> "You are NOT obligated to provide online distribution of the sources you used to make the binary image."
Indeed! In fact, unless you're distributing the binaries online, merely providing the source online won't cut it. If you're not providing the source up-front, you have to deliver the source later (up to three years later). Not just stick it on-line somewhere.
This is another reason why it's foolish to even think about not providing the source code up-front (which bypasses all this three-year-offer nonsense). If you're offering binaries from your Internet site, then put the source there too (counts as "equivalent access"--search for that term in the GPL). If you're offering CDs or DVDs, offer source CDs or DVDs as well. Just do it! It's not that hard!
> "You are obligated to provide some sort of access upon request for three years from the first distibution of the binary image in question."
No you are not, UNLESS you failed to provide the source code up-front in the first place (or failed to offer "equivalent access"). Which is why the sensible thing to do is provide the source code up-front. Frankly, I don't understand why anyone messes around with complicated three-year offers. And yes, I realize that Canonical offers Ubuntu with a three-year offer, but that's just one of many things that Canonical does that don't make any sense to me!:)
You don't have to be a big company to offer the source code up-front. You just have to be not-dumb! I do it, and I'm not some big company or group.:)
I did the three-year deal once. Even though nobody ever took me up on it, I still thought it was too much hassle--too much worry--and vowed never again. It could certainly be complicated if you had to keep track of multiple versions. Fortunately, the GPL does NOT require you to do it!
Re: clause 3a > "Doubles the download, but why not add source?"
Only doubles the download if people actually download it. For downloads, making the source available is enough. You don't have to force people to download it. Search for "equivalent access" in the GPL text for more details.
Re: clause 3c > "That sounds like referencing another distro would do it."
Only if that distro comes with a three-year offer. Most use clause 3a (provide the source up-front) rather than clause 3b (provide written offer). You can't pass along an offer you never received.
> "On the server where I distribute the packages, I only need to distribute the latest version of the compiled code; however, due to the GPL requirements, I have to keep source packages available for the next 3 years -- that is, I need to keep 150+ source packages available."
No, that's not true! I don't know if you're merely ignorant or trying to FUD, but bottom line is that you're simply wrong!
If you're making the source available with the binaries, then you don't need to make the source available for three years. The three-year clause (clause 3b) only applies if you're not providing source when you provide binaries. You can either (3a) provide source with the binaries or (3b) include a three-year written offer to provide the source or (3c) pass along a 3b offer that you received (non-commercial distributors only). Those are alternative options, not simultaneous requirements. And nobody with any sense uses anything but clause 3a! (Note: I've used all three.):)
Look at the last paragraph in section 3: "If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code." (Emphasis mine.) This is the famous "equivalent access" clause that almost all non-commercial distros rely on, and have for years. (At least, all the ones run by people with any sense.)
So having source and binaries on your site qualifies as complying with clause 3a, and you don't need to worry about the three-year feature of 3b!
If you're distributing on CD/DVD, the same reasoning applies. Just ship the source too! Yes, it may double your up-front media costs, but those are trivial compared to your other costs, and it's going to save you a lot of trouble down the road.
Windows fails both the "up-to-scratch" and the "everything you need" tests! But yes, I agree, it can be locked down, as can most other modern OSes (all of which also fail those two critical criteria--I'm not Windows-bashing here).
...I would have to say no. At least not by itself. It's pretty hard to develop software if you can't install and test the software you're developing somewhere!;)
As a component of a larger, networked system, which had parts where I could install and run the software I was developing, then yes, no problem. But alone, by itself, no, it would be completely useless.
Of course, there's still some interesting questions about this theoretical beast. Is it scriptable? I often have quick one-off tasks that are best done with a quick script. If I can't run one-off scripts, then it's not "up-to-scratch" and doesn't have "everything I need", and if it can, then it's not a completely closed, locked-down system. The only way around that, even in theory, is to have an infinite number of monkeys providing you with all the scripts you could ever need in advance, and even then, there's probably be some difficulty finding the script you need right now from that infinite number of scripts. (Not to mention the costs of the infinibyte drives needed to store all those scripts.)
