There is a dramatic diffrence between a Slashdotting and a DDOS. A Slashdotting is when many people are directed to visit a website and do so. The resulting load of lagit visiters causes the server to overload.
A DDOS is when a bunch of people send garbage packets to the target server. The resulting load clogs the network and keeps lagit users from visiting the website.
When a bunch of people call a 1-800 number to complain they are making lagit phone calls. This is Slashdotting it's perfictly legal.
When a bunch of people call and hang up or call and ask "If your fridge running?" or similar prank calls then your DDOSing. This isn't legal.
And let's be clear on this. DDOS is hacking is applicable to the Internet and the laws binding to computer networks.
The applicable law for calling a voice line and hanging up is not hacking but harrasment.
So it all depends on what you say when you call. If your calling in protest you need to state your opposed to the companys possition that "cold calling" is protected speach.
But if you just call and say something goofy and hang up that's harrasment.
Yep they have your name and number but more importantly if your violating the law they can get your name and number from the records no matter what with a simple cort order. Caller ID blocking won't work here eather. The phone company has your records and will give them up with a cort order in a phone harrasment case.
I remember someone saying basicly SCOs case against IBM is not that IBM took code from SCO and put it in Linux. But that any code IBM wrote for AIX (under the SCO liccens) is SCOs property as AIX uses SCOs intelectual property as a code base.
In public SCO clames the issue is purely a matter of SCO property in Linux. Then SCO uses this and related FUD to frighten everyone into NOT suing SCO when SCO dose things like sell Linux binarys or bill Linux users for SCOs intelectual property. Things SCO has no legal right to do.
SCO basicly acts like they own Linux when they have no legal clame to it and use public clames and FUD to frighen anyone who might challange SCOs ownership clame into sillence.
The key is that SCO must win this lawsute against IBM.
What SCO is clamming is that any code writen for Unix while under liccens from SCO is automaticly SCOs property. I sereously doupt there is any language in SCOs liccens to back up this clame as IBM would not sign a contract with such an extream clame. IBM knows better. I think SCO is using the case of "implied ownership" and you probably won't find that term or anything like that term in legal text becouse I don't think implied ownership is recognised.
Microsoft attempted to pull something similar to what SCO is pulling way back. The part when SCO clames that SOME of SCO code is in Linux makes ALL of Linux now SCOs property.
Microsoft worked with IBM to improve OS/2. Microsoft then released Microsoft OS/2. The corts rulling is relevent to this in many ways.
First it clames that IBM retains ownership of the name OS/2 and the code IBM wrote for OS/2. But it also clames that any code Microsoft added to OS/2 Microsoft may use any way Microsoft fits. They however do not have any right to code IBM wrote.
So basicly IBM did not give Microsoft the rights to IBMs code or OS/2 trademark. The Linux community did not give SCO rights to the Linux code or Linux trademark outside of the terms of the GPL liccens.
Microsoft did give IBM code so IBM can use it in OS/2 but Microsoft may also use that same code anyplace else Microsoft wants. IBM did put code in IBMs flavor of Unix and didn't actually give it to SCO so it's not clear if SCO can do ANYTHING with the code. But IBM still retains ownership of that code should IBM use it in Linux, OS/2 or any other IBM product.
Finally IBM clames to have not extracted any code from AIX for Linux to prevent contaminating Linux with someone elses intelectual property.
Becouse the infringment is supposidly between AIX and Linux not Unixware and Linux it's quite likely in my opinion that SCO dosen't actually have the code in question to make any compairisons with and instead SCO is using a compleatly diffrent approch by using behavure as the metric. But as any good programmer will know you can arrive at the same behavure with diffrent code.
IBM could shread AIX and Linux and post the results...
You obviously don't run a business. Principles like "free as in freedom" don't come into play when you're talking about the bottom line.
I do run a business and in fact "free as in freedom" has a direct impact on the bottom line.
It's not some far off utopian consept and it's not the price tag on the software. It's the preformence of the software today tomarow and into the far flung future.
Fact is you can never be sure ANY program will have the features you want or need tomarow. You can only find the software that dose the job the best today.
Every pacage uses a unique file format. This isn't an option as features expand byond the existing standards. Those formats in closed source are also closed. The documentation of those formats are unreliable at best. Those formats in open source are open. There is no better documentation of a file format than the source code used to load and save that file. Porting it over to annother pacage shouldn't be a problem thow even if it is you know exactly how it's done so you can make a compatable process.
As your business expands so dose your needs. There is no way you can know what those needs will be before they arrive. If the software your using dosen't fill those needs then it's time to make a change.
With open source you could add the feature yourself. Or you can find a pacage that already supports the features you want and need.
With closed source you can... scale back so you don't need that feature anymore. Or shut down while everything is painstakingly copied by hand from one pacage to annother.
Or pay the company large sums of money to add the feature.
Or find a way around the need.
Or pay a document conversion company to handle the transision for you.
Or download an open source conversion program and pray...
Being that I'm not christian that last one isn't an option....
Any time you give up freedom the price you pay for your business is the ability to do new and diffrent things.
And if your smart you'll be going in directions NOBODY has gone before. When that happends you'll open up new possabilitys and whole new software requirements. Your only option then is to add the features you need or write a whole new program.
If your using closed source however you cann't do eather. If your using open source you can...
If you write a whole new program it's totally up to you if it's open or close. If your not in the software business your probably better off going open source and get the free advertsing that comes with it.
If you are in the software business then write your own code from the start and none of this will ever be an issue.
My first reaction: And next we have a liccens to read and write.
Second reaction: Great a liccens.... So we'll have an Internet full of MCSE who know they need to download the latest patches and won't. Or will it be more like the lawyers who invented SPAM as we know it today?
Then I read the Slashdot forums....
A fine... I can live with that. We could have classes just like we have driving classes but the liccens shouldn't be anything more than an Internet account.
