I agree. Corel is showing that they ARE getting free software, as much as a corporation can. They can't justify spending money so that programmers screw around with free software, that wouldn't be in their investor's interests. However, they are contributing to the WINE community in the same way as they are taking from it. IIRC, WINE is BSD-licensed, not GNU, so they don't even have to. They COULD just make the changes and keep them to themselves, but they would rather give to WINE so that WINE moves foward.
I'm really impressed. If Corel becomes a "Linux company" (i.e. Red Hat, Caldera, etc.) then they will probably maintain programming staffs to do generic Linux work like Red Hat and Caldera do. Until then, they are looking at Linux as a way to reposition WordPerfect. Because MS refuses to port their apps, Corel and Netscape will probably utilize Linux to gain marketshare.
Corel is showing how a company that makes traditional software can try to profit in the Linux environment while supporting the community.
Bring in experienced businessmen, NOW. Get a solid person in charge of marketing. You can't think "develop product, market it," marketing and development need to work in sync. Be certain that the market that you are aiming for exists and that you can capture it.
Get a good CFO once the seed money comes in. An accountant is NOT good enough. It takes time to raise money, be certain that you will know when the next infusion of capital is needed.
Decide on jobs initially. There NEEDS to be a President/CEO, his decision is final. You need a chain of command, not by committee. Make certain that whomever is your starting CEO is ready for the responsibility (raising money, forging alliances). Even more important, make certain that they are ready to step down when the company needs someone experienced in that role.
Divide the initial equity evenly among the founders. There should be NO room for equity fights in the beginning.
Hire good, intelligent, motivated employees. If one of your first hires is bad, you're sunk.
Didn't "International English" replace French as the International language about 50 years ago? I thought that French as the international language collapsed when France did in WWI. I could of course, be wrong.
Y2K was totally misrepresented. There were REAL risks, but they were overshadowed by nonsense. There was talk of embedded chips failling because of the roll-over.
I'm sorry, but as a computer science student, we learn that computers work in binary... hell, I learned that "officially" in middle school. Well, 100 is not a "roll-over" in binary. 64 and 128 are, but 100 is insignificant in a binary system.
There were potential Y2K issues, but these were ALL dependent upon UI problems. In interfacing with humans, decimals are used and there was a potential for Y2K issues. For example, the credit cards with expirations of xx/00, the reader had to be told how to determine the year from two decimals.
However, internally, there is NO conceivable way that the year 2000 would cause roll-over problems in embedded systems. "We could only store 2 digits." You morons, you wouldn't use two bytes, and a single byte stores up to 255 with an unsigned value, and 128 with a signed value. Either way, there NEVER was a risk of real failures until 2028. Apparently the experts should have studied some middle school math.
While there was a risk of database records getting confused, there was NEVER the risk of the embedded systems that the media made them out to be. There is nothing more annoying than the media making stupidity out to be fact.
i.e. The millenium/century change is 2001. I'm sorry, you can cellebrate all you want, talk abnout pop culture all you want, you're WRONG.
I'm glad that he is enjoying his fifteen minutes of fame. For $35 dollars, he got a lot of attention for doing something simple, and at no long term cost to him.
However, at the end, he indicates that he would like them to consider the advertising revenue that they saved by his registering it.
I don't know if that is his actual statement or a journalist trying to make the story more controversial, but if he really feels that way, it's kinda silly. He wanted to get his mail, he paid their registration fee, and they are paying him pack.
They also figured out the problem, he just beat them to it. While I'm certain that this administrative slight is really embarassing to Microsoft, the whole situation is silly.
This wasn't a win for the community. This was a silly situation to happen and a potential PR mess. I'm glad that it was resolved, but this is getting blown out of proportion.
This is impressive. It's really nice to see free software "work." That being, the right to fork prevents the need to fork. Everyone had the "right" to develop their own version without anyone else's influence, but they decided to get together and pick an API to make it compatible.
Instead of licensing proprietary OSes, Linux based versions should have the advantage of massive peer review and development. While Linux based OSes will no doubt be licensed, it should be a VERY competitive field.
Within a few years, real-time Linux might dominate the embedded market, driving down costs. With everything using embedded systems, the cost savings of not reinventing the wheel will probably allow that "convergence" being hyped everywhere.
All in all, this is a good thing. "Props" to Cygnus for a good job on pulling off the common API... but then, I expect nothing less from Cygnus, but once again proving that RedHat made a smart investment.
This should give Cygnus's embedded Linux a BIG boost, as they know the API better than anyone else. It looks like Redhat will finally have a REAL licensable product instead of a freely copiable one.
Freshman year, my advising seminar involved developing a method for modeling sail boats. We were given a spec file and implemented some algorithms to scale the boat, apply wind, etc. We wrote some code, and used some code that the professor developed years earlier. The language in use? Fortran-77. Developing that on our Sun Workstations was a travesty.
Fortran is STILL heavily used in academic circles because the code already exists. My friend, when interviewing for an on campus job doing mathematical modeling, was asked if he knew Fortran. He convinced the guy to let him do it in C++, but some professors would insist on Fortran.
From my experience, for doing scientific analysis, Fortran is fine. Fortran, C, PASCAL, BASIC, it really doesn't matter, the structured languages are all almost identical with slightly different syntax.
While object oriented techniques make sense for real software development, if you merely want to run a particular algorithm on a lot of data points, any structured language will do.
Older researchers learned Fortran and probably never moved to the newer languages. Fortran is really clean, and if your existing code is in Fortran, why migrate to a newer language. While I haven't read the newer Fortran specs, I believe they implement much of the functionality of other structured languages (although I'm assuming no real memory control).
Fortran makes it VERY easy to develop robust applications for number crunching without any risk of memory leaks, etc. Additionally, groups may already have thousands of lines of code already written and just need to write a bunch of 15-20 line applications utilizing them to do different forms of analysis.
Fortran on the Alpha under Linux may be the "killer app" to move Linux into acadamia. I don't mean in the school's IT departments, but into research departments. For departments that need to process a LOT of data points, allowing students to develop code at home or on public workstations and then run the massive calculations on their Alpha machines may be a real cost and time saver.
If Compaq gets the rest of their compilers in line, then Linux/Alpha may become huge.
