I think the recall relates to something more than the general trend toward laptops running hotter...
But to your point, a few things.
First, heat as waste energy... well, sort of. All of the energy that goes into your computer comes back out. (Remember, using energy doesn't mean the energy is gone.) If we exclude the energy that's deliberately converted to light for the monitor, a good chunk of that is ultimately coming out as heat regardless of what happens to it in the mean time.
Yes, a more energy-efficient processor (and other hardware) will run cooler, all else being equal. However, dividing the energy that goes into a computer into "useful" vs. "waste heat" isn't really accurate.
But my real point is, it's not as if a laptop today is equivalent to a laptop 5 years ago except less energy-efficient. Newer laptops are smaller, which makes it harder to dissipate the heat generated. Also, processors are faster (and by other measures "more powerful"). Transistor counts go up, so does power consumed... and again, "consumed" mostly means "dissipated as heat".
I wouldn't say that we're "designing hotter laptops"; I'd say we're designing smaller/faster laptops and increases in efficiency haven't kept up wtih the level of cool running we'd become acustomed to.
"Nobody (not even RMS) is trying to brand Linux as a GNU project."
Well, nobody except the summary author who calls it "the GNU OS" and doesn't mention Linux until much later on. Which is, you know, what I was responding to in the first place. But yeah, if we exclude the context of this discussion, I'm sure nobody is doing it.
"Do you understand what the kernel does?"
Yes I do, but what does my personal understanding of the anatomy of an OS have to do with anything?
"There are a whole host of other programs that need to run in order for you to do *anything at all*."
I can't do anything at all with my processor unless I have a whole host of other hardware. My processor is, nonetheless, not an HP. Nor does it take on the brand name of the motherboard manufacturer. Or the keyboard or monitor. Etc.
The system as a whole could be called an HP, just as a Linux distribution can often be called Debian, or Ubuntu, or Red Hat, or Slackware.
But none of that justifies calling the collection of Linux distributions "the GNU operating system".
"But as your continued posts show exceedingly well, most others have no understanding at all -- even when it is explained to them"
I certainly hope, in evaluating my understanding of what GNU does, that you have more to go on than the fact that I reach conclusions contrary to yours. I'd hate to think you were incapable of debate at an adult level.
See, when I address the install set, someone posts a reply about the dev environment. And when I address the dev environment, someone posts a reply about the install set.
In other words, I didn't "miss the point"; I was addressing a point that happens to not be your point.
You need to accept that not every reply need address your pet issue to be valid and correct.
Actually, I was comparing the role of MS software to the role of GNU software.
There are many products out there that would not exist without the MS utilities; yet things built with those tools are not somehow "Microsoft"-branded.
The AC to whom I was replying suggested that the Linux developers' use of GNU tools was a reason to brand Linux as a GNU project. It is not.
So in hunting down unbiased sources, I should (1) take the word of someone who calls one side of the debate a "toe-rag", and (2) go to a website owned/operated by the other side of the debate?
I've read the GNU take on the issue, and it hasn't convinced me why GNU should claim credit for a non-GNU project.
That's exactly the point. The GNU tools are not the OS, and in fact can be used by many OS's, exactly as you say. They are a very nice compliment to Linux, though.
"Which needs the other more?"
Note that you can run Linux without the Gnu tools (or any similar toolset); but you cannot run the Gnu tools without a kernel. So, which needs the other more?
Though you seem to imply it, what you're observing is not a structural dependency of Linux on GNU. What you're obseving is that while there are many free kernel projects, there are not many utility sets. Being the more unique part, though, doesn't magically make utilities the keystone of an OS.
"if you bothered to listen to the video "...and yet I wasn't commenting on the video.
The Kernel is a "small part" of an OS? I don't think so. But hey, I could be wrong... So write one under the Gnu project and be done with it.
Linux (the kernel) would go on without Linus because of the work Linus did and the community he built. The same is true of RMS's contribution to GNU. Neither depends on its creator today, but neither would exist without its creator's efforts. If you haven't undertaken a similar effort to build a self-sustaining community yourself, you're in no position to marginalize either of them.
And, "who you/I/anyone would like to hang out with" has nothing to do with any of it. I know people I'd be happy to have a beer with that I'd hate to work with, and vice versa. So what?
We can't even explain why the probes we've fired into space don't go as far as we think they should in the time we think they should. Yet, although unable to explain the motion of a simple object in space, we think we're ready to model the dynamics of a star system forming, and consider the results predictive?