Simply make it a manditory rule that all ISPs must charge a sign up fee (the ISP keeps the fee it just has to be uniform so people can't skip to annother ISP) and if they break the rules they lose the account and get to find annother ISP.
I'm sure ISPs will go for it as it reduces user churn. I know AoL would love that. What AOL won't like is that this will also kill freebe trial accounts and AOL CDs.
Ok we know the cloud. Grumble stupid patent laws every jerk patenting everything. There has GOT to be some prior art I mean Mosaic supports plug ins. Goddess I mean even LYNX supports plugins.
Hay Microsoft we hate patent laws have your lawers check out the prior art Slashdot users find... GRRR
Ok well anyway the good news in all this is that we won't have a bunch of crazy extended protocals tacked on. While this will cut features down like say flash media it will also cut down compatability issues such as say flash media.
Plug ins mean that a company can tack on some new protocal and that was a good thing at first. But what we've experenced over time is companys making plug ins for one browser on one operating system for one processor... While the last part is usually not noticed given that it's usually IE/Win9X/Intel but when it's IE/WinNT it's still Intel and when they shoot for many platforms... MacOS horray but only PowerPC... Linux GREAT but wait... only Intel..
Then you have companys that go all out.... MacOs 9, MacOs X, Linux, Win(All versions), Solarus, BSD.... Intel, Alpha, etc etc etc... Netscape/Mozilla, IE.... Mosaic? No, Knoqour? No.. Aweb? No...
And a few skips... Nothing for 68k. Nothing for Palm or Blackbury Nothing for Qtopia (Used on Linux PDAs)...
There is one overwhelmingly good reason for this...
Linux/BSD/Solarus Ok all very similare it's not to difficult to make a code that compiles on them all.
MacOsX is a bit diffrent so a bit more work is needed.
Windows vareations don't change much on the code side. So just as you could easly make a code that compiles on Linux/BSD/Solarus you could make a code that runs on the vareous versions of Windows.
Actually using Make you could make it all one code but thats not the point. There would only be small diffrences between the *nix systems and small diffrences between the Win systems.
So you have basicly two develupment efforts but testing on as many as 6 diffrent operating systems.
But then compile on... HOW MANY? NT and the *nix systems work on a wide range of proccesors.
So now you've dubbled your develupment budget and jumped your hardware cost many times over.
Then you have Palm.. and Blackbury... Do your eyes have the the anime sweerly eye "I think I'm gona be sick" effect yet?
Then you have Amiga and Apple II GS... How many develupers said "Screw it" yet? How many of you think you can support ALL of that?
Wait.... we haven't gotten into all the browsers that are out there... Ready to give up yet?
That is why plug in develupers don't support everyone. They CAN'T.
And I did forget BeOS and OS/2 for a reason... See even with all that listing there are still operating systems I didn't mention. A very large list I might add.
The web was designed originally so we'd all have one commen (admittedly evolving) standard on the client side and have the new features added SERVER SIDE.
If you do need more features on the browser side that is what Java is for. And if Java dosen't do the job then get on the job and make your own standard browser side language we can all support.
If Clinton was in office, you'd be screaming bloody murder.
But would this archive have "Monica" storys? Would it have the now famous "Bill Clinton Rape" story? I think not.
The majority of the news media makes an effort to repress political spin storys as they are trying to report the news. If your republican friends do bitch about the latest anti-democrat bashing story isn't circulating through the press and wants to clame unfair representation you can point them to this archive.
But I see no other purpous for this website byond showing that there is in fact a larg amount of pro-democrat/anti-republican spin storys that don't get reported any more than the pro-republican/anti-democrat storys.
It would be helpful to see the source matereal from where McBride makes this charge. It is not like McBride has access to personal messages sent by ESR. (Dose this agin show a patern? Making wild clames with out the source.)
Knowing a bit of how information doctoring works I think I can extract what REALLY happned.
However let's remeber that this 'knowladge ferensics' is at best guesswork and may not be what happend.
ESR was contacted by someone electronicly (by e-mail or instant message) saying he is feed up and wants to DoS SCO.
In this ESR dose not know who this person is and dose not have any information to give to the athoritys. The person dose not clame responsability for anything and is mearly stating his anger and desire to take action. ESR would know this person is a member of the open source community purely out of his opinions reguarding SCO are in fact in support. The open source community is vast and Darl McBride himself is or at least was a member of that community.
Annother posability and I'd say the most likely one of all.
ESR dose nothing more than say the idea that a member of the open source community has taken it on himself to DoS SCO has made him sick and asks this person stop.
In this version of events ESR has no information at all and is mearly accepting SCOs clame that the DoS attack comes from a member of the open source community.
If ESR did have the identity of this individual it's up to the athoritys to contact him not for ESR to publicly publish the identity. It seams to me that Darl McBride is just milking a public statment...
HELLO... Thank you Slashdot someone else on Slashdot (up a bit on the thread) has found the artical.
here is the post and as I read the artical I'd say the second possability was the correct one. That ESR did in fact make jump to the conclusion that SCO was being DoSed in responce to SCOs action.
ESR was never contacted by the athoritys to discolose the identity becouse to spite Darl McBrides clames ESR dose not have the dentity of the attacker nore dose he have any idea who it may be.
I'd abort this post now but I think this is a useful example of how Darl McBride uses a small investment of information to create what ever "fact" sutes his agenda.
If I may go ferther it is an issue of human psycology that once you begin thinking in this way you become trapped and quickly lose touch with reality.
He's not on crack. He's just delusional slipping ferther and ferther into a fantacy world.
So basicly your saying just becouse the C64 is newer?
I shall now behin ripping this to shreads.
Firstly the Commodore 64 was a rebuilt Vic 20. At the time the video game market came to expect better graphics and sound than was currently available in computers or game consoles. While this had no impact on the Apple II line (for reasons I'll get into later) it rendered the Atari 800 and Vic 20 obsolete or at least that is what people thought at the time.
