But how do you want to compare everything to make sure it matches? Is www.metro..jp the same thing is www.metero.tokyo.jp?
It's the URL.
If the unicode of the URL does not match the browser's default unicode, then throw up the standard warning.
I don't care about "almost identical". We have that already with "l1" and "O0". I'm talking unicode.
If the unicode of the URL does not match the default unicode of the browser (because people should be most familiar with the language they browse in) then throw up the standard warning, disable java and javascript and activex and anything else until the user approves them.
Since we know it's going to happen, and we know how it will happen, all it will take is planning to defeat it before it is implemented.
And it shouldn't be too difficult. Just compare the preferred unicode of the browser to the unicode of the URL and put a banner or something at the top saying that there may be a phishing problem when they don't match.
Even better, have an option to auto-deny any javascript or java or anything else for sites that don't match the unicode of the browser.
In fact, get the big players in the browser market together TODAY and get them to agree on the standard response that will be generated when the unicode doesn't match. That way everyone will only have to learn ONE warning for this attack.
ICANN should tie that standard to the release of their standard. Until the browsers agree, there will not be any change in the domain names. That way the various countries can put the pressure on the browser people to get the standard out.
So Microsoft has released the specs to allow Linux to interoperate with Windows? Tell me more...
Now, granted, these are not the keys to the Windows kingdom, but it's a step in the right direction, and Microsoft should be encouraged to get as many specs out into the Open as possible, as soon as possible.
So by "interoperate" you mean... "not interoperate"
And by "you're wrong" you mean... I'm actually correct.
Come back when Microsoft opens up NTFS or Active Directory, okay? Or even when Microsoft has 100% support for ODF, as a default option, out of the box.
Like I said, Microsoft has access to all of the Linux code AND all of the Microsoft code.
Microsoft can open any spec it wants, whenever it wants.
Any other talk about "interoperability" is pure bullshit.
It is, after all, the case that the fear of being sued is enough to keep some corporations from using software. Novell's intention was merely to mitigate fear to increase sales.
That MIGHT be reasonable... if Linux's marketshare was flat or declining.
But Linux has been seeing double digit growth for years now. Linux server sales are growing faster than Microsoft's server sales. Sure, Microsoft has a larger share of the market right now so it doesn't take as much for Linux to grow faster... but that doesn't matter.
Why would Novell want to "mitigate fear" that would hamper sales when sales are growing at a double digit rate?
The fact that it has the added bonus of potentially protecting their customers in the future if they happen to violate some patent Microsoft holds doesn't mean they're violating such now.
SCO is the last company that tried that argument. And I'll ask you the same thing I asked back then.
What company was the last company (not SCO) that sued end users for patent violations instead of or in addition to suing the company distributing the infringing product?
Go ahead, dig as much as you can. You won't find anything. It does not happen. There was not threat. There is no "fear".
While I might not agree with Novell's actions, I can understand their attempt to get their foot in the door by removing fears of Microsoft suddenly turning sue-friendly.
Again, Linux sales are growing at double digit rates. There doesn't seem to be much "fear" out there.
Maybe, but corporate clients need interoperability, and this relationship will eventually provide them with a greater degree of Windows/Linux interop than they have today (while providing them with some of the legal protections they desire).
Microsoft has 100% access to the source code for Windows AND for Linux. If Microsoft wanted "interoperability" then Microsoft is in the best possible position to just do it.
And Microsoft can release any specs at any time so Linux could implement "interoperability" improvements.
The fact that Microsoft does not do either should tell you all you need to know about the "interoperability" bullshit.
Is the "right direction" for Linux to become a little bit proprietary?
If not, Microsoft has 100% access to the source code. Microsoft can be as "interoperable" with Linux as they want to be. Any time they want to be.
Microsoft can release whatever specs it wants, whenever it wants.
Now, why don't you go listen to Ballmer talking about how Linux users owe Microsoft money before you start talking about the "right direction" and "working together"?
