IBM (and whoever is losing any money because of the SCO FUD), please consider donating to chillingeffects.org and get them to write up a nice Q&A on the case and a template response letter to SCO's letters.
IBM sales people being asked about SCO/Linux/AIX can then politely point companies to this Q&A. Something that will be clear for corporate counsels (for those that do not specialize in Copyright issues) and other legal advisors, plus a well prepared response letter could be pretty useful for assisting companies not caving in to SCO's extortion.
The fewer companies that cave in, the less money SCO will have to fuel this BS.
The lure for lower costs will definitely swing companies towards offshoring plenty of work. The loss of control and confidentiality may not be apparent at the beginning but eventually they will cause a swing back. Offshore companies will do their best in the beginning (or otherwise thay won't attract any more business) but at some point they will want to cash in their initial investment (you can go those extra miles at the beginning but not keep the extra effort forever, US or foreign this is the same everywhere), this is just one example of a loss of control. Confidentiality problems will arise, we are seeing this in other manufacturing already. GM was recently upset when Cherry, a Chinese car manufacturer, apparently copied GM's new design and released it before GM did. Guess what, if the piece designs were leaked out, there is much they could do in the US but not much they can do in China. This will cause a swing back but most probably it will not go back to the "old order". Hopefully, the habit of not having the programmers in-house should enable more telecommuting (considering the housing/rent prices in "hi-tech" areas, accepting a lower salary may not be too bad if you can move to a place where houses/rent are half price)
I don't believe regulation will be effective but US (federal and States) governments should be very careful about confidentiality and appropriate use of tax money. Reports on DoD work eventually being outsourced to China are not very reassuring for US National Security. Paying for extra expen$ive toilet seats but being stingy on the software is not a good idea. The tax issues are more complex. Usually a portion of what the government pays out comes back in the form of taxes. For example, when the government buys my company's product, my company pays me, I pay taxes on my salary and the government gets it back. If instead the government gets a cheaper product because of lower offshore costs but I am unemployed, the government is receiving less taxes and maybe paying unemployment benefits, therefore increasing the total cost. From a government perspective, these costs should be considered when purchasing products, contracting work or giving tax breaks to companies that offshore a portion of their work.
In summary, I don't believe trade restrictions are a solution but I do oppose my tax $$$ being spent on subsidizing offshored work.
A new all-you-can-eat music download service that takes advantage of Spanish copyright law. The Madrid-based company, called Puretunes, is the second Spanish Web service to try offering access to a vast and otherwise unavailable catalog of music online without directly securing the record labels' permission.
Considering that Joey Hess is a prominent Debian developer, it is not surprising that Debian looks like the winner.
More seriously, if I recall correctly (I think I saw this a few years ago being mentioned on debian-devel), this comparison was not meant to prove which packaging format is better, it is more like an ongoing self check within Debian on "what we're doing right/what others are doing that we should evaluate". Plain ol' healthy evaluation of your friendly competitors.
And yes, my favorite distro is Debian, after surviving the cultural shock of going through dselect the first time, now I won't accept anyhing less (maybe I should make a t-shirt design "I [debwhirl] dselect" ':)
SCO today proudly announced that the version following C++0x will be SC++0x
Chris Sonnatag and Darl McPride said in an interview to cnet.com.news.com.com.com: "We own the C++ language. We can get more royalties and licensing fees after renaming it and charging for every use of the name."
At first I also thought that this would be a PR atempt to add a twist to IBM vs SCOX
On second thought, McBride is more likely to simply try to peddle some licensing deals. This is not a PR visit, it is a sales call.
For this farce to end, the money supply to SCOX needs to be cut off. For example, making sure that potential licensors (CELF companies?) get the message that any money given to SCOX will get them ill will.
FYI Network Associates and Computer Associates are different companies, no need to blame one for the faults of the other...
NAI makes security software (mainly for home users), CA makes enterprise software (which includes security but covers a lot more)
On your comment that this is asinine, I couldn't agree more. The jargon dictionary has the following entry:
sniff v.,n. 1. To watch IP packets traversing a local network. Most often in the phrase `packet sniffer', a program for doing same. 2.Synonym for poll.
Anybody here knows how to find when the entry was added?
