>X is too slow On the contrary, I fnd it's quite fast with a good accelerated AGP card. The network transparency is a very nice feature that I use regularly.
>X places to much burden on the programmer (XLib) No argument that raw Xlib is a bit hard to use. That's why we have things like GTK.
>X has no standard I have no idea what this means. X IS the standard for unix-like operating systems.
>Xfree86 is over 10 years old So am I. So is UNIX. So are most of the theories in Computer Science. Shound we throw them away? Having been enhanced and debugged for 10 years is a big plus, rather than a minus.
In summary, X is just fine. Y may eventually be better, and they're welcome to try to get it there, but these arguments haven't won me over. It's wonderful to have alternative implementations to point out the flaws in existing systems (so that they in turn improve), but to say the new system is fundamentally "better", well, that's going a few better arguments than this.
I, for one, use plenty of non-GPL software in my day to day life. I enjoy GPL software, but I tend to release open source software under more permissive licenses, such as MIT. I also use (and write) a lot of (gasp) closed source software as well.
For the love of Pete, there are plenty of different software licenses out there. If you don't like the terms of a given license, don't use the software. If apache changes their terms because they think it makes them less likely to be sued, good for them. The GPL isn't the One True License, it's just one of the more restrictive ones that still claims to be "free". News flash: you can run software with virtually any license as long as you agree to the conditions. If some GPL-zealot distribution decides not to include Apache because of this, that's their problem.
Since 100% of their claims are related to AIX and Dynix code, and they DIDN"T show that the code in question is derived from SysV, 100% of their claims are already disproven. All they've shown is that IBM contributed IBM code to Linux. Everyone already knew that. 10 Seconds.
>Your going to have to prove that SCO knowingly and intentionally attempted to defraud those 1500 recipients. I don't beleive that's the case, and you'll have a very difficult time PROVING it.
They certainly are intentionally claiming money for "property" (i.e. linux) that they don't have clear title to. Ignorance/delusion is not an excuse. Lets say that I decide that I own Highway 92. I see all the cars passing by on it, and I'm not making a cent of profit, so I set up a toll plaza. The fact that I truly believe I own highway 92 does not make it any more legal. I'd have a hard time proving in court that I own it, because I don't have clear title to it.
Likewise, if I (in my delusional mind) decide that I invented the steering wheel and that all steering wheels everywhere are my "IP"... so I send out invoices to everyone that owns a car.. I have a good feeling that would still be mail fraud, and I'd still be delusional. What do I have clear title to that someone else owes me for? Jack squat.
Does insanity work to your advantage in postal fraud cases? I don't have the case law to back it up, but I'm guessing no.
>what the hell is David Boies doing backing these con artists?
I'm not sure he is. He has yet to appear in court on their behalf. His firm is being paid a great deal of money, win or lose.. my guess is that by contract they have to see this suit to the bitter end. I suspect they signed that contract without knowing both sides of the story. I doubt David Boies personally has any intention of polluting his reputation further with this case. When Kevin (Darl's brother) appeared in court instead of Boies, that was a possible indication that Boies wants to distance himself as much as he can from this case. Darl can't find anyone but his brother (and a couple other well paid,win or lose lawyers) to buy into his crackpot theories on "IP".
How about... Putting the radar in the FRONT of the car, have a really annoying siren that goes off when the car is going over 50 MPH, and within 3 feet of someone else's rear bumper. The siren would be accompanied by a cell phone jamming signal, and the TV and radio would automatically go off as well. Additionally for the larger cars, a bulkhead would go up between the driver and the rear seats.
This contraption would be mandatory for all trucks, SUVs, souped-up Japanese compacts, and Volvos.
That would cause accidents to drop by about 90% in my estimation.
>Mac displays have 72 DPI, and Windows uses 96 DPI.
If that were the case, there would be required resolutions for certain size monitors. I can set a 19 inch display to 640x480, and I'm pretty damn certain that's not 96 DPI.
Fact: You have no idea how big a font is going to be on a user's screen, windows or mac. The only thing you can control is how bit it is relative to the other documents the user might be dealing with.
>In many IT jobs you are old at 40, both because you can't keep up with all the new technology that comes along and because you are less creative at the problem solving that is at the core of many IT jobs.
That's totally bullshit. Some experience in a given field (in this case, medicine) FAR outweighs being sprightly. The "new technology" is never really THAT new, it's always some 1970s technology rehashed yet again. Personally, I'm one of those sprightly young programmers, but I wish my lab had more experienced programmers to show the young folks how it's done. I'm serious. Experience is MUCH more important than youth.