The Atari 800 was made years prior at a time when the market was moving from game consoles to game computers. It was still for the most part a game console but it was made to be useful as a computer.
The Vic20 was made at a time when home computers were way to expensive and while most people were intrested in getting a computer they "didn't know what I'd do with one" and "just wanted to play video games" that they could do on a cheap game console. The Vic20 was marketted and sold as a computer that played video games for a little more than a video game console. The Vic20 (not the Commodore 64) was sold for $100 at Kmart (The Commodore 64 would cost $400 when it first came out).
The Apple II was built at a time when video games were toys and computers were for business. Hence the Apple II was marketted for the small business owner and the hacker market.
Surviving the ages.
Becouse the Apple II was expandable when the video game a market expected better graphics and sound the Apple II answered the call with expantion cards. You could spend thousands of dollars on sound alone if you wanted. However being aimmed at the business market the Apple II userbase had little need for this so it was mostly left to profesionals who needed the best the market had to offer and for those profesionals they could get cards that were priced many times more than the computer itself.
Being a business computer the Apple II was not effected by the video game dark ages.
Apple gracefully discontinued the Apple II line at the end of the age of the 8 bits and focused on the Macintosh. This could be likend to the end of Chears.. The Apple II line ended while it was still populare.
Atari negelcted the computer market focusing on the game console market as users demanded better graphics. Some think this was Ataris biggest mistake as the video game dark ages was soon to folow. The Atari 800 would not out live it's day and age. The Atari XL line would bring Atari back into the computer market.
Commodore had always felt being a business tool was what made the Vic20 and C64 a computer. The Vic20 survived the demand for graphics by being a cheap computer. The simple games, many hacks, robotics and a small selection of business software was enough to satisfy a supprisingly large number of users.
The Commodore 64 had more going for it. While never on the same level as the Apple II it was a business computer. The 80 col hack for the 64 was an eye strain. The added memory was useless. It couldn't do better than 2400 baud over the sereal port. It would survive as a cheap computer and a cheap toy.
The Vic20 would eventually die as all 8bits became obsolete. The Commodore 128 (The replacement for the C64) would die for being released just before becomming obsolete thus it was still being sold it it's "Cutting edge brand new high tech" price as it became obsolete.
Commodore would redesign the C64 and it's disk drive the 1541 to reduce production costs only then would commodore produce the 64c and 1541 II for $150. At this point however the Atari 800 and Apple II were long gone. The only thing keeping the 64 alive at this point was it's price tag and very long list of games.
Then... Commodore would fold.
The Commodore 64 would continue to be sold years later by a referbishing company that would buy used dead Commodores fix them or use them for parts.
The one place your right about was the C64's history of defects. The C64 was rushed out the doo
Where as my role models are Jack Tramel of Commodore and Noel of Atari. It should be no supprise Woz gathers the greatest cult folowing and in the Commodore circle Jim Butterfield is more populare than Jack.
Just to get everyone up to speed on who I'm talking about: Jack Tramel founder of Commodore Noel founder of Atari (and vareous other companys) Jim Butterfield famed Commodore guru. Woz needs no introduction...
Jack Tramel has done more about solving business problems and develuping cool business moddles than he has been about designing computers.
Noel is both a great inventer and a great business man. Woz is pure techie having Jobs handle the business end.
Of the C64, Atari 800 and Apple II.... C64 was still in production when Commodore folded with referbished units selling for years afterwords as if the company was still alive.
The Apple II, II+ and IIe could be expanded to have the processing power of the 16 bit 6502 clones just by dropping in a card. This included support for the 16meg of memory that CPU line supported and exsisting software would take advantage of this. The Apple II gs was the last of the line having that 16 bit cpu as part of the system. Later on a web browser would be made for this platform making it the lowest end legacy system to run a graphical web browser.
Atari was known as the name in video games untill the video game dark ages by such time Noel had already sold Atari and was responsable for Chuck E Cheases.
Commodore stopped being Tramels Commodore when he got sued by the primary backer for the company over control of the company during hard times. It is my opinion this lawsute was the pivitol point that would lead to Commodores death.
Atari stopped being Noels Atari when he sold it and moved on to bigger and better things. Smart man.
Apple stopped being WOZes Apple when Jobs was no longer in charge. Yet WOZ would be responsable for the entire Apple II line ending in the IIgz. Some might argue however that Apple never really ceased to be Wozes Apple it just dosen't have it's cheff tech anymore.
There are diffrent ways to do a firewall. Some people block off all ports but those for the features they want to have. Some people cut off only ports where the user must first make contact (and all UDP packets and peer networks).
If your ISP sets up a firewall they are also desiding what protocals your going to use.
Just becouse some Windows systes have a back door on a given port dose not make it a good idea to block that port for everyone. That port could also be used by the latest greatest net client. A new data network. A better web. Or a new game.
I'd just be like Microsoft to have a back door on exactly the same port as a new automated update protocal for annother operating system.
The artical points out something SCO never really denied and that is that SCO dose not hold or own the Unix spec or name. They only clame to own the code from where that spec and name came from.
SCO called the code "Unix" becouse that is what it is known as to spite the fact that the name has actually been sold to annother entity.
So please know that SCO is refering to "The code formerly known as Unix" as Unix.
However Novel clames they in fact did not sell the Unix code to SCO but mearly liccensed it.
SCOs clames are based on violation of code not of name and spec. Basicly SCO is saying IBM put SCOs intelectual property into Linux and nobody is clamming IBM called Linux a Unix system and the specs IBM added to Linux are more closely related to OS/2.
Basicly this artical clames SCO dose not own the rights to the name of the code SCO clames to own. The artical clames however that SCO owns the code and that code is the key not the codes name.
Potato potahto. It's that Novel clames they never sold SCO the code. They clame to have only liccensed it.
It is more than likely the victioms and famalys of victioms are suffering so much emotional distress they themselfs will agree with the first sympethetic ear.
