Not quite the same as what you're talking about, but I got my wife a USB-keydrive with the mp3 player, headphone jack and controls built into it. 256MB with built in Li-ion battery that recharges from the USB port, and earbuds integrated into the neck strap. The brand is Magicstar and it cost me about $120, IIRC.
The first drive he bought had a different part number, as you can see by looking at the close-up pics he took of the labels.
Also, firmware can be changed. All it takes is a utility and a.bin file, just like flashing the BIOS on your motherboard (except you can usually do it in Windows). I would contact tech support first, though, and make sure the firmware you need is compatable with the different hardware. You'll probably have to contact them anyway to get the.bin.
Lastly, if you plan on trying this at home you need to know that Seagate and IBM/Hitachi (and, I presume, other vendors, but those are the only ones I deal with in a professional capacity) classify drives in catagories, like "generic 80GB 7200RPM ATA100" and there are often several part numbers that satisfy that description which the vendor considers interchangable for the purposes of warranty replacement (sometimes that isn't really true, which is the only reason I know this, but usually it is). Basically that just means that there's no real guarantee that you'll get the exact same drive. I've been able to get around that by making enough noise, but I also was acting as an agent of a $25billion company, so YMMV.
IBM doesn't take this risk; they install it on the hard drive as a service for, and under contract to, the hardware purchaser, which makes it as if the purchaser did it, legally.
IBM is conservative as always, and goes much further to protect itself than it needs to. That's probably a good idea in their situation, but still adds needless complication.
I would say, though, that while the copy made to the hard drive may be protected under a special exemption, it would also be protected under Fair Use. After all, it is in many cases required to install on a hard drive in order to use the software, and the right to use it is protected under Fair Use.
Either way, it isn't something that's restricted under copyright law, and thus you don't need to agree to the GPL in order to do it.
My analogy is not flawed at all. Books and software are governed by the exact same laws. The flaw is in your understanding of what "distribution" means in this context.
The important thing to remember about the GPL is that it doesn't take away any rights you normally have under copyright law. That includes Fair Use and First Sale. First Sale means that you have the right to resell a copyrighted work without the permission of the copyright holder as long as you are not publishing it (copyright governs the right to copy, not the right to use). Fair Use means that you have the right to make copies that are required in the normal use of the software (meaning the installation copy on your hard drive and the running copy(s) in RAM). Fair Use also allows you to make a copy for backup purposes, but that really isn't relevant here.
The important thing to remember about copyright in general is that you don't need a license to use a copyrighted work. You only need a license to publish it or a work substantially derived from it. You're probably thinking to yourself something like "why do I need to agree with EULAs to use most proprietary software?" The simple answer is: You don't! If you can find a way to use the software without agreeing to the license, that is perfectly legal. In other words; the only reason you need to agree to Microsoft's license to install Windows is because that's how Microsoft set up the installer. There is absolutely no legal reason why an end user needs to agree to a EULA.
The only thing the GPL covers is publication, and that means making copies for reasons other than what is protected under Fair Use. For practical purposes, that means making copies to sell or give away to other people. This is what is meant by "distribution" in the GPL. If you aren't actually making the copies, the GPL doesn't apply to you.
What IBM does is buy a copy of Linux from, say, Red Hat, install it on behalf of the customer as a value added service, and then ship that same copy of Linux to the customer as part of the total package the customer has purchased. At no point in this process does IBM do anything which would require them to agree to the terms of the GPL, since you only have to agree to it when you do something with the software that would otherwise be prohibited under copyright law. To summarize:
Reselling the software is protected under First Sale, and thus not subject to the GPL.
Installing the software is protected under Fair Use, and thus not subject to the GPL.
Using the software is protected under Fair Use, and thus not subject to the GPL.
Since that covers everything IBM is doing in order to offer preconfigured Linux systems, they are free and clear. Note also that First Sale means that all those stores selling boxed distros are free and clear as well.
You should also be aware of how that pertains to you as a user. Basically, you are not bound by the GPL as a user. It simply doesn't apply to you and you are not required to agree to it in order to acquire, install, or use GPLed software. If you want to make copies for all your friends, or to sell, then you are bound by the GPL. If you want to create a derivative work and distribute that outside of your organization, then you are bound by the GPL. That's it. If you aren't making non-Fair Use copies of a GPLed work or a work derived from a GPLed work you aren't bound by the GPL.
