As long as SCO sticks with their current lawyers, we'll almost certainly win, even if does take a long long while.
Agreed. The sad thing is that over that time dammage will be done, and the crooks will likely make money playing the markets encouraging them to continue...
...though it's in one way it is flattering. The software that makes up Linux -- and by association other GPLed apps -- is so valuable as a commodity that someone will attempt this kind of crazy action on the outside chance that they would be able to get a slice of the pie by force let alone the whole pie and tin that it comes in.
I can only hope for a speedy resolution to this whole mess so even SCO could go back to doing something normal and productive
Like withering away from neglect?
The time for SCO to focus on anything productive is long gone. Why would anyone spend a penny for anything SCO has or will produce? With no customers, or a vanishing and betrayed pool of them, what possibly could SCO be planning for?
I feel sorry for the contracting groups and resellers who are now stuck supporting SCO's products. If they aren't transitioning off of SCO's products right now, they must be making plans to even if they think SCO will win.
Bottom line: SCO is not trust worthy or reliable and is not capable of going it on their own.
In particular, should the FSF (GNU project) sue SCO for license violation?
Sure, anyone can...if they are the copyright holders or are SCO customers and SCO does not actually abide by the terms of the GPL.
If they say they ignore the GPL, but provide source to customers and do other things such as include the GPL licence, then they are not actually ignoring the GPL...they are following it. In that case, the FSF or anyone else can't sue because of a licence violation -- there isn't one.
Does anyone know if SCO is in actual violation, or are they just making a fuss again?
The 264kb DLL file is an Explorer add-on that lets you browse the registry using the Explorer. It doesn't let you do anything with the Registry from the command line.
Thanks for checking into that -- it's what I tought. A total disconnect between the shell and the GUI; the mappings aren't 'real' enough.
One thing that really irks me about the current CMD is that you can't do complex network operations with it unless you map a new drive letter. Instead of using//machine1/D$/winnt/system32/ (or whatever) directly, you'd use a fictitious mapping such as L:\ that points back to the fully qualified network resource.
(Note: Ideally, the URL should be (borrowing from Linux somewhat)//machine1/hda1/winnt/system32/ dropping the drive letter entirely.)
It's only a matter of time before Windows offers copies all of the traditional Unix features. That's part of the reason they fund porting efforts for Perl and ship it too.
Now, if Cygwin would tweak Bash to complete the job before MS, I'd be much happier...and have an opportunity to train MS-only admins in the benifits of simple things such as grep and file (currently very handy under Windows) without running into so many artificial limitations of the current way Windows sees all resources.
Gripe: I'd hope that KDE and Gnome stop using the poor excuse for file system links that Windows uses for desktop icons./home/username/Desktop/dvd should be as accessable as/mnt/dvd -- inside the GUI or the shell -- and transparently to all applications.
If you do well this year, and next year is just OK, you might be forced to lower the bonus. Don't do it. Whatever you decide on this year, make sure that you have the option to do the same thing the next year. If that means a smaller cash bonus, so be it.
As an alternative, consider giving out a few extra days off or some other non-trivial perk. That will usually be appreciated.
The reason for this is that if you give, say, $2,000 this year and next year you give $1,000 because business took a dip people will think that they are worth less. In a round about way, they are (less business), though the $2,000 bonus is about what they expected...even if they do not need it.
Another alternative: quarterly or monthly bonuses -- given out immediately or at the end of the year. Periodic bonuses are more immediate and if they differ from month to month for obvious reasons (more or less business) there will be less angst about a dip. Consider these equal to stock dividends, and be consistant with what adds or subtracts from the bonus.
Personally, I'm trying to get people to think about open source and am in the process of putting together a CD presentation pack of OpenOffice for MPs.
I'm doing the same...though on a lower level (no congress critters, just regular people). Any pointers -- or resources -- you could offer or recommend?
This is a case of lindows putting their money where their mouth is. They're contributing to open source, while also trying to differentiate themselves in the market. Let's give em a chance here.
Agreed. They've contributed quite a bit in the past too. While I get sick thinking of running a system as root, they do the marketing that many uber geeks (myself included) find distasteful. There is a place for Lindows inc. in the broad diverse open source world -- and they are carving out that nitch.
Most governments have little problem with the GPL requirement that
if they modify the software AND
if they distribute modified software
that they must distribute the modified source.
There's part of what you say that implies that if any distribution occurs the source must be provide to everyone. If this is what you mean, it's a common misconception, and it is often repeated.
Here's the important difference -- and it covers software under a GPL-style license only;
If you distribute within your orginzation, the orginzation does not have to disclose any changes to those outside the orginazation.