Oh, we're talking about Linux. You know, I'm not sure if Linus has changed his tune, but last I heard he didn't even like calling it Gnu/Linux (and as he's the kernel's primary author and maintainer, I tend to give his point of view some respect on that issue). Going the extra step and taking Linux out of the name altogether, though, is just plain intellectual dishonesty. Linux is not a GNU OS -- much less "The GNU OS". It is an OS that uses GNU utilities.
Ok... however, reporting the names of the accused is not vigilanteism. If it were, it would be illegal in all media.
The judge points out a valid problem with the way information persists on the Internet -- particularly in that caches like Google's become a permanent, public, and for practical purposes impossible to update/correct record of information. The record is so tightly frozen in time that "future context" (such as a person later being found not guilty) is absent (or at least you have to go looking for it).
This order is a stop-gap. I support what the judge is trying to do, and even think it's good that he approaches it this way if only because it draws attention to the issue -- but I don't think it's a viable long-term solution (and I suspect the judge knows this as well).
So it's ok with you if MS comes along with a new browser product called FireFox? After all, that's just two common words rammed together, so you seem to be saying that it can't be a defensable trademark...
Trademark is always a little tricky, but the fact is it is intended to provide protection for marks that are distinct in a particular context, and there's no reason such marks cannot be made entirely of common elements. Creativity is not required for a trademark. To copyright something you (theoretically) need creative content, but that's a totally separate issue.
So... you expect a settlement to consist of the plaintif making concessions to the defense? That would strike me as highly atypical, actually.
Sure, a lot of folks would prefer for the case to have ended differently -- perhaps with a judgement for the defense, or a counter-claim of some sort.
But that wasn't my question. warrior_s asked what kind of settlement it is. I asked what he/she expects a settlement to look like, other than what this one looks like. Once you know it's a settlement, it doesn't seem to me like you'd be that surprised about what it says...
Doesn't look like that's the case to me. The settlement says
1) she will pay them monetary damages, which escalate if she misses a payment,
AND
2) she submits to an injunction.
If, as they would have us believe, the RIAA really thinks everything the injunction covers would constitute a copyright violation, then I'm not sure the purpose of the injunction. Stiffer penalties? Simpler (for the prosecution) procedures to enforce?...??? Soemthing I'm curious about, anyway.
That's what a settlement is; it sets terms for ending the litigation, in this case (and I think pretty typically) including a negotiated monetary award and an injunction...
Heaven forbid you should ever walk a mile in her shoes 'cause then you really might know what it's like to have to choose....oh, geez, I hope that wasn't too much to qualify as fair use...
It's not that SCO would've won if they'd owned the copyrights; it's that of the many reasons they could lose, the first one brought to fruition is that (ridiculously) they didn't even own the copyrights in the first place.
Had they owned the copyrights, then eventually they'd have had to prove infringement -- something they repeatedly refused to do, using excuses that were both frivolous and probably detrimental to their own rights (if they had any such rights to begin with). I think most people at this point doubt that they could've provided such proof -- in which case, Novell would be equally unable to provide such proof even if they wanted to pursue such a course.
That's the thing to remember -- SCO was probably on a losing course even before the bombshell that cut the whole farce short (and yes, 5 years is "short" relative to how they might have dragged this on if they were able). They never produced evidence of infringing code. They publically refused to do so. There were some FUD campaigns mascarading as presentation of evidence to limited audiences, but nothing of substance.
I disagree. I think you have the wrong idea about what "open source" means.
Open source pertains to the code base, not to any particular repository of the code. You are quite free to read, modify, and redistribute (with modifications) the code. You cannot compell Linus to incorporate your changes into his version, any more than he can compell you to revert a change from your version.
That Linus has a widely-respected "official" version is a moot point. It really just means he has an audience for his product (i.e. the version of the code he/his team host), and you may not have one for yours (a modified version you create but which isn't accepted as part of his product).
Much like free (as in speech) speech, open source doesn't guarantee you that anyone will listen (where "listen" in this context means "run your version of the code").
As for MS -- well, getting a job at MS isn't the same as getting a job that lets you make major modifications to the Windows kernel. I'd say the sitaution with regard to the high-profile products (i.e. Windows on oen hand, the "official" Linux kernel on the other) is about the same. The difference is that you can't modify Windows without being part of the official team. Not to distribute (even if you can find an audience for your work). Not even for your own personal use. That's the difference between open and closed source.
A post leads with "I did X and it defeated the tool".
The author then quickly qualifies that he/she didn't do X, but is just guessing (in contradiction to the claims of those familiar with the tool) that maybe this would defeat the tool.
That's really no more sound than an argument that everyone involved in a p2p network is enabling copyright infringement and should be punished.
Anyway, it's actually the customers who finance the behavior. To truly carry your argument forward, we should punish anyone who buys a CD from an RIAA label. I hope it goes without saying that I think that's a horrible idea.