Our interest in signing this agreement was to secure interoperability and joint sales agreements, but Microsoft asked that we cooperate on patents as well, and so a patent cooperation agreement was included as a part of the deal. In this agreement, Novell and Microsoft each promise not to sue the other's customers for patent infringement...... When we entered the patent cooperation agreement with Microsoft, Novell did not agree or admit that Linux or any other Novell offering violates Microsoft patents.
So you signed a deal with Microsoft... over patents... that you claim do not exist?
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
Here's a free clue, you idiot. That last company that talked about "protecting" end users from being sued was... SCO.
You might want to look at how beloved they are at the moment.
We go through this all the time.
on
You Call This Agile?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I can write any program you want within any time limit you want provided...
a. I don't have to support it.
b. It doesn't have to work.
Yes, that's funny, but it is not a joke. Processes are supposed to be about functionality and maintenance. A one-off app for a critical issue today doesn't need a process (except how to delete it tomorrow so it doesn't become part of they real system).
And that is where marketing and development differ. Marketing sees the opportunities in selling "support contracts" for code that was rushed out, filled with bugs and features that don't work.
Development only sees problems that they're going to have to fix. And fix today. And fix in the quickest possible way because the customers are complaining about a critical issue. And so forth.
So the various processes (and project managers) are supposed to translate/support both views. Get it out in time to make the sales, with a stated minimum level of functionality and no more than X bugs of various levels.
But, as you noted, it is easy to follow the process as the religion instead of recognizing that it is just a means of getting product ready for shipment so it satisfies marketing, the developers and the customers.
Because your data is usually locked into the original ISV's proprietary format... and that ISV knows approximately the cost of a migration...
So that ISV will price their "upgrade" at a low enough point that the pain and cost of the migration is difficult to justify to upper management.
Remember, software isn't like a car. Once the time/money has been invested in writing the software, distribution is practically free. You make more money the more times you can sell the same code. Even if you have to "discount" it for some of your clients.
The real issue is on "TCO" and "ROI".
How long will it take you, running the new software, to make back the cost of the migration and start really saving money?
It's in the ISV's best interest to lock up your data so that the migration cost is so high that even with huge savings on TCO and massive ROI, it will still take years and years to make back the migration costs. That way, few businesses/governments will be willing to justify a migration that might fail.
But isn't that the problem with most Linux deployments? When you have the majority of the IT workforce out there not trained in Linux it makes for a tough hiring process to find someone qualified for a rollout like this. Then, when you do find someone qualified (I'm talking qualified here, not someone who has been running Linux at home as a hobby...but a true Linux Professional) the rates are through the roof.
Not really. Anyone who knows *nix can adapt to Linux in a couple of days. And there are lots and lots of people who know *nix out there.
True, they might be more expensive than someone with an MCSE. But the MCSE you'd hire/contract for a migration of this size would be more expensive than the MCSE you'd hire to maintain a site that has already migrated.
Migration specialists cost the same whether they're Microsoft, Linux, Sun or whatever.
However, in the hear and now its difficult to get something like this to go off without a hitch due to just the sheer lack of experience in the world.
Again, not really. The problem is when people do not look at it as a real migration. If you've ever done an Oracle/Sun migration, you'd know the costs involved and the amount of planning. And those are the kind of experts you'd be calling in for a project such as this.
The strange part is how they could spend so much money, so quickly, on so few PC's.
Realistically, they should not have spent 1/20th of that before finding that Microsoft would cut their sales price to come under the Linux figures.
And most of that money would have been spent on identifying all the apps used and which could be ported and for how much.
Linux desktops are cheaper to run than Windows. Particularly if you're using them in a diskless environment.
The HUGE costs are porting the apps or migrating the data to Linux-based apps. This is because most vendors have spent time locking your data up in their proprietary formats in order to make it as expensive as possible for you to dump them.
Which is why migrations such as this are STUPID to rush into.