You make some excellent points, and several of them I hadn't considered, but I also think you missed my point to a large extent.
I think a big part of the problem in the situation you're describing (D&D in realtime) is that gaining a level in D&D means so much. Contrast that with Morrowind, where leveling really doesn't mean that much (you get to increase your stats a bit). The real character advancement is in your skills, which is fairly smooth and yet still enjoyable.
You could also look at "levelless" pen-and-paper RPGs like the White Wolf games, or the origional Call of Chthulhu or Deadlands (I've also played Rolemaster and Warhammer games where the advancement system was modified to be more like those systems). Character advancement is still enjoyable in those games.
IMNHO, levelling becoming boring is a sign of lack of creativity. To some extent that rests on the developers, but a much larger portion of the blame goes to the bored player. If you're going to just sit there and slay rats, of course that's going to get boring. If you're bored, do something that isn't boring, like maybe actually finishing a quest or something.
IBM has in the past distributed Linux pre-installed on at least their ThinkPad series. So there's no escape from the GPL for IBM, either.... Note that the GPL isn't about who put together a distribution, but about who distributes.
Wrong. Distribution in this context doesn't simply mean "passing a copy on to someone else". Remember that the GPL doesn't take away any rights you would normally have under copyright law.
IBM has no need to accept the GPL in order to ship systems with Linux preinstalled as long as they are not the publisher of that copy. If all they're doing is reselling Red Hat or SuSE with the added service of preinstalling it then they're protected by First Sale and there is absolutely no reason under American copyright law for them to accept or be bound by the GPL. You can't get them with the "when you install it that makes a copy" arguement either, because that copy is protected under Fair Use.
IANAL, but acceptance of the GPL is required for more than just distribution; it's also requried for creation of a derivative work, and it could well be argued that their patches are a derivative work of the kernel (especially as they are useless without the kernel).
Distribution is a confusing term, and I think it's unfortunate that it's the accepted term in this case. What is really meant is publication. The important thing to remember is this: The GPL doesn't take away any rights you would normally have under copyright law. That includes fair use, first sale, etc.
Copyright covers publishing, which is the act of making copies. If you aren't making copies (beyond what you're allowed under fair use), the GPL doesn't apply to you. The GPL ONLY applies when you are publishing AND distributing a GPLed work to a party outside of your organization.
Note also that a copyrighted work can be published under multiple licenses, so if I'm the sole copyright holder of a work that is currently distributed under the GPL, there's nothing stopping me from offering it under another license as well.
More importantly if they have ever distributed the kernel to anyone, by any means, then they also have likewise accepted the license.
This is just plain false. As I said above, if you aren't making copies beyond what you're allowed under fair use, the GPL doesn't apply to you, and in fact you haven't accepted it until you do something with that code which would normally be prohibited under copyright law.
As Eben Moglen pointed out in his recent SCO position paper; despite what the proprietary software vendors would have you believe, you DO NOT need a license to use software. Copyright law simply doesn't support that assertion.
Well, if IBM sells hardware equiped with Linux then they ARE distributing it, aren't they? Remember, Red Hat and Suse don't write most of the code in Linux either, but they certainly distribute it.
Your local bookstore doesn't write or publish most of the books it sells. Does that mean it needs to get a license from from each and every author and publishing house whose books it sells? No, and for that reason there is no need for IBM to accept or comply with the GPL in order to resell Red Hat, SuSE, or any of the other Linux distros they offer.
IBM can't use the patents against the Linux kernel anymore than SCO can -- as IBM points out in its own brief, distribution of the source under the GPL prohibits you from certain legal tactics... like licensing. You are implicitly licensing any IP (copyrights, trade secrets, patents) that you may own that are applicable to the source you distribute.
Sorry, but your arguement doesn't hold water (though I wish it did).
First, the GPL applies only to copyright, not patents, trade secrets, trademarks, or any other type of IP anyone might dream up. The rules for licensing patents are VERY different. If you read the writings on software patents by people like Bruce Perens and RMS, you'll find that this is very much a concern.
