They're probably one of the biggest factors in the whole stock market boom... They get consumers online. Consumers buy stuff, or consumers view ads, Amazons and Yahoo's stock prices skyrocket. Other companies see this, and go public and also sky rocket. Venture capitalists give money to other interesting companies, feeling more confident about the whole computer age.
I'd even say in a round about way, Transmeta, among others, might never have gotten the financing they needed if it weren't for AOL shoving consumers on the internet.
1 - Aside from the AOL 5.0 fiasco, AOL isn't really lacking concern for their users.
2 - how many additional accounts would AOL get if they offered straight up PPP service? I doubt too many. Many of the hold outs are doing so just because it's AOL. Would you use aol as your ISP? I doubt many people here would. I also doubt that many/.ers would want AOL on their Linux boxes. They're too "sophisticated" to be bothered with AOL.
Besides that, AOL isn't so much a service provider, but a content provider. They're just the only one that supplies it's users with a dialup account.
So far as the $8 billion lawsuit goes... EVEN if it did go through, AOL/Time Warners got plenty of cash available to pay it in full. But most likely, they'll either settle for a fraction of it, or fight it and win.
So far as the gov't thing goes... I haven't read anything about them just welcoming the government into their offices with open arms. Maybe i'll check out apb and re-educate myself.
If you're planning "wide" distribution of your movies, paying a small licensing/royalty for the priveledge shouldn't break the bank. It all comes down to who's put out the money to develop DVD and push it out into the mainstream as quickly as it has come.
CD-R's took ages to approach affordability, with DVD's, it happened quite rapidly.
In the long term, I'd much rather own a disk rathern than rely on digital streams to get content from distributors to me. For one, you can pay one time to watch a DVD as many times as you like. I don't know if that will be an option with streaming video in the future. And even if it is, one hard drive crash will cause a lot of difficulties, as you try to resurrect movie's you'd downloaded, or recreate certificates that state you own the right to watch such and such whenever you'd like.
Regardless. The industry has learned it's lesson. Don't be suprised if and when they do switch to completely online distribution. Of course, that will probably lock out the whole linux market again, but they'll be able to point to what happened with DVD's as a reason to not allow online distribution to any but a few "supported" operating systems. And they won't leave unencrypted keys laying around next time.
The original 1.0 version of Virtual Playstation did indeed play pirated games which real Playstations didn't play. I think that's what initially irked Sony the most. Shortly thereafter, Connectix issued a patch that stopped that.
But for the short while, VPS definetly stood to increase game piracy.
I think it's complete bull that from the same crowd that constantly complains about how patents stiffle innovatation, someone steps out and patents something with less than completely free licensing terms.
Why should it matter if said patent is used in a commercial product or an opensource one?
With that attitude, it's kind of hard to argue against patents... "they can't patent stuff, but we can?"... or "we can violate their patents, but they'ed better not violate ours?"
Everytime MSFT ships an update to their OS, I usually just download the service pack. However, everytime there's a significant update to Redhat, I'll just download the whole CD to have on hand for reference. Does each of my downloads count as a single install?
Don't get too excited about these numbers. A lot of the installs could have been tests... just checking it out because it's free. I've also bought a few distro's... OpenLinux 2.3, Redhat a few times, Debian, etc... Those were all installed on maybe 2 machines...
I'm sure I'm not the only one here that accounted for more "sales" than machines they could have installed it on.
Linux is just too hard to count accurately. It's free, for one. Are they counting CD's shipped via CheapBytes? How about CD's included in books? Downloads from official distribution sites? Unofficial sites? That, plus the fact that there's no way that one can gauge exactly for what use the install is being used.
NT is much easier to break down. x Workstation sales vs. y Server sales.
There really is no way to accurately compare the two. If you count units shipped, you have to figure what consitutes a "unit". Maybe just count preloads? No... not unless they track down every consultant that could possibly install linux for a client somewhere....
SOME discs ship with both Win 32 and Linux versions. Some discs ship with Win 32 and Mac version. Generally, those are counted as just Win32 sales. In that case, let the company know. But usually, just filling out the registration card will give them all the info they need.
Why would you want 16 50 MHz processors rather than 1 800 Mhz processor? Each system built would use a much larger chunk of each wafer from which CPU's are built and that cost would be passed on to us. Besides that, have you seen the size of the machines that hold 16 CPUs? Heard the noise from the fans?