Bottom line, I think the notion of a machine that does "everything I need" is about as realistic as those old concepts of an irresistable force or an immovable object. Nice for creating logical paradoxes, but completely silly otherwise.
> "So in your hypothetical scenario, the contractors would be obligated to send a copy of the source code to whichever agency is responsible for loading the software binaries into the missile systems."
Although I agree with almost everything you said, I have to quibble with this part. If the contractors hold the full copyright on the code in question, then they would be under no obligation to anybody! The GPL is not binding on the actual copyright holders, except as promissary estoppel against infringement lawsuits. The contractors are not going to sue themselves for copyright infringement, and even they did, they'd lose, because they already have permission to distribute the code under copyright law, and don't need the permissions granted by the GPL!:)
The GPL only exists to defend against copyright infringement suits. If you're not potentially infringing someone else's copyrights, the GPL is effectively meaningless.
Yes, this means that someone can license their code under the GPL, and then only release binaries! Those binaries would simply not be redistributable (since nobody else would be able to comply with the license). It would be a strange and rather pointless thing to do, but perfectly legal. Not even a problem for the people who received the binaries, since using a binary that you've obtained legally is not copyright infringement.
Of course, this only applies if you own the complete copyright. If you've created a derivative work, it's a whole 'nuther story. Still, I think this edge case, as far-fetched as it is, really helps illuminate how the GPL actually works.
Thank you for your interest in our Pacific-based Ballistic Missile Defense System (PBBMDS). The source code for the PBBMDS is only distributed with that system. We do not entertain requests from third parties to provide the source code. You may have been confused by reading clause 3b of the General Public License (GPL), however, we distribute the code under the terms of clause 3a of the GPL, which incurs no obligations to third parties. If you have received binaries of our code without the source, please provide us of the name and address of the distributor, as they have violated our license and copyrights, and we may wish to pursue legal action against them. If you have not receieved binaries of our code, please go pound sand.
> "I actually understand the terms of the GPL very well, having researched it for my startup."
No, apparently you don't.
> "The premise of my joke was that the DOD had directed its contractors to develop missile defense systems under the GPL free software license, and was then obligated as a customer of those contractors to release the code."
Proof positive that you don't understand the GPL.
First and foremost, such software would almost certainly be a work-for-hire, and the copyright would presumably go to the DoD. The GPL is a DEFENSE against charges of copyright infringement! COPYRIGHT HOLDERS ARE NOT BOUND BY IT! If I write some code, license it under the GPL, and then give someone some binaries, he's got no recourse if I don't provide him the source, because I can't violate my own copyrights! Only the copyright holder can sue for "GPL violations" (actually, copyright infringement), and I'm not about to sue myself! And the person would end up with undistributable binaries (since they would not be able to comply with the GPL).
And even if the DoD didn't own the copyrights, neither they nor the contractors would be under any obligation to distribute the source to any third party. The "third-party" clause (3b) of the GPL only applies when you distribute (somebody else's) code in binary form without the source! Then you have to make a written offer to provide anyone with the source for three years. But the DoD would have to be extremely foolish to make such an offer. They don't have to distribute binaries at all, and if they do, they can use clause 3a, and provide the source up-front. In which case, their response to your imaginary letter could be: "I'm sorry, we do not distribute the source separately, but if you'll tell us where you got the missile, we'll happily sue the supplier for copyright infringement." Which would hardly further Kim's agenda.
Actually, most small companies I know that are still running Win98 do so because they don't need much out of their computers, and it still does the job. Not because they have special apps that require Win98. And these companies are among the prime candidates for a move to Linux. Granted, most of them will certainly stick with MS, but even a few Linux migrations could be fairly significant, percentage-wise.
> Increased demand for Linux on the desktop? Highly unlikely.
Um, you realize that it doesn't take much to qualify as increased demand for Linux on the desktop!:)
> While Linux may be ready for the desktop, the people that stick to Win98/ME are the most unlikely to switch to Linux.
