In the future, you can simply describe your problem to the automated system (like a voice-activated google!), and it will direct the call accordingly... there will be no need to listen to every option on every menu.
In the future? Haven't you heard? Natural, untrained speech recognition is only 5 years away!
There's this thing called riots, in which the now jobless 50% destroy all the robots, along with a good portion of the other resources belonging to the factory owners who decide to replace all their workers with machines, and it's an implementation of a thing called self preservation, which is what REALLY got us you in the first place.
Not that I see that actually happening, mind you. I think the jobs will just shift to other areas, such as robot maintainance, with some jobs being protected simply by their nature (customer interface and creative jobs) and some being protected by law (Unions and such).
You can't just let 50% of your workers be unemployed, or you're asking for a serious societal breakdown. The best you could do is create a wellfare state, but even that is only going to prevent food and housing riots. People have to be occupied.
As you say; the same forces that giveth, also taketh away. Never forget that those forces are human.
Yes, but as I mentioned in another post, SCO wouldn't be able to successfully sue a BSD user. First of all, the AT+T IP SCO is claiming Linux is using was stripped from BSD a long, long time ago. Second, AT+T tried to sue Berkeley over the very same code -- and had to settle because it would have been revealed that quite a bit of BSD code had mysteriously found its way into System V. Third, that settlement itself means that BSD is unencumbered. So, really, it doesn't matter WHAT SCO thinks, any case they brought would be dismissed almost immediately, probably with some kind of punitive counter-claim.
They're not dumb enough to open THAT can of worms.
I'm only passing on what SCO executives have said in recent interviews. Apparently, they are that dumb. FWIW, I agree with your assesment, but that doesn't mean they won't try.
Second, why are you talking about kernel 2.0? SCO isn't interested in kernels that predate 2.4. 2.0 is irrelevant, and unencumbered.
Did you not claim that no one would even be using 2.4 by the time the case goes to court? History proves you wrong. 2.0 is relevant because it's over 6 years old and people are still using it and maintaining it, just like they'll be doing with 2.4 when it's that old.
Third, yes, I accept it, plenty of people are still using 486'es. However, your straw man argument doesn't hold up. Five years is a long time in the computer industry. The success of cell phones and PDAs using alternative processors means that there's nothing stopping other alternative processors from being used everywhere from personal computers to laptops and servers. So you really have NO WAY OF KNOWING whether we'll still be using this architecture five years from now. And, that's my point. A big change in architecture could make the whole case irrelevant.
You think I'm the one with the straw man? Interesting. You're still living in the.com dreamworld, apparently. 5 years may be a long time in terms of technological advancement, but in the real world its an average upgrade cycle. No one in the real world gives a rats ass about architecture changes unless the new architecture will run their legacy apps as fast or faster than they're running them right now, and that right there is the biggest reason x86 will still be the dominant architecture in 5 years, just like it has been for the last 20+ years.
You talk of the success of cellphones and PDAs, but what is anyone doing with them that will make them a replacement for a PC? Nothing. All they are is peripherals.
I find it amusing that you're clinging so closely to X86. Are you an EE by any chance? I bet you are...
I find it amusing that you're so completely clueless about the history of the tech market and it's current trends. Are you a marketer by any chance? I bet you are...
It isn't just 2.4, it's also 2.5, which means 2.6 as well. SCO has specifically said that in almost every statement they've made. The Linux kernel doesn't move that fast. Based on past performance, 2.6 will still be the standard kernel in 2005, 2.7 will just be gaining momentum, and it will probably not be until 2006 that people really start asking whether the next kernel will be called 2.8 or 3.0, let alone when it might be released.
Also, the suit has brought SCO an infusion of cash. This last quarter was the first time SCO had posted a profit EVER. The market is not punishing SCO for it's behavior, but rewarding it, and rather well, so the chances of SCO just drying up and blowing away in the next few years are quite slim.
As for the offending code being stripped out, how is that going to happen when nobody knows what it is? The assertions SCO has made so far have all been extremely vague. Even if the Linux community were to start over completely from scratch, it would be nearly impossible to do so in a manner which would create a completely unencumbered kernel since all the kernel hackers are tainted.
Finally, I'm not sure which eWeek article you're refering to. I read the top 4 on their "Battle over Unix" page. None of them were dated 7/22, and all of them were little more than fluff. They paint the situation with a very broad brush, completely ignoring several very important details and many of the actual claims made by SCO executives in various recent interviews. It would be dangerous to form an opinion on the case based on those articles which I read, IMNSHO.
I agree that there is nothing to actually worry about, but I base that on faith in the Linux developement system and the stupidity and ignorance of the SCO execs. Unfortunately, every one of your bullet points is full of holes, and has already been thought of and countered in public statements by SCO.
