Well, if you read the interview you will see that it is clear the IBM are talking about Linux and not the other *nixs. I think they understand better than most what they should and shouldn't do in this new arena, and it seems that what they want if to develop a Free software system which allows them to have a common OS BUT they do not see the BSD alternatives as worthwhile becuase they would risk everything they had done been taken and reused in a closed way without reaping the benefits. I think it is clear that IBM understands the deal with Linux (and essentially the GPL) which says "use and/or help, but tell your users what you did". If you think about what IBM is known for and good at, this suits them down to the ground. In 20 years the MSCE's of this world could be the ILCE's (IBM Linux Certified Engineers), all the big boxes could be IBM machines running Linux (with Sun et al free to come in their to compete, but if they want the benefits they must join the code sharing club).
Bottom line I would NOT want IBM to release under a BSD style licence, they would hold back on technologies that MS et al would like because they could take them and give nothing back. We all need to work together and forget about using open code to make money, if you want to make money from binaries, start fresh and write something new. Do you really want MS to embed ViaVoice into windows and pump lots of money into research....only to use any benefits of this research to strengthen windows giving nothing but windows binaries to their users? Or would you rather that maybe IBM will release something so special that MS will be faced with the choice of working with GPL style software, staying behind or spending massivly on research to replicate it? GPL code is usable by everyone, you just gotta play the reciprocating game...in a season like this have you got a problem with giving?
I though numerous times about that sentaence before I posted it. The bottom line is that my reading of the IBM literature is that they feel the Free software community has done something for them already, and they have reciprocated. Neither side can curtail the others involvement in Free softeware, but there is no sound of irritation from IBM over what they are receiving. In fact it is the opposite, they are shouting from the rooftops (relatively speaking) about Linux and the Free software ideals (the Avery Brooks ad being a classic example). They have said a few times recently that they will give anything from AIX and that they feel that dropping 1.5 million lines of code would be silly though (and I agree, do we want to see all the Linux hackers split indefinetly until if and when the two codebases could combine or just wasting to opportunity because it is overwhelming). They are clearly making an offer to the Linux community to suggest some area(s) that they could help in (and if you read their site it is clear that they would be helping themselves aswell as they are betting a portion of the bank on Linux). In these circumstances I do not feel we should question what a distributed, quite anarchistic group should do for a giant corporate entity, but what the corporation should do to help both sides move along and prove that our ideals can translate into a new economy.
X drivers have nothing to do with the Linux kernel
The point of all this eventual 3d revolution on linux is that now the X-server DOES have access to the kernel bypassing extra levels and therefore speeding the process up. The standard way to do this is with DRI (Direct Rendering Infrastructure) whereas NVidia use their own method...and DRI is the piece of kernel that lets it happen. NVidia ship a kernel module to implement their own version.
What if the problem is fundamental to the driver design? We have seen plenty of times where such a risk has been accepted in a closed environment because it is too hard/ too much work to fix. They might say that it will be fixed in the next major release and in the meantime don't run 3d apps while you are on a network, and be pleased with it!
Yes, it's nice to see a company do something for Linux BUT if it is not open source I would not let it at my kernel....period! If MS opened Windows tomorrow I would not go near it, the system is monolithic and would take a long long time to make secure (if ever, and if it was made secure I suspect that many of its "features" would be destroyed, such as its ease of use). If someone is asking for a video card for Linux you can safely assume they regard Linux as more important to them than Windows. I would also assume that security, source access or stability would be the reason. If you are letting a closed piece of software into your linux kernel, afaic you are no longer running Linux, you are running a hybred that depends on the closed piece of software for its stability and securety. If you are willing to do that....that's your choice.
Ok, accepting what you say (which I do) the question is has Intel made any active attempt to prevent themselves being bullied in a dominated market (as you say the developers felt)? If two monopolies (and let's face it Intel and MS have been undisputed monopolies for many years, though this may finally be breaking for both) work in completely dependant markets (Intel must have software and MS must have hardware) and never tread hard on each others toes than they should be viewed as one monopoly. Have we seen MS keep an OS in the wings on another chipset in case Intel shit on them.....NO they dropped NT Alpha(and lets face it if Intel dropped i386 chips their would be a long pause while the competitors picked up the slack). Does Intel actively support another major OS to ensure that if MS try to move to Mac/Arm/Crusoe hardware their plans can still be in some way useful....NO.
