That might be the case if Microsoft IMMEDIATELY ceased distribution of that version of Windows and quickly remedied the situation by removing the offending code and creating patches to extract that code from shipped binaries.
You have this backwards. Microsoft would still be able to legally ship Windows under its normal license agreement. The GPL program would be illegal, however, and would have to cease distribution until the offending code was removed. This is covered in the GPL license, which SCO has read and you have not.
The GPL does not eliminate copyright. It works precisely *because of* copyright.
Someone posting things to the official company website, assuming they have authority to do so (in general - IE, they aren't cracking the webserver) is acting in thier capacity as a representative of the company. It doesn't matter that the engineer doesn't personally own the code.
[sarcasm]That's good to know. I will tell you what. I will go ahead and submit a long screed about how my company sucks into our web content, then grab a few computers on my way out. Since I am a representative of the company, it is all right. Then I will hire you to be my lawyer. Does this sound like a good plan?[/sarcasm]
Employees who do not act in the interest of a company, especially when they are not acting with orders from management are *NOT* representing the company in their actions. Employees are empowered to be representatives of the company through orders from higher up. When they cease to do what they are told, or act on their own without authorization they do not represent the company.
This is a pretty simple concept. I can tell you if I ever become a hiring manager I will be sure to screen out people like you, since you seem to think your employee badge is a license to steal.
The engineers did not release the code. The company did.
According to SCO, IBM did. But it was not IBM's code to release. It was SCO's code. If this is true, they had no right to release it, and the SCO representative's reading of the relevant GPL sections is correct in such matters.
The bit about letting their customers have the code is something of a sticky wicket. But I think they would be premature in recalling anything at all until a judge has made some sort of decision in the matter, even if it is only a preliminary injunction.
For recruiters, it's all about time-to-hier... for the gov't, it's about fairness, ie. Equal Opportunity.
Yes, well, none of these people who were complaining are the government. Anyway, it is obvious they don't know how to use their computer systems properly and need to hire more staff. The guy that said it takes him all day to mail confirmation letters made me fall out of my chair laughing. He already has the names and addresses. He probably has Microsoft Word. So why can't he just have the computer generate form letters and automatically mail them out? Or do what most companies do in response to email resumes and respond in kind automagically? (with a form email saying "Thank you for your submission, blah blah blah...)
Scoring systems? Do you have any idea how widely available automatic scoring systems for resumes are? Or how stupidly easy it would be to whip one up with a perl or shell script in an afternoon? I mean a computer can already parse through resumes in multiple formats and give you the top n resumes based on a buzzword scoring system, given the right software, and lots of companies use that software, which is why resume writers massage the hell out of resumes to make sure they will score well in such systems.
These people are making it harder on themselves than they need to. If they hired more competent staff, they would not have this problem at all. As for your contention about reading all resumes, give me a break. Most companies do not do that, and even if they did, it is perfectly acceptable to only accept n resumes (where n is a number precalculated as being a quantity the current staff can process in a reasonable timeframe) or to cut off accepting resumes after a given date.
Even if you accept all the resumes in the world, it is relatively trivial to put all this in a database you can search later, which is again what the big companies do.
Re:Dang it, there goes my stomach lining...
on
I, Spammer
·
· Score: 1
This is just more of the same problem we seem to have in this country. Our lawmakers can't even keep track of the laws they have passed so they just keep making more laws covering the same crap. Then they fail to enforce them. assholes!
Six months ago, when Infinity Consulting Group began looking for three new employees to upgrade computers, the company received more than 300 resumes and inquiries by e-mail.
...
The struggle was so tough for Infinity that it has yet to hire one of the three new employees it was seeking.
Maybe if they quit posting jobs they don't intend to hire anyone for, they would not be so overwhelmed. or maybe they could hire more HR or IT staff. If all the companies complaining about this hired a few people instead, they would not have this problem.
IANAL, but there is no requirement afaik for employers to look at all resumes. So maybe they have to store them all, but once they find the candidate they want to hire they can always close the position (and stop accepting resumes for it). Maybe some of those people they should be hiring could fix the software that handles the resume submissions (big companies like Dell, Microsoft, IBM, etc who get lots of resume submissions have automated software that puts a reasonable number of resumes in the hands of the person who is supposed to deal with it, and it can't be that hard to come up with a well designed system).
Congratulations. You read a sentence out of the article. However, you neglected to read any of the sources pointed to in the article, or the examples of exactly what kind of services were being provided in what towns for what price (and I almost wanted to pack up my bags and head for Glasgow, KY. I mean check out the prices!
Anyway, the whole thing is clearly a no-brainer. This is how we should have handled broadband in the first place.