Second, IBM doesn't have their own distribution, they just resell distributions made by others. As such, they are under no obligation to accept or comply with the GPL. Your local bookstore doesn't need a license from every copyright holder to sell their books. The same principle applies here. That's why Staples and Fry's, who both sell Linux on their shelves, aren't under any obligations to provide source to their customers.
It's interesting to consider how a system would work without levels at all (neither hidden nor visible)
It's been a while since I've played it, so I could have some details wrong, but IIRC the origional Call of Chthulhu game by Chaosium was pretty close to that. Basically, if you used a skill you put a mark by it and if your character survived the session you would then get to make a role to see if the marked skills went up (Make a skill roll and if you failed you got to add 1d6 to it I think). I don't remember there being any levels at all.
Then again, the game concept does NOT include the idea that the monsters the characters are facing should be in any way defeatable by them.
I don't understand why levelling must be a dull process for the reward to mean anything.
I think the guy who said that has it exactly backwards. Levelling in my pen-and-paper D&D game certainly isn't dull, and even then the main focus is often (though not always) combat. Then again, we generally are fighting opponents that are actually appropriate to our power level.
Star Wars Galaxies has gone some way to remedy this with experience granted for other skill use but in doing this they've neglected the section of their playerbase who want to fight hordes of creatures.
What's needed is a balance between the two - have the tunnels of orcs or caves of tuskan raiders for players who want to go all out hack'n'slash to haunt but also have experience/level points awarded for other actions. Neverwinter Nights is one that balances these very nicely but then it's just a translation of the D&D rule set.
Morrowind has an excellent system, I think. You raise level by increasing your skills, which you can do either by using them in "real world" situations or by paying for training. The important thing is that EVERYTHING is governed by a skill (or more than one in some cases): Your ability to hit with a weapon and the amount of damage you do are effected by your skill with that type of weapon, your movement rate and endurance are effected by your skill with the type of armor you're wearing, etc.
Anybody can learn any skill, and that gets balanced by having class skills be worth more in terms of gaining levels, so you can have a fighter that casts spells but he won't gain levels as fast as a fighter who just focused on his weapon and armor skills.
And again, even the fighter who just focuses on weapons doesn't have to just go out and kill stuff to level up. If he manages to get ahold of a good sum of money somehow, he could get a bunch of training and level up that way. Note that a trainer can only train you up to a certain ability level, which varies from trainer to trainer.
Why bother making your product work properly on linux when you can have others do it for you free of charge?
Because a native version will run faster, and for an app like Photoshop that can be VERY important.
I work for a company that supplies production equipment to Disney, and I would be very suprised if Disney hasn't already given Adobe some sort of ultimatum in that regard.
If Novell is going to release their own distribution it would be helpfull if SCO won. That way Novell and SCO would be the only ones authorized to distribute Lunix.
No they wouldn't, because they'd be violating the GPL, and therefor violating the copyrights of all the various contributors who didn't plagarize SCO code. Care to take bets on which group represents a larger portion of the Linux codebase?
If done right, it would just be a matter of compiling it on a linux version of.Net
That's true of C also, and various other languages as well, but the big catch is the "If done right...". I think history proves that it will not be done right.
I don't think you'll find any other pre-1985 GUIs that perform event handling the way Windows does it (whether you like their solution or not). I'd say that alone makes it an original implementation, and would make a reasonable patent....which would expire within a year.
If they had such a patent, they surely would have used it before now.
This makes no sense whatsoever... In their pure forms, capitalism and communism are very far apart (almost "opposite"). It it in their non-pure forms that they are similar...
The goal of the capitalist is monopoly. Do not make the mistake of thinking capitalism==free market, they are not the same thing. The free market is a good and wonderful thing, and it is important to realize the capitalism is just as much the enemy of the free market as communism is.
Ultimately, there really is little difference between capitalism and communism in the real world. Both result in the means of production being centralized in the control of a very small group of people. Sure, in one case those people are called a government and in the other they're called private citizens, but the ACTUAL difference is vanishingly small.
As for the ideal forms of either, well, I haven't read much from the founders of capitalism, so I can't really comment on that. I can say this, however: Marx was a tool. The Communist Manifesto is a pipe dream. He completely ignored 2 of the most basic truths of human nature: 1) There will always be some asshole who wants to be in charge 2) There will always be people dumb enough to willingly help the asshole acheive his goals.
