Yay free software. They ended up spending millions of dollars more over the Microsoft package. I'm sure training and attrition will offset whatever benefits they could have realized by avoiding the "forced upgrades", which SuSe will most certainly start doing eventually when they come to their senses, just like RH did. In any case, Microsoft was willing to defer the upgrade cycle for them. So it was more expensive and it will probably be about the same in the long run.
Since they will be using free software, all they will need from SuSe is to fix what gets broken. Besides, who is Microsoft to tell anyone when it they have to upgrade? If I'm happy tooling around in my '67 MicroBus no one is going to "force" me to buy new car.
I am not so sure. SuSE is a german company, thus the money stays within the german econonmy...
Just another example of how free software not only offers more choice, but stimulates competition too. With Linux, you have SuSe, Redhat, Gentoo, Debian, etc, Linux (Linii?). With Windows you just nothing but Microsoft.
I'm surprised this story was posted in the "media" section, actually. I figured it would grace the "Your Rights Online" section for sure. We usually see this sort of thing about copyright holders trying to halt the theft of their work in that section.
Somebody stole a copyright holders work? Well, isn't it lucky for them that so many people have been hard at work archiving these files just in case such a tragedy occurred. Perhaps if they ask nicely someone would even be nice enough to send them a copy to replace what they lost.
Look, I know this is Slashdot, and we all love Linux and hate Microsoft, but let's be realistic here. Apache just isn't ready for mission-critical enterprise level operations like this. This is a BIG DEAL. We're talking about electing the leader of the free world here, not serving the goatse photo.
No, we are talking about electing the "leader of the free world" only being elected by those who love Microsoft, and that my friend is> a BIG DEAL.
I just don't get. My desktop looks pretty damn good with 3d panels, zooming icons and all. Sky pilot classic with Mozilla is pretty damn sharp too. Whenever I boot into Windows it's like I've gone back in time. Maybe the "eye candies" should be installed by default instead of offered as add-ons as they are now? Those who don't want it can always remove it.
http://www.schneider-digital.de/html/download_at i. html
From the readme:
Graphics Accelerators:
ATI Radeon 8500, 9100, 9200, 9500, 9600, 9700, 9800, M9, M9+, M10
ATI FireGL 8700, 8800, E1, X1, Z1
Video Driver for Linux:
Driver Version 4.1.0-2.9.13
Driver Version 4.2.0-2.9.13
Driver Version 4.3.0-2.9.13
I don't think the argument is that their code can't be "un-GPL'd" so much, it's more of if their code is "un-GPL'd" then SCO has been distributing other people's copyrighted code without a proper license because they didn't follow the terms of the GPL.
I was replying to your "reasons not to distribute" comment. I doubt will see eye to eye on this, and being copyrights are a favorite topic here I'm sure will have the opportunity to debate in a more current thread.
Let's say I write an "original" poem such as "Roses are Red, Violets are Blue" but I don't publish my work. You come along and also are inspired by the color of roses and violets and write the exact same words. You are so proud of your "original" poem that you do decide to publish yours. Not only have you violated my copyright despite not copying anything, you have also wasted time that could have been better invested creating a poem about the beauty of daffodils and carnations instead.
Non-distributed copyrighted works do nothing to "further the arts and sciences", and may in fact hinder them when it comes to source code because of the repeated use of common variable names code structure.
I can think of plenty of very valid reasons why a creator might not want their work distributed. Without copyright, they would not be able to make that decision. Thus discouraging people from distributing their work.
Protecting non-distribution encourages distribution how?
When you share your car or your TV, you no longer have posession of the car or TV. Unlike audio, when you send a file to someone, you still have the original and are not denied the ability to use it.
Let's say we hop in the car and I'll stick Abby Road in the player while we discuss this sharing possessions thing some more.
Why should a hardware supplier have the right to dictate what the hardware is used for? There have been many instances of things being put to uses which the manufacturer did not even imagine when the product was first released, and sometimes these uses have become more popular than the original purpose of the item - and have increased sales of the item.
You're talking about innovation here, and the seller has a monolpoly on innovation.
even though I have no stake in this, I've gotta admit that I'm really disappointed in these guys. Normally, they'd only have to worry about the DMCA. Hacking an unshared system you own is not a crime in any way. Telling people about your experiences isn't either. The only concern is that this technology can circumvent systems designed to enforce copyrights, thereby making it a violation of the DMCA.