It makes far more sense to plan them over 5 years. That way, the cost of migrating/porting those apps can be compared to the cost of upgrading them (or migrating anyway when the ISV goes out of business) and the real savings can be seen.
And you can realize the easy savings sooner to off-set the more expensive projects later.
There will always be some place in the world where people will work for less money than where you are right now.
And knowledge is easily transfered.
We have to focus on linking our technological imports with our school system. We cannot, as a nation, afford to reduce the number of home grown engineers while increasing the amount of tech we import (either through goods or visas).
If our technology imports increase 20% one year, then a significant chunk of that increase should be put into our engineering degree programs.
The "solution" is to import cheap labour to further erode your citizens' desire to spend the time/money/effort getting those advanced technical degrees.
After all, why rack up so much debt from school when there will be someone else willing to do the same job for less because his school loans (if they exist) are a fraction of your's?
And isn't in the corporation's best interest to get the cheapest labour they can find?
So, the question becomes... why, in his opinion, are Americans so much dumber than citizens in other countries?
I don't think we are. But I do believe that our government is too closely involved with business's desire to get the maximum benefit with the minimum investment. Fuck that. I want to see scholarships for advanced technical studies. Lots of them. Put your money where your mouth is. When 50% of the computer science majors can get out of school and pay off their debt within 5 years, THAT will be sufficient. Only then can he talk about how dumb Americans are.
If they were smarter, they could version it.
on
Can the Web Survive v3.0
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
'web 1.0 - the basic 'web. You click on a link and you read the page.
'web 1.5 - the basic 'web + databases. You can post your comments to someone else's web site. (yay/.)
'web 2.0 - online sales. Amazon.com, eBay.com, PayPal.com, etc. The drive was to get out of the "brick and mortar" business model and get online.
'web 2.5 - because personal selling such as eBay could be considered a step above corporate selling such as Amazon.
'web 3.0 - LiveJournal, MySpace, etc. The drive to get your diary online. Pages for everyone, without the need to maintain your own website. The 'web is opened up to the angst-ridden ravings of hundreds of thousands of teenagers (and people who are still, emotionally, teenagers).
'web 4.0 -... ? What's next? Almost everyone is online socially and professionally. They can do just about everything online that they do in real life. Aside from the direct neural interfaces and "consensual reality", what is left? And who is left off-line who would need to get online to do it?
I don't think the applications the author is talking about are really valid. They're much more easily addressed by simply chatting with the people you'd already talk to, and you're probably already chatting with them online anyway.
For example, imagine a game where players compete to clothe a runway model that will be judged in a contest by other players. This game could very well be a job requisition submitted by a major fashion company that wants to get advanced market research on what clothers buyers will prefer. The virtual clothes in the game could be detailed in-game 3D objects that are exact duplicates of the fashion company's artwork for their clothing.
Yeah, as soon as nudity is acceptable corporate work attire.
But it was not accepted upstream. Now Novell is trying to push it upstream. That is the problem. This is not a problem as long as it is not included in the official, upstream tree.
While it seems that Novell does maintain and develop the code now, I'm sure somebody familiar with the ooo-build repository can track down the original author(s).
And the point of that would be... ?
You'd have to show that the original code was pretty much complete and submitted by someone with no link to Microsoft. And that Novell has just been adding bug fixes and no additional functionality.
Good luck with that.
Meanwhile, it's a lot less effort and a lot safer just to reject this. Novell can do whatever it wants to do. I just cannot get its submissions accepted upstream.
That's the key, a Novell employee making the patch. If MS were to go after anyone they'd have to go after Novell for releasing the patch not to a third party who uses the patch. But of course MS can't, er won't as they gave Novell a guaranty not to sue Novell.
Nope. Microsoft could go after anyone distributing/selling their property. Not just Novell. Not just the one employee at Novell.
It doesn't matter how it originally got in there, as long as it was not Microsoft who directly put it in there.
Patent not copyright may be applicable in this case, however in both copyrights and patents, there is a record that can be looked up to see if there is an infringment. Both the Copyright and patent offices have databases of them which anyone can lookup. The problem with this is knowing how to search the records.