Now, if a person deliberately funds criminal activity, then criminal culpability is provided for (conspiracy). Of course, just like any other criminal case, you have to actually prove that's what happened on an individual basis -- you know, due process, burden of proof, all that? Imposing sanctions on a criminal basis against an individual without proving a case against that individual is unconstitutional for a reason.
If you can't prove criminal culpability, you can look toward civil liability -- and coincidentally, the corporation can be held liable for civil damages.
It's very easy to pick and choose situations where you want to cast a wider net for punishment; but we are a nation of laws, so I'd first think carefully about how it will look to you when the shoe is on the other foot.
"We can instead punish everybody responsible by seizing/freezing assets and holding all stocks on the trader markets."
The shareholders are very rarely culpable for criminal offenses. If the decision-makers are stockholders, they will represent a single-digit percentage of stock ownership in aggregate; and even then, it's a rare case that every one of them would be involved in a criminal offense. (A crime could be committed in a corporate context by a non-shareholder, by the way.) Seizing or destroying the value of non-criminals' assets in response to a crime doesn't sound like a very good governing policy to me.
I guess the question is, if (as I assume) you wouldn't back the idae of "guild by association because he lives in such-and-such city", or "guilt by association because he belongs to such-and-such church", why would you back this idea of "guilt by association because he holds stock in such-and-such company"?
"IF we can find wrongdoing specifically from 1 or 2 people, charge them TOO."
Charge two entities for the same instance of the same offense?
Perhaps the question you should ask is, why would you want to extend the liability shield of a corporation-as-fictional-person to include excusing the real persons who make up the corporation from any punishment for their criminal wrongdoings?
Slashdot Mirror
I think the recall relates to something more than the general trend toward laptops running hotter...
But to your point, a few things.
First, heat as waste energy... well, sort of. All of the energy that goes into your computer comes back out. (Remember, using energy doesn't mean the energy is gone.) If we exclude the energy that's deliberately converted to light for the monitor, a good chunk of that is ultimately coming out as heat regardless of what happens to it in the mean time.
Yes, a more energy-efficient processor (and other hardware) will run cooler, all else being equal. However, dividing the energy that goes into a computer into "useful" vs. "waste heat" isn't really accurate.
But my real point is, it's not as if a laptop today is equivalent to a laptop 5 years ago except less energy-efficient. Newer laptops are smaller, which makes it harder to dissipate the heat generated. Also, processors are faster (and by other measures "more powerful"). Transistor counts go up, so does power consumed... and again, "consumed" mostly means "dissipated as heat".
I wouldn't say that we're "designing hotter laptops"; I'd say we're designing smaller/faster laptops and increases in efficiency haven't kept up wtih the level of cool running we'd become acustomed to.
"Nobody (not even RMS) is trying to brand Linux as a GNU project."
Well, nobody except the summary author who calls it "the GNU OS" and doesn't mention Linux until much later on. Which is, you know, what I was responding to in the first place. But yeah, if we exclude the context of this discussion, I'm sure nobody is doing it.
"Do you understand what the kernel does?"
Yes I do, but what does my personal understanding of the anatomy of an OS have to do with anything?
"There are a whole host of other programs that need to run in order for you to do *anything at all*."
I can't do anything at all with my processor unless I have a whole host of other hardware. My processor is, nonetheless, not an HP. Nor does it take on the brand name of the motherboard manufacturer. Or the keyboard or monitor. Etc.
The system as a whole could be called an HP, just as a Linux distribution can often be called Debian, or Ubuntu, or Red Hat, or Slackware.
But none of that justifies calling the collection of Linux distributions "the GNU operating system".
"But as your continued posts show exceedingly well, most others have no understanding at all -- even when it is explained to them"
I certainly hope, in evaluating my understanding of what GNU does, that you have more to go on than the fact that I reach conclusions contrary to yours. I'd hate to think you were incapable of debate at an adult level.
See, when I address the install set, someone posts a reply about the dev environment. And when I address the dev environment, someone posts a reply about the install set.
In other words, I didn't "miss the point"; I was addressing a point that happens to not be your point.
You need to accept that not every reply need address your pet issue to be valid and correct.
Actually, I was comparing the role of MS software to the role of GNU software.
There are many products out there that would not exist without the MS utilities; yet things built with those tools are not somehow "Microsoft"-branded.
The AC to whom I was replying suggested that the Linux developers' use of GNU tools was a reason to brand Linux as a GNU project. It is not.
"Firstly Linux is not 25 years old, but it is 25 years since the inception of the GNU project (NOT 25 years since we had a Free operating system)."