How many companies would allow themselves to be 90%+ dependant on one other company? Where is the insurance......it's this fact that makes Wintel "alive" whatever the PR speak and official lines.
Well, no matter where you are you can always (if you are willing) take the approach seen in the great McDonalds case where the authors of a McD critical leaflet spent a few years in court costing McD's a huge amount of legal fees while they didn't pay a penny in legal fees AND (far more importantly) were all worthless (no assets) so that McD's could never recoup the money.
Bottom line, look what happened in Sweden regarding DeCSS. It is the U.S. that causes all the problems so I will say it again.....Should all coders be in Europe?
The only thing of interest is if Intel actually releases and pushes the chip in any way before MS is ready, if so then perhaps we can safely say WIntel is dead. If they hold off anything other than a "you can get it now" release then it's another point in the split MS argument.
Don't even pretend you can answer this to the satisfaction of anyone who does not have the privelege of being able to access the source code. Performance may be good, but if and when someone finds an exploit that allows them to root your box are you going to:
Take your machine off the internet until NVidia release a patch that claims to fix it
Take your NVidia card out of your pc and revert to using the next best card you can get your hands on, reseting up your box to optimise for your new card, and the wait for NVidia to release a patch that claims to fix it
Change over to the XFree86 nv driver and reoptimise your machine (without reaching the same performance as NVidia don't/won't/can't tell anyone anything) until NVidia.....
Pray you don't get rooted
Bottom line, you may aswell stick to windows if you are going to allow closed source binaries into your kernel.
That is exactly what I was arguing (though had yet to reach the simple clarity you have no made me realise regarding the LGPL). I was not trying to suggest that the warfare was bad....I was saying it would be good. If something like this was GPL'd and then someone tried to fork the format into a GPL and non-GPL version, we could all enjoy the fight. If it was under a BSD style license and someone started an open and closed fork, it would be the rantings of Free Software campaigners (like me so don't say I'm flamebaiting) that would be calling for the end of the fork, and this would mean the fork would stay and that would be bad for everyone. MP3 is strong because (despite some IP idiots efforts) it is easy to get decoders and encoders and it is a format that provides something people want. No video format is strong yet because the IP idiots have control, once everyone has the opportunity to get a wide range of tools to play and create/edit in one format for all platforms, that format will be hard to shift unless its bitrate/quality is severly beaten to the benefit of the majority of users (and unfortunately windows alone can do that at the moment, but not for long).
Bottom line, if anyone here is working on any form of a video codec, please please please GPL it and start making your money from the work you can do around the codec and not from the language the codec entails.
I don't see how that's a loss, unless you just want to make the MS users suffer.
I have no interest in making MS users suffer, but the fact is that everyone would suffer because cross compatibility would be gone, you would be back to two (or more) implementations and only one would be able to play a given stream. If it was GPL'd however, if someone tried to make an incompatible version they would be faced with warfare from all the platforms they didn't support (let alone the effort required to make sure you didn't let any GPL code into the re-engineered version). Would apple and sorenson and MS and real all create their own incompatible imlementations or would they just say "fuck it" and write thier higher level aps so that they can use the codec?
You must be are American and hence subjected to the most absurd legal system in the world (and to those who deny this I quote your Presidential Election AND Todays' lovely cryptography/seizure addition to the Medal of Honor bill....I don't need to mention teenage Swedes do I). I am Eurpoean and hence can happily write a DVD player, GPL it and then stick it onto any distribution system I want that is not corrupted by US law
I actually came into this story primarily to post the exact opposite sentiment! Now that I have read more I actually couldn't care about this 3ivx as it reads to me as a half-arsed scam (they will give an open source player and that's it!). I will still explain why I would hate to see something like this released under a license other than the GPL.
