No, the London Stock Exchange and the UK police are the ones who have clamped down on the info. They believe the LSE was under cyber attack and this occured during the shift from the.Net platform to the new LInux platform.
The London Stock Exchange issued a set of contradictory statements at the time of the attack and about what was going on with migration to the new Linux platform.
The LSE said the attack was suspicious and that they had called in the police. Every appropriate police force contacted by ComputerworldUK denied any knowledge of an investigation or of having been contacted by the Exchange.
This sort of blanket denial usually only happens if the authorities believe there may be some terrorist aspect to the incident. ConputerworldUK tried to report what was happening and bring people up to speed with the attack and with the delayed move to the Linux-based platform. The story is not FUD, it is incomplete, but that is because answers to CWUK questions are being withheld.
Mike Simons, CWUK editor
It is the "Extend" part that we need to be worried about because it is the gateway to making propitiatory additions to standards. There is a useful blog entry by Glyn Moody on Microsoft's tactics over Apache, where they have been 'cleared' to contribute patches. This will effectively fork the code, according to Glyn. Will the same happen here?
http://www.computerworlduk.com/community/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=1407
There is a very good take on the issue by Glyn Moody, a really thoughtful UK blogger, who says that the ruling will be disastrous for developers. He also highlights the absurdity of an government organisation effectively appealing against itself... Well worth a read.
http://www.computerworlduk.com/community/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=1395
The question is why are Mono and Samba patently different?
The answer is, according to Glyn Moody, Samba plays a crucial role in liberating the protocols it uses to ensure that there is no knock-on effect for users in terms of intellectual monopolies, the Mono project propagates Microsoft's software patent claims even wider.
http://www.computerworlduk.com/community/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=1380
Can Sun overcome suspicion in OS community
on
Sun Buys MySQL
·
· Score: 1
Glyn Moody in his Open Enterprise blog says, "By buying MySQL, Sun clearly wants to buy into the LAMP stack and success -- and push out GNU/Linux, either with OpenSolaris for those startups according to Sun's Schwartz or with the full-fig Solaris for the "traditional" (= boring and conservative) enterprises. It's a clever plan that makes sense on paper, but it remains to be seen whether LAMP will get junked in favour of SAMP. I doubt it, personally, because despite all the excellent work Sun has done in the field of open source, there remain lingering suspicions, fuelled by its insistence on retaining significant control over both Java and OpenOffice.org."
He is right, but isn't this the problem with all industry giants playing with open source?
http://www.computerworlduk.com/toolbox/open-source/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=376"
Try and get it. We have just had SCO waste everyones' time for the last two or three years spreading FUD. That is over. The economic case for businesses using open source is obvious for the end user so why not understand where the next problems might come from that might slow down its adoption? The problem outlined in this article is as much for those trying to make a living from open source programming - changing the code, mixing and matching the best that is there and creating something better. It is in everyone's interests to fight complexity in open source licensing and it is likely to be a constant battle - just like it is to stop a great OS forking into rival products
I am all for praising the mental agility of the Slashdot editors - they pick some good articles and spark some great debate, but was me that made the comment about Novell taking the fight to SCO and writing 'perhaps they had no option' so don't blame them for some ambiguity in what I wrote.
The no option was about Novell promising not to sue over Unix. They had no option after declaring so clearly that there was no Unix in LInux and then defending htemselves (and as a result the rest of the Linux community) in court.
Novell did though have plenty of options about how they took on SCO and they went for a total victory, something the whole Linux community wanted and needed. Have you never heard the phrase "settled out of court"? It means a compromise that both could live with. Novell could certainly have lived with a compromise but they stuck to their (our?) guns.
You don't have to have any illusions in the companies that market Linux to say, occasionally, that the have done something useful to us. Isn't the heart of open source about collaborative working and doesn't that mean giving credit where credit is due occasionally?
Slashdot Mirror
No, the London Stock Exchange and the UK police are the ones who have clamped down on the info. They believe the LSE was under cyber attack and this occured during the shift from the .Net platform to the new LInux platform.
The London Stock Exchange issued a set of contradictory statements at the time of the attack and about what was going on with migration to the new Linux platform.
The LSE said the attack was suspicious and that they had called in the police. Every appropriate police force contacted by ComputerworldUK denied any knowledge of an investigation or of having been contacted by the Exchange.
This sort of blanket denial usually only happens if the authorities believe there may be some terrorist aspect to the incident. ConputerworldUK tried to report what was happening and bring people up to speed with the attack and with the delayed move to the Linux-based platform. The story is not FUD, it is incomplete, but that is because answers to CWUK questions are being withheld.
Mike Simons, CWUK editor
It is the "Extend" part that we need to be worried about because it is the gateway to making propitiatory additions to standards. There is a useful blog entry by Glyn Moody on Microsoft's tactics over Apache, where they have been 'cleared' to contribute patches. This will effectively fork the code, according to Glyn. Will the same happen here? http://www.computerworlduk.com/community/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=1407
There is a very good take on the issue by Glyn Moody, a really thoughtful UK blogger, who says that the ruling will be disastrous for developers. He also highlights the absurdity of an government organisation effectively appealing against itself... Well worth a read. http://www.computerworlduk.com/community/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=1395
The question is why are Mono and Samba patently different? The answer is, according to Glyn Moody, Samba plays a crucial role in liberating the protocols it uses to ensure that there is no knock-on effect for users in terms of intellectual monopolies, the Mono project propagates Microsoft's software patent claims even wider. http://www.computerworlduk.com/community/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=1380
Glyn Moody in his Open Enterprise blog says, "By buying MySQL, Sun clearly wants to buy into the LAMP stack and success -- and push out GNU/Linux, either with OpenSolaris for those startups according to Sun's Schwartz or with the full-fig Solaris for the "traditional" (= boring and conservative) enterprises. It's a clever plan that makes sense on paper, but it remains to be seen whether LAMP will get junked in favour of SAMP. I doubt it, personally, because despite all the excellent work Sun has done in the field of open source, there remain lingering suspicions, fuelled by its insistence on retaining significant control over both Java and OpenOffice.org." He is right, but isn't this the problem with all industry giants playing with open source? http://www.computerworlduk.com/toolbox/open-source/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=376"
Try and get it. We have just had SCO waste everyones' time for the last two or three years spreading FUD. That is over. The economic case for businesses using open source is obvious for the end user so why not understand where the next problems might come from that might slow down its adoption? The problem outlined in this article is as much for those trying to make a living from open source programming - changing the code, mixing and matching the best that is there and creating something better. It is in everyone's interests to fight complexity in open source licensing and it is likely to be a constant battle - just like it is to stop a great OS forking into rival products
I am all for praising the mental agility of the Slashdot editors - they pick some good articles and spark some great debate, but was me that made the comment about Novell taking the fight to SCO and writing 'perhaps they had no option' so don't blame them for some ambiguity in what I wrote. The no option was about Novell promising not to sue over Unix. They had no option after declaring so clearly that there was no Unix in LInux and then defending htemselves (and as a result the rest of the Linux community) in court. Novell did though have plenty of options about how they took on SCO and they went for a total victory, something the whole Linux community wanted and needed. Have you never heard the phrase "settled out of court"? It means a compromise that both could live with. Novell could certainly have lived with a compromise but they stuck to their (our?) guns. You don't have to have any illusions in the companies that market Linux to say, occasionally, that the have done something useful to us. Isn't the heart of open source about collaborative working and doesn't that mean giving credit where credit is due occasionally?