Being on the fence about using Linux and never really being sure what version, what build and what revision I should go for (hundreds of choices make it intimidating for newcomers to the Linux world), I've always been curious what would have happened if there was a board to approve the general direction, additions and revisions so that be it a platform or a programming language, the tangents wouldn't stray too far from the main group.
I'm giving up mod points on this article, but given the amount of misinformation you're getting, its better that I post a reply.
Sun isn't using GPLv2, they are using GPLv2 + the Classpath exception. This is a modification to the GPLv2 pioneered by the GNU Classpath project. It basically makes Java's code GPL, but doesn't require code running on the JVM, or using the J2SE libraries, to be GPLv2 complaint.
I just demotes your little rant. I didn't do it because I have anything against you but because it is completely factually wrong and continues to spread FUD.
Ok, fair enough. Though I would have preferred you post your objections to the Ideastorm article so that the objections could be noted and explained (as I am about to do) for others to read before voting on it.
First, Novel has never implied that linux contains Microsoft's IP. In fact, they have specifically stated that they aren't aware of any infringements and the entire patents arrangement came as an offering from Microsoft. They also have specifically stated that discussion of IP in linux never came about during their deal.
Indeed, if you had read the comments, I stated this exact same thing. I'm only asking that Dell specifically state the same thing that Novell stated. This is all because Microsoft has been saying that the agreement is an admittance of Linux's infringement. I just want Dell to make it clear whether they agree with Novell's interpretation, or Microsoft's.
Third, I don't mind asking Dell to state it's position on Microsoft's IP in any versions of linux. But it does express an undue burden on them that shouldn't be needed.
Last month I would agree with you completely. However, now that Dell is selling licenses that Microsoft says is admittance of their IP in Suse Linux, I think it is not an undue burden to ask Dell to state their position on the legal status of the software they are selling under that license.
Fourth, The only things wrong with the MS-Novell deal is whatever people have imagines. No one can name anything Novell has done that explicitly give credit to any IP that doesn't belong or any violations of the GPL in any ways.
Again I agree with you, and actively defend Novell's and Dell's involvement in the deal. But when Microsoft is spreading misinterpretations of that deal to the press, I would like the comfort of knowing Dell's position before I buy any Linux preloaded computer from them.
Finally, and probably most importantly. Dell has entered into the partnership with Microsoft and when the GPLv3 comes around, we know have a major player that could give linux the coverage and distribution it deserves entering into deals that the GPLv3 specifically forbids.
All indications seem to be that the Linux kernel will remain GPLv2. Other programs that run on top of Linux have many various licenses, not all of them are GPL compatible. I don't see anything in the GPLv3 drafts that will change the current ecosystem, or prevent Novell, Red Hat, or Canonical from distributing their software through Dell.
When Ubuntu goes GPLv3 by force, it won't be sold again because of their deal to sell SuSe.
I can't even begin to understand why you would think that.
I see how you might come to that conclusion at first, but looking more into it, this seems more like something that caught them by surprise. Dell knew there was some demand for Linux desktops, but they were probably thinking about business workstations using the Novell or Red Hat varieties, or their counterparts OpenSuse and Fedora. I think the demand for home desktops with Linux, and Ubuntu specifically, was unexpected and is probably what caused Michael Dell to get it on a laptop.
In the end, if this was just to get a better deal from Microsoft, I think they would be doing more talk and less show. Now granted that nothing has been "shown" yet, but the talk to far hasn't been about what "may happen", or "will happen at some point" like it was with AMD, it's more like "what is happening, and where we are now". Dell is also not promising sweeping changes, they're not suggesting a 50/50 mix of Windows and Linux. What they are currently proposing doesn't threaten Microsoft's profits from Dell, like using AMD would have threatened Intel.
In the end, you may be right, I just don't think so.
Would be nice if we could get an actual statement and maybe even an interview with Michael Dell here.
Quite right, between this, and Dell's decision to offer Ubuntu on desktops, it's about time for an slashdot interview with Michael Dell. Any idea how to get this started?
Actually it's not theft, its a number. That number is actually given to you by the movie producers on the HD-DVD disc and player that you purchased. You have to actually have a physical copy of an HD-DVD disc and an HD-DVD player in order to have any use for that number. The number itself isn't used to steal anything, it's used to decrypt the content of the movie that you purchased. All these people are doing is providing another way to get to that decrypted content, which again, you already purchased.
How about a campaign promise to veto any copyright extensions or new restrictions that come across his desk? To work to scale back the DMCA, and work the Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension Act back to a genuinely, realistically "limited time", like the Constitution requires? To ensure that if the Internet streaming royalty increases go into effect, he'll work toward scaling them back?
How about because the President doesn't have the authority to do any of those things? Seriously, he's got more authority now, as a Senator, to push for those things than he would as President.
Erm, how is this undefetable? If they don't mind sacraficeing the 360, couldn't whoever manages these things revoke its keys and not issue new ones, so that it can't get the volume key, so it can't decrypt the disk?