Really if the first person to contact the famalys clamed it was chewing gum that did it they'd believe it.
On the other hand it's been proven some people do mimic what they see. There are always a large number of copy cat crimes. Someone dose something evil someone watching the news says "Ohh" and dose it to. Some people have even advocated that the news media shouldn't be permitted to report preticularly violent crimes becouse of the copy cats.
And there will always be somebody that dose something evil or wrong as a direct reflection of someone elses actions.
Let's segway to a fun topic here on Slashdot. Let's just assume the majority opinion on Microsoft is right and Microsofts software is buggy with back doors etc and that is why we have worms and virues today.. This isn't for arguing the vality of this idea let us just assume it's true for the sake of argument... If true... Microsoft is not the slightest bit responsable for the viruses and worms. They aren't responsable for the distruction or chaos.
Microsoft didn't write the viruses or worms. Someone else did.
IF Microsoft made a poorly designed os then Microsoft is responsable for a poorly designed os. They aren't responsable for how people abuse this.
A software company makes a violent video game. A parent buys said game for kids. Kids don't have a sense of responsability, values or reality to tell them the game is nothing more than escapism it's wrong and evil to do those things in the real world becouse the parents use the 'it takes a village' approch. In other words they leave it to us to rase the kids and then are supprised when those kids turn out evil.
Disclamer: I'm not refering to Hillary Clintons suggesions found inside the book of that title but what people assume having only read the title. It's a commen thing. Many parents are good parents not becouse they want to be but out of a sense of socal responsability. The instant they find a way to give up that responsability and not look like human garbage for it they go for it. Examples would be "Tough love" done right this is a very difficult program done wrong your just dumping your kid on the street. But to many parents do it with out reading the books on the subject or seeking help from the vareous programs and just dump the kid and say "see what a great parent I am?". They end up bragging about how great tough love is to the head of a psycatric ward while the child is being treated for a number of psycological disorders.
The latest "no responsability" games are to give your kid what ever game they want and to blame those games when the kid gose bizerk.
How about teaching kids that violent video games are escapism? Or at the very least not buying those games.
any place you should be using a plug especally into a streight edge connecter (like old ISA bords) use a jumper cable. There is a very good chance the jumper will slip off the power and on to a naboring data connection sending full power into a system that can't handle it for the breaf moment the jumper is connected to both... ZAP.
I keep a very long password file on my PDA (Actually now it's two files) and on my computer.
There is an application for the palm that let's you store all your passwords on your PDA then protect the whole batch with a password. Umm just one thow.
I do confess to use one password for very low priority items. (Neopets, message boards, NY times) But have unique passwords for anything of any importance (anything that should have a password) (Slashdot, Paypal, Ebay, yahoo)
My e-mail and webserver passwords are always cryptc becouse I only enter them once into the clients I'm using on my workstation at home.
From "Outside the inner circle" The book gets into details of the 'bad things' that could happen.
Some quick answers: "Why would anyone want my account I just post pictures of my cat" "Becouse some people are jerks, Some people hate cats, Some people hate FTP and some people can "make better use" of your account by distributing illegal or imortal matereal such as pirated software, MP3s, child porn or plans for bombs. Then you take the blame."
"It's just an FTP account what could anyone possably do with that?" "Besides distributing illegal matereal (child porn, bomb instructions) FTP is very powerful and contains a number of powerful features that could be used by people who how how FTP works to gain more access to the system."
"They couldn't access your root/admin from my account could they?" "There is a whole book on the subject"
When software is in charge it will have a bies in a single direction reflecting the bies of the programmer. This is a significant power giving one man the chance to make choices for thousands of people all at once.
While it's true a judge or profesor will reflect bieses, opinions and addatudes of the person those will be of a random group with random bieses, opinions and addatudes. It dose not give rise to a single direction of bieses, opinions and addatudes that one single program would.
Should it be closed? "The boss wants a back door that gives the bosses kids top grades no matter what" Or open "This is the patern it checks for here. Just folow this math matic algarithum and you'll ace it".
Or somewhere inbetween "See here.. this is where it checks to see if your the bosses son"
Or worse... "This kid is a punk... add code to trash his grades" "all I got to do is 'accadentally' cross an I and his grades tank"
Thats for grades....
Now if it were judges.... Auto Judge "You've been found guilty of software piracy. Off with your head." Convicted "But your honnor I clearly showed it was my code to start with." Auto Judge "Nobody gives away code. It's a trick. Off with your head."
or worse... Electronic amisty... software back doors to permit new interpretations of the law. "I am LawBot by SCO..."
Here's a question how dose a government picking an operating system deside who the winners are aren't they just annother consummer?
Well no they aren't and when a government picks an operating system the public needs to remain compatable. With Windows that means using Microsoft products or compatable products in free software.
With Linux that means... supporting open standards. Any operating system on the market will do that. It also means Microsoft now has to activly support open standards like everyone else to maintain compatability with Linux systems in government.
Slashdot Mirror
Your mixxing laws and terminology here.
There is a dramatic diffrence between a Slashdotting and a DDOS. A Slashdotting is when many people are directed to visit a website and do so. The resulting load of lagit visiters causes the server to overload.
A DDOS is when a bunch of people send garbage packets to the target server. The resulting load clogs the network and keeps lagit users from visiting the website.
When a bunch of people call a 1-800 number to complain they are making lagit phone calls. This is Slashdotting it's perfictly legal.
When a bunch of people call and hang up or call and ask "If your fridge running?" or similar prank calls then your DDOSing. This isn't legal.
And let's be clear on this. DDOS is hacking is applicable to the Internet and the laws binding to computer networks.
The applicable law for calling a voice line and hanging up is not hacking but harrasment.
So it all depends on what you say when you call. If your calling in protest you need to state your opposed to the companys possition that "cold calling" is protected speach.
But if you just call and say something goofy and hang up that's harrasment.