Imagine a codec was released under a BSD style licensce, the most likely outcome would be for MS and Sorenson to pick it up if it has any worthwhile qualities and then to hack their IP into it or it into their IP and then release this as a binary. Now at this point we have just lost cross-platform compatibility and the battle will return to the battle of the commercials.
Imagine it is GPL, no company is going to pick it up unless it is better than their own product, in which case they will pick it up and figure out how to release software with it/to use it and still make money. The take-up may be incredibly slowed, but at least if their is a take up it will be of the same codec that everyone is using, and not a closed hack on it which creates the same mess as we have had up to now.
This will get modded as flamebait, but do you work for aplle, sorenson, real or MS? If not WTF are you thinking?
ok, vrml has had very little take-up as an interactive multi-user networked 3d environment, what hope for X instead? How large would an equivalent X program be to a vrml world? How much bandwidth does a GLX connection take for anything decent and what happens if you route it over the net? How light can the load and footprint be from these 3d X clients, e.g. how many clients could a normal (if you must lets say 1/2 gb dual 750) internet server deal with. What sort of 3d performance would we see on consumer OpenGL hardware? Can we let the windowz users play with us? How cool would it be? Does anyone know?
One problem with your argument, though I symapthise
By your own acknowledgment you knew you were leaving these ports open and were only failing to close them due to politics. The unfortunate fact is that you should have either taken the machines off the net OR did as you did and face the consequences. You placed these machines onto the internet and in doing so placed every open port onto the internet. What this judgement correctly states is that this action provides permission for anyone to see which ports you have placed on the internet. The judgement does not say that because this port is there you are allowed to do what you want with it, to my mind someone could however have gone as far as to mount your open drive and run an ls or two (discovering that this is not in fact a port left open for anyone to usefully use)...but if they started lookin at anything let alone modifying it.....
Again I sympathise with anyone in such a situation (and BTW I have never used a portscan except on my own computers) BUT I fail to see any proof in your counter argument....
When I was a wee lad (insert nostalgic comments here) there was a protected period when messing with computers was the norm as much so as soccer on the green....when the Sinclair Spectrums and Commodore 64 ruled the roost. Now imagine if every one of us had been told then that there was a hole world of porn and brilliant violent games sitting out there just waiting for us to figure out how to get to it..... we'd all have clubbed together until we were there. And every time we see another new piece of censorware come in we would always discover something we liked that we couldn't see anymore (like how long before/. posts a story on how someone couldn't read/. in their local library).
You underestimate I feel the interest in young people in computers (though I'm sure they won't all be learning chunks of the dns->hexIP nightly) , from the most innocent to mischevous (who is going to be first to look for peer-points by setting up a "child-porn" site of their classmates using the school network). I think the uptake of technolgies such as Napster shows us that we are not going to block the possible and people will be bothered to remember the workarounds!
I can't help feel that what the this will really do is ensure that we have another generation of hackers and crackers. Think about it, now every American schoolkid will join forces to ensure that every piece of censorware has a nice big hole in it that everyone knows about, maybe if the censorware companies are good enough we may even see some work to match the demos scene of the 80s (the best programming ever IMHO). Who do you think is more intelligent, the firms writing the software or the kids......I know where my money goes
If you connect your computer by to the Internet and it is assigned an IP address, then it is potentially offering an infinite (or is it 65536 or....) number of ports to the public internet. Each and every port you connect to the internet becomes part of the shared public network, just as you assume that people who you have never met, dealt with or heard of will route your packets you are offering these connected ports. If someone port scans your computer, they are portscanning a public IP address (or else you are behind a firewall and should be asking questions of the provider). TCP/IP does not (that I know of) provide a DNS like system to say which ports are useful on each IP so using a port-scanner is the only way to find out what you are usefully offering. How am I meant to know what services you are providing on your public part of the public internet (lets make a public and private net addressing system to say that your system is different if you don't accept this)?
Don't ask me why but it seems that the installer very often makes a balls of the users preferences and this command re-writes them correctly. Fixes a lot of broken installs. Just out of curiousity, did you or your friend contact Tech-Support (as your box entitles you). They may not have had the answer but you should give them a go before slating the product.