True, with one notable excemption you may be overlooking. Companies that still use Win98 may well consider support to be an important factor, and may well be willing to consider an alternative like Linux. I agree that Gramma's Win98 machine is unlikely to change to Linux, but the small company with less-than-a-dozen aging machines might actually consider switching. Most of them will probably bite the bullet and upgrade to XP or something, but a few might actually make the leap. And, like I say, it doesn't take many to qualify as an increased demand for Linux at the moment.
I was about to say that this means that I no longer have any supported versions of Windows, but then I remembered that the most recent version I have is Win95 OSR2, not Win98. So I guess haven't had a supported version for a while. '98 was when I finally gave up on dual-booting and dumped Win for good, not when I got my last copy...:)
I'm not sure why everyone leaps to blame Sony for the actions of the Sony-BMG group. There were two partners in that group; one a moderately well-respected electronics giant, and the other a notoriously evil recording company. Just because you'd only heard of one of them doesn't mean that that one deserves all the blame. How come I never see this sort of comment when a BMG-related story is posted?;)
> the requirement the ".3" portion be satisfied, i.e., if you didn't give a ".3" extension, it wasn't valid.
Your memory is faulty here--that is not true; not even slightly.
> the semantic mapping of the extension to filetype, WTF?
Long predated MS. Found even in UNIX before MS existed. And still widely used even on UNIX/Linux/BSD. The big flaw that DOS had here (IMO) was making the extension determine whether a file was executable. Having an executable flag is a much better solution. But the approach that DOS took was widely used in other OSes at the time.
> the case insensitive nature of file names
There are plenty of arguments on both sides of this one. I'm more used to/more comfortable with/prefer case-sensitive filenames, but I can't bring myself to claim that one option is better than the other.
I thought VFAT was actually a fairly clever solution to the problem of providing backwards compatibility with the horrors of 8.3, and MS really had no choice but to provide backwards compatibility. I have a lot of complaints with the things MS has done over the years, but I actually kind of admire VFAT.
> defaults to hide extensions
This, on the other hand, is one of the biggest mistakes that MS ever made! Someone should have lost their job over this idiocy!
As a side note, I have to agree with everyone who says that the original article is terrible. The list of characters to avoid for portability is missing several, and the article completely overlooks one of the biggest and most headache-inducing issues--i18n and character encodings. This is one area where UNIX/Linux's ultra-flexibility actually gets it in trouble, since you can have file names with different encodings in the same directory. I actually had a mix of latin1 and utf8 filenames in my home directory for a while, and NOTHING would display them all correctly. And I bet it's even worse if you mix-and-match various CJK encodings. Windows, I'm told, forces everything to utf16, which would not have been my first choice, but at least it's consistent.
A) who said anything about GNOME? I merely said that I don't like KDE. Why do people always assume that if you don't like KDE, you must be a GNOME fan?
B) if it comes down to it, I do dislike GNOME less. It looks like something with potential to be pretty decent, while KDE looks (to me at least) cluttered, awkward and annoying, and firmly headed in what I consider to be the wrong direction. The difference is not that great, though, and if KDE decided to clean up their mess, and/or if GNOME got stuck in a rut for too long, my opinion on the relative worth of the two could easily change. They're both still a long way from being anything I'd want to use personally, though.
Yup, the original tribbles were scattered up and down the west coast, and probably further. And if any survived, they're probably impossible to authenticate today. They were cheaply made and all-too-easy to copy. I had a real one when I was a kid--got it from David Gerrold, the author of the episode. He had a bunch of 'em. A couple of years later, you could buy cheap copies at any SF convention. Which, to a twelve-year-old, were just about as good. And my real one is long since gone (as are my fakes). Not that I could have ever proved the real one was real, even if I'd know how much it would eventually be worth. Back then, none of us had any idea what sort of phenomenon Trek was going to turn into. We just knew what we liked!:)
We had a product that was delivered on three single-sided 5.24" floppies. One time we got a call from someone who'd managed to cram the second disc into the drive in without removing the first disc, and then called us to complain, "the third one won't fit!" When we finally figured out what he was talking about (and what he'd done), it became a running joke in the company for months afterwards.