2. By 2005, the BSDs and Linux will have become so similar in functionality, hardware support, and applications, that migrating from one to the other will be fairly painless. Since the BSDs are unencumbered, and SCO is specifically targeting the Linux 2.4 kernel, this means we have a great big safety net.
SCO does not consider BSD to be unencumbered, so that won't necessarily save you from being sued. As far as SCO is concerned, basically everyone who has put out an OS in the last 30 years owes them money. They've specifically mentioned Linux (2.4 and 2.5), AIX, Windows, OSX, Solaris, etc. Don't think that you'll be safe from the raving lunatics at SCO just because you switch from Linux.
3. By 2005, who's going to be using the 2.4 kernel? Unabomber-like holdouts, crouching in a shed with a dilapidated old Pentium-II and a stockpile of candy bars and beer? Any code which even remotely looks like SCO code is going to be stripped out long before then. So, the code in use by the time the court convenes is going to be unencumbered anyway. What could SCO possibly charge people money for, even if they win?
Linux kernel 2.0 is still maintained, and it was released in 1997 (IIRC). Think about that. Enough people are are still using 2.0 that it's still being maintained!
5. By 2008 (when the case would probably get wrapped up and appealed, etc), do you think we're still going to be using X86 machines, anyway? It's 2003; how many of you are still using the 486's you had in '98? Who's still using a 16 bit O/S? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
x86 isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Who's still using 486's? Well, TV production studios and broadcasters are using them in their media servers. The 486 just runs the OS, and everything else is done by specialized cards (MPEG encoding/decoding, disk I/O, audio processing, etc). More importantly, though, Intel has shown no interest in moving the consumer market off of IA32, much less x86 in general, and AMD is even more dedicated to x86. That covers over 90% of the consumer PC market, so what's left? Cellphones and PDAs? Nobody uses their PDA for serious work, and that isn't going to change by 2008. Even the slim chance that PPC970 will take over the world, leaving x86 irrelevant, will not save you since, as I've already pointed out, SCO doesn't consider the BSDs to be unencumbered.
You might think about adding some salt to the ice, too. I've added some rock salt to the beer cooler at a party on a hot day, and despite the cooler lid being open most of the time it was still quite painful to fish for beers hours later.
I talked with a former SCO employee (15 years - high rank) He told me they were well aware of the mixing of code. And that they (this is the previous regime) made the business decision to allow this.
Not only did they know, but they made a pretty big deal about it. "We're opening the traditional Unix Code!", they trumpeted, "We're going to use it to improve Linux!" That was the whole point of Caldera buying up SCO in the forst place.
I have to stop development on one of my projects because I don't want to pay SCO any money to use Linux.
That's a really dumb reason to stop developement on a Linux project. If you're actually buying into the FUD SCO is spreading you'll have to stop ALL your developement projects, since SCO is basically claiming ownership over every OS that's been developed in the last 30 years. It's not just AIX and Linux, they've already publicly and specificly stated that users of Windows, BSD, and Solaris are liable.
And somebody please fill me in, but is the SCO hotshot lawyer who lost the Gore case against Florida and worked against Microsoft such a hotshot? It seems to me that he's more of a loser.
Yes, it is the same guy, and I've been thinking the same thing. Especially considering he's taking this case on contingency (which is doubly sad since it means SCO won't be bled dry by his fees. Oh, well).
How is RAMBUS doing? I see their stock bubble is still inflated, but how are they paying the bills? Have they produced any new technology since RD-RAM has flopped?
Unfortunately they're probably doing just fine. RDRAM is used in the PS2, you know.
In fact, it may be argued that SCO by the fact that they own Caldera probably copied the linux kernel themselves.
You have it backwards: Caldera owns SCO.
It was Caldera, a Linux company, that bought the Unix portion of SCO with the mounds of cash they got from their IPO. They immediately set about releasing traditional Unix code as Open Source Software, even going so far as to hire someone and give him the title "Kernel Engineer Unix/Linux Integration". Caldera later changed their name to SCO when they decided that the Unix IP was more valuable than the Linux distro (which is ironic, considering the chain of events).
IANAL, but If an Caldera (and SCO owns Caldera) employee put a lot of the code in question in the kernel, then it's reasonable to argue that the code became public domain unless there is a copyright and license in the code when it was submitted.
First, GPL is NOT public domain. GPL code is copyrighted, and SCO would still be the owners of that copyright.
Second, nothing becomes public domain just because it doesn't have a copyright or license attached to it.
It saddens me that someone can have been around long enough to have such a low ID number and still be so fundamentally clueless about copyright and the GPL. I don't mean that as flamebait, but I was truely shocked by that statement.
