Neither testing nor unstable seem to get timely security updates.
Is this actually true? Do the updates come out on time? If so, I'm switching to Debian testing on my server (x2), and I'm switching to Debian unstable on my desktop *grin*
The NRA promotes the rights of individuals to OWN guns, and safe usage procedures regarding guns.
The NRA is pro-gun in the sense that the are pro-gun rights.
They are not pro-gun in the sense that they believe everyone should have unfettered access to a multiude of weaponry, and they are especially not pro-gun in the sense that everyone should be shooting everyone else.
It most definetly IS an anti-gun statement by Symantec----many of these pro-gun sites contain quite a bit of information that I see no problem in giving to children.
I have a feeling that if they do manage to win something like this, than IBM will have more room to play with their claim that SCO distributed their supposedly 'proprietary' code in their GPL'ed Caldera distribution.
The result of this is that ALL linux, including the supposedly SCO infringing material, would exist under some sort of a BSD license.
Not a big deal. You know why? Because we can just relicense it (piece by piece), under a corrected, SCO-resistant GPL v4.
Even if SCO kills the GPL, it doesn't make a bit of difference.
Unless the courts make some crazy, broad interpretation which bans any sort of a copyleft license, and public-domains all copyleft stuff, while simultaneously agreeing that SCO unknowingly released the code into linux, and that stuff is all proprietary.
If THAT happens, and we do actually live in some kind of crazy, twilight zone universe,.... then....
a) It's HIGHLY unlikely that the judge will do that. Contracts require some sort of exchange of compensation. Doubtful that the judge will invalidate one side of that. Much, much more likely that the judge will decide than since the 'if you do this, this, and this' section' is invalid, only standard copyright appli\es, and the GPL is voided.
b) If the GPL is either voided OR modified in the way you have described, the FSF can change it, release GPL v4, and we can relicense Linux, et al.
Sure it will be a GIGANTIC bitch, but it can, and will, be done.
This will have a much more interesting effect upon SCO regarding other GPLed and GNU tools in SCO Unix --- i.e. its probably much easier for the Samba team to relicense Samba such that SCO can't use it.
And maybe make changes to the codebase to break Samba (and other) compatability with SCO products.
If some crazy judge says the GPL=unenforcable, so all the code is public domain, and linux is property of TSG, than I say it is time to start firebombing;=)
One of the reasons that people often justify Mac purchases is that the hardware has greater longevity than x86 stuff.
If people like you are stuck in this sort of 'bind', then that is no longer true.
I was thinking about purchasing an older, 'Beige' G3 on e-bay to play with OS X----does this affect all models (ie does Panther not work on all Beige G3s?)
They have a hardened group of insane users who simply won't switch to anything else.
As such, it makes good business sense for Apple to make them pay through the noise----They've got them by the short and curlies, now then can generate revenue by forcing Apple users to constantly purchase new stuff.
Look for Apple to move to a subscription OS model, soon.
If I had to upgrade my OS every year in order to get the latest security patches, I would shit a brick.
Seriously.
I'm glad that all the machines in my office get automatic patches from SuSE. I spend enough time screwing around with the applications on my system.
If my OS works, I don't want to have to upgrade it. I don't care how easy it is, I don't care how much cool stuff comes with it.
That's what my 'test-bed' (read toy) systems at home are for.
When I'm working, I have work to do. We've been very, very seriously considering getting some OS X boxes, but if I don't see a patch come out for older version of OS X, the most I will do is get a Mac for my home (to go along side my 8 pcs;-).
No patches=no business use./flame Seriously, though, I'll be very surprised if they don't patch the older versions. They'll probably get round to it after a week or so.
But it seems to me that they are much quieter than most companies would be about such a lawsuit.
The only thing they have said, over and over again, is "we have a strong case, we are looking forward to court".
Not "we tried to work out some sort of deal and failed", not "we were open to negotiation but they shot us down", not "legal action is occuring as a last resort.