Besides the pieces of silicon, there'd also be a LOT more wiring in the boxes... right now, I think most motherboards are either 4 or 6 layers(?). We'd need motherboards twice as thick... meaning more cost.
Single processor machines will always be cheaper than multiprocessor machines, and will suit the needs of 95%+ of computer users.
And lastly... The mainstream OSes benefit much more from more MHz in a single CPU rather than adding lots of slower CPU's. Linux scales well up to 2 and sometimes 4 processors (based on benchmarks I've read), NT does about the same. Be... I've actually not seen a BeOS system with more than 2 CPU's (PowerPC or otherwise) so i can't comment on that.
So... More CPU's rather than just faster CPUs... would greatly increase the cost of systems, and because of the inefficiencies of most low-end OSes, the benefits would go largly unnoticed.
Transmeta's got their eyes on going public, like every other tech company. IF they decided to try to raise $20/share, Intel could simply offer them $40/share and hope the VC's that funded Transmeta bit. Or they could just wait for them to float enough stock into the market and then gobble them up. A few well placed press releases in the days leading up to their IP, and they might not end up soaring like many other IPO's in recent history.
90% of the demo consisted of video taped demonstrations. If their product was near shippable, why didn't they at least have prototype boxes?
AMD demoed a 1.1 Ghz Athlon, and everyone here was smart enough to say "Okay. That's nice. How long til you ship it?"
Transmeta shows a video tape of a simulation of a crusoe processor using less power than a DESKTOP pentium III, and everyone jumps up and says "I want one!".
I'm not disputing that Crusoe's real or not. I'm just saying don't love the thing until you see how it works in the real world. All anyone who hasn't signed an NDA has seen so far is Transmeta's fluff piece about the wonders they've been working on. Of course they're not going to mention which hurdles they haven't made it over yet, or which ones could be erected (pardon the word) prior to themselves shipping the actual product.
AMD and Intel will scrap about for a while... realize that Transmeta's pestering them, swat transmeta out of the way, and then continue their battle.
That swat may consist of patent related lawsuits, huge FUD campaigns, or just an outright buyout. Remember, Intel IS NOT a monoply in the CPU arena (or so says the DOJ) and could probably pull of such a buyout.
Like I've said over and over... I can't belive how it seems that everyone around here has fallen completely head over heels in love with Crusoe dispite not seeing a shipping chip, system, or whatever.
Let crusoe arrive. Test it. If you like it, THEN start chanting it's praises. But in doing so right now and putting off your purchases in anticipation, you're falling for the same old FUD that you bash Microsoft and Intel for spouting all these years.
Well saying that Rob couldn't leave to start a new "news and discussion site targeting nerds and linux users for at least a year" hardly stops him from seeking new work.
Or maybe they could bar him publicizing any other sites of this genre that he may work with on slashdot.
Those are very narrow clauses and could surely stand up, if they existed.
"I wonder if Rob and Co will now disclose their stock holdings in the companies they report on (like most respectable journalists)."
Most respectable journalists don't own stocks in the industries which they report. For instance, many editors of PC Magazine come straight out and say they aren't allowed to invest in anything but mutual funds, so there's no way that they can do anything that directly affects them.
I doubt... or rather, i know... that Slashdot/Andover/VA Linux has no stipulation about this... Rob probably has Redhat stock, along side VA Linux and Andover, and I believe he's said he owns some Corel as well.
So how would you feel if instead of VA Linux buying Andover, if it had been Dell instead? Or maybe IBM? Sun???
Everyone here would have completely freaked out, but because it's a company they "like", they feel it's OK.
How would you feel about Microsoft buying up Redhat and then seeing Bob Young paraded around saying "it's fine! Redhat will be the same Redhat it's always been. It says in our contracts that we're to remain committed to open source."
In that scenario, again, people would freak out, thinking that Microsoft had ulterior motives for the deal.
Andover went public. They had bucket loads of cash that could have been used to beef up slashdot's boxes, connection, etc.... They didn't need to sign up with VA Linux.