Not exactly. There is no central authority that has all the Microsoft source code available for searching to determine if a code block was illegally copied from them. And with Microsoft's "Shared Source" program, it is possible to "accidentally" copy code from them.
And the patent database is useless for looking up specific concepts. Particularly with "submarine patents" which can change until they're officially granted.
The safest way is to dump any and all functionality additions from Novell.
Novell coders can still submit bug fixes for code that non-Novell employees have submitted, but no new features should be accepted from anyone associated with Novell.
Because there is no enforcement.
on
Leopard Vs. Vista
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
It was deemed illegal to have "per-processor" licenses. So they don't have them any more.
But it is still "legal" to pay Dell to be part of your "advertising campaign". Which, in effect, reduces the cost Dell pays Microsoft per license. Those who do not want to be full partners in the campaign will be paid less than those who do.
Logical, isn't it? So if you push Windows instead of Linux, you pay less for Windows than if you did not. And the profit margins are so slim on computers now that the OEM's will take whatever deal is offered in order to increase their profits.
And since Microsoft still has the monopoly on the desktop, all the OEM's have to offer Windows. Even if they don't like the terms of the deal.
Besides the presumptuous headline, can we please try to distinguish between VBA (Visual Basic for Applications) and VBS (VBScript, I assume).
Why bother? Patent violations can exist in either. Even copyright violations can exist in either.
Next, it appears that the Novell programmer is simply integrating a patch into the mainline product which the other distros have been applying during their packaging procedure for some time now.
The question is the origin of the patch. Since a Novell employee is involved, this action is suspect.
That means that we should exercise above normal levels of caution before it is accepted.
Is there any evidence that the VBA code was lifted from Microsoft (ie. they're setting people up for a copyright liability), or that some aspect of the VBA implementation is patented? No? I didn't think so.
WTF? How would you see the "evidence" that it was patented?
Patents don't make your code show up in a different font or colour.
And copyrighted? Why do you suppose that the people running OpenOffice.org have access to Microsoft's source code for comparison?
Or are you basing your position on the fact that no one could possibly have gone through the patch and deleted all the "this code written by Microsoft employee # 1234567 and is protected by copyrights and patents"?
Given the recent events, a higher level of caution would be advisable. Whether you agree or not.
The spec provides for "intermediate" servers receiving the message and passing it on.
Years ago this was duplicated with the old BBS's and phone lines. I'm talking about the single user at a time boards. One phone line. Lots of waiting.
The boards had the numbers of different boards that they would call as the lines were free (their's and the recipient's). Messages would be passed along whatever route was available until they were received at the destination.
This model is heavily dependent upon storage, though. If one of the nodes loses its hard drive, the messages stored there were lost. You can have unreliable connections, but you cannot have unreliable storage.
Also, think "routing loops". The tail of the messages gets really long in some of these schemes. You don't want the message routing back over connections it has already traversed, do you?
Which leaves the possibility of the "route to nowhere". Where messages go to die.
When constructing a presentation slide designed to persuade. . . -80% included irrelevant points with relevant points -Just 12% used only points directly related to the argument -8% used entirely irrelevant points
Well DUH!!!
When you "persuade" someone, "irrelevant points" are useful if they can be used to emotionally "persuade" someone.
You see this all the time in political discussions.
The problems with "testing" people is that the people who write the tests have their own biases and opinions about what is "better" or "bad". And since they write the tests, their opinions are naturally considered to be more "correct" than the people they're testing.
First off, either there are or there are not Ford patents being violated by Chevy.
Case #1. There are - So Ford pays Chevy lots of money and Ford can promise not to sue Mom for driving a Chevy. This is going to be a bit difficult to explain as Ford could just save the money and not sue Mom anyway.
Case #2. There are not - So Ford pays Chevy lots of money for no reason and Ford promises not to Sue Mom for driving a Chevy. This makes even less sense.