They keep saying, "lets see them in court".
Sound very, very confident to me. Remember--->IBM has the SCO System V source code----They probably have a better archive of it than SCO. They have a better, and better funded legal team. A much more extensive management staff with a great deal more experience.
Copious records with oversight beyond belief.
IBM doesn't just do bigger/more business than SCO.
I know it is probably because they are so certain of their case, and because they don't really want to join the current shit slinging freak-show that is SCO, but. ..
I almost get the impression that IBM is not making a sound for fear that too much pressure on SCO will simply cause them to fold.
When you have a million to one advantage against your enemies, there really isn't any reason to jockey for position.
It is hard enough to keep them in the game, and IBM legal knows as well as anyone else that splattering Boise & Co. in the court room will be some seriously positive publicity.
Willful infringement for the purpose of commercial/finanical gain.
Felony charges. Minimum 3 years in prison.
Generally, I believe that the amount of prison time is proportional to the distribution. In SCO's case, it is going to be pretty damn big.
And, you know, depending on why the GPL is declared invalid (not that I think it will be, infact, I'm pretty damn sure it won't) one of two things may occur: a)GPL won't actually be found invalid, instead, SCO's crazy ass-ed interpretation of the GPL will force them into some kind of bind where they will be inviolation of it, and loose the right to distribute under it b)It will be found invalid in some tiny and specific way, and only the current revision of the GPL. GPL v4 will come out quickly, fix whatever error existed, and the opensource world will have a hell of a time moving everyting over to it. Or even better, it will only be found inapplicable to the linux kernel for some crazy reason, in which GPL v3.x for linux will be released, fixing the problem.
If either of these occur, or the GPL is just plain busted, SCO execs will go to jail and owe huge fines.
Not that it is much consolation--->It would really suck if the GPL was crushed. But it would feel good that the people who did it were screwed in the end anyways.
The way that you are portraying this conflict, as if the GPL(and/or the notion of free products produced for 'the love of the game) can not coexist with notions of business.
I think that is only part of the story. Opponents of free products, mainly business people incapable of producing a good product, often feel this way.
There is another position, and its not actually that new of an ideology.
Think Patents. Now, I don't think that the cookie cutter 14 years is good for all patents, and I certainly don't think that the broad way in which patents are interpreted is necessarily good, but, think about it: Being part of the patent system means giving up your secrets/methods to the public.
Yes---After 14 years, whatever it is you have patented becomes avaliable for anyone to use, no questions asked.
If you think back even farther, there was a time (perhaps renaissance age+earlier) when works of art/craftsman ship were commissioned, not purchased. Imagine a world in which corporations decided they needed software to fill a certain job, and therefore commission a developer to create it.
Given that it is much easier to stand on top of the sholders of others than starting from scratch, and as long as the software itself isn't your core business, most business people wouldn't have a problem releasing it to other corporations+individuals as an act of 'good faith'.
It was only a matter of time till someone understood this, but the situation needed a jumpstart---hence, the FSF.
Corporations picked up on it, and now sell improvements to Opencode bases. Software programmers now act as coders for hire, rather than peddlers of a product.
Fast forward a few years more, and you have huge corporations who have picked up on this model. Redhat, Sun, IBM, etc, etc . ..
Of course, there is always the old guard (SCO, MS, etc. ..) who haven't yet realized this value in this proposition, or who have vast sunk costs (either real or perceived) and are unwilling to write them off.
But free software makes sense. The only problem is how you can prevent someone from taking your work (i.e. MS) and embracing/extending.
As much as I disliked RMS, thinking of the GPL in game theoretic terms, it really makes a lot of sense.
The GPL is, for the most part, a tit-for-tat strategy. Any game theorists knows that in the long run tit-for-tat is the guaranteed best strategy in any game---> It always allows for win-win, and discourages attempts to take advantage of the other (defecting). I play nicely with your code? You can then use mine! I refuse to reveal my code? Then I can't integrate yours.
