OK, I'm not about to claim that postfix, qmail, or whatever you want don't have their places. In fact, I'd be quick in line to argue for them replacing sendmail in many cases.
However, I am sick and tired of hearing about how difficult sendmail is. It is NOT difficult to manage, it is NOT difficult to configure. It IS, however, difficult to LEARN.
Yes, it's a big, complex, massively powerful and massively detailed piece of software. If you understand and know sendmail well, then there's nothing difficult about it. At least, no more difficult than any other MTA.
Let's also keep in mind that we've seen some of SCO's files.
What they really seem to be claiming is if they have 100 files that they got from someone else (non-exclusively), and someone else decided to use one of them, then they suddenly have exclusive control over all 100.
I was a bit surprised to see the "interview with a gullible reporter" link take me to one I read yesterday--and was impressed by.
The reporter asked some straight questions. She didn't crucify OR enthuse over SCO, but rather revealed some facts, and let the opinions speak for themselves.
Amazing how professionalism is so rare (and CNet is normally a perfect example of just how rare it is!) that when it appears, some people call it gullability.
You release your code under the GPL, and if a company decides to exploit it in a way that doesn't violate the GPL but pisses you off, then too bad. Suck it up. Deal with it. Either suffer, or write under a different license.
This is exactly the same question that keeps coming up when people look at unpleasant military organisations using open/free code, and has the same answer. If you don't like it, don't release it to them.
Yep. EXACTLY like Linux! It doesn't matter who wrote Linux. It doesn't matter what the status of it is at the end of the day. It doesn't matter how good it is.
If I run a business, it is not my company's job to download software, install it, tweak it, make it work right, and then maintain it[1]. If a company can approach me with a solution to my business problem that involves building, installing, and supporting it (with some guarantees of reliability, service, whatever I need) then fantastic. If it's Linux based, fine but who cares?
Now if I'm a larger company, my IT department can act as that 'business.' If my IT guys come to me and say that implementing Linux/OpenOffice/Mozilla/blah is what we should do, I'll ask them the same questions: How much will it cost/save (short AND long term), what are the benefits, and can you support it?
As a further point, I will PAY for software or hardware that I need to make my company function, and will PAY upfront for software or hardware that will improve the bottom line for my company in the long run.
"But when you ask for a business solution, you want something that is already there, that is therefore not written for a specific small company."
That's right. One-off or custom applications are VERY expensive, dependent on a single source of support/development/testing, and seldom are worth the risks/cost vs. buying a commercial package that does the job 90% as well. Again if you really NEED a custom app, you'll most likely want to have a company to back it. (even a small startup, but not a single person)
Heh. I was expecting a rant from someone writing OSS software and demanding to get paid for it. You bring up a valid concern, though. How can someone make a living as a professional programmer?
One possibility is the hardware/software integrator path. Realistically, almost nobody goes out and buys an OS for their computer at home. Most people buy it with the computer, and most upgrades are from burned copies. While this isn't open source software, it's hardly different in practice. However, Apple and Sun both pay their programmers. (and Sun has given away their software for years, albeit with strings attached.)
Another option is that programming might go the way of the music industry. People would buy a software package with a nice box and a shiny manual, even though they could download the software for free. Maybe. This is easier with a group of five (or less) musicians than it is with a team of 50 programmers working for a year.
Ultimately, I don't see free software taking over the industry--in the end, I expect both sides to supplement each other. How about something like OS software being free, but app software being proprietary? (I don't suggest forcing this--the market would lead that way on its own)
1) Bulk paper mail subsidises personal letter mail. They pay well for the privilege of sending out stuff that no one reads. 2) Spam recipients pay for the spam they get. Disk space is used, bandwidth consumed, and ISP bills are higher. Not to mention the fact that we now need extra software (more computer resources, more maintenance, more time, more money) to filter this shite out.
YOU ARE PAYING for every spam you receive, as well as every spam you filter. By the time it's left the spammer's computer, the load has been incurred, and the costs go up.
FURTHERMORE, it's easy to tell the difference between paper junk mail and real mail. It's not always as easy (esp. for filters) to distinguish, and as a result you have spam that gets through to you, as well as real mail that gets trapped by your filters. Worse yet, the spammers are exploiting this--they've turned it into a war of escalation, with better crafted spam vs. better filtering. As long as they have free reign, we will be paying higher costs and continue to have the value of email service degraded.
Of course nearly all of the "I don't get it" comments come from spammers, so you probably already know this and are just trying to excuse your behaviour.
Forget for the moment about Free Software, and all of the noble virtues. As others have mentioned though, SCO's behaviour is extortion, and should be taken to the local police station.
Get them charged with criminal action, rather than civil or copyright actions.