1) A judge could rule the viral implications of the GPL to be invalid. Certainly copyright gives them exclusive rights over things and they can license it under terms, it's a grey area that their license can compel you to change the license of your software.
Nothing compelled them to change the license on that software, they did it knowingly and willingly, and payed someone to do the integration work. Notice the title in his email signatures:
"Christoph Hellwig Kernel Engineer Unix/Linux Integration Caldera Deutschland GmbH"
2) The judge could rule that, though individuals at SCO contributed, that overall SCO is not liable for the actions of those individuals. Essentially this defense would be the "left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing" principle. That SCO never conciously chose to distribute their IP inside of Linux.
Caldera made a pretty big deal over how they now owned the origional Unix source code and they were going to release a bunch of it as Free Software. I find it very difficult to believe that they would be issuing press releases with all the fanfare they could muster without the higher-ups noticing. If that's truely what happened, though, they should lose just based on pure gross negligence.
Not only did they have an employee whose specific job it was to port Unix code to Linux, but they even advertised JFS and SMP as selling points for their Linux distro.
If I were a judge presented with this evidence, I would be insulted that they would expect me to believe such a ludicrous claim.
I realize that, but SCO doesn't seem to. Truth be told, I would love to see that happen. The point is, SCO is claiming ownership of basically every OS created in the last 30 years, specifically mentioning Linux, BSD, Windows, Mac OS, and Solaris users as potential targets for their attack lawyers. What that means to me is that I might as well just continue as I have been, since it doesn't seem to matter what I do, I'm still just as much of a target to them.
I'm not going to be buying anything from them. I'd rather switch to FreeBSD and give them the finger, than send so much as one red cent their way
According to statements made by SCO execs in the recent past, switching to FreeBSD would not save you.
That said, I won't be buying anything from SCO, since they've made it clear that the only thing they think a contract is using it "as a weapon". I'd have to be a complete idiot to enter into a contract with someone who thinks that way.
If we're going to bring morals into it RMS and McVoy both lose.
Really, though, that's quite a logical leap from "we shouldn't stab people in the back for trying to helps us" to "all open source software is immoral." Can you name another instance of someone friendly to OSS having their business model directly attacked?
McVoy has said repeatedly that it cost bazillions of dollars and countless programmer hours to create BitKeeper, iirc he said specifically it couldn't have been done using the free software model - but if a bunch of presumably volunteer coders can produce something similar AND compatible, that makes his claim look rather shaky, doesn't it?
I believe it's totally possible for OSS to produce something similar. I even think that we should. I don't think, though, that we should start out aiming for BK compatability. It's just dumb to thank somebpdy for helping you by stabbing them in the back. Everyone in the software community will see that, and the warning will be loud and clear: Don't help out OSS, they'll just betray you!
Is that really the message we want to send? Better to not use the BK protocols and build an equivalent SCM tool that stands on it's own, I think.
Here's the thing; McVoy has gone out of his way to provide a MUCH NEEDED service to Linux developers, and FOSS developers in general. RMS thanks him by making a public call to stab him in the back.
I agree that FOSS needs a better SCM tool, but I don't think that the way to do it is to make a FOSS BK client. Sure, that might get us to that one goal faster, but at the cost of sending a serious warning to any proprietary software vendor thinking of supporting FOSS developement in any serious way.
If that's the way we do business, we're no better than Microsoft.
In many cases there can be little choice except to run Windows as administrator. Because far too many Windows apps are written to demand privs they don't actually need. Many Windows programmers appearing to lack any understanding of security.
That was my experience back when I was admin for a small engineering company. All the design staff had to run as local admin because SolidWorks (3D CADD program) absolutely had to have permissions. Mind you, this was on Windows2000, which we only upgraded to on the strong recommendation of the SolidWorks support people, who claimed it was the answer to all our problems...
Now, IANAL, but I'm pretty sure you need to file patent suits ASAP, or you lose your ability to do so.
Nope, you're thinking of Trademarks, which are "defend or lose".
Patent suits can be filed at any time during the life of the patent, and can even be selectively enforced if the patent holder wishes (meaning they can sue one person for infringement and ignore another).
Why are they using bitkeeper in the first place? From their home page it doesn't seem to be GPL/OpenSource but rather a propietary system.
You're correct, it is a proprietary system. The reason Linus decided to use it is that there simply isn't a Free equivalent, and the terms McVoy offered for use by FOSS developers are really quite generous. Additionally, Linus was involved in determining the innitial specs of BK, so in a sense BK was designed specifically for Linux.
