The Notes client ran natively on Sun as long ago as 1996 so porting it to Linux couldn't be much of a stretch. I was working on SGI at the time but we has a Notes freak for an IT director who insisted on making Notes the corporate standard. We has to rsh to a Sun box and then run the client over X on our SGI boxes.
Gateway 4DX/33V (VL bus) originally purchased in 1993
Upgrades: - AMD 5x86 133MHz overdrive CPU - 40MB of memory (was 8MB) - new IDE controller (onboard controller failed) - Additional 600MB hard drive (original 325MB still going strong) - new case (ditched the original steel desktop case for a much lighter mid tower case) - 10baseT NIC (came with none)
Downgrades: - pulled the 5.25" floppy, sound blaster, modem, and Sony proprietary CDROM drive when troubleshooting and never bothered putting them back
Currently running FreeBSD 4.8/Apache 1.3.27 and serving up my personal web site over residential DSL.
Verisign took away the ability of browser-makers to devise innovative ways to handle non-existent addresses on the client side and the ability of users to choose between them through their choice of a browser.
As opposed to the Vulcan Death Grip which, as everyone knows, is the CTRL SHIFT / F12 (/ being the one on the numeric keypad) combination used to reset the graphics pipe on an SGI workstation.
Your original post conceded that plain old vi was simple to configure and use. My point was that vim is not much more complicated (my _vimrc file only contains 12 lines) if you are only using the basic vi feature set. If you are going to take the trouble to learn vi in the first place, having to edit 12-line text file hardly qualifies as a "major pain in the ass".
You don't have to with any other text editor either.
You've got me there. You don't have to learn any of vim's advanced features if you don't use vim. Thanks for clearing that up.
My point was that if you appreciate the simplicity and efficiency of vi, you are not forced to contend with the additional complexity of vim if you don't want to.
Contrary to your subject line, vi is simple, and vim can be just as simple as vi if you simply choose to ignore the fact that it has any additional features.
Surem vim doesn't have help balloons and all that, but you'll still spend the next five years figuring out everything there is.
Ahh, but the beauty is, you don't have to. I use vim 5.8 (console version) and, with the exception of the syntax highlighting, don't regularly use any command that isn't documented on my vi reference mug. I even disable the multiple undo -- a real geek's undo just toggles the last change on and off;-)
The implication of the summary (and the Denver Post article) was that DVDs cost a little more than CDs but they contain a lot more stuff. Period.
In no way was it suggested that fair use rights for the DVD automatically extended to the soundtrack recording, or vice versa. Interesting leap but in no way relevant to the article posted.
Tie the top income tax rates and all capital gains tax rates to the unemployment rate. When employment is below some nominal value, say 5%, executives and stockholders would pay a reasonable, flat tax rate. As unemployment rates rise, the top-tier tax rates would increase and become progressive, thus penalizing the biggest earners.
The revenue from the increased taxes would be used to fund unemployment benefits, which should provide enough income to get by but not so much as to disincent people from working. Any surplus would be returned to lower and middle income taxpayers.
Let's not forget that, just because a movie is set in the future and doesn't break any known physical laws does not automatically make it good science fiction, or even science fiction at all.
Worthwhile science fiction asks the question "What if...?", no matter how outlandish the premise might be, but then stays consistent and logical in exploring a potential fictional reality in which that premise holds true. Simply taking the plot of "Wagon Train" and setting it in space doesn't really qualify.
Most movies that purport to be science fiction are not. However that does not prevent me personally from taking them at face value and thoroughly enjoying them. I just watched DareDevil yesterday and thought it was pretty good. Deconstructing these movies and picking holes in the science is sort of missing the point. Take them for what they are -- enjoyable (usually) bull$#!+.
First off, your point would have had more weight if you had spelled derivative correctly.
1) SCO sues IBM for violation of their contract because IBM distributed code that was a DERIVITIVE of SCO owned code.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the GPL and everything to do with the contract between IBM and AT&T/Novell/Caldera/SCO. Also what is at issue is not whether IBM can distribute derivative code (they can't) but what the definition of derivative is.