Hilf, who has been touring Europe since the announcement, admitted that there's been a lot of negativity about the deal in the open-source community. "Our intention with this deal was not to create a problem, but rather to solve one," he said.
As such, Hilf is trying to be more clear about the company's true intentions and trying to translate all the legalese around the deal into something that a layman can understand.
That's easy to do.
Simply explain to them why Ford would pay hundreds of millions of dollars to Chevrolet for an agreement not to sue Mom (who drives a Chevy) for violating Ford's patents.
The "command environment" that Microsoft implemented on WinNT doesn't handle timing well. Virtual machines want to time/slice the processor. Using the DOS app in a virtual machine means it runs so slow that it has other issues.
Yep, we've even tried DOS-box.
The only real solution at the moment is to keep a stack of old hardware around so we can keep this app alive until the data is finally done. And that's a long time in the insurance business.
Migrating from an old Compaq server running Debian Sarge to a new HP server running Ubuntu Dapper Drake.
No problems with any of the infrastructure apps (DNS, DHCP, NTP, etc).
Next I'll be adding the functions from an old Red Hat box. That includes Plone and such. I've already tested in on a different machine and there are no problems.
I keep hearing about "problems" but I'm not seeing any and I can give specifics on what apps we're running and how easy it was to upgrade/migrate them.
Meanwhile, we're still running WinNT 4.0 because we have an insurance app that requires a DOS environment and Microsoft broke that between WinNT 4.0 and Win2K (doesn't work in WinXP or Win2K3 either).
Slashdot Mirror
It's the URL.
If the unicode of the URL does not match the browser's default unicode, then throw up the standard warning.
I don't care about "almost identical". We have that already with "l1" and "O0". I'm talking unicode.
If the unicode of the URL does not match the default unicode of the browser (because people should be most familiar with the language they browse in) then throw up the standard warning, disable java and javascript and activex and anything else until the user approves them.
It is that simple.
Since we know it's going to happen, and we know how it will happen, all it will take is planning to defeat it before it is implemented.
And it shouldn't be too difficult. Just compare the preferred unicode of the browser to the unicode of the URL and put a banner or something at the top saying that there may be a phishing problem when they don't match.
Even better, have an option to auto-deny any javascript or java or anything else for sites that don't match the unicode of the browser.
In fact, get the big players in the browser market together TODAY and get them to agree on the standard response that will be generated when the unicode doesn't match. That way everyone will only have to learn ONE warning for this attack.
ICANN should tie that standard to the release of their standard. Until the browsers agree, there will not be any change in the domain names. That way the various countries can put the pressure on the browser people to get the standard out.
So Microsoft has released the specs to allow Linux to interoperate with Windows? Tell me more
So by "interoperate" you mean
And by "you're wrong" you mean
Come back when Microsoft opens up NTFS or Active Directory, okay? Or even when Microsoft has 100% support for ODF, as a default option, out of the box.
Like I said, Microsoft has access to all of the Linux code AND all of the Microsoft code.
Microsoft can open any spec it wants, whenever it wants.
Any other talk about "interoperability" is pure bullshit.
That MIGHT be reasonable
But Linux has been seeing double digit growth for years now. Linux server sales are growing faster than Microsoft's server sales. Sure, Microsoft has a larger share of the market right now so it doesn't take as much for Linux to grow faster
Why would Novell want to "mitigate fear" that would hamper sales when sales are growing at a double digit rate?
SCO is the last company that tried that argument. And I'll ask you the same thing I asked back then.
What company was the last company (not SCO) that sued end users for patent violations instead of or in addition to suing the company distributing the infringing product?
Go ahead, dig as much as you can. You won't find anything. It does not happen. There was not threat. There is no "fear".
Again, Linux sales are growing at double digit rates. There doesn't seem to be much "fear" out there.
Microsoft has 100% access to the source code for Windows AND for Linux. If Microsoft wanted "interoperability" then Microsoft is in the best possible position to just do it.
