Worse case SCO proves Gnu/Linux violated it's IP. Then what? SCO is selling binary Linux destros. In short violating the GPL. (However SCO seams to believe the GPL can be ignored)
SCO gets sued into dust...
Meanwhile SCOs code is removed from Linux. In the end Caldera and SCO are out of business maybe IBM can buy up the patents and Novel the code... Oh wait I take that last one back Novel can sue whomever buys the code becouse it's not SCOs to sell.
Best case... SCO loses... SCO is sued into dust. No alterations to Linux are needed.
Sighting all the costs that are occured when using Linux and ignore the fact that all those costs aren't Linux based but PC or office based. Meaning those costs are occused no matter what operating system you use and most of it is nessisary for any forum of office automation including a fax machine, photo coppier and adding machine.
Security and Reliability: Windows is a single unform program. We call it a "monolithic" but Windows takes it far byond other monolithic systems (Like Linux). Nearly every program installed becomes part of the operating system in some way. Not an application running under it. If there is a defect in any peace of code anywhere in any application, driver, enhancment, or even spyware that defect could be triggered at any time and once triggered could easly have a domino effect crashing the entire operating system.
vs Gnu/Linux: Linux often receaves harsh critisism for being a monolithic kernel and rightly so. Any code added to Linux could crash Linux and from that the entire operating system.
But only a small portion of code is actually found in Linux much of the operating system is safely located in the GNU pacage and vareous add on libaries. Those libarys could be defective and can cause some chaos. But will crash only the applications using it and won't cause a domino effect bringing down the entire system (unless it's a libary critical to the task the computer is preforming)
This limits the posabilitys for disaster and makes it easier to track down problems when they do happen.
It's true enough that this is less than perfict and flaws will show up. However it's usually easy to point to a single element in Gnu/Linux and replace it untill a sutable fix is made.
With Windows you could remove and replace defective elements with alternitives however seldom will you actually know what is causing the problem.
In both Linux and Windows software defects account for the vast majority of crashes and security defects. Keeping those defects limited in the damage they can do is just as important as eliminating them once they are found.
The remainder of problems are due to poorly trainned System Admin. If you hire admin with proper certification from a certification entity you can trust you have your bases covered. Microsoft is not one of those entitys. Unfortunatly most Windows admin are trainned by Microsoft and do not have the same background in reliability and security that can be found in admin who are trainned by other agentcys.
Depreceating the Microsoft certification program should improve the quality in available certified Windows admin a great deal as there are a number of high quality certification agentcys out there that do certify Windows admin and test to a greater degree than Microsoft.
Linux vs Windows in software quality: I would like to take a moment and lament how bad Linux applications really are. Often software is abandoned or not properly documented. The interface is often glitchy and way to often the config needs to be hand optomised just so it can find the libarys already installed. Some applicatioins are so bad they crash and leave me to erase them from the system.
How often is this? Less often than I make it sound. 1 out of 100 programs have some sereous issues and it's very annoying but I can always find an alternitive.
Exactly the same is true of Windows. Only the defective app usually brings about the domino effect I mentioned above and has a defective install forcing you to live with traces of the software returnning every now and then like some LSD flashback.
In short Linux and Windows have exactly the same problems for exactly the same reasons when it comes to software quality but Windows applifies those problems from minnor annoyences to critical problems.
Linux vs Windows in communitys: Not often mentioned is the community asspect. Microsoft sets up and organises develupers and other asspects considered vital by the industry for interaction at all levels. The upside is it's all in one place. The down side is you really have very little room to be critical of anyone.
The Linux community is grass roots based and brances off like a tree with many many groups. Plus there is the GNU community who have no reason to be beholden to the Linux icons as a
A retort to Mr.T's clame "Anybody who works for free is a slave" is. I've heard of a wage slave (working at a wage) but not a hobby slave (Working for free). I understand his position given the situation. He did not consent to the situation so it's more a case of theft. (The fact that your not being paid dosen't change the fact that the payment was the reason you did the work).