> "what's to stop Microsoft from just saying they aren't going to pay"
My god, did you really just say that? And you even got an "insightful" mod--that's just sad! Microsoft has billions and billions invested in Europe. They have money in European banks, they own property, etc. They don't have the option of refusing to pay! The European governments can, if they want, just take the money! Bam, done! Heck, a billion dollars probably wouldn't even put a noticable dent in their European assets.
And anyway, Microsoft isn't going to fight over what amounts to a slap on the wrist. At least, not if it looks like they're risking losing even more. Even with this fine, Europe is still an incredible, unbelievable source of profit to Microsoft. Collectively, the second largest economy in the world, IIRC. There's no way they're going risk all that money just for this tiny little fine that is more-or-less the equivalent, to them, of some change found under the cushions, to you and me.
Actually, I think the disappearance of Caldera (SCO) Linux at around the same time (more or less) was probably a much bigger factor.;)
Corel Linux was based on Debian, and as a member of the Debian project, I must say that Corel had some...unusual questions for us during that time. There was definitely something of a culture clash between the people working on Corel Linux and, well, everyone else involved with Debian. Still, I think it was an interesting project. Not something I'd want to use, but interesting.
It doesn't matter if it's "on a technicality" or not! Once this case is lost, SCO will be barred from bringing the same claims again. So there's no risk. Plus, there's IBM's counterclaims. If IBM wins some of those (particularly, the sixth, for violation of the GPL), there's going to be no wriggle-room left. Look, this is IBM we're talking about! They've invested billions into Linux. There is no way they're going to leave the doors open for on-going FUD! They invented FUD! They know everything there is to know about the FUD game.
There's also the Lantham Act counterclaims, where IBM is basically saying that SCO slandered their business. They're only going to be able to win that if SCO slandered their business, and that (again) won't leave much room for FUD afterwards.
On top of that, there's the Novell lawsuit. You know--Novell, the guys who actually own Unix! Once IBM and Novell get done, there's going to be absolutely no basis left for spreading FUD. Except random stupid FUD that some people would try to spread no matter what happens, even if there were nothing that could be called a "technicality". The "well sure, they lost completely and totally, and had no evidence whatsoever, but maybe there was still something to it" FUD. And there's little that can be done about that FUD except to point out that it's pure FUD, and that the people spreading it have ulterior motives.
And no, bankruptcy alone will not make the lawsuits vanish. The bankruptcy trustees will have a duty to maximize the value of SCO's assets to pay off creditors. A lawsuit with a potential five billion dollar payoff is not something they're going to be able to drop unless they can show pretty convincingly that there's no way to win. So, if the lawsuits do disappear when SCO goes bankrupt (and I suspect they might), that's going to be just one more anti-FUD argument. If the case had any merit, the lawsuits wouldn't (have) disappear(ed).
I agree with you, this is stupid. But it was Microsoft who declared this a war. So if you're going to blame someone for being stupid, at least blame the right party.
I would love to continue to use the "tools best suited for the task at hand". Unfortunately, in many cases, Microsoft has, or is trying to, drive the "tools best suited" out of the market. No FLOSS developer has ever tried to prevent me from using MS tools (in fact, many bend over backwards to provide compatibility with MS), but MS is trying to deny me the option of using any other tools, FLOSS or not.
The real war is between Microsoft and the free market, and in that war, I am solidly on the side of the free market.
Slashdot Mirror
> "You are NOT obligated to provide online distribution of the sources you used to make the binary image."
:)
:)
Indeed! In fact, unless you're distributing the binaries online, merely providing the source online won't cut it. If you're not providing the source up-front, you have to deliver the source later (up to three years later). Not just stick it on-line somewhere.