How did this get modded insightful? It's fairly obvious that the original poster was referring to legal requirements, not absolute needs. Besides, it doesn't matter if you can live without electricity and running water - try it in the US and you risk having your building condemned.
Actually, as the poster from New Mexico was pointing out, there are still plenty of parts of the US where no running water or electricity are available (for instance I knew lots of Alaskans with no runnning water in their homes). There are laws requiring that it be made available, however, which is what you were talking about.
There are plenty of US citizens who feel internet should be given the same treatment as was once given to electricity, eg treated as a necessity for life and guaranteed for everyone. I am inclined to agree with these people, and to extend this to say *broadband* should be guaranteed everyone. As the article points out (if anyone read it) the very same arguments against this were levelled against the laws that made our current electrical systems possible. (Incidentally, one of the historical reasons the internal combustion engine was used in cars was the complaint that having electric cars would require every town to have electricity! This is also one of the reasons electric cars in 1990 were not much more advanced than electric cars in 1909.)
You may dismiss my claim internet is a vital service as a slashdot-inspired pipe dream. But I assert it is an absolute fact. We will never make it to the next technological level without the internet, and even now if you are not on the internet you are at a serious technological and economic disadvatage with respect to, say, Africa. I don't know about you, but I would like to see a crop of US leaders who would like to quit being technologically behind South Korea in broadband and Eastern Europe in encryption technology, and are willing to do what it takes to get there.
I had understood that interix included far more than gcc, essentially that it includes cygwin and all the gnu tools. I went ahead and started my own google, and I did find several articles from the various Microsoft shills (like PC World) which focused mainly on the fact Microsoft was using GPL products while decrying the GPL, and which claimed that they did provide source code to gcc.
I also found this sourceforge site which chronicles efforts to uncover undocumented microsoft sites that provide GPL software. There is some interix stuff here, but it seems very much incomplete. Not satisfied, I decided to go for the horse's mouth (or is it really the mouth?:)) and found it is much as I originally stated.
For starters:
The software development kit (SDK) included with Interix 2.2, makes it easy to migrate existing UNIX-based applications to the Interix environment. It supports over 1900 UNIX application programming interfaces (APIs), and its tools include make, rcs, yacc, lex, cc, c89, nm, strip, gbd, gcc, g++, and g77 comilers.
You will notice none of that is included in the files at the site I mentioned. Also there is another Microsoft Interix Site which expands on this:
New Interix Integration
The key difference between Windows Services for UNIX 2.0 and 3.0 is that now Microsoft Interix is fully integrated into Windows Services for UNIX 3.0. The Interix subsystem technology provides a universal environment in which to run both Windows and UNIX applications on a single system. That means you can reduce development time while leveraging existing employee skills sets.
The Interix technology provides a UNIX environment that runs on top the Windows kernel, enabling UNIX application and scripts to run natively on the Windows platform alongside Windows applications. With this capability, you can continue to get value out of your UNIX scripts and applications--simply reuse them on Windows.
Windows Services for UNIX 3.0 also includes more than 300 UNIX utilities and tools that behave exactly as they would on UNIX systems, plus a software development kit (SDK) that supports over 1900 UNIX APIs and migration tools such as make, rcs, yacc, lex, cc, c89, nm, strip, gbd, as well as the gcc, g++, and g77 compilers.
Anyway, as I said, long ago the FSF bitched about this, and there was a slashdot article with attendant brouhaha, but ultimately afaict the Microsoft answer of downloading sources from the FSF (despite the possibility and likelihood Microsoft changed things before compiling the versions they have distributed) seems to have stood. Even the site I linked which has some source files is unofficial and undocumented anywhere but the sourceforge site I also linked.
After hunting around on Microsoft's site, I did find this page which does have two links to download some source code and an offer to sell a cd for $20. However, again, even the claimed list of utilities to which source code is supposed to be available is lacking, (Microsoft says they are using 300 gnu tools and there is far less there) and the one link that works (the other does not) appears once again to point to a far-from-all-inclusive source of sources.
Of course I have no interest in Microsoft's products, it just annoys me that they can violate the GPL and BSD licenses repeatedly and nothing ever really happens to them.
IIRC, there was also a Hammermil paper processing plant. Ah the delightful smells. [/sarcasm] I can't imagine why the town -hated- the college kids so much. Could be that they saw anyone who "got their learn on" as Chris Rock said, was an uppity SOB who needed shunned. Most of the town's commercial centers probably all but collapsed or went into hibernation when school was out.