(scene 1, corporate room) SCOX: We have a deal for you, barato, barato... IBM: Buwahahahahaha (scene 2, interview) SCOX: Oh, no, we're not interested in a buyout from IBM
While I agree that SCOX hardly has merits for this lawsuit, I'm afraid professor Chander is writing on hearsay rather than the actual claims made by SCOX. The point (at this moment, until SCOX files their next update to the suit) is about what constitutes a derived work and whether IBM (and Sequent) lost their rights to their original research when they incorporated it into Unix. This is not analyzed at all.
Some defensive items in the article are correct but that is because previous reporting got those right already, for example the delay in SCOX taking action and their willful distribution of supposedly infringing code under GPL terms (fully willful, there was no "inadvertent" element, they were "advertising" these featues)
The closing comment highlights how much this article is about politics more than law Otherwise, there will be no such thing as truly open, free software - and as a consequence, there will effectively be an economy-dragging tax on information technology. A judge will hardly be bothered with the existance or not of free software, there isn't a law or constitutional principle or similar that says freedom of software is protected. Same for SCOX being able to collect a "tax" from others, if judges were bothered by this, stupid patents wouldn't have a chance and we know this is not what actually happens...
So, Mr. Chander, please read the freaky claims before speaking about them. Getting infected with slashdotters' bad habits can be very dangerous in court.
Last week on MSN money, a columnist mentioned how tired he was of getting calls from brokers "pushing" SCOX.
This looks like "old" pump and dump. Some stock has news that look good (but in reality they aren't). A few brokers put on their salesman hats and try to get as many buyers as can be found. Meanwhile, the sharks are selling the pumped stock. Later, the stock drops, a bunch of people lose what they invested and Wall Street moves on to the next business. For example, SCOX management is selling. They had conveniently "programmed" sales (you wondered if programming means software to them? I think this other "programming" is what interests them...) Go to the business section at yahoo and check the insider trades. You'll see these "programmed" trades (note that other insiders do have programmed trades, that is, they sell similar amounts every set amount of time, but I couldn't find any previous similar "programmed" trades in SCOX records)
Financial magazines many times just report what brokers are saying. If brokers are peddling a certain stock, they'll just echo those comments. Traditionally it is up to the readers to determine if the comments are on the money or not. On the other hand you're right that occasionally they actually guess correctly, for example, about a possible acquisition being negotiated.
By the way, return on investment for shorting a stock that goes bankrupt tends to infinite (you pay close to $0 and get something in return, for more details just look at my other recent postings on SCOX)
Disclaimer: I'm short SCOX (Pro: I'm putting my money where my mouth is. Con: now I have a vested interest in seeing SCOX shares drop like the.... they are)
Selling short has a max profit of 100% if SCOX goes to zero, I'd like something that would return multiples of my investment should SCOX go to zero, or even just back where it came from a few months ago
Some math on shorting 1000 shares of SCO on the suppositions you described: - Initial investment: $0 laid out - Payout: $8000 (short at $11, cover at $3) - Return on the investment: $8000/$0 = infinite
Ok, let me get more real, you may have to lay out some money, if SCO goes up $1, your broker will set aside $1000. If you don't have the money, it will be taken from your margin and you'll pay interest (that's how my broker works, I'm not sure if all of or most of them operate this way).
Not so good but not too bad either. We need to add some more suppositions: - Suppose SCOX doubles up to $22 temporarily before falling back to $3 - Suppose a margin rate around 5% (not exact but close enough, anyway you wouldn't expect SCOX to shoot up to $22 and stay there for 6 months) - Suppose that SCOX can still pull some license deal this quarter and earnings still take 6 months to show that they're just vapor.
You could end up paying 5% of 50% (1/2 year) of $11000 = $275
So, you're talking a ROI of $8000/$275 = almost 3000% (the 100% you are talking about is a 100% of your order size, that is not a measure of profit)
Want more money? Short more. Just be careful with the margin calls
The main risk? If they get acquired we could feel a big pain (I already shorted, and shorted some more today). Personally I believe that it would be nonsensical to acquire them at these prices. A potential acquirer can just have a little patience until they're back at $3 and then acquire. Of course, there are other risks like being wrong, anything can happen in court, et cetera.
SCOX is being described as a "lottery ticket". This is a rare occasion where you can decide which side you like - the lottery buyer or the lottery seller.
The IEEE had a very interesting article in Spectrum magazine on the issue of portable electronics and flight safety.
