its Enterprise Subscription enrollment.

      So I don't mind paying $2,400 for a copy of Red Hat, put it on all my boxes (over 50 at this site) and use a satellite server to get updates. Call for support for any problems..

      you get
      Web and phone-based comprehensive support
      24x7
      1 hour response
      Unlimited incidents
      1 year Red Hat Network 1



      also if your a student you can get all this for $50 http://www.redhat.com/rhel/details/academic/indivi dual/

  15. Back to class! by Ian.Waring · · Score: 2, Informative
    Red Hat offer support subscriptions per *server*, not per user. And i'd get back to class pretty quickly - satellite server does not take away an obligation to buy support for your servers if you want Red Hat to respond to telephone calls, or to supply updates, on them. And Red Hat don't sell licenses at all - only support and update subscriptions.

    Satellite server just acts as a cache to stop every machine pulling updates from Red Hat individually, plus the ability to do PIXie boots, to clone systems and, if needed, to be able to distribute updates without having the machines connected to the Internet - if that's what you want to do.

    The differences between MS's business model and that for open source aren't that far apart - both provide functionality "as is" with no warranty nor obligation for "fitness for purpose" (if in doubt, read the EULA that came with Windows or Office). Red Hat charge for support and updates, and you can use support and install any supported version (even new ones as they arrive) while you have a valid subscription active; at the end of the subscription term, you're still free to use the software whether you renew your subcription or not (just don't expect support or updates any more if you don't pay). Microsoft sell a license to use a single major version, but expect you to pay again when a new version comes out, or to subscribe to Software Assurance to allow you to use new versions as they emerge. Very few customers tend to buy Software Assurance atm.

    I always wonder why Microsoft don't sell subscriptions in the same way Red Hat do...

    Ian W.

    1. Re:Back to class! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might find that he is refering to the Red Hat Desktop product..

    2. Re:Back to class! by Ian.Waring · · Score: 1

      Same applies. 1 subscription per machine. Having a Satellite server does not remove the need to have a basic or standard subscription for each one as well....

    3. Re:Back to class! by iccaros · · Score: 0

      I have been dealing with Red HAt for a while, This is the way the Red hat engineers helped us set up. We buy one server with support. This server gets updates.. because it is Open Source, and nothing saying I can't. I can then use these saem updates on all the rest of the servers. as for support, I should state better, anytime I call for support, they ask for my support number and my problem. I have never been asked about which server or is it the one with service. you do not need to buy service in order to install. using a Sat server will not allow you to control all the servers from the Red Hat network, but as these are Government systems not on the internet it does not matter. we use the Sat server to pull updates move over a trusted guard to be presented to the inside servers. if you no longer have a subscription, you can still get updates. CentOS or Enterprise will have the updates, or just go to the package source RPMS and compile them your self. I am not saying you are wrong. Just you have more flexability than most think.

  16. fuck eben moglen by lamp540 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Who gives a shit what some lawyer thinks about technology? he's like one of those suck up kids in school who was on the student council.

    1. Re:fuck eben moglen by Elektroschock · · Score: 1

      Moglen is a bad advocate, an ecclectic intellectual nightmare. But even worse, he sits on the shoulder of giants and is nothing but a braggart. His contributions are insignificant.

      Richard Stallman is a radical but he is trustworthy.

      A flamebait against Moglen? No.

      The problem is that Moglen has a different ideology and free-rides on the free software movement and spreads his dangerous ideas.

      I am an opponent of software patents but I believe that audiences will not realise that Moglen did *nothing* against US software patenting. So talking is nice. Action is better. The reason why there are still software patents in the US is that people like Moglen simulate action while there is no organised movement.

  17. There's no FOSS patent strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I mean saying patent mongers are evil doers is find and dandy but it doesn't actually help in dealing with patents right now for open source projects. I shut down part of my project because it infringes on patents that have been applied for. Basically all I was doing was enhancing the value of their patents with no benefit to myself. I haven't seen any useful suggestions from the FOSS community on how to deal with it. The only thing I can think of is to get a blocking patent on the improvements. While a blocking patent would be useful for negotiating with the original patent holder, the cost of it would probably force me to sell it, most likely to a patent troll.


    But let's go over the list of FOSS patent strategy techniques.

    1. Saying patents are evil.

        Yeah, that works real well.


    2. Having a FOSS patent pool.

        Most of the FOSS pool patents are worthless, which is why they were contributed to FOSS in the first place. The patents I'm infringing on specifically were not contributed to the pool.

    3. Non assertion patent pool (patents companies have pledged not to assert their rights against open source)

        Ditto. Even more worthless.


      There's a saying, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. I don't see an FOSS solution yet, just talk.

  18. The Ad Running on this Page by oktruckie · · Score: 1

    Does anyone else find it ironic that dead center on a Red Hat Linux posting there is an advertisement for Microsoft? Somebody should be checking these things better.