Problem is the majority of users won't demand this . . . How many non geeks even know what linux is? I see it as a potential problem for at least a few years until the OEMs get tired of the geeks complaining about it.
It’s a New Year and Microsoft has graciously given you a fresh clean start with your, I mean their email. No need to worry about the past . . . Embrace the new . . .
Yeah gotta love the cloud MS has been tokin up lately, I mean talking up lately.
So you are saying the government should be able to restrict my movement by somehow setting up an unconstitutional buffer zone within the US. That in this magical buffer zone somehow my rights as defined in the Constitution do not exist? Interesting, what if the president decides that the buffer zone should be expanded a few thousand miles inland?
WTF does this have to do with asking for his password: "Furthermore, he was being searched by customs after returning from a know drug smuggling point" Did he digitally encrypt drugs onto his hard drive? Have a dog sniff the thing. If they want to search data they ought to have a warrant, i.e., reasonable suspicion.
There is no harm you have done the required work. Just because you can use your work in more than one place doesn't harm anyone. Assertions to the otherwise are ridiculous.
/ "It was a short reference to the fact that it demonstrates the uselessness of those pledges. So it was on-topic. But responding in detail to more comments or questions on TurboHercules would have been off-topic, thus my link to LWN."
More FUD, as has been discussed before IBM did not renege on their pledge, no amount of spin from you will change that. TurboHercules wanted IBM to opensource and/or provide licenses so that IBM's mainframe OS could run on TurboHercules platform to the benefit of TurboHercules. IBM did not wish to pursue this business venture with TurboHercules as it would be detrimental in several ways to IBM.
IBM also pointed that it has invested "many billions of dollars developing its z-architecture" and holds "many intellectual property rights" (I hate that phrase, "intellectual property rights") and has litigated to defend their rights. It then identified a non-exhaustive list of patents related to this matter as requested by TurboHercules. They could have told them to piss-off, but they provided the requested information, and told them they (IBM) had concerns about TurboHercules going forward with their plan. IBM put them on notice regarding their IP concerns in a very businesslike way. Please explain how they should have proceed, if they did not intend give TurboHercules what TurboHercules wanted?
It is pretty straight forward just read the letters and look at what IBM pledged and please stop FUDDING and spinning already. IBM pledged not to sue as related to 500 specific patents, so please show that ALL of the patients related to TurboHercules are within the 500 patents please, before you continue with this TurboHercules nonsense.
Quote by redbeard55: "Another point to remember, all MS would have to do to get around their promise is to sell a.NET patent or two to another company. They would of course get protection from being sued but everyone else . . . soooo sorrrrrry."
"Show me even one other patent pledge or promise, including Red Hat's patent policy, where that wouldn't be just the same thing. This isn't Microsoft-specific at all."
True some risk exist with other companies but, remember a little discussion about the past actions of MS . . . I don't believe that RH ever claimed that Linux was a cancer or threatened to sue Linux users over 200+ patents. Did you just conveniently forget that?
Also, name one other software company that can dominate the industry in desktop area like MS can and promote the use of specific software. There is none and MS has openly declared Linux a "cancer" you don't play nice with cancer do you? MS's past history show the lengths they are willing to go to kill or cripple competitors, even to the extent of breaking the law. MS still is an 800 pound gorilla in this area, so you had better be very, very, careful with your interaction with them and most of the time it is better to stay as far away as possible from the beast, if you are more that a flea. Really dealing with MS is way different than dealing with ANY other company including ORACLE/SUN.
"The "workaround" you just described would presumably even work for the GPLv3."
Uhmm did you forget paragraph 11 of the GPLv3? It may be possible but it would be a much trickier proposition, and would make for an interesting court case. The question would appear to be could the buyer revoke the original grant of non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license. If the new buyer wished to monetize the patent, he either didn't perform due diligence or the seller committed fraud. I don't think the end user would be in as near as much danger compared to my scenario.
"I didn't want to get into a detailed IBM vs. TurboHercules discussion here . .."