And Microsoft can release any specs at any time so Linux could implement "interoperability" improvements.
The fact that Microsoft does not do either should tell you all you need to know about the "interoperability" bullshit.
Microsoft licenses proprietary code.
Linux is under the GPL.
Is the "right direction" for Linux to become a little bit proprietary?
If not, Microsoft has 100% access to the source code. Microsoft can be as "interoperable" with Linux as they want to be. Any time they want to be.
Microsoft can release whatever specs it wants, whenever it wants.
Now, why don't you go listen to Ballmer talking about how Linux users owe Microsoft money before you start talking about the "right direction" and "working together"?
So you signed a deal with Microsoft
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
Here's a free clue, you idiot. That last company that talked about "protecting" end users from being sued was
You might want to look at how beloved they are at the moment.
I can write any program you want within any time limit you want provided ...
a. I don't have to support it.
b. It doesn't have to work.
Yes, that's funny, but it is not a joke. Processes are supposed to be about functionality and maintenance. A one-off app for a critical issue today doesn't need a process (except how to delete it tomorrow so it doesn't become part of they real system).
And that is where marketing and development differ. Marketing sees the opportunities in selling "support contracts" for code that was rushed out, filled with bugs and features that don't work.
Development only sees problems that they're going to have to fix. And fix today. And fix in the quickest possible way because the customers are complaining about a critical issue. And so forth.
So the various processes (and project managers) are supposed to translate/support both views. Get it out in time to make the sales, with a stated minimum level of functionality and no more than X bugs of various levels.
But, as you noted, it is easy to follow the process as the religion instead of recognizing that it is just a means of getting product ready for shipment so it satisfies marketing, the developers and the customers.
Because your data is usually locked into the original ISV's proprietary format ... and that ISV knows approximately the cost of a migration ...
So that ISV will price their "upgrade" at a low enough point that the pain and cost of the migration is difficult to justify to upper management.
Remember, software isn't like a car. Once the time/money has been invested in writing the software, distribution is practically free. You make more money the more times you can sell the same code. Even if you have to "discount" it for some of your clients.
The real issue is on "TCO" and "ROI".
How long will it take you, running the new software, to make back the cost of the migration and start really saving money?
It's in the ISV's best interest to lock up your data so that the migration cost is so high that even with huge savings on TCO and massive ROI, it will still take years and years to make back the migration costs. That way, few businesses/governments will be willing to justify a migration that might fail.
Not really. Anyone who knows *nix can adapt to Linux in a couple of days. And there are lots and lots of people who know *nix out there.
True, they might be more expensive than someone with an MCSE. But the MCSE you'd hire/contract for a migration of this size would be more expensive than the MCSE you'd hire to maintain a site that has already migrated.
Migration specialists cost the same whether they're Microsoft, Linux, Sun or whatever.
Again, not really. The problem is when people do not look at it as a real migration. If you've ever done an Oracle/Sun migration, you'd know the costs involved and the amount of planning. And those are the kind of experts you'd be calling in for a project such as this.
The strange part is how they could spend so much money, so quickly, on so few PC's.
Realistically, they should not have spent 1/20th of that before finding that Microsoft would cut their sales price to come under the Linux figures.
And most of that money would have been spent on identifying all the apps used and which could be ported and for how much.
Linux desktops are cheaper to run than Windows. Particularly if you're using them in a diskless environment.
The HUGE costs are porting the apps or migrating the data to Linux-based apps. This is because most vendors have spent time locking your data up in their proprietary formats in order to make it as expensive as possible for you to dump them.
Which is why migrations such as this are STUPID to rush into.
It makes far more sense to plan them over 5 years. That way, the cost of migrating/porting those apps can be compared to the cost of upgrading them (or migrating anyway when the ISV goes out of business) and the real savings can be seen.
And you can realize the easy savings sooner to off-set the more expensive projects later.
There will always be some place in the world where people will work for less money than where you are right now.
And knowledge is easily transfered.