This is another reason why it's foolish to even think about not providing the source code up-front (which bypasses all this three-year-offer nonsense). If you're offering binaries from your Internet site, then put the source there too (counts as "equivalent access"--search for that term in the GPL). If you're offering CDs or DVDs, offer source CDs or DVDs as well. Just do it! It's not that hard!
> "You are obligated to provide some sort of access upon request for three years from the first distibution of the binary image in question."
No you are not, UNLESS you failed to provide the source code up-front in the first place (or failed to offer "equivalent access"). Which is why the sensible thing to do is provide the source code up-front. Frankly, I don't understand why anyone messes around with complicated three-year offers. And yes, I realize that Canonical offers Ubuntu with a three-year offer, but that's just one of many things that Canonical does that don't make any sense to me!
You don't have to be a big company to offer the source code up-front. You just have to be not-dumb! I do it, and I'm not some big company or group.
I did the three-year deal once. Even though nobody ever took me up on it, I still thought it was too much hassle--too much worry--and vowed never again. It could certainly be complicated if you had to keep track of multiple versions. Fortunately, the GPL does NOT require you to do it!
> And terrorists are certainly a foreign power
So what foreign power was Timothy McVeigh?
Re: clause 3a
> "Doubles the download, but why not add source?"
Only doubles the download if people actually download it. For downloads, making the source available is enough. You don't have to force people to download it. Search for "equivalent access" in the GPL text for more details.
Re: clause 3c
> "That sounds like referencing another distro would do it."
Only if that distro comes with a three-year offer. Most use clause 3a (provide the source up-front) rather than clause 3b (provide written offer). You can't pass along an offer you never received.
> "On the server where I distribute the packages, I only need to distribute the latest version of the compiled code; however, due to the GPL requirements, I have to keep source packages available for the next 3 years -- that is, I need to keep 150+ source packages available."
:)
No, that's not true! I don't know if you're merely ignorant or trying to FUD, but bottom line is that you're simply wrong!
If you're making the source available with the binaries, then you don't need to make the source available for three years. The three-year clause (clause 3b) only applies if you're not providing source when you provide binaries. You can either (3a) provide source with the binaries or (3b) include a three-year written offer to provide the source or (3c) pass along a 3b offer that you received (non-commercial distributors only). Those are alternative options, not simultaneous requirements. And nobody with any sense uses anything but clause 3a! (Note: I've used all three.)
Look at the last paragraph in section 3: "If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code." (Emphasis mine.) This is the famous "equivalent access" clause that almost all non-commercial distros rely on, and have for years. (At least, all the ones run by people with any sense.)
So having source and binaries on your site qualifies as complying with clause 3a, and you don't need to worry about the three-year feature of 3b!
If you're distributing on CD/DVD, the same reasoning applies. Just ship the source too! Yes, it may double your up-front media costs, but those are trivial compared to your other costs, and it's going to save you a lot of trouble down the road.
Windows fails both the "up-to-scratch" and the "everything you need" tests! But yes, I agree, it can be locked down, as can most other modern OSes (all of which also fail those two critical criteria--I'm not Windows-bashing here).
...I would have to say no. At least not by itself. It's pretty hard to develop software if you can't install and test the software you're developing somewhere! ;)
As a component of a larger, networked system, which had parts where I could install and run the software I was developing, then yes, no problem. But alone, by itself, no, it would be completely useless.
Of course, there's still some interesting questions about this theoretical beast. Is it scriptable? I often have quick one-off tasks that are best done with a quick script. If I can't run one-off scripts, then it's not "up-to-scratch" and doesn't have "everything I need", and if it can, then it's not a completely closed, locked-down system. The only way around that, even in theory, is to have an infinite number of monkeys providing you with all the scripts you could ever need in advance, and even then, there's probably be some difficulty finding the script you need right now from that infinite number of scripts. (Not to mention the costs of the infinibyte drives needed to store all those scripts.)
Bottom line, I think the notion of a machine that does "everything I need" is about as realistic as those old concepts of an irresistable force or an immovable object. Nice for creating logical paradoxes, but completely silly otherwise.