Really? then stop bringing it up . . .
Another point to remember, all MS would have to do to get around their promise is to sell a.NET patent or two to another company. They would of course get protection from being sued but everyone else . . . soooo sorrrrrry.
Shill?????? We have been over your TurboHercules/IBM BS and not many here bought you line. Why don't you take your agenda and go somewhere else and stop trying to tie your TurboHercules/IBM BS to every post with some tenuous connection to it.
Again MS history clearly illustrates why they should be avoided unless you have a completely airtight contract . . . and you had better have some damn fine lawyers to make sure it is airtight. Remember the MS promise does not include the non-ECMA parts of Mono.
But the specific parts used in computer patents are too general, and make the patents much too broad. As was said the code is not patented so using the systems that anyone would obviously use to do something on a computer systems and the path of point A to B gets you a patent. Look at the "1-Click" BS . . .
They didn't patent code. They patented the method and system. And you can certainly patent those. In fact, the fact that it's not the code, but the method, that's patented is why he was infringing even though he did it in Java and they did it in C#. Patents are not copyright.
The problem is the "method and system" of getting from input (A) to output (C) is the ideal, so if I come up with some novel code to get from (A) to (C) I can't publish is because it would infringe on the patent. Software patents are patents on ideals. It like patenting the cotton gin, but instead of patenting a machine with specific parts 1 to 434, you patent something along the lines of:
"A method and a system for removing cotton seed from the cotton fiber."
Now anyone that creates a new and novel machine to do this no matter how different from the patented one is infringing on a patent. This is why software patents are ridiculous.
Well boys and girls having problems with reception on you shiiiiinnny new iPhone 4 . . . Wellllll . . . Have we got a product for you, for just $29. YES ONLY $29, you can purchase our Apple Bumper cover. Guaranteed! Yes I said GUARAAAANTEEEED!! To improve your ability to make AND receive calls! Yes this product has been thoroughly tested and proven to improve your ability to make AND receive calls! Why this product has been tested more than the original iPhone 4 was before it was shipped out . . .
What is clear is that you have an agenda against IBM.
In this case, the law has yet to step in and say that IBM is abusing a monopoly position, even though you continue to imply that they are abusing a monopoly position.
" Would you want to pay 60 times as much for your telephone charges as you do now, just because someone exploits a monopoly so shamelessly?"
Again, it is your position that abuse is going on NOT the "laws". I know when I purchase enterprise class equipment (not mainframe level btw) I pay a lot more for it than I would for equipment I would use at home, but I also expect a lot more from it.
IBM didn't get to own a significant portion of the mainframe business because they were the only game in town. They earned their position and even at your claimed 80% of the market, I am not sure that they can get away with too much abuse because the "law" would be brought to bear pretty quickly. Mainframes are the in realms of the big boys for the most part due to the expense of their operation. The big boys have the resources and the influence to go after IBM if they are truly being abused.
I understand the complexes of moving a code.
"Since there isn't any competition anymore for IBM in the mainframe market, there are antitrust issues."
So %20 doesn't represent any competition? Other options are available and economics will determine what a company with a lot of legacy code will do. However, a lot of companies know the value of using IBM for mission critical computing.
Yes there are potential anti-trust issues but the "law" has yet to identity any abuse to this point.
Oh god! you link to sys-con.com as a reference and worse yet to Maureen O'Gara is the author. Well that says it all I WILL NO LONG REPLY TO YOU
So you are saying they can only run their code on IBM mainframe systems without spending money, and you want IBM to lose money so they can save money. Sounds like a poor business decision on their part. They need to make a business decision to either modify their code to run on something else (locking them into that system, whether FOSS based or proprietary), or pay IBM to continue to use the existing code. No complicated code is going to be perfectly portable between different systems.
Cheaper doesn’t mean better. IBM also has invested a huge amount of money in these systems to assure they operate at high reliability and as expected. These types of systems are expensive to run and code for, so they require a lot of money to operate.