The conclusion was that there is little doubt about the interference and it is not just cell phones. The article relates an incident when too many people listening to the radio (there was some "important" sports match going on) did cause noticeable interference. It seems that in most cases the pilot can notice that some instruments are providing inaccurate readings (thanks to having redundant information around, different instruments would be affected differently) and it doesn't become a big problem.
So, by using your high-frequency electronic devices inside the plane you're making the pilot's job more difficult. During cruise flight it may be less risky and during takeoff and landing it is definitely not recommended. Personally I wouldn't even trust that much those skyphones. I'd rather err on the safe side. Read a book!
Buyout after this rally = desperate
on
Latest SCO News
·
· Score: 1
(A)SCO has risen from around $2 to near $10 in a few weeks. Buying them out at this price levels seems to me like a very bad idea. Better let it drop from the stratosphere and then maybe consider buying.
This looks like a second opportunity to short if you couldn't (or didn't short enough) on the first spike. That is what I did.
Even if they owned the copyright at some point, by their redistribution of the resulting code under GPL notices they have effectively donated it, unless they want to be the first challengers in court to the GPL (and getting IBM on the other side, because the FSF is not enough...)
Your four "primary" cases are missing one of the most common ways for companies to benefit from Open Sourcing a project: USING the resulting product.
You start a project for writing something that you want to USE
You release it as Open Source so that other people can contribute
You benefit from a product that is better than what you originally produced
Of course, I'm not talking about releasing the project that gives your company the competitive advantage. There's plenty of other tools that are not providing your edge yet you develop them because you need them. You benefit by sharing the effort among people who have similar needs. The Apache webserver is an excellent example. The companies where its developers worked benefited by getting an enterprise-class web server to serve their pages.
But you're saying that "The vast majority of the machines on the Internet run on closed source operating systems running mostly closed source software" so maybe you haven't heard about Apache...
If you're not losing competitive advantages you can use the following calculation:
open sourcing cost = time and other development costs of creating an internal tool - time and other develoment costs your developers spent on the open source project
Estimate the benefit/cost ratios and go for the better one.
Not every project is as successful as Apache but you can always calculate more than one benefit/cost ratios based on diferent success scenarios. Even projects with low success (== little collaboration from outside developers) may be worthwile because of the extremely low incremental cost (you won't need much effort to manage those non-existing external collaborators!)
I am sure that many companies create plenty of useful internal tools that could evolve into providing more value to the originating company if they were open sourced.
Personally, I work at a software manufacturer. For companies whose business is creating software, nearly every product is providing (or expected to provide) a competitive advantage so this model doesn't apply.
Current video compression techniques use lossy compression schemes, which are based on removing elements that are perceptually less important.
In a movie, human perception for intra-picture elements (2D picture) is not the same as inter-picture (variation over time). The elements that can be eliminated are quite different and that is why you get better results by applying different techniques for compressing each of them.
For example: imagine a static wall painted with a single color. A "distortion" that changes the color slightly (but that color is stable within the NxN square) can be quite acceptable. Take that same wall and slightly change the color over a period of time (and different changes for different NxN sqares). You will definitely see unnatural movement.
If you were using a compression technique that is not based on human perception, treating 2-d and time uniformly might work (provided that the compression could be reasonably optimized for 2D and time at the same time)
For some time I've been thinking of preparing a 'sub-distribution' (i.e., take an existing distribution, reconfigure and repackage) targeted at the 'Gametop' (gameheads whose main purpose for using a computer is to play games). It would look something like:
GAMELINUX
Based on Debian (because that's my favorite distribution).
Hosted on an UMSDOS filesystem. Once the gamehead graduates from being a newbie and becomes more proficient he can start using ext2fs but it seems beter not to bother with partitioning at the beginning.
Distributed in a.zip file (zipslack-style). Easiest setup I've ever seen to get the basic system running.
Including Vampire, a tool that will suck config info (e.g., video card, monitor) from the Win9x registry and write it to the corresponding configuration files in Linux (the user can preview the results and select what gets written).
With LOTS of free games to select from (e.g., nethack).
With an optional menu system so that the gamehead can get to the game without learning any command.
The conquest of the Gametop is a necessary step in the quest for world domination. The ingredients are available, we just need to put them together.
Various Legal notices:
If you think that Linux is already available in too many distributions, please ignore this post.