Your statement that:
I find it hard to imagine that too many ppl on Linux/Alpha have a big use for fortran anyhow..
is kinda silly. Outside of home users, people don't buy a system and then find a use. People have a need and pick the best platform.
If you have a lot of existing Fortran code and want to utilize it for new processes and do massive calculations, you pick the best platform available. If current computing capabilities fit your need, you use them. If you need a newer machine to process all the data, you buy a new machine. If the Alpha platform under Linux is the best platform and you have a lot of Fortran to process, I can bet that you'll be buying a new Alpha machine running Linux.
Well, nobody was doing it, and their approach is novel. I have issues with software patents, but this one sounds legit. I mean, every other site had you fill out forms again each time, and their "one-click technology" was a real time-saver. Since then, everyone has copied it. I think that it was a new approach that they developed, and they are entitled to the patent royalties.
This isn't a patent on cookies. It is a patent on storing just enough information to find you in a database. While not technically novel, the combination of the database query and people's personal information is a new and novel approach.
I respect RMS for what he has done, but I don't share his views on intellectual property. People are free to give their work away. People are also free to profit from their ideas. The patent system rewards inventors. Amazon.com invented a way to bring convenience, and the patent is, in my opinion, legit.
She was a talented actress, who starred in many of the films that occupy my movie collection. Comedies (what nerd doesn't watch Mel Brooks movies?) are one of the few genres that I really watch, because I usually am doing something else at the time.
Without this article, I wouldn't have known that she died. While not having a big impact on my life, this is knowledge that I am glad to have. She'll be missed because she played fun roles in movies that can't attract "big names," yet her talent made them better. She helped make Blazing Saddles and History of the World Part I, two of my favority movies.
As it was a Chinese State Bank (I doubt that there are privately owned banks in China, but with the SEZs, Special Economic Zones, I have no idea, and haven't really kept up), it was a crime against the state.
In a Communist Nation, is there any greater crime that stealing from the state? As everything is owned "by the people," his robbery was a crime against the people of China. That, arguably, is a capital crime.
In a Western Nation (private ownership), when you steal from someone, there is a criminal and civil element. Ultimately, you stole from a single individual, and while the state has a vested interest in protecting people from each other, it isn't the victim, which warrants a lesser penalty.
In a Communist Nation, everyone is supposed to work towards the common good. Someone betrayed that trust by taking from the community instead of contributing to it. Arguably, that warrants the death penalty.
Mostly playing Devil's advocate here, Alex
P.S. I don't advocate the Communist mindset, but I'm giving my view on how you have to treat the crime based upon that philosophy. I realize that China does not live up to the Communist ideals, but I'm going to assume that it writes its laws with them in mind.
I think that everyone is missing the point...
on
Stopping the FUD
·
· Score: 3
When someone posts, "My linux box has been up for 10 months," that's anecdotal evidence. I don't think that this is about articles. I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that the anti-FUD page is to gather information from credible sources that use Linux to solve real problems. i.e. NOT uptime quotes
If you chose Linux for a project, then you (or your manager, etc.) write an article explaining the decision process, what Linux did in testing that the competition didn't, etc. i.e. Real articles about solving problems, not open source propaganda.
In otherwords, if a reported wants to write an article, right now, they can go to MS's website and pull a ready to write article. Linux article writing is more work.
If tech writers can pull down 50 articles from computer professionals about why Linux or *BSD was used, or even why Solaris was chosen over MS, this provides amunition for writing an article without a MS slant.
Journalists rarely quote each other when it isn't a foreign policy piece (with foreign issues, there is usually more of a concern to get the word out than to not cite the NY Times), they quote people with knowledge.
The goal of the anti-FUS is(? or it should be) to gather expert testimonial. It doesn't have to be "hard evidence," an explanation that NT, Solaris, and Linux were all considered, and Linux was chosen, and why. A writer can then pull 25 quotes, easily, when preparing their piece.
The Label's need to realize that the business model of charging for distribution is starting to collapse. MP3s are currently on the fringe, but as MP3 ripping technology and transferring becomes easier, and MP3 Hardware solutions (for cars, etc.) becomes more popular, there isn't going to be a major market for an encrypted DVD Audio. If you can buy a CD for a few dollars less than you can rip, what is the incentive to get a DVD Audio? I mean, for "best of" collections, it is a boon as 2-3 CD collections can be combined on one DVD-Audio, but are current albums limited by the CD's capacity? It would seem like most albums use less than 80% of the CD, why switch to DVD. Also, with the encryption nonsense, DVD players are going to be more expensive than CD-players. It really seems like DVD audio is a solution in search of a problem. I mean, DVD Video is MUCH higher quality than VHS or Laserdisks, while more convenient than Laserdisks. I don't see a clamoring for DVD technology for audio systems. CDs had an advantage over records/tapes (being able to skip around track-by-track with ease). My family, when we had tapes in the car, would always buy the CDs and make two tapes, one for each of my parent's cars. I mean, unless the DVD-Audio comes out with dual-deck CD-players for copying/dubbing, I don't see a clamoring for a new digital format. Minidisks had a technological advantage (somewhat mitigated by MP3 technology), DVD audio doesn't. CD quality is "good enough," and I don't see an improvement in quality really making a different. Alex
While not terribly difficult in theory, that it works over such distances is an impressive feat of engineering. However, I would like to see how it works in the real world. If it compensates for interference by lots of resending, dropping bandwidth, that's fine, but if it cuts out, that's a problem.
While I don't doubt the article, I want to see it in production before I praise them too much.
One thing that I've always wondered, why do we see so few high bandwidth wireless technology. I mean, one should be able to just use more frequencies. I guess that there is a real shortage of available frequencies. I wonder how much of that is technical hurdles and how much is beaurocratic messes between the DOD, FCC, etc., fighting over it.
Well, as IP carries more and more information, I wonder if we'll be able to reclaim all the bandwidth from audio/video broadcasts as the world moves digital. HDTV promises more (over the airwaves) channels because the signal is smaller... that seems a little silly. People that want more channels currently have Cable and DSS options, and Telephone will do so too. I think that society has more uses for the airwaves than broadcasting more garbage. As long as people get reasonable channels for their kids, news, and evening entertainment, I think that society would be better served by allowing new technologies to claim the bandwidth... but that's just me.
On the other hand, more radio stations with lower barriers to entry (licenses trump the real expenses) so that there are real alternative stations instead of the same drivel on all of them.