IBM doesn't have a moral or legal requirement to license their product in a manner that would only harm IBM.
Please explain what 'standard' IBM is locking up as related to these cases specifically. This has nothing to do with standards and interoperability. Interoperability has to do with accessing data from a system, not running a proprietary system in a manner that the owner does not allow.
Don't you ever get dizzy from all of the spinning!
More spin and misdirection . . . This has nothing to do with interoperability. Both companies want to use IBM products in a manor that IBM doesn't want their product to be used. This is not about communication between an IBM product and other products.
Hey Mueller you seem to think IBM has to allow more choice on the use of their products. So, I think I deserve more choice also when it comes to the use money. I want the choice to take money out of your bank account to use in a way I see fit. Is that OK with you? Please forward the appropriate info to me so I can do that, OK?
The anti-trust issue has nothing to do with this. Even if IBM WAS convicted of abusing a monopoly position in the mainframe area they would not be required to give away (license) their product to whoever asked, and in the manor the requester wanted. Was MS required to give away their products after they were convicted of abusing their OS monopoly?
If IBM doesn't want to make z/OS available for use on non-IBM hardware they are under no legal or moral requirement to do so. You are talking non-sense or have other agenda you wish to pursue.
Again, look at the history of MS's dealing with their partners with which they have had contracts with. How many times have they been in court and lost. Of course you need deep pockets to take MS to court even if you are right. MS is no friend to open-source and if they can screw a software developer they will, based on past history. They are not happy with a slice of the pie if they can take the whole pie. They still have not come close to changing their spots . . .
In other words MS fanboys are ignorant of MS's history of backstabbing any competitor including one they have partnered with. Actually, especially the ones they have partnered with. CodePlex Foundation should be ignored by the open source community until MS has absolutely no possible influence within the organization.
Ummm . . . have you considered how many jobs, and how many innovative projects (companies) the MS MONOPOLY has killed . . .
I think we have seen how much MS innovates when they don't have competition, all one has to do is to look at how much R&D they put in to internet explorer prior to Firefox presenting a threat to IE. Look at the history, MS has been convicted of innovating by taking/stealing others work, and copying good ideals of other. I don't have a problem with them copying others within the law . . . Apple, Linux ect. all take something from the other as far as general concepts go. MS does have some good products and I use them everyday, but I would not call them innovative.
Monopolies by their nature minimize the number of jobs produced and the number of advances they make. Advancements aren't necessary until something else threatens the monopoly's monopoly.
Monopolies are not good for anyone but the monopoly itself.
Ungrounded Lightning do you have a link or when & where this happened (oilwell injection of CO2 killing neighbors)? I would be very interested in more info. Search doesn't turn up anything.
I definitely agree that the current level of user knowledge in the MS window point and click centric world is not good. It drives me nut when a user wants to do something basic and is afraid to even look around in the menu to try and figure out something, they want me to tell them: first click this and then click that. I always try to get them to think about the task and not what order to click the buttons in. Or when they get an error message and they don't even bother to look at what it says, (not that they are usually that helpful) they just want to know which button to click.
One of the arguments I have had in trying to get a school to use OpenOffice instead of MS Word was that OpenOffice isn't exactly the same as MS Word and Word is used in business. My argument was teach the students to use a word processor in general, teach them to think not just a succession of clicks to complete a task.
I don't think that the vast majority of users have even a basic understanding of the way things work on a conceptual level. So I think we do agree that the current way of teaching users to use a computer is flawed, it just how deep do we need them to go into the details.
You are just way off base here. If this is the approach taken Linux will be nothing but a leaning tool and not an operating system. You drive or ride in a car or bus to get around and may have even flown in a plane. How many of these tools that you use regularly can you take completely apart and modify/repair? What about the elevator, microwave . . . ? A computer is a tool that a user wants to use to get things done.
Slashdot Mirror
Problem is the majority of users won't demand this . . . How many non geeks even know what linux is? I see it as a potential problem for at least a few years until the OEMs get tired of the geeks complaining about it.