As a law-abiding, tax-paying, income-earning member of my society (not the US, by the way), it's not my RIGHT to live exactly the way I want, until after I've fulfilled my DUTY to society to help those who are destitute, regardless of the reason.
No, I'm not being fascetious. I truly and deeply believe that my good fortune in life, partly luck, partly self-made, and partly inherited, lays a responsibility to society on my shoulders. If I'm not going to help fix things, then who the fuck is???
Maybe it comes from being a democratic socialist. Maybe it comes from living in a city with more working homeless per capita than nearly anywhere in the world. All I know is that it sure as hell isn't my job to decide that this guy is deserving and that one isn't, strictly based on their income and housing.
"As a law-abiding spammer, how am I supposed to send both spam complying with the Louisiana law (including "adv-adult") and the Michigan law [slashdot.org] (containing "ADV:" as the first four characters?)"
"Now, MAYBE gnu will decide to write a GOOD automated backup system for no other reason than keeping their junk together. (and don't give me that tar crap. I know perfectly well what it's capable of. I want an OSS equiv to NetBackup)"
Does it HAVE to be GNU, or just free to use and modify?
Check out Amanda. It's free, it works well, and it's mighty powerful.
Be aware that at its core, it uses gtar--just like NetBackup does.
Inherently flawed OS structure: Having the GDI and the window manager running in kernel space!!! Seriously now, a window manager running in kernel mode?!! How can that be anything but a willful design flaw?
Hmm. OK, I'll concede that drivers are a special case, because they tie in to the kernel so tightly. In that case, MS is responsible for all crashes that were caused by badly written drivers "designed for Windows." (i.e. certified by MS)
But to put another spin on things, I've not seen a Solaris system taken down by a bad device driver. Even third party drivers in the bad old days of Solaris 2.3 didn't take out the OS.
There is only one way 3rd party software can crash an OS: If the OS is so hopelessly broken that it gives that much control to applications.
Microsoft's bad coding is responsible for 50% of their crashes, by their own admission. Their inherently flawed OS structure is responsible for allowing the other 50% to happen.
(This of course doesn't address hardware related issues--all I can say is that MS software is VERY sensitive to borderline hardware)
OK, I've tried to understand SCO's requirement for signing an NDA. Normally this makes sense for companies revealing proprietary code.
But the whole basis of this case is taht the code has been improperly released to the public! If SCO is telling the truth (HAH!), then we ALREADY HAVE THE CODE they're contesting! Take your code to court, get a sworn and signed affidavit that the code you're showing is unaltered, from before IBM released these suspicious lines, and then SHOW IT TO US!
Of course a few weeks ago, McBride declared that they couldn't reveal which bits of the Linux code infringed, because then the coders would just go and fix it. If they refuse to allow this to take place, then I'd say they're not quite bargaining in good faith.
Reverse engineering is now oftentimes illegal. Furthermore, ownership of a device (ANY device) doesn't give you carte blanche to do what you will with that device.
You can legally buy a gun. You can't legally go and shoot someone with it. You CAN legally take it apart, and make a plant holder out of it. I believe that you CAN'T legally turn a semiautomatic gun into a fully auto.
Even outright ownership doesn't give you full rights of use.
Microsoft? I hate their OS, I htate their marketing, I hate their business practices. They're a dirty, anti-competitive company.
But compared to DeBeers? I'm afraid that there you're looking at a company with the same sort of morals as Pol Pot on a bad day. Microsoft couldn't possibly approach the evil that DeBeers has done.
Come on folks, a few people have mentioned it already.
EVERY time that someone gets a completely frivolous complaint like this, they should:
1) research it (proving it's stupidity) 2) Bill for it, at consultant rates. Say $250/hr, 2hr minimum. Make sure you send a formal invoice, (explanation of services done, rates, etc.) and include a payment due date. 3) If they don't pay by that date, then either (a) call a collection agency, or (b) sue.
Doing a little bit of extra work now will hurt them enough to make them stop.
While I don't disagree, once again an important point has been overlooked.
He hasn't "quit his day job." He's a freelance writer. He works from home, when he wants, and on what subjects he wants and thinks he can sell. I'm quite sure he's planning on selling a few articles condensed from his blogs when this whole thing winds down.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, I'm not about to claim that postfix, qmail, or whatever you want don't have their places. In fact, I'd be quick in line to argue for them replacing sendmail in many cases.
However, I am sick and tired of hearing about how difficult sendmail is. It is NOT difficult to manage, it is NOT difficult to configure. It IS, however, difficult to LEARN.
Yes, it's a big, complex, massively powerful and massively detailed piece of software. If you understand and know sendmail well, then there's nothing difficult about it. At least, no more difficult than any other MTA.
Let's also keep in mind that we've seen some of SCO's files.
