It'll take a while. Renderers maybe, but before we see the complete apps being ported over we'll to see more graphic software companies stating plans to port their goods, as well. Take Photoshop & Illustrator for two. Premiere, for three. Those all go hand in hand with Lightwave or any other 3D package, and they'ed be not useless, but not extremely useful, without the side programs.
I wish that in netscapes prefs, you could list all the sites you go to and specify whether or not to accept cookies from them, so you could always accept cookies from Slash or Amazon but never from AdFu or Doubleclick...
I'm not even implying that what they do is wrong, I just dislike how people believe that they are or should be completely free to say or do whatever they want to say or do simply because they believe that the letter of the constitution allows it. it doesn't. I think the constitution would have looked a lot differently had it been drafted based on today's society rather than a society that's 3 centuries apart from ours.
I was responding to someone saying that they should post the DeCSS source in China because the industry was seeking to outlaw something (dvd recorders?). I don't even know how that got drawn into this discussion, let alone moderated up two points.
But yes. I agree with you. The US does limit my right to express myself in the sense that I have to be responsible and non-malicious about what I say or do. I don't see a harm in that. But to say it's not being limited is kind of decietful. If it were unlimited, it'd be anarchy. I think it's important to understand and acknowledge that.
Geez. I was pointing the story to the original poster of this thread and explaining why their submission may not have been accepted... Maybe I wasn't clear about it, but I certainly wasn't being redundant, i don't think.
Parts of the internet live in every country. Those governments can dictate what they will and will not host and let users access. It's quite different than requiring that routers route data based on not only destination but content as well...
(Cisco'd love that! Having to resell new routers to everyone... )
Just because it's distributed, don't think that it is anarchistic. I forgot the rest of my sentence - but basically, use your brains. Countries can dictate what they allow people to do within their own country.
Ever stop to think that if people actually respected their property, then they wouldn't feel the need to encrypt their data in the first place?
But that's for another discussion.
The US government does censor (I've actually been on a 2 Live Crew and Dead Kennedy's kick these past few days:), and it does limit speech (hence the reason you can't cry fire in a crowded theatre, threatening someone is a crime even if you don't hurt them, and it's illegal to impersonate a police officer in the name of performance art)...
But don't compare the US to China, because it just isn't happening...
Funny, I thought this whole merger was discussed right here on slashdot a couple weeks ago. Here's a link, posted on 1/6/00. They probably got 50 submissions of the story, and either it ran before you posted, it ran and you forgot to come here one day, or it ran and they chose someone elses submission.
So, you re-reporting it really does add nothing to it. But with the L0pht posting a FAQ, that's new news, rather than old news.
Why should someone outside of China care about these new regs anymore than they otherwise care for China? That's not meant in a bad way, but it sounds like (i've never been there) a rather repressive society that already censors every other news outlet. Censoring the internet is a little more daunting, but they can simply forbid access and jail anyone who does use it, if that's what it takes.
It's not another case of government cracking down news organizations.
This doesn't affect people or companies based in the US, UK, etc... Because of the chinese governmnet declaring this, there is no added risk that the US government will follow suit.
Yes, it would suck for any of us not from there to live in China. But we don't. Be thankful, but don't raise the red flag (pardon the pun) saying that we all need to be aware of this as if it affects anyone not already in china.
he vast majority of their income comes from your purchase of actual physical media, which becomes obsolete every 4-8 years.
While I agree with most of your arguement, I have to point out that most bands obsolete much faster than the media that their music is distributed on.
And media lasts much longer than 4-8 years. Records were here for 4 or 5 decades. Cassettes were here for 2 or 3 decades. CD's have been here for 15 years. DVD isn't even here yet, and when it arrives it will probably be the smoothest transition yet, since it won't obsolete your music collection. You'll just need a new player if you want to take advantage of the new format (probably either longer songs or higher quality).
Actually, except for the hugest of performers, tours are generally break-even or even loss-leaders in order to promote the bands current CD.
If you think you're supporting a band by NOT buying their CD, distributing MP3's, and going to see them live, you're mistaken.