Ripping something from OSNews doesn't make it right.
I don't think it's like that at all. Debian would (by their own rules) not distribute XFree86 at all. Having no windowsing system would be a much bigger problem than your missing driver. Boo hoo for Debian. If they chose to distribute an old version of XFree, you could always write your driver for it.
The XFree86 License changing slightly has nothing to do with protecting your driver code. If you released your driver under the OLD XFree86 license, (even though it's GPL compatible) NVidia could take it and use it comercially. If you release your driver under the GPL, then neither the old-licensed XFree nor the new license could take it because the GPL is much more restrictive.
What we have here is status quo for all practical purposes... except for the GPL zealot distributions.
Even if the code has a known pedigree, to say something is unencumbered by patents is not easy to do. Anything and everything in the software world is patented. You can't blow your nose without infringing the patent on snot. Likewise, it's nearly impossible to write any software and know whether or not you're infringing on a set of patents. Are you going to go line by line, feature by feature, and do a patent search on everything? It would be safer to say "no one has yet challenged Linux with patent infringement".
> I don't think Linus would deny the contribution of GNU to the success of Linux.
I'm sure you're right. However, it's not necessary to name a program after the compiler that produced the binary. That's why the kernel is called "Linux" and not "GCC/Linux". There are indeed a lot of GNU programs in my Linux install. There are a lot of BSD programs, X11 programs, programs not written by GNU but still licensed under the GPL, a few commercial applications, etc...
The point is when you declare that an "operating system" is defined, and indeed named after its userland programs, then I'm a proud owner of a GNU/X11/BSD/Loki/Freevo..../Linux system.
Therefore it's not GNU/Linux because that's leaving out all the other userland programs. If you restrict the naming convention to just the kernel, things are a hell of a lot easier. "Linux" is a perfectly good name by itself.
I once had a job where I did photo-etching from 6PM to 6AM. Basically it involved running sheets of metal through hydrochloric acid. The problem is, being that I was a temporary, I got to work with the OLD machines. We had to hang the sheets overhead... they'd come out dripping with acid. The acid would run down my arm... I'd end up with brown stains all over my arms and clothes.
It was also LOUD, HOT, and Humid.
When the morning shift would come in, they were all bald, had thick glasses, and a couple were missing some teeth.
>Don't get me wrong, the BSD license has it's place, but if >the main point is to keep the code free, what would you >choose something that lets anyone take the code and make >it non-free?
Absolutely. There are different kinds of freedom. The ability to incorporate code into a commercial project without fear of litigation is a huge freedom for those of us that live in the real world.
Personally, when I write open source code (especially utility classes), I prefer BSD-style licenses. Hell, use it however you want if you like it. If you don't like it, change it! If you think it's worth something, sell it. If you can't release your source code, I don't care. I don't want to come after you, I just don't want you to sue me if it breaks. That's true freedom - The ability to share ideas and not involve the lawyers.
The GPL has its place, but doesn't do well with utility functions and libraries. That's why the LGPL, BSD, and a host of other licenses are still around.
My advice to the author of this article: Consider your options. Does the code in question really belong under the GPL? Does it's being under the GPL prevent your intended audience from using it? What are you trying to accomplish? Do you feel these companies are preventing you from accomplishing that? The answer to those questions will lead you to either
1) re-license the code -or- 2) threaten to sue the bastards (but be sure to follow through)
By all rights, you can probably do either... just make sure you're doing the right thing.
>we are stuck with a 'communist' model for corporates.:)
Communism is an economic system, not a political system.
The word you're looking for is "fascist".
I, for one, am quite happy about the fascist corporate model. Democracy is OK for governments, but for large corporations, making the kinds of stupid decisions that "democratic" governments do would put them out of business FAST.
Wow. I'm sure having such a bullshit tracking system really helps your company attract the best talent, too.
The way of the future is to have a mobile, flexible workforce. Employees must be personally responsible for their business results, and allowed to accomodate their lives into their plan in accomplishing those results. How are you going to enable that climate by making "hours" more important than productivity? Your company is taking a step back into 1984.
>Not unless the donation of those services have a direct impact on your companies bottom line
What's really interesting is that Microsoft is allowed to pay reduced taxes due to "donating" software licenses to schools. Giving the licenses away costs them nothing, increases their market share, makes their monopoly even more firmly entrenched, and yet somehow still is a tax deduction.
I'd say extended warranties are always a waste of money... As the previous poster pointed out, the seller of the warranty knows how often their products break, and is quite sure they'll make a hefty profit off the warranty. The odds that it will work out in your favor are extremely slim. This is true even with high-maintenance items like American cars. The warranty will expressly not cover (in fine print) anything that's likely to break. Extended warranties are a sucker's bet.