I disagree, maybe SOME Linux users don't make the distinction, but "geeks" will. We've read the white papers, the design specs, etc. We understand why X is so powerful. XFree86 does a tremendous job of creating a really solid Xserver, but it is NOT X. (I'm typing this from IE under NT, while my KDE desktop smiles at me from my session under Exceed).
Until recently, XFree86 was playing catchup, providing an implementation of X designed for people to play around with. However, with the other Unix vendors moving out of the workstation market and into the headless server market, XFree86 is the most compliant server out there.
For a while, XFree86's interests and The Open Group's interests were NOT compatible. They were trying to develop an interoperable system so that expensive software makers would have an easy time developing for multiple Unixes. However, even more importantly, was the attempt to share research costs. People bought Unix workstations for their power, not their Xserver, so it was in the company's interest to work together on the display portion.
Now, with Unix moving into the high end, and Linux gobbling up the low end, there is a desire for a strong, inexpensive X-server. Hummingbird probably isn't thrilled, although Exceed doesn't seem to be their major selling point, so perhaps they don't care. The Unix vendors are bringing XFree86 in because the need inexpensive workstations to manage the Unix machines. X's distributed nature makes a Linux machine an ideal platform. Additionally, after watching XFree86 on my friend's Solaris x86 machine, maybe the Unix vendors are planning to get out of the X-server market, letting XFree86 pick up that entire R&D tab.
Realize that XFree86 could have joined the group at any time, merely by ponying up the cash. Being given a free seat on a Industry board is pretty significant.
What makes this amazing, is that this is the same group that almost caused XFree86 to fork from the X standard, because they were going to charge beginning with R4... Perhaps they realized that XFree86 was the only group interested in pushing X further, as Unix was too high end for workstations. Linux, however, has a desktop fancy, so it needs a good GUI.
Alex
About time someone is getting the story out...
on
Under The Radar
·
· Score: 2
Most of the world doesn't read Internet sites (and some that do don't even read Slashdot... what a silly world:) ), so getting out what it going on here is really beneficial.
Linux's success is dependant upon REAL credibility. While this book is unlikely to be discussed in grocery stores, I would be shocked at any technical manager who doesn't read it. It will serve to get the actual story (more or less) about Open Source... something that has been lacking.
Lots of hype about Linux is great, but people want to understand where it comes from. People watched MS evolve, they know who big blue is, but Linus? He's a non-American (taboo in an American culture celebrating Americans) who got annoyed with Minix and accidentally started a revolution of sorts.
I wonder what impact Linus's background will come to play over the next few years... Part of the reason that VHS beat Beta was that more American companies were on-line with VHS so the government looked the other way at illegal (dumping) practices in an attempt to monopolize a market. We'll see what happens if the country decides that the US Gov't toppled an American Success Story and brought in foreign competition.
Honestly, are you an idiot! Quake doesn't make one an executive... maybe IT staff however...
Grin, having your cat as the first feline beta-tester would be cool... or if you can teach it to churn out regression tests... the first quality assurance proffessional that broke the sapiens barrier... when will the feline descrimination end! Write your congressman supporting affirmative action for feline friends!
Wow, that's adorable. I guess I can't rank on MS for too much of a publicity stunt, this one IS adorable. I also can guess that Microsoft can use some good publicity these days.
I wonder how quickly the Child Labor "saviors" will jump to protect Microsoft "exploiting" this young child and the US pressuring Thailand to pressure MS Thai on child labor abuses.
Oh well, it's good to see a youngster building up a good resume at such a young age... too many people wait until 15 or gosh, 20, to start thinking about future career goals... he'll be a fine asset to any MBA program... assuming he is "potty trained."
I haven't played with it much, but this layout looks really solid. News is readily retrievable, the search box is decent sized so you can see what you type, and I can scan the page in a second or two instead of reacding it. Bravo RedHat.
All in all, I can't complain. The issue with Lynx is a little sad at this point. Lynx under AIX was my first browser (over a 14.4 modem to an ISP), but it is NOT standards compliant. A page that is useless without graphics is inexcusable because users with limited bandwith may load without graphics and the visually impared need ALT definitions. However, demanding that a page look good for people without graphical support... that is kinda pushing it.
The fact that Lynx is free does NOT mean that it much be supported by Redhat. Redhat embraces opensource, but with free (like beer) browsers, supporting based upon open source is kinda silly, especially when far better open source browsers exist than Lynx and Netscape has source available, albeit not for the production browsers.
Trademark Law and Copywrite Law are VERY different. There is NO dilution of a copyright, like there is with a trademark.
Trademarks protect a company that utilizes a name from others profitting on that good will. If the term ceases to be specific to the company, than it is considered diluted and not trademarked.
This does NOT apply to copyrights (or patents, another point that./ers miss). If I create an artistic expression, it is copyrighted. It is MY work. I can do whatever I want. I can license it as arbitrarily as I want, because it IS mine.
If I create a name for my business that becomes synonymous with the industry, then that word no longer refers to my business, so my trademark goes away.
Do you understand the difference? It doesn't matter if the copyright owners do nothing 90% of the time and everyone on/. says "do nothing," if any copyright owner complains when his copyright is violated, he can sue. There is NO concept of dilution of a copyright.
You don't blame gun manufacturers because their product is performing within specification. The act of shooting a gun is not inherently bad, nor is shooting someone (self defense...), but who you should and why that matters.
With a virus, the victims are indescriminate and almost never justified. As a result, the creator of a virus is intentionally doing harm. I believe this is the key distinction.
With hacking tools, it depends on the tool. Scripts that are exploits that can only serve to to a DoS attack or otherwise endanger a computer are clearly destructive. Tools that can be used effectively but can be dangerous when misused are like guns, the creator isn't responsible, the user is.
Creating a tool with no constructive purpose, only destructive, is obviously morally wrong. You are intentionally causing indirect harm.
If you create a tool with a useful purpose that can be abused, you are not in the wrong, the person misusing the tool is.
If you create a tool with malevolent purposes in mind but create a quasi-true benevolent purpose (BO2K, I'm sorry, but it was NEVER intended for remote administration), you are at least in the morally questionable area.
Intention matters. Possible uses matter. Something with only destructive purposes is obviously NOT kosher... even with a warning label that says "Use will kill random innocent people."