Yes, they like to perform, but that's not where the money is for most musicians. Even if they get only $1/CD, and a "mildy" successful band manages to sell 250,000 cd's that's decent money for a 5 person band.
People keep talking about how MP3's are so great for supporting starving artists, but in reality, some may benefit, but most will probably be hurt in some sense. They stand to lose their royalty checks for one, and without record sales to gauge their popularity, they have no idea of what their real worth would be.
Like them or not, the record industry is here for the long haul. Yes, they may end up getting a little revamped in the process of figuring out the internet, but in the end, they're needed.
Think of them as the VC's of the music industry. No one runs around trying to find a way to cut the venture capitalist out of the equation when trying to start a tech company, so why is everyone trying to cut out the people that actually put up the money to produce all the records they adore?
This story ran elswhere either yesterday or the day before. Redhat's not the lone Linux distributor that can use IBM's java. 4 or the 5 big ones can - I just forgot who's left out - I think SuSe, and the hope was that they'ed sign on by the end of the week.
It seems that that question must be asked with everypiece of software that gets ported to Linux, just as everytime a new processor, computer or what-not is announced, there's always a Beowolf post.
IBM's probably the most earnest pusher of Java in the world.
Sun created Java and still champions is, but they have a vested interest in keeping Solaris as their premiere platfrom. IBM, on the otherhand, sees Java as a way they can unite all of the platforms that they support - Linux, Win32, OS/2, AIX, OS/390, etc...
Part of IBM's a sevice company. Part of it's a hardware company. Part of it's a software company. They don't really work together as much as they should, which is what happens when you get into a decade long anti-trust battle.
But anyways - Redhat's licensing Java from IBM's software developers, not it's services department. The services business that IBM aiming for is not tech support, it's performing huge installs, etc...
I think it's much more beneficial that Redhat handle the tech support. The way I see it, they should have to support everything that they ship on their main CD (not the Demo Apps CD, though)... It'd be such a headache if you called them and they had to refer you to the actual developer of each package on their CD... THAT's the entire reason for their existance - to add value to linux and support their distro.
I agree fully with you... George Lucas is pretty much in a no win situation right now. He can either release the DVD's as just movies, to make some people happy and get slammed in the reviews which will state "it was obviously rushed out the door. There's no interactivity features like you can find on other DVD's", and then slammed by the people he tried to make happy when he issues the real DVD's which also include other features. Then Slashdot will complain that he's hosing them not once but twice for the DVD's.
Of course, he's not doing that, and just waiting so he can release them once and only once and he still gets slammed.
Just as everyone gives Rob a break for not releasing his code on a timely basis, people should give George Lucas the same break. After all, if he released them now, you'd just have to buy them again when he really did release them as he originally envisioned them being.
Re:They still forgot significant needs of a NOS
on
Red Hat Finishes Last
·
· Score: 1
Those costs are absolutely miniscule. Yes, they're out of reach for Jim Bob who wants to run his own webserver off of his DSL modem, but when you're dealing with an enterprise with thousands of users, I think most companies would rather spend the money and have a good idea of what to expect in terms of performance and reliability than run the risk of using the "unknown" solution to save a few bucks and find their staff of $40,000/yr employees sitting idly because of unexpected downtime.
Solaris, Netware, SCO, Windows NT/2000, and all the others still represent the safer alternatives. Linux has only been in the "limelight" the past year. It's been completely drenched in it since November or whenever Redhat went public... But it's still a phenomenon. If Redhat shows they can stick around for longer than 5 years, people might consider them, but until they've proven themselves, most upper level management will raise their eyebrows and pencil into their Palm Pilot ("2/3/2002 - See what's going on with Redhat... do they still exist? how do they compare with the competition?")
Well, first off, I agree with another poster here that says that they reviewed a lot more than just throughput. I'd value a server that made it easier for me to do what I wanted to to do and was reliable at the same time much more than one that was lightning fast but made me jump through loopholes, or simply could not run the applications I needed it to.