It’s not a bug it’s a feature!
It’s a New Year and Microsoft has graciously given you a fresh clean start with your, I mean their email. No need to worry about the past . . . Embrace the new . . .
Yeah gotta love the cloud MS has been tokin up lately, I mean talking up lately.
So you are saying the government should be able to restrict my movement by somehow setting up an unconstitutional buffer zone within the US. That in this magical buffer zone somehow my rights as defined in the Constitution do not exist? Interesting, what if the president decides that the buffer zone should be expanded a few thousand miles inland?
WTF does this have to do with asking for his password: "Furthermore, he was being searched by customs after returning from a know drug smuggling point" Did he digitally encrypt drugs onto his hard drive? Have a dog sniff the thing. If they want to search data they ought to have a warrant, i.e., reasonable suspicion.
There is no harm you have done the required work. Just because you can use your work in more than one place doesn't harm anyone. Assertions to the otherwise are ridiculous.
yes and the larger the bill the less likely you will be to get the money.
Good luck collecting the money . . .
/ "It was a short reference to the fact that it demonstrates the uselessness of those pledges. So it was on-topic. But responding in detail to more comments or questions on TurboHercules would have been off-topic, thus my link to LWN."
More FUD, as has been discussed before IBM did not renege on their pledge, no amount of spin from you will change that. TurboHercules wanted IBM to opensource and/or provide licenses so that IBM's mainframe OS could run on TurboHercules platform to the benefit of TurboHercules. IBM did not wish to pursue this business venture with TurboHercules as it would be detrimental in several ways to IBM.
IBM also pointed that it has invested "many billions of dollars developing its z-architecture" and holds "many intellectual property rights" (I hate that phrase, "intellectual property rights") and has litigated to defend their rights. It then identified a non-exhaustive list of patents related to this matter as requested by TurboHercules. They could have told them to piss-off, but they provided the requested information, and told them they (IBM) had concerns about TurboHercules going forward with their plan. IBM put them on notice regarding their IP concerns in a very businesslike way. Please explain how they should have proceed, if they did not intend give TurboHercules what TurboHercules wanted?
It is pretty straight forward just read the letters and look at what IBM pledged and please stop FUDDING and spinning already. IBM pledged not to sue as related to 500 specific patents, so please show that ALL of the patients related to TurboHercules are within the 500 patents please, before you continue with this TurboHercules nonsense.
Quote by redbeard55: "Another point to remember, all MS would have to do to get around their promise is to sell a .NET patent or two to another company. They would of course get protection from being sued but everyone else . . . soooo sorrrrrry."
"Show me even one other patent pledge or promise, including Red Hat's patent policy, where that wouldn't be just the same thing. This isn't Microsoft-specific at all."
True some risk exist with other companies but, remember a little discussion about the past actions of MS . . . I don't believe that RH ever claimed that Linux was a cancer or threatened to sue Linux users over 200+ patents. Did you just conveniently forget that?
Also, name one other software company that can dominate the industry in desktop area like MS can and promote the use of specific software. There is none and MS has openly declared Linux a "cancer" you don't play nice with cancer do you? MS's past history show the lengths they are willing to go to kill or cripple competitors, even to the extent of breaking the law. MS still is an 800 pound gorilla in this area, so you had better be very, very, careful with your interaction with them and most of the time it is better to stay as far away as possible from the beast, if you are more that a flea. Really dealing with MS is way different than dealing with ANY other company including ORACLE/SUN.
"The "workaround" you just described would presumably even work for the GPLv3."
Uhmm did you forget paragraph 11 of the GPLv3? It may be possible but it would be a much trickier proposition, and would make for an interesting court case. The question would appear to be could the buyer revoke the original grant of non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license. If the new buyer wished to monetize the patent, he either didn't perform due diligence or the seller committed fraud. I don't think the end user would be in as near as much danger compared to my scenario.