I think it was very irresponsible of either Andover or VA Linux to do this. It's simply amazing that not many other people around here feel that way. It shows the brash nature of these companies and the people behind them. The day after Redhat went public, everyone was proclaiming that Redhat should buy SCO. The day after VA went public, everyone was proclaiming that VA should buy SGI. And then they scream that Microsoft buys a stake in a media company, thinkint that will forever tint that organizations views.
Crusoe can't morph any instruction set, though!!! Hate to break the news, but that was complete speculation on the part of everyone trying to figure out what Transmeta was doing. Turns out they just made a x86 processor that uses less power than conventional processors. That's all. End of announcement.
That may change if transmeta comes forward and says that they will implement other architectures to emulate in software, or if they "open up" the Crusoe family to outside developers, who may attempt to make it emulate other architectures.
Aside from that, Crusoe's seem to be aimed more at the low-cost notebook market. Charging $50+ will make them money in that market, because they come in as one of the cheapest CPU providers. To get into the PDA market, they'ed need to charge 1/10th of that. Not a good way to make money, unless they can make it up in volume.
You are responsible to the copyright owner to comply with the license. You are responsible to those to whom you distributed binaries to distribute source on request. You are also responsible to any third party to distribute source on request if you don't distribute it along with the binary.
So, if LinuxOne distributed the binaries along with the source code on the floppy, then only the people who received the floppies would be legally required to have access to the source code, which they could do whatever they want with.
However, since they don't distribute the source with the binary, they must give the source to anyone who asks, regardless as to whether or not they've received a binary?
That seems just wrong.
It's always been my impression that the GPL only applies between the copyright holder, you, and the person you distribute the software to. For instance, if i modified your GPLed program and sold it to "JIM", would I then be required to send the source code, on floppy, to 10,000 people who then request it from me? I wouldn't think so, unless I'd given them the binaries.
Same with LinuxOne. I don't see why they should need to make their source available to anyone who hasn't received a binary.
It's easy to remake the slashdot website, but the slashdot community is a completely different story. You can't simply "create a new website" and have the community follow you. That's exactly why Andover was purchased for the amount it was purchased for. That's why Yahoo is still a hot property... People get stuck here.
Even if you made a site exactly like slashdot with only the stories that *I* liked, I'd probably not think about visiting it if there were only 50 hits a day there. There just wouldn't be much of a point to that.
Since you seem to be the most informed person around here as to how the GPL works, can you explain this:
When does the GPL come into force? Once a program is distributed? Concieved? Or what?
For instance, when there was all the grumbling about the slashdot code about Rob saying it was almost GPLed, according to his FAQ, people jumped to his defence, saying that since he wasn't distributing it, he was excempt from that part of the GPL.
When Corel attempted to stymie the redistribution of it's beta, half of the crowd here said that since they were distributing the distro, it should be available for all to see. But the other half was saying that since people were generally expectedt o sign NDA's, it could be construed that they were becoming, to a limited extent, employees of Corel, and therefore would be under no obligation to distribute the source to their beta distribution.
Then, when there was a discussion about the NSA contracting an outside company to create a "secure" linux distibution, it was reasoned that the community probably wouldn't ever get the source, because in that case, the GPL applied only to the NSA and it's contracting company. Since the only customer of that company for the product was the NSA, the NSA would be the only ones legally required to be able to get the source code.
Did all that make sense? It just seems that the GPL is applied with varying degree's of insistance. There also doesn't seem to be a clearing house for all GPL related questions and other issues.
Here's the final question? When does the GPL start? a - when you begin internal development? b - when you begin using the software in a production environment c - when you distribute binaries to "anyone" d - when you distribute binaries to "everyone"
And to who does the GPL apply?
a - anyone that asks for it? b - only the people that you distributed binaries to?
Maybe one day this issue will be cleared up... But right now it seems that the GPL is full of selective loopholes.
Then GNU, ESR, RMS, and whatever other initials you care to throw togtether do not mandate that source be included with all binaries. Just because it's the "general standard" does not mean that it's a requirement of the license. So long as the source is posted on their FTP server, that's probably *good enough* to satisfy the GPL. They could also have a few CD's or floppies for people who claimed to not have internet access (strange, in this day and age, especially for linux users).
Quit calling others trolls... it seemed you were the troll, making arguments such as "what if you don't believe in phones?"...