> "So in your hypothetical scenario, the contractors would be obligated to send a copy of the source code to whichever agency is responsible for loading the software binaries into the missile systems."
:)
Although I agree with almost everything you said, I have to quibble with this part. If the contractors hold the full copyright on the code in question, then they would be under no obligation to anybody! The GPL is not binding on the actual copyright holders, except as promissary estoppel against infringement lawsuits. The contractors are not going to sue themselves for copyright infringement, and even they did, they'd lose, because they already have permission to distribute the code under copyright law, and don't need the permissions granted by the GPL!
The GPL only exists to defend against copyright infringement suits. If you're not potentially infringing someone else's copyrights, the GPL is effectively meaningless.
Yes, this means that someone can license their code under the GPL, and then only release binaries! Those binaries would simply not be redistributable (since nobody else would be able to comply with the license). It would be a strange and rather pointless thing to do, but perfectly legal. Not even a problem for the people who received the binaries, since using a binary that you've obtained legally is not copyright infringement.
Of course, this only applies if you own the complete copyright. If you've created a derivative work, it's a whole 'nuther story. Still, I think this edge case, as far-fetched as it is, really helps illuminate how the GPL actually works.
> "Would you like a cookie?"
:)
Yes, please!
Dear Mr. Jong Il:
Thank you for your interest in our Pacific-based Ballistic Missile Defense System (PBBMDS). The source code for the PBBMDS is only distributed with that system. We do not entertain requests from third parties to provide the source code. You may have been confused by reading clause 3b of the General Public License (GPL), however, we distribute the code under the terms of clause 3a of the GPL, which incurs no obligations to third parties. If you have received binaries of our code without the source, please provide us of the name and address of the distributor, as they have violated our license and copyrights, and we may wish to pursue legal action against them. If you have not receieved binaries of our code, please go pound sand.
Love and Kisses,
US Department of Defense
> "I actually understand the terms of the GPL very well, having researched it for my startup."
No, apparently you don't.
> "The premise of my joke was that the DOD had directed its contractors to develop missile defense systems under the GPL free software license, and was then obligated as a customer of those contractors to release the code."
Proof positive that you don't understand the GPL.
First and foremost, such software would almost certainly be a work-for-hire, and the copyright would presumably go to the DoD. The GPL is a DEFENSE against charges of copyright infringement! COPYRIGHT HOLDERS ARE NOT BOUND BY IT! If I write some code, license it under the GPL, and then give someone some binaries, he's got no recourse if I don't provide him the source, because I can't violate my own copyrights! Only the copyright holder can sue for "GPL violations" (actually, copyright infringement), and I'm not about to sue myself! And the person would end up with undistributable binaries (since they would not be able to comply with the GPL).
And even if the DoD didn't own the copyrights, neither they nor the contractors would be under any obligation to distribute the source to any third party. The "third-party" clause (3b) of the GPL only applies when you distribute (somebody else's) code in binary form without the source! Then you have to make a written offer to provide anyone with the source for three years. But the DoD would have to be extremely foolish to make such an offer. They don't have to distribute binaries at all, and if they do, they can use clause 3a, and provide the source up-front. In which case, their response to your imaginary letter could be: "I'm sorry, we do not distribute the source separately, but if you'll tell us where you got the missile, we'll happily sue the supplier for copyright infringement." Which would hardly further Kim's agenda.
Actually, most small companies I know that are still running Win98 do so because they don't need much out of their computers, and it still does the job. Not because they have special apps that require Win98. And these companies are among the prime candidates for a move to Linux. Granted, most of them will certainly stick with MS, but even a few Linux migrations could be fairly significant, percentage-wise.
> Increased demand for Linux on the desktop? Highly unlikely.
:)
Um, you realize that it doesn't take much to qualify as increased demand for Linux on the desktop!
> While Linux may be ready for the desktop, the people that stick to Win98/ME are the most unlikely to switch to Linux.