It's also rather amusing to consider this: When Linux loses a benchmark, all the naysayers say that "Benchmarks mean nothing" or (this one's becoming my new favorite) "That machine was too big. Let's compare these OSes on 486's and see who wins then". However, when Linux wins, yet "loses" a review, then everyone points at the benchmarks and says "Why? Oh, Microsoft must have paid them off."
Come on... No OS is the best at everything... Realize that, and just concentrate on making Linux the best that it can be, rather than aiming to make it the best at everything.
They made mention that this was a test of "enterprize" servers. SCO got bonus points due to it's "proven stability".
The last time I looked around my office, all the servers around here are monsters of machines, serving 3-5000 users.
That's enterprize. If you want to see a review of Linux vs. NT serving 3 users, maybe you'd like to check in with Small Office Computing?
Yeah, Linux can run on small hardware, but that's not the hardware that readers of that review are going to be using, so doing that would render a it useless review to their core audience.
Actually, I agree with Alan. With all the bickering using words such as "Fraud", "IPO, etc, the SEC really is the only organization that has a possibility of affecting the outcome of this, whichever way it goes.
For one, THERE ISN'T A MATTER BETWEEN LINUXONE, ITS INVESTORS AND COMPETITORS. The investors don't seem to have any problems, as they've given their money. They can divest themselves at anytime. Their competitors don't seem to have any problems. Is there a link on Redhat's homepage that says "Go here to see how we feel about LinuxOne?" No. If (and I'll only say if) LinuxOne is as half-assed as everyone here hopes they are, then their competitors have nothing to fear... They can sit quietly, smirk, and laugh at people who get burned.
This is an issue between the Linux community that does not want to see LinuxOne IPO and no one else. LinuxOne seemed to have been looking the other way until they finally got egged on. I've said it before I'll say it again. The GPL allows what they're doing. That's why I don't particularly like that license, but apparently all of you did, and this is exactly what it gets you. But you are all supposed to be coding for the joy of coding and not care about such things as money...
I believe in all that American stuff, like "innocent until proven guilty", etc, and feel that they should be allowed to proceed. Sure, they can have their IPO... maybe they'll raise another $100 million on a second round offering. And maybe they'll do something that hadn't been done before. They haven't violated the GPL... They may seem a little bit shady, but give them a chance.
Or maybe it's just slashdotted? And they don't have much bandwidth because they don't have the money, hence the IPO. Sounds feasible. I'm sure there's lots of/. that's dying to get their hands on this distro, if only so that they too can be men and LinuxOne bashers.
Isn't your home directory the directory where you store your personal data?
I don't know about you, but I'd much rather have to reinstall Linux than recreate all my work files.
It either seems that no one is seeing my point, or that they simply don't care about newbies and their files. Face it. One shell script will hose someone completely, but no one hear will even acknowledge that that could be considered a virus and that there should be some way to guard against this.
IF Linux stays as a server and workstation OS, that's all fine and dandy. But everyone here talks about how Linux will take over the world... Not right now it won't... Or if it did, millions of people would suffer.:P
I guess a line needs to be added to the GPL, then. If you want to use it, or sell products based on it, you need to contribute to it. I've read it and reread it, and it says nothing about this requirement.:)
Seriously now, LinuxOne is just the first of many companies that will do this. Thanks to the GPL, every friend and foe of the Linux community can do whatever they like with Linux, so long as they make available any modifications they make to the source code in their shipping product.
Why should they feel the need to add anything? Linux as a whole is making huge leaps in almost every area without their help... So in most cases a new developer would find that the work that they were doing was already being done by someone more established than themselves, and therefore their work would have no chance of getting included. And having a staff programmers require money outlays. Why would anyone want to hire on a staff of programmers when they can enlist a commnity of developers for free? It can only help the balance sheet...
So far as your qualifications for what each company does... Surely you can thnk of something better than "Caldera ties Microsoft in up in Court?" For one, Caldera settled for a mere pittance of what they were originally seeking, and for two, simultaneous, since they've now settled does that now mean they're not a real Linux company anymore?
If the lot of programmers working on Linux at night for free are upset about this, then perhaps they should investigate a different license? They didn't gripe with Redhat, Cobalt and VA Linux... And I'm sure there were people that made contributions and got left out of the crowd.
