I understand where you are coming from, but you're missing some things. For example, Darl's employment contract, and the Bay Star Capital contract. They both have provisions for severe consequences if SCOX:US falls below a set price. It will almost certainly put SCO in bankruptcy.
This research note come very close to saying that. The fact that they state the obvious (don't let them on your premises) and directly contradict their claim of making money from licensing pre-lawsuit conclusion is highly unusual. Most analysis notes are a lot more bland and cryptic, almost like a horoscope; they say nothing substantive you can hold them to. This one screams of SELL.
This research note is as close to a retraction of previous SCO boostering you're going to see from risk-averse analyst groups. The fact that they state the obvious (don't let them on your premises) and directly contradict their claim of making money from licensing pre-lawsuit conclusion is a HUGE deal. Most analysis notes are a lot more bland and cryptic, almost like a horoscope; it says nothing substantive you can hold them to. This one is different.
Sure, it's blindingly obvious to techies. But they are not the consumers of Gartner's research. The real effect of this "research note" will be to SCOX:US's stock price - and that's a good thing.
2) Until a judgment in a case would unequivocally warrant it, Linux users should not pay SCO the license fees it has asked for to settle its allegations of infringement of intellectual property rights.
Duh. All techies have been saying this for months.
It matters that analysts are saying this, because it gets to heart of the point of the lawsuit: stock manipulation. If stories like this hit the newswires (this one hasn't), SCOX:US is done for.
Are you sure about this? I asked a representative this exact question at a presentation. He stronly asserted that their ESXServer kernel was not based on Linux. I was skeptical, considering how much work would be required just to create all the drivers for the NICs it supports.
So, have you got any evidence of this? Its a serious allegation about a company whose livelihood is seriously invested in Linux.
From Silicon.com's Agenda Setters 2003: http://www.silicon.com/as2003/analysis2.htm l =============== Someone who could well have fallen into this category this year but didn't make the list at all is SCO CEO Darl McBride. He has led his company's charge to get credit for what it claims is some of its code turning up in Linux. So far the row has taken the form of a lawsuit brought against IBM, headlines in the media and SCO invoicing some users for Linux roll outs.
However, when asked what happened when his company was served with a request to pay a SCO licence for Linux, panellist Ric Francis, Safeway's CIO, said: "I told them to stick it. At the end of the day it is never going to fly. It's the last dying breath of a company that is never going to make money."
McBride - in the headlines yes, agenda setting no. There is a difference. ===============
As far as I know, even Microsoft has never made it impossible to replace a random executable with another one that serves the same purpose.
That's precisely what Paladium a.k.a NBGSCB (Next Gen Secure Computing Base) does. Secure bootstrap is a central part of locking you out of your computer.
They can't kill the GPL and have a surviving product line.
What product line? Seriously, they've given up trying to sell a product. Look at the breakdown of their revenue in their SEC filings. SCOSource is all they have left.
If there were any company in the world you could pick to be the precedent-setting defender of the GPL who would it be? IBM would be my dream pick. This is very good news.
Re:Know What I want in a PDA?
on
New Treo Reviewed
·
· Score: 2, Informative
My PDA runs Emacs beautifully. Did I mention it's running Linux with a real (small) keyboard and the AA batteries last weeks?
If your user are getting their web access through a squid proxy, you can add these lines to the config to prevent them from seeing verisign's brain damage.
Criticality of this is horribly underrated by Microsoft.
This is critically important for all Windows MS Office users - "the user must open the attachment" is no protection because most users open attachments to see what they are.
If the infected Word Perfect document is given a.DOC extension, Word will be invoked directly when the user double-clicks the attachment. Word will automatically recognize and convert the document, and run the hostile code with no further opportunity for the user to stop the virus.
The vulnerability could also be exploited through a web page, and the user would get no chance to say "No" if ActiveX is enabled.
Better quotes: -----
Martin Armitage, senior vice president at Unilever's global information organisation, suggested that SCO is focused more on the court case than on developing its software.