I'm not the one who said "the GNU OS is 25 years old". I'm the one who criticized that mischaracterization. You're welcome.
"the GNU project is still going strong"
Who said otherwise? Sounds like you have some insecurities to work out.
"have a read at http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html where the issue is presented rationally and without any whining."
So in hunting down unbiased sources, I should (1) take the word of someone who calls one side of the debate a "toe-rag", and (2) go to a website owned/operated by the other side of the debate?
I've read the GNU take on the issue, and it hasn't convinced me why GNU should claim credit for a non-GNU project.
So when you build in a Windows environment do you brand your product "Microsoft"?
Didn't think so.
"Try using Linux without GNU tools.
Now try using GNU tools on other OSes."
That's exactly the point. The GNU tools are not the OS, and in fact can be used by many OS's, exactly as you say. They are a very nice compliment to Linux, though.
"Which needs the other more?"
Note that you can run Linux without the Gnu tools (or any similar toolset); but you cannot run the Gnu tools without a kernel. So, which needs the other more?
Though you seem to imply it, what you're observing is not a structural dependency of Linux on GNU. What you're obseving is that while there are many free kernel projects, there are not many utility sets. Being the more unique part, though, doesn't magically make utilities the keystone of an OS.
"if you bothered to listen to the video " ...and yet I wasn't commenting on the video.
The Kernel is a "small part" of an OS? I don't think so. But hey, I could be wrong... So write one under the Gnu project and be done with it.
Linux (the kernel) would go on without Linus because of the work Linus did and the community he built. The same is true of RMS's contribution to GNU. Neither depends on its creator today, but neither would exist without its creator's efforts. If you haven't undertaken a similar effort to build a self-sustaining community yourself, you're in no position to marginalize either of them.
And, "who you/I/anyone would like to hang out with" has nothing to do with any of it. I know people I'd be happy to have a beer with that I'd hate to work with, and vice versa. So what?
I said 'linux is an OS that uses gnu utilities'.
You said 'most of the utilities are from the gnu project'.
Sounds like I'm factually right.
(BTW, down-modding for factual disagreement is an abuse of the moderation system. Just FYI.)
My first thought as well.
We can't even explain why the probes we've fired into space don't go as far as we think they should in the time we think they should. Yet, although unable to explain the motion of a simple object in space, we think we're ready to model the dynamics of a star system forming, and consider the results predictive?
Ah, I see I've drawn a "-1 don't agree with you" moderation. How unexpected.
The GNU OS? What, Herd?
Oh, we're talking about Linux. You know, I'm not sure if Linus has changed his tune, but last I heard he didn't even like calling it Gnu/Linux (and as he's the kernel's primary author and maintainer, I tend to give his point of view some respect on that issue). Going the extra step and taking Linux out of the name altogether, though, is just plain intellectual dishonesty. Linux is not a GNU OS -- much less "The GNU OS". It is an OS that uses GNU utilities.
Ok... however, reporting the names of the accused is not vigilanteism. If it were, it would be illegal in all media.
The judge points out a valid problem with the way information persists on the Internet -- particularly in that caches like Google's become a permanent, public, and for practical purposes impossible to update/correct record of information. The record is so tightly frozen in time that "future context" (such as a person later being found not guilty) is absent (or at least you have to go looking for it).
This order is a stop-gap. I support what the judge is trying to do, and even think it's good that he approaches it this way if only because it draws attention to the issue -- but I don't think it's a viable long-term solution (and I suspect the judge knows this as well).
So it's ok with you if MS comes along with a new browser product called FireFox? After all, that's just two common words rammed together, so you seem to be saying that it can't be a defensable trademark...
Trademark is always a little tricky, but the fact is it is intended to provide protection for marks that are distinct in a particular context, and there's no reason such marks cannot be made entirely of common elements. Creativity is not required for a trademark. To copyright something you (theoretically) need creative content, but that's a totally separate issue.
So... you expect a settlement to consist of the plaintif making concessions to the defense? That would strike me as highly atypical, actually.
Sure, a lot of folks would prefer for the case to have ended differently -- perhaps with a judgement for the defense, or a counter-claim of some sort.
But that wasn't my question. warrior_s asked what kind of settlement it is. I asked what he/she expects a settlement to look like, other than what this one looks like. Once you know it's a settlement, it doesn't seem to me like you'd be that surprised about what it says...
Doesn't look like that's the case to me. The settlement says
1) she will pay them monetary damages, which escalate if she misses a payment,
AND
2) she submits to an injunction.