The conflict between "town and gown" exists to some extent in every college town, really. It is more pronounced in small towns / rural areas, perhaps because the populace is more insular / less educated. It is also much more recognizable for the more eclectic/urban scholar who goes to a rural college town and gets culture shock thereby.
I remember reading in _Cathedral_de_Notre_Dame_ about similar conflicts arising with the very first colleges in Europe, and even before colleges there is the matter of various philosophical schools suffering harrassment and running afoul of authorities. This is not only a western phenomenon, either, as far as I can tell.
Some academic has probably done a study or a thousand on the subject, but I have not gotten round to reading one. I have to wonder, too, if the conflict is in any way related to the friction caused by one-horse town economies (for instance, the ire at tourists in places where tourism is the only source of revenue, period...) as you pointed out in many of these places the college is the only source of revenue and economy. I have noticed that there are any number of people who prefer their town small and unchanged, and will fight tooth and nail to prevent any sort of progress or economic growth. This kind of fear may be a factor as well...
Of course it's about money. Right now, people are paying $40/month or so for ADSL and broadband connections. Sure, fibre would boost those speeds, but who'll be willing to pay increased fees for it? Would your Mom be willing to shell out $90/month for fibre when she's already getting megabit service for less than half that?
Gee, maybe you work for a telco or the cable company? And you sure as hell did not read the article. Yet I respond anyway. =sigh=
First off, in the article there are numerous examples of municipal utilities, even in small towns, where the customers are paying less to get more. So your cost argument does not at all hold water or match the facts.
As for your "megabit service for $40" canard, don't make me laugh. My mom (and maybe yours) might believe the brochure from the cable company, since she is not terribly technical and overly naive in general, but I prefer to believe the real-world tests. The fact of the matter is no broadband I have ever seen measured gives that price/performance ratio, and though my cable provider says they are giving me 4mb/sec the real-world performance is not 0.25MB/sec. And that is pretty much what one can expect from the cable company (besides not usually getting more than 5-50kbps on any individual download, for various reasons).
Fibre to the home is a threat to these companies because it will be cheaper and faster than what they provide, which is why they are fighting it. After all they are not stupid, and as you rightly point out, they are in business to make money (which needs to be done if we want jobs) and that is not in itself a bad thing.
Good god, man. The whole article is about the state of Fibre to the Home in the US. Besides, do you really want Americans to know where your country is on a map? That's the first step to liberating the hell out of it! Otherwise we could care less about other countries.
But yes, the system of lot and block numbers to designate chunks of real estate is a US invention, IIRC created by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which was created to regulate the implementation of westward expansion/Manifest Destiny. Now if you will excuse us, we have to get back to carving up Iraq.;)
Slashdot discussions hold various examples of folks who refer to p2p copyrighted file sharing as "stealing". Some people (with whom I agree) then respond that this is not an example of stealing, it is an example of copyright infringement. This clarification is not intended to condone (or condemn) the sharing of copyrighted material; the point is to not sink to the same level of newspeak as the RIAA/MPAA which claims (for example) that not watching commercials is "stealing". The reason this is important is that it has everything to do with what legal analysis and remedies can and should be brought to bear on the matter.
MICHELLE: That's Pressing Issues here on VCPR, Vice City Public Radio. If you haven't given money to VCPR, and you're listening to this station, you are a thief.
JONATHAN: That's right, Michelle. You might as well as throw a brick through the window and loot the place. How selfish you people are? This is public radio, serving the public, with everything that is important. Like me. So come on. Keep us on air. It's really important.
MICHELLE: Send us your money. I'm going to say this over and over until you do.
JONATHAN: Yes. Michelle is known for her beg-a-thon tantrums. She cares about this station, unlike you. Think of how much money you spend on drive-thru fast food and comemorative plates. Take that money right now, and send it, direct to me, Johnathain Freeloader, Starfish Island, Vice City. Now back to the show, with Maurice Chavez, the asshole.
For most businesses, it simply spells game over which is why every business which finds itself in the position of having to explain a GPL violation quickly comes to it's senses (whatever the cost) and adheres to their obligations. The alternative is unthinkable.
Curiously this did not apply to Microsoft, who have never afaik released the source code for the gpl products in their Interix product, but have instead suggested that people download the FSF sources. For some reason that whole mess just got swept under the rug. Perhaps that reason was that the FSF was not prepared to sue Microsoft?
There are any number of companies which automatically enroll all employees in a union. Safeway and Costco are two I can think of, which are pretty low-level jobs. The unions there seem not to do anything but collect dues, which impacts an already very small paycheck.
I have to laugh at the poster who parroted the "Right to Work" line, though. "Right to Work" laws tend to mean 1) you can't have a union and 2) all work is "at will" and you can be fired with any cause (or without cause).