I'm probably misunderstanding something, though The device key is used to retrieve the processing key, which is used to fetch the volume ID, which is then used to create a volume unique key, which is used to get the content decryption key, which finally is used to decrypt the movie.
These guys found a way to get the volume ID directly, meaning you don't need any of the earlier steps, including the device key. Revoking it would have no effect on this process.
Anyway, in the bizarro-world that the people who write DRM systems inhabit, I think that this will probably just push them to make the drives harder to "tamper" with; I fully expect that they'll eventually just pot the circuit boards in epoxy or something, to keep you from desoldering the chips.
The article is a little old, the links to the doom9 forum go to posts from early last month. Within a few days of those posts, there was a link to xboxhackers where they were able to accomplish the same thing without having to patch the firmware, ie, no desoldering.
That would require either constantly updating your hash table, or using some constantly updated source on the internet. Think of the number of commercials on TV and Radio, and how often new ones, or even modified ones, are introduced. Who would want to be tasked with keeping that table up to date?
Wouldn't it just be easier to listen to the 5 second jingle?
It won't, and that's not even the point. The point is that even if you listened to the ad the first time, even if you just listened to it in Audacity so you can cut it out, that's still exposure. Even if you then put that ad-free song on P2P networks, some people would still rather download it legally with the ad, than illegally without it.
From a business perspective, every ad-embedded download is almost guaranteed to result in at least one exposure for the advertiser. That's a better guarantee rate than Television or Radio. If that kind of exposure is enough to pay the royalties on the song plus some, then it's a profitable business.
Napoleon also spoke of his dream of adding all of North American (including the United States) to his French empire. Part of the reason he sold Louisiana to the US was Jefferson's bluff about allying with the British against France if he wouldn't give up New Orleans.
It will pass the "Grandma" test. You won't have to install in, you won't have to worry about driver configuration, and "Grandma" doesn't play hardcore games, just the stock solitaire and some flash games online. Other than that, "Grandma" just wants get pictures of the grandkids in her email, and maybe browse the internet some.
Americans charaterise the frogs as militarily incompetent or cowardly, totally ignoring Napoleon's extraordinary military achievements.
To be fair to Americans, Jefferson won 828,000 square miles of land from Napoleon without so much as firing a shot. We stopped Emperial France without much effort.
Yes I am familiar with the use of the term "open" to refer to multi-platform setups. Obviously that is what the IBM announcement was referring to, I got that. It's the author of the article that doesn't seem to get it, and thinks IBM is talking about Open Source.
Let's say I steal one dollar from you. You should be upset.
Now let's say I've been stealing five dollars a week from you for the last two years. Should you not be upset about the one dollar I stole from you today?
Sure I would be upset that you stole a dollar from me, but only in addition to being upset that you steal 5 dollars from me a week.
You, however, seem perfectly ok with me stealing 5 dollars a week from you for the last two years, but get upset if I were to change that to stealing 1 dollar a week from you. Sure I'm still stealing your money, but I'm stealing less of your money, so you should be happier, not more upset.
So IBM announces that Lotus Notes is portable across OS platforms and the author somehow equates this to Open Source, by some twist in logic I can't even begin to understand.
To clarify: the amount of mercury in a CFL + the amount of mercury released by a power plant to power the CFL over it's estimated lifetime is less than the amount of mercury released by that same power plant to power an incandescent bulb over it's estimated lifetime. So it is still a net drop in mercury contamination.
So what you're saying is that if you step on a land mine, I might as well throw a grenade at you as well?
Jesus Christ, that's even worse than your first analogy. He's saying that while walking through a mine field, grenades should not be your primary concern.
I hereby nominate you for worst analogy of the year.
A better one would be if the average household contains 3 guns, and nobody is complaining about the dangers, then suddenly BB guns go on sale and people start shouting about the dangers they pose. Why be afraid of the BB gun when you're not afraid of the real gun?
The point is, if you're worried about mercury toxicity in land fills, start with the products that have more of it, instead of the products that have the least, or at least complain about both of them and not just the one that has the least.
Slashdot Mirror
It's called the Linux Standard Base
I'm giving up mod points on this article, but given the amount of misinformation you're getting, its better that I post a reply.
s p#g5n
Sun isn't using GPLv2, they are using GPLv2 + the Classpath exception. This is a modification to the GPLv2 pioneered by the GNU Classpath project. It basically makes Java's code GPL, but doesn't require code running on the JVM, or using the J2SE libraries, to be GPLv2 complaint.
Links here:
http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.j
http://www.javalobby.org/java/forums/t84256.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exceptio
I see how you might come to that conclusion at first, but looking more into it, this seems more like something that caught them by surprise. Dell knew there was some demand for Linux desktops, but they were probably thinking about business workstations using the Novell or Red Hat varieties, or their counterparts OpenSuse and Fedora. I think the demand for home desktops with Linux, and Ubuntu specifically, was unexpected and is probably what caused Michael Dell to get it on a laptop.