Then GNU, ESR, RMS, and whatever other initials you care to throw togtether do not mandate that source be included with all binaries. Just because it's the "general standard" does not mean that it's a requirement of the license. So long as the source is posted on their FTP server, that's probably *good enough* to satisfy the GPL. They could also have a few CD's or floppies for people who claimed to not have internet access (strange, in this day and age, especially for linux users).
Quit calling others trolls... it seemed you were the troll, making arguments such as "what if you don't believe in phones?"...
It doesn't sound like they're refusing access to the source. They're not required to include the source with their binaries, they just have to make it available upon request, for no charge, aside from postage and the price of a floppy. It's not like their employees are mandated to carry floppies everwhere they go in order to be able to distribute the source code upon request.
Just wanted to point out that 40% includes R&D. That's the margin that the DOJ repeatedly points to, and that's the same figure that Microsoft states in their conference calls when reporting financials. It's way over and above any other company in the industry, just about.
Actually, ever heard of VisiCalc? That was the Apple II's killer app, prior to the IBM PC's appearance. Many people ran their businesses on Apple II's for quite some time thanks to that one application. I think that sentence just goes to show how old school he his. In a good way. He's seen apps before the advent of Microsoft, during Microsofts reign, and is now looking onward.
As much as you hate Intel's and Microsoft's FUD, you've completely bought into Transmeta's FUD. It looks like they've done a tremendous job at freezing the market for laptops among slashdot readers.
They don't have a product yet. Or at least if they did, I didn't see it. I did see "video taped demonstrations" of Crusoe in action. I also saw "video taped demonstrations" of how removing IE would kill Windows.
I'd say, if you need a laptop, go buy your laptop. Crusoe's not going to be that much more advantagous that you should put off your purchase for 6 - 9 months in order to get one. Or at least wait until a somewhat more objective 3rd party takes a look at a system based around the chip before pledging that it's the best thing since slice bread.
All we've heard so far is that Transmeta say's their chip beats Intels chips in terms of power consumption in their controlled environments. That's a far cry for the real world, and it doesn't seem to take into account that already, the CPU is likely to use the least amount of power in todays laptops, compared to the hard drive, CD drive, DVD drive, video controller, or active matrix screen...
Slashdot Mirror
Why's that sad?
They're probably one of the biggest factors in the whole stock market boom... They get consumers online. Consumers buy stuff, or consumers view ads, Amazons and Yahoo's stock prices skyrocket. Other companies see this, and go public and also sky rocket. Venture capitalists give money to other interesting companies, feeling more confident about the whole computer age.
I'd even say in a round about way, Transmeta, among others, might never have gotten the financing they needed if it weren't for AOL shoving consumers on the internet.
1 - Aside from the AOL 5.0 fiasco, AOL isn't really lacking concern for their users.
/.ers would want AOL on their Linux boxes. They're too "sophisticated" to be bothered with AOL.
2 - how many additional accounts would AOL get if they offered straight up PPP service? I doubt too many. Many of the hold outs are doing so just because it's AOL. Would you use aol as your ISP? I doubt many people here would. I also doubt that many
Besides that, AOL isn't so much a service provider, but a content provider. They're just the only one that supplies it's users with a dialup account.
So far as the $8 billion lawsuit goes... EVEN if it did go through, AOL/Time Warners got plenty of cash available to pay it in full. But most likely, they'll either settle for a fraction of it, or fight it and win.
So far as the gov't thing goes... I haven't read anything about them just welcoming the government into their offices with open arms. Maybe i'll check out apb and re-educate myself.
To play the devil for a second...
If you're planning "wide" distribution of your movies, paying a small licensing/royalty for the priveledge shouldn't break the bank. It all comes down to who's put out the money to develop DVD and push it out into the mainstream as quickly as it has come.
CD-R's took ages to approach affordability, with DVD's, it happened quite rapidly.
In the long term, I'd much rather own a disk rathern than rely on digital streams to get content from distributors to me. For one, you can pay one time to watch a DVD as many times as you like. I don't know if that will be an option with streaming video in the future. And even if it is, one hard drive crash will cause a lot of difficulties, as you try to resurrect movie's you'd downloaded, or recreate certificates that state you own the right to watch such and such whenever you'd like.
Regardless. The industry has learned it's lesson. Don't be suprised if and when they do switch to completely online distribution. Of course, that will probably lock out the whole linux market again, but they'll be able to point to what happened with DVD's as a reason to not allow online distribution to any but a few "supported" operating systems. And they won't leave unencrypted keys laying around next time.