Of course the reality is the conditions of work largely depend on the employer. I tend to solve this problem by gaining the skills necessary to have some choice in the employers I can get, and try not to pick bad ones. During the recent economic travails, I had a taste once again of the life of the average labourer who does not have this luxury. Thankfully I am lucky again.
I think unions should be allowed, but they should truly represent the worker. I also think they are not necessary if management is truly clueful (understanding that looking out for their employees is looking out for the company). Unfortunately this is not a perfect world and people get exploited, both by unions and by management.
Yes but it did happen in the US, to the guy who registered gwbush.com. Bush also tried to get laws passed that would require anyone who registered a political website, created a political advertisement, or otherwise expressed a political viewpoint must be registered with an approved political party which sanctions everything they say.
The severe financial and bureaucratic overhead which would have resulted were highlights in the ensuing press backlash, as were the apologists for Bush who pointed out that very often people working for a given political party make severely misleading advertisements and hide as "people/concerned citizens for the election of so-and-so" so their candidate can disclaim liability, but the simple fact this would once again force people back into conforming with the "approved" system and the "approved" candidates was somewhat glossed over (most media outlets do not seem to like to entertain the idea of more than two candidates, total, in any election. They don't even report on Libertarian candidates in races where there is no Democrat, for instance.)
Not true. First, most of the big national TV news outlets are left wing (CBS, CNN, ABC, NBC).
Second, if you look beyond TV, there are thousands of media operations out there with no conglomerate control.
Right, because General Electric, Disney, and AOL/Time Warner are so liberal.
Currently, there are two parties in US government, and neither is corporate controlled.
Yes, and they trade agendas depending on who is in power. When the Dems were in power, they supported the exact same type of plan as TIA, and all the same police measures the Republicans are now supporting. Now that the Republicans are in power, they support a police state, and the Democrats are giving the ineffectual opposition. Both parties are extremely beholden to corporate interests, without whose support (bribes) they could not keep up in the media arms race.
This is a very common argument, but the fallacy of this argument is that in any power structure the powerful will seek ever more power, so any system which begins with equal access will gradually tend to become less accessable to those without overt power unless it is properly shepherded. Of course on a broader level this is what has happened with the US Government as predicted by its founders.
More to the point, to whom is this information useful anyway? I only see nefarious purpose as the driving force for gaining this info. For instance the government will use it to keep track of people it does not like and cause trouble for them. The same would happen with a publicly available database, in that people would look up information on their various enemies or stalking subjects and use it to their advantage and the disadvantage of their targets. One of the posters pointed out several cases where a similar database available to police officers was used to hunt down women to stalk and harrass, to satisfy vendettas, to break up marriages of ex-spouses, etc etc. Can you honestly say a database open to every skript kiddie, terrorist, and slashdotter in the world will never be misused this way?
Information may want to be free, but some information wants to be trusted. I think that kind of information (my bank account numbers, passwords, web history, etc for starters) should be need-to-know information, only in the hands of people who are supposed to use it.
The most hilarious thing about your post is that you posted as an AC. So you want me to know your credit card number, which I will *never* misuse... but you don't want me to know your slashdot ID? whatever!
I suppose you are right about that. Still I found it awfully ironic to be given a questionaire before reading an article about the misuse of personal information...
What is scary is that right now the US appears to be at war with Eurasia and at peace with EastAsia. The US was always at war with Eurasia and at peace with EastAsia. France has always been our enemy. Libya has always been our ally. Long live GWB!:)
Yes, but that is not exactly what is going on in this case. What we have is an allegation that code was given under NDA to someone who subsequently broke that NDA by releasing it under the GPL. We do also have the curious case such that the accuser (SCO) will only allow us to know what code they are talking about with an NDA, in which case what you are saying certainly applies, though I think part of the reason they are using NDA at this stage is that they are still formulating their strategy (and hunting for infringing code) and don't want to help IBM any more than they have to (or get too much guff from the peanut gallery; which they know they will certainly get anyway).
In reference to the first NDA, however, it is very important. The whole point of the NDA was if IBM did what SCO claims they have done SCo would be able to sue them. It was supposed to stop disclosure in the first place, but if it has not, it is meant to provide legal remedies.
Slashdot Mirror
That might be the case if Microsoft IMMEDIATELY ceased distribution of that version of Windows and quickly remedied the situation by removing the offending code and creating patches to extract that code from shipped binaries.
You have this backwards. Microsoft would still be able to legally ship Windows under its normal license agreement. The GPL program would be illegal, however, and would have to cease distribution until the offending code was removed. This is covered in the GPL license, which SCO has read and you have not.
