Is it the corporate desktop where the hardware is approved by IT? If this is the case, then Linux has been ready for the desktop for a while.
Is it the grandma desktop where she does not add new hardware without bringing it into the place she purchased it from? Again, if this is the case, then Linux has been ready for a while.
The ONLY "desktops" that Linux is not ready for are the power-gamers (latest hardware and lots of playing with it) and the "Joe Six-chip" who purchases a Dell or whatever and then tries to add various peripherals.
Now, since there are far more corporate desktops in use, on the HARDWARE side, Linux has been ready for the majority of desktops for a while.
"Linux won't be ready for the desktop until hardware is written with Linux in mind. That's the point, thanks for helping to clarify."
Which will NOT happen until Linux gains 50%+ of the desktop market.
Which makes a nice problem, eh? Linux isn't "ready" for the desktop until it already owns over half of the desktop marketshare.
Here's a url for that quote you have: http://www.freeos.com/articles/2985/
"IBM puts stuff it learned from Monterye into AIX (according to a quote from an IBM VP I posted above)."
The point is, was there anything ILLEGAL or IN VIOLATION OF A CONTRACT about any of that (if it did happen)?
You don't know because you haven't seen the contracts.
All you have is a statement from SCO to a reporter about it.
And, again, SCO has previously told reporters that there were millions of lines of stolen SCO code in Linux.
Until this is presented in court, with the contracts, there is no reason to believe SCO is doing anything more than spreading crap. Just like their claim of millions of lines of stolen code.
"They also claim that AIX is awesome Linux maye one day not suck as much. AIX got even better because of Monterey, Linux got much better through, who knows."
Yes, we all know that. That was what SCO was originally going on about to the reporters. Linux improved so fast that there MUST be stolen code in it.
Then SCO claimed that they had FOUND the stolen code. Millions of lines of it.
"That "who knows" is the issue because IBM was a big part of Linux getting to where it is now. So was SGI (mulitprocessor scaling) which was also an SVR4 licensee."
*sigh*
I know that there is no way to discuss a matter with a conspiracy nut.
SCO has made all those claims to reporters before.
When called to support them in court, SCO could not support a SINGLE claim.
But stay with your speculation. I'm sure it makes you feel more intelligent and objective.
Meanwhile, SCO will be unable to produce a single line of stolen code or a single contract that was violated. Those will be the facts.
"There are a lot of people on here that are just going to blindly dismiss it. Also, I don't give two shits about SCO, my point is that everyone should try and look at what's going on objectively because there is a lot at stake."
You cannot be objective when you do not have any of the facts.
So far, the ONLY thing you have is that SCO said something to a reporter.
SCO has, in the past, told reporters that millions of lines of Linux code was stolen from SCO.
Until SCO takes this to court, I'm going to believe that they're spewing more crap.
"Now, IBM developers have been contributing a lot to the Linux kernel. Who do you think they got to write the kernel code? Probably a good chance that it was people that were familiar with AIX. IBM is going to have to prove that there was a clear seperation of Linux developers and developers exposed to the SVR4 and Project Monterey code. Otherwise the Linux code is at risk too from this new discovery."
Too many "probably"'s and such in that statement. Again, without any FACTS, it's just worthless speculation.
It isn't up to IBM to prove that they're clean, it's up to SCO to establish that IBM is dirty. So far, SCO has failed to do that time and time again. Despite having all the Linux source code.
"If you look at what happened, SCO and IBM teamed up to work on a 64 bit version of Unix for 64 bit intel processors. IBM backed out of the deal and in doing so SCO claims IBM also backed out of their licensing agreement for SVR4 code."
And, again, SCO has claimed that millions of lines of stolen code were in Linux. It doesn't matter what SCO claims... just what they file in court.
"Yet AIX is now an SVR4 Unix and there is no licensing agreement for it. This aspect of the case doesn't seem unreasonable enough to not give SCO the benefit of the doubt enough to let them have their day in court."
How many days in court are YOU willing to give them?
If software patents are passed, that means that it becomes VERY DIFFICULT for new software companies to start up.