"Oh no! They used Redhat's distro, and removed reference to Redhat in the installer". The GPL allows that, no?
"They changed nothing in KDE." That's bad? I never change KDE either... It'd suck if every distro decided that KDE should have a different color scheme, and/or resize the icons a couple pixels larger or smaller.
With all the bantering recently about how awful they are, of course no one's going to give them a fair shake. I hate to say it, but so far as the LinuxOne saga goes, I'd just as rather wait for a ZDNet review of their distro than read one from a "Linux" website.
The Linux sites have already declared Redhat, Caldera, Debian, SuSe and Mandrake the winners and LinuxOne to be the loser.
I really do hope that they do well on their IPO and use that money to become a "real" Linux company that everyone will love to hate.
I like to think I have a concept of what I'm talking about.
RSA is much more widely used in commercial apps than DH. From what I've read, most, if not all of, the largest financial institutions depend on RSA, not DH. Therefore, RSA's presented a much larger target for a much longer period and is still standing. With encryption products, I've always heard that the best theory is "If it's not broken, don't fix it."
There's been much grumbling around here about RSA's patent interfereing with product development, etc. On one hand people say it sucks, and on the other, they want to use it in their products. If RSA did suck, no one would care that the patent is expiring. But they do. Why discourage people from using it once it passes into the public domain?
People can factor quicker and quicker, (or actually, computers can), but RSA's simply been increasing it's key length as time goes by. Unless a real breakthrough occurs that nullifies key lengths altogether, RSA appears rather safe.
If a user has privledges to open and modify their own files, then a virus running in their user mode would have the ability to open, change and delete them as well.
Yeah, the system will stay up, but it as it is, it does nothing for protecting the users' own files. Something needs to happen to prevent an errant program from destoying all the files it's allowed to touch. But how would a utility discern between a bash script being run by the user or a script being launched be an application?
Slashdot Mirror
It'll take a while. Renderers maybe, but before we see the complete apps being ported over we'll to see more graphic software companies stating plans to port their goods, as well. Take Photoshop & Illustrator for two. Premiere, for three. Those all go hand in hand with Lightwave or any other 3D package, and they'ed be not useless, but not extremely useful, without the side programs.
I wish that in netscapes prefs, you could list all the sites you go to and specify whether or not to accept cookies from them, so you could always accept cookies from Slash or Amazon but never from AdFu or Doubleclick...
Maybe it could happen in Mozilla?
I'm not even implying that what they do is wrong, I just dislike how people believe that they are or should be completely free to say or do whatever they want to say or do simply because they believe that the letter of the constitution allows it. it doesn't. I think the constitution would have looked a lot differently had it been drafted based on today's society rather than a society that's 3 centuries apart from ours.
I was responding to someone saying that they should post the DeCSS source in China because the industry was seeking to outlaw something (dvd recorders?). I don't even know how that got drawn into this discussion, let alone moderated up two points.
But yes. I agree with you. The US does limit my right to express myself in the sense that I have to be responsible and non-malicious about what I say or do. I don't see a harm in that. But to say it's not being limited is kind of decietful. If it were unlimited, it'd be anarchy. I think it's important to understand and acknowledge that.
Geez. I was pointing the story to the original poster of this thread and explaining why their submission may not have been accepted... Maybe I wasn't clear about it, but I certainly wasn't being redundant, i don't think.
Parts of the internet live in every country. Those governments can dictate what they will and will not host and let users access. It's quite different than requiring that routers route data based on not only destination but content as well...
(Cisco'd love that! Having to resell new routers to everyone... )
Just because it's distributed, don't think that it is anarchistic. I forgot the rest of my sentence - but basically, use your brains. Countries can dictate what they allow people to do within their own country.
Ever stop to think that if people actually respected their property, then they wouldn't feel the need to encrypt their data in the first place?
:), and it does limit speech (hence the reason you can't cry fire in a crowded theatre, threatening someone is a crime even if you don't hurt them, and it's illegal to impersonate a police officer in the name of performance art)...