It even has a little bit of a blacksheep clause, where if the GPL is declared invalid on one part of a codebase, you are no longer permitted to distribute any part of that codebase.
It seems to me that a brillant extension of the GPL would be a cross-product restriction---i.e. the GPL v4 could include a provision whereby if you violated the GPL on any codebase that your organization offered you would no longer be permitted to use the licensed codebase (I'm pretty sure that the restriction could only apply on a case-by-case basis, but that wouldn't matter if everyone upgraded to the GPL v4).
Any, just my $0.02. Not every business man is the way you are portraying. Many honestly love what they produce, and are extremely proud of having an excellent product.
They would produce that product even if they couldn't make any money off of it---They would produce it for the love of the game.
This sort of envy of free 'works of art' really only comes into play with substandard producers attempting to make a quick buck (I would argure that MS is one of those corporations).
The next phrase in the comment----instead of a . , it should have been a;
My grandfather was a British judge, and if you had asked him whether or not unwanted pop-unders were 'modification' of a user's computer, I'm sure he would have said yes.
Money in the bank stimulates the economy too because it makes money available to institutions that can loan it to yet others which in turn stimulates the economy
This include money in the stock market, mutual funds, bonds, and other financial institutions.
Heck, I'd even argue that well-maintained loans are part of the waterfall effect too-->Your gain assets by leveraging something or other, and the bank gains assets by the terms of the loans. It the wealth effect at its finest.
It's only when good debt goes bad, and stupid fund bankers invest in random one-shots like SCO, and P/E ratios shoot into the heavens that the effective 'extra liquidity' that the trickle down effect generates is wasted.
Why not troll under a username? Given the craptacular moderation system, you should be able to get yourself up and down the Karma scale as fast as you like!
Yo: It has very little to do with how the internet/internet protocols work. It has much, much more to do with how some not-computer-literate judge feels about the situation.
No offense to British judges, but my grandfather was a British judge. They are much like American judges.
They are hardworking, intelligent people, who know very, very little about technology.
Get yourself a permanent ID, AC.
You are an amateur troll. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. Go directly to slashdot hell.
P.S. I only respond to you to prevent you from harassing other, less flame hardened slashdotters.
Though, I'm not *CERTAIN* that your analysis is correct, both not being a lawyer, and not living in the U.K. (though I think I still hold U.K. citizenship), I'm also not *CERTAIN* that you are incorrect.
I think that the way everyone is conceiving of an Apply x86 shift is rather shallow.
Here is a scenario I would really enjoy to see happening:
a)Apple works together with IBM or Intel or whoever to provide reasonable (not great, just reasonable enough for legacy apps) emulation of the G4 (G3), so that a P4/K7(or K8) 1.5+ Ghz could run G3/G4 software at a reasonable clip. Trolls who say that G3/G4 are much faster than comparable solutions from intel/amd? Bug off--->the G5 maybe in the same performance class as modern Intel/AMD offerings, but the G3s definetly were not, and the G4s were pretty weak, too.
b)Apple moves out of the hardware business, into the 'open standards' business. As well as selling systems OR software, Apple would sell reference design licenses to OEMs, who would then produce an 'Apple conformant' PC. OS X, Apple approved drivers, Apple approved software, Apple approved hardware designs---> We would see Apple doing exactly what Microsoft is trying to do with the whole Windows vertical integration scheme, except Apple does a much better job.
Apple could continue to sell its own 'name' branded hardware, but in the long run it would serve their interest to enter the 'exclusive' oem reference design business; fewer manufacturing problems to deal with, all that liability can be someone elses problem.
Apple COULD compete with Microsoft, if it attacked it in the same fashion that Microsoft is trying to control the industry--->It must address the entire product chain, and it should outsource manufacturing and sales to OEM distributors--> NeXTstep, BeOS, OS/2, and all of the workstation *NIX companies sought to maintain their own hardware/operating system combination, and lost big.
