This WorkStation thing is a big problem that can (and currently is) hold back more adoption of Linux in the desktop.
We have reached a state where almost every WorkStation job can be performed efficiently on Linux, with a great selection of apps and tools that compare and in a lot of cases surpases their Win/Mac counterparts, but (unfortunately) the users have been taught to rely a lot more in the OS/Desktop than it should be, instead on the applications that implement the functionality.
If you ask Joe User "what is windows?" he will start talking about the task bar, the Start Menu and a lot of images that user has fixed in his mind. If you try to push linux on them, you must have a familiar look that they can be used to, even when they sit in a different computer. I'm not talking about us geeks but the everyday users that ultimately stack up to give Windows the 95% (or so) in the Desktop market.
I have said it before and will continue to say it, Linux has been ready for a long time for the Desktop, the applications are ready and even a lot of users are ready to use it, but the main goal of Linux is also holding it back: choice.
It's a complicated issue, the freedom of choice is what got us to use Linux, and I love to use gFTP and Evolution on KDE, but that freedom of choice is also scaring potential users away.
[bigjocker@anacreon tmp]$ gcc test.c -Wall -o test test.c: In function `main': test.c:5: warning: control reaches end of non-void function [bigjocker@anacreon tmp]$
Besides, I think SCO owns the copyright for the word main
I'm just returning from a week of vacation and on reexamining the problem I see your point (dont know if this is going to be read anyways). Don't know WTF happened to me last week, but slashdot should offer the posibility of deleting embarrasing posts.
Anyways, in none of my posts I referred to you as an stupid, and the one who brought harsh language to the thread was you.
And regarding the large sums of money, feel free to place bets (worked as a poker croupie for four years)
When you open one door and you are presented with the chance to switch your selection, you have a new independent problem. No matter how you try and reduce the arguments using strong language, the fact is that the phisical action of blasting one door to ashes
1.- Has no effect whatsoever on the location of the prize. The prize will not switch places. 2.- When you are presented the choice of changing your mind, you are presented with a new problem, regardless of the ammount of doors that have been opened (or blasted) you still have in front of you two doors, each of one having the same probability of keeping the prize.
No matter what has been done, when you ask the player if she wants to change her selection, you are presenting a new problem, independent of previous incidents (blasting of doors). At that instant in time (you could argue that such things cant be measured) you have two doors with a 1/2 probability each.
That only applies for a series of matches. If you only have one chance, switching does not give you any advantage, because each of the 2 closed doors has the same probability of containing the prize. Look a it this way (you have only one shot):
You have 3 doors
* X X A B C
The prize is on door A (the *), you pick door A and the host opens the door C:
* X A B
You already picked door A, and regardless of the probabilities in the past step, this is a new problem, and you are reduced to a 1/2 probability. The probability of the 2nd state is independent of any state. So if you keep your decision or you switch is exactly the same.
Only with several chances you can, statistically, assert that switching increases the possibilities, but if you only have one shot, it does not matter.
I don't care if they use my donations to counter sue SCO. The Open SOurce Now fund is a charity, and they can help Red Hat if they please.
Is not the point of this whole issue fight against the FUDfest from SCO? And who are the ones that have _legally_ answered. There are the folks from Germany and Australia, but from the big folks (who will ultimately be the ones that can solve this whole issue, as has been said before, this is not a matter of justice but of money) we only have RedHat and IBM (for now) taking our side (their motives are part of another discussion since a lot of people disagrees with the angle IBM choose to atack).
IBM can fight all the way to the end of days in courts and will still have a lot of money in the bank, but Red Hat can't. If you feel uncomfortable with Red Hat using the donations to fight SCO then save your money, I'm puting my money where my mouth is and givin all I can spare to the fund.
BTW, I DO believe this whole issue has the potential to make a lot of damage to Linux, just see the parties involved (SCO, IBM, Microsoft, Sun, etc) and you will realize they have crushed more than one company/movement in the past.
In the older articles the Open Source Now fund had been anounced, but it was just an email address that I bet has been banged pretty hard the past few days (I know I used it and got no response back).
Now we get the whole "Open Source Now" movement with complete web-site and instructions to participate, but since nobody here RTFA we get 100s of comments calling for a dupe.
Really, if anybody wants to help in this hole issue just click the link and donate something.
Any chance we can stop giving this corporate protection racket so much free publicity?