"I didn't want to get into a detailed IBM vs. TurboHercules discussion here . . ."
Really? then stop bringing it up . . .
Another point to remember, all MS would have to do to get around their promise is to sell a .NET patent or two to another company. They would of course get protection from being sued but everyone else . . . soooo sorrrrrry.
Shill?????? We have been over your TurboHercules/IBM BS and not many here bought you line. Why don't you take your agenda and go somewhere else and stop trying to tie your TurboHercules/IBM BS to every post with some tenuous connection to it.
Again MS history clearly illustrates why they should be avoided unless you have a completely airtight contract . . . and you had better have some damn fine lawyers to make sure it is airtight. Remember the MS promise does not include the non-ECMA parts of Mono.
But the specific parts used in computer patents are too general, and make the patents much too broad. As was said the code is not patented so using the systems that anyone would obviously use to do something on a computer systems and the path of point A to B gets you a patent. Look at the "1-Click" BS . . .
They didn't patent code. They patented the method and system. And you can certainly patent those. In fact, the fact that it's not the code, but the method, that's patented is why he was infringing even though he did it in Java and they did it in C#. Patents are not copyright.
The problem is the "method and system" of getting from input (A) to output (C) is the ideal, so if I come up with some novel code to get from (A) to (C) I can't publish is because it would infringe on the patent. Software patents are patents on ideals. It like patenting the cotton gin, but instead of patenting a machine with specific parts 1 to 434, you patent something along the lines of:
"A method and a system for removing cotton seed from the cotton fiber."
Now anyone that creates a new and novel machine to do this no matter how different from the patented one is infringing on a patent. This is why software patents are ridiculous.
Well boys and girls having problems with reception on you shiiiiinnny new iPhone 4 . . . Wellllll . . . Have we got a product for you, for just $29. YES ONLY $29, you can purchase our Apple Bumper cover. Guaranteed! Yes I said GUARAAAANTEEEED!! To improve your ability to make AND receive calls! Yes this product has been thoroughly tested and proven to improve your ability to make AND receive calls! Why this product has been tested more than the original iPhone 4 was before it was shipped out . . .
Yes, that seems to be what it is about, amazing how twisted some people make it. . .
What is clear is that you have an agenda against IBM.
In this case, the law has yet to step in and say that IBM is abusing a monopoly position, even though you continue to imply that they are abusing a monopoly position.
" Would you want to pay 60 times as much for your telephone charges as you do now, just because someone exploits a monopoly so shamelessly?"
Again, it is your position that abuse is going on NOT the "laws". I know when I purchase enterprise class equipment (not mainframe level btw) I pay a lot more for it than I would for equipment I would use at home, but I also expect a lot more from it.
IBM didn't get to own a significant portion of the mainframe business because they were the only game in town. They earned their position and even at your claimed 80% of the market, I am not sure that they can get away with too much abuse because the "law" would be brought to bear pretty quickly. Mainframes are the in realms of the big boys for the most part due to the expense of their operation. The big boys have the resources and the influence to go after IBM if they are truly being abused.
I understand the complexes of moving a code.
"Since there isn't any competition anymore for IBM in the mainframe market, there are antitrust issues."
So %20 doesn't represent any competition? Other options are available and economics will determine what a company with a lot of legacy code will do. However, a lot of companies know the value of using IBM for mission critical computing.
Yes there are potential anti-trust issues but the "law" has yet to identity any abuse to this point.
Oh god! you link to sys-con.com as a reference and worse yet to Maureen O'Gara is the author. Well that says it all I WILL NO LONG REPLY TO YOU
So you are saying they can only run their code on IBM mainframe systems without spending money, and you want IBM to lose money so they can save money. Sounds like a poor business decision on their part. They need to make a business decision to either modify their code to run on something else (locking them into that system, whether FOSS based or proprietary), or pay IBM to continue to use the existing code. No complicated code is going to be perfectly portable between different systems.
