The reason in Microsofts case being that the model is extreemly complex, and historicaly (anyway) poorly documented. Sure, some people dont use it because they dont know about it, but a a lot of people dont use it because its just too fucking difficult to learn, and get right.
Legal precedent perhaps not. But if (when) SCOX is liquidated and the execs are brought up on securities fraud charges it will stand out as deterrent against other potential swindlers. And make potential investors (the big investors, like the Royal Bank of Canada, not Joe-sixpack with an etrade account) think twice about throwing money at a company whose future is based on questionable legal clames only.
Yes, and yes. It comes with Open Enterprise Server and remains closed source. Its primary usage would continue to be, Id wager, in a 1:1: replacement servers for old Netware systems; e.g. desktop office support.
Its interesting that a lot of "high-level" CMS's all implement their own ACL system, but for users/groups as well as content (files). For all the interesting and directly-usefull-to-users apps Novell is building (e.g. Beagle) I've been thinking that it would do them good to build some libraries and proof-of-concept apps that leverage (sory) their excelent low level capabilities. Its just that most developers dont know any better..
While true that PS is a Turing complete language, all those things you mention are specificly excluded from its goals. Its goal is to provide an exact method of printing something on paper. If you are trying to do something with a Postscript file and you are not either a Postscript printer, or Postscript displayer, then you are doing something outside of the spec.
The problem may be that people are using PS as a transmission-for-later-editing format, which it isnt.
The branding artwork (and some third party code, too) is located in the directory location mozilla/other-licenses/. It is thus fairly clear that that stuff is covered by some other license. In/mozilla/source/other-licenses/branding/firefox/LI CENSE you can clearly see:
1 You are not granted rights or licenses to the trademarks of the
2 Mozilla Foundation or any party, including without limitation the
3 Firefox name or logo.
4
5 For more information, see: http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/licensing.html
6
Lots and lots of software packages have code from different sources, and the code is not all under the same license. There is no legal, or moral, obligation that you can only apply a single (set of) license(s) to a tarball as a single atomic thing.
Debian policies are perfect and Mozilla must adjust theirs to suit Debian? Come on.
As a supporter of OSS, I like the fact that Mozilla produces OSS code, and the Debian is using it. As a supporter of the Firefox brand and community I like the fact that Mozilla is protecting that. I think that others should be using it, and that distros should be shipping it. As a pragmatist, I like that fact that distros can make reasonable customizations to Firefox and have it still be Firefox.
However, what Debian wants to attach something that is not Firefox to the Firefox brand. Debian wanted to ride on the coat tails of the Firefox brand, and the supporters of the brand. As someone who promoted Firefox to those who will listen, supported Firefox through the NYT add, and through the Mozilla store, I find the of Debian in shipping something that is not Firefox, but calling it Firefox, at best arrogant, at worst stealing. I diddn't attach my name to the promotion of what-Debian-is-calling-Firefox in an international medium. When I tell people they should use Firefox, its because I think they should use Firefox, not what-Debian-is-calling-Firefox. So mozilla.org put the smackdown on, Debian complied, and the problem is solved. I would have rather them ship Firefox, implicitly promoting Firefox, and thus making the brand stonger. But they took the other option, and thats OK too.
Except that it isnt "solved", as people continue to bitch about the evil and heavy handed folks at mozilla.org enforcing their rules.
Well, that would just be confusing for everyone (even if Mozilla wasn't a registered trademark), as it describes a project, an "organization", a "corporation", and formerly a monolithic toolkit and internet client app suite. Its overused to the point of meaning everything and nothing (hint: there is a lesson here)
At least with "IceWeasel" people will stop and think "WTF is Iceweasel?", and be forced to resolve that with fresh information, whereas calling it "Mozilla" they already think they know what that is, one of the huge list of things above, which specifically excludes a lean web browser. Now your just being silly, Bruce.
Mike Connor explicitly drew a parallel with RH/Novell/IBM and Mozilla 1.4. "Firefox" comes from moz.org servers with the moz.org staff supervision; the changes that Debian is making to the 1.0 codebase of firefox comes from Debian, with the changes being sent back, en mass (eventually), in an obtuse format. With non-obvious, and definitely non-security related fixes in it. Which was always unacceptable, but formerly allowed with the nudge and wink
Personally, I would have come out with that final statement first. Charitably, Connor was trying to allow Debian to gracefully save face, but it turned into a furry of increasingly whiny and petty emails (from both sides). But anyway; It was not a matter of "stop shipping this now, period" it was "the rules are X. you are in non-compliance; choose one of them to comply with". Debian choose what was the worst possible choice, topping it off with a petty, stupid, name.