It's too bad that anyone is in such dire straits that they think they need one.
I liken having an extended warranty to taking out life insurance on your children. If you really couldn't afford to bury them (should the unthinkable happen), you take out life insurance on them.
Likewise, if you really can't afford to be without your appliance for an extended period, and can't afford a new one, you may want to consider the extended warranty.
Of course, the wiser course of action would be to take the money that you would spend on extended warranties, life insurance for kids, etc... and put it all into an emergency fund, and dip into it only when absolutely necessary. Unfortuantely this requires much more restraint than the average consumer can bear.
>2GB for $100 would have really hit a sweet spot, though, and probably would have absolutely destroyed the flash player market in one fell swoop.
Maybe. Just maybe. One of the key markets of flash based players is composed of people that work out (running,etc). I like the iPod, but I'm not absolutely convinced it's as rugged as a flash-based player. The "no moving parts" feature is an important one.
My christmas wish is for the SCO stockholders to wake up and realize they're being taken for a ride. That way the rest of the world could get on with their lives without worrying about being bitten in the ankles by Daryl McBride. For Daryl, I wish a long stay in the relaxing resort for his kind of folk known as Utah State Prison. I wish for him a large roommate named Bubba.
Exactly. No one should have them. Ever. The chances of any government de-stabilizing or the weapons falling into the wrong hands are simply too great. To say that more nations should have them to level the playing field is just ludicrous... every new device produced introduces a greater chance a device will be used, and that use will be retaliated against with even greater force.
Now we'll have some smartass high school student making an h-bomb in his toolshed, just to show how smart he is. Some things are better left secret, and I think this is one of them. I'm all for the freedom of information in most cases, but I do not believe my neighbors and the billions of people across the world that hate the United States should have access to this kind of information. I know everyone will have nukes eventually, I just hope it doesn't happen until my (future) children can grow up and lead productive lives. Let's not blow the planet up just yet. I happen to like it.
Slashdot Mirror
>X is too slow
On the contrary, I fnd it's quite fast with a good accelerated AGP card. The network transparency is a very nice feature that I use regularly.
>X places to much burden on the programmer (XLib)
No argument that raw Xlib is a bit hard to use. That's why we have things like GTK.
>X has no standard
I have no idea what this means. X IS the standard for unix-like operating systems.
>Xfree86 is over 10 years old
So am I. So is UNIX. So are most of the theories in Computer Science. Shound we throw them away? Having been enhanced and debugged for 10 years is a big plus, rather than a minus.
In summary, X is just fine. Y may eventually be better, and they're welcome to try to get it there, but these arguments haven't won me over. It's wonderful to have alternative implementations to point out the flaws in existing systems (so that they in turn improve), but to say the new system is fundamentally "better", well, that's going a few better arguments than this.
I, for one, use plenty of non-GPL software in my day to day life. I enjoy GPL software, but I tend to release open source software under more permissive licenses, such as MIT. I also use (and write) a lot of (gasp) closed source software as well.
For the love of Pete, there are plenty of different software licenses out there. If you don't like the terms of a given license, don't use the software. If apache changes their terms because they think it makes them less likely to be sued, good for them. The GPL isn't the One True License, it's just one of the more restrictive ones that still claims to be "free". News flash: you can run software with virtually any license as long as you agree to the conditions. If some GPL-zealot distribution decides not to include Apache because of this, that's their problem.
Since 100% of their claims are related to AIX and Dynix code, and they DIDN"T show that the code in question is derived from SysV, 100% of their claims are already disproven. All they've shown is that IBM contributed IBM code to Linux. Everyone already knew that. 10 Seconds.
>Your going to have to prove that SCO knowingly and intentionally attempted to defraud those 1500 recipients. I don't beleive that's the case, and you'll have a very difficult time PROVING it.
They certainly are intentionally claiming money for "property" (i.e. linux) that they don't have clear title to. Ignorance/delusion is not an excuse. Lets say that I decide that I own Highway 92. I see all the cars passing by on it, and I'm not making a cent of profit, so I set up a toll plaza. The fact that I truly believe I own highway 92 does not make it any more legal. I'd have a hard time proving in court that I own it, because I don't have clear title to it.
Likewise, if I (in my delusional mind) decide that I invented the steering wheel and that all steering wheels everywhere are my "IP"... so I send out invoices to everyone that owns a car.. I have a good feeling that would still be mail fraud, and I'd still be delusional. What do I have clear title to that someone else owes me for? Jack squat.