Microsoft is filing for 2,000 patents this year and says they'll file for 3,000 next year.
So, if software patents pass in the EU, the EU will not have a software industry and will continue to have to pay Microsoft. This is NOT in the best interest of the EU.
"I think this gets back to the Open Source/Free Software divide in the community -- is Linux a superior platform because of its Openness, or is just part of a whole ideological ball of wax that wants to overthrow the Intellectual Property system?"
The GPL is based upon "the Intellectual Property system".
You are confusing technical advancement with legal concepts. They are NOT the same.
The advantages of peer review has been shown again and again in all other sciences.
"Apparently they failed to understand that hardly anyone sees Linux on the Desktop as logical and as inevitable as they do, so people were paying close attention to their progress. From an advocacy standpoint, it was critical that Munich would be a "Success Story" and not a "Martyr"."
That depends upon your goals. Suppose Munich goes ahead with Linux on the desktop AND the EU passes the software patent laws?
Then Munich gets sued and everyone sees that Linux on the desktop is a failure.
Rather, Munich starts to move to Linux on the desktop, certain groups try to get the EU to adopt software patent law and Munich stops their deployment to show how stupid those laws are.
And THAT is why the GPL is the best license for the OS (IMO). No matter what anyone does, you always have the option to move.
Just the fact that a major Sun exec would even SAY such a thing is reason enough to dump Sun. Sun is still in the mindset of "control everything, destroy competition".
Expect to see more crap in the future as Sun fades into history.
They can do crap Marvel movies. DareDevil. The Hulk.
I think the problem with Batman is that the producers and such try to re-make it into something that reflects themselves.
This is great for Batman when your name is Tim Burton. Not so good when it's not.
Just watching the teaser and looking at the pix gives me a bad feeling for this movie. But I'll wait until it comes out. It will be interesting to see how they work Scarecrow. I think they'll have to tone him down too much.
#1. A "good" worm is written in response to a "bad" worm. The "bad" worm exploits a hole, but doesn't patch the hole. The "good" worm infects the computer, patches the hole and removes the "bad" worm.
I have no problem with this as long as the "good" worm deletes itself after 24 hours and does not hog the bandwidth. This form would not be a problem to anyone who is current on their patches. But, over time, the "bad" worms would evolve into scenario #2.
#2. A "bad" worm infects a computer and patches the hole it used to get in. There's nothing a "good" worm can do in this instance.
#3. A "good" worm is written that infects a computer and installs a patch for the hole that it used to get in.
I have big problems with that. You'd have to do extensive testing to make sure that you weren't breaking anything. Even Microsoft's RPC patch for NT broke some apps and had to be re-released.
So, I don't have problems with #1, but if "good" worms are released for that scenario, the scenario will change to #2.
At which point the only "good" worms will be in scenario #3 and those would be classified as "bad" worms when they break something (even if they were trying to be helpful).
So I would support "good" worms only in limited circumstances and those circumstances would quickly be changed by the "bad" worm writers.
IETF does not concern itself with patents/licenses and has published standards that include patents and you don't know what patents are, anyway.
Bugger off. The patents and the licensing are VERY IMPORTANT to the implementation of the standard. Otherwise, you're writing a standard that won't be implemented. Why do that?
"Comments based solely on the licensing terms without regard to the engineering choices they affect *do not speak to the question working groups need to decide*."
Yes they do. Again, what good is a standard that no one will implement?
I'm sure the Microsoft lawyers have ALREADY evaluated the various Open Source licenses so it shouldn't take them long to just pick one.
The coders that are working on this at Microsoft are NOT the ones that will be choosing the license.
The LAWYERS working for Microsoft will be working on an approach that is BEST FOR MICROSOFT. (read that as "control").
It all comes down to a matter of priorities.
Microsoft's FIRST priority is to establish control.
Microsoft's SECOND priority is to stop spam.
If Microsoft was more worried about stopping spam then establishing control, you would not see the lawyers taking this much time to meet with everyone. They know what licenses would be the easiest to have accepted.