The original 1.0 version of Virtual Playstation did indeed play pirated games which real Playstations didn't play. I think that's what initially irked Sony the most. Shortly thereafter, Connectix issued a patch that stopped that.
But for the short while, VPS definetly stood to increase game piracy.
I think it's complete bull that from the same crowd that constantly complains about how patents stiffle innovatation, someone steps out and patents something with less than completely free licensing terms.
Why should it matter if said patent is used in a commercial product or an opensource one?
With that attitude, it's kind of hard to argue against patents... "they can't patent stuff, but we can?"... or "we can violate their patents, but they'ed better not violate ours?"
Et cetra
Everytime MSFT ships an update to their OS, I usually just download the service pack. However, everytime there's a significant update to Redhat, I'll just download the whole CD to have on hand for reference. Does each of my downloads count as a single install?
Don't get too excited about these numbers. A lot of the installs could have been tests... just checking it out because it's free. I've also bought a few distro's... OpenLinux 2.3, Redhat a few times, Debian, etc... Those were all installed on maybe 2 machines...
I'm sure I'm not the only one here that accounted for more "sales" than machines they could have installed it on.
Linux is just too hard to count accurately. It's free, for one. Are they counting CD's shipped via CheapBytes? How about CD's included in books? Downloads from official distribution sites? Unofficial sites? That, plus the fact that there's no way that one can gauge exactly for what use the install is being used.
NT is much easier to break down. x Workstation sales vs. y Server sales.
There really is no way to accurately compare the two. If you count units shipped, you have to figure what consitutes a "unit". Maybe just count preloads? No... not unless they track down every consultant that could possibly install linux for a client somewhere....
Numbers are just useless.
SOME discs ship with both Win 32 and Linux versions. Some discs ship with Win 32 and Mac version. Generally, those are counted as just Win32 sales. In that case, let the company know. But usually, just filling out the registration card will give them all the info they need.
Why would you want 16 50 MHz processors rather than 1 800 Mhz processor? Each system built would use a much larger chunk of each wafer from which CPU's are built and that cost would be passed on to us. Besides that, have you seen the size of the machines that hold 16 CPUs? Heard the noise from the fans?
Besides the pieces of silicon, there'd also be a LOT more wiring in the boxes... right now, I think most motherboards are either 4 or 6 layers(?). We'd need motherboards twice as thick... meaning more cost.
Single processor machines will always be cheaper than multiprocessor machines, and will suit the needs of 95%+ of computer users.
And lastly... The mainstream OSes benefit much more from more MHz in a single CPU rather than adding lots of slower CPU's. Linux scales well up to 2 and sometimes 4 processors (based on benchmarks I've read), NT does about the same. Be... I've actually not seen a BeOS system with more than 2 CPU's (PowerPC or otherwise) so i can't comment on that.
So... More CPU's rather than just faster CPUs... would greatly increase the cost of systems, and because of the inefficiencies of most low-end OSes, the benefits would go largly unnoticed.
Transmeta's got their eyes on going public, like every other tech company. IF they decided to try to raise $20/share, Intel could simply offer them $40/share and hope the VC's that funded Transmeta bit. Or they could just wait for them to float enough stock into the market and then gobble them up. A few well placed press releases in the days leading up to their IP, and they might not end up soaring like many other IPO's in recent history.
90% of the demo consisted of video taped demonstrations. If their product was near shippable, why didn't they at least have prototype boxes?
AMD demoed a 1.1 Ghz Athlon, and everyone here was smart enough to say "Okay. That's nice. How long til you ship it?"
Transmeta shows a video tape of a simulation of a crusoe processor using less power than a DESKTOP pentium III, and everyone jumps up and says "I want one!".
I'm not disputing that Crusoe's real or not. I'm just saying don't love the thing until you see how it works in the real world. All anyone who hasn't signed an NDA has seen so far is Transmeta's fluff piece about the wonders they've been working on. Of course they're not going to mention which hurdles they haven't made it over yet, or which ones could be erected (pardon the word) prior to themselves shipping the actual product.
AMD and Intel will scrap about for a while... realize that Transmeta's pestering them, swat transmeta out of the way, and then continue their battle.
