As an owner of a Treo, I can only say that I will never buy PDAs and phones seperately.
The main reason is that no, they are not small enough to be insignificant. I need my front right pocket for my keys and my front left pocket for my Treo and the back pockets break things when I sit down, where could I possibly put another device?
Yes, they are. As long as they did not write any code in Linux or distribute it, they could do both. I see no section in the GPL concerning patents with regards to use within a corporation.
To use it, you have to agree to the GPL.
Of course, this depends on your definition of use. Use as in just run the project or use as in develop off of. The above is in regards to running internally.
You contradict yourself. It doesn't matter wether the company contributed relevant code or anything at all when it comes to patents.
If they want to sue, they still can and do. I see SCO's suit has not been thrown out no matter how invalid it is.
Get your facts straight: SCO never sued anybody for using Linux, they sued IBM for copyright violation. They threatened a lot of people to sue, but they haven't actually sued anybody for using Linux. Because that case would be so ridiculous, even SCO doesn't do that.
So, yes, the GPL doesn't prevent crazy people from threatening to sue.
Of course no license can protect you from 3rd party patent holders, I think that's pretty obvious, don't you think?
But a patent holder is not allowed to use Linux and enforce patents against Linux at the same time. If company X has a patent that would be used in project Y, it can either a) waive the patent and use project Y or b) enforce the patent and drop project Y, it cannot do both.
And that's why the GPL is a pretty good safeguard against corporate lawsuits and so popular for corporate cooperation.
From a user's point of view (who doesn't want to modify and then sell his software), the GPL doesn't matter to him and it can be all summed up into "do whatever you want with it" to him without confusing him. That's the great thing: One worry less.
If you have your licenses in order you have nothing to fear.
Well, you seem to forget:
Most users don't have their licenses in order, piracy is one of the prime reasons DOS/Windows became so widespread in the first place.
Many users have paid but lose their "certificate of authenticity". Yes, I know if you worship Bill Gates you have all your certificates in some vitrine, but normal people don't give a thing about all this licensing bullshit. For them the certificate is just some useless ballast. Many even download Windows off Kazaa because they have lost or scratched their (perfectly legal) recovery CD.
Even if you have your certificates it's not clear wether you are violating the license or not. For example some people say an OEM version is bound to the CPU, others say it's bound to the motherboard, others say it's bound to the motherboard and hard drive, others say it's bound to the motherboard and CPU.
Even if that all is clear and fine, some people just prefer not to being spied on.
Why should I have to put all that effort in bringing my "licenses in order" if I can just use Linux without ever wasting a single thought on licensing?
Of course Microsoft's motives are understandable, but Microsoft's motives being understandable doesn't help the affected people in any way, they are still screwed.
I'd like to add that because Windows Product Activation, people might end up with machines that won't even boot, even if they would agree to run an unsupported system.
Microsoft has never made a statement of what will happen to WPA after the "lifecycle" and they certainly won't send those codes forever...
Have you been living under a rock during the last 30 years? Just look up the history of Unix.
The current versions of BSD-licensed software obviously cannot be suddenly 'un-BSD-licensed'
That doesn't help much if your great BSD-code is not running on the needed hardware or with the needed software or with the needed protocols.
That's what happened with Unix: Hardware vendors made sure that only their proprietary version would run on it, so the original BSD-code became useless.
The same could be done by using software, protocols or patents instead of hardware.
Err, sure, but the GPL can't protect you from patents either, obviously.
Wrong. If you use GPL-code, you agree to wave any rights of patents you might have.
The effect?
If Sony and JVC do a joint project under the BSD license, and Sony has some obscure patent on it, JVC is screwed and Sony essentially owns their work.
If Sony and JVC do a joint project under the GPL license, and Sony has some obscure patent on it, nobody is screwed because Sony would not be allowed to use the project under the GPL if they want to enforce their patent.
And that's exactly why joint projects between companies are much, much more preferrable under the GPL.
It proves that a lot of Windows machines are infected. If it can happen to so many people it can happen to anybody.
I'm no full time admin and I neither have the time nor the commitment to patch everthing weekly. I usually upgrade about twice a year and never had problems on Linux, I would have gotten at least 3-4 mass-worms on Windows with the same level of commitment.
To make a long story short it takes a lot more time to secure Windows than it takes to occasionally upgrade Linux.
And this is also the problem: Whenever I install a new system, I just use the latest Linux-version available and am adequately (Winlots usually pretend to not know the difference between absolute and adequate, please don't.) secure. With Windows I have to install hotfixes and servicepacks everytime I install a machine and often have to pay through the nose for security updates (What does Windows2003 really offer in comparison to Windows2000? Not much except for the comfort of having to install less security fixes.) and if I don't I'm infected by some worm in a matter of hours.