Here's a url with a list of them.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
Microsoft's lawyers can quickly pick one and that discussion would be over.
The article is almost totally WRONG!
on
Are You Annoying?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The article says that IT people should improve their communication skills in order to communicate more effectively with other people.
BUT! There is an underlying assumption that the IT person's communication skills are sub-standard.
What if it is the OTHER person's skill that is sub-standard. Well, the easy solution is to say that if the IT person was an even BETTER communicator, then s/he could compensate for the failings of the other person.
From the article: "If I'm dealing with a [nonintuitive] person, I need to put things in concrete language. This person doesn't want abstractions."
Now, the REAL PROBLEM is that it is MUCH MORE DIFFICULT to develop expert skills than it is to develop average skills.
So it will ALWAYS be easier to blame the IT people for not having excellent communication skills than it is to realize that LOTS of people have POOR communication skills (and they're not all in IT).
Again, that quote from the article... The person you are talking to understands ONE approach and is UNWILLING to work at grasping a different approach...
So YOU have to be able to handle BOTH (or more?) approaches, re-phrase the material in either (any?) format and be able to determine WHICH approach the other person is locked into BEFORE you annoy him/her by repeating your material.
Wouldn't it be so much easier for the other person to come up to an average level of understanding of abstract concepts?
Rather than the IT person becoming an expert in BOTH concrete and abstract forms of communication?
Those are VERY different responses.
on
Are You Annoying?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
"Well, my email is working, so it must be a problem on your end."
But WHAT is going to be done? WHEN will it be fixed?
"Hmm, let me check our mail server - well, everything seems OK there, let's see if the problem is on your computer."
The investigation is CONTINUING.
Now, to make the FIRST response into a CONTINUING investigation.... "Well, my email is working, LET'S SEE IF THE PROBLEM IS on your end."
There, that doesn't sound so annoying now, does it?
Most times, it isn't the response, it is the whether the end-user feels that his problem will be fixed and how soon.
The last company I was with tried to use them. And yes, we were going to pay a "crapload of money" for their service.
We were running an old version of GroupWise and we wanted an un-biased, expert opinion of the benefits of either upgrading GroupWise vs migrating to Exchange.
We got a couple of their people in the office and they conferenced in a woman on the phone.
They knew NOTHING about GroupWise. They kept going on about Exchange vs Lotus Notes.
We didn't surprise them with our request. My boss had contacted them with the clear request to compare GroupWise and Exchange. Yet they couldn't even CALL someone who knew GroupWise.
And I would think that such a request would NOT be that unusual. They SHOULD have the basics already available. They had NOTHING. That only reinforced my belief that they will sell themselves to present whatever conclusion is desired.
"For instance, they have people who specialize in every niche of the industry and know a ton about it."
It might SEEM that they do to someone who doesn't know much about those niches. But when you get them on FACTS, they fail.
I read their "reports" and "studies". I've seen their "experts" in action.
The best word I can think of to describe it is "prostitution".
Slashdot Mirror
Is it the corporate desktop where the hardware is approved by IT? If this is the case, then Linux has been ready for the desktop for a while.
Is it the grandma desktop where she does not add new hardware without bringing it into the place she purchased it from? Again, if this is the case, then Linux has been ready for a while.
The ONLY "desktops" that Linux is not ready for are the power-gamers (latest hardware and lots of playing with it) and the "Joe Six-chip" who purchases a Dell or whatever and then tries to add various peripherals.
Now, since there are far more corporate desktops in use, on the HARDWARE side, Linux has been ready for the majority of desktops for a while.
"Linux won't be ready for the desktop until hardware is written with Linux in mind. That's the point, thanks for helping to clarify."
Which will NOT happen until Linux gains 50%+ of the desktop market.
Which makes a nice problem, eh? Linux isn't "ready" for the desktop until it already owns over half of the desktop marketshare.
Here's a url for that quote you have:
http://www.freeos.com/articles/2985/
"IBM puts stuff it learned from Monterye into AIX (according to a quote from an IBM VP I posted above)."
The point is, was there anything ILLEGAL or IN VIOLATION OF A CONTRACT about any of that (if it did happen)?