It's unfortunate that McVoy is being portrayed as such a demon in this story, he really isn't a bad guy. He has a family to feed, and so he has to protect his revenue stream (selling BitKeeper to people who aren't producing Free software). RMS is threatening that revenue stream directly by calling for people to create not just another app that does the same things, but one that uses BK's protocols. Obviously, that would kill sales of BK to non-OSS developers, and thus kill McVoys business.
When you look at it that way, his response seems perfectly reasonable.
When someone is ready to try an alternative to Windows, its much easier to pick up the CDs rather than wait hours for a public download to finish...and lose the enthusiasm for a change in OS.
I agree with you, but there are other distros that cover this marketspace. Mandrake is probably the most popular newbie distro, though my personal preference is SuSE (and yes, I do mean for newbies). There are numerous others with retail presence as well, like Lindows, TurboLinux, etc.
I don't pay that close attention to the others, but I very much doubt that SuSE will be giving up on the retail market any time soon. Their free online distro is not the same as their boxed distro, and that differentiation probably helps their sales. Truth be told though, everyone I know who uses SuSE buys the box for the kickass manuals. I don't know anything about the quality of Red Hat's printed documentation, but I suspect that's the main thing that would be missed.
In my experience, anyone who is ready to try an alternative to Windows is going to be more turned off by the price of a boxed set than the amount of time it takes to download ISOs.
Has it anything to do with the KDE Klash? (Not likely though)
From reading the article it does seem likely that the KDE thing is part of the issue, since customizing of packages is one of the major things that's going to change.
I'm sure that the money they lose on boxed set is a major consideration as well.
What in the world makes you think it didn't have to do with documents in the trash?
Because knowing anything about him at all is completely unnecessary for pulling off that sort of thing.
Like maybe someone made themselves look as qualified as him.
"Looking qualified" means precisely dick to the FedEx delivery guy. "Able to sign for the package" is the only thing that matters. At best you'd have to be able to pass for an adult and act like you belong there, though in most cases not even that is necessary.
He was fishing intact CC receipts out of the trash, not shredded receipts. Shredding them at least raises the bar so that at least the mouth-breathers aren't going to be ripping you off.
Why would he need to fish them out of the trash at all? The company keeps a copy of the receipt too, and if he's an employee he would have access to it for at least a few minutes, more than enough time to jot down the CC number.
I think you've made a bit of a leap here. The meaning of the second amendment is certainely up for debate, but it refers to the right to bear arms at part of a militia. I also doubt the founding fathers intended for it to cover assault rifles given the fact that they were still using single shot muskets back then. Who knows, maybe they would have wanted us to all carry AK-47s, but that isn't clear at ALL.
It's quite clear to me. 'Arms' means only one thing: weapons meant for warfare. The specific meaning might change with the technology of the times, but the general meaning of the word has always meant 'military weapons'. 500 years ago that was a sword or a pike, 200 years ago that was a musket, today that's an assault rifle.
Also, nowhere in the 2nd Amendment does it say that the people can bear arms as long as they are part of a militia, it merely offers the militia as a reason why the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed. That the militia is merely a justification for the right is quite clear upon analysing the sentence.
Additionally, if you read any of the writings of the Founding Fathers, it is quite clear that they felt it was essential that the people be able to defend themselves from their government. As Ben Franklin put it, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
You misunderstand the point of that statement. The person I was replying to was complaining how you had to buy a liscense (for commercial software) for each computer you put software on, and how much better it was to have a single computer with a bunch of terminals.
I didn't misunderstand your point at all, it simply is no longer valid. It certainly was at one time, but once you take per seat licensing out of the equation, which Linux does, it really is much cheaper and easier to go thin-client.
But you aren't just maintaining one machine, you're maintaining N+1 machines -- the monitor doesn't just plug into the ethernet port.
Actually, some of them do. And no, you aren't really just administering N+1 machines, because only 1 of the machines has anything on it that actually matters, or any parts that can't simply be swapped out in a few minutes (keyboard, mouse, monitor, and whatever they use for network connection and what little local processing is required, eg 486, NCD terminal, etc), sending the user back on their merry way. This Newsforge article covers the benefits nicely, I think. (It's wrotten by Roblimo, so there's some MS bashing, but there's also some good info if you can get past that)
Some key points: The terminals they're using cost about $700 new, but can be had on ebay for under $5 each, and they have a 10 year life expectancy. The 2 terminal servers, as I mentioned before, are dual P3s and they serve over 450 terminals. When an employee needs to change terminals for whatever reason (terminal needs to be replaced, policeman going from his car to his desk, etc), there's no need to worry about saving or transporting their work since their session is maintained on the server; they simply log in at the new terminal and pick up exactly where they left off.
Slashdot Mirror
In the future, you can simply describe your problem to the automated system (like a voice-activated google!), and it will direct the call accordingly... there will be no need to listen to every option on every menu.