When I went for my interview for Corel Linux work I asked if we were going to see other platforms, and ARM was the first possibility........not anymore though by the looks of it.
I have to say that as an ex Corel Linux employee (thankfully it as already my last day when I was greated with/.'s headline that MS bought into Corel) who saw what happened inside the organisation that it is grossly inaccurate to say they dropped it on the marketplace and expected it to sell itself. They did run paper advertisments and were dedicating half or more of stand space to Linux and it's (wine'd) Office suite (Draw et al having the other half).
I think the reason they didn't get very far is:
They didn't have any money
The only allies they could hope for (hackers) didn't go for it at all thanks to the incompatible libraries (though I updated a machine successfully to Debian 2.2 leaving behind the samba only, but then again maybe their internal network just suited well).
They didn't have any money
What could they do in the face of this? Could they re-write all the incompatible sections to placate us....NO they couldn't afford to. Could they change from wine for Linux apps... NO they couldn't afford to, they weren't getting money from Linux so in the face of the cost cutting required it was hard to justify expenese on Linux that might actually produce money from Draw/WP 10.
Where next......well after their minor success with their unix WP7/8 and an old draw I think they will be back to the Linux marketplace with a native app, the only questions are how long must we wait, will it be worth it or have MS killed it?
Ultimately I cannot see many/any traditional shrink-wrap software companies converting well into Linux land, they can't comprehend the underlying concept of using the GPL (not just LGPL) stuff out there and releasing products based on support et al rather than licensing revenue. Why didn't Corel just port their whole App suite to Gnome/KDE2 on all platforms rather than work on KDE and wine?
All of their problems probably would have been solved had it not been for the change in relative stock prices of Corel and Borland between the initial merger announcement and the critical dates. What was an attractive deal for both sides become a wholly unappealing deal for Borland shareholders and Corel lost a stay of execution AND the combined "powerhouse" that should have arrived on the Linux platform.
Disclaimer. The above are the conclusions I have drawn from my observations.....not the facts cause I don't know them....as if you all couldn't tell:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if you read the interview you will see that it is clear the IBM are talking about Linux and not the other *nixs. I think they understand better than most what they should and shouldn't do in this new arena, and it seems that what they want if to develop a Free software system which allows them to have a common OS BUT they do not see the BSD alternatives as worthwhile becuase they would risk everything they had done been taken and reused in a closed way without reaping the benefits. I think it is clear that IBM understands the deal with Linux (and essentially the GPL) which says "use and/or help, but tell your users what you did". If you think about what IBM is known for and good at, this suits them down to the ground. In 20 years the MSCE's of this world could be the ILCE's (IBM Linux Certified Engineers), all the big boxes could be IBM machines running Linux (with Sun et al free to come in their to compete, but if they want the benefits they must join the code sharing club).
Bottom line I would NOT want IBM to release under a BSD style licence, they would hold back on technologies that MS et al would like because they could take them and give nothing back. We all need to work together and forget about using open code to make money, if you want to make money from binaries, start fresh and write something new. Do you really want MS to embed ViaVoice into windows and pump lots of money into research....only to use any benefits of this research to strengthen windows giving nothing but windows binaries to their users? Or would you rather that maybe IBM will release something so special that MS will be faced with the choice of working with GPL style software, staying behind or spending massivly on research to replicate it? GPL code is usable by everyone, you just gotta play the reciprocating game...in a season like this have you got a problem with giving?
Snapnames.com have their own "Lawyers Area".