You don't know because you haven't seen the contracts.
All you have is a statement from SCO to a reporter about it.
And, again, SCO has previously told reporters that there were millions of lines of stolen SCO code in Linux.
Until this is presented in court, with the contracts, there is no reason to believe SCO is doing anything more than spreading crap. Just like their claim of millions of lines of stolen code.
"They also claim that AIX is awesome Linux maye one day not suck as much. AIX got even better because of Monterey, Linux got much better through, who knows."
Yes, we all know that. That was what SCO was originally going on about to the reporters. Linux improved so fast that there MUST be stolen code in it.
Then SCO claimed that they had FOUND the stolen code. Millions of lines of it.
"That "who knows" is the issue because IBM was a big part of Linux getting to where it is now. So was SGI (mulitprocessor scaling) which was also an SVR4 licensee."
*sigh*
I know that there is no way to discuss a matter with a conspiracy nut.
SCO has made all those claims to reporters before.
When called to support them in court, SCO could not support a SINGLE claim.
But stay with your speculation. I'm sure it makes you feel more intelligent and objective.
Meanwhile, SCO will be unable to produce a single line of stolen code or a single contract that was violated. Those will be the facts.
But a fact never stopped a conspiracy nut.
"There are a lot of people on here that are just going to blindly dismiss it. Also, I don't give two shits about SCO, my point is that everyone should try and look at what's going on objectively because there is a lot at stake."
... just what they file in court.
You cannot be objective when you do not have any of the facts.
So far, the ONLY thing you have is that SCO said something to a reporter.
SCO has, in the past, told reporters that millions of lines of Linux code was stolen from SCO.
Until SCO takes this to court, I'm going to believe that they're spewing more crap.
"Now, IBM developers have been contributing a lot to the Linux kernel. Who do you think they got to write the kernel code? Probably a good chance that it was people that were familiar with AIX. IBM is going to have to prove that there was a clear seperation of Linux developers and developers exposed to the SVR4 and Project Monterey code. Otherwise the Linux code is at risk too from this new discovery."
Too many "probably"'s and such in that statement. Again, without any FACTS, it's just worthless speculation.
It isn't up to IBM to prove that they're clean, it's up to SCO to establish that IBM is dirty. So far, SCO has failed to do that time and time again. Despite having all the Linux source code.
"If you look at what happened, SCO and IBM teamed up to work on a 64 bit version of Unix for 64 bit intel processors. IBM backed out of the deal and in doing so SCO claims IBM also backed out of their licensing agreement for SVR4 code."
And, again, SCO has claimed that millions of lines of stolen code were in Linux. It doesn't matter what SCO claims
"Yet AIX is now an SVR4 Unix and there is no licensing agreement for it. This aspect of the case doesn't seem unreasonable enough to not give SCO the benefit of the doubt enough to let them have their day in court."
How many days in court are YOU willing to give them?
Hint: Look up the word "barratry"
http://www.webpatent.com/knowbase/evaluate/law/law 11380.htm
Yet we still see patents for "one click" and "double click" being awarded.
If software patents are passed, that means that it becomes VERY DIFFICULT for new software companies to start up.
Microsoft is filing for 2,000 patents this year and says they'll file for 3,000 next year.
So, if software patents pass in the EU, the EU will not have a software industry and will continue to have to pay Microsoft. This is NOT in the best interest of the EU.
"I think this gets back to the Open Source/Free Software divide in the community -- is Linux a superior platform because of its Openness, or is just part of a whole ideological ball of wax that wants to overthrow the Intellectual Property system?"
The GPL is based upon "the Intellectual Property system".
You are confusing technical advancement with legal concepts. They are NOT the same.
The advantages of peer review has been shown again and again in all other sciences.
"Apparently they failed to understand that hardly anyone sees Linux on the Desktop as logical and as inevitable as they do, so people were paying close attention to their progress. From an advocacy standpoint, it was critical that Munich would be a "Success Story" and not a "Martyr"."
That depends upon your goals. Suppose Munich goes ahead with Linux on the desktop AND the EU passes the software patent laws?