In the end, if this was just to get a better deal from Microsoft, I think they would be doing more talk and less show. Now granted that nothing has been "shown" yet, but the talk to far hasn't been about what "may happen", or "will happen at some point" like it was with AMD, it's more like "what is happening, and where we are now". Dell is also not promising sweeping changes, they're not suggesting a 50/50 mix of Windows and Linux. What they are currently proposing doesn't threaten Microsoft's profits from Dell, like using AMD would have threatened Intel.
In the end, you may be right, I just don't think so.
Quite right, between this, and Dell's decision to offer Ubuntu on desktops, it's about time for an slashdot interview with Michael Dell. Any idea how to get this started?
I have added this concern to Dell's Ideastorm.
i mply_Microsoft_IP_in_Linux
http://www.ideastorm.com/article/show/67008/Dont_
Anyone concerned about Dell's involvement in this MS/Novell pact should promote and comment on it.
Actually it's not theft, its a number. That number is actually given to you by the movie producers on the HD-DVD disc and player that you purchased. You have to actually have a physical copy of an HD-DVD disc and an HD-DVD player in order to have any use for that number. The number itself isn't used to steal anything, it's used to decrypt the content of the movie that you purchased. All these people are doing is providing another way to get to that decrypted content, which again, you already purchased.
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=987050#pos t987050
Strangely, this was announced April 9th, while the article was published April 15th.
I'm probably misunderstanding something, though The device key is used to retrieve the processing key, which is used to fetch the volume ID, which is then used to create a volume unique key, which is used to get the content decryption key, which finally is used to decrypt the movie.
These guys found a way to get the volume ID directly, meaning you don't need any of the earlier steps, including the device key. Revoking it would have no effect on this process.
The article is a little old, the links to the doom9 forum go to posts from early last month. Within a few days of those posts, there was a link to xboxhackers where they were able to accomplish the same thing without having to patch the firmware, ie, no desoldering.
That would require either constantly updating your hash table, or using some constantly updated source on the internet. Think of the number of commercials on TV and Radio, and how often new ones, or even modified ones, are introduced. Who would want to be tasked with keeping that table up to date?
Wouldn't it just be easier to listen to the 5 second jingle?
You mean like gksu? It's a simple graphical password prompt. All the ease of use of UAC, with all the security of sudo. And no command line in sight.
Thanks for trying, please play again.
It won't, and that's not even the point. The point is that even if you listened to the ad the first time, even if you just listened to it in Audacity so you can cut it out, that's still exposure. Even if you then put that ad-free song on P2P networks, some people would still rather download it legally with the ad, than illegally without it.
From a business perspective, every ad-embedded download is almost guaranteed to result in at least one exposure for the advertiser. That's a better guarantee rate than Television or Radio. If that kind of exposure is enough to pay the royalties on the song plus some, then it's a profitable business.
Napoleon also spoke of his dream of adding all of North American (including the United States) to his French empire. Part of the reason he sold Louisiana to the US was Jefferson's bluff about allying with the British against France if he wouldn't give up New Orleans.
It will pass the "Grandma" test. You won't have to install in, you won't have to worry about driver configuration, and "Grandma" doesn't play hardcore games, just the stock solitaire and some flash games online. Other than that, "Grandma" just wants get pictures of the grandkids in her email, and maybe browse the internet some.
So, 2007 really IS the year of Linux on the Desktop?
Yes I am familiar with the use of the term "open" to refer to multi-platform setups. Obviously that is what the IBM announcement was referring to, I got that. It's the author of the article that doesn't seem to get it, and thinks IBM is talking about Open Source.
Sure I would be upset that you stole a dollar from me, but only in addition to being upset that you steal 5 dollars from me a week.
You, however, seem perfectly ok with me stealing 5 dollars a week from you for the last two years, but get upset if I were to change that to stealing 1 dollar a week from you. Sure I'm still stealing your money, but I'm stealing less of your money, so you should be happier, not more upset.
So IBM announces that Lotus Notes is portable across OS platforms and the author somehow equates this to Open Source, by some twist in logic I can't even begin to understand.
To clarify: the amount of mercury in a CFL + the amount of mercury released by a power plant to power the CFL over it's estimated lifetime is less than the amount of mercury released by that same power plant to power an incandescent bulb over it's estimated lifetime. So it is still a net drop in mercury contamination.
I hereby nominate you for worst analogy of the year.
A better one would be if the average household contains 3 guns, and nobody is complaining about the dangers, then suddenly BB guns go on sale and people start shouting about the dangers they pose. Why be afraid of the BB gun when you're not afraid of the real gun?
The point is, if you're worried about mercury toxicity in land fills, start with the products that have more of it, instead of the products that have the least, or at least complain about both of them and not just the one that has the least.