Well, first we should correct one thing. Microsoft isn't the biggest company in the world. Perhaps they were the fastest growing, but in terms of size, IBM dwarfs them, and they're not the only one. Based on revenue, at least 46 other companies are bigger than Microsoft. IBM is #8, and of course, Walmart is #1. If you want to talk in terms of market cap, then GE is #1.
Linux debian 2.4.21-pre3 #2 Mon Jan 27 19:36:02 PST 2003 i686 unknown
Most of the programs included with the Debian GNU/Linux system are freely redistributable; the exact distribution terms for each program are described in the individual files in/usr/share/doc/*/copyright
Debian GNU/Linux comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by applicable law.
Don't be surprised. x = x + 5 is hardly intuitive. After all, if you 'solved' the equation you end up with 0 = 5. Drilling the concept that those are not algebraic equations into people's heads cannot be simple, while simultaneously being mind numbing to those that do understand that that is an assignment statement, not an equation. 'C-style' incrementing kinda makes more sense because x+=5 holds no other real meaning in any other context.
Lets see. Top of the line video card (Radeon 9800 XT), huge hard drive (200GB), top end sound card, and way too much EXPENSIVE memory (1GB). The only thing that is 'mid-range' is the P4 2.4GHz chip, which is only 'mid-range' if you were to buy a computer today. If you were to choose a mid-range for the currently installed base, you might be lucky to break a PII 400MHz.
Think 5% increase in price, plus the added cost of being forced to carry and transmit more viacom channels. If they're carrying say 9 viacom channels right now and are being forced to carry 12 now, the additional costs for carrying Viacom channels have jumped 25% for them in addition to the rate increase. So, from Viacom's perspective, they're only getting 5% more income, but from Dish's perspective, they're paying 30% more.
Close. Missed some. MS Word 6.0, MS Word 6.0 for NT, MS Word 95, MS Word 97, MS Word 2000, MS Word XP, and MS Word 2003. Not all of them introduced file format incompatibilities. Word 97 and Word 2000 were very compatible, for example. I haven't seen any files from Word 2000 that didn't work in Word 97.
Frankly, bullshit. People will complain when you change ANYTHING. They'll complain about the new 'optical' mouse on their new system, and how the old one was so much better. They'll complain about the new version of Windows, and how the old one was so much better. They'll complain about the new monitor, and want the old one back. They just want to do their job as they've been doing for ages, and can't quite figure out why you have to interrupt them and mess up their routine with new stuff.
I don't think any of SCO's claims actually pertain to the GPL - it's just FUD.
SCO's affimative defences to IBM's counterclaims of copyright infringement pertain to the GPL. In SCO's Sixth Affirmative Defense, they say "The General Public License ('GPL') is unenforceable, void and/or voidable, and IBM's claims based thereon, or related thereto, are barred.", and the Eighth Affirmative Defense, "The GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright, antitrust and export control laws, and IBM's claims based thereon, or related thereto, are barred.". Since SCO continues to distribute the Linux kernel to their existing customers because of 'contractual obligations', and have decided to alter the licence by which they distribute this software to their customers, they need to justify their actions somehow. (I'd link to the actual IBM counterclaims/SCO Defences on Groklaw, but it seems to be down).
No, I said (or at least meant) their Linux plan was unsustainable. However, a parasite is unsustainable if it kills it's host shortly after coming into contact with it. That they could build a parasite business plan from the IBM winnings is not inconceivable should they win.
You're still getting my goat with a certain slashdot naivete. You doubt anyone wants to buy from them?
Today's customer is tomorrow's victim for McBride and crew. As Darl so eloquently put it, "Contracts are what you use against parties you have relationships with.". No, I'm saying that no one should sign a contract or buy a license with SCO otherwise it could become a weapon that SCO can club them with in the future. Look at the victims they announced recently. All former SCO customers. And I the term 'naivete' is misplaced. Idealism would be closer.
A judge can. Besides, SCO doesn't need to distribute Linux, merely sell protection against lawsuits.
I'm not convinced a judge could legally do what SCO is hoping in this case. I believe the judge would be forced to either strike the entire license down because of any invalidities in the license or none of it. Striking just a section would create unfairness, and would be imposing conditions on those who were not a party to this lawsuit and would've had no opportunity to defend their own interests.
Anyhow, I think we sort of agree, but are talking past each other at this point.
Therein lies the problem. No one can add the terms that SCO would need to operate to the Linux kernel's license (it's explicitly disallowed). So, they cannot tax the kernel (unless they believe that the court will assign them the copyrights to all of Linux, which I believe would be fairly unlikely), so all they could do is kill it. That still won't make money for SCO in the long term.