That swat may consist of patent related lawsuits, huge FUD campaigns, or just an outright buyout. Remember, Intel IS NOT a monoply in the CPU arena (or so says the DOJ) and could probably pull of such a buyout.
Like I've said over and over... I can't belive how it seems that everyone around here has fallen completely head over heels in love with Crusoe dispite not seeing a shipping chip, system, or whatever.
Let crusoe arrive. Test it. If you like it, THEN start chanting it's praises. But in doing so right now and putting off your purchases in anticipation, you're falling for the same old FUD that you bash Microsoft and Intel for spouting all these years.
Well saying that Rob couldn't leave to start a new "news and discussion site targeting nerds and linux users for at least a year" hardly stops him from seeking new work.
Or maybe they could bar him publicizing any other sites of this genre that he may work with on slashdot.
Those are very narrow clauses and could surely stand up, if they existed.
"I wonder if Rob and Co will now disclose their stock holdings in the companies they report on (like most respectable journalists)."
Most respectable journalists don't own stocks in the industries which they report. For instance, many editors of PC Magazine come straight out and say they aren't allowed to invest in anything but mutual funds, so there's no way that they can do anything that directly affects them.
I doubt... or rather, i know... that Slashdot/Andover/VA Linux has no stipulation about this... Rob probably has Redhat stock, along side VA Linux and Andover, and I believe he's said he owns some Corel as well.
So how would you feel if instead of VA Linux buying Andover, if it had been Dell instead? Or maybe IBM? Sun???
Everyone here would have completely freaked out, but because it's a company they "like", they feel it's OK.
How would you feel about Microsoft buying up Redhat and then seeing Bob Young paraded around saying "it's fine! Redhat will be the same Redhat it's always been. It says in our contracts that we're to remain committed to open source."
In that scenario, again, people would freak out, thinking that Microsoft had ulterior motives for the deal.
Andover went public. They had bucket loads of cash that could have been used to beef up slashdot's boxes, connection, etc.... They didn't need to sign up with VA Linux.
I think it was very irresponsible of either Andover or VA Linux to do this. It's simply amazing that not many other people around here feel that way. It shows the brash nature of these companies and the people behind them. The day after Redhat went public, everyone was proclaiming that Redhat should buy SCO. The day after VA went public, everyone was proclaiming that VA should buy SGI. And then they scream that Microsoft buys a stake in a media company, thinkint that will forever tint that organizations views.
Crusoe can't morph any instruction set, though!!! Hate to break the news, but that was complete speculation on the part of everyone trying to figure out what Transmeta was doing. Turns out they just made a x86 processor that uses less power than conventional processors. That's all. End of announcement.
That may change if transmeta comes forward and says that they will implement other architectures to emulate in software, or if they "open up" the Crusoe family to outside developers, who may attempt to make it emulate other architectures.
Aside from that, Crusoe's seem to be aimed more at the low-cost notebook market. Charging $50+ will make them money in that market, because they come in as one of the cheapest CPU providers. To get into the PDA market, they'ed need to charge 1/10th of that. Not a good way to make money, unless they can make it up in volume.
You are responsible to the copyright owner to comply with the license. You are responsible to those to whom you distributed binaries to distribute source on request. You are also responsible to any third party to distribute source on request if you don't distribute it along with the binary.
So, if LinuxOne distributed the binaries along with the source code on the floppy, then only the people who received the floppies would be legally required to have access to the source code, which they could do whatever they want with.
However, since they don't distribute the source with the binary, they must give the source to anyone who asks, regardless as to whether or not they've received a binary?
That seems just wrong.
It's always been my impression that the GPL only applies between the copyright holder, you, and the person you distribute the software to. For instance, if i modified your GPLed program and sold it to "JIM", would I then be required to send the source code, on floppy, to 10,000 people who then request it from me? I wouldn't think so, unless I'd given them the binaries.
Same with LinuxOne. I don't see why they should need to make their source available to anyone who hasn't received a binary.
It's easy to remake the slashdot website, but the slashdot community is a completely different story. You can't simply "create a new website" and have the community follow you. That's exactly why Andover was purchased for the amount it was purchased for. That's why Yahoo is still a hot property... People get stuck here.
Even if you made a site exactly like slashdot with only the stories that *I* liked, I'd probably not think about visiting it if there were only 50 hits a day there. There just wouldn't be much of a point to that.
