There wasn't "plenty of work" in the late eighties and earliy nineties. That was the period of the Bush I recession: IBM imploded and there was a huge tech shake-out. The Cold War ended, so a lot of defense contractors lost their contracts and the US armed forces shrank(immediately after Iraq I).
What better way than calling them racist? It's easy: calling them racist when it's a valid complaint.
Nobody complained about the outsourcing of IT jobs to Ireland in the 80's and early 90's, when it was cheap. Nobody complains about the outsourcing of IT jobs to Russia and Israel now. But people complain about the outsourcing of jobs to India.
Can you give me a reasonable explanation beyond "they've got dark skins"?
Why do you care if Sun or Microsoft have turf battles? Does it make open source any stronger that we have political battles at MS? What he's saying is that your political battles get in the way of your productivity (and they do), and that their visiblity hurts you (and it does). Whether that's more true of open source or closed source does not matter.
When he talks about each of the complaints he's got, he's not talking about competing with Microsoft, or Sun, or SGI -- he's talking about problems with the community itself. You're the one who turned his observation into a negative comment about FOSS compared to closed source. He's talking about things to fix, and you want to turn it into things to compete about. Look at his point 5, and tell me that doesn't apply to your reaction.
If I remember the license correctly, that isn't quite ture. I believe that *you* don't have to distribute source. You have to provide a mechanism by which any interested party can obtain source -- that mechanism could simply be a pointer to RedHat or SourceForge. You do not have to actually host the source yourself.
Even if your statement accurately reflected the concerns in the article, it would still be misguided.
Historians are concerned about all the ephemera of a civilization, not just the "official" ones. The random archives of everyday junk can, and often do, tell a very different story about the civilization than the story that the society would like to hear about itself, so historians treasure those postings of pics for your family to see.
For example, if you read the official press, you'd see a lot of articles about how bad the economy is for IT folk. That's entirely true, as far as it goes, but it only goes so far. The official press talks about the disappearance of jobs, and about the outsourcing of jobs, and about the unemployment rate, but doesn't talk about the fates of individual people displaced by the upheaval. Are the people who've been thrown out of work starving, or are they managing to live and to feed and clothe their families? The official story doesn't cover that -- but those silly little picture pages do, just by showing the children of these unemployed workers well-fed and dressed in new-ish clothes. Web pages are very cheap, so that indicates that the unemployed techies aren't starving.
It's kind of like the character in the play who found out one morning that he'd spent his whole life speaking in prose. You've spent your whole life participating in the culture, and a record of that life is important to a historian interested in your culture.
Even granting your bizarre thesis about Monterey, that doesn't make the original Underpants Gnomes look any better. The SCO acquisition took place on Ransom Love's watch, not on Darl McBride's. More than that, the Monterey debacle happened between the time that Caldera expressed its interest in purchasing the system dev assets of SCO and the time the deal closed. Why didn't Love pull out? SCO had no viable prospects without Monterey, and yet Caldera bought the husk anyway? Whose fault is that if not Love's?
Is that he and his management team burned through many tens of millions of dollars worth of venture capital, along with a significant portion of the original Microsoft settlement, and, in the end, had nothing to show for it. The venture capital org behind Caldera (Canopy, remember them?) finally wised up, threw out Love's team, and put it a disaster recovery team.
Caldera/SCO may or may not have any legal basis for when they're doing now, but they've certainly got a better plan that Love's gang of Underpants Gnomes did...
It depends on what you mean by "default file format". If you mean the usual thing, that a file will be saved in WordML if you don't actively choose otherwise, then no. However, you can open WordML files as if they were doc files. You can save them from all versions of 2K3. However, for backwards compatibility, we chose to save to Word 8.doc if you don't actively choose to save to WordML; otherwise, customers with older versions would be left high and dry.
No, in fact, the original PI article grouped the top twentieth together. The GP is correct: the "improved" graph is far more deceptive than the original, unless you believe that people between the 95th and 99th percentile of income are "middle class".
It is, perhaps, ironic that these graphs are begin used in a discussion related to Tufte, though: his core thesis is that an effective graphic reduces the amount of ink by displaying the right data about the right relationship. In this case, I can think of two far better graphs to show: marginal tax burden, whether or not corrected for "Minimum living wage", or marginal effect on economy size due a change in the income tax rate as a function of income. The fact that this graphic does neither of these indicates that the graphic is questionable -- not surprising, since, in this case, it is intended to manipulate, not inform.
