Turning off the blinking merely...turns off the blinking. With CSS, you should be able to completely supress and hide the text that someone thought was so important it should blink!:)
> The addition of all these new distro's is a TERRIBLE thing.
This is a matter of opinion, and I strongly disagree.
> Every single distro does its own thing
This is simply and plainly a lie. I can think of no gentler term to use (although I can think of harsher ones). As a software developer, I have no problem whatsoever developing for "Linux", even though there are several hundred distributions. In fact, it is the market leaders who are most likely to "do their own thing"--the vast majority of Linux flavors have far more in common than not. The places they are most likely to differ are in installers and small utilities that hardly matter to most people.
> and there is no standardization whatsoever. It's terrible.
Again, complete, utter, 100% lie! Just who pays your salary, oh Mr. "gexen"? We have standards coming out of our EARS!
> People complained and mocked Microsoft about Windows Vista because it will have 7 different releases.
Only because the Microsofties like to talk about how great a monoculture is. It's the irony of the situation that leads to the mockery, not the fact that there's something actually wrong with diversity. (Although there may be more to it than that, I don't know--in 25 years in this industry, I still have yet to really try Windows in any flavor, so I'm not qualified to comment on it.)
Well, I, for one, don't want to block all ads--merely annoying ads. I find that disabling gif animation and using flashblock provides me with a very satisfying web experience.
I have to admit, I would love to be able to buy a Mac (esp. a PPC) without MacOS--I'm sure it's a lovely OS, but I'm a Debian developer.
However, there is a huge difference here. MS has a monopoly (and is well-known for abusing it). Apple does not (and is not). If enough people demanded Macs w/o MacOS, Apple would probably start to supply them (or answer to its shareholders). Apple is still subject to market pressures; MS, effectively, is not.
Anyway, Apple makes those Macs that all come with MacOS. MS does not make PCs at all, so your analogy is flawed. Why should MS control how Dell or Gateway or HP or Lenovo or <tiny-local-PC-vendor> does business?
It's true that this is not the grand vindication of the GPL that some may have hoped for. Nevertheless, it is (slightly) more vindication than you suggest. To file claims under the Sherman Act, one must show both personal harm and harm to the market. The judge ruled that Mr. Wallace had shown sufficient personal harm to defeat a motion to dismiss (simply by alleging that his ability to market his own OS had been harmed--the burden of proof is all on the defense in motion to dismiss). but failed to show harm to the market because the GPL is not anti-competitive. He "failed to allege an antitrust injury" because (and only because) the GPL is not anti-competitive. The GPL did win!
The judge wrote: "the Fourth Amended Complaint does not adequately set forth an injury to competition as a whole." The Fourth Amended Complaint (and all three previous) included the full text of the GPL. The fact that the plain text of the GPL "does not adequately set forth an injury to competition as a whole" is a victory for the GPL, albeit a small and unsurprising one. You say, 'The opinion that "The GPL encourages, rather than discourages, free competition [...]" is not a ruling," when, in fact, it was the basis for the ruling that the plaintiff's case was without merit.
In any case, this does end the "GPL has never been challenged" FUD. The GPL has been challenged (however badly or ineffectually). Even if the case em>had been dismissed for reasons completely unrelated to the GPL, it would still be true that the GPL has been challenged in court now. That is indisputable. The FUDsters have lost a valuable sound-bite. Even if the actual terms of the dismissal don't mean much, that is still one positive result of this nonsense.
Aw, man, I'm really disappointed! Hats that deflect mind-control rays are a dime a dozen. I thought it was going to be a beanie that deflected aluminum foil! That would be cool--and even potentially useful.:)
> should they delay ubuntu 6.04 (dapper) a couple of weeks more and try to squeeze in the 2.6.16?
No, absolutely not. The 2.6.15 branch is already reasonably stable and well-tested; the 2.6.16 branch is brand new and needs far more testing before it should be adopted and released by vendors. Remember, the kernel.org team no longer even pretends to make stable kernels--they say that job should be left to the vendors. Which means that Ubuntu (and other vendors) have some work ahead of them before they can even think about mainlining this kernel.