Apple is still surviving, but hasn't yet understood the way Microsoft manages to sell 'Windows Machines' without actually building a single computer.
You don't call it a Compaq, or a Dell anymore. You don't call it an IBM, or a PC, or an x86 box.
The vast majority of consumers call them Windows boxes; and I think that Apple could play that game (in the x86 world), and beat Microsoft at it.
I thought that IBM could do the same thing with OS/2, but they just didn't have the balls for that.
Eolas is a 100% private company. All owned by its 1 employee.
No possibility of a hostile takeover there.
Eolas wasn't willing to sell the patent. I don't remember the article, but the Eolas guy specifically says that he wanted to use his patent to change the landscape of the broswer industry; he talks about allowing other browsers back into the market by only enforcing his patent against Microsoft (and wining a HUGE chunk of change in the process).
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah....
Debian stable is way, way, too ancient for me.
Debian testing is pretty old to, be okay.
Debian unstable is fine.
Neither testing nor unstable seem to get timely security updates.
Is this actually true? Do the updates come out on time? If so, I'm switching to Debian testing on my server (x2), and I'm switching to Debian unstable on my desktop *grin*
SuSE.....
The corporation it self is a little weird, but SuSE is a really great product.
I'm sure that the SuSE executives were salivating when they heard this new.
Best of all, updates are free.
This is retarded.
The NRA is not a gun promoting site.
The NRA promotes the rights of individuals to OWN guns, and safe usage procedures regarding guns.
The NRA is pro-gun in the sense that the are pro-gun rights.
They are not pro-gun in the sense that they believe everyone should have unfettered access to a multiude of weaponry, and they are especially not pro-gun in the sense that everyone should be shooting everyone else.
It most definetly IS an anti-gun statement by Symantec----many of these pro-gun sites contain quite a bit of information that I see no problem in giving to children.
I have a feeling that if they do manage to win something like this, than IBM will have more room to play with their claim that SCO distributed their supposedly 'proprietary' code in their GPL'ed Caldera distribution.
.... then....
The result of this is that ALL linux, including the supposedly SCO infringing material, would exist under some sort of a BSD license.
Not a big deal. You know why? Because we can just relicense it (piece by piece), under a corrected, SCO-resistant GPL v4.
Even if SCO kills the GPL, it doesn't make a bit of difference.
Unless the courts make some crazy, broad interpretation which bans any sort of a copyleft license, and public-domains all copyleft stuff, while simultaneously agreeing that SCO unknowingly released the code into linux, and that stuff is all proprietary.
If THAT happens, and we do actually live in some kind of crazy, twilight zone universe,
I'll be first in line for the revolution!
I have 2 thoughts on the matter:
a) It's HIGHLY unlikely that the judge will do that. Contracts require some sort of exchange of compensation. Doubtful that the judge will invalidate one side of that. Much, much more likely that the judge will decide than since the 'if you do this, this, and this' section' is invalid, only standard copyright appli\es, and the GPL is voided.
b) If the GPL is either voided OR modified in the way you have described, the FSF can change it, release GPL v4, and we can relicense Linux, et al.
Sure it will be a GIGANTIC bitch, but it can, and will, be done.
This will have a much more interesting effect upon SCO regarding other GPLed and GNU tools in SCO Unix --- i.e. its probably much easier for the Samba team to relicense Samba such that SCO can't use it.
And maybe make changes to the codebase to break Samba (and other) compatability with SCO products.
Nobody listens to me about this :)
;=)
:)
If some crazy judge says the GPL=unenforcable, so all the code is public domain, and linux is property of TSG, than I say it is time to start firebombing
Not that I would ever do anything violent
Pentium Pro may not run XP (I bet it would, just really slowly).
We run XP just fine at work on Pentium II 333 Mhz or our K6-2 300 Mhz systems. Of course, you need a crapload of ram, but thats okay.
And I've been upgrading the same generation of systems to SuSE 8.2 one by one.