Then Munich gets sued and everyone sees that Linux on the desktop is a failure.
Rather, Munich starts to move to Linux on the desktop, certain groups try to get the EU to adopt software patent law and Munich stops their deployment to show how stupid those laws are.
It all depends upon your goal.
If this is sufficient to get the EU to dump their proposed software patent laws then the "reality" will have been changed.
In which case, the "idealism" you mentioned will become the "reality".
So let's just drop those terms. Rather, this is an example of the negative effect software patents have on writing software.
Everything you've mentioned has been in the PAST.
A company that WAS great can still die.
And I believe Sun WAS a great company, but is now a decaying shell.
Nothing you mentioned has anything to do with their FUTURE survivability.
BINGO!
And THAT is why the GPL is the best license for the OS (IMO). No matter what anyone does, you always have the option to move.
Just the fact that a major Sun exec would even SAY such a thing is reason enough to dump Sun. Sun is still in the mindset of "control everything, destroy competition".
Expect to see more crap in the future as Sun fades into history.
I just checked.
t re ss&btnG=Google+Search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=s
The sponsored links are NOT on the top, they are on the right.
They are also clearly labeled.
Is it difficult going through life as stupid as you are? Just curious.
The sponsored links are on the right side of the page on Google.
The unsponsored links are at the same level, on the left side of the page.
And if you read English, you read from left to right. So you'll see the unsponsored link first.
It seems to work fine for blocking pop-ups.
Popups - This is Mozilla/Firefox!!! They should open another tab! That is, if they are enabled at all.
Popunders - see popups.
Moving windows - If you can't do it in a tab, it don't get done.
Windows without tool/status bars - NOTHING should be able to touch my toolbar. EVERYTHING a website shows should be in the content part of the tab.
You are completely correct about the demarcation between the browser and the document.
Is there any reason to not have that demarcation?
Okay, I had to do a google search on that one ...
But the info I turned up says that The Dark Knight Returns is set TEN YEARS AFTER BATMAN RETIRES.
This movie is about the beginning.
The pointy bat ears and the cape that give him the bat silhouette.
And since it would be a movie, there's nothing stopping them from having any vehicle he drives crash through walls or doors or loading docks...
They can do crap Marvel movies. DareDevil. The Hulk.
I think the problem with Batman is that the producers and such try to re-make it into something that reflects themselves.
This is great for Batman when your name is Tim Burton. Not so good when it's not.
Just watching the teaser and looking at the pix gives me a bad feeling for this movie. But I'll wait until it comes out. It will be interesting to see how they work Scarecrow. I think they'll have to tone him down too much.
Since when would Batman need a tank to handle crime in Gotham City?
#1. A "good" worm is written in response to a "bad" worm. The "bad" worm exploits a hole, but doesn't patch the hole. The "good" worm infects the computer, patches the hole and removes the "bad" worm.
I have no problem with this as long as the "good" worm deletes itself after 24 hours and does not hog the bandwidth. This form would not be a problem to anyone who is current on their patches. But, over time, the "bad" worms would evolve into scenario #2.
#2. A "bad" worm infects a computer and patches the hole it used to get in. There's nothing a "good" worm can do in this instance.
#3. A "good" worm is written that infects a computer and installs a patch for the hole that it used to get in.
I have big problems with that. You'd have to do extensive testing to make sure that you weren't breaking anything. Even Microsoft's RPC patch for NT broke some apps and had to be re-released.
So, I don't have problems with #1, but if "good" worms are released for that scenario, the scenario will change to #2.
At which point the only "good" worms will be in scenario #3 and those would be classified as "bad" worms when they break something (even if they were trying to be helpful).
So I would support "good" worms only in limited circumstances and those circumstances would quickly be changed by the "bad" worm writers.
Same guy, same company, same crap
/ 15 /1733237.shtml?tid=106&tid=185&tid=190
http://developers.slashdot.org/developers/04/01
Re-read #2, #3 and #4.
IETF does not concern itself with patents/licenses and has published standards that include patents and you don't know what patents are, anyway.