But that's for another discussion.
The US government does censor (I've actually been on a 2 Live Crew and Dead Kennedy's kick these past few days
But don't compare the US to China, because it just isn't happening...
Funny, I thought this whole merger was discussed right here on slashdot a couple weeks ago. Here's a link, posted on 1/6/00. They probably got 50 submissions of the story, and either it ran before you posted, it ran and you forgot to come here one day, or it ran and they chose someone elses submission.
So, you re-reporting it really does add nothing to it. But with the L0pht posting a FAQ, that's new news, rather than old news.
Why should someone outside of China care about these new regs anymore than they otherwise care for China? That's not meant in a bad way, but it sounds like (i've never been there) a rather repressive society that already censors every other news outlet. Censoring the internet is a little more daunting, but they can simply forbid access and jail anyone who does use it, if that's what it takes.
It's not another case of government cracking down news organizations.
This doesn't affect people or companies based in the US, UK, etc... Because of the chinese governmnet declaring this, there is no added risk that the US government will follow suit.
Yes, it would suck for any of us not from there to live in China. But we don't. Be thankful, but don't raise the red flag (pardon the pun) saying that we all need to be aware of this as if it affects anyone not already in china.
The rant is over.
he vast majority of their income comes from your purchase of actual physical media, which becomes obsolete every 4-8 years.
While I agree with most of your arguement, I have to point out that most bands obsolete much faster than the media that their music is distributed on.
And media lasts much longer than 4-8 years. Records were here for 4 or 5 decades. Cassettes were here for 2 or 3 decades. CD's have been here for 15 years. DVD isn't even here yet, and when it arrives it will probably be the smoothest transition yet, since it won't obsolete your music collection. You'll just need a new player if you want to take advantage of the new format (probably either longer songs or higher quality).
Actually, except for the hugest of performers, tours are generally break-even or even loss-leaders in order to promote the bands current CD.
If you think you're supporting a band by NOT buying their CD, distributing MP3's, and going to see them live, you're mistaken.
Yes, they like to perform, but that's not where the money is for most musicians. Even if they get only $1/CD, and a "mildy" successful band manages to sell 250,000 cd's that's decent money for a 5 person band.
People keep talking about how MP3's are so great for supporting starving artists, but in reality, some may benefit, but most will probably be hurt in some sense. They stand to lose their royalty checks for one, and without record sales to gauge their popularity, they have no idea of what their real worth would be.
Like them or not, the record industry is here for the long haul. Yes, they may end up getting a little revamped in the process of figuring out the internet, but in the end, they're needed.
Think of them as the VC's of the music industry. No one runs around trying to find a way to cut the venture capitalist out of the equation when trying to start a tech company, so why is everyone trying to cut out the people that actually put up the money to produce all the records they adore?
So... now that we have the code - anyone want to help me port Slash to Win 2000/ASP's/SQL Server? :)
I don't know... I think I'm joking!
This story ran elswhere either yesterday or the day before. Redhat's not the lone Linux distributor that can use IBM's java. 4 or the 5 big ones can - I just forgot who's left out - I think SuSe, and the hope was that they'ed sign on by the end of the week.
It seems that that question must be asked with everypiece of software that gets ported to Linux, just as everytime a new processor, computer or what-not is announced, there's always a Beowolf post.
IBM's probably the most earnest pusher of Java in the world.
Sun created Java and still champions is, but they have a vested interest in keeping Solaris as their premiere platfrom. IBM, on the otherhand, sees Java as a way they can unite all of the platforms that they support - Linux, Win32, OS/2, AIX, OS/390, etc...
Part of IBM's a sevice company. Part of it's a hardware company. Part of it's a software company. They don't really work together as much as they should, which is what happens when you get into a decade long anti-trust battle.
But anyways - Redhat's licensing Java from IBM's software developers, not it's services department. The services business that IBM aiming for is not tech support, it's performing huge installs, etc...