Does insanity work to your advantage in postal fraud cases? I don't have the case law to back it up, but I'm guessing no.
>what the hell is David Boies doing backing these con artists?
I'm not sure he is. He has yet to appear in court on their behalf. His firm is being paid a great deal of money, win or lose.. my guess is that by contract they have to see this suit to the bitter end. I suspect they signed that contract without knowing both sides of the story. I doubt David Boies personally has any intention of polluting his reputation further with this case. When Kevin (Darl's brother) appeared in court instead of Boies, that was a possible indication that Boies wants to distance himself as much as he can from this case. Darl can't find anyone but his brother (and a couple other well paid,win or lose lawyers) to buy into his crackpot theories on "IP".
How about... Putting the radar in the FRONT of the car, have a really annoying siren that goes off when the car is going over 50 MPH, and within 3 feet of someone else's rear bumper. The siren would be accompanied by a cell phone jamming signal, and the TV and radio would automatically go off as well. Additionally for the larger cars, a bulkhead would go up between the driver and the rear seats.
This contraption would be mandatory for all trucks, SUVs, souped-up Japanese compacts, and Volvos.
That would cause accidents to drop by about 90% in my estimation.
>Mac displays have 72 DPI, and Windows uses 96 DPI.
If that were the case, there would be required resolutions for certain size monitors. I can set a 19 inch display to 640x480, and I'm pretty damn certain that's not 96 DPI.
Fact: You have no idea how big a font is going to be on a user's screen, windows or mac. The only thing you can control is how bit it is relative to the other documents the user might be dealing with.
>In many IT jobs you are old at 40, both because you can't keep up with all the new technology that comes along and because you are less creative at the problem solving that is at the core of many IT jobs.
That's totally bullshit. Some experience in a given field (in this case, medicine) FAR outweighs being sprightly. The "new technology" is never really THAT new, it's always some 1970s technology rehashed yet again. Personally, I'm one of those sprightly young programmers, but I wish my lab had more experienced programmers to show the young folks how it's done. I'm serious. Experience is MUCH more important than youth.
Ripping something from OSNews doesn't make it right.
I don't think it's like that at all. Debian would (by their own rules) not distribute XFree86 at all. Having no windowsing system would be a much bigger problem than your missing driver. Boo hoo for Debian. If they chose to distribute an old version of XFree, you could always write your driver for it.
The XFree86 License changing slightly has nothing to do with protecting your driver code. If you released your driver under the OLD XFree86 license, (even though it's GPL compatible) NVidia could take it and use it comercially.
If you release your driver under the GPL, then neither the old-licensed XFree nor the new license could take it because the GPL is much more restrictive.
What we have here is status quo for all practical purposes... except for the GPL zealot distributions.
Where's the reel-to-reel, the RCA video disk, the laser disk, the cassete tape?
>it is known to be unencumbered by patents.
Even if the code has a known pedigree, to say something is unencumbered by patents is not easy to do. Anything and everything in the software world is patented. You can't blow your nose without infringing the patent on snot. Likewise, it's nearly impossible to write any software and know whether or not you're infringing on a set of patents. Are you going to go line by line, feature by feature, and do a patent search on everything? It would be safer to say "no one has yet challenged Linux with patent infringement".
> I don't think Linus would deny the contribution of GNU to the success of Linux.
I'm sure you're right. However, it's not necessary to name a program after the compiler that produced the binary. That's why the kernel is called "Linux" and not "GCC/Linux". There are indeed a lot of GNU programs in my Linux install. There are a lot of BSD programs, X11 programs, programs not written by GNU but still licensed under the GPL, a few commercial applications, etc...
The point is when you declare that an "operating system" is defined, and indeed named after its userland programs, then I'm a proud owner of a GNU/X11/BSD/Loki/Freevo..../Linux system.
Therefore it's not GNU/Linux because that's leaving out all the other userland programs. If you restrict the naming convention to just the kernel, things are a hell of a lot easier. "Linux" is a perfectly good name by itself.
I once had a job where I did photo-etching from 6PM to 6AM. Basically it involved running sheets of metal through hydrochloric acid. The problem is, being that I was a temporary, I got to work with the OLD machines. We had to hang the sheets overhead... they'd come out dripping with acid. The acid would run down my arm... I'd end up with brown stains all over my arms and clothes.
It was also LOUD, HOT, and Humid.
When the morning shift would come in, they were all bald, had thick glasses, and a couple were missing some teeth.
I didn't stay too long.