You know you can NOT click on the article? If it bothers you so much, why not disable the Caldera/SCO topic from your preferences? Heck, how was your thinking process? "Lets click in this story that disgustes me so much, scroll dow, hit reply, write a troll comment about how sick are we with this SCO news thing".
Speak for yourself, I for one am grateful with the following Slashdot is doing to this case. Some of us (and our families) LIVE out of linux, and you can always NOT click the link and go read another story.
The word that keeps comming to my mind is: Microsoft.
They are a fortune 500 company, have had business with SCO this year regarding this UNIX licensing fiasco, and have opened the Open Source Test Lab. I'm pretty sure they would benefit a lot by licensing all the linux in their Test Lab with SCO, that way they support the case and fuel SCO's FUD machine.
"We have asked the courts to declare no violation of intellectual property and trade secrets have occurred," Szulik said. "We've been patient, we've listened, but when our customers and the whole open-source community are threatened with innuendo and rumor, it's time to act."
They can count on all the money I can spare. We have waited for a long time for a Legal Fund to be formed and here is it, let's put our wallets where our mouth is and start helping our side with the real tool that can deliver this FUDfest to an end (in the end the truth or justice will not be the fundamental matter to settle this): money.
They could screw everybody and encrypt the images using a public key. They even could manage and encrypt the pixels of buffers at the CCD level and store it that way. That way only using their super secret private key you can use the CCD.
I'm more interested on buying 16 of them and tearing them apart, for 160 bucks (plus some RadioShack parts) you get a 32Mp array that could be attached to a telescope or anything optical.
This is a bit of a worry for privacy concerns, given that if I want to keep something secret from the world and private just between me and my intended recipient I have one less option.
If you are using foreign languages or even lexically analyzable scemes to do your encription, you deserve what you get
Re:Solution to not revealing spoilers
on
Decipher
·
· Score: 2, Informative
www.TheOneRing.net shows spoiler this way: you must highlight the spoiler to be able to see it.
As a lot of people has pointed out already, he currently is in a mental institution, has quit high school and has had his social life destroyed. He is in his right to sue, and deserves a huge compensation.
You can dual license your code if you are the copyright owner. You can release your framework to the world using the GPL and use a different license for your clients.
You must be careful with the license you offer to your clients, can they change your framework's code? can they make derivative products? Depending on the ammount of freedom you want to give them you may need to create your own license for your clients.
I have just filled mine too. Since I am not an US resident (but have business with several US based companies) my voice may not sound as loud as individuals and businesses from the US, so please mod the parent and grand parent up su more people will join.
We have heard some of it, but mostly from user's comments. The article from this morning was focused on code and a way to track some contributions by Caldera employees to the kernel.
I for one welcome any news regarding this issue. Slashdot is known for it's huge Linux audience and is very handy to have a unified source of information and comments.
Why bother? A lot of us work on companies that use Linux (myself included), even some of us have helped our employers move from proprietary Unices to Linux (myself included), and in my case I also work as a independent consultant and have helped a lot of clients to make UN*X->Linux and WIN->Linux transitions (I make all the solutions using free software and license them under the GPL to my clients, if they want to redistribute the system or a modified version of it they must release the source, if not they are free to keep it secret) so this SCO issue is affecting (and has a lot of potential to affect really badly) my job and bussiness.
You never have too much information, and in any case, you can always not click on the link and let it pass. A lot of us even want to see more stories about this issue.
However, it's too late. Enough WordPerfect code has been stolen for the OSS project, Open Office, that there's no way to put the genie back in the bottle and profit from our hard earned IP.
Care to elaborate? AFAIK Corel for Linux has been Closed Source and OpenOffice comes from StarOffice (bought by Sun to StarDivision) which has no relation whatsoever to Corel or WordPerfect.
These are really serious claims, and the least anybody need right now (from OSS shops to closed source and proprietary ones) is another SCO spewing bull around.
If you have proof of your claims please elaborate.
Slashdot Mirror
This WorkStation thing is a big problem that can (and currently is) hold back more adoption of Linux in the desktop.
;)
We have reached a state where almost every WorkStation job can be performed efficiently on Linux, with a great selection of apps and tools that compare and in a lot of cases surpases their Win/Mac counterparts, but (unfortunately) the users have been taught to rely a lot more in the OS/Desktop than it should be, instead on the applications that implement the functionality.