I got it from a cartoon in a MAD magazine in the mid 80's. I used to know where it came from origionally, but unfortunately that quotes file got wiped out in a Windows crash a few years ago. It was some modern Oscar Wilde type I'd never heard of, but who's undoubtedly quite famous in certain circles.
They have a much better chance of squishing RH due to their size. This would set a legal precident that none of us want to see. And it would make it easier to go after the big guys.
Dude, Red Hat is roughly an order of magnitude bigger than SCO (based on market cap). What makes you think SCO is going to squish them?
If size and money are all that matters in the court, there is little real difference for SCO going up against IBM or Red Hat.
It sounds like what you really need to do is educate yourself. Pick up some books on giving presentations and selling your ideas, or maybe take a class at the local CC (Speech or Drama). Also, educate yourself on what you are pushing and the alternatives as well. You need to be able to answer any challengers.
Keep at it though, eventually they might listen. Or maybe the guy who mainly opposes your ideas will "seek opportunities outside the company". You never know.
I don't see how you can hurt your position by suggesting ways for the company to save money as long as you aren't being obnoxious about it. Absolute worst case scenario: your new communication skills will really help you out in interviews.
I had VB crash on me once while it was loading, and it threw up a window asking if I wanted to debug the process that had just crashed. Being curious, I answered "Yes", and it proceeded to open up...
Slashdot Mirror
Not quite the same as what you're talking about, but I got my wife a USB-keydrive with the mp3 player, headphone jack and controls built into it. 256MB with built in Li-ion battery that recharges from the USB port, and earbuds integrated into the neck strap. The brand is Magicstar and it cost me about $120, IIRC.
The first drive he bought had a different part number, as you can see by looking at the close-up pics he took of the labels.
.bin file, just like flashing the BIOS on your motherboard (except you can usually do it in Windows). I would contact tech support first, though, and make sure the firmware you need is compatable with the different hardware. You'll probably have to contact them anyway to get the .bin.
Also, firmware can be changed. All it takes is a utility and a
Lastly, if you plan on trying this at home you need to know that Seagate and IBM/Hitachi (and, I presume, other vendors, but those are the only ones I deal with in a professional capacity) classify drives in catagories, like "generic 80GB 7200RPM ATA100" and there are often several part numbers that satisfy that description which the vendor considers interchangable for the purposes of warranty replacement (sometimes that isn't really true, which is the only reason I know this, but usually it is). Basically that just means that there's no real guarantee that you'll get the exact same drive. I've been able to get around that by making enough noise, but I also was acting as an agent of a $25billion company, so YMMV.
IBM doesn't take this risk; they install it on the hard drive as a service for, and under contract to, the hardware purchaser, which makes it as if the purchaser did it, legally.
IBM is conservative as always, and goes much further to protect itself than it needs to. That's probably a good idea in their situation, but still adds needless complication.
I would say, though, that while the copy made to the hard drive may be protected under a special exemption, it would also be protected under Fair Use. After all, it is in many cases required to install on a hard drive in order to use the software, and the right to use it is protected under Fair Use.
Either way, it isn't something that's restricted under copyright law, and thus you don't need to agree to the GPL in order to do it.
My analogy is not flawed at all. Books and software are governed by the exact same laws. The flaw is in your understanding of what "distribution" means in this context.
The important thing to remember about the GPL is that it doesn't take away any rights you normally have under copyright law. That includes Fair Use and First Sale. First Sale means that you have the right to resell a copyrighted work without the permission of the copyright holder as long as you are not publishing it (copyright governs the right to copy, not the right to use). Fair Use means that you have the right to make copies that are required in the normal use of the software (meaning the installation copy on your hard drive and the running copy(s) in RAM). Fair Use also allows you to make a copy for backup purposes, but that really isn't relevant here.
The important thing to remember about copyright in general is that you don't need a license to use a copyrighted work. You only need a license to publish it or a work substantially derived from it. You're probably thinking to yourself something like "why do I need to agree with EULAs to use most proprietary software?" The simple answer is: You don't! If you can find a way to use the software without agreeing to the license, that is perfectly legal. In other words; the only reason you need to agree to Microsoft's license to install Windows is because that's how Microsoft set up the installer. There is absolutely no legal reason why an end user needs to agree to a EULA.