2) The GPL is a license (contract between user and copyright holder) that has as it's core the users obligations and rights to DERIVITIVE works of the code covered by copyright.
The GPL is not a contract since you don't have to accept or explicitly enter into. It simply defines the rights that the copyright holder gives to the user and the conditions under which they may be exercised.
There is no conflict between these two statements. In 1) copyright holder (SCO) gives user (IBM) no rights to distribute derivative works. In 2) copyright holder (IBM) gives user (everybody) permission to distribute derivative works under the conditions of the GPL.
The question is whether what IBM distributed under the GPL was a derivative work of System V Unix code. If it is determined that it was, IBM must pay damages to SCO for breach of contract. Either way it is difficult to how Linux users could be liable for anything since A) SCO is not the copyright holder and B) SCO has no contract with them.
Presumably all Unix code that anyone outside SCO had access to was subject to a similar contract and therefore the only recourse they have is to sue the parties (IBM, SGI,...) for breach of contract. If it is found that anyone had access to SCO's code without such a contract, the court may find that SCO did not take adequate measures to protect their trade secrets.
Wow! Expressing a non-positive opinion about a software package is now considered flamebait?
I think this is taking the knee-kerk, "Microsoft bad, everything else good" reaction a little far, even for Slashdot. I'll bet that the same comment in reference to Outlook/Exchange would never have been modded down.
Just go use Notes, then tell me that it is going to help Linux gain acceptance on the desktop.
Unless Notes has had a major rework since I used it (96-99), putting it on the Linux desktop is one thing guaranteed to send people screaming back to Windows.
Tell me about it. I remember practically being flamed on a mailing list for proposing the use of find and grep to recursively search for a pattern in a hierarchy of files. Sure grep -r would have done the job in that particular case but once you add the slightest variation you have to go to find.
I definitely feel that GNU/Linux has moved away from the "true" Unix philosophy with this kitchen sink mentality.
Often it is not the individual techs that are at fault but the fact that the organization they are working in is basically dysfunctional.
I used to have Verizon DSL. It was out for five days as I went through three separate trouble tickets and a progression of first-line techs who were friendly and helpful but basically constrained to go through a check list of items that I knew very well were not the problem. On the fifth day I got to speak to a slightly more senior tech. Unfortunately I let it slip that I was running Windows 2000 Server and was told that I was on my own because they didn't support that OS. I finally went off on the guy and told him that the problem was absolutely on their side because the software PPPOE client and my DSL router both stopped working at the same time. He put me on hold and a minute later a new voice (the network guy) came on the line:
"Try it now."
It worked.
"What did you do?", I asked.
"I reset your port on the switch. We knew we had problems with that switch but we were waiting for people to call in so we would know which ports to reset."
So my experience was basically a bunch of friendly and helpful techs, each with appropriate competence for their level, working inside a totally broken organization.
Slashdot Mirror
The Notes client ran natively on Sun as long ago as 1996 so porting it to Linux couldn't be much of a stretch. I was working on SGI at the time but we has a Notes freak for an IT director who insisted on making Notes the corporate standard. We has to rsh to a Sun box and then run the client over X on our SGI boxes.
Gateway 4DX/33V (VL bus) originally purchased in 1993
Upgrades:
- AMD 5x86 133MHz overdrive CPU
- 40MB of memory (was 8MB)
- new IDE controller (onboard controller failed)
- Additional 600MB hard drive (original 325MB still going strong)
- new case (ditched the original steel desktop case for a much lighter mid tower case)
- 10baseT NIC (came with none)
Downgrades:
- pulled the 5.25" floppy, sound blaster, modem, and Sony proprietary CDROM drive when troubleshooting and never bothered putting them back
Currently running FreeBSD 4.8/Apache 1.3.27 and serving up my personal web site over residential DSL.