I suspect that grandparent is one of the people who is convinced that TCPA == DRM. The fact is that Linux already has TCPA support (and, yes, you can just leave the checkbox unticked if it really bothers you). It's used for security, not DRM. TCPA is really just public-key encryption on a chip. Yes, that obviously could be used for DRM, but IBM (who contributed the TCPA support to Linux) has already published some whitepapers which, among other things, point out just how ineffective that would be and strongly hinting at some attack vectors--if you have access to the machine. (I can think of some more attack vectors, but they rely on having full control of the OS--fortunately, I do, thanks to IBM and Linus.)
Anyway, a bunch of the "TCPA is evil, it has no other purpose than DRM" crowd are running around shouting about how Linux is obviously about to require DRM--how else can they explain the TCPA support already there? Of course, the idea that switching to BSD will make you safe is quite silly--not only could TCPA support be added to BSD, but there's no guarantee that you'd get the source if that did happen! (Not that I have anything against BSD; I use it on a regular basis, and I'm a big fan, even though I generally prefer GNU userspace.)
Indeed, if your elbows are properly supported, you shouldn't need to try to keep your wrists afloat--it should be difficult to get your wrists down far enough to need support! If your wrists hit the desk, you need to adjust your chair (or get a new one), IMO. Chairs without arms should be kept as far away from keyboards as possible.
Re:Gel wrist rest attached to mouse mat
on
Preventing RSI?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I've never understood those gel pads. What good does a pad positioned an inch or so below your wrist do?:)
The most important thing, in my opinion, is a chair with arms. If your elbows are properly supported, your wrists don't need to be, because they'll be in mid-air. If your wrists are resting on anything, you're doing something wrong.
I suspect the split-style keyboards are good, but I've never bothered with them. But I can see the attraction.
Not sure from your post whether you're aware of this or not, but FLAC is a lossless format. Most FLACs are exactly the same quality as CD, bit for bit, and the exceptions are usually higher (not lower) quality.
> If Linux is a kernel, where is Solaris/Linux [?]
I don't know, I don't care, I wouldn't be surprised if somoene was working on it, but I wouldn't be particularly interested in the project. I've been using GNU since the mid/late-eighties, and it's the part I really care about. I started with GNU on DOS and OS/2 and XENIX and SunOS, and preferred it because it gave me the highest level of portability I could find at the time. Frankly, I no longer care what kernel I'm using, as long as I'm using a GNU-based system. "Linux" may be the commonest name for the most commonly used GNU-based systems, but I'm not using those systems because they have Linux, I'm using them because they have GNU. Systems that have Linux (the kernel) without GNU I'm not interested in (and yes, they exist). Systems that have GNU without Linux are just fine by me, though.
I'm generally a "rose by any other name" sorta guy, so I don't care what it's called, but I do find it puzzling why you care so very much, and why you object so strenuously to people mentioning the only component I actually care about.
> Linux is Linux, GNU is GNU, and Solaris is Solaris.
The Debian project has GNU/BSD and GNU/Solaris systems in the works. How do those fit into your world-view? Frankly, the fact that they're all GNU is really the only thing that matters to me.
> Name/modifier is crap/shit.
At least you got the order right. "GNU" should be the name, IMO, and "Linux" (or "BSD" or "Solaris") the modifier--if someone cares about names all that much (which I don't). Calling the whole system by the name of just the kernel, when nobody with any sense really cares that much about the kernel, is just silly. But then you do seem to be overly obsessed with labels (or so I judge by your involvement with that most useless of labelling organizations, the OSI) so maybe I should cut you some slack.:p;)
It's said that people often become what they attack. While I like the GNU project, I would be the last person in the world to deny that RMS can be bat-fuck insane. But it seems to me that people who disagree with him merely because he's bat-fuck insane are in serious danger of becoming bat-fuck insane themselves, and you and ESR seem to me to be well down that road, Russ. And at least RMS and his gang of crazies put out some good, solid code that I use every day. If I were to choose sides on this issue that I don't care about, I'm afraid I'd be inclined to go with those who actually do something a little more useful between rants.
> There is value in having a company to blame and hold accountable when things go wrong.
Right, and this is presumably why they went with Novell, specifically, rather than simply going with "open source" in general.