Yep they have your name and number but more importantly if your violating the law they can get your name and number from the records no matter what with a simple cort order. Caller ID blocking won't work here eather. The phone company has your records and will give them up with a cort order in a phone harrasment case.
I remember someone saying basicly SCOs case against IBM is not that IBM took code from SCO and put it in Linux.
But that any code IBM wrote for AIX (under the SCO liccens) is SCOs property as AIX uses SCOs intelectual property as a code base.
In public SCO clames the issue is purely a matter of SCO property in Linux. Then SCO uses this and related FUD to frighten everyone into NOT suing SCO when SCO dose things like sell Linux binarys or bill Linux users for SCOs intelectual property. Things SCO has no legal right to do.
SCO basicly acts like they own Linux when they have no legal clame to it and use public clames and FUD to frighen anyone who might challange SCOs ownership clame into sillence.
The key is that SCO must win this lawsute against IBM.
What SCO is clamming is that any code writen for Unix while under liccens from SCO is automaticly SCOs property. I sereously doupt there is any language in SCOs liccens to back up this clame as IBM would not sign a contract with such an extream clame. IBM knows better. I think SCO is using the case of "implied ownership" and you probably won't find that term or anything like that term in legal text becouse I don't think implied ownership is recognised.
Microsoft attempted to pull something similar to what SCO is pulling way back. The part when SCO clames that SOME of SCO code is in Linux makes ALL of Linux now SCOs property.
Microsoft worked with IBM to improve OS/2. Microsoft then released Microsoft OS/2. The corts rulling is relevent to this in many ways.
First it clames that IBM retains ownership of the name OS/2 and the code IBM wrote for OS/2.
But it also clames that any code Microsoft added to OS/2 Microsoft may use any way Microsoft fits. They however do not have any right to code IBM wrote.
So basicly IBM did not give Microsoft the rights to IBMs code or OS/2 trademark. The Linux community did not give SCO rights to the Linux code or Linux trademark outside of the terms of the GPL liccens.
Microsoft did give IBM code so IBM can use it in OS/2 but Microsoft may also use that same code anyplace else Microsoft wants. IBM did put code in IBMs flavor of Unix and didn't actually give it to SCO so it's not clear if SCO can do ANYTHING with the code. But IBM still retains ownership of that code should IBM use it in Linux, OS/2 or any other IBM product.
Finally IBM clames to have not extracted any code from AIX for Linux to prevent contaminating Linux with someone elses intelectual property.
Becouse the infringment is supposidly between AIX and Linux not Unixware and Linux it's quite likely in my opinion that SCO dosen't actually have the code in question to make any compairisons with and instead SCO is using a compleatly diffrent approch by using behavure as the metric. But as any good programmer will know you can arrive at the same behavure with diffrent code.
IBM could shread AIX and Linux and post the results...
You obviously don't run a business. Principles like "free as in freedom" don't come into play when you're talking about the bottom line.
I do run a business and in fact "free as in freedom" has a direct impact on the bottom line.
It's not some far off utopian consept and it's not the price tag on the software.
It's the preformence of the software today tomarow and into the far flung future.
Fact is you can never be sure ANY program will have the features you want or need tomarow.
You can only find the software that dose the job the best today.
Every pacage uses a unique file format. This isn't an option as features expand byond the existing standards.
Those formats in closed source are also closed. The documentation of those formats are unreliable at best.
Those formats in open source are open. There is no better documentation of a file format than the source code used to load and save that file. Porting it over to annother pacage shouldn't be a problem thow even if it is you know exactly how it's done so you can make a compatable process.
As your business expands so dose your needs. There is no way you can know what those needs will be before they arrive. If the software your using dosen't fill those needs then it's time to make a change.
With open source you could add the feature yourself.
Or you can find a pacage that already supports the features you want and need.
With closed source you can... scale back so you don't need that feature anymore.
Or shut down while everything is painstakingly copied by hand from one pacage to annother.
Or pay the company large sums of money to add the feature.
Or find a way around the need.
Or pay a document conversion company to handle the transision for you.
Or download an open source conversion program and pray...
Being that I'm not christian that last one isn't an option....
Any time you give up freedom the price you pay for your business is the ability to do new and diffrent things.
And if your smart you'll be going in directions NOBODY has gone before. When that happends you'll open up new possabilitys and whole new software requirements.
Your only option then is to add the features you need or write a whole new program.
If your using closed source however you cann't do eather.
If your using open source you can...
If you write a whole new program it's totally up to you if it's open or close.
If your not in the software business your probably better off going open source and get the free advertsing that comes with it.
If you are in the software business then write your own code from the start and none of this will ever be an issue.
Well actually it sounds like they're keeping the "Freedom of information" it just happends to be that they meant fredom of YOUR information.
My first reaction: And next we have a liccens to read and write.
Second reaction: Great a liccens....
So we'll have an Internet full of MCSE who know they need to download the latest patches and won't.
Or will it be more like the lawyers who invented SPAM as we know it today?
Then I read the Slashdot forums....
A fine... I can live with that.
We could have classes just like we have driving classes but the liccens shouldn't be anything more than an Internet account.
Simply make it a manditory rule that all ISPs must charge a sign up fee (the ISP keeps the fee it just has to be uniform so people can't skip to annother ISP) and if they break the rules they lose the account and get to find annother ISP.
I'm sure ISPs will go for it as it reduces user churn. I know AoL would love that.
What AOL won't like is that this will also kill freebe trial accounts and AOL CDs.
They'll probably lobby a loophole.... grrrr
Ok we know the cloud. Grumble stupid patent laws every jerk patenting everything.
There has GOT to be some prior art I mean Mosaic supports plug ins. Goddess I mean even LYNX supports plugins.
Hay Microsoft we hate patent laws have your lawers check out the prior art Slashdot users find... GRRR
Ok well anyway the good news in all this is that we won't have a bunch of crazy extended protocals tacked on. While this will cut features down like say flash media it will also cut down compatability issues such as say flash media.