You're missing the point. The FBI is not a group of concerned citizens. The are an agency of the Federal government. Therefore, they are NOT permitted to use their power to intimidate. Regardless of the paperwork, the ISP thought the FBI was coming after them.
That has what is known as a chilling affect. Speach that would be protected can be silenced by the government even if the law is on the citizen's side. Even if it isn't close, the government can intimidate, clearly an abuse of the citizen's rights.
Getting the libraries ported would make supporting applications on both systems a dream. Also, the FreeBSD group could then take advantage of the ported glibc to increase interoperability.
We talk about freedom, yet all the major Free Software vendors are using the same kernel. If Debian pushed GNU/Linux, GNU/Hurd, and now GNU/FreeBSD, then we will eventually have the day that we can choose which kernel is the best for our purposes.
Few people use Linux for the kernel, they use it for the capabilities. I have a friend who loves his GNU/Solaris machine. Don't laugh, he administered Solaris machines for years, so his home PC has the Solaris x86 stuff on it, but all it runs is Free Software (and StarOffice).
Linux advocacy is silly. Advocating *nix, or even Free Software makes sense, but obsession with a kernel is silly. As Linus says, (I might be paraphrasing) "Linux sucks, it just sucks less than anything else out there."
The Linux kernel is fast, it is stable, but it isn't revolutionary. As I understand it, it is Microkernel-esque, although it still probably has remnants from its days as a monolithic kernel. I mean, when someone comes out with a solid exokernel, are we going to scream and yell about how Linux is still better?
Support free software, but support choice. In a free software world, we could pick our kernel without worrying about our apps breaking. This project has both technical and political merit. Although, if the BSD license allows you to do whatever you want with the code, can Debian release the GNU/FreeBSD system under the GPL? If they made the best FreeBSD distro and put it under the GPL, the license issues would be over. I'm not sure of the specifics of the BSD license, but if you can include it in proprietary licensed systems, I don't see why Debian's system couldn't be GPLed.
My concern with this, is that plaintext e-mail isn't the same as post office e-mails. Those are sealed. I would argue that plaintext e-mail is akin to a postcard, anyone on the network CAN read it. In fact, the ISP HAD to intercept the e-mail electronically (there machines had to see a copy of it), so it's just a question of them logging it. If they log all the bits coming across their network, is that also a wire tap? It is THEIR network, how is it illegally wire tapping for them to monitor stuff on their network?
On the other hand, this makes the case for a need to replace plaintext e-mail. Plaintext e-mail may serve a purpose (you're out of town and go to a Cybercafe and fire off a quick, all is good, we arrived safely, take care, message), but real e-mail should be encrypted (placed in a sealed envelope) and signed.
This is merely an attempt to reach a settlement. Microsoft is clearly in trouble because of the FoF, and they don't want to have court imposed sanctions. It would likely be appealed straight to the Supreme Court, which would probably not overturn the decision unless the Judge ruled something REALLY inane.
Mediation can keep the parties in perspective during negotiations. The Judge is serving in `private capacity' but I don't know what that means. I'm assuming that his time is paid by the parties involved, but who really knows.
I understand that after the case is closed, the FoF is considered admissable evidence in all the private anti-trust cases. If Microsoft settles, is the FoF still binding, or does the case disappear? I'm guessing the latter, which is why MS is looking to settle instead of fight. Even if the appeal wins them points from the Conclusions of Law (unlikely), they will most likely be economically ruining by the private civil anti-trust cases. Don't think so? I think that they can get up to triple damages... want to see what a few billion in legal costs do to Microsoft's cash flow? Realize that market capitalization isn't cash onhand, merely their valuations. A hit of $10-15 billion in cash would devastate Microsoft... and that would be on top of a massive penalty for the anti-trust stuff.
Because Microsoft acts like a monopolist, they are EXTREMELY profitable. However, even split up, Microsoft can make HUGE profits as the Baby Bills. However, if they are sacked with HUGE legal fees, class action lawsuits for over-pricing Win98, and other sanctions, Microsoft could be devastated. Now, neither the DOJ or Microsoft have any reason to see MS destroyed. The DOJ needs to restore competition in the marketplace, not attack MS...
Do keep in mind, you have military service, which is NOT insignificant. There is an extreme amount of respect for that.
The other thing to consider with your military service is that it compensates for the other fear of hiring someone without a college degree.
If nothing else, a college degree (even in something useless like Art History) demonstrates that you can complete a task once you start it. Twelve years of military service will convince anyone that you aren't a slacker.
Also, those with degrees are immediately biased against those that aren't. Fair or not, there is an assumption that intelligence and education are correlated. While that is true in general, I know a lot of bright people without degrees and a lot of morons at top schools. However, you immediately rule out any decent job in a large company without the degree, they'll have policies.
If you want to sysadmin/C code your whole life, you can get by without a degree, however, I think that you'll run into problems.
For example, experienced coders (age 30+) are having SERIOUS employment problems because companies are stupid (you didn't work with Java?) or their managers (usually in their 20s) would be uncomfortable. Because of the age discrimination in this industry, later in life you're going to be hurting without the degree.
When you are in your 30s or 40s, you may have difficulty obtaining work in these positions. Unless you aquired some management experience, you're limited.
With a solid undergrad degree, you have many more options. 10-15 years down the road, if you are having trouble finding work or bored with your work, you always have the MBA option. Without a degree, good luck getting into an MBA program. With that MBA in hand and years of experience, you can land a nice, cushy, management job in the industry, probably paying twice what you're all excited about now.
There is also a HUGE social status issue with degrees. People without them lose respect in the eyes of most people with degrees. Before ignoring that fact, consider meeting a prospective spouse's family, maybe swapping stories about life, and they ask where you went to school. Want to tell people you didn't go to college?
For entry level programming/sysadmining jobs, you can easily get by without the degree. If you want to move up, you're going to have REAL difficulty without the degree. Your job mobility is going to be severely impacted. Even if you can land another job, think that you'll have as easy a time getting that senior level position? The one that HR insists needs a Masters degree? You can probably get it with a bachelors, but not a Masters.