Nobody forced you to use IE.
Verisign took away the ability of browser-makers to devise innovative ways to handle non-existent addresses on the client side and the ability of users to choose between them through their choice of a browser.
Doesn't sound much like innovation to me.
It is no longer free if you are forced to use it.
Why not let GNU/Linux/BSD/etc stand on its own merits? Does it need the crutch of government mandates?
As opposed to the Vulcan Death Grip which, as everyone knows, is the CTRL SHIFT / F12 (/ being the one on the numeric keypad) combination used to reset the graphics pipe on an SGI workstation.
Your original post conceded that plain old vi was simple to configure and use. My point was that vim is not much more complicated (my _vimrc file only contains 12 lines) if you are only using the basic vi feature set. If you are going to take the trouble to learn vi in the first place, having to edit 12-line text file hardly qualifies as a "major pain in the ass".
You don't have to with any other text editor either.
You've got me there. You don't have to learn any of vim's advanced features if you don't use vim. Thanks for clearing that up.
My point was that if you appreciate the simplicity and efficiency of vi, you are not forced to contend with the additional complexity of vim if you don't want to.
Contrary to your subject line, vi is simple, and vim can be just as simple as vi if you simply choose to ignore the fact that it has any additional features.
Surem vim doesn't have help balloons and all that, but you'll still spend the next five years figuring out everything there is.
;-)
Ahh, but the beauty is, you don't have to. I use vim 5.8 (console version) and, with the exception of the syntax highlighting, don't regularly use any command that isn't documented on my vi reference mug. I even disable the multiple undo -- a real geek's undo just toggles the last change on and off
The implication of the summary (and the Denver Post article) was that DVDs cost a little more than CDs but they contain a lot more stuff. Period.
In no way was it suggested that fair use rights for the DVD automatically extended to the soundtrack recording, or vice versa. Interesting leap but in no way relevant to the article posted.
Which article did you read? He implied nothing of the sort. Sounds more like a little wishful thinking on your part.
You can take a look at the patent here.
From the link above:
[snip]
Assignee: The Regents of the University of California (Oakland, CA)
[snip]
Am I missing something here?
chrisd notes that his company is making SCO employees unhireable.
.. oh, they don't actually have any open positions right now.
So they're refusing to consider SCO employees for any of the open positions that they
Wow, that'll teach them a lesson.
Tie the top income tax rates and all capital gains tax rates to the unemployment rate. When employment is below some nominal value, say 5%, executives and stockholders would pay a reasonable, flat tax rate. As unemployment rates rise, the top-tier tax rates would increase and become progressive, thus penalizing the biggest earners.
The revenue from the increased taxes would be used to fund unemployment benefits, which should provide enough income to get by but not so much as to disincent people from working. Any surplus would be returned to lower and middle income taxpayers.
IANAE (I am not an ecomomist)
Let's not forget that, just because a movie is set in the future and doesn't break any known physical laws does not automatically make it good science fiction, or even science fiction at all.
...?", no matter how outlandish the premise might be, but then stays consistent and logical in exploring a potential fictional reality in which that premise holds true. Simply taking the plot of "Wagon Train" and setting it in space doesn't really qualify.
Worthwhile science fiction asks the question "What if
Most movies that purport to be science fiction are not. However that does not prevent me personally from taking them at face value and thoroughly enjoying them. I just watched DareDevil yesterday and thought it was pretty good. Deconstructing these movies and picking holes in the science is sort of missing the point. Take them for what they are -- enjoyable (usually) bull$#!+.
Lewis Mettler from http://lamlaw.com/ does a great job picking apart the interview with Mark Heise.
This is the guy who calls SCO jerkheads and a**h****s. I am not sure how seriously you want to take him.
-- the weak point of the GPL will probably prove to be the disclaimer of warranty. A court might hold that unconscionable as an industry practice.