Well, the Mozilla folks have also thought about the problem. And they came up with a solution. The policy is that changes make the thing not the thing.
And Mozilla.org has had a policy in place for years too. You ship X or you don't. The policy is now being more strictly enforced. You ship Firefox, or you dont. Trademark law being what is is, you go after the big targets first. RedHat and Novell have managed to comply with option #1, Debian has chosen to use option #2. And complain about it.
Everyone must have policies that parallel Debian? Is that the short version of your argument here Bruce? They have a policy. It is black and white: code/logos/name go together, or not. They (apparently) think that this protects the brand the best. (Which it does, if its best for the brand is a seprate question).
Only Foo is the True Foo. If its modified then its not it. There is room for movement here; you can modify it for distro/platform localizations without specific approval. If you make modifications beyond that then what you have at the end is clearly no longer Firefox.
Mozilla.org is responsible for developing (and coordinating volunteers who develop) a web browser, released under some very liberal OSS terms. Additionally, they are responsible for building a band around that code. That brand involves artwork, a name, New York Times adds, publicity interviews, a community of developers and supporters. The specific name "Firefox", for legal reasons needs to be protected. The brand "firefox", for common sense reasons has to be protected. The modification rules are quite reasonable: distro/platform porting: allowed without approval; specifically useful changes: possibly allowed with approval; other changes: no longer Firefox.[1] Debian can, does, and will continue to use the firefox code-base under the tri-license that it is released. Debian wants to get a free ride on the brand, the trademark, and the community - that is, use without playing by their specific license and esprit-de-corps rules that apply there.
[1] Im sure you will counter with: security patches after mozilla.org stops supporting $VER_NOW dont qualify. Only partially true: with IBM/RedHat/Novell supporting mozilla 1.4 long after.org dropped it; if debian is in fact interested in security patches only then they would all be small, self-contained, with implicit documentation: i.e. on track for rapid approval. Debain and others press mozilla.org staff at $FUTURE_DATE to simply take over $VER_NOW, managed on there infrastructure, this approval process could be done in reverse: moz staff only checking after the fact to make sure patches are security related only.
If its accessable to users (that is, not requiring a screwdriver to get to) then it shouldnt cause any hardship. If it causes hardship, then its the engineers fault, not the user.
Who doesn't watch video "on demand"? Except for marketing meetings I need to go to for every second Thursday, I only ever watch video "on demand" (I guess thats "on demand" too, by demand of my boss). And all non-industrial video recording devices are "personal". "Hey, roommate, come here. Insert keys.... now..... Turn in 3... 2... 1.. turn! {recording}" Ya, right, thats playing out in millions of homes everywhere.
Yes, I am bitter and constantly annoyed at/about people who insist on putting some stupid and redundent sylable in front of "mail" all the time.
For Google servers, "commodity" means "cheap". And you have to pay a (significant) premium for PCs with serial console connections. So Im willing to bet no serial consoles for them. As far as sysadmins/techs pulling servers, its probabale that the former dont even notice. The cluster either ignores the dead box, or ignores a error reporting box, and raises a ticket somewhere. The techs come out to the cluster and pull the box. Sysadmins dont even notice, or care.
A couple of reasons at least. First, it takes many years and possibily millions of dollars to get something to be certified for use on aircraft, more complex and expensive for military aircraft, yet more for spaceraft (at the top, I suppose would be military spacecraft). But more importantaly are optics. Good optics make good resolution not super important. Just zoom and pan and take multiple shots. Its not like the subject is going to get distracted and want to go on a break. Just take 4x the shots and get 4x the resolution.
Well, it clearly depends on the project and where the money would go. It may be related to how easy/obvious/straight-forward the project is. An OS should falls into this "easy" category. Easy in the sense that one can take courses in writing OSs, and it least in theroy any CS undergrad should be able to contribute to an OS. Thousands of OSs have been written, there is a plethora of information, documentation, and skill available in doing so. While the state-of-the-art may be moving just as fast anywhere, good-enough / tuned-for-reality products are, well, good-enough. There are established benchmarks for measuring quality. Technology wise, the right thing is usualy clear. (Consider the lack of microkernels in the real world, and the ongoing popularity of UNIX-ish things and even MVS)
Now consider web browsers. You can't take a course in writing a web browser; there has probabaly been less then 500 independent ones ever written with perhaps only 10 realy significant lines of development. Mozilla is extreemly complex, and maintaining a level of understanding of some of the core code simply requires a high commitement of time. There is little low hanging fruit for newbies to pick up. Technology wise, the right thing is almost never clear.