In the future? Haven't you heard? Natural, untrained speech recognition is only 5 years away!
Have you never read Asimov?
There's this thing called riots, in which the now jobless 50% destroy all the robots, along with a good portion of the other resources belonging to the factory owners who decide to replace all their workers with machines, and it's an implementation of a thing called self preservation, which is what REALLY got us you in the first place.
Not that I see that actually happening, mind you. I think the jobs will just shift to other areas, such as robot maintainance, with some jobs being protected simply by their nature (customer interface and creative jobs) and some being protected by law (Unions and such).
You can't just let 50% of your workers be unemployed, or you're asking for a serious societal breakdown. The best you could do is create a wellfare state, but even that is only going to prevent food and housing riots. People have to be occupied.
As you say; the same forces that giveth, also taketh away. Never forget that those forces are human.
Yes, but as I mentioned in another post, SCO wouldn't be able to successfully sue a BSD user. First of all, the AT+T IP SCO is claiming Linux is using was stripped from BSD a long, long time ago. Second, AT+T tried to sue Berkeley over the very same code -- and had to settle because it would have been revealed that quite a bit of BSD code had mysteriously found its way into System V. Third, that settlement itself means that BSD is unencumbered. So, really, it doesn't matter WHAT SCO thinks, any case they brought would be dismissed almost immediately, probably with some kind of punitive counter-claim.
.com dreamworld, apparently. 5 years may be a long time in terms of technological advancement, but in the real world its an average upgrade cycle. No one in the real world gives a rats ass about architecture changes unless the new architecture will run their legacy apps as fast or faster than they're running them right now, and that right there is the biggest reason x86 will still be the dominant architecture in 5 years, just like it has been for the last 20+ years.
They're not dumb enough to open THAT can of worms.
I'm only passing on what SCO executives have said in recent interviews. Apparently, they are that dumb. FWIW, I agree with your assesment, but that doesn't mean they won't try.
Second, why are you talking about kernel 2.0? SCO isn't interested in kernels that predate 2.4. 2.0 is irrelevant, and unencumbered.
Did you not claim that no one would even be using 2.4 by the time the case goes to court? History proves you wrong. 2.0 is relevant because it's over 6 years old and people are still using it and maintaining it, just like they'll be doing with 2.4 when it's that old.
Third, yes, I accept it, plenty of people are still using 486'es. However, your straw man argument doesn't hold up. Five years is a long time in the computer industry. The success of cell phones and PDAs using alternative processors means that there's nothing stopping other alternative processors from being used everywhere from personal computers to laptops and servers. So you really have NO WAY OF KNOWING whether we'll still be using this architecture five years from now. And, that's my point. A big change in architecture could make the whole case irrelevant.
You think I'm the one with the straw man? Interesting. You're still living in the
You talk of the success of cellphones and PDAs, but what is anyone doing with them that will make them a replacement for a PC? Nothing. All they are is peripherals.
I find it amusing that you're clinging so closely to X86. Are you an EE by any chance? I bet you are...
I find it amusing that you're so completely clueless about the history of the tech market and it's current trends. Are you a marketer by any chance? I bet you are...
(And no, I'm not an EE.)
It isn't just 2.4, it's also 2.5, which means 2.6 as well. SCO has specifically said that in almost every statement they've made. The Linux kernel doesn't move that fast. Based on past performance, 2.6 will still be the standard kernel in 2005, 2.7 will just be gaining momentum, and it will probably not be until 2006 that people really start asking whether the next kernel will be called 2.8 or 3.0, let alone when it might be released.
Also, the suit has brought SCO an infusion of cash. This last quarter was the first time SCO had posted a profit EVER. The market is not punishing SCO for it's behavior, but rewarding it, and rather well, so the chances of SCO just drying up and blowing away in the next few years are quite slim.
As for the offending code being stripped out, how is that going to happen when nobody knows what it is? The assertions SCO has made so far have all been extremely vague. Even if the Linux community were to start over completely from scratch, it would be nearly impossible to do so in a manner which would create a completely unencumbered kernel since all the kernel hackers are tainted.
Finally, I'm not sure which eWeek article you're refering to. I read the top 4 on their "Battle over Unix" page. None of them were dated 7/22, and all of them were little more than fluff. They paint the situation with a very broad brush, completely ignoring several very important details and many of the actual claims made by SCO executives in various recent interviews. It would be dangerous to form an opinion on the case based on those articles which I read, IMNSHO.
I agree that there is nothing to actually worry about, but I base that on faith in the Linux developement system and the stupidity and ignorance of the SCO execs. Unfortunately, every one of your bullet points is full of holes, and has already been thought of and countered in public statements by SCO.