> You buy Microsoft, you get to run bill over the coals
Ha ha, you're funny!:)
> You choose OSS, its your own ass that goes in the furnace.
This is stupid; borderline FUD! If you choose OSS, then it's you OR YOUR VENDOR'S ass that goes in the furnace, depending on whether you have a support contract or not. Once again, more options, not fewer. You can try to support it yourself, or you can pay someone else to do it. If you pay someone else to do it, going with OSS means you're not locked in--if Novell turns out to have problems, switching from Novell to Red Hat (for example) is far easier than switching from MS to anything.
I assure you that people don't usually choose Red Hat over Fedora or Novell over OpenSUSE for technical reasons. They do so purely and simply so that they can have someone to blame! You're right that this is an important issue, but you're an idiot if you think this is a dividing line between OSS and MS. It's the other way around--with MS, you're FORCED to have someone to blame, whether you want to or not; with OSS, it's optional.:)
Actually, in civil court, there is a presumption of innocence, hence the burden of proof rests with the plaintiff, but you're right that the standards of proof are "preponderance of the evidence", not "beyond reasonable doubt". And you're certainly right about the de-facto reality of the courtroom.
> MS is the most arrogant and abusive corporation to come around in a long long time.
While I agree with much of what you said, I have to disagree here. Microsoft is, IMO, the most evil company in the computer industry (having stolen that crown from IBM), but they are still a long, long way from being the worst company, period. In fact, as far as companies in general go, I would say that they barely qualify as evil. (And I would have said the same about IBM in their day.) Much of what they do would be perfectly acceptable if they didn't have a monopoly--their biggest crime/stupidity seems to me to be a refusal to accept that they indeed have a monopoly and should adjust their behavior accordingly. Their incompetence when it comes to matters of security is sad, but they generally seem to draw the line at outright fraud, unlike the *AAs and Enron. They pay their employees a reasonable, if not munificent, wage, and don't run sweatshops in third-world countries. They don't dump toxic chemicals in the backwoods, causing cancer and birth defects in people downstream. Their levels of greed and incompetence, while appalling in absolute terms, are not, IMO, out of line with that seen in other giant corporations.
I've been Microsoft-free for close to a decade, a member of the Debian project for nearly as long, and a "free software fanatic" for even longer, but even I try to retain a little perspective!:)
> "Would CNR honestly help Ubuntu grow, or is it just a scheme to cash in on it's success?"
Why can't it be both? Sheesh, you guys are so narrow minded!:)
I have zero personal interest in this, even though I like Ubuntu, but I can imagine many people who might find it useful.
One thing that I would be interested to see is if they can make CNR work (for its target audience) without Linspire's terrible always-run-as-root misfeature.
Remember, all of the people involved in the Oklahoma City bombing were Americans. We should immediately ensure that none of our ports (and none of our port-sniffing software) is in the control of American companies!:)
> We're saying that we won't let you run our software on a system with the hood welded shut
No. The GPL only covers distribution, not personal use. If you can get the software installed, then you can use it all you want, but you can't redistribute the software to others unless you also provide the ability to get the software (including modified versions) installed. This is fully in the spirit of the GPLv2. The whole point is, and always has been, that the users should have the ability to fix bugs/add features on their own. People who aren't willing to accept that are (as they always have been) welcome to try to negotiate other terms with the copyright holders.
I suspect that your assessment of how much impact this will have on the market for GPL'd software is seriously overblown, but if you prefer BSD software, that's fine by me. I'm a big fan of BSD myself.
How or why it happened, nobody knows, but SCO's lawyers have agreed to cap the fees, so no, they're not really piling up at this point.
On the other hand, I still wouldn't be surprised to see a shareholders' lawsuit at some point. The major problems I see are: one, most of the shareholders at this point are active members of the conspiracy, and two, anyone stupid enough to still be holding SCO stock at this point deserves what they get. The second point probably won't hold much weight in court (though it should, IMO), but the first one is going to be a big problem. Are Ralph Yarro and Darl McBride really going to sue themselves?:)
> "Considering that virtually all software distributed physically claims copyright protection to the maximum extent possible..."
Only for some very odd definition of "virtually all". If you said "most," I wouldn't argue a bit, but I think that free/libre/open-source software has definitely reached the point where it's pretty hard to claim that "virtually all" software falls outside that category. Especially in Europe, where Firefox alone is reportedly climbing into the 20% usage range.