I think it's much more beneficial that Redhat handle the tech support. The way I see it, they should have to support everything that they ship on their main CD (not the Demo Apps CD, though)... It'd be such a headache if you called them and they had to refer you to the actual developer of each package on their CD... THAT's the entire reason for their existance - to add value to linux and support their distro.
I agree fully with you... George Lucas is pretty much in a no win situation right now. He can either release the DVD's as just movies, to make some people happy and get slammed in the reviews which will state "it was obviously rushed out the door. There's no interactivity features like you can find on other DVD's", and then slammed by the people he tried to make happy when he issues the real DVD's which also include other features. Then Slashdot will complain that he's hosing them not once but twice for the DVD's.
Of course, he's not doing that, and just waiting so he can release them once and only once and he still gets slammed.
Just as everyone gives Rob a break for not releasing his code on a timely basis, people should give George Lucas the same break. After all, if he released them now, you'd just have to buy them again when he really did release them as he originally envisioned them being.
Those costs are absolutely miniscule. Yes, they're out of reach for Jim Bob who wants to run his own webserver off of his DSL modem, but when you're dealing with an enterprise with thousands of users, I think most companies would rather spend the money and have a good idea of what to expect in terms of performance and reliability than run the risk of using the "unknown" solution to save a few bucks and find their staff of $40,000/yr employees sitting idly because of unexpected downtime.
Solaris, Netware, SCO, Windows NT/2000, and all the others still represent the safer alternatives. Linux has only been in the "limelight" the past year. It's been completely drenched in it since November or whenever Redhat went public... But it's still a phenomenon. If Redhat shows they can stick around for longer than 5 years, people might consider them, but until they've proven themselves, most upper level management will raise their eyebrows and pencil into their Palm Pilot ("2/3/2002 - See what's going on with Redhat... do they still exist? how do they compare with the competition?")
Well, first off, I agree with another poster here that says that they reviewed a lot more than just throughput. I'd value a server that made it easier for me to do what I wanted to to do and was reliable at the same time much more than one that was lightning fast but made me jump through loopholes, or simply could not run the applications I needed it to.
It's also rather amusing to consider this: When Linux loses a benchmark, all the naysayers say that "Benchmarks mean nothing" or (this one's becoming my new favorite) "That machine was too big. Let's compare these OSes on 486's and see who wins then". However, when Linux wins, yet "loses" a review, then everyone points at the benchmarks and says "Why? Oh, Microsoft must have paid them off."
Come on... No OS is the best at everything... Realize that, and just concentrate on making Linux the best that it can be, rather than aiming to make it the best at everything.
They made mention that this was a test of "enterprize" servers. SCO got bonus points due to it's "proven stability".
The last time I looked around my office, all the servers around here are monsters of machines, serving 3-5000 users.
That's enterprize. If you want to see a review of Linux vs. NT serving 3 users, maybe you'd like to check in with Small Office Computing?
Yeah, Linux can run on small hardware, but that's not the hardware that readers of that review are going to be using, so doing that would render a it useless review to their core audience.
Actually, I agree with Alan. With all the bickering using words such as "Fraud", "IPO, etc, the SEC really is the only organization that has a possibility of affecting the outcome of this, whichever way it goes.
For one, THERE ISN'T A MATTER BETWEEN LINUXONE, ITS INVESTORS AND COMPETITORS. The investors don't seem to have any problems, as they've given their money. They can divest themselves at anytime. Their competitors don't seem to have any problems. Is there a link on Redhat's homepage that says "Go here to see how we feel about LinuxOne?" No. If (and I'll only say if) LinuxOne is as half-assed as everyone here hopes they are, then their competitors have nothing to fear... They can sit quietly, smirk, and laugh at people who get burned.
This is an issue between the Linux community that does not want to see LinuxOne IPO and no one else. LinuxOne seemed to have been looking the other way until they finally got egged on. I've said it before I'll say it again. The GPL allows what they're doing. That's why I don't particularly like that license, but apparently all of you did, and this is exactly what it gets you. But you are all supposed to be coding for the joy of coding and not care about such things as money...