And that's exactly why CodeRed is still there and won't disappear for a long time. Because Microsoft releases so seldom (you always get year-old security problems) and because of their business-model (you just don't want to pay several hundred $ just for a security update) the average fresh and clean Windows install will always be less secure than the average fresh and clean Linux install.
Also, Window's nature is problematic in upgrading. With Linux I can do a "tar cjf settings.tar.bz2/etc" and transfer those settings to a newer box without many problems and in a short time. If there is a problem with a service it is usually solved without big problems, the configuration formats usually don't change and more importantly are all encapsulated, so you can easily pinpoint the problem. On Windows on the other hand, you would have to start exporting parts of the registry, you would have to know which parts. And then you would have to cross your fingers that you are able to import it into the registry of the newer system. I wouldn't dare to export parts of the registry of a WindowsNT4 system and import them in Win2K or even Win2K3, would you?
So, yes Linux is more secure by nature than Windows.
To sum it all up, the only advantage Windows has over Linux is being better established.
Munich will use VMWare while their apps are being ported/rewritten for Linux. In 4-5 years VMWare will no longer be needed by Munich or any other city that might think of switching.
To sum that up, Munich is establishing Linux in the governmental sector.
Or to put it in another way, Windows loses their only advantage. Windows might be marginally cheaper with special Ballmer-discounts when compared to a Linux-VMWare solution, but it won't have a chance compared to a clean Linux solution when all apps are available. And with no advantage left, Windows will become a legacy-platform like OS/2.
That's why Microsoft is so desperate about not losing a single seemingly unimportant contract. That's why Microsoft is doomed in the end.
The more organizations deploy Linux, the lower the cost will become for further deployments.
For example Munich will use VMWare while slowly porting their special Win-only software to Linux.
The next generation will do without VMWare and will lower the cost to migrate to Linux.
Oh, and I might add that 5 cities in Bavaria are also thinking in joining Munich directly.
Also, in 3-4 years, if any hardware company will want to sell hardware to Europe or Asia, it will have to provide Linux drivers which will be beneficial for ALL Linux users.
However I've personally experienced that many systems are more secure than others. Almost all security problems on Unix didn't affect me (like this, BTW. This is actually the first time I've ever heard about lsh) and often were hyped up. In the meantime I get tens of Windows-Virus-mails and attemted IIS infections per day.
The true conclusion:
Windows is like a 50 year old car without safety belts, Unix is like a modern Volvo with safety belts and airbags.
Neither car is "flawless" and you can die in the Volvo too.
For example Microsoft bought the set-top box leader - WebTV and everybody thought they would drive everybody else out of business - yet they screwed it up so badly that despite millions of dollars Tivo etc. overtook the former leader WebTV.
Google is successful with a simple concept: Don't be intrusive, carefully place advertisments and respect your visitor.
What Microsoft and obviously you don't understand is that you don't need an RD budget of billions to deliver that.
Microsoft's company philosophy and ethics are contradicting. They would plaster so many ads out there and scew the search results so much that they would open the way for alternative offers. Just look at MSN-search, the "featured" and "advertized" links are barely distinguishible from the rest. (a pale grey tiny text)
Well, the most obvious one is that's something of an all or nothing proposition. You're either a KDE app (which almost always means C++) and have access to the infrastructure provided, or you aren't. That poses problems for Wine, OpenOffice, Mozilla - not to mention all the desktop neutral software out there like XMMS, Gaim, mplayer and so on.
Well that is pretty much the nature of the beast: Of course only KDE-aware apps can use KDE-specific features.
But I agree that for example GTK-prgrammers could have written wrappers to use KDE-dialogs etc.
That's one side of it, a valid side. But really, the KDE guys made it inevitable when they chose to give two fingers to the philosophy that had made the free software movement possibly in the first place. Having built an entirely free software platform, there were a lot of people who weren't pleased with the idea that it might be compromised by Qt.
While I agree that the original Qt-license was not perfect, I think KDE has chosen a right balance between being open and getting things done - which also made Linux successful in stark contrast to all the GNU-fanatic projects like the Hurd. So yes, Qt's former license was a concern, but not big enough IMO to stop using KDE.
This kind of I-only-care-about-licenses-if-it-concerns-me and get-things-done attitude is exactly what Linux and KDE have in common and which is to a great part reason for their success.
A similar example are binary-only modules in Linux, which were allowed by Linus but most likely not by RMS.
Yet, it pales in comparison to the accomplishment that "could have been" if they had collaborated with the Gnome team (or verse visa) to create one standard desktop.
Which is? IMO KDE delivers a complete desktop without any major shortcomings. Could you come up with an example?
Also GNOME was started because at that time QT was not GPLed and the goal was to replace KDE/Qt.
"Replace" means "destroy" in the software world which isn't a very good start for cooperation.
What are these guys doing right as compared to all the other projects?