The GPL does not eliminate copyright. It works precisely *because of* copyright.
Someone posting things to the official company website, assuming they have authority to do so (in general - IE, they aren't cracking the webserver) is acting in thier capacity as a representative of the company. It doesn't matter that the engineer doesn't personally own the code.
[sarcasm]That's good to know. I will tell you what. I will go ahead and submit a long screed about how my company sucks into our web content, then grab a few computers on my way out. Since I am a representative of the company, it is all right. Then I will hire you to be my lawyer. Does this sound like a good plan?[/sarcasm]
Employees who do not act in the interest of a company, especially when they are not acting with orders from management are *NOT* representing the company in their actions. Employees are empowered to be representatives of the company through orders from higher up. When they cease to do what they are told, or act on their own without authorization they do not represent the company.
This is a pretty simple concept. I can tell you if I ever become a hiring manager I will be sure to screen out people like you, since you seem to think your employee badge is a license to steal.
The engineers did not release the code. The company did.
According to SCO, IBM did. But it was not IBM's code to release. It was SCO's code. If this is true, they had no right to release it, and the SCO representative's reading of the relevant GPL sections is correct in such matters.
The bit about letting their customers have the code is something of a sticky wicket. But I think they would be premature in recalling anything at all until a judge has made some sort of decision in the matter, even if it is only a preliminary injunction.
For recruiters, it's all about time-to-hier... for the gov't, it's about fairness, ie. Equal Opportunity.
Yes, well, none of these people who were complaining are the government. Anyway, it is obvious they don't know how to use their computer systems properly and need to hire more staff. The guy that said it takes him all day to mail confirmation letters made me fall out of my chair laughing. He already has the names and addresses. He probably has Microsoft Word. So why can't he just have the computer generate form letters and automatically mail them out? Or do what most companies do in response to email resumes and respond in kind automagically? (with a form email saying "Thank you for your submission, blah blah blah...)
Scoring systems? Do you have any idea how widely available automatic scoring systems for resumes are? Or how stupidly easy it would be to whip one up with a perl or shell script in an afternoon? I mean a computer can already parse through resumes in multiple formats and give you the top n resumes based on a buzzword scoring system, given the right software, and lots of companies use that software, which is why resume writers massage the hell out of resumes to make sure they will score well in such systems.
These people are making it harder on themselves than they need to. If they hired more competent staff, they would not have this problem at all. As for your contention about reading all resumes, give me a break. Most companies do not do that, and even if they did, it is perfectly acceptable to only accept n resumes (where n is a number precalculated as being a quantity the current staff can process in a reasonable timeframe) or to cut off accepting resumes after a given date.
Even if you accept all the resumes in the world, it is relatively trivial to put all this in a database you can search later, which is again what the big companies do.
Why not uce@ftc.gov?
This is just more of the same problem we seem to have in this country. Our lawmakers can't even keep track of the laws they have passed so they just keep making more laws covering the same crap. Then they fail to enforce them. assholes!
Six months ago, when Infinity Consulting Group began looking for three new employees to upgrade computers, the company received more than 300 resumes and inquiries by e-mail.
...
The struggle was so tough for Infinity that it has yet to hire one of the three new employees it was seeking.
Maybe if they quit posting jobs they don't intend to hire anyone for, they would not be so overwhelmed. or maybe they could hire more HR or IT staff. If all the companies complaining about this hired a few people instead, they would not have this problem.
IANAL, but there is no requirement afaik for employers to look at all resumes. So maybe they have to store them all, but once they find the candidate they want to hire they can always close the position (and stop accepting resumes for it). Maybe some of those people they should be hiring could fix the software that handles the resume submissions (big companies like Dell, Microsoft, IBM, etc who get lots of resume submissions have automated software that puts a reasonable number of resumes in the hands of the person who is supposed to deal with it, and it can't be that hard to come up with a well designed system).
Freedom bureaucracy, serving freedom fries.
1. Is this a fact???
3. Do this guy cares if that's truth????
Congratulations. You read a sentence out of the article. However, you neglected to read any of the sources pointed to in the article, or the examples of exactly what kind of services were being provided in what towns for what price (and I almost wanted to pack up my bags and head for Glasgow, KY. I mean check out the prices!
Anyway, the whole thing is clearly a no-brainer. This is how we should have handled broadband in the first place.
They now have electricity and phones don't they?
Not necessarily. Believe it or not, plenty of people do not have electricity or phone lines going to their homes in the US.
How did this get modded insightful? It's fairly obvious that the original poster was referring to legal requirements, not absolute needs. Besides, it doesn't matter if you can live without electricity and running water - try it in the US and you risk having your building condemned.