"[SCO] keeps the GPL licence on its website which anyone can access and has not taken steps to keep its code confidential. So how can it claim breach of confidentiality?" asked Armitage.
-----
Wow, a Senior VP that gets this. Our efforts to spread the word about the lunacy of SCO's claims is working!
What do you mean encryption has nothing to do with DRM? Encryption is about the only means to the end of DRM. Can you think of another way to enforce DRM goals in software that doesn't use encryption?
Encryption allows you to send someone a secret. It does NOT allow you to dictate the use of the data. DRM schemes use encryption to hide the fact that DRM is a computer science impossibility. Look at the "embed" bit in truetype fonts for an example of DRM that doesnt use encryption. All DRM schemes, encrypted or otherwise, are nonsense that need onerous laws to prop them up. You simply can't keep secrets from yourself.
If OGG-S is open source, how can the encryption be secure?
If a company wishes to use OGG-S to protect their content, SideSpace Solutions highly recommends purchasing a binary distribution license. Under this license, any modifications to OGG-S (such as a change of encryption engine or private keys) do not have to be released.
Know the truth:
There is no such thing as a remote trusted computer. Encryption has nothing to with DRM.
I picked up a leftover logitech webcam of some silly model number. It was free, so I didn't really care if it worked or not.
I plugged it into my Mandrake system, and fuck me tender, an icon appeared on my desktop for gnomemeeting on the webcam. One click on the icon and I was staring at my pretty mug, as seen by the webcam.
I've been using Linux for about 6 years now, and that still shocked me.
Slashdot Mirror
They used to provide free POP3. Now they charge for that as an extra service.
I understand where you are coming from, but you're missing some things. For example, Darl's employment contract, and the Bay Star Capital contract. They both have provisions for severe consequences if SCOX:US falls below a set price. It will almost certainly put SCO in bankruptcy.
This research note come very close to saying that. The fact that they state the obvious (don't let them on your premises) and directly contradict their claim of making money from licensing pre-lawsuit conclusion is highly unusual. Most analysis notes are a lot more bland and cryptic, almost like a horoscope; they say nothing substantive you can hold them to. This one screams of SELL.
This research note is as close to a retraction of previous SCO boostering you're going to see from risk-averse analyst groups. The fact that they state the obvious (don't let them on your premises) and directly contradict their claim of making money from licensing pre-lawsuit conclusion is a HUGE deal. Most analysis notes are a lot more bland and cryptic, almost like a horoscope; it says nothing substantive you can hold them to. This one is different.
Sure, it's blindingly obvious to techies. But they are not the consumers of Gartner's research. The real effect of this "research note" will be to SCOX:US's stock price - and that's a good thing.
2) Until a judgment in a case would unequivocally warrant it, Linux users should not pay SCO the license fees it has asked for to settle its allegations of infringement of intellectual property rights.
Duh. All techies have been saying this for months.
It matters that analysts are saying this, because it gets to heart of the point of the lawsuit: stock manipulation. If stories like this hit the newswires (this one hasn't), SCOX:US is done for.
I didn't write that. The "editor" changed it from "Gartner recommends NOT paying SCO."
Are you sure about this? I asked a representative this exact question at a presentation. He stronly asserted that their ESXServer kernel was not based on Linux. I was skeptical, considering how much work would be required just to create all the drivers for the NICs it supports.
So, have you got any evidence of this? Its a serious allegation about a company whose livelihood is seriously invested in Linux.
From Silicon.com's Agenda Setters 2003:m l
http://www.silicon.com/as2003/analysis2.ht
===============
Someone who could well have fallen into this category this year but
didn't make the list at all is SCO CEO Darl McBride. He has led his
company's charge to get credit for what it claims is some of its code
turning up in Linux. So far the row has taken the form of a lawsuit
brought against IBM, headlines in the media and SCO invoicing some
users for Linux roll outs.