If you ask Joe User "what is windows?" he will start talking about the task bar, the Start Menu and a lot of images that user has fixed in his mind. If you try to push linux on them, you must have a familiar look that they can be used to, even when they sit in a different computer. I'm not talking about us geeks but the everyday users that ultimately stack up to give Windows the 95% (or so) in the Desktop market.
I have said it before and will continue to say it, Linux has been ready for a long time for the Desktop, the applications are ready and even a lot of users are ready to use it, but the main goal of Linux is also holding it back: choice.
It's a complicated issue, the freedom of choice is what got us to use Linux, and I love to use gFTP and Evolution on KDE, but that freedom of choice is also scaring potential users away.
My vote goes to KDE too
#include
...
int main()
{
}
Hmm
[bigjocker@anacreon tmp]$ gcc test.c -Wall -o test
test.c: In function `main':
test.c:5: warning: control reaches end of non-void function
[bigjocker@anacreon tmp]$
Besides, I think SCO owns the copyright for the word main
Troll? funny as hell ....
I'm just returning from a week of vacation and on reexamining the problem I see your point (dont know if this is going to be read anyways). Don't know WTF happened to me last week, but slashdot should offer the posibility of deleting embarrasing posts.
Anyways, in none of my posts I referred to you as an stupid, and the one who brought harsh language to the thread was you.
And regarding the large sums of money, feel free to place bets (worked as a poker croupie for four years)
what are you smoking, buddy?
Not the same thing as you are, buddy.
When you open one door and you are presented with the chance to switch your selection, you have a new independent problem. No matter how you try and reduce the arguments using strong language, the fact is that the phisical action of blasting one door to ashes
1.- Has no effect whatsoever on the location of the prize. The prize will not switch places.
2.- When you are presented the choice of changing your mind, you are presented with a new problem, regardless of the ammount of doors that have been opened (or blasted) you still have in front of you two doors, each of one having the same probability of keeping the prize.
No matter what has been done, when you ask the player if she wants to change her selection, you are presenting a new problem, independent of previous incidents (blasting of doors). At that instant in time (you could argue that such things cant be measured) you have two doors with a 1/2 probability each.
That only applies for a series of matches. If you only have one chance, switching does not give you any advantage, because each of the 2 closed doors has the same probability of containing the prize. Look a it this way (you have only one shot):
You have 3 doors
* X X
A B C
The prize is on door A (the *), you pick door A and the host opens the door C:
* X
A B
You already picked door A, and regardless of the probabilities in the past step, this is a new problem, and you are reduced to a 1/2 probability. The probability of the 2nd state is independent of any state. So if you keep your decision or you switch is exactly the same.
Only with several chances you can, statistically, assert that switching increases the possibilities, but if you only have one shot, it does not matter.
Microsoft.com also pointed to a linux machine
... reminds me of the whole hotmail DNS thing a few years back (my favorite slashdot story ever):
...
jejeje
Merry christmas Microsoft, from the Linux comunity to you
I don't care if they use my donations to counter sue SCO. The Open SOurce Now fund is a charity, and they can help Red Hat if they please.
Is not the point of this whole issue fight against the FUDfest from SCO? And who are the ones that have _legally_ answered. There are the folks from Germany and Australia, but from the big folks (who will ultimately be the ones that can solve this whole issue, as has been said before, this is not a matter of justice but of money) we only have RedHat and IBM (for now) taking our side (their motives are part of another discussion since a lot of people disagrees with the angle IBM choose to atack).
IBM can fight all the way to the end of days in courts and will still have a lot of money in the bank, but Red Hat can't. If you feel uncomfortable with Red Hat using the donations to fight SCO then save your money, I'm puting my money where my mouth is and givin all I can spare to the fund.
BTW, I DO believe this whole issue has the potential to make a lot of damage to Linux, just see the parties involved (SCO, IBM, Microsoft, Sun, etc) and you will realize they have crushed more than one company/movement in the past.
Can you tell the difference between these two?:
u rcenow
opensourcenow@redhat.com
www.redhat.com/openso
In the older articles the Open Source Now fund had been anounced, but it was just an email address that I bet has been banged pretty hard the past few days (I know I used it and got no response back).
Now we get the whole "Open Source Now" movement with complete web-site and instructions to participate, but since nobody here RTFA we get 100s of comments calling for a dupe.