In my opinion, the KDE guys are just a bunch of hackers that do it for fun with not much political, religious and legal considerations.
Technical considerations are always number 1 for KDE. As an example, KDE has chosen QT because of it's clean design - despite the license which could have been interpreted as incompatible (or just evil) by some at that time. (Today it's GPLed)
Am I the only one who believes there has got to be more to this claim?
Pretty much, yes. After all, SCO's claims have already paid off for SCO's execs and Microsoft also has paid enough for "licensing" which caused SCO's first profitable quarter in years.
They don't have proof, all they need is people believing there is proof.
Slashdot Mirror
Total installs: 43,144,374(100%)
Of those Windows2003: 185,000(0.4%)
Of those switched from Linux: ~ 9,500(0.002%)
In the meantime...
Apache runs: 27388860 (63.98%)
All IIS combined run: 10165745 (23.75%) (-5.42% compared to Sep2002, -3.70% compared to Apr2002)
The main reason is that no, they are not small enough to be insignificant. I need my front right pocket for my keys and my front left pocket for my Treo and the back pockets break things when I sit down, where could I possibly put another device?
They did sue IBM for violating "their" IP which has nothing to do with Linux or the GPL.
The point is that in the future many whitebox-systems will preload Lindows that would otherwise ship clean.
To use it, you have to agree to the GPL.
Of course, this depends on your definition of use. Use as in just run the project or use as in develop off of. The above is in regards to running internally.
You contradict yourself. It doesn't matter wether the company contributed relevant code or anything at all when it comes to patents.
If they want to sue, they still can and do. I see SCO's suit has not been thrown out no matter how invalid it is.
Get your facts straight: SCO never sued anybody for using Linux, they sued IBM for copyright violation. They threatened a lot of people to sue, but they haven't actually sued anybody for using Linux. Because that case would be so ridiculous, even SCO doesn't do that.
So, yes, the GPL doesn't prevent crazy people from threatening to sue.
Of course no license can protect you from 3rd party patent holders, I think that's pretty obvious, don't you think?
But a patent holder is not allowed to use Linux and enforce patents against Linux at the same time. If company X has a patent that would be used in project Y, it can either a) waive the patent and use project Y or b) enforce the patent and drop project Y, it cannot do both.
And that's why the GPL is a pretty good safeguard against corporate lawsuits and so popular for corporate cooperation.
Yes, I leave off the "GNU/" prefix on purpose.
Well, you seem to forget:
Why should I have to put all that effort in bringing my "licenses in order" if I can just use Linux without ever wasting a single thought on licensing?
Of course Microsoft's motives are understandable, but Microsoft's motives being understandable doesn't help the affected people in any way, they are still screwed.
Microsoft has never made a statement of what will happen to WPA after the "lifecycle" and they certainly won't send those codes forever...
Have you been living under a rock during the last 30 years? Just look up the history of Unix.
The current versions of BSD-licensed software obviously cannot be suddenly 'un-BSD-licensed'
That doesn't help much if your great BSD-code is not running on the needed hardware or with the needed software or with the needed protocols.
That's what happened with Unix: Hardware vendors made sure that only their proprietary version would run on it, so the original BSD-code became useless.
The same could be done by using software, protocols or patents instead of hardware.
Err, sure, but the GPL can't protect you from patents either, obviously.
Wrong. If you use GPL-code, you agree to wave any rights of patents you might have.
The effect?
If Sony and JVC do a joint project under the BSD license, and Sony has some obscure patent on it, JVC is screwed and Sony essentially owns their work.
If Sony and JVC do a joint project under the GPL license, and Sony has some obscure patent on it, nobody is screwed because Sony would not be allowed to use the project under the GPL if they want to enforce their patent.
And that's exactly why joint projects between companies are much, much more preferrable under the GPL.
To make a long story short it takes a lot more time to secure Windows than it takes to occasionally upgrade Linux.
And this is also the problem: Whenever I install a new system, I just use the latest Linux-version available and am adequately (Winlots usually pretend to not know the difference between absolute and adequate, please don't.) secure. With Windows I have to install hotfixes and servicepacks everytime I install a machine and often have to pay through the nose for security updates (What does Windows2003 really offer in comparison to Windows2000? Not much except for the comfort of having to install less security fixes.) and if I don't I'm infected by some worm in a matter of hours.
And that's exactly why CodeRed is still there and won't disappear for a long time. Because Microsoft releases so seldom (you always get year-old security problems) and because of their business-model (you just don't want to pay several hundred $ just for a security update) the average fresh and clean Windows install will always be less secure than the average fresh and clean Linux install.