Besides the job opportunities, undergraduate years are a blast. Why you would pass up the prolonged American adolescence is beyond me. Pick a school, have a blast. You can work part-time/summers to aquire work experience, and later on in life, you'll be glad that you did.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. Corel is showing that they ARE getting free software, as much as a corporation can. They can't justify spending money so that programmers screw around with free software, that wouldn't be in their investor's interests. However, they are contributing to the WINE community in the same way as they are taking from it. IIRC, WINE is BSD-licensed, not GNU, so they don't even have to. They COULD just make the changes and keep them to themselves, but they would rather give to WINE so that WINE moves foward.
I'm really impressed. If Corel becomes a "Linux company" (i.e. Red Hat, Caldera, etc.) then they will probably maintain programming staffs to do generic Linux work like Red Hat and Caldera do. Until then, they are looking at Linux as a way to reposition WordPerfect. Because MS refuses to port their apps, Corel and Netscape will probably utilize Linux to gain marketshare.
Corel is showing how a company that makes traditional software can try to profit in the Linux environment while supporting the community.
Alex
Bring in experienced businessmen, NOW. Get a solid person in charge of marketing. You can't think "develop product, market it," marketing and development need to work in sync. Be certain that the market that you are aiming for exists and that you can capture it.
Get a good CFO once the seed money comes in. An accountant is NOT good enough. It takes time to raise money, be certain that you will know when the next infusion of capital is needed.
Decide on jobs initially. There NEEDS to be a President/CEO, his decision is final. You need a chain of command, not by committee. Make certain that whomever is your starting CEO is ready for the responsibility (raising money, forging alliances). Even more important, make certain that they are ready to step down when the company needs someone experienced in that role.
Divide the initial equity evenly among the founders. There should be NO room for equity fights in the beginning.
Hire good, intelligent, motivated employees. If one of your first hires is bad, you're sunk.
Good luck.
Alex
Didn't "International English" replace French as the International language about 50 years ago? I thought that French as the international language collapsed when France did in WWI. I could of course, be wrong.
Alex
Y2K was totally misrepresented. There were REAL risks, but they were overshadowed by nonsense. There was talk of embedded chips failling because of the roll-over.
I'm sorry, but as a computer science student, we learn that computers work in binary... hell, I learned that "officially" in middle school. Well, 100 is not a "roll-over" in binary. 64 and 128 are, but 100 is insignificant in a binary system.
There were potential Y2K issues, but these were ALL dependent upon UI problems. In interfacing with humans, decimals are used and there was a potential for Y2K issues. For example, the credit cards with expirations of xx/00, the reader had to be told how to determine the year from two decimals.
However, internally, there is NO conceivable way that the year 2000 would cause roll-over problems in embedded systems. "We could only store 2 digits." You morons, you wouldn't use two bytes, and a single byte stores up to 255 with an unsigned value, and 128 with a signed value. Either way, there NEVER was a risk of real failures until 2028. Apparently the experts should have studied some middle school math.
While there was a risk of database records getting confused, there was NEVER the risk of the embedded systems that the media made them out to be. There is nothing more annoying than the media making stupidity out to be fact.
i.e. The millenium/century change is 2001. I'm sorry, you can cellebrate all you want, talk abnout pop culture all you want, you're WRONG.
Alex
I'm glad that he is enjoying his fifteen minutes of fame. For $35 dollars, he got a lot of attention for doing something simple, and at no long term cost to him.
However, at the end, he indicates that he would like them to consider the advertising revenue that they saved by his registering it.
I don't know if that is his actual statement or a journalist trying to make the story more controversial, but if he really feels that way, it's kinda silly. He wanted to get his mail, he paid their registration fee, and they are paying him pack.
They also figured out the problem, he just beat them to it. While I'm certain that this administrative slight is really embarassing to Microsoft, the whole situation is silly.
This wasn't a win for the community. This was a silly situation to happen and a potential PR mess. I'm glad that it was resolved, but this is getting blown out of proportion.
Alex
This is impressive. It's really nice to see free software "work." That being, the right to fork prevents the need to fork. Everyone had the "right" to develop their own version without anyone else's influence, but they decided to get together and pick an API to make it compatible.
Instead of licensing proprietary OSes, Linux based versions should have the advantage of massive peer review and development. While Linux based OSes will no doubt be licensed, it should be a VERY competitive field.
Within a few years, real-time Linux might dominate the embedded market, driving down costs. With everything using embedded systems, the cost savings of not reinventing the wheel will probably allow that "convergence" being hyped everywhere.
All in all, this is a good thing. "Props" to Cygnus for a good job on pulling off the common API... but then, I expect nothing less from Cygnus, but once again proving that RedHat made a smart investment.
This should give Cygnus's embedded Linux a BIG boost, as they know the API better than anyone else. It looks like Redhat will finally have a REAL licensable product instead of a freely copiable one.
Alex
Freshman year, my advising seminar involved developing a method for modeling sail boats. We were given a spec file and implemented some algorithms to scale the boat, apply wind, etc. We wrote some code, and used some code that the professor developed years earlier. The language in use? Fortran-77. Developing that on our Sun Workstations was a travesty.
Fortran is STILL heavily used in academic circles because the code already exists. My friend, when interviewing for an on campus job doing mathematical modeling, was asked if he knew Fortran. He convinced the guy to let him do it in C++, but some professors would insist on Fortran.
From my experience, for doing scientific analysis, Fortran is fine. Fortran, C, PASCAL, BASIC, it really doesn't matter, the structured languages are all almost identical with slightly different syntax.
While object oriented techniques make sense for real software development, if you merely want to run a particular algorithm on a lot of data points, any structured language will do.
Older researchers learned Fortran and probably never moved to the newer languages. Fortran is really clean, and if your existing code is in Fortran, why migrate to a newer language. While I haven't read the newer Fortran specs, I believe they implement much of the functionality of other structured languages (although I'm assuming no real memory control).
Fortran makes it VERY easy to develop robust applications for number crunching without any risk of memory leaks, etc. Additionally, groups may already have thousands of lines of code already written and just need to write a bunch of 15-20 line applications utilizing them to do different forms of analysis.
Fortran on the Alpha under Linux may be the "killer app" to move Linux into acadamia. I don't mean in the school's IT departments, but into research departments. For departments that need to process a LOT of data points, allowing students to develop code at home or on public workstations and then run the massive calculations on their Alpha machines may be a real cost and time saver.
If Compaq gets the rest of their compilers in line, then Linux/Alpha may become huge.