Really, if anybody wants to help in this hole issue just click the link and donate something.
Any chance we can stop giving this corporate protection racket so much free publicity?
You know you can NOT click on the article? If it bothers you so much, why not disable the Caldera/SCO topic from your preferences? Heck, how was your thinking process? "Lets click in this story that disgustes me so much, scroll dow, hit reply, write a troll comment about how sick are we with this SCO news thing".
Speak for yourself, I for one am grateful with the following Slashdot is doing to this case. Some of us (and our families) LIVE out of linux, and you can always NOT click the link and go read another story.
The word that keeps comming to my mind is: Microsoft.
They are a fortune 500 company, have had business with SCO this year regarding this UNIX licensing fiasco, and have opened the Open Source Test Lab. I'm pretty sure they would benefit a lot by licensing all the linux in their Test Lab with SCO, that way they support the case and fuel SCO's FUD machine.
I used this patch instead in my whole network.
You forgot DB Servers (MySQL, PostgreSQL) and that fortune thingie. Shame on you !!!
Linux Rocks (TM)
From the ZDNET article:
"We have asked the courts to declare no violation of intellectual property and trade secrets have occurred," Szulik said. "We've been patient, we've listened, but when our customers and the whole open-source community are threatened with innuendo and rumor, it's time to act."
They can count on all the money I can spare. We have waited for a long time for a Legal Fund to be formed and here is it, let's put our wallets where our mouth is and start helping our side with the real tool that can deliver this FUDfest to an end (in the end the truth or justice will not be the fundamental matter to settle this): money.
They could screw everybody and encrypt the images using a public key. They even could manage and encrypt the pixels of buffers at the CCD level and store it that way. That way only using their super secret private key you can use the CCD.
Let's do this, take your wife's pictures and send them to me, I will check that the copyright gets right to you.
I'm more interested on buying 16 of them and tearing them apart, for 160 bucks (plus some RadioShack parts) you get a 32Mp array that could be attached to a telescope or anything optical.
This is a bit of a worry for privacy concerns, given that if I want to keep something secret from the world and private just between me and my intended recipient I have one less option.
If you are using foreign languages or even lexically analyzable scemes to do your encription, you deserve what you get
www.TheOneRing.net shows spoiler this way: you must highlight the spoiler to be able to see it.
As a lot of people has pointed out already, he currently is in a mental institution, has quit high school and has had his social life destroyed. He is in his right to sue, and deserves a huge compensation.
You can dual license your code if you are the copyright owner. You can release your framework to the world using the GPL and use a different license for your clients.
You must be careful with the license you offer to your clients, can they change your framework's code? can they make derivative products? Depending on the ammount of freedom you want to give them you may need to create your own license for your clients.
I have just filled mine too. Since I am not an US resident (but have business with several US based companies) my voice may not sound as loud as individuals and businesses from the US, so please mod the parent and grand parent up su more people will join.
It has been anounced today that the long expected album "CowboyNeal in the Tub / Greatest Hits" will hit the digital shelves any time this week
We have heard some of it, but mostly from user's comments. The article from this morning was focused on code and a way to track some contributions by Caldera employees to the kernel.
I for one welcome any news regarding this issue. Slashdot is known for it's huge Linux audience and is very handy to have a unified source of information and comments.
Why bother? A lot of us work on companies that use Linux (myself included), even some of us have helped our employers move from proprietary Unices to Linux (myself included), and in my case I also work as a independent consultant and have helped a lot of clients to make UN*X->Linux and WIN->Linux transitions (I make all the solutions using free software and license them under the GPL to my clients, if they want to redistribute the system or a modified version of it they must release the source, if not they are free to keep it secret) so this SCO issue is affecting (and has a lot of potential to affect really badly) my job and bussiness.
You never have too much information, and in any case, you can always not click on the link and let it pass. A lot of us even want to see more stories about this issue.
However, it's too late. Enough WordPerfect code has been stolen for the OSS project, Open Office, that there's no way to put the genie back in the bottle and profit from our hard earned IP.
Care to elaborate? AFAIK Corel for Linux has been Closed Source and OpenOffice comes from StarOffice (bought by Sun to StarDivision) which has no relation whatsoever to Corel or WordPerfect.
These are really serious claims, and the least anybody need right now (from OSS shops to closed source and proprietary ones) is another SCO spewing bull around.
If you have proof of your claims please elaborate.