Bugger off. The patents and the licensing are VERY IMPORTANT to the implementation of the standard. Otherwise, you're writing a standard that won't be implemented. Why do that?
"Comments based solely on the licensing terms without regard to the engineering choices they affect *do not speak to the question working groups need to decide*."
Yes they do. Again, what good is a standard that no one will implement?
I'm sure the Microsoft lawyers have ALREADY evaluated the various Open Source licenses so it shouldn't take them long to just pick one.
The coders that are working on this at Microsoft are NOT the ones that will be choosing the license.
The LAWYERS working for Microsoft will be working on an approach that is BEST FOR MICROSOFT. (read that as "control").
It all comes down to a matter of priorities.
Microsoft's FIRST priority is to establish control.
Microsoft's SECOND priority is to stop spam.
If Microsoft was more worried about stopping spam then establishing control, you would not see the lawyers taking this much time to meet with everyone. They know what licenses would be the easiest to have accepted.
Here's a url with a list of them.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
Microsoft's lawyers can quickly pick one and that discussion would be over.
It's just a tool. Not a religion.
The article says that IT people should improve their communication skills in order to communicate more effectively with other people.
BUT! There is an underlying assumption that the IT person's communication skills are sub-standard.
What if it is the OTHER person's skill that is sub-standard. Well, the easy solution is to say that if the IT person was an even BETTER communicator, then s/he could compensate for the failings of the other person.
From the article: "If I'm dealing with a [nonintuitive] person, I need to put things in concrete language. This person doesn't want abstractions."
Now, the REAL PROBLEM is that it is MUCH MORE DIFFICULT to develop expert skills than it is to develop average skills.
So it will ALWAYS be easier to blame the IT people for not having excellent communication skills than it is to realize that LOTS of people have POOR communication skills (and they're not all in IT).
Again, that quote from the article...
The person you are talking to understands ONE approach and is UNWILLING to work at grasping a different approach...
So YOU have to be able to handle BOTH (or more?) approaches, re-phrase the material in either (any?) format and be able to determine WHICH approach the other person is locked into BEFORE you annoy him/her by repeating your material.
Wouldn't it be so much easier for the other person to come up to an average level of understanding of abstract concepts?
Rather than the IT person becoming an expert in BOTH concrete and abstract forms of communication?
"Well, my email is working, so it must be a problem on your end."
But WHAT is going to be done? WHEN will it be fixed?
"Hmm, let me check our mail server - well, everything seems OK there, let's see if the problem is on your computer."
The investigation is CONTINUING.
Now, to make the FIRST response into a CONTINUING investigation....
"Well, my email is working, LET'S SEE IF THE PROBLEM IS on your end."
There, that doesn't sound so annoying now, does it?
Most times, it isn't the response, it is the whether the end-user feels that his problem will be fixed and how soon.
The last company I was with tried to use them. And yes, we were going to pay a "crapload of money" for their service.
We were running an old version of GroupWise and we wanted an un-biased, expert opinion of the benefits of either upgrading GroupWise vs migrating to Exchange.
We got a couple of their people in the office and they conferenced in a woman on the phone.
They knew NOTHING about GroupWise. They kept going on about Exchange vs Lotus Notes.
We didn't surprise them with our request. My boss had contacted them with the clear request to compare GroupWise and Exchange. Yet they couldn't even CALL someone who knew GroupWise.
And I would think that such a request would NOT be that unusual. They SHOULD have the basics already available. They had NOTHING. That only reinforced my belief that they will sell themselves to present whatever conclusion is desired.
"For instance, they have people who specialize in every niche of the industry and know a ton about it."
It might SEEM that they do to someone who doesn't know much about those niches. But when you get them on FACTS, they fail.
I read their "reports" and "studies".
I've seen their "experts" in action.
The best word I can think of to describe it is "prostitution".
Not only the OS, but also the browser, or whatever the browser claims to be :)
A nice pie chart for them, too.
And a daily/weekly/monthly/yearly chart showing the trend over time.
But how to count without letting cheaters script up the stats?