Since you seem to be the most informed person around here as to how the GPL works, can you explain this:
When does the GPL come into force? Once a program is distributed? Concieved? Or what?
For instance, when there was all the grumbling about the slashdot code about Rob saying it was almost GPLed, according to his FAQ, people jumped to his defence, saying that since he wasn't distributing it, he was excempt from that part of the GPL.
When Corel attempted to stymie the redistribution of it's beta, half of the crowd here said that since they were distributing the distro, it should be available for all to see. But the other half was saying that since people were generally expectedt o sign NDA's, it could be construed that they were becoming, to a limited extent, employees of Corel, and therefore would be under no obligation to distribute the source to their beta distribution.
Then, when there was a discussion about the NSA contracting an outside company to create a "secure" linux distibution, it was reasoned that the community probably wouldn't ever get the source, because in that case, the GPL applied only to the NSA and it's contracting company. Since the only customer of that company for the product was the NSA, the NSA would be the only ones legally required to be able to get the source code.
Did all that make sense? It just seems that the GPL is applied with varying degree's of insistance. There also doesn't seem to be a clearing house for all GPL related questions and other issues.
Here's the final question?
When does the GPL start?
a - when you begin internal development?
b - when you begin using the software in a production environment
c - when you distribute binaries to "anyone"
d - when you distribute binaries to "everyone"
And to who does the GPL apply?
a - anyone that asks for it?
b - only the people that you distributed binaries to?
Maybe one day this issue will be cleared up... But right now it seems that the GPL is full of selective loopholes.
Then GNU, ESR, RMS, and whatever other initials you care to throw togtether do not mandate that source be included with all binaries. Just because it's the "general standard" does not mean that it's a requirement of the license. So long as the source is posted on their FTP server, that's probably *good enough* to satisfy the GPL. They could also have a few CD's or floppies for people who claimed to not have internet access (strange, in this day and age, especially for linux users).
Quit calling others trolls... it seemed you were the troll, making arguments such as "what if you don't believe in phones?"...
Then GNU, ESR, RMS, and whatever other initials you care to throw togtether do not mandate that source be included with all binaries. Just because it's the "general standard" does not mean that it's a requirement of the license. So long as the source is posted on their FTP server, that's probably *good enough* to satisfy the GPL. They could also have a few CD's or floppies for people who claimed to not have internet access (strange, in this day and age, especially for linux users).
Quit calling others trolls... it seemed you were the troll, making arguments such as "what if you don't believe in phones?"...
It doesn't sound like they're refusing access to the source. They're not required to include the source with their binaries, they just have to make it available upon request, for no charge, aside from postage and the price of a floppy. It's not like their employees are mandated to carry floppies everwhere they go in order to be able to distribute the source code upon request.
Just wanted to point out that 40% includes R&D. That's the margin that the DOJ repeatedly points to, and that's the same figure that Microsoft states in their conference calls when reporting financials. It's way over and above any other company in the industry, just about.
Actually, ever heard of VisiCalc? That was the Apple II's killer app, prior to the IBM PC's appearance. Many people ran their businesses on Apple II's for quite some time thanks to that one application. I think that sentence just goes to show how old school he his. In a good way. He's seen apps before the advent of Microsoft, during Microsofts reign, and is now looking onward.
As much as you hate Intel's and Microsoft's FUD, you've completely bought into Transmeta's FUD. It looks like they've done a tremendous job at freezing the market for laptops among slashdot readers.
They don't have a product yet. Or at least if they did, I didn't see it. I did see "video taped demonstrations" of Crusoe in action. I also saw "video taped demonstrations" of how removing IE would kill Windows.
I'd say, if you need a laptop, go buy your laptop. Crusoe's not going to be that much more advantagous that you should put off your purchase for 6 - 9 months in order to get one. Or at least wait until a somewhat more objective 3rd party takes a look at a system based around the chip before pledging that it's the best thing since slice bread.
All we've heard so far is that Transmeta say's their chip beats Intels chips in terms of power consumption in their controlled environments. That's a far cry for the real world, and it doesn't seem to take into account that already, the CPU is likely to use the least amount of power in todays laptops, compared to the hard drive, CD drive, DVD drive, video controller, or active matrix screen...