One of the reasons that people often justify Mac purchases is that the hardware has greater longevity than x86 stuff.
If people like you are stuck in this sort of 'bind', then that is no longer true.
I was thinking about purchasing an older, 'Beige' G3 on e-bay to play with OS X----does this affect all models (ie does Panther not work on all Beige G3s?)
I think I've figured it out.
They have a hardened group of insane users who simply won't switch to anything else.
As such, it makes good business sense for Apple to make them pay through the noise----They've got them by the short and curlies, now then can generate revenue by forcing Apple users to constantly purchase new stuff.
Look for Apple to move to a subscription OS model, soon.
I agree.
If Apple doesn't release security fixes for 10.2, this is the end of Apple.
It think it is much more likely that they fix 10.3 first, because it is higher profile, and that patches will filter down over the next 2-3 weeks.
I guess I'm going to be modded as flamebait...
;-).
/flame
But...
If I had to upgrade my OS every year in order to get the latest security patches, I would shit a brick.
Seriously.
I'm glad that all the machines in my office get automatic patches from SuSE. I spend enough time screwing around with the applications on my system.
If my OS works, I don't want to have to upgrade it. I don't care how easy it is, I don't care how much cool stuff comes with it.
That's what my 'test-bed' (read toy) systems at home are for.
When I'm working, I have work to do. We've been very, very seriously considering getting some OS X boxes, but if I don't see a patch come out for older version of OS X, the most I will do is get a Mac for my home (to go along side my 8 pcs
No patches=no business use.
Seriously, though, I'll be very surprised if they don't patch the older versions. They'll probably get round to it after a week or so.
Actually, I think SCO's got 2 2s, and a big silly grin.
I know about that---
But it seems to me that they are much quieter than most companies would be about such a lawsuit.
The only thing they have said, over and over again, is "we have a strong case, we are looking forward to court".
Not "we tried to work out some sort of deal and failed", not "we were open to negotiation but they shot us down", not "legal action is occuring as a last resort.
They keep saying, "lets see them in court".
Sound very, very confident to me. Remember--->IBM has the SCO System V source code----They probably have a better archive of it than SCO. They have a better, and better funded legal team. A much more extensive management staff with a great deal more experience.
Copious records with oversight beyond belief.
IBM doesn't just do bigger/more business than SCO.
They run a 'tighter' ship.
I know it is probably because they are so certain of their case, and because they don't really want to join the current shit slinging freak-show that is SCO, but. . .
I almost get the impression that IBM is not making a sound for fear that too much pressure on SCO will simply cause them to fold.
When you have a million to one advantage against your enemies, there really isn't any reason to jockey for position.
It is hard enough to keep them in the game, and IBM legal knows as well as anyone else that splattering Boise & Co. in the court room will be some seriously positive publicity.
Than I suspect Darl and Co will get jail-time.
Someone should have warned them about this.
GPL=void.
Samba=no longer able to be distributed.
SCO sells Samba as part of Unixware.
Willful infringement for the purpose of commercial/finanical gain.
Felony charges. Minimum 3 years in prison.
Generally, I believe that the amount of prison time is proportional to the distribution. In SCO's case, it is going to be pretty damn big.
And, you know, depending on why the GPL is declared invalid (not that I think it will be, infact, I'm pretty damn sure it won't) one of two things may occur:
a)GPL won't actually be found invalid, instead, SCO's crazy ass-ed interpretation of the GPL will force them into some kind of bind where they will be inviolation of it, and loose the right to distribute under it
b)It will be found invalid in some tiny and specific way, and only the current revision of the GPL. GPL v4 will come out quickly, fix whatever error existed, and the opensource world will have a hell of a time moving everyting over to it. Or even better, it will only be found inapplicable to the linux kernel for some crazy reason, in which GPL v3.x for linux will be released, fixing the problem.
If either of these occur, or the GPL is just plain busted, SCO execs will go to jail and owe huge fines.