Cheaper doesn’t mean better. IBM also has invested a huge amount of money in these systems to assure they operate at high reliability and as expected. These types of systems are expensive to run and code for, so they require a lot of money to operate.
IBM doesn't have a moral or legal requirement to license their product in a manner that would only harm IBM.
Please explain what 'standard' IBM is locking up as related to these cases specifically. This has nothing to do with standards and interoperability. Interoperability has to do with accessing data from a system, not running a proprietary system in a manner that the owner does not allow.
Don't you ever get dizzy from all of the spinning!
More spin and misdirection . . . This has nothing to do with interoperability. Both companies want to use IBM products in a manor that IBM doesn't want their product to be used. This is not about communication between an IBM product and other products.
Hey Mueller you seem to think IBM has to allow more choice on the use of their products. So, I think I deserve more choice also when it comes to the use money. I want the choice to take money out of your bank account to use in a way I see fit. Is that OK with you? Please forward the appropriate info to me so I can do that, OK?
The anti-trust issue has nothing to do with this. Even if IBM WAS convicted of abusing a monopoly position in the mainframe area they would not be required to give away (license) their product to whoever asked, and in the manor the requester wanted. Was MS required to give away their products after they were convicted of abusing their OS monopoly?
If IBM doesn't want to make z/OS available for use on non-IBM hardware they are under no legal or moral requirement to do so. You are talking non-sense or have other agenda you wish to pursue.
Again, look at the history of MS's dealing with their partners with which they have had contracts with. How many times have they been in court and lost. Of course you need deep pockets to take MS to court even if you are right. MS is no friend to open-source and if they can screw a software developer they will, based on past history. They are not happy with a slice of the pie if they can take the whole pie. They still have not come close to changing their spots . . .
In other words MS fanboys are ignorant of MS's history of backstabbing any competitor including one they have partnered with. Actually, especially the ones they have partnered with. CodePlex Foundation should be ignored by the open source community until MS has absolutely no possible influence within the organization.
Ummm . . . have you considered how many jobs, and how many innovative projects (companies) the MS MONOPOLY has killed . . .
I think we have seen how much MS innovates when they don't have competition, all one has to do is to look at how much R&D they put in to internet explorer prior to Firefox presenting a threat to IE. Look at the history, MS has been convicted of innovating by taking/stealing others work, and copying good ideals of other. I don't have a problem with them copying others within the law . . . Apple, Linux ect. all take something from the other as far as general concepts go. MS does have some good products and I use them everyday, but I would not call them innovative.
Monopolies by their nature minimize the number of jobs produced and the number of advances they make. Advancements aren't necessary until something else threatens the monopoly's monopoly.
Monopolies are not good for anyone but the monopoly itself.
Ungrounded Lightning do you have a link or when & where this happened (oilwell injection of CO2 killing neighbors)? I would be very interested in more info. Search doesn't turn up anything.
I definitely agree that the current level of user knowledge in the MS window point and click centric world is not good. It drives me nut when a user wants to do something basic and is afraid to even look around in the menu to try and figure out something, they want me to tell them: first click this and then click that. I always try to get them to think about the task and not what order to click the buttons in. Or when they get an error message and they don't even bother to look at what it says, (not that they are usually that helpful) they just want to know which button to click.
One of the arguments I have had in trying to get a school to use OpenOffice instead of MS Word was that OpenOffice isn't exactly the same as MS Word and Word is used in business. My argument was teach the students to use a word processor in general, teach them to think not just a succession of clicks to complete a task.
I don't think that the vast majority of users have even a basic understanding of the way things work on a conceptual level. So I think we do agree that the current way of teaching users to use a computer is flawed, it just how deep do we need them to go into the details.
You are just way off base here. If this is the approach taken Linux will be nothing but a leaning tool and not an operating system. You drive or ride in a car or bus to get around and may have even flown in a plane. How many of these tools that you use regularly can you take completely apart and modify/repair? What about the elevator, microwave . . . ? A computer is a tool that a user wants to use to get things done.