2. By 2005, the BSDs and Linux will have become so similar in functionality, hardware support, and applications, that migrating from one to the other will be fairly painless. Since the BSDs are unencumbered, and SCO is specifically targeting the Linux 2.4 kernel, this means we have a great big safety net.
SCO does not consider BSD to be unencumbered, so that won't necessarily save you from being sued. As far as SCO is concerned, basically everyone who has put out an OS in the last 30 years owes them money. They've specifically mentioned Linux (2.4 and 2.5), AIX, Windows, OSX, Solaris, etc. Don't think that you'll be safe from the raving lunatics at SCO just because you switch from Linux.
3. By 2005, who's going to be using the 2.4 kernel? Unabomber-like holdouts, crouching in a shed with a dilapidated old Pentium-II and a stockpile of candy bars and beer? Any code which even remotely looks like SCO code is going to be stripped out long before then. So, the code in use by the time the court convenes is going to be unencumbered anyway. What could SCO possibly charge people money for, even if they win?
Linux kernel 2.0 is still maintained, and it was released in 1997 (IIRC). Think about that. Enough people are are still using 2.0 that it's still being maintained!
5. By 2008 (when the case would probably get wrapped up and appealed, etc), do you think we're still going to be using X86 machines, anyway? It's 2003; how many of you are still using the 486's you had in '98? Who's still using a 16 bit O/S? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
x86 isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Who's still using 486's? Well, TV production studios and broadcasters are using them in their media servers. The 486 just runs the OS, and everything else is done by specialized cards (MPEG encoding/decoding, disk I/O, audio processing, etc). More importantly, though, Intel has shown no interest in moving the consumer market off of IA32, much less x86 in general, and AMD is even more dedicated to x86. That covers over 90% of the consumer PC market, so what's left? Cellphones and PDAs? Nobody uses their PDA for serious work, and that isn't going to change by 2008. Even the slim chance that PPC970 will take over the world, leaving x86 irrelevant, will not save you since, as I've already pointed out, SCO doesn't consider the BSDs to be unencumbered.
You might think about adding some salt to the ice, too. I've added some rock salt to the beer cooler at a party on a hot day, and despite the cooler lid being open most of the time it was still quite painful to fish for beers hours later.
I talked with a former SCO employee (15 years - high rank) He told me they were well aware of the mixing of code. And that they (this is the previous regime) made the business decision to allow this.
Not only did they know, but they made a pretty big deal about it. "We're opening the traditional Unix Code!", they trumpeted, "We're going to use it to improve Linux!" That was the whole point of Caldera buying up SCO in the forst place.
Link, link, link, and the Slashdot article, which has the same links.
I have to stop development on one of my projects because I don't want to pay SCO any money to use Linux.
That's a really dumb reason to stop developement on a Linux project. If you're actually buying into the FUD SCO is spreading you'll have to stop ALL your developement projects, since SCO is basically claiming ownership over every OS that's been developed in the last 30 years. It's not just AIX and Linux, they've already publicly and specificly stated that users of Windows, BSD, and Solaris are liable.
And somebody please fill me in, but is the SCO hotshot lawyer who lost the Gore case against Florida and worked against Microsoft such a hotshot? It seems to me that he's more of a loser.
Yes, it is the same guy, and I've been thinking the same thing. Especially considering he's taking this case on contingency (which is doubly sad since it means SCO won't be bled dry by his fees. Oh, well).
How is RAMBUS doing? I see their stock bubble is still inflated, but how are they paying the bills? Have they produced any new technology since RD-RAM has flopped?
Unfortunately they're probably doing just fine. RDRAM is used in the PS2, you know.
In fact, it may be argued that SCO by the fact that they own Caldera probably copied the linux kernel themselves.
You have it backwards: Caldera owns SCO.
It was Caldera, a Linux company, that bought the Unix portion of SCO with the mounds of cash they got from their IPO. They immediately set about releasing traditional Unix code as Open Source Software, even going so far as to hire someone and give him the title "Kernel Engineer Unix/Linux Integration". Caldera later changed their name to SCO when they decided that the Unix IP was more valuable than the Linux distro (which is ironic, considering the chain of events).
IANAL, but If an Caldera (and SCO owns Caldera) employee put a lot of the code in question in the kernel, then it's reasonable to argue that the code became public domain unless there is a copyright and license in the code when it was submitted.
First, GPL is NOT public domain. GPL code is copyrighted, and SCO would still be the owners of that copyright.
Second, nothing becomes public domain just because it doesn't have a copyright or license attached to it.
It saddens me that someone can have been around long enough to have such a low ID number and still be so fundamentally clueless about copyright and the GPL. I don't mean that as flamebait, but I was truely shocked by that statement.