The requirement to release source only applies to those who you redistribute to -- even if you do not make source changes.
Note: If the binary is stolen or not intentionally redistributed (not provided to those outside the group)...there's still no source distribution requirement since it wasn't distributed.
If the licence is Apache, BSD, XFree or other similar open source licences, there is no requirement to provide source code at all. A large group of programs -- many quite important -- fit in this group.
In effect, for either GPL-style or Apache/BSD-style software, the software and any changes that are made become propriatory to the group -- commercial, governmental, private, or even if the group is just you.
There's not much of an advantage to this, though, since updates from the main 'public' branch become more painful and you loose any feedback to changes you make that could improve your code.
The best way to handle this is to keep internal configuration and data -- the parts that make your group important -- seperate from the core software. Contribute all source changes back to the main public project. There's little practical reason not to.
I think another reason they may be doing this more is to stop bogus returns. What do I mean by that? Simple, buying on the internet, picking one up at BestBuy the same day, and returning the one you got via internet to Best Buy.
(Scratches head) OK, how is this a problem? You bought 2 copies of the same thing at about the same time. Best Buy sold you one of those things. Within a couple weeks, you return either item to Best Buy and get your money back.
I don't see how you or Best Buy benifits or looses from this.
(Note: If you buy one product, and ~2 weeks later buy the same thing in another store or store branch, and return the second one to the first store, (shampoo, rinse, repeat) -- you could 'rent' the product for a few months till the model is no longer offered. Why go through that pain?)
Also, IBM owns 20% of SuSE, thought they should push it.
If they did, they would loose credibility. Besides, IBM -- and SuSE -- benifits from more contracts that aren't MS-only since that leaves them open to non-MS possiblities. (insert 200 line explanation that you probably know already)
While the libertarian side of me would like to leave it up to individuals to make their own decisions on drugs, the impact isn't limited to the individuals who use the drugs and market influences aren't correcting the problems. Drug abuse -- and yes I am focusing on abuse -- leads to a whole host of social and mental health problems.
(Besides: sober or intoxicated, heavy drug users are seldom fun to be around. They're @ssholes or buddy-buddy scheming @ssholes.)
While marijuana is a fairly mild drug and it may be OK to legalize it. That said, just because one drug might be a candidate for legalization does not mean that all are. There are some nasty ones out there and a scanning device that can find them is something I very much welcome.
Who knows; maybe if the supply dries up (ha!), people will vote for drug reform and allow a moderate response instead of the current all-or-nothing one?
3. It becomes possible with this to create enterprise packages consisting of a bootable Linux CD with all the applications the users need, and all their data on network drives. Take random PC, insert USB identity module (/home on flash drive) boot from CD, and work.
While I personally appreciate putting/home on a flash drive for programs like Knoppix, it would be better to follow the traditional method on a network; mount/home/user_name from a server. No keys to loose, the storage is cheaper and much larger, and it all gets backed up nightly (if you are an admin with even a little good sense).
My prediction: by end-2006, in three years' time, Windows will be in a significant minority position and Linux will be preinstalled on most or all PCs sold to home and business. Microsoft will either have embraced this and discovered a whole universe of new Office licensees, or will suffer a crash much like IBM suffered in the face of the PC's original success.
Now I know that you aren't being serious....
Movies like to show 'fake' desktops...
on
Linux in Movies?
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Using something that someone might recognize -- and know is wrong -- distracts from the story. Using an atypical desktop or a slide show that fakes it entirely eliminates this.
You're right it is lame but it's lameness on the side of the designers, because rather than design a site that is functional, quickly loaded and informative, they go the way of bells and whistles because they think it 'looks good'.
I've heard it called "pretty", specifically meaning slick, polished, simplistic and not at all geeky or technical.
I've had 2 projects killed because lack of an immediately visible "pretty" interface. That one could be added is considered a downside...since it was not "pretty" to begin with.
I no longer do demos or show anything off unless I've first made it "pretty" and I definately avoid the mention that it required any effort to make it "pretty".
I understand "pretty" now; it is an attempt by upper management to see something quickly and decide if it is well designed and thought out. If it does not look "pretty" it is probably not well designed.
Unfortunately, this benchmark kills off many good projects that are indeed well thought out and do have good interfaces...but by default do not. Along those lines, the program Double Choco Latte almost never entered trial use here because of it's name. The saving grace is that it is both "pretty" (with a minor tweak), and well designed, and can be referred to as "DCL" making it sound less goofy though unfortunately more techy.