> "However, obviously they did check with the Mozilla people before laying charges."
Yes, but not before confiscating the discs. Sure, they returned them, but not before interfering with the company's business and the Mozilla Foundation's distribution scheme. In the US, I'm pretty sure there'd be grounds for a lawsuit there. (Although, to be fair, in the US, I think parting your hair funny, or at all, could be grounds for a lawsuit. This case, however, might be grounds for a successful lawsuit!)
> "I do wonder though if the same shop wasn't also selling bootlegs of Adobe, MS, etc."
That would go some small way towards explaining things, IF your speculation is correct, but TFA provides no suggestion that it was. And in any case, FLOSS is widely used by governments, companies and individuals around the world, and has been around for decades (I first used freely modifiable/redistributable software five years before the FSF was founded). It's simply stupid and embarrassing that the UK gov't doesn't know how to deal with it at this late date.
I think the point is that he claims to be noted, but (apparently) isn't. That is, indeed, a common sign of--although certainly not proof of--crankiness. Many (probably most) physics cranks--and, indeed, cranks in general--are more interested in fame than in rigor, and often find it easy to convince themselves--if no one else--that they have started to achieve that hoped-for fame.
All the names of the Debian releases so far have been based on characters from Toy Story. If there's no more Toy Story movies made, Debian will soon run out of characters, and will be forced to give up on making systems!:)
Hey, FORTH was used for the motion control cameras in the movie, The Right Stuff! I know because I actually worked on those systems. (And got to meet Chuck Yeager, very briefly, but that's another story.) Anyway, I happened to like that movie--and not just because I contributed in a small way. So, while FORTH might not be my first choice these days, even for motion control, I think it's proved that it can be used to make some pretty good movies.
So you and "Snap E Tom" can just go soak your...oh wait. Do you suppose that was a typo, and Tom really meant "fourth"? Nah, this is Slashdot; the editors would never let something like that slip through!:)
Slashdot Mirror
Turning off the blinking merely...turns off the blinking. With CSS, you should be able to completely supress and hide the text that someone thought was so important it should blink! :)
Now now, just remember, it's the bad 99% of lawyers that give the rest a bad name. :)
> The addition of all these new distro's is a TERRIBLE thing.
This is a matter of opinion, and I strongly disagree.
> Every single distro does its own thing
This is simply and plainly a lie. I can think of no gentler term to use (although I can think of harsher ones). As a software developer, I have no problem whatsoever developing for "Linux", even though there are several hundred distributions. In fact, it is the market leaders who are most likely to "do their own thing"--the vast majority of Linux flavors have far more in common than not. The places they are most likely to differ are in installers and small utilities that hardly matter to most people.
> and there is no standardization whatsoever. It's terrible.
Again, complete, utter, 100% lie! Just who pays your salary, oh Mr. "gexen"? We have standards coming out of our EARS!
> People complained and mocked Microsoft about Windows Vista because it will have 7 different releases.
Only because the Microsofties like to talk about how great a monoculture is. It's the irony of the situation that leads to the mockery, not the fact that there's something actually wrong with diversity. (Although there may be more to it than that, I don't know--in 25 years in this industry, I still have yet to really try Windows in any flavor, so I'm not qualified to comment on it.)
Well, I, for one, don't want to block all ads--merely annoying ads. I find that disabling gif animation and using flashblock provides me with a very satisfying web experience.
That's fine, makes sense to me, but you will still need root access to install it properly.
I have to admit, I would love to be able to buy a Mac (esp. a PPC) without MacOS--I'm sure it's a lovely OS, but I'm a Debian developer.
However, there is a huge difference here. MS has a monopoly (and is well-known for abusing it). Apple does not (and is not). If enough people demanded Macs w/o MacOS, Apple would probably start to supply them (or answer to its shareholders). Apple is still subject to market pressures; MS, effectively, is not.
Anyway, Apple makes those Macs that all come with MacOS. MS does not make PCs at all, so your analogy is flawed. Why should MS control how Dell or Gateway or HP or Lenovo or <tiny-local-PC-vendor> does business?