You have hit on something very much key to this. The reason this early open source worked was becouse the pirces of the mainframs did in fact pay for the software develupment.
This has not ceased to be the case. MacOs X is in fact still paid for by hardware sales yet Apple wishes to keep MacOs X a commertal binary. SunOs was also subsidised by hardware but Sun didn't open source it.
Just about every hardware driver in existence is closed. Why? You can't sell the driver and with out a driver you can't even sell the hardware. It's stupid.
Most software is compleatly devoid of any commertal value. Example programs that overwrite your erased data with nulls. It's a nice added security but it's easy to get around so it's hardly worth putting out $10 for so it'll never make it except as a free program.
What ever happened to RipTerm, RipScript and other efforts at low bandwith graphics? Dead becouse they are propritary.
(Some BBSes like VBBS offered free alternitives)
Flash Media has no alternitives. It's a unique product and so long as it remains unique with no alternitives it will remain valuable. But should someone produce an open alternitive it is history.
Then you have postscript. An effort to make one commen standard for all printers. It's still used but mostly on high end printers targeting profesionals who may be using high end computers that won't run Windows.
Then there is CUseeme. A great protocal for it's day quickly brushed aside for pritty much anything else once it went commertal. Some people will even prefer nothing at all do using CUseeme.
What if HTML was propritary? True thies are protocals and not programs but in each case there is support software to go with it.
Would you pay for daliclock? A nifty app for xwindow and Palm that displays the time and when the time changes it melts to change the display to the current time.
I wouldn't. But I have it installed on my workstation an PDA.
It's a commen myth that if people will use software for free they'll pay for it. More often than not users only use free software becouse it's free and for no other reason.
People will pay for software only if it's of value to them and they believe there is no cheaper alternitive. (Hence Microsofts old Total Operating Cost FUD.)
Not everything should be in open source. But if your not going to sell it then publish it.
Admittedly punch cards aren't in use anymore and Usenet is. Still Usenet is used by a shrinking group of users and the few remaining useful newsgroups have procedures in place for spam that would just as quickly be deploied against any technology Microsoft has to offer.
Usenet already has a number of means of deploying binary files so it appears Microsoft is simply going to mimic exiting resources.
You know actually I'm pritty sure I've been violating the "Computer system for managment of resources" patent for most of my life. Actually maybe we all have. Every sence I've been born I've used electricity and I'm told the day I was born my father called my grandmother (moms side). (Not sure how long computers have been used for power plants probably not as far back as 1969 however the phone company has used computers to "manage" the "resources" of the phone network for quite some time).
"Ordering and downloading resources from computerized reporitories" Compuserve's CompUstore and Fantacy Plaza. I ran a BBS with file xfer so I've personally violated the downloading part.
"mechanism for dependably managing web synchronization and tracking operations among multiple browsers" Ok now name me someone with a website who dosen't do this. Got the name ready? Bzzzt... HTML everyone uses it. Just becouse they use it incorrectly dosen't mean a thing they still use it.
On the face of it I'd say NEC got a copy of some "E-Commerce made easy" book done in the early 1990's and patented everything inside. Some of this stuff can be found in many HTML 2.0 tutorials. The rest found in early electronic stores (Like CompUstore and Fantacy plaza)
When did NEC get those patents anyway? There have been a number of Internet stores that came and went long before Yahoo was an Internet search engen (let alone a ecommerce site).
Not to long after Netscape enhanced web pages showed up there was CGI to identify the browser and serve off the appropreate web page. NEC eather got the patent after the CGI (prior art) or when HTML standards were still a reliable means of univsersal browser support. And as HTML standards remainned a reliable means of getting universal support for quite some time after the introduction of the web browser detection CGI code there remains the posability that when NEC got it's patent there as not a single website in existence that wasn't an example of prior art.
The fact is there are so many ways to make your website portable that any website that says "We don't have the resources to support anything other than...." Is really saying "We don't know our @** from a hole in the ground when it comes to ecommerce."