Your statement that:
I find it hard to imagine that too many ppl on Linux/Alpha have a big use for fortran anyhow..
is kinda silly. Outside of home users, people don't buy a system and then find a use. People have a need and pick the best platform.
If you have a lot of existing Fortran code and want to utilize it for new processes and do massive calculations, you pick the best platform available. If current computing capabilities fit your need, you use them. If you need a newer machine to process all the data, you buy a new machine. If the Alpha platform under Linux is the best platform and you have a lot of Fortran to process, I can bet that you'll be buying a new Alpha machine running Linux.
Alex
Well, nobody was doing it, and their approach is novel. I have issues with software patents, but this one sounds legit. I mean, every other site had you fill out forms again each time, and their "one-click technology" was a real time-saver. Since then, everyone has copied it. I think that it was a new approach that they developed, and they are entitled to the patent royalties.
This isn't a patent on cookies. It is a patent on storing just enough information to find you in a database. While not technically novel, the combination of the database query and people's personal information is a new and novel approach.
I respect RMS for what he has done, but I don't share his views on intellectual property. People are free to give their work away. People are also free to profit from their ideas. The patent system rewards inventors. Amazon.com invented a way to bring convenience, and the patent is, in my opinion, legit.
Alex
She was a talented actress, who starred in many of the films that occupy my movie collection. Comedies (what nerd doesn't watch Mel Brooks movies?) are one of the few genres that I really watch, because I usually am doing something else at the time.
Without this article, I wouldn't have known that she died. While not having a big impact on my life, this is knowledge that I am glad to have. She'll be missed because she played fun roles in movies that can't attract "big names," yet her talent made them better. She helped make Blazing Saddles and History of the World Part I, two of my favority movies.
Alex
As it was a Chinese State Bank (I doubt that there are privately owned banks in China, but with the SEZs, Special Economic Zones, I have no idea, and haven't really kept up), it was a crime against the state.
In a Communist Nation, is there any greater crime that stealing from the state? As everything is owned "by the people," his robbery was a crime against the people of China. That, arguably, is a capital crime.
In a Western Nation (private ownership), when you steal from someone, there is a criminal and civil element. Ultimately, you stole from a single individual, and while the state has a vested interest in protecting people from each other, it isn't the victim, which warrants a lesser penalty.
In a Communist Nation, everyone is supposed to work towards the common good. Someone betrayed that trust by taking from the community instead of contributing to it. Arguably, that warrants the death penalty.
Mostly playing Devil's advocate here,
Alex
P.S. I don't advocate the Communist mindset, but I'm giving my view on how you have to treat the crime based upon that philosophy. I realize that China does not live up to the Communist ideals, but I'm going to assume that it writes its laws with them in mind.
When someone posts, "My linux box has been up for 10 months," that's anecdotal evidence. I don't think that this is about articles. I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that the anti-FUD page is to gather information from credible sources that use Linux to solve real problems.
i.e. NOT uptime quotes
If you chose Linux for a project, then you (or your manager, etc.) write an article explaining the decision process, what Linux did in testing that the competition didn't, etc. i.e. Real articles about solving problems, not open source propaganda.
In otherwords, if a reported wants to write an article, right now, they can go to MS's website and pull a ready to write article. Linux article writing is more work.
If tech writers can pull down 50 articles from computer professionals about why Linux or *BSD was used, or even why Solaris was chosen over MS, this provides amunition for writing an article without a MS slant.
Journalists rarely quote each other when it isn't a foreign policy piece (with foreign issues, there is usually more of a concern to get the word out than to not cite the NY Times), they quote people with knowledge.
The goal of the anti-FUS is(? or it should be) to gather expert testimonial. It doesn't have to be "hard evidence," an explanation that NT, Solaris, and Linux were all considered, and Linux was chosen, and why. A writer can then pull 25 quotes, easily, when preparing their piece.
Alex
The Label's need to realize that the business model of charging for distribution is starting to collapse. MP3s are currently on the fringe, but as MP3 ripping technology and transferring becomes easier, and MP3 Hardware solutions (for cars, etc.) becomes more popular, there isn't going to be a major market for an encrypted DVD Audio. If you can buy a CD for a few dollars less than you can rip, what is the incentive to get a DVD Audio? I mean, for "best of" collections, it is a boon as 2-3 CD collections can be combined on one DVD-Audio, but are current albums limited by the CD's capacity? It would seem like most albums use less than 80% of the CD, why switch to DVD. Also, with the encryption nonsense, DVD players are going to be more expensive than CD-players. It really seems like DVD audio is a solution in search of a problem. I mean, DVD Video is MUCH higher quality than VHS or Laserdisks, while more convenient than Laserdisks. I don't see a clamoring for DVD technology for audio systems. CDs had an advantage over records/tapes (being able to skip around track-by-track with ease). My family, when we had tapes in the car, would always buy the CDs and make two tapes, one for each of my parent's cars. I mean, unless the DVD-Audio comes out with dual-deck CD-players for copying/dubbing, I don't see a clamoring for a new digital format. Minidisks had a technological advantage (somewhat mitigated by MP3 technology), DVD audio doesn't. CD quality is "good enough," and I don't see an improvement in quality really making a different. Alex
While not terribly difficult in theory, that it works over such distances is an impressive feat of engineering. However, I would like to see how it works in the real world. If it compensates for interference by lots of resending, dropping bandwidth, that's fine, but if it cuts out, that's a problem.
While I don't doubt the article, I want to see it in production before I praise them too much.
One thing that I've always wondered, why do we see so few high bandwidth wireless technology. I mean, one should be able to just use more frequencies. I guess that there is a real shortage of available frequencies. I wonder how much of that is technical hurdles and how much is beaurocratic messes between the DOD, FCC, etc., fighting over it.
Well, as IP carries more and more information, I wonder if we'll be able to reclaim all the bandwidth from audio/video broadcasts as the world moves digital. HDTV promises more (over the airwaves) channels because the signal is smaller... that seems a little silly. People that want more channels currently have Cable and DSS options, and Telephone will do so too. I think that society has more uses for the airwaves than broadcasting more garbage. As long as people get reasonable channels for their kids, news, and evening entertainment, I think that society would be better served by allowing new technologies to claim the bandwidth... but that's just me.
On the other hand, more radio stations with lower barriers to entry (licenses trump the real expenses) so that there are real alternative stations instead of the same drivel on all of them.