The Orange SPV is still widely available in Europe. You can walk into any AT&T Wireless Store in the United States and buy an MPx200 right now. More that that, the MPx200 was the featured phone on the CompUSA Sunday flyer last week.
I don't see how a post so completely wrong can be moderated "insightful"
Problem was, when we fixed kastroborg/dna.{h, c}, the number of child processes in the system seemed to grow exponentially, and eventually exhausted all system resources, resulting in frequent calls to resolution routines in malthus/crisis.c. Those, as you know, expose the vuln from dna.h even more seriously.
Under the circumstances, we withdrew our proposed patches.
But only if you've got the most recent version of libdfbr.so, and that most recent version is no later than 0.6. libdfbr.so.0.7 works most of the time, but changes in the interface proterties sometimes lead to back flash of the discharge causing cardiac arrest in the aiding party.
Don't like it? You've got the source: fix it yourself!
The filing in question quite clearly states that the claim against IBM at this point is not for infringement, but for misappropriation of trade secrets. As far as that goes, SCO argues that the evidence already in the public record is conclusive: JFS and IBM's implementation of NUMA/cc were released into Linux. If the release was covered by the broad wording of the original AT&T license, then there's infringement. If it wasn't, then there is no infringement.
Now, obviously, the facts may be other than SCO would have us see them, and IBM may show that at trial. However, to get to the point of discovery, SCO only needs to show that the case wasn't clearly frivolous. It seems to me that they have done that, no matter what the final outcome is.
Hey, Timothy, did you read the memo before citing it? Frankly, I hope not: if you did, then your headline is slanderous, instead of merely biased and deceptive.
One of the straegies which IBM has been test firing in the press is boils down to "you can't identify the person who released this code. How can you prove that it isn't you?" Assume, for the moment, that SCO is telling the truth. (And whatever your individual biases may be, the court must assume that neither party is lying. Contrary to the Slashbot mantra, that's actually plausible at this point.) Would this defense work? Yes. Would it be fair? No. So civil process in the United States allows a plaintiff and a defendent to engage in discovery. In this case, SCO has every right to ask IBM for any information that could identify the perpetrator. That's not asking IBM to make its case for it; that's asking for SCO's rights to be protected.
Meanwhile, IBM is asking for a chance to delay releasing that information for as long as possible. SCO is refuting, in particularly scathing terms, that motion to delay. I can't speak to the facts of whether or not SCO has actually already released the information in question, or whether IBM's original motion was premature, as I don't know the court schedule, but it is kind of worth pointing out that the judge will. Guess what? If the facts are as SCO alleges, then the motion should be deneid in pretty strong terms.
Re:America's best-kept secret:
on
Take Back Your Time!
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
More than anything else, you ignoring one fact about individual insurance: the cost. You can't get good and affordable comprehensive health insurance when you buy individually; you have no negotiating leverage. That's why the working poor are, for the most part, uninsured: when you buy alone, it's cheaper to self-insure with your own savings and risk catastrophic bills than to pay a fixed premium that almost certainly won't pay off.
That fact, in turn, is why advocates for the working poor keep pushing for state insurance pools for low-income working people. Such a pool would have vast leverage with the insurance companies. (It would, however, hurt the well-established. Many of us would lose our health benefits shortly after such a poll were established.)
One is an Adobe-generated PDF file; the other is an Excel spreadsheet. "Here's how to do it, but, remember, you and your business will lose access to all this cool information if you transition."
One of the horrible ironies of SL-1 accident was the way the bodies were buried. In order to get them cool enough to bury in a cemetary, they were soaked in a caustic solution for a week, then encased in lead coffins. After that, the men were shipped by train to their final resting places.
If I remember the story correctly, though, all three were dead when found. The accident was discovered on the morning of January 4, 1961. All three men had probably died within seconds of the initial incident.
YNNW Reports has investigated the repeated claims that Microsoft is, in some way, responsible for the continuing virginity of Slashdot readers. That claim is clearly false: the posters alone are responsible for that. The msot that can be said is that Microsoft facilitated their continued celibacy.