No, it doesn't. It only allows the X-Box owner to put what code he pleases on the machine. The creator of the program that circumvents the copyright is the one who would be violating the DMCA.
Though I agree with some of what you say the bottom line is the purchaser of an X-Box owns the machine, not Microsoft. He can do what ever he wants with the hardware once he has the sales receipt in his hand.
The GPL is a license under which the author expects to be compensated by the contribution of others.
As far as the rest, we are talking about what should be and what is, at least as far as the Constitution is concerned. The Constitution states that the purpose of copyrights are "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." Not distributing a work completely defeats the whole purpose of having copyrights in the first place.
Secondly : What is the point of a compromise if one side doesn't hold up to their part of the bargain?
Copyright is a compromise between creators and the public, giving creators control over their works so that they will be encouraged to make more.
If this control is simply an illusion - that is to say they don't actually have any control, the public doesn't stick to their side of the bargain - then where is the encouragement?
Society's part of the bargain is to make it illegal for the work to be copied without compensation for the creator, the creator's part of the bargain is to make the work available for public consumption. If the creator does not make the work available he is not holding up his end of the bargain, not society.
If the creator has not released their product into the public domain, it's disrespectful to them to trade the ROM images.
Being that the purpose of copyrights is to make works available to the public, why are creators surprised that the public disrepects them when they don't make their works available?
Slashdot Mirror
Yay free software. They ended up spending millions of dollars more over the Microsoft package. I'm sure training and attrition will offset whatever benefits they could have realized by avoiding the "forced upgrades", which SuSe will most certainly start doing eventually when they come to their senses, just like RH did. In any case, Microsoft was willing to defer the upgrade cycle for them. So it was more expensive and it will probably be about the same in the long run.
Since they will be using free software, all they will need from SuSe is to fix what gets broken. Besides, who is Microsoft to tell anyone when it they have to upgrade? If I'm happy tooling around in my '67 MicroBus no one is going to "force" me to buy new car.
I am not so sure. SuSE is a german company, thus the money stays within the german econonmy...
Just another example of how free software not only offers more choice, but stimulates competition too. With Linux, you have SuSe, Redhat, Gentoo, Debian, etc, Linux (Linii?). With Windows you just nothing but Microsoft.
which comes from a tax placed on your high-speed DSL line. And, iirc, soon from your cable internet :[
Well, I guess they could just start adding taxes to the food rural areas produce instead to keep them connected to the rest of the country.
I'm surprised this story was posted in the "media" section, actually. I figured it would grace the "Your Rights Online" section for sure. We usually see this sort of thing about copyright holders trying to halt the theft of their work in that section.
Somebody stole a copyright holders work? Well, isn't it lucky for them that so many people have been hard at work archiving these files just in case such a tragedy occurred. Perhaps if they ask nicely someone would even be nice enough to send them a copy to replace what they lost.
Look, I know this is Slashdot, and we all love Linux and hate Microsoft, but let's be realistic here. Apache just isn't ready for mission-critical enterprise level operations like this. This is a BIG DEAL. We're talking about electing the leader of the free world here, not serving the goatse photo.
No, we are talking about electing the "leader of the free world" only being elected by those who love Microsoft, and that my friend is> a BIG DEAL.
I just don't get. My desktop looks pretty damn good with 3d panels, zooming icons and all. Sky pilot classic with Mozilla is pretty damn sharp too. Whenever I boot into Windows it's like I've gone back in time. Maybe the "eye candies" should be installed by default instead of offered as add-ons as they are now? Those who don't want it can always remove it.
These work for my 9200:
t i. html
h ig hlight=ati+drivers+dual+display
http://www.schneider-digital.de/html/download_a
From the readme:
Graphics Accelerators:
ATI Radeon 8500, 9100, 9200, 9500, 9600, 9700, 9800, M9, M9+, M10
ATI FireGL 8700, 8800, E1, X1, Z1
Video Driver for Linux:
Driver Version 4.1.0-2.9.13
Driver Version 4.2.0-2.9.13
Driver Version 4.3.0-2.9.13
Here's a discussion concerning your problem:
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=24116&
In the unlikely case that the GPL doesn't hold up, then under what license has SCO been distributing other peoples copyrighted code?