RTFA
1) A judge could rule the viral implications of the GPL to be invalid. Certainly copyright gives them exclusive rights over things and they can license it under terms, it's a grey area that their license can compel you to change the license of your software.
Nothing compelled them to change the license on that software, they did it knowingly and willingly, and payed someone to do the integration work. Notice the title in his email signatures:
"Christoph Hellwig
Kernel Engineer Unix/Linux Integration
Caldera Deutschland GmbH"
2) The judge could rule that, though individuals at SCO contributed, that overall SCO is not liable for the actions of those individuals. Essentially this defense would be the "left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing" principle. That SCO never conciously chose to distribute their IP inside of Linux.
Caldera made a pretty big deal over how they now owned the origional Unix source code and they were going to release a bunch of it as Free Software. I find it very difficult to believe that they would be issuing press releases with all the fanfare they could muster without the higher-ups noticing. If that's truely what happened, though, they should lose just based on pure gross negligence.
Not only did they have an employee whose specific job it was to port Unix code to Linux, but they even advertised JFS and SMP as selling points for their Linux distro.
If I were a judge presented with this evidence, I would be insulted that they would expect me to believe such a ludicrous claim.
I realize that, but SCO doesn't seem to. Truth be told, I would love to see that happen. The point is, SCO is claiming ownership of basically every OS created in the last 30 years, specifically mentioning Linux, BSD, Windows, Mac OS, and Solaris users as potential targets for their attack lawyers. What that means to me is that I might as well just continue as I have been, since it doesn't seem to matter what I do, I'm still just as much of a target to them.
I'm not going to be buying anything from them. I'd rather switch to FreeBSD and give them the finger, than send so much as one red cent their way
According to statements made by SCO execs in the recent past, switching to FreeBSD would not save you.
That said, I won't be buying anything from SCO, since they've made it clear that the only thing they think a contract is using it "as a weapon". I'd have to be a complete idiot to enter into a contract with someone who thinks that way.
If we're going to bring morals into it RMS and McVoy both lose.
Really, though, that's quite a logical leap from "we shouldn't stab people in the back for trying to helps us" to "all open source software is immoral." Can you name another instance of someone friendly to OSS having their business model directly attacked?
McVoy has said repeatedly that it cost bazillions of dollars and countless programmer hours to create BitKeeper, iirc he said specifically it couldn't have been done using the free software model - but if a bunch of presumably volunteer coders can produce something similar AND compatible, that makes his claim look rather shaky, doesn't it?
I believe it's totally possible for OSS to produce something similar. I even think that we should. I don't think, though, that we should start out aiming for BK compatability. It's just dumb to thank somebpdy for helping you by stabbing them in the back. Everyone in the software community will see that, and the warning will be loud and clear: Don't help out OSS, they'll just betray you!
Is that really the message we want to send? Better to not use the BK protocols and build an equivalent SCM tool that stands on it's own, I think.
I agree with you for the most part.
Here's the thing; McVoy has gone out of his way to provide a MUCH NEEDED service to Linux developers, and FOSS developers in general. RMS thanks him by making a public call to stab him in the back.
I agree that FOSS needs a better SCM tool, but I don't think that the way to do it is to make a FOSS BK client. Sure, that might get us to that one goal faster, but at the cost of sending a serious warning to any proprietary software vendor thinking of supporting FOSS developement in any serious way.
If that's the way we do business, we're no better than Microsoft.
In many cases there can be little choice except to run Windows as administrator. Because far too many Windows apps are written to demand privs they don't actually need. Many Windows programmers appearing to lack any understanding of security.
That was my experience back when I was admin for a small engineering company. All the design staff had to run as local admin because SolidWorks (3D CADD program) absolutely had to have permissions. Mind you, this was on Windows2000, which we only upgraded to on the strong recommendation of the SolidWorks support people, who claimed it was the answer to all our problems...
Now, IANAL, but I'm pretty sure you need to file patent suits ASAP, or you lose your ability to do so.
Nope, you're thinking of Trademarks, which are "defend or lose".
Patent suits can be filed at any time during the life of the patent, and can even be selectively enforced if the patent holder wishes (meaning they can sue one person for infringement and ignore another).
Why are they using bitkeeper in the first place? From their home page it doesn't seem to be GPL/OpenSource but rather a propietary system.
You're correct, it is a proprietary system. The reason Linus decided to use it is that there simply isn't a Free equivalent, and the terms McVoy offered for use by FOSS developers are really quite generous. Additionally, Linus was involved in determining the innitial specs of BK, so in a sense BK was designed specifically for Linux.