Personally, I'm an ubergeek, and the more technical the better. I hate programs that attempt to think for me and do not follow even my dumbest commands. Upper management does not think like this...untill they run into problems that "pretty" often does not cover.
Rule: People and the market demands what they think they need before they think it over, and not what is ideally suited for the task that they need to do, so they end up with what they really do not need. The market demands crap, and we give the market what they ask for.
5 or 10% would be pushing our luck?! Please don't tell that to all the Mac users out there. I think their ever-shrinking 5% demographic would be shocked to find no Macromedia apps. I remember using Photoshop 4 for Unix on some SGI hardware a long time ago..now THAT'S a niche market if I ever saw one.
I could be wrong, though I'd expect that if Linux and MacOS had the same market share, and Macromedia supported both equally, it would still mean more sales of Macromedia products to Mac users vs. Linux users.
That said, quite a few web designers use Linux or even BSD on the server side, even if they test the client end using IE.
Slashdot Mirror
(*BLINK*) Cool! I wouldn't have even considered doing that! That has to be the best tech tip I've read today.
Agreed. The sad thing is that over that time dammage will be done, and the crooks will likely make money playing the markets encouraging them to continue...
...though it's in one way it is flattering. The software that makes up Linux -- and by association other GPLed apps -- is so valuable as a commodity that someone will attempt this kind of crazy action on the outside chance that they would be able to get a slice of the pie by force let alone the whole pie and tin that it comes in.
Like withering away from neglect?
The time for SCO to focus on anything productive is long gone. Why would anyone spend a penny for anything SCO has or will produce? With no customers, or a vanishing and betrayed pool of them, what possibly could SCO be planning for?
I feel sorry for the contracting groups and resellers who are now stuck supporting SCO's products. If they aren't transitioning off of SCO's products right now, they must be making plans to even if they think SCO will win.
Bottom line: SCO is not trust worthy or reliable and is not capable of going it on their own.
SCO can say just about anything they want, though I admit that saying they will ignore the GPL isn't a minor thing and may be open them to lawsuits.
If they actually violate the GPL, then they can be sued for that violation (no maybe about it).
A weak case backed by ~$50 million USD. This could still drag on for years.
Sure, anyone can...if they are the copyright holders or are SCO customers and SCO does not actually abide by the terms of the GPL.
If they say they ignore the GPL, but provide source to customers and do other things such as include the GPL licence, then they are not actually ignoring the GPL...they are following it. In that case, the FSF or anyone else can't sue because of a licence violation -- there isn't one.
Does anyone know if SCO is in actual violation, or are they just making a fuss again?
Thanks for checking into that -- it's what I tought. A total disconnect between the shell and the GUI; the mappings aren't 'real' enough.
(Note: Ideally, the URL should be (borrowing from Linux somewhat) //machine1/hda1/winnt/system32/ dropping the drive letter entirely.)
It's only a matter of time before Windows offers copies all of the traditional Unix features. That's part of the reason they fund porting efforts for Perl and ship it too.
Now, if Cygwin would tweak Bash to complete the job before MS, I'd be much happier...and have an opportunity to train MS-only admins in the benifits of simple things such as grep and file (currently very handy under Windows) without running into so many artificial limitations of the current way Windows sees all resources.
Gripe: I'd hope that KDE and Gnome stop using the poor excuse for file system links that Windows uses for desktop icons. /home/username/Desktop/dvd should be as accessable as /mnt/dvd -- inside the GUI or the shell -- and transparently to all applications.
No, no they aren't.
As an alternative, consider giving out a few extra days off or some other non-trivial perk. That will usually be appreciated.
The reason for this is that if you give, say, $2,000 this year and next year you give $1,000 because business took a dip people will think that they are worth less. In a round about way, they are (less business), though the $2,000 bonus is about what they expected...even if they do not need it.
Another alternative: quarterly or monthly bonuses -- given out immediately or at the end of the year. Periodic bonuses are more immediate and if they differ from month to month for obvious reasons (more or less business) there will be less angst about a dip. Consider these equal to stock dividends, and be consistant with what adds or subtracts from the bonus.
I'm doing the same...though on a lower level (no congress critters, just regular people). Any pointers -- or resources -- you could offer or recommend?
Agreed. They've contributed quite a bit in the past too. While I get sick thinking of running a system as root, they do the marketing that many uber geeks (myself included) find distasteful. There is a place for Lindows inc. in the broad diverse open source world -- and they are carving out that nitch.
So, why do anarchists (or some of them if you want to argue) have a logo?