Plug ins mean that a company can tack on some new protocal and that was a good thing at first.
But what we've experenced over time is companys making plug ins for one browser on one operating system for one processor... While the last part is usually not noticed given that it's usually IE/Win9X/Intel but when it's IE/WinNT it's still Intel and when they shoot for many platforms...
MacOS horray but only PowerPC...
Linux GREAT but wait... only Intel..
Then you have companys that go all out....
MacOs 9, MacOs X, Linux, Win(All versions), Solarus, BSD....
Intel, Alpha, etc etc etc...
Netscape/Mozilla, IE....
Mosaic? No, Knoqour? No.. Aweb? No...
And a few skips... Nothing for 68k. Nothing for Palm or Blackbury Nothing for Qtopia (Used on Linux PDAs)...
There is one overwhelmingly good reason for this...
Linux/BSD/Solarus Ok all very similare it's not to difficult to make a code that compiles on them all.
MacOsX is a bit diffrent so a bit more work is needed.
Windows vareations don't change much on the code side. So just as you could easly make a code that compiles on Linux/BSD/Solarus you could make a code that runs on the vareous versions of Windows.
Actually using Make you could make it all one code but thats not the point.
There would only be small diffrences between the *nix systems and small diffrences between the Win systems.
So you have basicly two develupment efforts but testing on as many as 6 diffrent operating systems.
But then compile on... HOW MANY? NT and the *nix systems work on a wide range of proccesors.
So now you've dubbled your develupment budget and jumped your hardware cost many times over.
Then you have Palm.. and Blackbury... Do your eyes have the the anime sweerly eye "I think I'm gona be sick" effect yet?
Then you have Amiga and Apple II GS...
How many develupers said "Screw it" yet? How many of you think you can support ALL of that?
Wait.... we haven't gotten into all the browsers that are out there...
Ready to give up yet?
That is why plug in develupers don't support everyone. They CAN'T.
And I did forget BeOS and OS/2 for a reason... See even with all that listing there are still operating systems I didn't mention.
A very large list I might add.
The web was designed originally so we'd all have one commen (admittedly evolving) standard on the client side and have the new features added SERVER SIDE.
If you do need more features on the browser side that is what Java is for.
And if Java dosen't do the job then get on the job and make your own standard browser side language we can all support.
I seam to have lost my spell nazi hat so I'll put on my hypocrate hat instead...
(In other words I can't spell worth a dime)
But...
I'm supprise Mac users give Commodore 64 users the time of day.
(For those to lazy to click the link...
Lunix is a Unix clone for the Commodore 64. Pritty cool IMHO.
It's also a commen typo for Linux.
Anyway everyone knows xaw3d will blow them away.
FYI: I'm joking I'm joking....
Anyway no worrys it'll be a while before we see it.
It's always done on Amiga first.
Microsoft announces a new version of Windows with it.
Linux has a better way.
Somebody patents it and sues everyone.
But IBM will have prior art having done it in the 1940's only back then the computer cought fire and causes a city wide power blackout.
Probably not, because those stories were investigated and found to be unsupported by anything other than paid witnesses and innuendo
Replace "paid" with "agnda",
Replace "investigated and found to be" with "obveously"
And you have not only the reason the "Clinton Bashing" storys weren't published but the reason thies storys weren't published.
Jesus, people, there's a difference between journalism and Scaife-funded mudslinging
Yes there is. The former gets reported the later find it's way to websites.
Obveously if your buying music from Apple you know who your dealing with right?
If Clinton was in office, you'd be screaming bloody murder.
But would this archive have "Monica" storys?
Would it have the now famous "Bill Clinton Rape" story? I think not.
The majority of the news media makes an effort to repress political spin storys as they are trying to report the news.
If your republican friends do bitch about the latest anti-democrat bashing story isn't circulating through the press and wants to clame unfair representation you can point them to this archive.
But I see no other purpous for this website byond showing that there is in fact a larg amount of pro-democrat/anti-republican spin storys that don't get reported any more than the pro-republican/anti-democrat storys.
It would be helpful to see the source matereal from where McBride makes this charge. It is not like McBride has access to personal messages sent by ESR.
(Dose this agin show a patern? Making wild clames with out the source.)
Knowing a bit of how information doctoring works I think I can extract what REALLY happned.
However let's remeber that this 'knowladge ferensics' is at best guesswork and may not be what happend.
ESR was contacted by someone electronicly (by e-mail or instant message) saying he is feed up and wants to DoS SCO.
In this ESR dose not know who this person is and dose not have any information to give to the athoritys.
The person dose not clame responsability for anything and is mearly stating his anger and desire to take action.
ESR would know this person is a member of the open source community purely out of his opinions reguarding SCO are in fact in support.
The open source community is vast and Darl McBride himself is or at least was a member of that community.
Annother posability and I'd say the most likely one of all.
ESR dose nothing more than say the idea that a member of the open source community has taken it on himself to DoS SCO has made him sick and asks this person stop.
In this version of events ESR has no information at all and is mearly accepting SCOs clame that the DoS attack comes from a member of the open source community.
If ESR did have the identity of this individual it's up to the athoritys to contact him not for ESR to publicly publish the identity.
It seams to me that Darl McBride is just milking a public statment...
HELLO... Thank you Slashdot someone else on Slashdot (up a bit on the thread) has found the artical.
here is the post and as I read the artical I'd say the second possability was the correct one. That ESR did in fact make jump to the conclusion that SCO was being DoSed in responce to SCOs action.
ESR was never contacted by the athoritys to discolose the identity becouse to spite Darl McBrides clames ESR dose not have the dentity of the attacker nore dose he have any idea who it may be.
I'd abort this post now but I think this is a useful example of how Darl McBride uses a small investment of information to create what ever "fact" sutes his agenda.
If I may go ferther it is an issue of human psycology that once you begin thinking in this way you become trapped and quickly lose touch with reality.