>Don't get me wrong, the BSD license has it's place, but if >the main point is to keep the code free, what would you >choose something that lets anyone take the code and make >it non-free?
Absolutely. There are different kinds of freedom. The ability to incorporate code into a commercial project without fear of litigation is a huge freedom for those of us that live in the real world.
Personally, when I write open source code (especially utility classes), I prefer BSD-style licenses. Hell, use it however you want if you like it. If you don't like it, change it! If you think it's worth something, sell it. If you can't release your source code, I don't care. I don't want to come after you, I just don't want you to sue me if it breaks. That's true freedom - The ability to share ideas and not involve the lawyers.
The GPL has its place, but doesn't do well with utility functions and libraries. That's why the LGPL, BSD, and a host of other licenses are still around.
My advice to the author of this article: Consider your options. Does the code in question really belong under the GPL? Does it's being under the GPL prevent your intended audience from using it? What are you trying to accomplish? Do you feel these companies are preventing you from accomplishing that? The answer to those questions will lead you to either
1) re-license the code
-or-
2) threaten to sue the bastards (but be sure to follow through)
By all rights, you can probably do either... just make sure you're doing the right thing.
SCO did give IBM 60+ pages of "evidence", as far as we can tell.
groklaw.net
>we are stuck with a 'communist' model for corporates. :)
Communism is an economic system, not a political system.
The word you're looking for is "fascist".
I, for one, am quite happy about the fascist corporate model. Democracy is OK for governments, but for large corporations, making the kinds of stupid decisions that "democratic" governments do would put them out of business FAST.
Wow. I'm sure having such a bullshit tracking system really helps your company attract the best talent, too.
The way of the future is to have a mobile, flexible workforce. Employees must be personally responsible for their business results, and allowed to accomodate their lives into their plan in accomplishing those results. How are you going to enable that climate by making "hours" more important than productivity? Your company is taking a step back into 1984.
>Not unless the donation of those services have a direct impact on your companies bottom line
What's really interesting is that Microsoft is allowed to pay reduced taxes due to "donating" software licenses to schools. Giving the licenses away costs them nothing, increases their market share, makes their monopoly even more firmly entrenched, and yet somehow still is a tax deduction.
It makes the tax paying public look like fools.
I'd say extended warranties are always a waste of money... As the previous poster pointed out, the seller of the warranty knows how often their products break, and is quite sure they'll make a hefty profit off the warranty. The odds that it will work out in your favor are extremely slim. This is true even with high-maintenance items like American cars. The warranty will expressly not cover (in fine print) anything that's likely to break. Extended warranties are a sucker's bet.
It's too bad that anyone is in such dire straits that they think they need one.
Good point.
I liken having an extended warranty to taking out life insurance on your children. If you really couldn't afford to bury them (should the unthinkable happen), you take out life insurance on them.
Likewise, if you really can't afford to be without your appliance for an extended period, and can't afford a new one, you may want to consider the extended warranty.
Of course, the wiser course of action would be to take the money that you would spend on extended warranties, life insurance for kids, etc... and put it all into an emergency fund, and dip into it only when absolutely necessary. Unfortuantely this requires much more restraint than the average consumer can bear.
Sure... cast the blame on someone else.
>2GB for $100 would have really hit a sweet spot, though, and probably would have absolutely destroyed the flash player market in one fell swoop.
Maybe. Just maybe. One of the key markets of flash based players is composed of people that work out (running,etc). I like the iPod, but I'm not absolutely convinced it's as rugged as a flash-based player. The "no moving parts" feature is an important one.
Dear Santa,
My christmas wish is for the SCO stockholders to wake up and realize they're being taken for a ride. That way the rest of the world could get on with their lives without worrying about being bitten in the ankles by Daryl McBride. For Daryl, I wish a long stay in the relaxing resort for his kind of folk known as Utah State Prison. I wish for him a large roommate named Bubba.
Peace.
An ordinary Linux user.
Exactly. No one should have them. Ever. The chances of any government de-stabilizing or the weapons falling into the wrong hands are simply too great. To say that more nations should have them to level the playing field is just ludicrous... every new device produced introduces a greater chance a device will be used, and that use will be retaliated against with even greater force.
Now we'll have some smartass high school student making an h-bomb in his toolshed, just to show how smart he is. Some things are better left secret, and I think this is one of them. I'm all for the freedom of information in most cases, but I do not believe my neighbors and the billions of people across the world that hate the United States should have access to this kind of information. I know everyone will have nukes eventually, I just hope it doesn't happen until my (future) children can grow up and lead productive lives. Let's not blow the planet up just yet. I happen to like it.