Yahoo uses a unique method of reliably supporting many web browsers so if NECs patent applys to it there is little hope NECs patent isn't overly broud. Unless NECs patent process includes corprate spys seeing what other companys are working on so they can patent same before those technologys become public.
Let's have some fun with this. I'll create some "patents" and you find the prior art.
A method of upgrading an existing black and white live image transmission to include color.
A method or means of extending a cable legth byond spec with out a loss of data.
A method or means of sending a microwave signal byond it's normal range with out altering the antana, boosting the signal stregth or changing the transmission frequency.
A means of obtaining noise when not picking up a signal.
A method used to make one program that works on more than one program. (this has many posabile answers that I'm aware of)
A means of recycling natrally occuring waist. (Just a hint... Ewwww)
Finally.. A method or system by such that air is reprocessed for plants that is self sufficant and capable of self repair, self improvent and if nessisary self destruction and may also provide for other needs of plants as nessisary.
I have an old 5 1/4 Dos floppy disk with a compressed file on it that I can't open becouse I desided to be cute and used a password for it. One that I'd never forget...
and I haven't remembered that pasword sense... (Actually the file is probably dead by now)
Re:Visible spectrum links through the air?
on
Saving the Net
·
· Score: 1
Solution.. don't aim so low. Diffrent problem.. Line of sight.
This would work like the string and can approch to phone calls.
This would be a workable plan for getting a signal over miles and miles of unpopulated land and could even be addopted by "Southern Bell" of Texas where they run phone lines over such long stretches of land and then can't afford to maintain same.
To avoid the 'walking between the beams' problem you put them up on a poll above the house (or on the second story if you have a greater than one story house)
You don't see the beam unless your directly inline with it (looking right at it) making your point about being blinded even more important becouse there isn't a way to avoid but the kids playing in the beams is a non-issue.
Actually such devices do exist they are line of sign communications devices they are sold for hobby as a kit they are a secure form of communication becouse of the line of signt aspect. But for exactly the same reason they are totally impractical.
If you've got two buildings next to each other with a public street between and want to connect two lans this might be a better answer than hanging wires between the buildings and maybe getting in trubble with local athoritys.
SCO selling Linux binarys violating the GPL (Sorry even if it dose contain SCOs IP it also contains a bunch of other peoples IP and the mix of the two means nobody on the face of the earth has any right to do anything with Linux at all piriod end of story good bye)
Of the technologys SCO is suing IBM over is IBMs to start with. It appears the code SCO "found" by discription was given to SCO and Linux by system manufactuerers so that the consummers may use SCO or Linux if they so chouse permitting the manufacter to sell more computers. That code is given to anyone who asks. There would be no reason IBM would have said code let alone introduce it into Linux as it would mean supporting compeating producs something IBM is clearly not going to do if they can at all avoid it.
SCO clames ownership of System V and Novel clames otherwise.
Now SCO regestures that clame with the copyright office.
If I understand everything correctly (Hay IANAL nore am I omipotent so I nither have all the facts nore do I know law) I'd say quite soon SCO will cease to exist soon enough...
I'm Selling my SCO stock and buying stock in humanity while faith in SCO is high an faith in humanity is low becouse I think when SCO folds faith in humanity will hit an all time high....
Based mostly on the replys I'd say the patent office isn't really checking patents very well and realisticly can not actually do a halfway decent job.
This sets up a bad situation. So what is needed is a public/advocate review phase so the public can present publcly known prior art to the patent office before patents are issued and then have to go to cort with obveous prior art.
I hope the Australian government would think long and hard before adopting them for workstation use. You mean desktop. Classicly workstations are servers turnned into desktops. The reason for calling it a "work station" is that they have the limitations and benifits of server class systems that are not found on desktops.
Example: You need to do 3D rendering on the most powerful computer you can get your hands on. Super computers and clusters are typicly servers. So you make due with a workstation.