If you like these ideas I propose that we work together on them. If instead you choose to use them without my participation you MUST make the resulting product free in the following 2 ways:
It must be Open Source (as in free speech)
If you sell copies, you must provide, free of charge, at least 1 copy of each released product to me (as in free beer:)
For now it is for Red Hat Linux. If my memory is correct, Computer Associates has announced agreements with other Linux distributors so you can expect that soon.
I live in NY but my company is in Y2K 'watch' mode that means no conference attendance days (or vacation days, which I would have happily spent for this) can be taken in December/January:(
I do hope we'll have something similar at a better time
Slashdot Mirror
IBM (and whoever is losing any money because of the SCO FUD), please consider donating to chillingeffects.org and get them to write up a nice Q&A on the case and a template response letter to SCO's letters.
IBM sales people being asked about SCO/Linux/AIX can then politely point companies to this Q&A. Something that will be clear for corporate counsels (for those that do not specialize in Copyright issues) and other legal advisors, plus a well prepared response letter could be pretty useful for assisting companies not caving in to SCO's extortion.
The fewer companies that cave in, the less money SCO will have to fuel this BS.
- Potentially lower costs
- Multiculturality yields strength
the cons:- Loss of control
- Loss of confidentiality
The lure for lower costs will definitely swing companies towards offshoring plenty of work. The loss of control and confidentiality may not be apparent at the beginning but eventually they will cause a swing back. Offshore companies will do their best in the beginning (or otherwise thay won't attract any more business) but at some point they will want to cash in their initial investment (you can go those extra miles at the beginning but not keep the extra effort forever, US or foreign this is the same everywhere), this is just one example of a loss of control. Confidentiality problems will arise, we are seeing this in other manufacturing already. GM was recently upset when Cherry, a Chinese car manufacturer, apparently copied GM's new design and released it before GM did. Guess what, if the piece designs were leaked out, there is much they could do in the US but not much they can do in China. This will cause a swing back but most probably it will not go back to the "old order". Hopefully, the habit of not having the programmers in-house should enable more telecommuting (considering the housing/rent prices in "hi-tech" areas, accepting a lower salary may not be too bad if you can move to a place where houses/rent are half price)I don't believe regulation will be effective but US (federal and States) governments should be very careful about confidentiality and appropriate use of tax money. Reports on DoD work eventually being outsourced to China are not very reassuring for US National Security. Paying for extra expen$ive toilet seats but being stingy on the software is not a good idea. The tax issues are more complex. Usually a portion of what the government pays out comes back in the form of taxes. For example, when the government buys my company's product, my company pays me, I pay taxes on my salary and the government gets it back. If instead the government gets a cheaper product because of lower offshore costs but I am unemployed, the government is receiving less taxes and maybe paying unemployment benefits, therefore increasing the total cost. From a government perspective, these costs should be considered when purchasing products, contracting work or giving tax breaks to companies that offshore a portion of their work.
In summary, I don't believe trade restrictions are a solution but I do oppose my tax $$$ being spent on subsidizing offshored work.
This kind of radio-on-demand system is already available.
weblisten
puretunes
A new all-you-can-eat music download service that takes advantage of Spanish copyright law. The Madrid-based company, called Puretunes, is the second Spanish Web service to try offering access to a vast and otherwise unavailable catalog of music online without directly securing the record labels' permission.
Full article
Considering that Joey Hess is a prominent Debian developer, it is not surprising that Debian looks like the winner.
More seriously, if I recall correctly (I think I saw this a few years ago being mentioned on debian-devel), this comparison was not meant to prove which packaging format is better, it is more like an ongoing self check within Debian on "what we're doing right/what others are doing that we should evaluate". Plain ol' healthy evaluation of your friendly competitors.
And yes, my favorite distro is Debian, after surviving the cultural shock of going through dselect the first time, now I won't accept anyhing less (maybe I should make a t-shirt design "I [debwhirl] dselect" ':)
SCO today proudly announced that the version following C++0x will be SC++0x
Chris Sonnatag and Darl McPride said in an interview to cnet.com.news.com.com.com:
"We own the C++ language. We can get more royalties and licensing fees after renaming it and charging for every use of the name."
At first I also thought that this would be a PR atempt to add a twist to IBM vs SCOX
On second thought, McBride is more likely to simply try to peddle some licensing deals. This is not a PR visit, it is a sales call.