I honestly only see one winner in the SCO lawsuit, and that's Microsoft. If SCO does win the lawsuit against IBM and the court rules that Linux is in some way a derrivative work of SysV, it will drive all those people who were implementing Linux to a Microsoft solution instead. No one will be able to distribute Linux because they would not be able to comply with the GPL and whatever SCO license at the same time. IMO, that would leave Sun Solaris or Microsoft Windows for these otherwise Linux customers, and Windows is likely to be cheaper.
However, after this, I believe SCO would still have no product because this would make Linux out of bounds for everyone, and Unixware is likely to completely die off eventually anyway. And let's be honest, even if they do win, I doubt IBM will have to pony up $5 billion to them. The calculated damages will likely be something reasonable instead. So, they'll likely end up with something like a couple hundred million to play with after lawyer fees, etc. And what are they left with? I doubt many people will want to buy from them seeing how they treat their former customers. I'd bet the only thing they can do is continue the lawsuits, buying up patents and copyrights they believe they can sue over. In essence, they would be a parasite on the industry, nothing more.
And then what? The business model they've adopted is unsustainable. If they kill Linux, they can't make money from it in the future. This is a shareholder's lawsuit waiting to happen. The directors of the company are not acting for the long term health of the company, and it'll surely kill it.
Or four Fortune 1000 companies (Novell). Considering that SCO is in neither group, it's pretty sad. I do wonder what SCO really hopes to get out of these lawsuits, though. Even if they are to win, they will destroy Linux in the process and still have no product. It's pretty unlikely that the courts will give full control over Linux to SCO, so SCO will not even be able to sell Linux without violating the copyrights of countless Linux developers. They're really damned if they do, damned if they don't at this point, IMO.
Re:Does AMD have anything to compete with Centrino
on
AMD Back in the Black
·
· Score: 1
You might be able to get the smartlink modem to work in 64-bit mode. You need the latest version of Alsa (1.0.2, I think), and compile in the i810 modem support, and use the ALSA support of the latest (beta) SmartLink binary drivers. This new version runs all in userspace (except for the Open Source ALSA driver), so as long as you can run 32-bit binaries, you should be fine. IA64 users are still out of luck, though.
Soon we will be able to have a movie playing underneith an Xterm at 20% opacity!
Not if you want to use the hardware overlay you won't. And playing a movie at a scaling of more than 1x in software scaling is slow even on a fast machine. If you want to try that, you'll be left with a nice blue or purple block where the movie should be. This is not a XFree86 limitation, but a hardware one. You can't even work around this by doing software scaling for the obscured area because the hardware scalers tend to have unique coloring compared to a pure software rendering.
This might all work fine for a program you write yourself, and know exactly what permissions it requires. This does not work for a program that was designed by a company that foolishly assumed the security semantics of Windows 9x. Does this program require the "Load and unload device drivers" right? Will it be altering values under HKCR? Will it try to write to something within the %windir% directory? What about the application install directory? This is the problem.
In the UNIX world, running as a non-privledged user is the norm, and as superuser the exception. In the Windows world, running as Administrator is the norm, and as a limited user the exception. So, regardless of how fine-grained the security is on UNIX, it seems simpler to set things up for non-privledged users to do whatever it is they need to do. SetUID programs are another advantage on UNIX, where you don't need to have a username/password to increase privledges for running a specific program. You can run programs, 'as a different user' on Windows, but you need the username/password to use that feature.
Then there's the behaviour you can expect from applications running on each platform. UNIX apps tend to default to writing to ${HOME} unless running as superuser, and there's well defined places you can expect these things to access. In Windows, you can't always be sure of where an application might want to write to. Some even have the gall to insist on writing to files hidden in the %windir%, or one of it's subdirectories. Few UNIX applications would ever insist on being about to write to/usr,/bin,/lib or/sbin, because that's simply not where application writable files go./var and (to a lesser extent)/etc are where those type of files are supposed to be.
Not to mention lawsuits about trade secrets. Derrivative works might be a tricky case to prove, but misappropriation of trade secrets would seem to me to be much more clear cut. I'm certainly no lawyer, but it seems to me that this would be exactly what trade secret laws were designed for, unlike copyright law.
273 Kelvin isn't cold. It doesn't really start to get cold until 258.15 Kelvin (-15 degrees Celsius) or so, especially if there's a good wind accompanying it.
I doubt it has anything more to do with any specific quality of 'geeks' as it does with the population in general. In any field there's always a few people that are a little 'off', and they're always the most vocal about it, too.
No, they're shipping FreeDOS on the systems to abide by the licensing rules Microsoft has set out against shipping 'naked PCs'. Microsoft believes that the only reason someone would order a PC without operating system is they intend on putting a pirated version of Windows on it, so if you agree to never ship a machine without an OS, they give you discounts. This is just a [clever] way to continue shipping machines without an OS, but still say it comes with one.
