OSS developers are not his target audience. Poeple who say that there is "no sustainable business model to FOSS" are his target. By being so OTT he probably knows that most FOSS developers will see this.
it's loudmouths like the ones ACTUALLY doing the spouting that will cause MS to just replace that page with a static placeholder and reveal NOTHING to the outside. It's already gutted, it really won't take much more to turn it into a complete facade. Thanks a lot.
It is not the research that is being objected to, it is the needless FUD? Did you read TFA:-)
This was all begun by a Microsoft MVP character named Chris Boyd, who is always described as a "renowned" security expert. By whose standards is he renowned? Has he written books? Academic papers? Articles? What exactly besides blogging? So where does this assertion come from? The blog?
He posted his BitTorrent discovery on his security blog here. He discovered that the Aurora spyware is on machines that also have BitTorrent installed and implies that BitTorrent has more to do with it than a casual coincidence. Does this guy know that BitTorrent is a downloading system and people who do a lot of downloading tend to have it on their machines? The cause and effect logic here eludes me. Is he saying it's impossible to get Aurora without BitTorrent?
My partner draws out a street map when she and our daughter go (walking) into town. Daughter loves guiding and being in charge of how to get to their destinations. I think she first tried this at the age of 4 and I bet children would be able to do this at an even youger age, all they need to do is recognise letters, not read per-se.
Most business is based on trust, no matter what the contract says in the detail. When the trust goes the business follows.
I know I don't trust Apple and don't buy their geer, no matter how nice people tell me it is. Maybe I am not a big dent in Job's bank account but don't forget they went from a market leadership position in PCs to what, less than 3% today?
It should be pointed out that shareholders, by the very definition, have purchased a share in an asset. The corporation has an obligation to maintain and enhance the value of that asset. To turn a short term profit at the expense of asset value maintenance is therefore is much more of a dereliction of duty than failing to maximise profit in the short term. "If that means suing a company just to stay relevant, so be it."
Read the articles in full. Groklaw is presenting as *legal* news, in that it must be "news" to SCO otherwise why the fuck would they ever claim that they were in the dark about the intents of their Monteray partners objectives which, coincidently, appeared totally in line with their own objectives at the time..
If El Reg had done any research whatsoever they would have realised they were only backing up the point GL is making, that is SCO's appearent amnesia can easily be refuted and so their court claim can be shown to be worthless.
She says that "early in the planning for OpenSolaris that we needed to use a "true" open source license - a license that complies with the terms of the Open Source Definition and that encourages royalty-free use, modification and distribution."
As opposed to all those other false ones out there that completely fail in the above goals. They considered all options, she claims, except the glaringly obvious LGPL, it would seem.
We at least know that Sun recognises "it's all about the community" which is no doubt why they have left themselves such great scope for slagging off the huge base of *successful* commmunities which just happen to use those awful GPL licences.
Sorry, I was merely representing his perpective which I have found intersting to understand and analyse.
Personally I am very supportive of the FFII's efforts. I think, to an outsider, however, the tone of the site could be off-putting. The "Banana EC" icon sets this tone.
It is worthy of note and I have been having an interesting email conversation with a senior (ex) patent lawyer from the UK. His reading of the situation and the directive is similar to what you have quoted. He was also quite disdainful of some of what he sees as misrepresentations on the FFII site.
That being said, he would, I believe, not have nearly such a clear idea on why certain software methods should not be patented. Because what to him seems inventive and worthy of patent protection seems like old hat and standard practice to me.
Look, I don't LOVE Microsoft, but SP2 has been out for, what, 3/4 of a year now? And betas were out even earlier. If you currently sell a product that doesn't work in SP2, then SHAME ON YOU!!!
Good Lord, what Micky Mouse development projects are you working on these days? 9 months a long time? Give us a break, considering 80% of software development effort goes into developing very large bespoke solutions your argument holds very little water.
Just returned from Hannover. - 6000 exhibitors, 600,000 visitors over 7 days. Down from the 1990's but still the biggest ICT&T event in the world. Only problem...it's in sick old man Europe, so the US media seems to have missed it altogether.
but it has said it licensed additional rights in a 2003 deal in which it paid SCO $9.3 million.
Really, this raises more questions than it answers. Maybe it helps explains why CDDL is such an abortive and messy process. I suppose some of those particulars could have been "keep this stuff away from Linux and in no way whatsoever compromise our case against IBM". It seems like a bad deal for Sun and they still end up looking like bad guys:-(
It's when action contradict words, honestly Sun's CEO seems to flip flop more often than John Kerry on the FOSS stuff. I certainly hope for some really clear direction and leadership from Sun, they have some really cool stuff, clever and clued up people and certainly the tone seems to have changed over the last week or three. In a way, it is a shame that Sun have let the thunder be stolen from under their feet by Novell and others when they could be in such a strong position WRT FOSS. Sun needs to ask themselves why there has been such a strong reaction to their recent announcements - it is certainly not (at least on my part) because we feel an inherent need to bash Sun.
Slashdot Mirror
This is why geeks aren't in charge of companies.
Huh? Moms Gates and Jobs probably need correcting on the roles of their respective sons.
However, that comment could explain why Apple missed the boat so badly in the PC world.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
A rugby referee, on Slashdot, totally unexpected.
or middle mouse button & middle mouse button...shesh, NEXT
OSS developers are not his target audience. Poeple who say that there is "no sustainable business model to FOSS" are his target. By being so OTT he probably knows that most FOSS developers will see this.
...download the text of this comment to your browsers. Thanks ever so much.
© 2005 Donnz
it's loudmouths like the ones ACTUALLY doing the spouting that will cause MS to just replace that page with a static placeholder and reveal NOTHING to the outside. It's already gutted, it really won't take much more to turn it into a complete facade. Thanks a lot.