This is why Windows 9X is not sold as a workstation and Windows NT is not sold as a "home"/Desktop os. (NT being designed by Microsoft for servers)
Linux makes a very good workstation. That is to say it makes a very good "Desktop wanabe". I'm sorry to hear about your problems with Gnome. I use KDE and don't have the same problems but more often than not find myself in fvwm and the first thing you'll notice is that it's not as feature packed as Windows.. it's also the last thing you'll notice as you punch up the programs you need from the icon bar.
The avrage secretary today is a technical profesional. Many are MCSE certified in Microsoft office. Your not talking the secretarys of the 1980s who's salery was dictated by typing speed. Todays secretarys are computer profesionals.
The cost of software is a very small part of the whole picture. The trainning and retrainning costs are very important.
The staff who uses Microsoft Windows have to retrain every year to keep ahead of all the changes in Microsofts products. The office staff who uses Linux do not. The admin and support staff do but the office staff do not.
The biggest issue of all is the applications and do they do the job.
Open Office is getting there... slowly.... Maybe next year...
You know every time Microsoft comes out with something (Like the X Box) I'm hoping it has bugs. The X Box couldn't have survived unless it was good. Your first entrence into a market is going to key your future in that market.
The entertainment industry is very nasty about quality control. You don't "make due" with a sucky TV show. You switch channels or turn the TV off. It's something you CAN live with out and if it sucks well.. you will.
So if the X Box had Microsofts typical "Crash and burn" style... We wouldn't have our favoret little Linux console now would we? The funny part is the only defect we found so far is the one that let's us install Linux.
I don't feel fear about this. It's that whole irrational hate of all things Microsoft that comes when people make webpages for IE7 instead of for web browsers. When I get e-mail in Microsoft word instead of PDF or better yet TEXT. Or any other occasion when someone says "Well just use Windows." Makes me just want to start kicking the person in the groin and say "Well just get a sex change".
But you do realise it's not actualy Microsoft but some irrational idiots who do this.
Note that Microsofties say "Just use Windows" not "try" or "Give it a chance" but "How dare you NOT use Windows.." and it's even more blasphamy to use Linux. You'll get a while speal about how "Linux will never be useful as a desktop" for saying "I use" not "Please try" Linuz Zellots however are "Try Linux it MIGHT work for you." and GIVE you a CD.
I've seen Linux zellots compaired to Amiga fanatics and Mac zellots by Microsofties and it really bugs me how much they forget of the Amiga and Mac counterparts.
Amiga: Anytime someone comes up with some new technology "Amiga did it first".. While true it's still quite an acomplishment to bring those Amiga features to other platforms. Mac: Woah be it to anyone who mentions the Mac was designed to be user friendly. People early on took this to mean the Mac isn't powerful but it has proven itself quite powerful. Still today Mac users will lynch anyone who mentions the downsides of the GUI. (Any GUI)
I'd say Linux Zellots are quite mild. But that dosen't mean slamming everything Microsoft puts out is exactly ummmm....
Is it even right to call them Linux Zellots when they'd support APPLE, BeOS, OS/2 or Palm over Microsoft?
Anyway just becouse Microsoft puts it out dosen't mean it's going suck. Just the irrtaional little Anti-Micro side of me hopes it will.
For years now Linux has been a key threat to Microsofts monopoly tactics. By being open then whole gnu/linux system has become a place Microsoft can't crush. A holy ground sort to speak. A place Microsofts tactics fail. As Linux gains momentum is dose not become more a threat but mearly more obveous. The threat it is it has always been and always will be. But right now is a unque time for Gnu/Linux. A challange faced before but never quite so sereous and like it or not Microsoft faces it as well. SCO has reduced the threat of Limux for now and may eliminate it entirely. They don't plan to stop there. They plan to use Linux as a test case to see if they can establish ownership of many key features found in most operating systems including Windows and Microsofts name has come up as a possable target. So realisticly Linux should be priority 5 right now. If this SCO BS blows over then yeah Linux is threat number 2 behind the ecconomy. Microsoft is sales driven. No sales mean no Microsoft.
If it is proven that SCO had nothing to liccens when offering liccenses to Linux code dose this mean SCO can be sued for fraud? Who knows maybe by the end of this Linux will have some SCO code... as a settelemt deal for fraud.