It's true that this is not the grand vindication of the GPL that some may have hoped for. Nevertheless, it is (slightly) more vindication than you suggest. To file claims under the Sherman Act, one must show both personal harm and harm to the market. The judge ruled that Mr. Wallace had shown sufficient personal harm to defeat a motion to dismiss (simply by alleging that his ability to market his own OS had been harmed--the burden of proof is all on the defense in motion to dismiss). but failed to show harm to the market because the GPL is not anti-competitive. He "failed to allege an antitrust injury" because (and only because) the GPL is not anti-competitive. The GPL did win!
The judge wrote: "the Fourth Amended Complaint does not adequately set forth an injury to competition as a whole." The Fourth Amended Complaint (and all three previous) included the full text of the GPL. The fact that the plain text of the GPL "does not adequately set forth an injury to competition as a whole" is a victory for the GPL, albeit a small and unsurprising one. You say, 'The opinion that "The GPL encourages, rather than discourages, free competition [...]" is not a ruling," when, in fact, it was the basis for the ruling that the plaintiff's case was without merit.
In any case, this does end the "GPL has never been challenged" FUD. The GPL has been challenged (however badly or ineffectually). Even if the case em>had been dismissed for reasons completely unrelated to the GPL, it would still be true that the GPL has been challenged in court now. That is indisputable. The FUDsters have lost a valuable sound-bite. Even if the actual terms of the dismissal don't mean much, that is still one positive result of this nonsense.
Aw, man, I'm really disappointed! Hats that deflect mind-control rays are a dime a dozen. I thought it was going to be a beanie that deflected aluminum foil! That would be cool--and even potentially useful. :)
> should they delay ubuntu 6.04 (dapper) a couple of weeks more and try to squeeze in the 2.6.16?
No, absolutely not. The 2.6.15 branch is already reasonably stable and well-tested; the 2.6.16 branch is brand new and needs far more testing before it should be adopted and released by vendors. Remember, the kernel.org team no longer even pretends to make stable kernels--they say that job should be left to the vendors. Which means that Ubuntu (and other vendors) have some work ahead of them before they can even think about mainlining this kernel.
I suspect that grandparent is one of the people who is convinced that TCPA == DRM. The fact is that Linux already has TCPA support (and, yes, you can just leave the checkbox unticked if it really bothers you). It's used for security, not DRM. TCPA is really just public-key encryption on a chip. Yes, that obviously could be used for DRM, but IBM (who contributed the TCPA support to Linux) has already published some whitepapers which, among other things, point out just how ineffective that would be and strongly hinting at some attack vectors--if you have access to the machine. (I can think of some more attack vectors, but they rely on having full control of the OS--fortunately, I do, thanks to IBM and Linus.)
Anyway, a bunch of the "TCPA is evil, it has no other purpose than DRM" crowd are running around shouting about how Linux is obviously about to require DRM--how else can they explain the TCPA support already there? Of course, the idea that switching to BSD will make you safe is quite silly--not only could TCPA support be added to BSD, but there's no guarantee that you'd get the source if that did happen! (Not that I have anything against BSD; I use it on a regular basis, and I'm a big fan, even though I generally prefer GNU userspace.)
Indeed, if your elbows are properly supported, you shouldn't need to try to keep your wrists afloat--it should be difficult to get your wrists down far enough to need support! If your wrists hit the desk, you need to adjust your chair (or get a new one), IMO. Chairs without arms should be kept as far away from keyboards as possible.
I've never understood those gel pads. What good does a pad positioned an inch or so below your wrist do? :)
The most important thing, in my opinion, is a chair with arms. If your elbows are properly supported, your wrists don't need to be, because they'll be in mid-air. If your wrists are resting on anything, you're doing something wrong.
I suspect the split-style keyboards are good, but I've never bothered with them. But I can see the attraction.
Not sure from your post whether you're aware of this or not, but FLAC is a lossless format. Most FLACs are exactly the same quality as CD, bit for bit, and the exceptions are usually higher (not lower) quality.
> If Linux is a kernel, where is Solaris/Linux [?]