What they really seem to be claiming is if they have 100 files that they got from someone else (non-exclusively), and someone else decided to use one of them, then they suddenly have exclusive control over all 100.
I was a bit surprised to see the "interview with a gullible reporter" link take me to one I read yesterday--and was impressed by.
The reporter asked some straight questions. She didn't crucify OR enthuse over SCO, but rather revealed some facts, and let the opinions speak for themselves.
Amazing how professionalism is so rare (and CNet is normally a perfect example of just how rare it is!) that when it appears, some people call it gullability.
You release your code under the GPL, and if a company decides to exploit it in a way that doesn't violate the GPL but pisses you off, then too bad. Suck it up. Deal with it. Either suffer, or write under a different license.
This is exactly the same question that keeps coming up when people look at unpleasant military organisations using open/free code, and has the same answer. If you don't like it, don't release it to them.
"Like Linux :-)"
:-)
Yep. EXACTLY like Linux! It doesn't matter who wrote Linux. It doesn't matter what the status of it is at the end of the day. It doesn't matter how good it is.
If I run a business, it is not my company's job to download software, install it, tweak it, make it work right, and then maintain it[1]. If a company can approach me with a solution to my business problem that involves building, installing, and supporting it (with some guarantees of reliability, service, whatever I need) then fantastic. If it's Linux based, fine but who cares?
Now if I'm a larger company, my IT department can act as that 'business.' If my IT guys come to me and say that implementing Linux/OpenOffice/Mozilla/blah is what we should do, I'll ask them the same questions: How much will it cost/save (short AND long term), what are the benefits, and can you support it?
As a further point, I will PAY for software or hardware that I need to make my company function, and will PAY upfront for software or hardware that will improve the bottom line for my company in the long run.
"But when you ask for a business solution, you want something that is already there, that is therefore not written for a specific small company."
That's right. One-off or custom applications are VERY expensive, dependent on a single source of support/development/testing, and seldom are worth the risks/cost vs. buying a commercial package that does the job 90% as well. Again if you really NEED a custom app, you'll most likely want to have a company to back it. (even a small startup, but not a single person)
[1] Unless of course, that IS my business!
Heh. I was expecting a rant from someone writing OSS software and demanding to get paid for it. You bring up a valid concern, though. How can someone make a living as a professional programmer?
One possibility is the hardware/software integrator path. Realistically, almost nobody goes out and buys an OS for their computer at home. Most people buy it with the computer, and most upgrades are from burned copies. While this isn't open source software, it's hardly different in practice. However, Apple and Sun both pay their programmers. (and Sun has given away their software for years, albeit with strings attached.)
Another option is that programming might go the way of the music industry. People would buy a software package with a nice box and a shiny manual, even though they could download the software for free. Maybe. This is easier with a group of five (or less) musicians than it is with a team of 50 programmers working for a year.
Ultimately, I don't see free software taking over the industry--in the end, I expect both sides to supplement each other. How about something like OS software being free, but app software being proprietary? (I don't suggest forcing this--the market would lead that way on its own)
Here's the big deal.
1) Bulk paper mail subsidises personal letter mail. They pay well for the privilege of sending out stuff that no one reads.
2) Spam recipients pay for the spam they get. Disk space is used, bandwidth consumed, and ISP bills are higher. Not to mention the fact that we now need extra software (more computer resources, more maintenance, more time, more money) to filter this shite out.
YOU ARE PAYING for every spam you receive, as well as every spam you filter. By the time it's left the spammer's computer, the load has been incurred, and the costs go up.
FURTHERMORE, it's easy to tell the difference between paper junk mail and real mail. It's not always as easy (esp. for filters) to distinguish, and as a result you have spam that gets through to you, as well as real mail that gets trapped by your filters. Worse yet, the spammers are exploiting this--they've turned it into a war of escalation, with better crafted spam vs. better filtering. As long as they have free reign, we will be paying higher costs and continue to have the value of email service degraded.
Of course nearly all of the "I don't get it" comments come from spammers, so you probably already know this and are just trying to excuse your behaviour.
Forget for the moment about Free Software, and all of the noble virtues. As others have mentioned though, SCO's behaviour is extortion, and should be taken to the local police station.
Get them charged with criminal action, rather than civil or copyright actions.
God damned RIGHT!!!
As a law-abiding, tax-paying, income-earning member of my society (not the US, by the way), it's not my RIGHT to live exactly the way I want, until after I've fulfilled my DUTY to society to help those who are destitute, regardless of the reason.
No, I'm not being fascetious. I truly and deeply believe that my good fortune in life, partly luck, partly self-made, and partly inherited, lays a responsibility to society on my shoulders. If I'm not going to help fix things, then who the fuck is???