Not that it is much consolation--->It would really suck if the GPL was crushed. But it would feel good that the people who did it were screwed in the end anyways.
I think I have to take issue with this.
.
.) who haven't yet realized this value in this proposition, or who have vast sunk costs (either real or perceived) and are unwilling to write them off.
The way that you are portraying this conflict, as if the GPL(and/or the notion of free products produced for 'the love of the game) can not coexist with notions of business.
I think that is only part of the story. Opponents of free products, mainly business people incapable of producing a good product, often feel this way.
There is another position, and its not actually that new of an ideology.
Think Patents. Now, I don't think that the cookie cutter 14 years is good for all patents, and I certainly don't think that the broad way in which patents are interpreted is necessarily good, but, think about it: Being part of the patent system means giving up your secrets/methods to the public.
Yes---After 14 years, whatever it is you have patented becomes avaliable for anyone to use, no questions asked.
If you think back even farther, there was a time (perhaps renaissance age+earlier) when works of art/craftsman ship were commissioned, not purchased. Imagine a world in which corporations decided they needed software to fill a certain job, and therefore commission a developer to create it.
Given that it is much easier to stand on top of the sholders of others than starting from scratch, and as long as the software itself isn't your core business, most business people wouldn't have a problem releasing it to other corporations+individuals as an act of 'good faith'.
It was only a matter of time till someone understood this, but the situation needed a jumpstart---hence, the FSF.
Corporations picked up on it, and now sell improvements to Opencode bases. Software programmers now act as coders for hire, rather than peddlers of a product.
Fast forward a few years more, and you have huge corporations who have picked up on this model. Redhat, Sun, IBM, etc, etc . .
Of course, there is always the old guard (SCO, MS, etc. .
But free software makes sense. The only problem is how you can prevent someone from taking your work (i.e. MS) and embracing/extending.
As much as I disliked RMS, thinking of the GPL in game theoretic terms, it really makes a lot of sense.
The GPL is, for the most part, a tit-for-tat strategy. Any game theorists knows that in the long run tit-for-tat is the guaranteed best strategy in any game---> It always allows for win-win, and discourages attempts to take advantage of the other (defecting). I play nicely with your code? You can then use mine! I refuse to reveal my code? Then I can't integrate yours.
It even has a little bit of a blacksheep clause, where if the GPL is declared invalid on one part of a codebase, you are no longer permitted to distribute any part of that codebase.
It seems to me that a brillant extension of the GPL would be a cross-product restriction---i.e. the GPL v4 could include a provision whereby if you violated the GPL on any codebase that your organization offered you would no longer be permitted to use the licensed codebase (I'm pretty sure that the restriction could only apply on a case-by-case basis, but that wouldn't matter if everyone upgraded to the GPL v4).
Any, just my $0.02. Not every business man is the way you are portraying. Many honestly love what they produce, and are extremely proud of having an excellent product.
They would produce that product even if they couldn't make any money off of it---They would produce it for the love of the game.
This sort of envy of free 'works of art' really only comes into play with substandard producers attempting to make a quick buck (I would argure that MS is one of those corporations).
The next phrase in the comment----instead of a . , it should have been a ;
My grandfather was a British judge, and if you had asked him whether or not unwanted pop-unders were 'modification' of a user's computer, I'm sure he would have said yes.
Judges=Not generally technically literate.
Smart: Yes
Technical: No
This include money in the stock market, mutual funds, bonds, and other financial institutions.
Heck, I'd even argue that well-maintained loans are part of the waterfall effect too-->Your gain assets by leveraging something or other, and the bank gains assets by the terms of the loans. It the wealth effect at its finest.
It's only when good debt goes bad, and stupid fund bankers invest in random one-shots like SCO, and P/E ratios shoot into the heavens that the effective 'extra liquidity' that the trickle down effect generates is wasted.
Trolling around, Trolling around.....
Why not troll under a username? Given the craptacular moderation system, you should be able to get yourself up and down the Karma scale as fast as you like!