Seriously, I suspect that this is all either
- About suing Network Solutions for not releasing expired domains
- About Network Solutions making some good money off expiring domains
I just can't be arsed to trawl through their sites to try and fugure out if NS and Snapnames are connected.OR
I though numerous times about that sentaence before I posted it. The bottom line is that my reading of the IBM literature is that they feel the Free software community has done something for them already, and they have reciprocated. Neither side can curtail the others involvement in Free softeware, but there is no sound of irritation from IBM over what they are receiving. In fact it is the opposite, they are shouting from the rooftops (relatively speaking) about Linux and the Free software ideals (the Avery Brooks ad being a classic example). They have said a few times recently that they will give anything from AIX and that they feel that dropping 1.5 million lines of code would be silly though (and I agree, do we want to see all the Linux hackers split indefinetly until if and when the two codebases could combine or just wasting to opportunity because it is overwhelming). They are clearly making an offer to the Linux community to suggest some area(s) that they could help in (and if you read their site it is clear that they would be helping themselves aswell as they are betting a portion of the bank on Linux). In these circumstances I do not feel we should question what a distributed, quite anarchistic group should do for a giant corporate entity, but what the corporation should do to help both sides move along and prove that our ideals can translate into a new economy.
Forgive me if I am talking shit but.....
The point of all this eventual 3d revolution on linux is that now the X-server DOES have access to the kernel bypassing extra levels and therefore speeding the process up. The standard way to do this is with DRI (Direct Rendering Infrastructure) whereas NVidia use their own method...and DRI is the piece of kernel that lets it happen. NVidia ship a kernel module to implement their own version.
DeDFAST
What if the problem is fundamental to the driver design? We have seen plenty of times where such a risk has been accepted in a closed environment because it is too hard/ too much work to fix. They might say that it will be fixed in the next major release and in the meantime don't run 3d apps while you are on a network, and be pleased with it!
Yes, it's nice to see a company do something for Linux BUT if it is not open source I would not let it at my kernel....period! If MS opened Windows tomorrow I would not go near it, the system is monolithic and would take a long long time to make secure (if ever, and if it was made secure I suspect that many of its "features" would be destroyed, such as its ease of use). If someone is asking for a video card for Linux you can safely assume they regard Linux as more important to them than Windows. I would also assume that security, source access or stability would be the reason. If you are letting a closed piece of software into your linux kernel, afaic you are no longer running Linux, you are running a hybred that depends on the closed piece of software for its stability and securety. If you are willing to do that....that's your choice.
BTW I know I can't spell :-)
Ok, accepting what you say (which I do) the question is has Intel made any active attempt to prevent themselves being bullied in a dominated market (as you say the developers felt)? If two monopolies (and let's face it Intel and MS have been undisputed monopolies for many years, though this may finally be breaking for both) work in completely dependant markets (Intel must have software and MS must have hardware) and never tread hard on each others toes than they should be viewed as one monopoly. Have we seen MS keep an OS in the wings on another chipset in case Intel shit on them.....NO they dropped NT Alpha(and lets face it if Intel dropped i386 chips their would be a long pause while the competitors picked up the slack). Does Intel actively support another major OS to ensure that if MS try to move to Mac/Arm/Crusoe hardware their plans can still be in some way useful....NO.
How many companies would allow themselves to be 90%+ dependant on one other company? Where is the insurance......it's this fact that makes Wintel "alive" whatever the PR speak and official lines.
Well, no matter where you are you can always (if you are willing) take the approach seen in the great McDonalds case where the authors of a McD critical leaflet spent a few years in court costing McD's a huge amount of legal fees while they didn't pay a penny in legal fees AND (far more importantly) were all worthless (no assets) so that McD's could never recoup the money.
Bottom line, look what happened in Sweden regarding DeCSS. It is the U.S. that causes all the problems so I will say it again.....Should all coders be in Europe?
Nothing!
The only thing of interest is if Intel actually releases and pushes the chip in any way before MS is ready, if so then perhaps we can safely say WIntel is dead. If they hold off anything other than a "you can get it now" release then it's another point in the split MS argument.
One Question
Is the NVidia driver secure?
Don't even pretend you can answer this to the satisfaction of anyone who does not have the privelege of being able to access the source code. Performance may be good, but if and when someone finds an exploit that allows them to root your box are you going to:
Bottom line, you may aswell stick to windows if you are going to allow closed source binaries into your kernel.
