Encouraging people to waste SCO's bandwidth because they're being stupid is petty and immoral.
Petty - yes
Immoral - I don't think so, and I think I've got a pretty good built-in moral compass. It's not as though downloading would harm them more than me (I probably pay a proportionally higher $/byte). The only issue I can see is whether it would cost them money unjustifiably, and I think it sounds justifiable, considering the way they've threatened IBM's customers (not just IBM itself).
Two wrongs don't make a right, but turnabout IS fair play.
Well, I hate to feed trolls, but here goes anyway.
My scenario had nothing to do with "getting something from them" - only that you have some servers for which you do want support and are willing to pay for it, and some (presumably less mission-critical) for which unsupported and free is just fine.
Remember, there's more here than just dollars, there's mindshare also, which can translate into dollars later (cf. MS Office and their position on running a single copy at work and at home). If you install a server with another distro, they run the risk that you will really like it and jump ship.
Do you know if this law requires intent? I didn't get that from the web site explaining the law. It said nothing about intent.
I don't know, I just know that most do....and that website I gave wasn't exactly a definitive reference - just a birds-eye overview from what I could see (and the first relevant link Google came up with).
Americans are stupid and easily manipulate by politicians.
Fair enough - I guess I just have a little more faith in humanity and common sense than you do. Most people didn't care about the war on drugs because most people didn't participate. Most people do sing (at least to themselves) or whistle occasionally, though.
BTW - I've appreciated this discussion, and the lack of ad hominem attacks one tends to see here when people don't see precisely eye-to-eye.
"Also, (and again IANAL) it would make a difference whether you intended your "performance" to be "public""
Not according to that site you(?) posted the link to.
Yes, but most laws require intent (with some exceptions, such as speeding - somebody had a post here a couple of months ago addressing this... alas I can't remember enough of it to even do a proper search... how about here - look for part D). Not that you intend to break the law, but that you intend to do what you are doing (such as somebody intending to scare somebody and their actions end up killing them instead - that still counts as intent).
Now here's an idea, get the RIAA to start prosecuting singing in the park, and we'll see how fast Congress changes the law to something more reasonable. (Well, a guy can hope, can't he?)
Also, (and again IANAL) it would make a difference whether you intended your "performance" to be "public". If you put up posters saying you will be singing at the park for all to hear on Saturday at 2:00 is different from you singing as you're walking along, knowing that no person who isn't tone deaf would rather be doing anything else besides listening to you sing.:-)
It's because happy birthday is copyrighted and these restaurants would have to pay money everytime a waiter sang happy birthday.
Oh, you're absolutely right - I wasn't trying to be ridiculous, I was trying to show how out-of-hand this could get if they wanted to. IIRC, this was even one of the examples brought up in the Sonny Bono Act constitutional challenge - you'll have to put up with annoying home-grown birthday songs in restaurants for several more years.
The fact is that it's illegal for you to sing an artists song.
IANAL. This is wrong. It's illegal for you to make a "public performance" of the song. (Now, everyone who sang "happy birthday" as a class in school, please make your royalty check payable to...)
...is that if you're buying RedHat support for only "some" of your servers, be sure your other servers use another distro.
Hmmm... I don't think that's what RedHat wants, but it seems to be the end result. I would think that they would come up with some scheme to label "THIS" box as the one that's suppored rather than sending their customers elsewhere.
I wasn't arguing that point. The parent to mine said "among other misadventures that you just can't have on windows" - I was just showing that you can (not that you are likely to).
Here's a hint: don't EVER use the -f flag without re-reading the line again (unless, of course, you're really trying to 'rm -rf/') - the purpose of the -f flag is the same purpose as the "Are you sure" messages in WinDOS, except it's easier to script, and shouldn't be for everyday use.
Somewhere deep inside the bowels of the Earth where the/. editors meet, Timothy comes across a story submission clearly posted by someone on drugs.
"Check this out!" he says to the others. "What an idiot."
Promptly, CmdrTaco presses the "Post Story" button with Timothy's mouse, then retreats to his own workstation to revoke Timothy's rights to retract the story.
They're not cheap, but check out http://www.emperorlinux.com/. Basically, they take Sony, Dell, and IBM laptops, partition it for you (linux only or dual-boot), install the OS, and support it.
Note that this need not be the GPL, the X license and the LGPL are GPL-compatible, so are a number of other licenses.
I thought it worked the other way around.
You can't put GPL code into an LGPL application, but you can put LPGL code into a GPL application.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but since the BSD license is listed as being [1] "GPL Compatible" by the FSF, you could take the kernel, redistribute under the BSD license, then make your changes and redistribute again with a mere mention of "Thanks to...".
Actually, they can only detain you for a "reasonable" amount of time, and at least here in Kansas where my former brother-in-law is a State Trooper, the courts have ruled that to be 90 minutes, and they can't use your denial as probable cause.
They CAN call in a K-9 just for the heck of it (as long as they're done in 90 minutes) and they CAN call ahead to the next officer down the road with your license plate number to make sure you're not doing 71 in a 70 mph zone and have them repeat the process.
I had a business send an invoice to our AP department for $25 for getting onto a search engine service. When they called me to admonish me for not making a PO, I went to take a look. Lo and behold in little tiny letters at the bottom it said something to the effect of "paying this invoice will be construed as an agreement to be listed by us".
Slashdot Mirror
You don't remember DOS, do you?