Alex
I disagree, maybe SOME Linux users don't make the distinction, but "geeks" will. We've read the white papers, the design specs, etc. We understand why X is so powerful. XFree86 does a tremendous job of creating a really solid Xserver, but it is NOT X. (I'm typing this from IE under NT, while my KDE desktop smiles at me from my session under Exceed).
Until recently, XFree86 was playing catchup, providing an implementation of X designed for people to play around with. However, with the other Unix vendors moving out of the workstation market and into the headless server market, XFree86 is the most compliant server out there.
For a while, XFree86's interests and The Open Group's interests were NOT compatible. They were trying to develop an interoperable system so that expensive software makers would have an easy time developing for multiple Unixes. However, even more importantly, was the attempt to share research costs. People bought Unix workstations for their power, not their Xserver, so it was in the company's interest to work together on the display portion.
Now, with Unix moving into the high end, and Linux gobbling up the low end, there is a desire for a strong, inexpensive X-server. Hummingbird probably isn't thrilled, although Exceed doesn't seem to be their major selling point, so perhaps they don't care. The Unix vendors are bringing XFree86 in because the need inexpensive workstations to manage the Unix machines. X's distributed nature makes a Linux machine an ideal platform. Additionally, after watching XFree86 on my friend's Solaris x86 machine, maybe the Unix vendors are planning to get out of the X-server market, letting XFree86 pick up that entire R&D tab.
Realize that XFree86 could have joined the group at any time, merely by ponying up the cash. Being given a free seat on a Industry board is pretty significant.
What makes this amazing, is that this is the same group that almost caused XFree86 to fork from the X standard, because they were going to charge beginning with R4... Perhaps they realized that XFree86 was the only group interested in pushing X further, as Unix was too high end for workstations. Linux, however, has a desktop fancy, so it needs a good GUI.
Alex
Most of the world doesn't read Internet sites (and some that do don't even read Slashdot... what a silly world :) ), so getting out what it going on here is really beneficial.
Linux's success is dependant upon REAL credibility. While this book is unlikely to be discussed in grocery stores, I would be shocked at any technical manager who doesn't read it. It will serve to get the actual story (more or less) about Open Source... something that has been lacking.
Lots of hype about Linux is great, but people want to understand where it comes from. People watched MS evolve, they know who big blue is, but Linus? He's a non-American (taboo in an American culture celebrating Americans) who got annoyed with Minix and accidentally started a revolution of sorts.
I wonder what impact Linus's background will come to play over the next few years... Part of the reason that VHS beat Beta was that more American companies were on-line with VHS so the government looked the other way at illegal (dumping) practices in an attempt to monopolize a market. We'll see what happens if the country decides that the US Gov't toppled an American Success Story and brought in foreign competition.
Honestly, are you an idiot! Quake doesn't make one an executive... maybe IT staff however...
Grin, having your cat as the first feline beta-tester would be cool... or if you can teach it to churn out regression tests... the first quality assurance proffessional that broke the sapiens barrier... when will the feline descrimination end! Write your congressman supporting affirmative action for feline friends!
Wow, that's adorable. I guess I can't rank on MS for too much of a publicity stunt, this one IS adorable. I also can guess that Microsoft can use some good publicity these days.
I wonder how quickly the Child Labor "saviors" will jump to protect Microsoft "exploiting" this young child and the US pressuring Thailand to pressure MS Thai on child labor abuses.
Oh well, it's good to see a youngster building up a good resume at such a young age... too many people wait until 15 or gosh, 20, to start thinking about future career goals... he'll be a fine asset to any MBA program... assuming he is "potty trained."
Alex
I haven't played with it much, but this layout looks really solid. News is readily retrievable, the search box is decent sized so you can see what you type, and I can scan the page in a second or two instead of reacding it. Bravo RedHat.
All in all, I can't complain. The issue with Lynx is a little sad at this point. Lynx under AIX was my first browser (over a 14.4 modem to an ISP), but it is NOT standards compliant. A page that is useless without graphics is inexcusable because users with limited bandwith may load without graphics and the visually impared need ALT definitions. However, demanding that a page look good for people without graphical support... that is kinda pushing it.
The fact that Lynx is free does NOT mean that it much be supported by Redhat. Redhat embraces opensource, but with free (like beer) browsers, supporting based upon open source is kinda silly, especially when far better open source browsers exist than Lynx and Netscape has source available, albeit not for the production browsers.
Alex
Trademark Law and Copywrite Law are VERY different. There is NO dilution of a copyright, like there is with a trademark.
./ers miss). If I create an artistic expression, it is copyrighted. It is MY work. I can do whatever I want. I can license it as arbitrarily as I want, because it IS mine.
/. says "do nothing," if any copyright owner complains when his copyright is violated, he can sue. There is NO concept of dilution of a copyright.
Trademarks protect a company that utilizes a name from others profitting on that good will. If the term ceases to be specific to the company, than it is considered diluted and not trademarked.
This does NOT apply to copyrights (or patents, another point that
If I create a name for my business that becomes synonymous with the industry, then that word no longer refers to my business, so my trademark goes away.
Do you understand the difference? It doesn't matter if the copyright owners do nothing 90% of the time and everyone on
Alex
Probably not a popular view in this forum, but...
You don't blame gun manufacturers because their product is performing within specification. The act of shooting a gun is not inherently bad, nor is shooting someone (self defense...), but who you should and why that matters.
With a virus, the victims are indescriminate and almost never justified. As a result, the creator of a virus is intentionally doing harm. I believe this is the key distinction.
With hacking tools, it depends on the tool. Scripts that are exploits that can only serve to to a DoS attack or otherwise endanger a computer are clearly destructive. Tools that can be used effectively but can be dangerous when misused are like guns, the creator isn't responsible, the user is.
Creating a tool with no constructive purpose, only destructive, is obviously morally wrong. You are intentionally causing indirect harm.
If you create a tool with a useful purpose that can be abused, you are not in the wrong, the person misusing the tool is.
If you create a tool with malevolent purposes in mind but create a quasi-true benevolent purpose (BO2K, I'm sorry, but it was NEVER intended for remote administration), you are at least in the morally questionable area.
Intention matters. Possible uses matter. Something with only destructive purposes is obviously NOT kosher... even with a warning label that says "Use will kill random innocent people."