FreeBSD works, according to you, fine (or better) with no paid developers. The Linux kernel isnt developed by unpaid geeks in basements, but mainly by paid profesionals. But pros paid by independent companies with no gaurentee of loyalty to the "Linux kernel" so, from a management perspective, are volunteers. Both FreeBSD and Linux move forward because forward is usualy obvious.
The core of Mozilla moves forward under the power of Mozilla.org staff, under the direction and control of Mozilla.org managers. Even if you could find 20 volunteers who have the time and inclination to hack on the code, they would have 25 ideas where the code should go, Perhaps there are still 25 ideas with the 20 staff of m.o (or whatever the numbers are), but at least at anyone time the managers are controling them down to only 10 directions. They are working on 10 directions because they are getting paid, and they are working on them for 35hrs a week, because they are getting paid.
OO.o is even more complex then Mozilla. It has even fewer non-Sun (or Novell) employees hacking on it.
Part of this is neither technical or manageral, but culture. FreeBSD and Linux have a history of (~paid) volunteers, Moz and OO.o from paid staff.
Google could help Mozilla and OO.o by throwing money at them. Not so much for *BSD and the Linux Kernel.
And there are less technical things that throwing money at would help. Stupid things like icon sets for Gnome. Less stupid things like useability studdies. The former may happen with volunteers, the later definitly needs money.
Standards. w3c is a hugely fucked up. OpenDocument has enemies with big pockets. Moeny pays lawyers and marketing types. Yes, it was volunteers who got a Firefox add in the New York Times, but it the volunteering consisted of the time it took to give a CC number;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Well, assuming 1600x1200 and 24bit colour, and a reasonable 50fps, about 275MByte/sec, per monitor. Just ask google: http://www.google.com/search?q=1600*1200*24%2F8%2F 1024%2F1024*50
Good luck with that.
No one is buying AMD processors any more. There too popular to find!
True, true.
The reason in Microsofts case being that the model is extreemly complex, and historicaly (anyway) poorly documented. Sure, some people dont use it because they dont know about it, but a a lot of people dont use it because its just too fucking difficult to learn, and get right.
As no one is sitting in a jail cell, and no products are not shipping, there is little practical need for a speedy trial in this case.
Legal precedent perhaps not. But if (when) SCOX is liquidated and the execs are brought up on securities fraud charges it will stand out as deterrent against other potential swindlers. And make potential investors (the big investors, like the Royal Bank of Canada, not Joe-sixpack with an etrade account) think twice about throwing money at a company whose future is based on questionable legal clames only.
Yes, and yes. It comes with Open Enterprise Server and remains closed source. Its primary usage would continue to be, Id wager, in a 1:1: replacement servers for old Netware systems; e.g. desktop office support.
Its interesting that a lot of "high-level" CMS's all implement their own ACL system, but for users/groups as well as content (files). For all the interesting and directly-usefull-to-users apps Novell is building (e.g. Beagle) I've been thinking that it would do them good to build some libraries and proof-of-concept apps that leverage (sory) their excelent low level capabilities. Its just that most developers dont know any better..
While true that PS is a Turing complete language, all those things you mention are specificly excluded from its goals. Its goal is to provide an exact method of printing something on paper. If you are trying to do something with a Postscript file and you are not either a Postscript printer, or Postscript displayer, then you are doing something outside of the spec.
The problem may be that people are using PS as a transmission-for-later-editing format, which it isnt.
The branding artwork (and some third party code, too) is located in the directory location mozilla/other-licenses/. It is thus fairly clear that that stuff is covered by some other license. In /mozilla/source/other-licenses/branding/firefox/LI CENSE you can clearly see:
1 You are not granted rights or licenses to the trademarks of the 2 Mozilla Foundation or any party, including without limitation the 3 Firefox name or logo. 4 5 For more information, see: http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/licensing.html 6Lots and lots of software packages have code from different sources, and the code is not all under the same license. There is no legal, or moral, obligation that you can only apply a single (set of) license(s) to a tarball as a single atomic thing.
Debian policies are perfect and Mozilla must adjust theirs to suit Debian? Come on.
As a supporter of OSS, I like the fact that Mozilla produces OSS code, and the Debian is using it. As a supporter of the Firefox brand and community I like the fact that Mozilla is protecting that. I think that others should be using it, and that distros should be shipping it. As a pragmatist, I like that fact that distros can make reasonable customizations to Firefox and have it still be Firefox.