He's not on crack. He's just delusional slipping ferther and ferther into a fantacy world.
So basicly your saying just becouse the C64 is newer?
I shall now behin ripping this to shreads.
Firstly the Commodore 64 was a rebuilt Vic 20. At the time the video game market came to expect better graphics and sound than was currently available in computers or game consoles.
While this had no impact on the Apple II line (for reasons I'll get into later) it rendered the Atari 800 and Vic 20 obsolete or at least that is what people thought at the time.
The Atari 800 was made years prior at a time when the market was moving from game consoles to game computers. It was still for the most part a game console but it was made to be useful as a computer.
The Vic20 was made at a time when home computers were way to expensive and while most people were intrested in getting a computer they "didn't know what I'd do with one" and "just wanted to play video games" that they could do on a cheap game console.
The Vic20 was marketted and sold as a computer that played video games for a little more than a video game console.
The Vic20 (not the Commodore 64) was sold for $100 at Kmart (The Commodore 64 would cost $400 when it first came out).
The Apple II was built at a time when video games were toys and computers were for business. Hence the Apple II was marketted for the small business owner and the hacker market.
Surviving the ages.
Becouse the Apple II was expandable when the video game a market expected better graphics and sound the Apple II answered the call with expantion cards. You could spend thousands of dollars on sound alone if you wanted.
However being aimmed at the business market the Apple II userbase had little need for this so it was mostly left to profesionals who needed the best the market had to offer and for those profesionals they could get cards that were priced many times more than the computer itself.
Being a business computer the Apple II was not effected by the video game dark ages.
Apple gracefully discontinued the Apple II line at the end of the age of the 8 bits and focused on the Macintosh.
This could be likend to the end of Chears.. The Apple II line ended while it was still populare.
Atari negelcted the computer market focusing on the game console market as users demanded better graphics. Some think this was Ataris biggest mistake as the video game dark ages was soon to folow. The Atari 800 would not out live it's day and age.
The Atari XL line would bring Atari back into the computer market.
Commodore had always felt being a business tool was what made the Vic20 and C64 a computer.
The Vic20 survived the demand for graphics by being a cheap computer.
The simple games, many hacks, robotics and a small selection of business software was enough to satisfy a supprisingly large number of users.
The Commodore 64 had more going for it. While never on the same level as the Apple II it was a business computer.
The 80 col hack for the 64 was an eye strain. The added memory was useless. It couldn't do better than 2400 baud over the sereal port.
It would survive as a cheap computer and a cheap toy.
The Vic20 would eventually die as all 8bits became obsolete.
The Commodore 128 (The replacement for the C64) would die for being released just before becomming obsolete thus it was still being sold it it's "Cutting edge brand new high tech" price as it became obsolete.
Commodore would redesign the C64 and it's disk drive the 1541 to reduce production costs only then would commodore produce the 64c and 1541 II for $150. At this point however the Atari 800 and Apple II were long gone.
The only thing keeping the 64 alive at this point was it's price tag and very long list of games.
Then... Commodore would fold.
The Commodore 64 would continue to be sold years later by a referbishing company that would buy used dead Commodores fix them or use them for parts.
The one place your right about was the C64's history of defects.
The C64 was rushed out the doo
Where as my role models are Jack Tramel of Commodore and Noel of Atari.
It should be no supprise Woz gathers the greatest cult folowing and in the Commodore circle Jim Butterfield is more populare than Jack.
Just to get everyone up to speed on who I'm talking about:
Jack Tramel founder of Commodore
Noel founder of Atari (and vareous other companys)
Jim Butterfield famed Commodore guru.
Woz needs no introduction...
Jack Tramel has done more about solving business problems and develuping cool business moddles than he has been about designing computers.
Noel is both a great inventer and a great business man.
Woz is pure techie having Jobs handle the business end.
Of the C64, Atari 800 and Apple II....
C64 was still in production when Commodore folded with referbished units selling for years afterwords as if the company was still alive.
The Apple II, II+ and IIe could be expanded to have the processing power of the 16 bit 6502 clones just by dropping in a card.
This included support for the 16meg of memory that CPU line supported and exsisting software would take advantage of this.
The Apple II gs was the last of the line having that 16 bit cpu as part of the system. Later on a web browser would be made for this platform making it the lowest end legacy system to run a graphical web browser.
Atari was known as the name in video games untill the video game dark ages by such time Noel had already sold Atari and was responsable for Chuck E Cheases.
Commodore stopped being Tramels Commodore when he got sued by the primary backer for the company over control of the company during hard times.
It is my opinion this lawsute was the pivitol point that would lead to Commodores death.
Atari stopped being Noels Atari when he sold it and moved on to bigger and better things. Smart man.
Apple stopped being WOZes Apple when Jobs was no longer in charge. Yet WOZ would be responsable for the entire Apple II line ending in the IIgz.
Some might argue however that Apple never really ceased to be Wozes Apple it just dosen't have it's cheff tech anymore.
There are diffrent ways to do a firewall.
Some people block off all ports but those for the features they want to have.
Some people cut off only ports where the user must first make contact (and all UDP packets and peer networks).
If your ISP sets up a firewall they are also desiding what protocals your going to use.
Just becouse some Windows systes have a back door on a given port dose not make it a good idea to block that port for everyone.
That port could also be used by the latest greatest net client. A new data network. A better web. Or a new game.
I'd just be like Microsoft to have a back door on exactly the same port as a new automated update protocal for annother operating system.
The artical points out something SCO never really denied and that is that SCO dose not hold or own the Unix spec or name. They only clame to own the code from where that spec and name came from.
SCO called the code "Unix" becouse that is what it is known as to spite the fact that the name has actually been sold to annother entity.
So please know that SCO is refering to "The code formerly known as Unix" as Unix.
However Novel clames they in fact did not sell the Unix code to SCO but mearly liccensed it.