Intel has always had a love/hate relationship with Microsoft. They love Microsoft because via Microsoft Windows, they get to sell lots and lots of chips, and desparately do not want to lose any advantages they have in Windows to AMD. They hate Microsoft because they don't want to be locked down to a single company that can dictate to Intel what will happen in the future. It seems to me that Intel does these things with Be and Linux to try to force Microsoft into a position where Intel can dictate terms, instead.
It also started installing as soon as it finished asking about how to partition the disk. As soon as you had given the installer enough information to start the install, it did, and asked the rest of the questions while it installed.
The Santa Cruz Operation paid $150M to Novell for Unixware, etc. Caldera paid $30M to SCO for these contracts, and SCO changed their name to Tarantella, and then Caldera changed their name to The SCO Group. Novell holds that The Santa Cruz Operation paid that money to become Novell's exclusive agent in selling Unixware, and related products. Caldera believes that they bought the copyrights. SCOldera is playing a name game here, hoping to muddle the issue further. They talk to the press as if Old SCO and New SCO are one and the same. They say incorrect things like they paid $150M to get the contracts, when they truth is they paid only $30M.
Don't be silly. Within a few hours SCO will release a press release saying that Red Hat's actions prove that there are flaws in the Linux development process, and that Red Hat is putting themselves at risk. You gotta remember SCO logic. IBM doesn't indemnify -- IBM knows there's problems with Linux. HP does indemnify -- HP knows there's problems with Linux. You simply cannot win against this kind of logic.
Slashdot Mirror
And unlike the ones SCO sells, yours would actually serve a purpose!
Well, first we should correct one thing. Microsoft isn't the biggest company in the world. Perhaps they were the fastest growing, but in terms of size, IBM dwarfs them, and they're not the only one. Based on revenue, at least 46 other companies are bigger than Microsoft. IBM is #8, and of course, Walmart is #1. If you want to talk in terms of market cap, then GE is #1.
Don't be surprised. x = x + 5 is hardly intuitive. After all, if you 'solved' the equation you end up with 0 = 5. Drilling the concept that those are not algebraic equations into people's heads cannot be simple, while simultaneously being mind numbing to those that do understand that that is an assignment statement, not an equation. 'C-style' incrementing kinda makes more sense because x+=5 holds no other real meaning in any other context.
Lets see. Top of the line video card (Radeon 9800 XT), huge hard drive (200GB), top end sound card, and way too much EXPENSIVE memory (1GB). The only thing that is 'mid-range' is the P4 2.4GHz chip, which is only 'mid-range' if you were to buy a computer today. If you were to choose a mid-range for the currently installed base, you might be lucky to break a PII 400MHz.
Think 5% increase in price, plus the added cost of being forced to carry and transmit more viacom channels. If they're carrying say 9 viacom channels right now and are being forced to carry 12 now, the additional costs for carrying Viacom channels have jumped 25% for them in addition to the rate increase. So, from Viacom's perspective, they're only getting 5% more income, but from Dish's perspective, they're paying 30% more.
Close. Missed some. MS Word 6.0, MS Word 6.0 for NT, MS Word 95, MS Word 97, MS Word 2000, MS Word XP, and MS Word 2003. Not all of them introduced file format incompatibilities. Word 97 and Word 2000 were very compatible, for example. I haven't seen any files from Word 2000 that didn't work in Word 97.
Frankly, bullshit. People will complain when you change ANYTHING. They'll complain about the new 'optical' mouse on their new system, and how the old one was so much better. They'll complain about the new version of Windows, and how the old one was so much better. They'll complain about the new monitor, and want the old one back. They just want to do their job as they've been doing for ages, and can't quite figure out why you have to interrupt them and mess up their routine with new stuff.
Anyhow, I think we sort of agree, but are talking past each other at this point.
I honestly only see one winner in the SCO lawsuit, and that's Microsoft. If SCO does win the lawsuit against IBM and the court rules that Linux is in some way a derrivative work of SysV, it will drive all those people who were implementing Linux to a Microsoft solution instead. No one will be able to distribute Linux because they would not be able to comply with the GPL and whatever SCO license at the same time. IMO, that would leave Sun Solaris or Microsoft Windows for these otherwise Linux customers, and Windows is likely to be cheaper.
However, after this, I believe SCO would still have no product because this would make Linux out of bounds for everyone, and Unixware is likely to completely die off eventually anyway. And let's be honest, even if they do win, I doubt IBM will have to pony up $5 billion to them. The calculated damages will likely be something reasonable instead. So, they'll likely end up with something like a couple hundred million to play with after lawyer fees, etc. And what are they left with? I doubt many people will want to buy from them seeing how they treat their former customers. I'd bet the only thing they can do is continue the lawsuits, buying up patents and copyrights they believe they can sue over. In essence, they would be a parasite on the industry, nothing more.