That is exactly what I was arguing (though had yet to reach the simple clarity you have no made me realise regarding the LGPL). I was not trying to suggest that the warfare was bad....I was saying it would be good. If something like this was GPL'd and then someone tried to fork the format into a GPL and non-GPL version, we could all enjoy the fight. If it was under a BSD style license and someone started an open and closed fork, it would be the rantings of Free Software campaigners (like me so don't say I'm flamebaiting) that would be calling for the end of the fork, and this would mean the fork would stay and that would be bad for everyone. MP3 is strong because (despite some IP idiots efforts) it is easy to get decoders and encoders and it is a format that provides something people want. No video format is strong yet because the IP idiots have control, once everyone has the opportunity to get a wide range of tools to play and create/edit in one format for all platforms, that format will be hard to shift unless its bitrate/quality is severly beaten to the benefit of the majority of users (and unfortunately windows alone can do that at the moment, but not for long).
Bottom line, if anyone here is working on any form of a video codec, please please please GPL it and start making your money from the work you can do around the codec and not from the language the codec entails.
I have no interest in making MS users suffer, but the fact is that everyone would suffer because cross compatibility would be gone, you would be back to two (or more) implementations and only one would be able to play a given stream. If it was GPL'd however, if someone tried to make an incompatible version they would be faced with warfare from all the platforms they didn't support (let alone the effort required to make sure you didn't let any GPL code into the re-engineered version). Would apple and sorenson and MS and real all create their own incompatible imlementations or would they just say "fuck it" and write thier higher level aps so that they can use the codec?
Read my lips.....BULLSHIT
You must be are American and hence subjected to the most absurd legal system in the world (and to those who deny this I quote your Presidential Election AND Todays' lovely cryptography/seizure addition to the Medal of Honor bill....I don't need to mention teenage Swedes do I). I am Eurpoean and hence can happily write a DVD player, GPL it and then stick it onto any distribution system I want that is not corrupted by US law
I actually came into this story primarily to post the exact opposite sentiment! Now that I have read more I actually couldn't care about this 3ivx as it reads to me as a half-arsed scam (they will give an open source player and that's it!). I will still explain why I would hate to see something like this released under a license other than the GPL.
Imagine a codec was released under a BSD style licensce, the most likely outcome would be for MS and Sorenson to pick it up if it has any worthwhile qualities and then to hack their IP into it or it into their IP and then release this as a binary. Now at this point we have just lost cross-platform compatibility and the battle will return to the battle of the commercials.
Imagine it is GPL, no company is going to pick it up unless it is better than their own product, in which case they will pick it up and figure out how to release software with it/to use it and still make money. The take-up may be incredibly slowed, but at least if their is a take up it will be of the same codec that everyone is using, and not a closed hack on it which creates the same mess as we have had up to now.
This will get modded as flamebait, but do you work for aplle, sorenson, real or MS? If not WTF are you thinking?
ok, vrml has had very little take-up as an interactive multi-user networked 3d environment, what hope for X instead? How large would an equivalent X program be to a vrml world? How much bandwidth does a GLX connection take for anything decent and what happens if you route it over the net? How light can the load and footprint be from these 3d X clients, e.g. how many clients could a normal (if you must lets say 1/2 gb dual 750) internet server deal with. What sort of 3d performance would we see on consumer OpenGL hardware? Can we let the windowz users play with us? How cool would it be? Does anyone know?
One problem with your argument, though I symapthise
By your own acknowledgment you knew you were leaving these ports open and were only failing to close them due to politics. The unfortunate fact is that you should have either taken the machines off the net OR did as you did and face the consequences. You placed these machines onto the internet and in doing so placed every open port onto the internet. What this judgement correctly states is that this action provides permission for anyone to see which ports you have placed on the internet. The judgement does not say that because this port is there you are allowed to do what you want with it, to my mind someone could however have gone as far as to mount your open drive and run an ls or two (discovering that this is not in fact a port left open for anyone to usefully use)...but if they started lookin at anything let alone modifying it.....
Again I sympathise with anyone in such a situation (and BTW I have never used a portscan except on my own computers) BUT I fail to see any proof in your counter argument....