Also, Window's nature is problematic in upgrading. With Linux I can do a "tar cjf settings.tar.bz2 /etc" and transfer those settings to a newer box without many problems and in a short time. If there is a problem with a service it is usually solved without big problems, the configuration formats usually don't change and more importantly are all encapsulated, so you can easily pinpoint the problem. On Windows on the other hand, you would have to start exporting parts of the registry, you would have to know which parts. And then you would have to cross your fingers that you are able to import it into the registry of the newer system. I wouldn't dare to export parts of the registry of a WindowsNT4 system and import them in Win2K or even Win2K3, would you?
So, yes Linux is more secure by nature than Windows.
What does Windows really offer over Linux?
To sum it all up, the only advantage Windows has over Linux is being better established.
Munich will use VMWare while their apps are being ported/rewritten for Linux. In 4-5 years VMWare will no longer be needed by Munich or any other city that might think of switching.
To sum that up, Munich is establishing Linux in the governmental sector.
Or to put it in another way, Windows loses their only advantage. Windows might be marginally cheaper with special Ballmer-discounts when compared to a Linux-VMWare solution, but it won't have a chance compared to a clean Linux solution when all apps are available. And with no advantage left, Windows will become a legacy-platform like OS/2.
That's why Microsoft is so desperate about not losing a single seemingly unimportant contract. That's why Microsoft is doomed in the end.
For example Munich will use VMWare while slowly porting their special Win-only software to Linux.
The next generation will do without VMWare and will lower the cost to migrate to Linux.
Oh, and I might add that 5 cities in Bavaria are also thinking in joining Munich directly.
Also, in 3-4 years, if any hardware company will want to sell hardware to Europe or Asia, it will have to provide Linux drivers which will be beneficial for ALL Linux users.
BSD can be highjacked anytime (exactly what happened to Unix) and it doesn't protect you from patents.
The GPL is a true hassle-free "no-sue" license.
Nobody ever claimed it would be.
However I've personally experienced that many systems are more secure than others. Almost all security problems on Unix didn't affect me (like this, BTW. This is actually the first time I've ever heard about lsh) and often were hyped up. In the meantime I get tens of Windows-Virus-mails and attemted IIS infections per day.
The true conclusion:
Windows is like a 50 year old car without safety belts, Unix is like a modern Volvo with safety belts and airbags.
Neither car is "flawless" and you can die in the Volvo too.
The batteries will cause many times the waste and energy when manufactured than they will be able to "safe" in their whole lifetime.
The hard, cold and terrible truth is that the only real way to reduce emmissions is to use fewer and smaller cars.
For example Microsoft bought the set-top box leader - WebTV and everybody thought they would drive everybody else out of business - yet they screwed it up so badly that despite millions of dollars Tivo etc. overtook the former leader WebTV.
Google is successful with a simple concept: Don't be intrusive, carefully place advertisments and respect your visitor.
What Microsoft and obviously you don't understand is that you don't need an RD budget of billions to deliver that.
Microsoft's company philosophy and ethics are contradicting. They would plaster so many ads out there and scew the search results so much that they would open the way for alternative offers. Just look at MSN-search, the "featured" and "advertized" links are barely distinguishible from the rest. (a pale grey tiny text)
I guess that most investors just gamble.
Well that is pretty much the nature of the beast: Of course only KDE-aware apps can use KDE-specific features.
But I agree that for example GTK-prgrammers could have written wrappers to use KDE-dialogs etc.
That's one side of it, a valid side. But really, the KDE guys made it inevitable when they chose to give two fingers to the philosophy that had made the free software movement possibly in the first place. Having built an entirely free software platform, there were a lot of people who weren't pleased with the idea that it might be compromised by Qt.
While I agree that the original Qt-license was not perfect, I think KDE has chosen a right balance between being open and getting things done - which also made Linux successful in stark contrast to all the GNU-fanatic projects like the Hurd. So yes, Qt's former license was a concern, but not big enough IMO to stop using KDE.
This kind of I-only-care-about-licenses-if-it-concerns-me and get-things-done attitude is exactly what Linux and KDE have in common and which is to a great part reason for their success.
A similar example are binary-only modules in Linux, which were allowed by Linus but most likely not by RMS.
Which is? IMO KDE delivers a complete desktop without any major shortcomings. Could you come up with an example?
Also GNOME was started because at that time QT was not GPLed and the goal was to replace KDE/Qt.
"Replace" means "destroy" in the software world which isn't a very good start for cooperation.
In my opinion, the KDE guys are just a bunch of hackers that do it for fun with not much political, religious and legal considerations.
Technical considerations are always number 1 for KDE. As an example, KDE has chosen QT because of it's clean design - despite the license which could have been interpreted as incompatible (or just evil) by some at that time. (Today it's GPLed)
Pretty much, yes. After all, SCO's claims have already paid off for SCO's execs and Microsoft also has paid enough for "licensing" which caused SCO's first profitable quarter in years.
They don't have proof, all they need is people believing there is proof.