True, with one notable excemption you may be overlooking. Companies that still use Win98 may well consider support to be an important factor, and may well be willing to consider an alternative like Linux. I agree that Gramma's Win98 machine is unlikely to change to Linux, but the small company with less-than-a-dozen aging machines might actually consider switching. Most of them will probably bite the bullet and upgrade to XP or something, but a few might actually make the leap. And, like I say, it doesn't take many to qualify as an increased demand for Linux at the moment.
I was about to say that this means that I no longer have any supported versions of Windows, but then I remembered that the most recent version I have is Win95 OSR2, not Win98. So I guess haven't had a supported version for a while. '98 was when I finally gave up on dual-booting and dumped Win for good, not when I got my last copy... :)
I'm not sure why everyone leaps to blame Sony for the actions of the Sony-BMG group. There were two partners in that group; one a moderately well-respected electronics giant, and the other a notoriously evil recording company. Just because you'd only heard of one of them doesn't mean that that one deserves all the blame. How come I never see this sort of comment when a BMG-related story is posted? ;)
> the requirement the ".3" portion be satisfied, i.e., if you didn't give a ".3" extension, it wasn't valid.
Your memory is faulty here--that is not true; not even slightly.
> the semantic mapping of the extension to filetype, WTF?
Long predated MS. Found even in UNIX before MS existed. And still widely used even on UNIX/Linux/BSD. The big flaw that DOS had here (IMO) was making the extension determine whether a file was executable. Having an executable flag is a much better solution. But the approach that DOS took was widely used in other OSes at the time.
> the case insensitive nature of file names
There are plenty of arguments on both sides of this one. I'm more used to/more comfortable with/prefer case-sensitive filenames, but I can't bring myself to claim that one option is better than the other.
I thought VFAT was actually a fairly clever solution to the problem of providing backwards compatibility with the horrors of 8.3, and MS really had no choice but to provide backwards compatibility. I have a lot of complaints with the things MS has done over the years, but I actually kind of admire VFAT.
> defaults to hide extensions
This, on the other hand, is one of the biggest mistakes that MS ever made! Someone should have lost their job over this idiocy!
As a side note, I have to agree with everyone who says that the original article is terrible. The list of characters to avoid for portability is missing several, and the article completely overlooks one of the biggest and most headache-inducing issues--i18n and character encodings. This is one area where UNIX/Linux's ultra-flexibility actually gets it in trouble, since you can have file names with different encodings in the same directory. I actually had a mix of latin1 and utf8 filenames in my home directory for a while, and NOTHING would display them all correctly. And I bet it's even worse if you mix-and-match various CJK encodings. Windows, I'm told, forces everything to utf16, which would not have been my first choice, but at least it's consistent.
A) who said anything about GNOME? I merely said that I don't like KDE. Why do people always assume that if you don't like KDE, you must be a GNOME fan?
B) if it comes down to it, I do dislike GNOME less. It looks like something with potential to be pretty decent, while KDE looks (to me at least) cluttered, awkward and annoying, and firmly headed in what I consider to be the wrong direction. The difference is not that great, though, and if KDE decided to clean up their mess, and/or if GNOME got stuck in a rut for too long, my opinion on the relative worth of the two could easily change. They're both still a long way from being anything I'd want to use personally, though.
> I am running 10.1 right now and have KDE desktop.
:)
I'm sorry. You have my deepest sympathies.
(Joking, joking. I know some people like KDE, though I have never been able to figure out why. Still, to each their own.)
Yup, the original tribbles were scattered up and down the west coast, and probably further. And if any survived, they're probably impossible to authenticate today. They were cheaply made and all-too-easy to copy. I had a real one when I was a kid--got it from David Gerrold, the author of the episode. He had a bunch of 'em. A couple of years later, you could buy cheap copies at any SF convention. Which, to a twelve-year-old, were just about as good. And my real one is long since gone (as are my fakes). Not that I could have ever proved the real one was real, even if I'd know how much it would eventually be worth. Back then, none of us had any idea what sort of phenomenon Trek was going to turn into. We just knew what we liked! :)
We had a product that was delivered on three single-sided 5.24" floppies. One time we got a call from someone who'd managed to cram the second disc into the drive in without removing the first disc, and then called us to complain, "the third one won't fit!" When we finally figured out what he was talking about (and what he'd done), it became a running joke in the company for months afterwards.