I don't think the argument is that their code can't be "un-GPL'd" so much, it's more of if their code is "un-GPL'd" then SCO has been distributing other people's copyrighted code without a proper license because they didn't follow the terms of the GPL.
1: A court rules that SCO code has been put into Linux by someone other than SCO.
Possible...
2: A court rules that the GPL is non binding upon source code previously released by SCO.
Then SCO will need to negotiate proper licenses for the code it has been distributing.
3: A court rules that any party using such source is and has been in violation of SCO's patents, and is open game for damages.
What patents?
Right so they appoint SCO as guardians of the Linux code.
I doubt a court could do that because it would violate the copyrights of the hundreds who contributed to the kernel source tree.
The same way you would compile MS's kernel if you could manage to find a working version of Windows, of course.
...but Red Hat doesn't have a gun.
Actually they do, and its a Rapid Phire Machine gun.
I was replying to your "reasons not to distribute" comment. I doubt will see eye to eye on this, and being copyrights are a favorite topic here I'm sure will have the opportunity to debate in a more current thread.
Let's say I write an "original" poem such as "Roses are Red, Violets are Blue" but I don't publish my work. You come along and also are inspired by the color of roses and violets and write the exact same words. You are so proud of your "original" poem that you do decide to publish yours. Not only have you violated my copyright despite not copying anything, you have also wasted time that could have been better invested creating a poem about the beauty of daffodils and carnations instead.
Non-distributed copyrighted works do nothing to "further the arts and sciences", and may in fact hinder them when it comes to source code because of the repeated use of common variable names code structure.
I can think of plenty of very valid reasons why a creator might not want their work distributed. Without copyright, they would not be able to make that decision. Thus discouraging people from distributing their work.
Protecting non-distribution encourages distribution how?
When you share your car or your TV, you no longer have posession of the car or TV. Unlike audio, when you send a file to someone, you still have the original and are not denied the ability to use it.
Let's say we hop in the car and I'll stick Abby Road in the player while we discuss this sharing possessions thing some more.
Because you buy an Xbox with a license.
Only the X-Box code is licensed, and getting rid of the is the whole purpose of the exploit.
Why should a hardware supplier have the right to dictate what the hardware is used for? There have been many instances of things being put to uses which the manufacturer did not even imagine when the product was first released, and sometimes these uses have become more popular than the original purpose of the item - and have increased sales of the item.
You're talking about innovation here, and the seller has a monolpoly on innovation.
even though I have no stake in this, I've gotta admit that I'm really disappointed in these guys. Normally, they'd only have to worry about the DMCA. Hacking an unshared system you own is not a crime in any way. Telling people about your experiences isn't either. The only concern is that this technology can circumvent systems designed to enforce copyrights, thereby making it a violation of the DMCA.
No, it doesn't. It only allows the X-Box owner to put what code he pleases on the machine. The creator of the program that circumvents the copyright is the one who would be violating the DMCA.
The one you bought from us, knowing full well that you were not permitted to break into it?
That's right...it only makes sense that the seller can tell the new owner who can enter his new house.
Though I agree with some of what you say the bottom line is the purchaser of an X-Box owns the machine, not Microsoft. He can do what ever he wants with the hardware once he has the sales receipt in his hand.
The GPL is a license under which the author expects to be compensated by the contribution of others.
As far as the rest, we are talking about what should be and what is, at least as far as the Constitution is concerned. The Constitution states that the purpose of copyrights are "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." Not distributing a work completely defeats the whole purpose of having copyrights in the first place.
Secondly : What is the point of a compromise if one side doesn't hold up to their part of the bargain?
Copyright is a compromise between creators and the public, giving creators control over their works so that they will be encouraged to make more.
If this control is simply an illusion - that is to say they don't actually have any control, the public doesn't stick to their side of the bargain - then where is the encouragement?
Society's part of the bargain is to make it illegal for the work to be copied without compensation for the creator, the creator's part of the bargain is to make the work available for public consumption. If the creator does not make the work available he is not holding up his end of the bargain, not society.
Well, one follows copyright, one doesn't.
One says I respect the creator, one doesn't.
If the creator has not released their product into the public domain, it's disrespectful to them to trade the ROM images.
Being that the purpose of copyrights is to make works available to the public, why are creators surprised that the public disrepects them when they don't make their works available?