And then what? The business model they've adopted is unsustainable. If they kill Linux, they can't make money from it in the future. This is a shareholder's lawsuit waiting to happen. The directors of the company are not acting for the long term health of the company, and it'll surely kill it.
Or four Fortune 1000 companies (Novell). Considering that SCO is in neither group, it's pretty sad. I do wonder what SCO really hopes to get out of these lawsuits, though. Even if they are to win, they will destroy Linux in the process and still have no product. It's pretty unlikely that the courts will give full control over Linux to SCO, so SCO will not even be able to sell Linux without violating the copyrights of countless Linux developers. They're really damned if they do, damned if they don't at this point, IMO.
You might be able to get the smartlink modem to work in 64-bit mode. You need the latest version of Alsa (1.0.2, I think), and compile in the i810 modem support, and use the ALSA support of the latest (beta) SmartLink binary drivers. This new version runs all in userspace (except for the Open Source ALSA driver), so as long as you can run 32-bit binaries, you should be fine. IA64 users are still out of luck, though.
In the UNIX world, running as a non-privledged user is the norm, and as superuser the exception. In the Windows world, running as Administrator is the norm, and as a limited user the exception. So, regardless of how fine-grained the security is on UNIX, it seems simpler to set things up for non-privledged users to do whatever it is they need to do. SetUID programs are another advantage on UNIX, where you don't need to have a username/password to increase privledges for running a specific program. You can run programs, 'as a different user' on Windows, but you need the username/password to use that feature.
Then there's the behaviour you can expect from applications running on each platform. UNIX apps tend to default to writing to ${HOME} unless running as superuser, and there's well defined places you can expect these things to access. In Windows, you can't always be sure of where an application might want to write to. Some even have the gall to insist on writing to files hidden in the %windir%, or one of it's subdirectories. Few UNIX applications would ever insist on being about to write to /usr, /bin, /lib or /sbin, because that's simply not where application writable files go. /var and (to a lesser extent) /etc are where those type of files are supposed to be.
Not to mention lawsuits about trade secrets. Derrivative works might be a tricky case to prove, but misappropriation of trade secrets would seem to me to be much more clear cut. I'm certainly no lawyer, but it seems to me that this would be exactly what trade secret laws were designed for, unlike copyright law.
273 Kelvin isn't cold. It doesn't really start to get cold until 258.15 Kelvin (-15 degrees Celsius) or so, especially if there's a good wind accompanying it.
I doubt it has anything more to do with any specific quality of 'geeks' as it does with the population in general. In any field there's always a few people that are a little 'off', and they're always the most vocal about it, too.
No, they're shipping FreeDOS on the systems to abide by the licensing rules Microsoft has set out against shipping 'naked PCs'. Microsoft believes that the only reason someone would order a PC without operating system is they intend on putting a pirated version of Windows on it, so if you agree to never ship a machine without an OS, they give you discounts. This is just a [clever] way to continue shipping machines without an OS, but still say it comes with one.
Intel has always had a love/hate relationship with Microsoft. They love Microsoft because via Microsoft Windows, they get to sell lots and lots of chips, and desparately do not want to lose any advantages they have in Windows to AMD. They hate Microsoft because they don't want to be locked down to a single company that can dictate to Intel what will happen in the future. It seems to me that Intel does these things with Be and Linux to try to force Microsoft into a position where Intel can dictate terms, instead.
According to Netcraft: The site www.orkut.com is running Orkut's Palace of Love on Linux. Maybe they're using the Mono ASP.NET component.
It also started installing as soon as it finished asking about how to partition the disk. As soon as you had given the installer enough information to start the install, it did, and asked the rest of the questions while it installed.
The Santa Cruz Operation paid $150M to Novell for Unixware, etc. Caldera paid $30M to SCO for these contracts, and SCO changed their name to Tarantella, and then Caldera changed their name to The SCO Group. Novell holds that The Santa Cruz Operation paid that money to become Novell's exclusive agent in selling Unixware, and related products. Caldera believes that they bought the copyrights. SCOldera is playing a name game here, hoping to muddle the issue further. They talk to the press as if Old SCO and New SCO are one and the same. They say incorrect things like they paid $150M to get the contracts, when they truth is they paid only $30M.
Don't be silly. Within a few hours SCO will release a press release saying that Red Hat's actions prove that there are flaws in the Linux development process, and that Red Hat is putting themselves at risk. You gotta remember SCO logic. IBM doesn't indemnify -- IBM knows there's problems with Linux. HP does indemnify -- HP knows there's problems with Linux. You simply cannot win against this kind of logic.