- if they modify the software AND
- if they distribute modified software
that they must distribute the modified source.There's part of what you say that implies that if any distribution occurs the source must be provide to everyone. If this is what you mean, it's a common misconception, and it is often repeated.
Here's the important difference -- and it covers software under a GPL-style license only;
The requirement to release source only applies to those who you redistribute to -- even if you do not make source changes.
Note: If the binary is stolen or not intentionally redistributed (not provided to those outside the group)...there's still no source distribution requirement since it wasn't distributed.
If the licence is Apache, BSD, XFree or other similar open source licences, there is no requirement to provide source code at all. A large group of programs -- many quite important -- fit in this group.
In effect, for either GPL-style or Apache/BSD-style software, the software and any changes that are made become propriatory to the group -- commercial, governmental, private, or even if the group is just you.
There's not much of an advantage to this, though, since updates from the main 'public' branch become more painful and you loose any feedback to changes you make that could improve your code.
The best way to handle this is to keep internal configuration and data -- the parts that make your group important -- seperate from the core software. Contribute all source changes back to the main public project. There's little practical reason not to.
(Scratches head) OK, how is this a problem? You bought 2 copies of the same thing at about the same time. Best Buy sold you one of those things. Within a couple weeks, you return either item to Best Buy and get your money back.
I don't see how you or Best Buy benifits or looses from this.
(Note: If you buy one product, and ~2 weeks later buy the same thing in another store or store branch, and return the second one to the first store, (shampoo, rinse, repeat) -- you could 'rent' the product for a few months till the model is no longer offered. Why go through that pain?)
If they did, they would loose credibility. Besides, IBM -- and SuSE -- benifits from more contracts that aren't MS-only since that leaves them open to non-MS possiblities. (insert 200 line explanation that you probably know already)
Previous versions were very playable...comments?
(Besides: sober or intoxicated, heavy drug users are seldom fun to be around. They're @ssholes or buddy-buddy scheming @ssholes.)
While marijuana is a fairly mild drug and it may be OK to legalize it. That said, just because one drug might be a candidate for legalization does not mean that all are. There are some nasty ones out there and a scanning device that can find them is something I very much welcome.
Who knows; maybe if the supply dries up (ha!), people will vote for drug reform and allow a moderate response instead of the current all-or-nothing one?
While I personally appreciate putting /home on a flash drive for programs like Knoppix, it would be better to follow the traditional method on a network; mount /home/user_name from a server. No keys to loose, the storage is cheaper and much larger, and it all gets backed up nightly (if you are an admin with even a little good sense).
My prediction: by end-2006, in three years' time, Windows will be in a significant minority position and Linux will be preinstalled on most or all PCs sold to home and business. Microsoft will either have embraced this and discovered a whole universe of new Office licensees, or will suffer a crash much like IBM suffered in the face of the PC's original success.
Now I know that you aren't being serious....
That we recognize it is beside the point.
I've heard it called "pretty", specifically meaning slick, polished, simplistic and not at all geeky or technical.
I've had 2 projects killed because lack of an immediately visible "pretty" interface. That one could be added is considered a downside...since it was not "pretty" to begin with.
I no longer do demos or show anything off unless I've first made it "pretty" and I definately avoid the mention that it required any effort to make it "pretty".
I understand "pretty" now; it is an attempt by upper management to see something quickly and decide if it is well designed and thought out. If it does not look "pretty" it is probably not well designed.
Unfortunately, this benchmark kills off many good projects that are indeed well thought out and do have good interfaces...but by default do not. Along those lines, the program Double Choco Latte almost never entered trial use here because of it's name. The saving grace is that it is both "pretty" (with a minor tweak), and well designed, and can be referred to as "DCL" making it sound less goofy though unfortunately more techy.
Personally, I'm an ubergeek, and the more technical the better. I hate programs that attempt to think for me and do not follow even my dumbest commands. Upper management does not think like this...untill they run into problems that "pretty" often does not cover.
Rule: People and the market demands what they think they need before they think it over, and not what is ideally suited for the task that they need to do, so they end up with what they really do not need. The market demands crap, and we give the market what they ask for.
The mailing list looks dead. Are you sure that this is an active project?
I could be wrong, though I'd expect that if Linux and MacOS had the same market share, and Macromedia supported both equally, it would still mean more sales of Macromedia products to Mac users vs. Linux users.
That said, quite a few web designers use Linux or even BSD on the server side, even if they test the client end using IE.
I asked the admins if there are any plans to either upgrade or switch, and they won't say a thing. Very annoying.
How does it compare to SuSE's OpenExchange? (See the demo if you are not familiar with it.)