However, when asked what happened when his company was served with a
request to pay a SCO licence for Linux, panellist Ric Francis,
Safeway's CIO, said: "I told them to stick it. At the end of the day it
is never going to fly. It's the last dying breath of a company that is
never going to make money."
McBride - in the headlines yes, agenda setting no. There is a
difference.
===============
As far as I know, even Microsoft has never made it impossible to replace a random executable with another one that serves the same purpose.
That's precisely what Paladium a.k.a NBGSCB (Next Gen Secure Computing Base) does. Secure bootstrap is a central part of locking you out of your computer.
They can't kill the GPL and have a surviving product line.
What product line? Seriously, they've given up trying to sell a product. Look at the breakdown of their revenue in their SEC filings. SCOSource is all they have left.
It's called scponly:
http://www.sublimation.org/scponly/
This is important point. Please moderate the parent post up.
If there were any company in the world you could pick to be the precedent-setting defender of the GPL who would it be? IBM would be my dream pick. This is very good news.
My PDA runs Emacs beautifully. Did I mention it's running Linux with a real (small) keyboard and the AA batteries last weeks?
It's called a Psion 5mx. Look into it.
If your user are getting their web access through a squid proxy, you can add these lines to the config to prevent them from seeing verisign's brain damage.
acl verisign dst 64.94.110.11/255.255.255.255
http_access deny verisign
It'll give an access denied error, which is less than optimal. Can anyone describe a less intrusive squid config?
Criticality of this is horribly underrated by Microsoft.
.DOC extension, Word will be invoked directly when the user double-clicks the attachment. Word will automatically recognize and convert the document, and run the hostile code with no further opportunity for the user to stop the virus.
This is critically important for all Windows MS Office users - "the user must open the attachment" is no protection because most users open attachments to see what they are.
If the infected Word Perfect document is given a
The vulnerability could also be exploited through a web page, and the user would get no chance to say "No" if ActiveX is enabled.
Better quotes:
-----
Martin Armitage, senior vice president at Unilever's global information organisation, suggested that SCO is focused more on the court case than on developing its software.
"[SCO] keeps the GPL licence on its website which anyone can access and has not taken steps to keep its code confidential. So how can it claim breach of confidentiality?" asked Armitage.
-----
Wow, a Senior VP that gets this. Our efforts to spread the word about the lunacy of SCO's claims is working!
Shut the fuck up, you ignoramus. The First Amendment does not cover commercial speech. The least you could have done was preface it with IANAL.
Juniper's Junos is a major fork of freebsd that is closed source.
Thanks for making Google a link to Google's web site. I would never have been able to find it! Maybe I could have googled for it. Oh wait, nevermind.
What do you mean encryption has nothing to do with DRM? Encryption is about the only means to the end of DRM. Can you think of another way to enforce DRM goals in software that doesn't use encryption?
Encryption allows you to send someone a secret. It does NOT allow you to dictate the use of the data. DRM schemes use encryption to hide the fact that DRM is a computer science impossibility. Look at the "embed" bit in truetype fonts for an example of DRM that doesnt use encryption. All DRM schemes, encrypted or otherwise, are nonsense that need onerous laws to prop them up. You simply can't keep secrets from yourself.
A cryptographic engineer,
Ben Ploni
If OGG-S is open source, how can the encryption be secure?
If a company wishes to use OGG-S to protect their content, SideSpace Solutions highly recommends purchasing a binary distribution license. Under this license, any modifications to OGG-S (such as a change of encryption engine or private keys) do not have to be released.
Know the truth: There is no such thing as a remote trusted computer. Encryption has nothing to with DRM.
Damn, and me without mod points.
Well, it worked so well for me that I have hope.
I picked up a leftover logitech webcam of some silly model number. It was free, so I didn't really care if it worked or not.
I plugged it into my Mandrake system, and fuck me tender, an icon appeared on my desktop for gnomemeeting on the webcam. One click on the icon and I was staring at my pretty mug, as seen by the webcam.
I've been using Linux for about 6 years now, and that still shocked me.