However, what Debian wants to attach something that is not Firefox to the Firefox brand. Debian wanted to ride on the coat tails of the Firefox brand, and the supporters of the brand. As someone who promoted Firefox to those who will listen, supported Firefox through the NYT add, and through the Mozilla store, I find the of Debian in shipping something that is not Firefox, but calling it Firefox, at best arrogant, at worst stealing. I diddn't attach my name to the promotion of what-Debian-is-calling-Firefox in an international medium. When I tell people they should use Firefox, its because I think they should use Firefox, not what-Debian-is-calling-Firefox. So mozilla.org put the smackdown on, Debian complied, and the problem is solved. I would have rather them ship Firefox, implicitly promoting Firefox, and thus making the brand stonger. But they took the other option, and thats OK too.
Except that it isnt "solved", as people continue to bitch about the evil and heavy handed folks at mozilla.org enforcing their rules.
Well, that would just be confusing for everyone (even if Mozilla wasn't a registered trademark), as it describes a project, an "organization", a "corporation", and formerly a monolithic toolkit and internet client app suite. Its overused to the point of meaning everything and nothing (hint: there is a lesson here)
At least with "IceWeasel" people will stop and think "WTF is Iceweasel?", and be forced to resolve that with fresh information, whereas calling it "Mozilla" they already think they know what that is, one of the huge list of things above, which specifically excludes a lean web browser. Now your just being silly, Bruce.
The postal workers arn't done working the way through 1972 series of Playboys
Again, were back to my original statement. Policies that are not the same as Debians are wrong?
Neither the name "Firefox", or the artwork, is part of the codebase. YOU CAN CHANGE THE CODE. Only Foo is the true Foo. If you cange Foo, it is no longer Foo. Debian is very anal about things like, I dont know, shipping © artwork. Mozilla is very anal about people calling things that are not Firefox "Firefox".
Mike Connor explicitly drew a parallel with RH/Novell/IBM and Mozilla 1.4. "Firefox" comes from moz.org servers with the moz.org staff supervision; the changes that Debian is making to the 1.0 codebase of firefox comes from Debian, with the changes being sent back, en mass (eventually), in an obtuse format. With non-obvious, and definitely non-security related fixes in it. Which was always unacceptable, but formerly allowed with the nudge and wink
Personally, I would have come out with that final statement first. Charitably, Connor was trying to allow Debian to gracefully save face, but it turned into a furry of increasingly whiny and petty emails (from both sides). But anyway; It was not a matter of "stop shipping this now, period" it was "the rules are X. you are in non-compliance; choose one of them to comply with". Debian choose what was the worst possible choice, topping it off with a petty, stupid, name.
Well, the Mozilla folks have also thought about the problem. And they came up with a solution. The policy is that changes make the thing not the thing.
And Mozilla.org has had a policy in place for years too. You ship X or you don't. The policy is now being more strictly enforced. You ship Firefox, or you dont. Trademark law being what is is, you go after the big targets first. RedHat and Novell have managed to comply with option #1, Debian has chosen to use option #2. And complain about it.
Everyone must have policies that parallel Debian? Is that the short version of your argument here Bruce? They have a policy. It is black and white: code/logos/name go together, or not. They (apparently) think that this protects the brand the best. (Which it does, if its best for the brand is a seprate question).
Only Foo is the True Foo. If its modified then its not it. There is room for movement here; you can modify it for distro/platform localizations without specific approval. If you make modifications beyond that then what you have at the end is clearly no longer Firefox.
And, of course, part of what Firefox is is © branding artwork. This is explicitly covered as a "change-of-no-return" to what firefox is, even if the code changes could be settled.
I really cant see why this is mozilla.org's fault, or problem here Bruce.
Mozilla.org is responsible for developing (and coordinating volunteers who develop) a web browser, released under some very liberal OSS terms. Additionally, they are responsible for building a band around that code. That brand involves artwork, a name, New York Times adds, publicity interviews, a community of developers and supporters. The specific name "Firefox", for legal reasons needs to be protected. The brand "firefox", for common sense reasons has to be protected. The modification rules are quite reasonable: distro/platform porting: allowed without approval; specifically useful changes: possibly allowed with approval; other changes: no longer Firefox.[1] Debian can, does, and will continue to use the firefox code-base under the tri-license that it is released. Debian wants to get a free ride on the brand, the trademark, and the community - that is, use without playing by their specific license and esprit-de-corps rules that apply there.
[1] Im sure you will counter with: security patches after mozilla.org stops supporting $VER_NOW dont qualify. Only partially true: with IBM/RedHat/Novell supporting mozilla 1.4 long after .org dropped it; if debian is in fact interested in security patches only then they would all be small, self-contained, with implicit documentation: i.e. on track for rapid approval. Debain and others press mozilla.org staff at $FUTURE_DATE to simply take over $VER_NOW, managed on there infrastructure, this approval process could be done in reverse: moz staff only checking after the fact to make sure patches are security related only.