We have to focus on linking our technological imports with our school system. We cannot, as a nation, afford to reduce the number of home grown engineers while increasing the amount of tech we import (either through goods or visas).
If our technology imports increase 20% one year, then a significant chunk of that increase should be put into our engineering degree programs.
The "solution" is to import cheap labour to further erode your citizens' desire to spend the time/money/effort getting those advanced technical degrees.
... why, in his opinion, are Americans so much dumber than citizens in other countries?
After all, why rack up so much debt from school when there will be someone else willing to do the same job for less because his school loans (if they exist) are a fraction of your's?
And isn't in the corporation's best interest to get the cheapest labour they can find?
So, the question becomes
I don't think we are. But I do believe that our government is too closely involved with business's desire to get the maximum benefit with the minimum investment. Fuck that. I want to see scholarships for advanced technical studies. Lots of them. Put your money where your mouth is. When 50% of the computer science majors can get out of school and pay off their debt within 5 years, THAT will be sufficient. Only then can he talk about how dumb Americans are.
'web 1.0 - the basic 'web. You click on a link and you read the page.
/.)
... ? What's next? Almost everyone is online socially and professionally. They can do just about everything online that they do in real life. Aside from the direct neural interfaces and "consensual reality", what is left? And who is left off-line who would need to get online to do it?
'web 1.5 - the basic 'web + databases. You can post your comments to someone else's web site. (yay
'web 2.0 - online sales. Amazon.com, eBay.com, PayPal.com, etc. The drive was to get out of the "brick and mortar" business model and get online.
'web 2.5 - because personal selling such as eBay could be considered a step above corporate selling such as Amazon.
'web 3.0 - LiveJournal, MySpace, etc. The drive to get your diary online. Pages for everyone, without the need to maintain your own website. The 'web is opened up to the angst-ridden ravings of hundreds of thousands of teenagers (and people who are still, emotionally, teenagers).
'web 4.0 -
I don't think the applications the author is talking about are really valid. They're much more easily addressed by simply chatting with the people you'd already talk to, and you're probably already chatting with them online anyway.
Yeah, as soon as nudity is acceptable corporate work attire.
You mean such as the Linux kernel? Well
Yes. In fact, that was covered in the comment on this posted on the front page of
The "proof" comes after the poison is ingested.
Sorry, but I'm not willing to demonstrate that. Perhaps you are?
Yes, it was.
And it was pushed by Noel Power at Novell.
But it was not accepted upstream. Now Novell is trying to push it upstream. That is the problem. This is not a problem as long as it is not included in the official, upstream tree.
And the point of that would be
You'd have to show that the original code was pretty much complete and submitted by someone with no link to Microsoft. And that Novell has just been adding bug fixes and no additional functionality.
Good luck with that.
Meanwhile, it's a lot less effort and a lot safer just to reject this. Novell can do whatever it wants to do. I just cannot get its submissions accepted upstream.
Nope. Microsoft could go after anyone distributing/selling their property. Not just Novell. Not just the one employee at Novell.
It doesn't matter how it originally got in there, as long as it was not Microsoft who directly put it in there.
Not exactly. There is no central authority that has all the Microsoft source code available for searching to determine if a code block was illegally copied from them. And with Microsoft's "Shared Source" program, it is possible to "accidentally" copy code from them.
And the patent database is useless for looking up specific concepts. Particularly with "submarine patents" which can change until they're officially granted.
The safest way is to dump any and all functionality additions from Novell.
Novell coders can still submit bug fixes for code that non-Novell employees have submitted, but no new features should be accepted from anyone associated with Novell.
It was deemed illegal to have "per-processor" licenses. So they don't have them any more.
But it is still "legal" to pay Dell to be part of your "advertising campaign". Which, in effect, reduces the cost Dell pays Microsoft per license. Those who do not want to be full partners in the campaign will be paid less than those who do.
Logical, isn't it? So if you push Windows instead of Linux, you pay less for Windows than if you did not. And the profit margins are so slim on computers now that the OEM's will take whatever deal is offered in order to increase their profits.