The only thing the GPL covers is publication, and that means making copies for reasons other than what is protected under Fair Use. For practical purposes, that means making copies to sell or give away to other people. This is what is meant by "distribution" in the GPL. If you aren't actually making the copies, the GPL doesn't apply to you.
What IBM does is buy a copy of Linux from, say, Red Hat, install it on behalf of the customer as a value added service, and then ship that same copy of Linux to the customer as part of the total package the customer has purchased. At no point in this process does IBM do anything which would require them to agree to the terms of the GPL, since you only have to agree to it when you do something with the software that would otherwise be prohibited under copyright law. To summarize:
Reselling the software is protected under First Sale, and thus not subject to the GPL.
Installing the software is protected under Fair Use, and thus not subject to the GPL.
Using the software is protected under Fair Use, and thus not subject to the GPL.
Since that covers everything IBM is doing in order to offer preconfigured Linux systems, they are free and clear. Note also that First Sale means that all those stores selling boxed distros are free and clear as well.
You should also be aware of how that pertains to you as a user. Basically, you are not bound by the GPL as a user. It simply doesn't apply to you and you are not required to agree to it in order to acquire, install, or use GPLed software. If you want to make copies for all your friends, or to sell, then you are bound by the GPL. If you want to create a derivative work and distribute that outside of your organization, then you are bound by the GPL. That's it. If you aren't making non-Fair Use copies of a GPLed work or a work derived from a GPLed work you aren't bound by the GPL.
You make some excellent points, and several of them I hadn't considered, but I also think you missed my point to a large extent.
I think a big part of the problem in the situation you're describing (D&D in realtime) is that gaining a level in D&D means so much. Contrast that with Morrowind, where leveling really doesn't mean that much (you get to increase your stats a bit). The real character advancement is in your skills, which is fairly smooth and yet still enjoyable.
You could also look at "levelless" pen-and-paper RPGs like the White Wolf games, or the origional Call of Chthulhu or Deadlands (I've also played Rolemaster and Warhammer games where the advancement system was modified to be more like those systems). Character advancement is still enjoyable in those games.
IMNHO, levelling becoming boring is a sign of lack of creativity. To some extent that rests on the developers, but a much larger portion of the blame goes to the bored player. If you're going to just sit there and slay rats, of course that's going to get boring. If you're bored, do something that isn't boring, like maybe actually finishing a quest or something.
Buying a copy from Caldera/Red Hat/etc and reselling it is protected under First Sale, and thus not subject to the GPL.
The copy made to the hard drive during installation is protected under Fair Use, and thus not subject to the GPL.
The use of the software is not covered by copyright law at all, and thus not subject to the GPL.
Unless IBM actually made the CDs themselves, they're free and clear.
IBM has in the past distributed Linux pre-installed on at least their ThinkPad series. So there's no escape from the GPL for IBM, either. ...
Note that the GPL isn't about who put together a distribution, but about who distributes.
Wrong. Distribution in this context doesn't simply mean "passing a copy on to someone else". Remember that the GPL doesn't take away any rights you would normally have under copyright law.
IBM has no need to accept the GPL in order to ship systems with Linux preinstalled as long as they are not the publisher of that copy. If all they're doing is reselling Red Hat or SuSE with the added service of preinstalling it then they're protected by First Sale and there is absolutely no reason under American copyright law for them to accept or be bound by the GPL. You can't get them with the "when you install it that makes a copy" arguement either, because that copy is protected under Fair Use.
I don't think "usefulness" has any bearing here.
IIRC, "usefulness" is one of the criteria used to determine if a bit of code is derivative or not.
IANAL, but acceptance of the GPL is required for more than just distribution; it's also requried for creation of a derivative work, and it could well be argued that their patches are a derivative work of the kernel (especially as they are useless without the kernel).
Distribution is a confusing term, and I think it's unfortunate that it's the accepted term in this case. What is really meant is publication. The important thing to remember is this: The GPL doesn't take away any rights you would normally have under copyright law. That includes fair use, first sale, etc.