Actually, as the poster from New Mexico was pointing out, there are still plenty of parts of the US where no running water or electricity are available (for instance I knew lots of Alaskans with no runnning water in their homes). There are laws requiring that it be made available, however, which is what you were talking about.
There are plenty of US citizens who feel internet should be given the same treatment as was once given to electricity, eg treated as a necessity for life and guaranteed for everyone. I am inclined to agree with these people, and to extend this to say *broadband* should be guaranteed everyone. As the article points out (if anyone read it) the very same arguments against this were levelled against the laws that made our current electrical systems possible. (Incidentally, one of the historical reasons the internal combustion engine was used in cars was the complaint that having electric cars would require every town to have electricity! This is also one of the reasons electric cars in 1990 were not much more advanced than electric cars in 1909.)
You may dismiss my claim internet is a vital service as a slashdot-inspired pipe dream. But I assert it is an absolute fact. We will never make it to the next technological level without the internet, and even now if you are not on the internet you are at a serious technological and economic disadvatage with respect to, say, Africa. I don't know about you, but I would like to see a crop of US leaders who would like to quit being technologically behind South Korea in broadband and Eastern Europe in encryption technology, and are willing to do what it takes to get there.
I had understood that interix included far more than gcc, essentially that it includes cygwin and all the gnu tools. I went ahead and started my own google, and I did find several articles from the various Microsoft shills (like PC World) which focused mainly on the fact Microsoft was using GPL products while decrying the GPL, and which claimed that they did provide source code to gcc.
I also found this sourceforge site which chronicles efforts to uncover undocumented microsoft sites that provide GPL software. There is some interix stuff here, but it seems very much incomplete. Not satisfied, I decided to go for the horse's mouth (or is it really the mouth? :)) and found it is much as I originally stated.
For starters:
The software development kit (SDK) included with Interix 2.2, makes it easy to migrate existing UNIX-based applications to the Interix environment. It supports over 1900 UNIX application programming interfaces (APIs), and its tools include make, rcs, yacc, lex, cc, c89, nm, strip, gbd, gcc, g++, and g77 comilers.
You will notice none of that is included in the files at the site I mentioned. Also there is another Microsoft Interix Site which expands on this:
New Interix Integration
The key difference between Windows Services for UNIX 2.0 and 3.0 is that now Microsoft Interix is fully integrated into Windows Services for UNIX 3.0. The Interix subsystem technology provides a universal environment in which to run both Windows and UNIX applications on a single system. That means you can reduce development time while leveraging existing employee skills sets.
The Interix technology provides a UNIX environment that runs on top the Windows kernel, enabling UNIX application and scripts to run natively on the Windows platform alongside Windows applications. With this capability, you can continue to get value out of your UNIX scripts and applications--simply reuse them on Windows.
Windows Services for UNIX 3.0 also includes more than 300 UNIX utilities and tools that behave exactly as they would on UNIX systems, plus a software development kit (SDK) that supports over 1900 UNIX APIs and migration tools such as make, rcs, yacc, lex, cc, c89, nm, strip, gbd, as well as the gcc, g++, and g77 compilers.
Anyway, as I said, long ago the FSF bitched about this, and there was a slashdot article with attendant brouhaha, but ultimately afaict the Microsoft answer of downloading sources from the FSF (despite the possibility and likelihood Microsoft changed things before compiling the versions they have distributed) seems to have stood. Even the site I linked which has some source files is unofficial and undocumented anywhere but the sourceforge site I also linked.
After hunting around on Microsoft's site, I did find this page which does have two links to download some source code and an offer to sell a cd for $20. However, again, even the claimed list of utilities to which source code is supposed to be available is lacking, (Microsoft says they are using 300 gnu tools and there is far less there) and the one link that works (the other does not) appears once again to point to a far-from-all-inclusive source of sources.
Of course I have no interest in Microsoft's products, it just annoys me that they can violate the GPL and BSD licenses repeatedly and nothing ever really happens to them.
IIRC, there was also a Hammermil paper processing plant. Ah the delightful smells. [/sarcasm] I can't imagine why the town -hated- the college kids so much. Could be that they saw anyone who "got their learn on" as Chris Rock said, was an uppity SOB who needed shunned. Most of the town's commercial centers probably all but collapsed or went into hibernation when school was out.
The conflict between "town and gown" exists to some extent in every college town, really. It is more pronounced in small towns / rural areas, perhaps because the populace is more insular / less educated. It is also much more recognizable for the more eclectic/urban scholar who goes to a rural college town and gets culture shock thereby.