:p ;)
I don't know, I don't care, I wouldn't be surprised if somoene was working on it, but I wouldn't be particularly interested in the project. I've been using GNU since the mid/late-eighties, and it's the part I really care about. I started with GNU on DOS and OS/2 and XENIX and SunOS, and preferred it because it gave me the highest level of portability I could find at the time. Frankly, I no longer care what kernel I'm using, as long as I'm using a GNU-based system. "Linux" may be the commonest name for the most commonly used GNU-based systems, but I'm not using those systems because they have Linux, I'm using them because they have GNU. Systems that have Linux (the kernel) without GNU I'm not interested in (and yes, they exist). Systems that have GNU without Linux are just fine by me, though.
I'm generally a "rose by any other name" sorta guy, so I don't care what it's called, but I do find it puzzling why you care so very much, and why you object so strenuously to people mentioning the only component I actually care about.
> Linux is Linux, GNU is GNU, and Solaris is Solaris.
The Debian project has GNU/BSD and GNU/Solaris systems in the works. How do those fit into your world-view? Frankly, the fact that they're all GNU is really the only thing that matters to me.
> Name/modifier is crap/shit.
At least you got the order right. "GNU" should be the name, IMO, and "Linux" (or "BSD" or "Solaris") the modifier--if someone cares about names all that much (which I don't). Calling the whole system by the name of just the kernel, when nobody with any sense really cares that much about the kernel, is just silly. But then you do seem to be overly obsessed with labels (or so I judge by your involvement with that most useless of labelling organizations, the OSI) so maybe I should cut you some slack.
It's said that people often become what they attack. While I like the GNU project, I would be the last person in the world to deny that RMS can be bat-fuck insane. But it seems to me that people who disagree with him merely because he's bat-fuck insane are in serious danger of becoming bat-fuck insane themselves, and you and ESR seem to me to be well down that road, Russ. And at least RMS and his gang of crazies put out some good, solid code that I use every day. If I were to choose sides on this issue that I don't care about, I'm afraid I'd be inclined to go with those who actually do something a little more useful between rants.
> There is value in having a company to blame and hold accountable when things go wrong.
:)
:)
Right, and this is presumably why they went with Novell, specifically, rather than simply going with "open source" in general.
> You buy Microsoft, you get to run bill over the coals
Ha ha, you're funny!
> You choose OSS, its your own ass that goes in the furnace.
This is stupid; borderline FUD! If you choose OSS, then it's you OR YOUR VENDOR'S ass that goes in the furnace, depending on whether you have a support contract or not. Once again, more options, not fewer. You can try to support it yourself, or you can pay someone else to do it. If you pay someone else to do it, going with OSS means you're not locked in--if Novell turns out to have problems, switching from Novell to Red Hat (for example) is far easier than switching from MS to anything.
I assure you that people don't usually choose Red Hat over Fedora or Novell over OpenSUSE for technical reasons. They do so purely and simply so that they can have someone to blame! You're right that this is an important issue, but you're an idiot if you think this is a dividing line between OSS and MS. It's the other way around--with MS, you're FORCED to have someone to blame, whether you want to or not; with OSS, it's optional.
Actually, in civil court, there is a presumption of innocence, hence the burden of proof rests with the plaintiff, but you're right that the standards of proof are "preponderance of the evidence", not "beyond reasonable doubt". And you're certainly right about the de-facto reality of the courtroom.
> MS is the most arrogant and abusive corporation to come around in a long long time.
:)
While I agree with much of what you said, I have to disagree here. Microsoft is, IMO, the most evil company in the computer industry (having stolen that crown from IBM), but they are still a long, long way from being the worst company, period. In fact, as far as companies in general go, I would say that they barely qualify as evil. (And I would have said the same about IBM in their day.) Much of what they do would be perfectly acceptable if they didn't have a monopoly--their biggest crime/stupidity seems to me to be a refusal to accept that they indeed have a monopoly and should adjust their behavior accordingly. Their incompetence when it comes to matters of security is sad, but they generally seem to draw the line at outright fraud, unlike the *AAs and Enron. They pay their employees a reasonable, if not munificent, wage, and don't run sweatshops in third-world countries. They don't dump toxic chemicals in the backwoods, causing cancer and birth defects in people downstream. Their levels of greed and incompetence, while appalling in absolute terms, are not, IMO, out of line with that seen in other giant corporations.