> "what's to stop Microsoft from just saying they aren't going to pay"
My god, did you really just say that? And you even got an "insightful" mod--that's just sad! Microsoft has billions and billions invested in Europe. They have money in European banks, they own property, etc. They don't have the option of refusing to pay! The European governments can, if they want, just take the money! Bam, done! Heck, a billion dollars probably wouldn't even put a noticable dent in their European assets.
And anyway, Microsoft isn't going to fight over what amounts to a slap on the wrist. At least, not if it looks like they're risking losing even more. Even with this fine, Europe is still an incredible, unbelievable source of profit to Microsoft. Collectively, the second largest economy in the world, IIRC. There's no way they're going risk all that money just for this tiny little fine that is more-or-less the equivalent, to them, of some change found under the cushions, to you and me.
Actually, I think the disappearance of Caldera (SCO) Linux at around the same time (more or less) was probably a much bigger factor. ;)
Corel Linux was based on Debian, and as a member of the Debian project, I must say that Corel had some...unusual questions for us during that time. There was definitely something of a culture clash between the people working on Corel Linux and, well, everyone else involved with Debian. Still, I think it was an interesting project. Not something I'd want to use, but interesting.
Here's a better article on removing WGA. :)
;)
(I actually prefer this article on removing WGA, or this one, but I freely admit that they're not for newbies.)
> I recommend hiring a regular attorney. Those fucking attorneys are real assholes.
:)
Unless she's cute. (Yes, I am speaking from experience here.)
It doesn't matter if it's "on a technicality" or not! Once this case is lost, SCO will be barred from bringing the same claims again. So there's no risk. Plus, there's IBM's counterclaims. If IBM wins some of those (particularly, the sixth, for violation of the GPL), there's going to be no wriggle-room left. Look, this is IBM we're talking about! They've invested billions into Linux. There is no way they're going to leave the doors open for on-going FUD! They invented FUD! They know everything there is to know about the FUD game.
There's also the Lantham Act counterclaims, where IBM is basically saying that SCO slandered their business. They're only going to be able to win that if SCO slandered their business, and that (again) won't leave much room for FUD afterwards.
On top of that, there's the Novell lawsuit. You know--Novell, the guys who actually own Unix! Once IBM and Novell get done, there's going to be absolutely no basis left for spreading FUD. Except random stupid FUD that some people would try to spread no matter what happens, even if there were nothing that could be called a "technicality". The "well sure, they lost completely and totally, and had no evidence whatsoever, but maybe there was still something to it" FUD. And there's little that can be done about that FUD except to point out that it's pure FUD, and that the people spreading it have ulterior motives.
And no, bankruptcy alone will not make the lawsuits vanish. The bankruptcy trustees will have a duty to maximize the value of SCO's assets to pay off creditors. A lawsuit with a potential five billion dollar payoff is not something they're going to be able to drop unless they can show pretty convincingly that there's no way to win. So, if the lawsuits do disappear when SCO goes bankrupt (and I suspect they might), that's going to be just one more anti-FUD argument. If the case had any merit, the lawsuits wouldn't (have) disappear(ed).
I agree with you, this is stupid. But it was Microsoft who declared this a war. So if you're going to blame someone for being stupid, at least blame the right party.
I would love to continue to use the "tools best suited for the task at hand". Unfortunately, in many cases, Microsoft has, or is trying to, drive the "tools best suited" out of the market. No FLOSS developer has ever tried to prevent me from using MS tools (in fact, many bend over backwards to provide compatibility with MS), but MS is trying to deny me the option of using any other tools, FLOSS or not.
The real war is between Microsoft and the free market, and in that war, I am solidly on the side of the free market.