Alex
You're missing the point. The FBI is not a group of concerned citizens. The are an agency of the Federal government. Therefore, they are NOT permitted to use their power to intimidate. Regardless of the paperwork, the ISP thought the FBI was coming after them.
That has what is known as a chilling affect. Speach that would be protected can be silenced by the government even if the law is on the citizen's side. Even if it isn't close, the government can intimidate, clearly an abuse of the citizen's rights.
Getting the libraries ported would make supporting applications on both systems a dream. Also, the FreeBSD group could then take advantage of the ported glibc to increase interoperability.
We talk about freedom, yet all the major Free Software vendors are using the same kernel. If Debian pushed GNU/Linux, GNU/Hurd, and now GNU/FreeBSD, then we will eventually have the day that we can choose which kernel is the best for our purposes.
Few people use Linux for the kernel, they use it for the capabilities. I have a friend who loves his GNU/Solaris machine. Don't laugh, he administered Solaris machines for years, so his home PC has the Solaris x86 stuff on it, but all it runs is Free Software (and StarOffice).
Linux advocacy is silly. Advocating *nix, or even Free Software makes sense, but obsession with a kernel is silly. As Linus says, (I might be paraphrasing) "Linux sucks, it just sucks less than anything else out there."
The Linux kernel is fast, it is stable, but it isn't revolutionary. As I understand it, it is Microkernel-esque, although it still probably has remnants from its days as a monolithic kernel. I mean, when someone comes out with a solid exokernel, are we going to scream and yell about how Linux is still better?
Support free software, but support choice. In a free software world, we could pick our kernel without worrying about our apps breaking. This project has both technical and political merit. Although, if the BSD license allows you to do whatever you want with the code, can Debian release the GNU/FreeBSD system under the GPL? If they made the best FreeBSD distro and put it under the GPL, the license issues would be over. I'm not sure of the specifics of the BSD license, but if you can include it in proprietary licensed systems, I don't see why Debian's system couldn't be GPLed.
My concern with this, is that plaintext e-mail isn't the same as post office e-mails. Those are sealed. I would argue that plaintext e-mail is akin to a postcard, anyone on the network CAN read it. In fact, the ISP HAD to intercept the e-mail electronically (there machines had to see a copy of it), so it's just a question of them logging it. If they log all the bits coming across their network, is that also a wire tap? It is THEIR network, how is it illegally wire tapping for them to monitor stuff on their network?
On the other hand, this makes the case for a need to replace plaintext e-mail. Plaintext e-mail may serve a purpose (you're out of town and go to a Cybercafe and fire off a quick, all is good, we arrived safely, take care, message), but real e-mail should be encrypted (placed in a sealed envelope) and signed.
Alex
This is merely an attempt to reach a settlement. Microsoft is clearly in trouble because of the FoF, and they don't want to have court imposed sanctions. It would likely be appealed straight to the Supreme Court, which would probably not overturn the decision unless the Judge ruled something REALLY inane.
Mediation can keep the parties in perspective during negotiations. The Judge is serving in `private capacity' but I don't know what that means. I'm assuming that his time is paid by the parties involved, but who really knows.
I understand that after the case is closed, the FoF is considered admissable evidence in all the private anti-trust cases. If Microsoft settles, is the FoF still binding, or does the case disappear? I'm guessing the latter, which is why MS is looking to settle instead of fight. Even if the appeal wins them points from the Conclusions of Law (unlikely), they will most likely be economically ruining by the private civil anti-trust cases. Don't think so? I think that they can get up to triple damages... want to see what a few billion in legal costs do to Microsoft's cash flow? Realize that market capitalization isn't cash onhand, merely their valuations. A hit of $10-15 billion in cash would devastate Microsoft... and that would be on top of a massive penalty for the anti-trust stuff.
Because Microsoft acts like a monopolist, they are EXTREMELY profitable. However, even split up, Microsoft can make HUGE profits as the Baby Bills. However, if they are sacked with HUGE legal fees, class action lawsuits for over-pricing Win98, and other sanctions, Microsoft could be devastated. Now, neither the DOJ or Microsoft have any reason to see MS destroyed. The DOJ needs to restore competition in the marketplace, not attack MS...
Alex
Do keep in mind, you have military service, which is NOT insignificant. There is an extreme amount of respect for that.
The other thing to consider with your military service is that it compensates for the other fear of hiring someone without a college degree.
If nothing else, a college degree (even in something useless like Art History) demonstrates that you can complete a task once you start it. Twelve years of military service will convince anyone that you aren't a slacker.
Also, those with degrees are immediately biased against those that aren't. Fair or not, there is an assumption that intelligence and education are correlated. While that is true in general, I know a lot of bright people without degrees and a lot of morons at top schools. However, you immediately rule out any decent job in a large company without the degree, they'll have policies.
If you want to sysadmin/C code your whole life, you can get by without a degree, however, I think that you'll run into problems.
For example, experienced coders (age 30+) are having SERIOUS employment problems because companies are stupid (you didn't work with Java?) or their managers (usually in their 20s) would be uncomfortable. Because of the age discrimination in this industry, later in life you're going to be hurting without the degree.
When you are in your 30s or 40s, you may have difficulty obtaining work in these positions. Unless you aquired some management experience, you're limited.
With a solid undergrad degree, you have many more options. 10-15 years down the road, if you are having trouble finding work or bored with your work, you always have the MBA option. Without a degree, good luck getting into an MBA program. With that MBA in hand and years of experience, you can land a nice, cushy, management job in the industry, probably paying twice what you're all excited about now.
There is also a HUGE social status issue with degrees. People without them lose respect in the eyes of most people with degrees. Before ignoring that fact, consider meeting a prospective spouse's family, maybe swapping stories about life, and they ask where you went to school. Want to tell people you didn't go to college?
For entry level programming/sysadmining jobs, you can easily get by without the degree. If you want to move up, you're going to have REAL difficulty without the degree. Your job mobility is going to be severely impacted. Even if you can land another job, think that you'll have as easy a time getting that senior level position? The one that HR insists needs a Masters degree? You can probably get it with a bachelors, but not a Masters.
Besides the job opportunities, undergraduate years are a blast. Why you would pass up the prolonged American adolescence is beyond me. Pick a school, have a blast. You can work part-time/summers to aquire work experience, and later on in life, you'll be glad that you did.