It's unfortunate that McVoy is being portrayed as such a demon in this story, he really isn't a bad guy. He has a family to feed, and so he has to protect his revenue stream (selling BitKeeper to people who aren't producing Free software). RMS is threatening that revenue stream directly by calling for people to create not just another app that does the same things, but one that uses BK's protocols. Obviously, that would kill sales of BK to non-OSS developers, and thus kill McVoys business.
When you look at it that way, his response seems perfectly reasonable.
When someone is ready to try an alternative to Windows, its much easier to pick up the CDs rather than wait hours for a public download to finish...and lose the enthusiasm for a change in OS.
I agree with you, but there are other distros that cover this marketspace. Mandrake is probably the most popular newbie distro, though my personal preference is SuSE (and yes, I do mean for newbies). There are numerous others with retail presence as well, like Lindows, TurboLinux, etc.
I don't pay that close attention to the others, but I very much doubt that SuSE will be giving up on the retail market any time soon. Their free online distro is not the same as their boxed distro, and that differentiation probably helps their sales. Truth be told though, everyone I know who uses SuSE buys the box for the kickass manuals. I don't know anything about the quality of Red Hat's printed documentation, but I suspect that's the main thing that would be missed.
In my experience, anyone who is ready to try an alternative to Windows is going to be more turned off by the price of a boxed set than the amount of time it takes to download ISOs.
Has it anything to do with the KDE Klash? (Not likely though)
From reading the article it does seem likely that the KDE thing is part of the issue, since customizing of packages is one of the major things that's going to change.
I'm sure that the money they lose on boxed set is a major consideration as well.
What in the world makes you think it didn't have to do with documents in the trash?
Because knowing anything about him at all is completely unnecessary for pulling off that sort of thing.
Like maybe someone made themselves look as qualified as him.
"Looking qualified" means precisely dick to the FedEx delivery guy. "Able to sign for the package" is the only thing that matters. At best you'd have to be able to pass for an adult and act like you belong there, though in most cases not even that is necessary.
He was fishing intact CC receipts out of the trash, not shredded receipts. Shredding them at least raises the bar so that at least the mouth-breathers aren't going to be ripping you off.
Why would he need to fish them out of the trash at all? The company keeps a copy of the receipt too, and if he's an employee he would have access to it for at least a few minutes, more than enough time to jot down the CC number.
That happens in restaurants all the time, BTW.
I think you've made a bit of a leap here. The meaning of the second amendment is certainely up for debate, but it refers to the right to bear arms at part of a militia. I also doubt the founding fathers intended for it to cover assault rifles given the fact that they were still using single shot muskets back then. Who knows, maybe they would have wanted us to all carry AK-47s, but that isn't clear at ALL.
It's quite clear to me. 'Arms' means only one thing: weapons meant for warfare. The specific meaning might change with the technology of the times, but the general meaning of the word has always meant 'military weapons'. 500 years ago that was a sword or a pike, 200 years ago that was a musket, today that's an assault rifle.
Also, nowhere in the 2nd Amendment does it say that the people can bear arms as long as they are part of a militia, it merely offers the militia as a reason why the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed. That the militia is merely a justification for the right is quite clear upon analysing the sentence.
Additionally, if you read any of the writings of the Founding Fathers, it is quite clear that they felt it was essential that the people be able to defend themselves from their government. As Ben Franklin put it, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
You misunderstand the point of that statement. The person I was replying to was complaining how you had to buy a liscense (for commercial software) for each computer you put software on, and how much better it was to have a single computer with a bunch of terminals.
I didn't misunderstand your point at all, it simply is no longer valid. It certainly was at one time, but once you take per seat licensing out of the equation, which Linux does, it really is much cheaper and easier to go thin-client.
But you aren't just maintaining one machine, you're maintaining N+1 machines -- the monitor doesn't just plug into the ethernet port.
Actually, some of them do. And no, you aren't really just administering N+1 machines, because only 1 of the machines has anything on it that actually matters, or any parts that can't simply be swapped out in a few minutes (keyboard, mouse, monitor, and whatever they use for network connection and what little local processing is required, eg 486, NCD terminal, etc), sending the user back on their merry way. This Newsforge article covers the benefits nicely, I think. (It's wrotten by Roblimo, so there's some MS bashing, but there's also some good info if you can get past that)
Some key points: The terminals they're using cost about $700 new, but can be had on ebay for under $5 each, and they have a 10 year life expectancy. The 2 terminal servers, as I mentioned before, are dual P3s and they serve over 450 terminals. When an employee needs to change terminals for whatever reason (terminal needs to be replaced, policeman going from his car to his desk, etc), there's no need to worry about saving or transporting their work since their session is maintained on the server; they simply log in at the new terminal and pick up exactly where they left off.