Maybe it comes from being a democratic socialist. Maybe it comes from living in a city with more working homeless per capita than nearly anywhere in the world. All I know is that it sure as hell isn't my job to decide that this guy is deserving and that one isn't, strictly based on their income and housing.
That's next. Guaranteed. After that, it's you, and then your grandmother.
Still think it's wonderful?
"As a law-abiding spammer, how am I supposed to send both spam complying with the Louisiana law (including "adv-adult") and the Michigan law [slashdot.org] (containing "ADV:" as the first four characters?)"
You're not. Fuck off and die.
That's partly because adamantane is already a chemical compound. They tend NOT to like to cross those lines back and forth.
Besides, why should it be an element--because it came from a comic?
It's not D. It's Ds.
Nobody gets Nitrogen (N) mixed up with Niobium (Nb) or Nickel (Ni), so I don't see this as being a problem.
"Now, MAYBE gnu will decide to write a GOOD automated backup system for no other reason than keeping their junk together. (and don't give me that tar crap. I know perfectly well what it's capable of. I want an OSS equiv to NetBackup)"
Does it HAVE to be GNU, or just free to use and modify?
Check out Amanda. It's free, it works well, and it's mighty powerful.
Be aware that at its core, it uses gtar--just like NetBackup does.
Inherently flawed OS structure: Having the GDI and the window manager running in kernel space!!! Seriously now, a window manager running in kernel mode?!! How can that be anything but a willful design flaw?
Hmm. OK, I'll concede that drivers are a special case, because they tie in to the kernel so tightly. In that case, MS is responsible for all crashes that were caused by badly written drivers "designed for Windows." (i.e. certified by MS)
But to put another spin on things, I've not seen a Solaris system taken down by a bad device driver. Even third party drivers in the bad old days of Solaris 2.3 didn't take out the OS.
Hmm. I've read the article twice, and they talk about "Windows crashes." Not apps, but Windows itself.
At any rate, if they were talking about app crashes, then it's even MORE appalling that 50% of them are caused by the OS. Yuck!
There is only one way 3rd party software can crash an OS: If the OS is so hopelessly broken that it gives that much control to applications.
Microsoft's bad coding is responsible for 50% of their crashes, by their own admission. Their inherently flawed OS structure is responsible for allowing the other 50% to happen.
(This of course doesn't address hardware related issues--all I can say is that MS software is VERY sensitive to borderline hardware)
OK, I've tried to understand SCO's requirement for signing an NDA. Normally this makes sense for companies revealing proprietary code.
But the whole basis of this case is taht the code has been improperly released to the public! If SCO is telling the truth (HAH!), then we ALREADY HAVE THE CODE they're contesting! Take your code to court, get a sworn and signed affidavit that the code you're showing is unaltered, from before IBM released these suspicious lines, and then SHOW IT TO US!
Of course a few weeks ago, McBride declared that they couldn't reveal which bits of the Linux code infringed, because then the coders would just go and fix it. If they refuse to allow this to take place, then I'd say they're not quite bargaining in good faith.
Sorry, but in the US at least, that's incorrect.
Reverse engineering is now oftentimes illegal. Furthermore, ownership of a device (ANY device) doesn't give you carte blanche to do what you will with that device.
You can legally buy a gun. You can't legally go and shoot someone with it. You CAN legally take it apart, and make a plant holder out of it. I believe that you CAN'T legally turn a semiautomatic gun into a fully auto.
Even outright ownership doesn't give you full rights of use.
Microsoft? I hate their OS, I htate their marketing, I hate their business practices. They're a dirty, anti-competitive company.
But compared to DeBeers? I'm afraid that there you're looking at a company with the same sort of morals as Pol Pot on a bad day. Microsoft couldn't possibly approach the evil that DeBeers has done.
I can accuse them of something illegal.
When the lawsuit first surfaced, SCO stock went up 14%. That's when the selloff began.
Selling in a non-insider trading situation doesn't specifically prevent the possibilty of stock manipulation and fraud.
Come on folks, a few people have mentioned it already.
EVERY time that someone gets a completely frivolous complaint like this, they should:
1) research it (proving it's stupidity)
2) Bill for it, at consultant rates. Say $250/hr, 2hr minimum. Make sure you send a formal invoice, (explanation of services done, rates, etc.) and include a payment due date.
3) If they don't pay by that date, then either (a) call a collection agency, or (b) sue.
Doing a little bit of extra work now will hurt them enough to make them stop.
While I don't disagree, once again an important point has been overlooked.
He hasn't "quit his day job." He's a freelance writer. He works from home, when he wants, and on what subjects he wants and thinks he can sell. I'm quite sure he's planning on selling a few articles condensed from his blogs when this whole thing winds down.
Well now, that's about where I was headed.
We may be headed towards the biggest worldwide anarchy we've seen in three hundred years. That's a bit scary.