In which case MS lose. Compare and contrast.
Great moderation, BTW.
It is not the research that is being objected to, it is the needless FUD? Did you read TFA :-)
This was all begun by a Microsoft MVP character named Chris Boyd, who is always described as a "renowned" security expert. By whose standards is he renowned? Has he written books? Academic papers? Articles? What exactly besides blogging? So where does this assertion come from? The blog?
He posted his BitTorrent discovery on his security blog here. He discovered that the Aurora spyware is on machines that also have BitTorrent installed and implies that BitTorrent has more to do with it than a casual coincidence. Does this guy know that BitTorrent is a downloading system and people who do a lot of downloading tend to have it on their machines? The cause and effect logic here eludes me. Is he saying it's impossible to get Aurora without BitTorrent?
and like all the good internet protocols it is open. No wonder MS want to scupper it.
My partner draws out a street map when she and our daughter go (walking) into town. Daughter loves guiding and being in charge of how to get to their destinations. I think she first tried this at the age of 4 and I bet children would be able to do this at an even youger age, all they need to do is recognise letters, not read per-se.
Most business is based on trust, no matter what the contract says in the detail. When the trust goes the business follows.
I know I don't trust Apple and don't buy their geer, no matter how nice people tell me it is. Maybe I am not a big dent in Job's bank account but don't forget they went from a market leadership position in PCs to what, less than 3% today?
It sure does. Sounds like Stanford should have ended up with the $9 million.
old news.
I could never work this out in the original:
"and the judge walked in, sat down with a seeng-eye dog, and he sat down, we sat down."
Just seems too much sitting down, even when you count the seeing eye dog.
(Scary thing is I could hear AGs voice in my head singing and reading the post.)
"it was discovered that without IE installed, Netscape 8.0 will not install"
Well, duh. IE *is* the OS you know. I expect he ment to say "without Windows installed Netscape 8.0 will not install".
It should be pointed out that shareholders, by the very definition, have purchased a share in an asset. The corporation has an obligation to maintain and enhance the value of that asset. To turn a short term profit at the expense of asset value maintenance is therefore is much more of a dereliction of duty than failing to maximise profit in the short term. "If that means suing a company just to stay relevant, so be it."
You are correct. Not only does it sound not terribly original, it sounds like pseudo code. Innovative, maybe, but inventive, no.
Read the articles in full. Groklaw is presenting as *legal* news, in that it must be "news" to SCO otherwise why the fuck would they ever claim that they were in the dark about the intents of their Monteray partners objectives which, coincidently, appeared totally in line with their own objectives at the time..
If El Reg had done any research whatsoever they would have realised they were only backing up the point GL is making, that is SCO's appearent amnesia can easily be refuted and so their court claim can be shown to be worthless.
Kinda disappointing write up...
She says that "early in the planning for OpenSolaris that we needed to use a "true" open source license - a license that complies with the terms of the Open Source Definition and that encourages royalty-free use, modification and distribution."
As opposed to all those other false ones out there that completely fail in the above goals. They considered all options, she claims, except the glaringly obvious LGPL, it would seem.
We at least know that Sun recognises "it's all about the community" which is no doubt why they have left themselves such great scope for slagging off the huge base of *successful* commmunities which just happen to use those awful GPL licences.
Sorry, I was merely representing his perpective which I have found intersting to understand and analyse.
Personally I am very supportive of the FFII's efforts. I think, to an outsider, however, the tone of the site could be off-putting. The "Banana EC" icon sets this tone.
It is worthy of note and I have been having an interesting email conversation with a senior (ex) patent lawyer from the UK. His reading of the situation and the directive is similar to what you have quoted. He was also quite disdainful of some of what he sees as misrepresentations on the FFII site.
That being said, he would, I believe, not have nearly such a clear idea on why certain software methods should not be patented. Because what to him seems inventive and worthy of patent protection seems like old hat and standard practice to me.
Look, I don't LOVE Microsoft, but SP2 has been out for, what, 3/4 of a year now? And betas were out even earlier. If you currently sell a product that doesn't work in SP2, then SHAME ON YOU!!!
Good Lord, what Micky Mouse development projects are you working on these days? 9 months a long time? Give us a break, considering 80% of software development effort goes into developing very large bespoke solutions your argument holds very little water.
Just returned from Hannover. - 6000 exhibitors, 600,000 visitors over 7 days. Down from the 1990's but still the biggest ICT&T event in the world. Only problem...it's in sick old man Europe, so the US media seems to have missed it altogether.
Their loss.
Bottom of barrel, meet scraper.
From the article:
:-(
Sun is mum on particulars,
so it doesn't really say "why" at all.
but it has said it licensed additional rights in a 2003 deal in which it paid SCO $9.3 million.
Really, this raises more questions than it answers. Maybe it helps explains why CDDL is such an abortive and messy process. I suppose some of those particulars could have been "keep this stuff away from Linux and in no way whatsoever compromise our case against IBM". It seems like a bad deal for Sun and they still end up looking like bad guys
Let them prove themselves in their actions.
I think that's the point we are both making.
It's when action contradict words, honestly Sun's CEO seems to flip flop more often than John Kerry on the FOSS stuff. I certainly hope for some really clear direction and leadership from Sun, they have some really cool stuff, clever and clued up people and certainly the tone seems to have changed over the last week or three. In a way, it is a shame that Sun have let the thunder be stolen from under their feet by Novell and others when they could be in such a strong position WRT FOSS. Sun needs to ask themselves why there has been such a strong reaction to their recent announcements - it is certainly not (at least on my part) because we feel an inherent need to bash Sun.