I've been Microsoft-free for close to a decade, a member of the Debian project for nearly as long, and a "free software fanatic" for even longer, but even I try to retain a little perspective!
> "Would CNR honestly help Ubuntu grow, or is it just a scheme to cash in on it's success?"
:)
Why can't it be both? Sheesh, you guys are so narrow minded!
I have zero personal interest in this, even though I like Ubuntu, but I can imagine many people who might find it useful.
One thing that I would be interested to see is if they can make CNR work (for its target audience) without Linspire's terrible always-run-as-root misfeature.
Remember, all of the people involved in the Oklahoma City bombing were Americans. We should immediately ensure that none of our ports (and none of our port-sniffing software) is in the control of American companies! :)
> We're saying that we won't let you run our software on a system with the hood welded shut
No. The GPL only covers distribution, not personal use. If you can get the software installed, then you can use it all you want, but you can't redistribute the software to others unless you also provide the ability to get the software (including modified versions) installed. This is fully in the spirit of the GPLv2. The whole point is, and always has been, that the users should have the ability to fix bugs/add features on their own. People who aren't willing to accept that are (as they always have been) welcome to try to negotiate other terms with the copyright holders.
I suspect that your assessment of how much impact this will have on the market for GPL'd software is seriously overblown, but if you prefer BSD software, that's fine by me. I'm a big fan of BSD myself.
How or why it happened, nobody knows, but SCO's lawyers have agreed to cap the fees, so no, they're not really piling up at this point.
:)
On the other hand, I still wouldn't be surprised to see a shareholders' lawsuit at some point. The major problems I see are: one, most of the shareholders at this point are active members of the conspiracy, and two, anyone stupid enough to still be holding SCO stock at this point deserves what they get. The second point probably won't hold much weight in court (though it should, IMO), but the first one is going to be a big problem. Are Ralph Yarro and Darl McBride really going to sue themselves?
> "Considering that virtually all software distributed physically claims copyright protection to the maximum extent possible..."
."
Only for some very odd definition of "virtually all". If you said "most," I wouldn't argue a bit, but I think that free/libre/open-source software has definitely reached the point where it's pretty hard to claim that "virtually all" software falls outside that category. Especially in Europe, where Firefox alone is reportedly climbing into the 20% usage range.
> "However, obviously they did check with the Mozilla people before laying charges."
Yes, but not before confiscating the discs. Sure, they returned them, but not before interfering with the company's business and the Mozilla Foundation's distribution scheme. In the US, I'm pretty sure there'd be grounds for a lawsuit there. (Although, to be fair, in the US, I think parting your hair funny, or at all, could be grounds for a lawsuit. This case, however, might be grounds for a successful lawsuit!)
> "I do wonder though if the same shop wasn't also selling bootlegs of Adobe, MS, etc
That would go some small way towards explaining things, IF your speculation is correct, but TFA provides no suggestion that it was. And in any case, FLOSS is widely used by governments, companies and individuals around the world, and has been around for decades (I first used freely modifiable/redistributable software five years before the FSF was founded). It's simply stupid and embarrassing that the UK gov't doesn't know how to deal with it at this late date.
I think the point is that he claims to be noted, but (apparently) isn't. That is, indeed, a common sign of--although certainly not proof of--crankiness. Many (probably most) physics cranks--and, indeed, cranks in general--are more interested in fame than in rigor, and often find it easy to convince themselves--if no one else--that they have started to achieve that hoped-for fame.
All the names of the Debian releases so far have been based on characters from Toy Story. If there's no more Toy Story movies made, Debian will soon run out of characters, and will be forced to give up on making systems! :)
Hey, FORTH was used for the motion control cameras in the movie, The Right Stuff! I know because I actually worked on those systems. (And got to meet Chuck Yeager, very briefly, but that's another story.) Anyway, I happened to like that movie--and not just because I contributed in a small way. So, while FORTH might not be my first choice these days, even for motion control, I think it's proved that it can be used to make some pretty good movies.
:)
So you and "Snap E Tom" can just go soak your...oh wait. Do you suppose that was a typo, and Tom really meant "fourth"? Nah, this is Slashdot; the editors would never let something like that slip through!