Nope. That's why RH needs to wait until this whole thing blows over, and them buy the company for the $.05 it's really worth.
Petty - yes
Immoral - I don't think so, and I think I've got a pretty good built-in moral compass. It's not as though downloading would harm them more than me (I probably pay a proportionally higher $/byte). The only issue I can see is whether it would cost them money unjustifiably, and I think it sounds justifiable, considering the way they've threatened IBM's customers (not just IBM itself).
Two wrongs don't make a right, but turnabout IS fair play.
My scenario had nothing to do with "getting something from them" - only that you have some servers for which you do want support and are willing to pay for it, and some (presumably less mission-critical) for which unsupported and free is just fine.
Remember, there's more here than just dollars, there's mindshare also, which can translate into dollars later (cf. MS Office and their position on running a single copy at work and at home). If you install a server with another distro, they run the risk that you will really like it and jump ship.
I don't know, I just know that most do. ...and that website I gave wasn't exactly a definitive reference - just a birds-eye overview from what I could see (and the first relevant link Google came up with).
Americans are stupid and easily manipulate by politicians.
Fair enough - I guess I just have a little more faith in humanity and common sense than you do. Most people didn't care about the war on drugs because most people didn't participate. Most people do sing (at least to themselves) or whistle occasionally, though.
BTW - I've appreciated this discussion, and the lack of ad hominem attacks one tends to see here when people don't see precisely eye-to-eye.
Not according to that site you(?) posted the link to.
Yes, but most laws require intent (with some exceptions, such as speeding - somebody had a post here a couple of months ago addressing this... alas I can't remember enough of it to even do a proper search ... how about here - look for part D). Not that you intend to break the law, but that you intend to do what you are doing (such as somebody intending to scare somebody and their actions end up killing them instead - that still counts as intent).
Now here's an idea, get the RIAA to start prosecuting singing in the park, and we'll see how fast Congress changes the law to something more reasonable. (Well, a guy can hope, can't he?)
Also, (and again IANAL) it would make a difference whether you intended your "performance" to be "public". If you put up posters saying you will be singing at the park for all to hear on Saturday at 2:00 is different from you singing as you're walking along, knowing that no person who isn't tone deaf would rather be doing anything else besides listening to you sing. :-)
It's because happy birthday is copyrighted and these restaurants would have to pay money everytime a waiter sang happy birthday.
Oh, you're absolutely right - I wasn't trying to be ridiculous, I was trying to show how out-of-hand this could get if they wanted to. IIRC, this was even one of the examples brought up in the Sonny Bono Act constitutional challenge - you'll have to put up with annoying home-grown birthday songs in restaurants for several more years.
IANAL. This is wrong. It's illegal for you to make a "public performance" of the song. (Now, everyone who sang "happy birthday" as a class in school, please make your royalty check payable to...)
Hmmm... I don't think that's what RedHat wants, but it seems to be the end result. I would think that they would come up with some scheme to label "THIS" box as the one that's suppored rather than sending their customers elsewhere.
Here's a hint: don't EVER use the -f flag without re-reading the line again (unless, of course, you're really trying to 'rm -rf /') - the purpose of the -f flag is the same purpose as the "Are you sure" messages in WinDOS, except it's easier to script, and shouldn't be for everyday use.
You mean like "echo y|format c:" or "del *.* /s"?
"everything since AppleDOS is just a bunch of crap"
I think 'devolving' may be a more appropriate term.
Yes, Wally.
No one?
Blatantly stolen from a Dilbert cartoon hanging on my wall
Somewhere deep inside the bowels of the Earth where the /. editors meet, Timothy comes across a story submission clearly posted by someone on drugs.
"Check this out!" he says to the others. "What an idiot."
Promptly, CmdrTaco presses the "Post Story" button with Timothy's mouse, then retreats to his own workstation to revoke Timothy's rights to retract the story.
OK, Your turn.
Bulletproof, no-downtime PC's for $10,000? Maybe - but they'd have to get rid of that bluish-green color.
Then again, I'm not sure if Cisco would sell a PC with Windows on it, and I doubt if there's much demand for a PC running IOS.
They're not cheap, but check out http://www.emperorlinux.com/. Basically, they take Sony, Dell, and IBM laptops, partition it for you (linux only or dual-boot), install the OS, and support it.
Think very different
No, but if this were a frequent occurrence, I'd probably get rid of this stock.
I completely understand. My wife calls it my "square-headed girlfriend".
I thought it worked the other way around.
You can't put GPL code into an LGPL application, but you can put LPGL code into a GPL application.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but since the BSD license is listed as being [1] "GPL Compatible" by the FSF, you could take the kernel, redistribute under the BSD license, then make your changes and redistribute again with a mere mention of "Thanks to ...".
Won't work - you forgot:
odipkt 0x60
winpkt 1 96
Dang it's scary that I still remember this.
They CAN call in a K-9 just for the heck of it (as long as they're done in 90 minutes) and they CAN call ahead to the next officer down the road with your license plate number to make sure you're not doing 71 in a 70 mph zone and have them repeat the process.
That's what bochs is for, right?
I had a business send an invoice to our AP department for $25 for getting onto a search engine service. When they called me to admonish me for not making a PO, I went to take a look. Lo and behold in little tiny letters at the bottom it said something to the effect of "paying this invoice will be construed as an agreement to be listed by us".
No patent for you.