This facilitation takes the form of psychotronic suggestions embedded in the XP icons. These icons are designed so that individuals who frequently encounter them exhibit a strong sexual preference for other individuals who are frequently exposed to the icons. Since this program went into effect, we've seen a sixty percent decrease in the number of non-virginal posters to Slashdot.
As an aside, YNNW Reports believes that the engineering effort involved in this played a significant role in the sharp rise in the divorce rate among Microsoft software developers during the past few years.
Apparently, the PR folks at the corporation believe that the increasing sexual success of frequent XP users will reduce the number of people who are drawn to anti-social solitary pursuits such a Linux usage and Slashdot participation.
I haven't seen any citations from SGI claiming a similar irrevocable transfer of rights in an addendum, and I've been watching. Can you point me to one? I agree with you that the existence or non-existence of such an addendum is critical.
As to Sequent: Sequent + SGI == control of ccNUMA. Control of ccNUMA == stranglehold on the kernel scheduler for Linux 2.4.x and later.
SCO didn't say that they had started the process to revoke SGI's license. *SGI* said that they'd been notified by SCO that the process had been started.
And as to wanting to be in front of a court: you do realize that Microsoft's attorneys thought they had an unbeatable hand in the Viola browser? Nevertheless, Microsoft fought as hard as it could to stay out of court, precisely because a jury is totally random. SCO has a warchest of $30+ Million from MS and Sun, even assuming that they don't have any hidden licensees. Thirty M$ is plenty of money to support carrying this on to the bitter end.
As to the Aussies: getting someone to cave and acknowledge fault is enough to provide prima facie evidence that there's merit to the case. You're right that there would be no precedential value from a legal standpoint, but SCO doesn't care about a precedent in Germany or Australia. It only cares about not having its US case derailed.
Slashdot Mirror
There wasn't "plenty of work" in the late eighties and earliy nineties. That was the period of the Bush I recession: IBM imploded and there was a huge tech shake-out. The Cold War ended, so a lot of defense contractors lost their contracts and the US armed forces shrank(immediately after Iraq I).
What better way than calling them racist? It's easy: calling them racist when it's a valid complaint.
Nobody complained about the outsourcing of IT jobs to Ireland in the 80's and early 90's, when it was cheap. Nobody complains about the outsourcing of IT jobs to Russia and Israel now. But people complain about the outsourcing of jobs to India.
Can you give me a reasonable explanation beyond "they've got dark skins"?
Why do you care if Sun or Microsoft have turf battles? Does it make open source any stronger that we have political battles at MS? What he's saying is that your political battles get in the way of your productivity (and they do), and that their visiblity hurts you (and it does). Whether that's more true of open source or closed source does not matter.
When he talks about each of the complaints he's got, he's not talking about competing with Microsoft, or Sun, or SGI -- he's talking about problems with the community itself. You're the one who turned his observation into a negative comment about FOSS compared to closed source. He's talking about things to fix, and you want to turn it into things to compete about. Look at his point 5, and tell me that doesn't apply to your reaction.
If I remember the license correctly, that isn't quite ture. I believe that *you* don't have to distribute source. You have to provide a mechanism by which any interested party can obtain source -- that mechanism could simply be a pointer to RedHat or SourceForge. You do not have to actually host the source yourself.
He didn't ask if it was a turkey, but if it cooked a turkey.
Even if your statement accurately reflected the concerns in the article, it would still be misguided.
Historians are concerned about all the ephemera of a civilization, not just the "official" ones. The random archives of everyday junk can, and often do, tell a very different story about the civilization than the story that the society would like to hear about itself, so historians treasure those postings of pics for your family to see.
For example, if you read the official press, you'd see a lot of articles about how bad the economy is for IT folk. That's entirely true, as far as it goes, but it only goes so far. The official press talks about the disappearance of jobs, and about the outsourcing of jobs, and about the unemployment rate, but doesn't talk about the fates of individual people displaced by the upheaval. Are the people who've been thrown out of work starving, or are they managing to live and to feed and clothe their families? The official story doesn't cover that -- but those silly little picture pages do, just by showing the children of these unemployed workers well-fed and dressed in new-ish clothes. Web pages are very cheap, so that indicates that the unemployed techies aren't starving.