For this farce to end, the money supply to SCOX needs to be cut off. For example, making sure that potential licensors (CELF companies?) get the message that any money given to SCOX will get them ill will.
(Disclaimer: I'm short SCOX)
FYI Network Associates and Computer Associates are different companies, no need to blame one for the faults of the other...
NAI makes security software (mainly for home users), CA makes enterprise software (which includes security but covers a lot more)
On your comment that this is asinine, I couldn't agree more. The jargon dictionary has the following entry:
sniff v.,n. 1. To watch IP packets traversing a local network. Most often in the phrase `packet sniffer', a program for doing same. 2.Synonym for poll.
Anybody here knows how to find when the entry was added?
(scene 1, corporate room)
SCOX: We have a deal for you, barato, barato...
IBM: Buwahahahahaha
(scene 2, interview)
SCOX: Oh, no, we're not interested in a buyout from IBM
Some defensive items in the article are correct but that is because previous reporting got those right already, for example the delay in SCOX taking action and their willful distribution of supposedly infringing code under GPL terms (fully willful, there was no "inadvertent" element, they were "advertising" these featues)
The closing comment highlights how much this article is about politics more than law Otherwise, there will be no such thing as truly open, free software - and as a consequence, there will effectively be an economy-dragging tax on information technology. A judge will hardly be bothered with the existance or not of free software, there isn't a law or constitutional principle or similar that says freedom of software is protected. Same for SCOX being able to collect a "tax" from others, if judges were bothered by this, stupid patents wouldn't have a chance and we know this is not what actually happens...
So, Mr. Chander, please read the freaky claims before speaking about them. Getting infected with slashdotters' bad habits can be very dangerous in court.
Last week on MSN money, a columnist mentioned how tired he was of getting calls from brokers "pushing" SCOX.
.... they are)
This looks like "old" pump and dump. Some stock has news that look good (but in reality they aren't). A few brokers put on their salesman hats and try to get as many buyers as can be found. Meanwhile, the sharks are selling the pumped stock. Later, the stock drops, a bunch of people lose what they invested and Wall Street moves on to the next business. For example, SCOX management is selling. They had conveniently "programmed" sales (you wondered if programming means software to them? I think this other "programming" is what interests them...) Go to the business section at yahoo and check the insider trades. You'll see these "programmed" trades (note that other insiders do have programmed trades, that is, they sell similar amounts every set amount of time, but I couldn't find any previous similar "programmed" trades in SCOX records)
Financial magazines many times just report what brokers are saying. If brokers are peddling a certain stock, they'll just echo those comments. Traditionally it is up to the readers to determine if the comments are on the money or not. On the other hand you're right that occasionally they actually guess correctly, for example, about a possible acquisition being negotiated.
By the way, return on investment for shorting a stock that goes bankrupt tends to infinite (you pay close to $0 and get something in return, for more details just look at my other recent postings on SCOX)
Disclaimer: I'm short SCOX (Pro: I'm putting my money where my mouth is. Con: now I have a vested interest in seeing SCOX shares drop like the
Easy. Short more.
Selling short has a max profit of 100% if SCOX goes to zero, I'd like something that would return multiples of my investment should SCOX go to zero, or even just back where it came from a few months ago
Some math on shorting 1000 shares of SCO on the suppositions you described:
- Initial investment: $0 laid out
- Payout: $8000 (short at $11, cover at $3)
- Return on the investment: $8000/$0 = infinite
Ok, let me get more real, you may have to lay out some money, if SCO goes up $1, your broker will set aside $1000. If you don't have the money, it will be taken from your margin and you'll pay interest (that's how my broker works, I'm not sure if all of or most of them operate this way).
Not so good but not too bad either. We need to add some more suppositions:
- Suppose SCOX doubles up to $22 temporarily before falling back to $3
- Suppose a margin rate around 5% (not exact but close enough, anyway you wouldn't expect SCOX to shoot up to $22 and stay there for 6 months)
- Suppose that SCOX can still pull some license deal this quarter and earnings still take 6 months to show that they're just vapor.
You could end up paying 5% of 50% (1/2 year) of $11000 = $275
So, you're talking a ROI of $8000/$275 = almost 3000% (the 100% you are talking about is a 100% of your order size, that is not a measure of profit)
Want more money? Short more. Just be careful with the margin calls
The main risk? If they get acquired we could feel a big pain (I already shorted, and shorted some more today). Personally I believe that it would be nonsensical to acquire them at these prices. A potential acquirer can just have a little patience until they're back at $3 and then acquire. Of course, there are other risks like being wrong, anything can happen in court, et cetera.
