Slashdot Mirror
Net Radio Exec Says "Don't Mention Linux"
Barence writes "It might be reliable enough to power their device, but it seems some companies are still a bit reluctant to use the 'L word' when talking about their products. Speaking at the launch of the touchscreen Pure Sensia digital radio, director of marketing Colin Crawford was pressed for specifics of the new device's software. But after his CEO reminded him that the new radio was based on a Linux OS, Crawford remarked: 'I don't like the using the word "Linux" on a radio.'" Of course the presence of (possibly embedded) Linux may not have any relevance to consumers in some products; but does the word itself carry a commercial stigma?
overall, I think that people still relate Linux to "Command Line" and "Nerdy basement hacker geeks who are fat and have too much facial hair"
People are really surprised when I show them my netbook running Ubuntu and all they have to do is click the firefox icon on the dock. They are always shocked when I explain that it's based on Linux.
"Linux" a trademark of Linus Torvaldes and that's it. As long as you don't use it as a trademark of *your* product it will be fine.
Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
If, and only if, they made any changes to the GPLed code. And, even then, only the bits integrated into the GPLed code.
If you distribute any GPL code, such as the Linux kernel or the GNU userland, you have to offer the sources to the recipient.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
The trick is to run Linux on a Mac.
I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
... Linux is weird. Linux is not normal. Linux is what "different" people use.
I resemble that remark!!
That's okay. Stallman says it's GNU/Linux, but I'm sure he'd be happy if you dropped the Linux part ;-) So just tell people you're building a GNU radio. Brand GNU.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Oh yeah, the game will page fault quite often
You (or the Wine user who originally wrote that) obviously do not know what a page fault is. Hint: As the Wikipedia article says, page faults are not errors, they do not crash applications. They are signals from the hardware to the operating system that a requested memory page does not exist in RAM, and must be paged in from the backing store (swap, memory mapped file, binary image, etc). Page faults are not seen by applications.
You are likely thinking of the various kinds of protection faults instead.
Ahem...
for(;yourStupidHeadGotTheIdea == 0;){
printf("Use of any GPLed product carries no obligations, whether attribution, source release, or otherwise, UNLESS YOU REDISTRIBUTE THE BINARY TO THIRD PARTIES"); }
"Linux" a trademark of Linus Torvaldes and that's it. As long as you don't use it as a trademark of *your* product it will be fine.
Unless your product is a Linux dist. Initially he had no interest in trademarking it but because William R. Della Croce, Jr. (AKA whore face) tried to steal it, thus forcing him to play along the flawed American market rules. You can find the brand Linux printed anywhere, and Linus hasn't bothered to do anything about it (he doesn't want to). I'd bet that he wouldn't even care if someone made a Linux sex toy. He has a sense of humor that way.
I am the lawn!
The entire point of ActiveX is to put software on your computer you didn't ask for.
Have you actually used Windows in the last, oh, 9 years or so? Did you ever see an ActiveX control on a web page in a browser install itself quietly, with no confirmation from the user, with default security settings?
(Hint: in XP and above, it actually requires 3 clicks to install a new ActiveX control - one to click on the sliding bar above the page which says "Page is trying to install ActiveX", one more in the opened dialog to answer "yes" to the question "Should this site be allowed to even ask you to install ActiveX", and then one more in another dialog to confirm that, yes, you do want this particular ActiveX control to be installed. That's for a digitally signed control - one without a signature will be rejected outright.)
systems with .NET will still have Java installed
Not really. I've seen plenty systems with .NET (especially now that NVidia and ATI control panels require it) and without Java. In fact, any fresh install of Vista and above is such a system (Vista has .NET 3.0 out of the box, Win7 has 3.5 SP1).
Microsoft should have worked with Sun, keeping with the original Sun JVM instead of trying to trick them for commercial gain.
There are plenty of reasons why MS went for its own VM, not the least of it is that it is not restricted to a sandbox - e.g. it has raw data and function pointers and arithmetic, unions, and other nifty things. It's possible to efficiently implement the entire ISO C++ on top of CLR (and MSVC does just that), but not so for JVM. There are other things that JVM is lacking - generics would be a fairly major point, and first-class functions ("delegates" in .NET parlance) is another. And Sun is very conservative about changing JVM, and as you recall it was MS adding delegates to their own JVM implementation that triggered Sun lawsuit against MS over it... and Sun made it perfectly clear that they do not want delegates in JVM because they're "not object oriented" (huh...) - well, many years later first-class functions are still not even in Java-the-language, much less JVM, so I guess MS was right in making their own platform so that they don't have to move with the glacial pace of Java VM evolution...
.Net will be more tightly integrated to the OS
Do you mean implementation details, or APIs exposed to .NET developers here?