It's kind of like the character in the play who found out one morning that he'd spent his whole life speaking in prose. You've spent your whole life participating in the culture, and a record of that life is important to a historian interested in your culture.
And I, for one, welcome our new tracking overlords.
Even granting your bizarre thesis about Monterey, that doesn't make the original Underpants Gnomes look any better. The SCO acquisition took place on Ransom Love's watch, not on Darl McBride's. More than that, the Monterey debacle happened between the time that Caldera expressed its interest in purchasing the system dev assets of SCO and the time the deal closed. Why didn't Love pull out? SCO had no viable prospects without Monterey, and yet Caldera bought the husk anyway? Whose fault is that if not Love's?
Is that he and his management team burned through many tens of millions of dollars worth of venture capital, along with a significant portion of the original Microsoft settlement, and, in the end, had nothing to show for it. The venture capital org behind Caldera (Canopy, remember them?) finally wised up, threw out Love's team, and put it a disaster recovery team.
Caldera/SCO may or may not have any legal basis for when they're doing now, but they've certainly got a better plan that Love's gang of Underpants Gnomes did...
Yeah, but in *my* day, we only had light-seconds, and about 1.5 of them.
So there!
It depends on what you mean by "default file format". If you mean the usual thing, that a file will be saved in WordML if you don't actively choose otherwise, then no. However, you can open WordML files as if they were doc files. You can save them from all versions of 2K3. However, for backwards compatibility, we chose to save to Word 8 .doc if you don't actively choose to save to WordML; otherwise, customers with older versions would be left high and dry.
Hey, you know, I heard about a really cool web site called slashdot.org. I hear it's got almost five hundred unique users!
God, I wihs they sold banner ads so that I could get in on some of that techie action!
No, in fact, the original PI article grouped the top twentieth together. The GP is correct: the "improved" graph is far more deceptive than the original, unless you believe that people between the 95th and 99th percentile of income are "middle class".
It is, perhaps, ironic that these graphs are begin used in a discussion related to Tufte, though: his core thesis is that an effective graphic reduces the amount of ink by displaying the right data about the right relationship. In this case, I can think of two far better graphs to show: marginal tax burden, whether or not corrected for "Minimum living wage", or marginal effect on economy size due a change in the income tax rate as a function of income. The fact that this graphic does neither of these indicates that the graphic is questionable -- not surprising, since, in this case, it is intended to manipulate, not inform.
The Orange SPV is still widely available in Europe. You can walk into any AT&T Wireless Store in the United States and buy an MPx200 right now. More that that, the MPx200 was the featured phone on the CompUSA Sunday flyer last week.
I don't see how a post so completely wrong can be moderated "insightful"
We tried that.
Problem was, when we fixed kastroborg/dna.{h, c}, the number of child processes in the system seemed to grow exponentially, and eventually exhausted all system resources, resulting in frequent calls to resolution routines in malthus/crisis.c. Those, as you know, expose the vuln from dna.h even more seriously.
Under the circumstances, we withdrew our proposed patches.
But only if you've got the most recent version of libdfbr.so, and that most recent version is no later than 0.6. libdfbr.so.0.7 works most of the time, but changes in the interface proterties sometimes lead to back flash of the discharge causing cardiac arrest in the aiding party.
Don't like it? You've got the source: fix it yourself!
The filing in question quite clearly states that the claim against IBM at this point is not for infringement, but for misappropriation of trade secrets. As far as that goes, SCO argues that the evidence already in the public record is conclusive: JFS and IBM's implementation of NUMA/cc were released into Linux. If the release was covered by the broad wording of the original AT&T license, then there's infringement. If it wasn't, then there is no infringement.
Now, obviously, the facts may be other than SCO would have us see them, and IBM may show that at trial. However, to get to the point of discovery, SCO only needs to show that the case wasn't clearly frivolous. It seems to me that they have done that, no matter what the final outcome is.
Hey, Timothy, did you read the memo before citing it? Frankly, I hope not: if you did, then your headline is slanderous, instead of merely biased and deceptive.