If its accessable to users (that is, not requiring a screwdriver to get to) then it shouldnt cause any hardship. If it causes hardship, then its the engineers fault, not the user.
Who doesn't watch video "on demand"? Except for marketing meetings I need to go to for every second Thursday, I only ever watch video "on demand" (I guess thats "on demand" too, by demand of my boss). And all non-industrial video recording devices are "personal". "Hey, roommate, come here. Insert keys .... now ..... Turn in 3 ... 2 ... 1 .. turn! {recording}" Ya, right, thats playing out in millions of homes everywhere.
Yes, I am bitter and constantly annoyed at/about people who insist on putting some stupid and redundent sylable in front of "mail" all the time.
For Google servers, "commodity" means "cheap". And you have to pay a (significant) premium for PCs with serial console connections. So Im willing to bet no serial consoles for them. As far as sysadmins/techs pulling servers, its probabale that the former dont even notice. The cluster either ignores the dead box, or ignores a error reporting box, and raises a ticket somewhere. The techs come out to the cluster and pull the box. Sysadmins dont even notice, or care.
Clearly he had at least a slow modem, as acoustic coupler systems maxed out at 300 BAUD.
A couple of reasons at least. First, it takes many years and possibily millions of dollars to get something to be certified for use on aircraft, more complex and expensive for military aircraft, yet more for spaceraft (at the top, I suppose would be military spacecraft). But more importantaly are optics. Good optics make good resolution not super important. Just zoom and pan and take multiple shots. Its not like the subject is going to get distracted and want to go on a break. Just take 4x the shots and get 4x the resolution.
Thats nothing, when the local Vietnamese family makes traditional food, the local pets hide... Well, they are still hiding, I guess.
http://www.canadiantire.ca/assortments/product_det ail.jsp?PRODUCT%3C%3Eprd_id=845524443256538
Well, it clearly depends on the project and where the money would go. It may be related to how easy/obvious/straight-forward the project is. An OS should falls into this "easy" category. Easy in the sense that one can take courses in writing OSs, and it least in theroy any CS undergrad should be able to contribute to an OS. Thousands of OSs have been written, there is a plethora of information, documentation, and skill available in doing so. While the state-of-the-art may be moving just as fast anywhere, good-enough / tuned-for-reality products are, well, good-enough. There are established benchmarks for measuring quality. Technology wise, the right thing is usualy clear. (Consider the lack of microkernels in the real world, and the ongoing popularity of UNIX-ish things and even MVS)
;-)
Now consider web browsers. You can't take a course in writing a web browser; there has probabaly been less then 500 independent ones ever written with perhaps only 10 realy significant lines of development. Mozilla is extreemly complex, and maintaining a level of understanding of some of the core code simply requires a high commitement of time. There is little low hanging fruit for newbies to pick up. Technology wise, the right thing is almost never clear.
FreeBSD works, according to you, fine (or better) with no paid developers. The Linux kernel isnt developed by unpaid geeks in basements, but mainly by paid profesionals. But pros paid by independent companies with no gaurentee of loyalty to the "Linux kernel" so, from a management perspective, are volunteers. Both FreeBSD and Linux move forward because forward is usualy obvious.
The core of Mozilla moves forward under the power of Mozilla.org staff, under the direction and control of Mozilla.org managers. Even if you could find 20 volunteers who have the time and inclination to hack on the code, they would have 25 ideas where the code should go, Perhaps there are still 25 ideas with the 20 staff of m.o (or whatever the numbers are), but at least at anyone time the managers are controling them down to only 10 directions. They are working on 10 directions because they are getting paid, and they are working on them for 35hrs a week, because they are getting paid.
OO.o is even more complex then Mozilla. It has even fewer non-Sun (or Novell) employees hacking on it.
Part of this is neither technical or manageral, but culture. FreeBSD and Linux have a history of (~paid) volunteers, Moz and OO.o from paid staff.
Google could help Mozilla and OO.o by throwing money at them. Not so much for *BSD and the Linux Kernel.
And there are less technical things that throwing money at would help. Stupid things like icon sets for Gnome. Less stupid things like useability studdies. The former may happen with volunteers, the later definitly needs money.
Standards. w3c is a hugely fucked up. OpenDocument has enemies with big pockets. Moeny pays lawyers and marketing types. Yes, it was volunteers who got a Firefox add in the New York Times, but it the volunteering consisted of the time it took to give a CC number
And this helps users of the language in question - PHP - how?