I believe in all that American stuff, like "innocent until proven guilty", etc, and feel that they should be allowed to proceed. Sure, they can have their IPO... maybe they'll raise another $100 million on a second round offering. And maybe they'll do something that hadn't been done before. They haven't violated the GPL... They may seem a little bit shady, but give them a chance.
Or maybe it's just slashdotted? And they don't have much bandwidth because they don't have the money, hence the IPO. Sounds feasible. I'm sure there's lots of /. that's dying to get their hands on this distro, if only so that they too can be men and LinuxOne bashers.
Isn't your home directory the directory where you store your personal data?
:P
I don't know about you, but I'd much rather have to reinstall Linux than recreate all my work files.
It either seems that no one is seeing my point, or that they simply don't care about newbies and their files. Face it. One shell script will hose someone completely, but no one hear will even acknowledge that that could be considered a virus and that there should be some way to guard against this.
IF Linux stays as a server and workstation OS, that's all fine and dandy. But everyone here talks about how Linux will take over the world... Not right now it won't... Or if it did, millions of people would suffer.
I guess a line needs to be added to the GPL, then. If you want to use it, or sell products based on it, you need to contribute to it. I've read it and reread it, and it says nothing about this requirement. :)
Seriously now, LinuxOne is just the first of many companies that will do this. Thanks to the GPL, every friend and foe of the Linux community can do whatever they like with Linux, so long as they make available any modifications they make to the source code in their shipping product.
Why should they feel the need to add anything? Linux as a whole is making huge leaps in almost every area without their help... So in most cases a new developer would find that the work that they were doing was already being done by someone more established than themselves, and therefore their work would have no chance of getting included. And having a staff programmers require money outlays. Why would anyone want to hire on a staff of programmers when they can enlist a commnity of developers for free? It can only help the balance sheet...
So far as your qualifications for what each company does... Surely you can thnk of something better than "Caldera ties Microsoft in up in Court?" For one, Caldera settled for a mere pittance of what they were originally seeking, and for two, simultaneous, since they've now settled does that now mean they're not a real Linux company anymore?
If the lot of programmers working on Linux at night for free are upset about this, then perhaps they should investigate a different license? They didn't gripe with Redhat, Cobalt and VA Linux... And I'm sure there were people that made contributions and got left out of the crowd.
"Oh no! They used Redhat's distro, and removed reference to Redhat in the installer". The GPL allows that, no?
"They changed nothing in KDE." That's bad? I never change KDE either... It'd suck if every distro decided that KDE should have a different color scheme, and/or resize the icons a couple pixels larger or smaller.
With all the bantering recently about how awful they are, of course no one's going to give them a fair shake. I hate to say it, but so far as the LinuxOne saga goes, I'd just as rather wait for a ZDNet review of their distro than read one from a "Linux" website.
The Linux sites have already declared Redhat, Caldera, Debian, SuSe and Mandrake the winners and LinuxOne to be the loser.
I really do hope that they do well on their IPO and use that money to become a "real" Linux company that everyone will love to hate.
I like to think I have a concept of what I'm talking about.
RSA is much more widely used in commercial apps than DH. From what I've read, most, if not all of, the largest financial institutions depend on RSA, not DH. Therefore, RSA's presented a much larger target for a much longer period and is still standing. With encryption products, I've always heard that the best theory is "If it's not broken, don't fix it."
There's been much grumbling around here about RSA's patent interfereing with product development, etc. On one hand people say it sucks, and on the other, they want to use it in their products. If RSA did suck, no one would care that the patent is expiring. But they do. Why discourage people from using it once it passes into the public domain?
People can factor quicker and quicker, (or actually, computers can), but RSA's simply been increasing it's key length as time goes by. Unless a real breakthrough occurs that nullifies key lengths altogether, RSA appears rather safe.
That's my two cents.
You misinterpretted what I said.
What i said was:
If a user has privledges to open and modify their own files, then a virus running in their user mode would have the ability to open, change and delete them as well.
Yeah, the system will stay up, but it as it is, it does nothing for protecting the users' own files. Something needs to happen to prevent an errant program from destoying all the files it's allowed to touch. But how would a utility discern between a bash script being run by the user or a script being launched be an application?