And since Microsoft still has the monopoly on the desktop, all the OEM's have to offer Windows. Even if they don't like the terms of the deal.
Why bother? Patent violations can exist in either. Even copyright violations can exist in either.
The question is the origin of the patch. Since a Novell employee is involved, this action is suspect.
That means that we should exercise above normal levels of caution before it is accepted.
WTF? How would you see the "evidence" that it was patented?
Patents don't make your code show up in a different font or colour.
And copyrighted? Why do you suppose that the people running OpenOffice.org have access to Microsoft's source code for comparison?
Or are you basing your position on the fact that no one could possibly have gone through the patch and deleted all the "this code written by Microsoft employee # 1234567 and is protected by copyrights and patents"?
Given the recent events, a higher level of caution would be advisable. Whether you agree or not.
The spec provides for "intermediate" servers receiving the message and passing it on.
Years ago this was duplicated with the old BBS's and phone lines. I'm talking about the single user at a time boards. One phone line. Lots of waiting.
The boards had the numbers of different boards that they would call as the lines were free (their's and the recipient's). Messages would be passed along whatever route was available until they were received at the destination.
This model is heavily dependent upon storage, though. If one of the nodes loses its hard drive, the messages stored there were lost. You can have unreliable connections, but you cannot have unreliable storage.
Also, think "routing loops". The tail of the messages gets really long in some of these schemes. You don't want the message routing back over connections it has already traversed, do you?
Which leaves the possibility of the "route to nowhere". Where messages go to die.
Don't forget whole cities converted to zombie'ism. Crawling around, slower every day.
"Brains! Brains!"
"Refinance your home. Low rates. Buy herbal viagra!"
"Brains!"
"Teenage sluts want to gamble with you! Brains! Brains!"
"Brains! Protect yourself from zombie attack! Drink Zombie-B-Gone soda today! Guaranteed not to turn you into a zombie! Brains! \/14gra!"
Well DUH!!!
When you "persuade" someone, "irrelevant points" are useful if they can be used to emotionally "persuade" someone.
You see this all the time in political discussions.
The problems with "testing" people is that the people who write the tests have their own biases and opinions about what is "better" or "bad". And since they write the tests, their opinions are naturally considered to be more "correct" than the people they're testing.
First off, either there are or there are not Ford patents being violated by Chevy.
Case #1. There are - So Ford pays Chevy lots of money and Ford can promise not to sue Mom for driving a Chevy. This is going to be a bit difficult to explain as Ford could just save the money and not sue Mom anyway.
Case #2. There are not - So Ford pays Chevy lots of money for no reason and Ford promises not to Sue Mom for driving a Chevy. This makes even less sense.
See?
That's easy to do.
Simply explain to them why Ford would pay hundreds of millions of dollars to Chevrolet for an agreement not to sue Mom (who drives a Chevy) for violating Ford's patents.
There, that shouldn't be so difficult, right?
The "command environment" that Microsoft implemented on WinNT doesn't handle timing well. Virtual machines want to time/slice the processor. Using the DOS app in a virtual machine means it runs so slow that it has other issues.
Yep, we've even tried DOS-box.
The only real solution at the moment is to keep a stack of old hardware around so we can keep this app alive until the data is finally done. And that's a long time in the insurance business.
Migrating from an old Compaq server running Debian Sarge to a new HP server running Ubuntu Dapper Drake.
No problems with any of the infrastructure apps (DNS, DHCP, NTP, etc).
Next I'll be adding the functions from an old Red Hat box. That includes Plone and such. I've already tested in on a different machine and there are no problems.
I keep hearing about "problems" but I'm not seeing any and I can give specifics on what apps we're running and how easy it was to upgrade/migrate them.
Meanwhile, we're still running WinNT 4.0 because we have an insurance app that requires a DOS environment and Microsoft broke that between WinNT 4.0 and Win2K (doesn't work in WinXP or Win2K3 either).