SCOs clames are based on violation of code not of name and spec. Basicly SCO is saying IBM put SCOs intelectual property into Linux and nobody is clamming IBM called Linux a Unix system and the specs IBM added to Linux are more closely related to OS/2.
Basicly this artical clames SCO dose not own the rights to the name of the code SCO clames to own. The artical clames however that SCO owns the code and that code is the key not the codes name.
Potato potahto. It's that Novel clames they never sold SCO the code. They clame to have only liccensed it.
It is more than likely the victioms and famalys of victioms are suffering so much emotional distress they themselfs will agree with the first sympethetic ear.
Really if the first person to contact the famalys clamed it was chewing gum that did it they'd believe it.
On the other hand it's been proven some people do mimic what they see.
There are always a large number of copy cat crimes. Someone dose something evil someone watching the news says "Ohh" and dose it to. Some people have even advocated that the news media shouldn't be permitted to report preticularly violent crimes becouse of the copy cats.
And there will always be somebody that dose something evil or wrong as a direct reflection of someone elses actions.
Let's segway to a fun topic here on Slashdot.
Let's just assume the majority opinion on Microsoft is right and Microsofts software is buggy with back doors etc and that is why we have worms and virues today.. This isn't for arguing the vality of this idea let us just assume it's true for the sake of argument...
If true... Microsoft is not the slightest bit responsable for the viruses and worms. They aren't responsable for the distruction or chaos.
Microsoft didn't write the viruses or worms.
Someone else did.
IF Microsoft made a poorly designed os then Microsoft is responsable for a poorly designed os.
They aren't responsable for how people abuse this.
A software company makes a violent video game. A parent buys said game for kids. Kids don't have a sense of responsability, values or reality to tell them the game is nothing more than escapism it's wrong and evil to do those things in the real world becouse the parents use the 'it takes a village' approch. In other words they leave it to us to rase the kids and then are supprised when those kids turn out evil.
Disclamer: I'm not refering to Hillary Clintons suggesions found inside the book of that title but what people assume having only read the title.
It's a commen thing. Many parents are good parents not becouse they want to be but out of a sense of socal responsability. The instant they find a way to give up that responsability and not look like human garbage for it they go for it.
Examples would be "Tough love" done right this is a very difficult program done wrong your just dumping your kid on the street. But to many parents do it with out reading the books on the subject or seeking help from the vareous programs and just dump the kid and say "see what a great parent I am?". They end up bragging about how great tough love is to the head of a psycatric ward while the child is being treated for a number of psycological disorders.
The latest "no responsability" games are to give your kid what ever game they want and to blame those games when the kid gose bizerk.
How about teaching kids that violent video games are escapism? Or at the very least not buying those games.
any place you should be using a plug especally into a streight edge connecter (like old ISA bords) use a jumper cable. There is a very good chance the jumper will slip off the power and on to a naboring data connection sending full power into a system that can't handle it for the breaf moment the jumper is connected to both... ZAP.
I keep a very long password file on my PDA
(Actually now it's two files)
and on my computer.
There is an application for the palm that let's you store all your passwords on your PDA then protect the whole batch with a password. Umm just one thow.
I do confess to use one password for very low priority items.
(Neopets, message boards, NY times)
But have unique passwords for anything of any importance (anything that should have a password)
(Slashdot, Paypal, Ebay, yahoo)
My e-mail and webserver passwords are always cryptc becouse I only enter them once into the clients I'm using on my workstation at home.
From "Outside the inner circle"
The book gets into details of the 'bad things' that could happen.
Some quick answers:
"Why would anyone want my account I just post pictures of my cat"
"Becouse some people are jerks, Some people hate cats, Some people hate FTP and some people can "make better use" of your account by distributing illegal or imortal matereal such as pirated software, MP3s, child porn or plans for bombs.
Then you take the blame."
"It's just an FTP account what could anyone possably do with that?"
"Besides distributing illegal matereal (child porn, bomb instructions) FTP is very powerful and contains a number of powerful features that could be used by people who how how FTP works to gain more access to the system."
"They couldn't access your root/admin from my account could they?"
"There is a whole book on the subject"
When software is in charge it will have a bies in a single direction reflecting the bies of the programmer.
This is a significant power giving one man the chance to make choices for thousands of people all at once.
While it's true a judge or profesor will reflect bieses, opinions and addatudes of the person those will be of a random group with random bieses, opinions and addatudes. It dose not give rise to a single direction of bieses, opinions and addatudes that one single program would.
Should it be closed? "The boss wants a back door that gives the bosses kids top grades no matter what"
Or open "This is the patern it checks for here. Just folow this math matic algarithum and you'll ace it".
Or somewhere inbetween "See here.. this is where it checks to see if your the bosses son"
Or worse...
"This kid is a punk... add code to trash his grades"
"all I got to do is 'accadentally' cross an I and his grades tank"
Thats for grades....
Now if it were judges....
Auto Judge "You've been found guilty of software piracy. Off with your head."
Convicted "But your honnor I clearly showed it was my code to start with."
Auto Judge "Nobody gives away code. It's a trick. Off with your head."
or worse...
Electronic amisty... software back doors to permit new interpretations of the law.
"I am LawBot by SCO..."
I disagree but only previsionally.
There should only be 1 "SCO is wrong" story for every "SCO dose it again" story.
I'm of two minds on this. No three minds. Hay be lucky it's only three ok I RP like 7 avatar.
Anywho..
1. The law is the law
2. Don't the websites have ANY liabilitys?
3. I don't think permission makes a diffrence.
From 1930s to 1980s governments would develup software internally instead of buying off the shelf software and that appears to be the case here.
Here's a question how dose a government picking an operating system deside who the winners are aren't they just annother consummer?
Well no they aren't and when a government picks an operating system the public needs to remain compatable.
With Windows that means using Microsoft products or compatable products in free software.
With Linux that means... supporting open standards. Any operating system on the market will do that.
It also means Microsoft now has to activly support open standards like everyone else to maintain compatability with Linux systems in government.