When I was a wee lad (insert nostalgic comments here) there was a protected period when messing with computers was the norm as much so as soccer on the green....when the Sinclair Spectrums and Commodore 64 ruled the roost. Now imagine if every one of us had been told then that there was a hole world of porn and brilliant violent games sitting out there just waiting for us to figure out how to get to it..... we'd all have clubbed together until we were there. And every time we see another new piece of censorware come in we would always discover something we liked that we couldn't see anymore (like how long before /. posts a story on how someone couldn't read /. in their local library).
You underestimate I feel the interest in young people in computers (though I'm sure they won't all be learning chunks of the dns->hexIP nightly) , from the most innocent to mischevous (who is going to be first to look for peer-points by setting up a "child-porn" site of their classmates using the school network). I think the uptake of technolgies such as Napster shows us that we are not going to block the possible and people will be bothered to remember the workarounds!
I can't help feel that what the this will really do is ensure that we have another generation of hackers and crackers. Think about it, now every American schoolkid will join forces to ensure that every piece of censorware has a nice big hole in it that everyone knows about, maybe if the censorware companies are good enough we may even see some work to match the demos scene of the 80s (the best programming ever IMHO). Who do you think is more intelligent, the firms writing the software or the kids......I know where my money goes
If you connect your computer by to the Internet and it is assigned an IP address, then it is potentially offering an infinite (or is it 65536 or ....) number of ports to the public internet. Each and every port you connect to the internet becomes part of the shared public network, just as you assume that people who you have never met, dealt with or heard of will route your packets you are offering these connected ports. If someone port scans your computer, they are portscanning a public IP address (or else you are behind a firewall and should be asking questions of the provider). TCP/IP does not (that I know of) provide a DNS like system to say which ports are useful on each IP so using a port-scanner is the only way to find out what you are usefully offering. How am I meant to know what services you are providing on your public part of the public internet (lets make a public and private net addressing system to say that your system is different if you don't accept this)?
/. has finally come to its senses and failed to mod someone down for even considering windows could be secured
As the user who wants to run WPO run
Don't ask me why but it seems that the installer very often makes a balls of the users preferences and this command re-writes them correctly. Fixes a lot of broken installs. Just out of curiousity, did you or your friend contact Tech-Support (as your box entitles you). They may not have had the answer but you should give them a go before slating the product.When I went for my interview for Corel Linux work I asked if we were going to see other platforms, and ARM was the first possibility........not anymore though by the looks of it.
I have to say that as an ex Corel Linux employee (thankfully it as already my last day when I was greated with /.'s headline that MS bought into Corel) who saw what happened inside the organisation that it is grossly inaccurate to say they dropped it on the marketplace and expected it to sell itself. They did run paper advertisments and were dedicating half or more of stand space to Linux and it's (wine'd) Office suite (Draw et al having the other half).
I think the reason they didn't get very far is:
What could they do in the face of this? Could they re-write all the incompatible sections to placate us....NO they couldn't afford to. Could they change from wine for Linux apps... NO they couldn't afford to, they weren't getting money from Linux so in the face of the cost cutting required it was hard to justify expenese on Linux that might actually produce money from Draw/WP 10.
Where next......well after their minor success with their unix WP7/8 and an old draw I think they will be back to the Linux marketplace with a native app, the only questions are how long must we wait, will it be worth it or have MS killed it?
Ultimately I cannot see many/any traditional shrink-wrap software companies converting well into Linux land, they can't comprehend the underlying concept of using the GPL (not just LGPL) stuff out there and releasing products based on support et al rather than licensing revenue. Why didn't Corel just port their whole App suite to Gnome/KDE2 on all platforms rather than work on KDE and wine?
All of their problems probably would have been solved had it not been for the change in relative stock prices of Corel and Borland between the initial merger announcement and the critical dates. What was an attractive deal for both sides become a wholly unappealing deal for Borland shareholders and Corel lost a stay of execution AND the combined "powerhouse" that should have arrived on the Linux platform.
Disclaimer. The above are the conclusions I have drawn from my observations.....not the facts cause I don't know them....as if you all couldn't tell :-)