SCOX is being described as a "lottery ticket". This is a rare occasion where you can decide which side you like - the lottery buyer or the lottery seller.
The IEEE had a very interesting article in Spectrum magazine on the issue of portable electronics and flight safety.
The conclusion was that there is little doubt about the interference and it is not just cell phones. The article relates an incident when too many people listening to the radio (there was some "important" sports match going on) did cause noticeable interference. It seems that in most cases the pilot can notice that some instruments are providing inaccurate readings (thanks to having redundant information around, different instruments would be affected differently) and it doesn't become a big problem.
So, by using your high-frequency electronic devices inside the plane you're making the pilot's job more difficult. During cruise flight it may be less risky and during takeoff and landing it is definitely not recommended. Personally I wouldn't even trust that much those skyphones. I'd rather err on the safe side. Read a book!
This looks like a second opportunity to short if you couldn't (or didn't short enough) on the first spike. That is what I did.
Even if they owned the copyright at some point, by their redistribution of the resulting code under GPL notices they have effectively donated it, unless they want to be the first challengers in court to the GPL (and getting IBM on the other side, because the FSF is not enough...)
- You start a project for writing something that you want to USE
- You release it as Open Source so that other people can contribute
- You benefit from a product that is better than what you originally produced
Of course, I'm not talking about releasing the project that gives your company the competitive advantage. There's plenty of other tools that are not providing your edge yet you develop them because you need them. You benefit by sharing the effort among people who have similar needs. The Apache webserver is an excellent example. The companies where its developers worked benefited by getting an enterprise-class web server to serve their pages.But you're saying that "The vast majority of the machines on the Internet run on closed source operating systems running mostly closed source software" so maybe you haven't heard about Apache...
If you're not losing competitive advantages you can use the following calculation:
open sourcing cost = time and other development costs of creating an internal tool - time and other develoment costs your developers spent on the open source project
Estimate the benefit/cost ratios and go for the better one.
Not every project is as successful as Apache but you can always calculate more than one benefit/cost ratios based on diferent success scenarios. Even projects with low success (== little collaboration from outside developers) may be worthwile because of the extremely low incremental cost (you won't need much effort to manage those non-existing external collaborators!)
I am sure that many companies create plenty of useful internal tools that could evolve into providing more value to the originating company if they were open sourced.
Personally, I work at a software manufacturer. For companies whose business is creating software, nearly every product is providing (or expected to provide) a competitive advantage so this model doesn't apply.
Current video compression techniques use lossy compression schemes, which are based on removing elements that are perceptually less important.
In a movie, human perception for intra-picture elements (2D picture) is not the same as inter-picture (variation over time). The elements that can be eliminated are quite different and that is why you get better results by applying different techniques for compressing each of them.
For example: imagine a static wall painted with a single color. A "distortion" that changes the color slightly (but that color is stable within the NxN square) can be quite acceptable. Take that same wall and slightly change the color over a period of time (and different changes for different NxN sqares). You will definitely see unnatural movement.
If you were using a compression technique that is not based on human perception, treating 2-d and time uniformly might work (provided that the compression could be reasonably optimized for 2D and time at the same time)
It was a little bit expensive but it did solve a couple of interesting problems:
- Do you want two, three fans, no problem, how about another one on the side?
- Would you like fine tuning of the space between drives?
- You have problems finding a box for your many-cheap-ide-disks-array?
- Did you change your mind and now you need a bigger/smaller case?
Plastic can be 'cooler' than woodworldcitizen
IIRC GATOS goal is to become a V4L driver. Just they're not there yet ':)
For some time I've been thinking of preparing a 'sub-distribution' (i.e., take an existing distribution, reconfigure and repackage) targeted at the 'Gametop' (gameheads whose main purpose for using a computer is to play games). It would look something like:
GAMELINUX
The conquest of the Gametop is a necessary step in the quest for world domination. The ingredients are available, we just need to put them together.
Various Legal notices:
Enjoy,
Eusebio (@corelcity.com)
For now it is for Red Hat Linux. If my memory is correct, Computer Associates has announced agreements with other Linux distributors so you can expect that soon.
I do hope we'll have something similar at a better time