If, as they would have us believe, the RIAA really thinks everything the injunction covers would constitute a copyright violation, then I'm not sure the purpose of the injunction. Stiffer penalties? Simpler (for the prosecution) procedures to enforce? ...??? Soemthing I'm curious about, anyway.
Ok, I'll bite... what more were you looking for?
That's what a settlement is; it sets terms for ending the litigation, in this case (and I think pretty typically) including a negotiated monetary award and an injunction...
What is it you think is missing?
Heaven forbid you should ever walk a mile in her shoes ...oh, geez, I hope that wasn't too much to qualify as fair use...
'cause then you really might know what it's like to have to choose.
It's not that SCO would've won if they'd owned the copyrights; it's that of the many reasons they could lose, the first one brought to fruition is that (ridiculously) they didn't even own the copyrights in the first place.
Had they owned the copyrights, then eventually they'd have had to prove infringement -- something they repeatedly refused to do, using excuses that were both frivolous and probably detrimental to their own rights (if they had any such rights to begin with). I think most people at this point doubt that they could've provided such proof -- in which case, Novell would be equally unable to provide such proof even if they wanted to pursue such a course.
That's the thing to remember -- SCO was probably on a losing course even before the bombshell that cut the whole farce short (and yes, 5 years is "short" relative to how they might have dragged this on if they were able). They never produced evidence of infringing code. They publically refused to do so. There were some FUD campaigns mascarading as presentation of evidence to limited audiences, but nothing of substance.
I disagree. I think you have the wrong idea about what "open source" means.
Open source pertains to the code base, not to any particular repository of the code. You are quite free to read, modify, and redistribute (with modifications) the code. You cannot compell Linus to incorporate your changes into his version, any more than he can compell you to revert a change from your version.
That Linus has a widely-respected "official" version is a moot point. It really just means he has an audience for his product (i.e. the version of the code he/his team host), and you may not have one for yours (a modified version you create but which isn't accepted as part of his product).
Much like free (as in speech) speech, open source doesn't guarantee you that anyone will listen (where "listen" in this context means "run your version of the code").
As for MS -- well, getting a job at MS isn't the same as getting a job that lets you make major modifications to the Windows kernel. I'd say the sitaution with regard to the high-profile products (i.e. Windows on oen hand, the "official" Linux kernel on the other) is about the same. The difference is that you can't modify Windows without being part of the official team. Not to distribute (even if you can find an audience for your work). Not even for your own personal use. That's the difference between open and closed source.
Let me get this straight.
A post leads with "I did X and it defeated the tool".
The author then quickly qualifies that he/she didn't do X, but is just guessing (in contradiction to the claims of those familiar with the tool) that maybe this would defeat the tool.
And that draws moderation as "insightful".
Guess the bar's pretty low today.
But in Soviet Russia, bandwidth gets you!
That's really no more sound than an argument that everyone involved in a p2p network is enabling copyright infringement and should be punished.
Anyway, it's actually the customers who finance the behavior. To truly carry your argument forward, we should punish anyone who buys a CD from an RIAA label. I hope it goes without saying that I think that's a horrible idea.
Now, if a person deliberately funds criminal activity, then criminal culpability is provided for (conspiracy). Of course, just like any other criminal case, you have to actually prove that's what happened on an individual basis -- you know, due process, burden of proof, all that? Imposing sanctions on a criminal basis against an individual without proving a case against that individual is unconstitutional for a reason.
If you can't prove criminal culpability, you can look toward civil liability -- and coincidentally, the corporation can be held liable for civil damages.
It's very easy to pick and choose situations where you want to cast a wider net for punishment; but we are a nation of laws, so I'd first think carefully about how it will look to you when the shoe is on the other foot.
"We can instead punish everybody responsible by seizing/freezing assets and holding all stocks on the trader markets."
The shareholders are very rarely culpable for criminal offenses. If the decision-makers are stockholders, they will represent a single-digit percentage of stock ownership in aggregate; and even then, it's a rare case that every one of them would be involved in a criminal offense. (A crime could be committed in a corporate context by a non-shareholder, by the way.) Seizing or destroying the value of non-criminals' assets in response to a crime doesn't sound like a very good governing policy to me.
I guess the question is, if (as I assume) you wouldn't back the idae of "guild by association because he lives in such-and-such city", or "guilt by association because he belongs to such-and-such church", why would you back this idea of "guilt by association because he holds stock in such-and-such company"?
"IF we can find wrongdoing specifically from 1 or 2 people, charge them TOO."
Charge two entities for the same instance of the same offense?
Perhaps the question you should ask is, why would you want to extend the liability shield of a corporation-as-fictional-person to include excusing the real persons who make up the corporation from any punishment for their criminal wrongdoings?