I remember reading in _Cathedral_de_Notre_Dame_ about similar conflicts arising with the very first colleges in Europe, and even before colleges there is the matter of various philosophical schools suffering harrassment and running afoul of authorities. This is not only a western phenomenon, either, as far as I can tell.
Some academic has probably done a study or a thousand on the subject, but I have not gotten round to reading one. I have to wonder, too, if the conflict is in any way related to the friction caused by one-horse town economies (for instance, the ire at tourists in places where tourism is the only source of revenue, period...) as you pointed out in many of these places the college is the only source of revenue and economy. I have noticed that there are any number of people who prefer their town small and unchanged, and will fight tooth and nail to prevent any sort of progress or economic growth. This kind of fear may be a factor as well...
Of course it's about money. Right now, people are paying $40/month or so for ADSL and broadband connections. Sure, fibre would boost those speeds, but who'll be willing to pay increased fees for it? Would your Mom be willing to shell out $90/month for fibre when she's already getting megabit service for less than half that?
Gee, maybe you work for a telco or the cable company? And you sure as hell did not read the article. Yet I respond anyway. =sigh=
First off, in the article there are numerous examples of municipal utilities, even in small towns, where the customers are paying less to get more. So your cost argument does not at all hold water or match the facts.
As for your "megabit service for $40" canard, don't make me laugh. My mom (and maybe yours) might believe the brochure from the cable company, since she is not terribly technical and overly naive in general, but I prefer to believe the real-world tests. The fact of the matter is no broadband I have ever seen measured gives that price/performance ratio, and though my cable provider says they are giving me 4mb/sec the real-world performance is not 0.25MB/sec. And that is pretty much what one can expect from the cable company (besides not usually getting more than 5-50kbps on any individual download, for various reasons).
Fibre to the home is a threat to these companies because it will be cheaper and faster than what they provide, which is why they are fighting it. After all they are not stupid, and as you rightly point out, they are in business to make money (which needs to be done if we want jobs) and that is not in itself a bad thing.
Good god, man. The whole article is about the state of Fibre to the Home in the US. Besides, do you really want Americans to know where your country is on a map? That's the first step to liberating the hell out of it! Otherwise we could care less about other countries.
But yes, the system of lot and block numbers to designate chunks of real estate is a US invention, IIRC created by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which was created to regulate the implementation of westward expansion/Manifest Destiny. Now if you will excuse us, we have to get back to carving up Iraq. ;)
Slashdot discussions hold various examples of folks who refer to p2p copyrighted file sharing as "stealing". Some people (with whom I agree) then respond that this is not an example of stealing, it is an example of copyright infringement. This clarification is not intended to condone (or condemn) the sharing of copyrighted material; the point is to not sink to the same level of newspeak as the RIAA/MPAA which claims (for example) that not watching commercials is "stealing". The reason this is important is that it has everything to do with what legal analysis and remedies can and should be brought to bear on the matter.
That reminds me of the satire of NPR in GTA:VC :)
Gratuitously stolen from this site!
MICHELLE: That's Pressing Issues here on VCPR, Vice City Public Radio.
If you haven't given money to VCPR, and you're listening to this
station, you are a thief.
JONATHAN: That's right, Michelle. You might as well as throw a brick
through the window and loot the place. How selfish you people are? This
is public radio, serving the public, with everything that is important.
Like me. So come on. Keep us on air. It's really important.
MICHELLE: Send us your money. I'm going to say this over and over until
you do.
JONATHAN: Yes. Michelle is known for her beg-a-thon tantrums. She cares
about this station, unlike you. Think of how much money you spend on
drive-thru fast food and comemorative plates. Take that money right now,
and send it, direct to me, Johnathain Freeloader, Starfish Island, Vice
City. Now back to the show, with Maurice Chavez, the asshole.
MICHELLE: You're correct. He IS an asshole.
For most businesses, it simply spells game over which is why every business which finds itself in the position of having to explain a GPL violation quickly comes to it's senses (whatever the cost) and adheres to their obligations. The alternative is unthinkable.
Curiously this did not apply to Microsoft, who have never afaik released the source code for the gpl products in their Interix product, but have instead suggested that people download the FSF sources. For some reason that whole mess just got swept under the rug. Perhaps that reason was that the FSF was not prepared to sue Microsoft?
>Repeat offender getting PAID with YOUR TAX DOLLARS to harrass homeowner stuck in jail while he goes on to commit MORE crime at leisure
??? I've never seen this happen. Ever. Can you show me how this can happen without showing me a corrupt police force?
I think he was referring to this guy...
There are any number of companies which automatically enroll all employees in a union. Safeway and Costco are two I can think of, which are pretty low-level jobs. The unions there seem not to do anything but collect dues, which impacts an already very small paycheck.