One of the straegies which IBM has been test firing in the press is boils down to "you can't identify the person who released this code. How can you prove that it isn't you?" Assume, for the moment, that SCO is telling the truth. (And whatever your individual biases may be, the court must assume that neither party is lying. Contrary to the Slashbot mantra, that's actually plausible at this point.) Would this defense work? Yes. Would it be fair? No. So civil process in the United States allows a plaintiff and a defendent to engage in discovery. In this case, SCO has every right to ask IBM for any information that could identify the perpetrator. That's not asking IBM to make its case for it; that's asking for SCO's rights to be protected.
Meanwhile, IBM is asking for a chance to delay releasing that information for as long as possible. SCO is refuting, in particularly scathing terms, that motion to delay. I can't speak to the facts of whether or not SCO has actually already released the information in question, or whether IBM's original motion was premature, as I don't know the court schedule, but it is kind of worth pointing out that the judge will. Guess what? If the facts are as SCO alleges, then the motion should be deneid in pretty strong terms.
More than anything else, you ignoring one fact about individual insurance: the cost. You can't get good and affordable comprehensive health insurance when you buy individually; you have no negotiating leverage. That's why the working poor are, for the most part, uninsured: when you buy alone, it's cheaper to self-insure with your own savings and risk catastrophic bills than to pay a fixed premium that almost certainly won't pay off.
That fact, in turn, is why advocates for the working poor keep pushing for state insurance pools for low-income working people. Such a pool would have vast leverage with the insurance companies. (It would, however, hurt the well-established. Many of us would lose our health benefits shortly after such a poll were established.)
Yeah, but think about it: you could say, "Yeah, Grandma's three years dead, but she's still really sharp!"
One is an Adobe-generated PDF file; the other is an Excel spreadsheet. "Here's how to do it, but, remember, you and your business will lose access to all this cool information if you transition."
Oops.
One of the horrible ironies of SL-1 accident was the way the bodies were buried. In order to get them cool enough to bury in a cemetary, they were soaked in a caustic solution for a week, then encased in lead coffins. After that, the men were shipped by train to their final resting places.
If I remember the story correctly, though, all three were dead when found. The accident was discovered on the morning of January 4, 1961. All three men had probably died within seconds of the initial incident.
YNNW Reports has investigated the repeated claims that Microsoft is, in some way, responsible for the continuing virginity of Slashdot readers. That claim is clearly false: the posters alone are responsible for that. The msot that can be said is that Microsoft facilitated their continued celibacy.
This facilitation takes the form of psychotronic suggestions embedded in the XP icons. These icons are designed so that individuals who frequently encounter them exhibit a strong sexual preference for other individuals who are frequently exposed to the icons. Since this program went into effect, we've seen a sixty percent decrease in the number of non-virginal posters to Slashdot.
As an aside, YNNW Reports believes that the engineering effort involved in this played a significant role in the sharp rise in the divorce rate among Microsoft software developers during the past few years.
Apparently, the PR folks at the corporation believe that the increasing sexual success of frequent XP users will reduce the number of people who are drawn to anti-social solitary pursuits such a Linux usage and Slashdot participation.
Arabic is not supported in Mac Office. Korean is, as are the other East Asian languages.
I haven't seen any citations from SGI claiming a similar irrevocable transfer of rights in an addendum, and I've been watching. Can you point me to one? I agree with you that the existence or non-existence of such an addendum is critical.
As to Sequent: Sequent + SGI == control of ccNUMA. Control of ccNUMA == stranglehold on the kernel scheduler for Linux 2.4.x and later.
SCO didn't say that they had started the process to revoke SGI's license. *SGI* said that they'd been notified by SCO that the process had been started.
And as to wanting to be in front of a court: you do realize that Microsoft's attorneys thought they had an unbeatable hand in the Viola browser? Nevertheless, Microsoft fought as hard as it could to stay out of court, precisely because a jury is totally random. SCO has a warchest of $30+ Million from MS and Sun, even assuming that they don't have any hidden licensees. Thirty M$ is plenty of money to support carrying this on to the bitter end.
As to the Aussies: getting someone to cave and acknowledge fault is enough to provide prima facie evidence that there's merit to the case. You're right that there would be no precedential value from a legal standpoint, but SCO doesn't care about a precedent in Germany or Australia. It only cares about not having its US case derailed.