Copyright covers publishing, which is the act of making copies. If you aren't making copies (beyond what you're allowed under fair use), the GPL doesn't apply to you. The GPL ONLY applies when you are publishing AND distributing a GPLed work to a party outside of your organization.
Note also that a copyrighted work can be published under multiple licenses, so if I'm the sole copyright holder of a work that is currently distributed under the GPL, there's nothing stopping me from offering it under another license as well.
More importantly if they have ever distributed the kernel to anyone, by any means, then they also have likewise accepted the license.
This is just plain false. As I said above, if you aren't making copies beyond what you're allowed under fair use, the GPL doesn't apply to you, and in fact you haven't accepted it until you do something with that code which would normally be prohibited under copyright law.
As Eben Moglen pointed out in his recent SCO position paper; despite what the proprietary software vendors would have you believe, you DO NOT need a license to use software. Copyright law simply doesn't support that assertion.
Well, if IBM sells hardware equiped with Linux then they ARE distributing it, aren't they? Remember, Red Hat and Suse don't write most of the code in Linux either, but they certainly distribute it.
Your local bookstore doesn't write or publish most of the books it sells. Does that mean it needs to get a license from from each and every author and publishing house whose books it sells? No, and for that reason there is no need for IBM to accept or comply with the GPL in order to resell Red Hat, SuSE, or any of the other Linux distros they offer.
IBM can't use the patents against the Linux kernel anymore than SCO can -- as IBM points out in its own brief, distribution of the source under the GPL prohibits you from certain legal tactics... like licensing. You are implicitly licensing any IP (copyrights, trade secrets, patents) that you may own that are applicable to the source you distribute.
Sorry, but your arguement doesn't hold water (though I wish it did).
First, the GPL applies only to copyright, not patents, trade secrets, trademarks, or any other type of IP anyone might dream up. The rules for licensing patents are VERY different. If you read the writings on software patents by people like Bruce Perens and RMS, you'll find that this is very much a concern.
Second, IBM doesn't have their own distribution, they just resell distributions made by others. As such, they are under no obligation to accept or comply with the GPL. Your local bookstore doesn't need a license from every copyright holder to sell their books. The same principle applies here. That's why Staples and Fry's, who both sell Linux on their shelves, aren't under any obligations to provide source to their customers.
The first amendment does not apply to obscenity. I'm going to get flamed for this, but it is true. You can look it up.
That's funny, I don't see any exceptions to the First Amendment listed in the Constitution.
It's interesting to consider how a system would work without levels at all (neither hidden nor visible)
It's been a while since I've played it, so I could have some details wrong, but IIRC the origional Call of Chthulhu game by Chaosium was pretty close to that. Basically, if you used a skill you put a mark by it and if your character survived the session you would then get to make a role to see if the marked skills went up (Make a skill roll and if you failed you got to add 1d6 to it I think). I don't remember there being any levels at all.
Then again, the game concept does NOT include the idea that the monsters the characters are facing should be in any way defeatable by them.
I don't understand why levelling must be a dull process for the reward to mean anything.
I think the guy who said that has it exactly backwards. Levelling in my pen-and-paper D&D game certainly isn't dull, and even then the main focus is often (though not always) combat. Then again, we generally are fighting opponents that are actually appropriate to our power level.
Star Wars Galaxies has gone some way to remedy this with experience granted for other skill use but in doing this they've neglected the section of their playerbase who want to fight hordes of creatures.
What's needed is a balance between the two - have the tunnels of orcs or caves of tuskan raiders for players who want to go all out hack'n'slash to haunt but also have experience/level points awarded for other actions. Neverwinter Nights is one that balances these very nicely but then it's just a translation of the D&D rule set.
Morrowind has an excellent system, I think. You raise level by increasing your skills, which you can do either by using them in "real world" situations or by paying for training. The important thing is that EVERYTHING is governed by a skill (or more than one in some cases): Your ability to hit with a weapon and the amount of damage you do are effected by your skill with that type of weapon, your movement rate and endurance are effected by your skill with the type of armor you're wearing, etc.