I have to laugh at the poster who parroted the "Right to Work" line, though. "Right to Work" laws tend to mean 1) you can't have a union and 2) all work is "at will" and you can be fired with any cause (or without cause).
Of course the reality is the conditions of work largely depend on the employer. I tend to solve this problem by gaining the skills necessary to have some choice in the employers I can get, and try not to pick bad ones. During the recent economic travails, I had a taste once again of the life of the average labourer who does not have this luxury. Thankfully I am lucky again.
I think unions should be allowed, but they should truly represent the worker. I also think they are not necessary if management is truly clueful (understanding that looking out for their employees is looking out for the company). Unfortunately this is not a perfect world and people get exploited, both by unions and by management.
Yes but it did happen in the US, to the guy who registered gwbush.com. Bush also tried to get laws passed that would require anyone who registered a political website, created a political advertisement, or otherwise expressed a political viewpoint must be registered with an approved political party which sanctions everything they say.
The severe financial and bureaucratic overhead which would have resulted were highlights in the ensuing press backlash, as were the apologists for Bush who pointed out that very often people working for a given political party make severely misleading advertisements and hide as "people/concerned citizens for the election of so-and-so" so their candidate can disclaim liability, but the simple fact this would once again force people back into conforming with the "approved" system and the "approved" candidates was somewhat glossed over (most media outlets do not seem to like to entertain the idea of more than two candidates, total, in any election. They don't even report on Libertarian candidates in races where there is no Democrat, for instance.)
Not true. First, most of the big national TV news outlets are left wing (CBS, CNN, ABC, NBC).
Second, if you look beyond TV, there are thousands of media operations out there with no conglomerate control.
Right, because General Electric, Disney, and AOL/Time Warner are so liberal.
Currently, there are two parties in US government, and neither is corporate controlled.
Yes, and they trade agendas depending on who is in power. When the Dems were in power, they supported the exact same type of plan as TIA, and all the same police measures the Republicans are now supporting. Now that the Republicans are in power, they support a police state, and the Democrats are giving the ineffectual opposition. Both parties are extremely beholden to corporate interests, without whose support (bribes) they could not keep up in the media arms race.
This is a very common argument, but the fallacy of this argument is that in any power structure the powerful will seek ever more power, so any system which begins with equal access will gradually tend to become less accessable to those without overt power unless it is properly shepherded. Of course on a broader level this is what has happened with the US Government as predicted by its founders.
More to the point, to whom is this information useful anyway? I only see nefarious purpose as the driving force for gaining this info. For instance the government will use it to keep track of people it does not like and cause trouble for them. The same would happen with a publicly available database, in that people would look up information on their various enemies or stalking subjects and use it to their advantage and the disadvantage of their targets. One of the posters pointed out several cases where a similar database available to police officers was used to hunt down women to stalk and harrass, to satisfy vendettas, to break up marriages of ex-spouses, etc etc. Can you honestly say a database open to every skript kiddie, terrorist, and slashdotter in the world will never be misused this way?
Information may want to be free, but some information wants to be trusted. I think that kind of information (my bank account numbers, passwords, web history, etc for starters) should be need-to-know information, only in the hands of people who are supposed to use it.
The most hilarious thing about your post is that you posted as an AC. So you want me to know your credit card number, which I will *never* misuse... but you don't want me to know your slashdot ID? whatever!
I suppose you are right about that. Still I found it awfully ironic to be given a questionaire before reading an article about the misuse of personal information...
Today's Washington Post has an article on the various ways the Justice Department has applied terrorism laws to non-terrorism-related cases.
And in order to read the article, you must provide your sex, date of birth, and physical location... :)
What is scary is that right now the US appears to be at war with Eurasia and at peace with EastAsia. The US was always at war with Eurasia and at peace with EastAsia. France has always been our enemy. Libya has always been our ally. Long live GWB! :)
Yes, but that is not exactly what is going on in this case. What we have is an allegation that code was given under NDA to someone who subsequently broke that NDA by releasing it under the GPL. We do also have the curious case such that the accuser (SCO) will only allow us to know what code they are talking about with an NDA, in which case what you are saying certainly applies, though I think part of the reason they are using NDA at this stage is that they are still formulating their strategy (and hunting for infringing code) and don't want to help IBM any more than they have to (or get too much guff from the peanut gallery; which they know they will certainly get anyway).
In reference to the first NDA, however, it is very important. The whole point of the NDA was if IBM did what SCO claims they have done SCo would be able to sue them. It was supposed to stop disclosure in the first place, but if it has not, it is meant to provide legal remedies.