1. Nothing in the GPL precludes offering a warranty on software distributed under it.
2. You don't get a warranty when you pay for software. Why would you expect one on free software?
First off, your point would have had more weight if you had spelled derivative correctly.
...) for breach of contract. If it is found that anyone had access to SCO's code without such a contract, the court may find that SCO did not take adequate measures to protect their trade secrets.
1) SCO sues IBM for violation of their contract because IBM distributed code that was a DERIVITIVE of SCO owned code.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the GPL and everything to do with the contract between IBM and AT&T/Novell/Caldera/SCO. Also what is at issue is not whether IBM can distribute derivative code (they can't) but what the definition of derivative is.
2) The GPL is a license (contract between user and copyright holder) that has as it's core the users obligations and rights to DERIVITIVE works of the code covered by copyright.
The GPL is not a contract since you don't have to accept or explicitly enter into. It simply defines the rights that the copyright holder gives to the user and the conditions under which they may be exercised.
There is no conflict between these two statements. In 1) copyright holder (SCO) gives user (IBM) no rights to distribute derivative works. In 2) copyright holder (IBM) gives user (everybody) permission to distribute derivative works under the conditions of the GPL.
The question is whether what IBM distributed under the GPL was a derivative work of System V Unix code. If it is determined that it was, IBM must pay damages to SCO for breach of contract. Either way it is difficult to how Linux users could be liable for anything since A) SCO is not the copyright holder and B) SCO has no contract with them.
Presumably all Unix code that anyone outside SCO had access to was subject to a similar contract and therefore the only recourse they have is to sue the parties (IBM, SGI,
IANAL
Wow! Expressing a non-positive opinion about a software package is now considered flamebait?
I think this is taking the knee-kerk, "Microsoft bad, everything else good" reaction a little far, even for Slashdot. I'll bet that the same comment in reference to Outlook/Exchange would never have been modded down.
Just go use Notes, then tell me that it is going to help Linux gain acceptance on the desktop.
Unless Notes has had a major rework since I used it (96-99), putting it on the Linux desktop is one thing guaranteed to send people screaming back to Windows.
Waltham also OK so far.
Tell me about it. I remember practically being flamed on a mailing list for proposing the use of find and grep to recursively search for a pattern in a hierarchy of files. Sure grep -r would have done the job in that particular case but once you add the slightest variation you have to go to find.
I definitely feel that GNU/Linux has moved away from the "true" Unix philosophy with this kitchen sink mentality.
Often it is not the individual techs that are at fault but the fact that the organization they are working in is basically dysfunctional.
I used to have Verizon DSL. It was out for five days as I went through three separate trouble tickets and a progression of first-line techs who were friendly and helpful but basically constrained to go through a check list of items that I knew very well were not the problem. On the fifth day I got to speak to a slightly more senior tech. Unfortunately I let it slip that I was running Windows 2000 Server and was told that I was on my own because they didn't support that OS. I finally went off on the guy and told him that the problem was absolutely on their side because the software PPPOE client and my DSL router both stopped working at the same time. He put me on hold and a minute later a new voice (the network guy) came on the line:
"Try it now."
It worked.
"What did you do?", I asked.
"I reset your port on the switch. We knew we had problems with that switch but we were waiting for people to call in so we would know which ports to reset."
So my experience was basically a bunch of friendly and helpful techs, each with appropriate competence for their level, working inside a totally broken organization.
Also, this lawyer has a long analysis of SCO extortion attempts and debunks a lot of their FUD."
I'm just not sure a real lawyer would use the word "jerkhead" quite so often.
Here's an interesting and timely announcement from Microsoft:
...
Microsoft to pick up clients' legal tabs
Microsoft will now fully indemnify customers from any liability stemming from IP lawsuits involving Microsoft products.
Just in case there was any doubt as to who was pulling the strings in this whole SCO debacle
Written by the former hardware guru for discreet, it pretty much spells out what these machines are up to and how they compare to their predecessors.
I can vouch for that. JFP knows his SGIs inside and out. This is the real deal.