Anybody can learn any skill, and that gets balanced by having class skills be worth more in terms of gaining levels, so you can have a fighter that casts spells but he won't gain levels as fast as a fighter who just focused on his weapon and armor skills.
And again, even the fighter who just focuses on weapons doesn't have to just go out and kill stuff to level up. If he manages to get ahold of a good sum of money somehow, he could get a bunch of training and level up that way. Note that a trainer can only train you up to a certain ability level, which varies from trainer to trainer.
Why bother making your product work properly on linux when you can have others do it for you free of charge?
Because a native version will run faster, and for an app like Photoshop that can be VERY important.
I work for a company that supplies production equipment to Disney, and I would be very suprised if Disney hasn't already given Adobe some sort of ultimatum in that regard.
If Novell is going to release their own distribution it would be helpfull if SCO won. That way Novell and SCO would be the only ones authorized to distribute Lunix.
No they wouldn't, because they'd be violating the GPL, and therefor violating the copyrights of all the various contributors who didn't plagarize SCO code. Care to take bets on which group represents a larger portion of the Linux codebase?
If done right, it would just be a matter of compiling it on a linux version of .Net
That's true of C also, and various other languages as well, but the big catch is the "If done right...". I think history proves that it will not be done right.
I don't think you'll find any other pre-1985 GUIs that perform event handling the way Windows does it (whether you like their solution or not). I'd say that alone makes it an original implementation, and would make a reasonable patent. ...which would expire within a year.
If they had such a patent, they surely would have used it before now.
This makes no sense whatsoever... In their pure forms, capitalism and communism are very far apart (almost "opposite"). It it in their non-pure forms that they are similar...
The goal of the capitalist is monopoly. Do not make the mistake of thinking capitalism==free market, they are not the same thing. The free market is a good and wonderful thing, and it is important to realize the capitalism is just as much the enemy of the free market as communism is.
Ultimately, there really is little difference between capitalism and communism in the real world. Both result in the means of production being centralized in the control of a very small group of people. Sure, in one case those people are called a government and in the other they're called private citizens, but the ACTUAL difference is vanishingly small.
As for the ideal forms of either, well, I haven't read much from the founders of capitalism, so I can't really comment on that. I can say this, however: Marx was a tool. The Communist Manifesto is a pipe dream. He completely ignored 2 of the most basic truths of human nature: 1) There will always be some asshole who wants to be in charge 2) There will always be people dumb enough to willingly help the asshole acheive his goals.
My sig maybe?
I got it from a cartoon in a MAD magazine in the mid 80's. I used to know where it came from origionally, but unfortunately that quotes file got wiped out in a Windows crash a few years ago. It was some modern Oscar Wilde type I'd never heard of, but who's undoubtedly quite famous in certain circles.
They have a much better chance of squishing RH due to their size. This would set a legal precident that none of us want to see. And it would make it easier to go after the big guys.
Dude, Red Hat is roughly an order of magnitude bigger than SCO (based on market cap). What makes you think SCO is going to squish them?
If size and money are all that matters in the court, there is little real difference for SCO going up against IBM or Red Hat.
Microsoft is fundamentally anticapitalist
I'm not sure I would say that. Anti Free Market, sure, but not anticapitalist. In many ways I would say Microsoft is the pinnacle of capitalism.
Funny how capitalism and communism in their purest forms are basically indistinguishable...
It sounds like what you really need to do is educate yourself. Pick up some books on giving presentations and selling your ideas, or maybe take a class at the local CC (Speech or Drama). Also, educate yourself on what you are pushing and the alternatives as well. You need to be able to answer any challengers.
Keep at it though, eventually they might listen. Or maybe the guy who mainly opposes your ideas will "seek opportunities outside the company". You never know.
I don't see how you can hurt your position by suggesting ways for the company to save money as long as you aren't being obnoxious about it. Absolute worst case scenario: your new communication skills will really help you out in interviews.
*prepares to be modded down by liberals*
Being a liberal myself, the only reason I would mod you down is because of this comment. Why? Because "liberal" does not mean "atheist".
Jesus himself was a liberal. Think about that.
I had VB crash on me once while it was loading, and it threw up a window asking if I wanted to debug the process that had just crashed. Being curious, I answered "Yes", and it proceeded to open up...
VC++!!!