But the spokesman said SCO will unveil a contingency plan Monday for customers to access the site. He declined to discuss those plans, citing hackers.
Their plan was: move www.sco.com to www.scogroup.com. They couldn't tell anybody that because of 'hackers' ? What did they think the 'hackers' would do, go and hijack the new site before they had a chance to switch over ??
Use a single GPL'd function and have to give away my entire source base.
This wrong in many ways. First, the GPL places no restrictions on the USE of code; only if you distribute that GPL code yourself are you required to make it and any derivative works available.
Second, the GPL of course can only cover derivative works. If you use a GPL function in some code, and you distribute that code, then that code and that code only must be GPL'd. The rest of your programs can still be released under any license you want.
And of course if you disagree - well then don't use GPL'd code, write your own !
...that all those companies which do studies of the TCO of Windows vs. other operating systems will remember to add these costs into their studies, and republish their results.
I thought MyDoom did use an exploit ? (Exploiting a flaw in Outlook which executes attachments when they are clicked on, getting email addresses from addressbooks, etc, etc).
This is newsworthy, actually. When a.0 release of the Linux kernel comes out, it's basically only been tested by the Linux kernel testers. Then it hits the public.
A.1 release means that it's then found to be good enough for general use, and hopefully any really major bugs will have been fixed.
Besides, it is infinitely more interesting than yet another iTunes, iPod, iKitchen-Sink is cool story.
Can you imagine the situation where 99% of your email is spam?
I don't need to imagine. On one of my email accounts, 99% of the messages *are* spam. Fortunately Mozilla's Bayesian filter means I only get to see the 5% or so that slip through.
So there is your alternative.
"Part of their study has been on how Linux has been able to maintain a high level of consistency in the kernel while groups around it maintain maximum flexibility.
Maybe because it is open source ? The consistency surely comes from having the entire codebase to refer to, and the flexibility from people being free to suggest any patches they like to the kernel.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm...are you suggesting the Slashdot authors...no surely not ;-)
Didn't you read the last article, closed source software is much more secure than open source. You have nothing to fear.
So, how do they build binaries then ? Gather all the parts together and hope they work ? Sounds about right to me !
Well that shouldn't be a problem. Mozilla/Firefox are well above IE5 ;-)
Suppose I write some code, A. Then you write some code B, and add it to A, and distribute the whole lot as C.
Clearly, C is a derivative work of A, since it includes code A and code B. Fine.
However, B, by itself is not a derivative of A.
SCO seems to be claiming that since C is a derivative of A, B must also be a derivative, even when distributed separately.
Just replace A with SysV, B with JFS, NUMA, etc, and C with AIX and you will understand the impossibility of SCO's claims.
So, what happens when they say: "we wrote it all ourselves" ?
Their plan was: move www.sco.com to www.scogroup.com. They couldn't tell anybody that because of 'hackers' ? What did they think the 'hackers' would do, go and hijack the new site before they had a chance to switch over ??
It's a trojan I tell you...
This wrong in many ways. First, the GPL places no restrictions on the USE of code; only if you distribute that GPL code yourself are you required to make it and any derivative works available.
Second, the GPL of course can only cover derivative works. If you use a GPL function in some code, and you distribute that code, then that code and that code only must be GPL'd. The rest of your programs can still be released under any license you want.
And of course if you disagree - well then don't use GPL'd code, write your own !
...that all those companies which do studies of the TCO of Windows vs. other operating systems will remember to add these costs into their studies, and republish their results.
So then is he admitting that Apache is more secure than IIS ?
I thought MyDoom did use an exploit ? (Exploiting a flaw in Outlook which executes attachments when they are clicked on, getting email addresses from addressbooks, etc, etc).
Might I suggest you burn yourself a Knoppix or similar CD ?
Naturally he was there, he did after all, invent spaceflight.
If it were open source, they could post it on the internet, and then you, I, and everybody else could look for bugs.
And what will you do when Microsoft withdraws support for Office 97 ?
Would not make your mouth incompatible with other burgers, or tie your stomach in to a licensing deal with McDonalds.
A .1 release means that it's then found to be good enough for general use, and hopefully any really major bugs will have been fixed.
Besides, it is infinitely more interesting than yet another iTunes, iPod, iKitchen-Sink is cool story.
I wish I had mod points to give you a +1 insightful.
I don't need to imagine. On one of my email accounts, 99% of the messages *are* spam. Fortunately Mozilla's Bayesian filter means I only get to see the 5% or so that slip through.
So there is your alternative.
There is no such thing as *right* DRM. And where are the open source AAC players/encoders ?
Not to my network.
Netscape/AOL stopped funding mozilla, but the developers who worked on it were able to continue because the source code was publicly available.
You forgot 'pacman like'. Or was that just the GPL ? I forget now.
Maybe because it is open source ? The consistency surely comes from having the entire codebase to refer to, and the flexibility from people being free to suggest any patches they like to the kernel.