Yo: It has very little to do with how the internet/internet protocols work. It has much, much more to do with how some not-computer-literate judge feels about the situation.
No offense to British judges, but my grandfather was a British judge. They are much like American judges.
They are hardworking, intelligent people, who know very, very little about technology.
Get yourself a permanent ID, AC.
You are an amateur troll. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. Go directly to slashdot hell.
P.S. I only respond to you to prevent you from harassing other, less flame hardened slashdotters.
YHBT
;-)
You Have Been Trolled
Though, I'm not *CERTAIN* that your analysis is correct, both not being a lawyer, and not living in the U.K. (though I think I still hold U.K. citizenship), I'm also not *CERTAIN* that you are incorrect.
Please don't feed the trolls
Its NASA's own damn fault.
If they wish to avoid being sued, they can simply release all related documents. This classified BS after 50 years is ridiculous.
Um----
If NASA wants to not spend money on a lawsuit, they can simply release the documents.
Why do they have to file a lawsuit? Why exactly is NASA keeping in secret?
How the hell is anything that is US/Russia aerospace research oriented still worth classifying 50 years after the fact?
If the administrators at NASA are willing to go the the wall protecting these secrets, then they damn well are secrets that I want to know about.
I think that the way everyone is conceiving of an Apply x86 shift is rather shallow.
Here is a scenario I would really enjoy to see happening:
a)Apple works together with IBM or Intel or whoever to provide reasonable (not great, just reasonable enough for legacy apps) emulation of the G4 (G3), so that a P4/K7(or K8) 1.5+ Ghz could run G3/G4 software at a reasonable clip. Trolls who say that G3/G4 are much faster than comparable solutions from intel/amd? Bug off--->the G5 maybe in the same performance class as modern Intel/AMD offerings, but the G3s definetly were not, and the G4s were pretty weak, too.
b)Apple moves out of the hardware business, into the 'open standards' business. As well as selling systems OR software, Apple would sell reference design licenses to OEMs, who would then produce an 'Apple conformant' PC. OS X, Apple approved drivers, Apple approved software, Apple approved hardware designs---> We would see Apple doing exactly what Microsoft is trying to do with the whole Windows vertical integration scheme, except Apple does a much better job.
Apple could continue to sell its own 'name' branded hardware, but in the long run it would serve their interest to enter the 'exclusive' oem reference design business; fewer manufacturing problems to deal with, all that liability can be someone elses problem.
Apple COULD compete with Microsoft, if it attacked it in the same fashion that Microsoft is trying to control the industry--->It must address the entire product chain, and it should outsource manufacturing and sales to OEM distributors--> NeXTstep, BeOS, OS/2, and all of the workstation *NIX companies sought to maintain their own hardware/operating system combination, and lost big.
Apple is still surviving, but hasn't yet understood the way Microsoft manages to sell 'Windows Machines' without actually building a single computer.
You don't call it a Compaq, or a Dell anymore. You don't call it an IBM, or a PC, or an x86 box.
The vast majority of consumers call them Windows boxes; and I think that Apple could play that game (in the x86 world), and beat Microsoft at it.
I thought that IBM could do the same thing with OS/2, but they just didn't have the balls for that.
Eolas didn't let them.
Eolas is a 100% private company. All owned by its 1 employee.
No possibility of a hostile takeover there.
Eolas wasn't willing to sell the patent. I don't remember the article, but the Eolas guy specifically says that he wanted to use his patent to change the landscape of the broswer industry; he talks about allowing other browsers back into the market by only enforcing his patent against Microsoft (and wining a HUGE chunk of change in the process).
You DID here what happened to the 'experimental' cruiser that had all of its control systems running on NT servers?
You DO know that it may 2 (only 2) voyages out of port, and both times it had to be towed back into port because of a system-wide software failure?
Not that I think the USN could sue MS, but....
Even if it is a 'special' NT, its performance was extremely questionable.
And embarassing, for MS