By the way didn't this happen before? There has been a number of attempts to clame ownership of Linux it's like the next big 'Make it rich' scam. First the whole DotCom rush then patent frenzy and next clame ownership of exsisting populare software.
Well hay I'll clame Mosaic. Isn't that the core of IE? Or better yet Dos... Or how about claming IP rights on the ansi C language and get just about everyone.
There are a number of ways they can (and do) 'take back the land'. One fun way is to break the os with a service patch or a whole os release. Netscape clamed Microsoft broke network support on purpous by creating a whole diffrent networking API for Win 95. This gave IE an edge as Netscape had to be modified for 95 and IE was updated as part of the 95 dev cycle. Microsoft can sneak FUD into the disk, os, website and news letters about your product. IBM learned Microsoft was feeding it's users FUD matereal by means of a text file in Windows. This way the FUD came from the users and not some offical 'talking head'. If the FUD looks like it originated from a third party then it's unlikely to be called into doupt. Or they can include a Microsoft counterpart in Windows or office. They can buy slanted test results. They can even call your product "alternitive" suggesting most don't like it. The nabor anolog works but if you really want the proper anolog... Your nabor is the tyrent emperer.
Also the way the US government insists on inserting itself into every aspect of our lifes. In the early 1990s (like 93 I think) there was an effort to bring about phone and Internet over cable. Early broudband. This was done with out any fedral aproval. At first cable companys wanted to do two way cable to bring us internet access and interactive TV. The FCC said "No you have one way data.. only the phone company can do two way" so the local phone carrers asked if they could run coax. Same no.. only cable companys. Well the Internet was a big deal and everyone wantted in. Phone companys and Cable companys started striking agreements so they could do two way cable. Cable companys could provide phone service phone companys could provide TV service both would have the data service it was the best of all worlds for the consummer and we'd have it quickly.
No... The fedral government had to get involved and new laws were past. Then they desided it was a good idea and past yet more laws. And today we have what we could have had almost 10 years ago.
Not to say the fedral government is entirely evil. Right now there is some debate over a preposal for brodband over powerlines. Short version is "Sure you can have it but dump all your radio equipment FOREVER Muahahahaha." I think that sums it up nice a sloppy... I hate cliff notes so read the link if you really want to know otherwise use my cliff notes and look like an idiot. I think I understand. To bad you couldn't use that for 802.11[?] carrer signals but I'm going to guess the signal would degrade before it got very far.
Ban guns becouse people use guns to murder. Not that guns encurrage murder or even the absence of the gun would have prevented the murder. Just feel good knowing nobody will ever be shot to death again. They'll be stabbed.
Same reasoning. Violent video games do not make kids violent or even begin to justify violent behavure.
Ban violent video games, ban RPGs, ban stratagy games. Then? Then you'll have the desprite loner going on a murder spree. Sound familure?
It's the ignoring the kid. Not recognising his problems and not addressing the issues when the signs show.
It's the school system that ignores obveous signs that a kid is isolated and alone and the parents who don't get involved in the kids regulare lifes.
Way back someone turnned to my mother and said "It's 10o clock do you know where your kids are?" and she said matter of factly "Shawna's at a party with friends and Jeff is in his room writing a program." Moms friend doupted her so she introduced me as I was writing code for my BBS and then later sis came home from the party.
And the moral of this story is? Some parents give up and other parents try harder. Mom tried harder.
Short answer, No. Unix and security experts have a buffer overflow feddish as to crackers. This is an easy mistake to make so it happends to nearly everyone once and it's a preticularly nasty mistake as well. There are programs for Linux and Unix to deal with this sort of defect to actually crash programs that behave this way and the 386 (onward) trys to prevent this sort of behavure.
Some of my early games had this defect (you could run off the screen into system memory.. like tron.. and wrek havok on the system.. Opps)
Using this defect you could edit system memory and overwite parts of the os and all you have to do to enable this mistake is not keep track of your data to be sure your not putting more data into memory than you've requested from the os.
So why dose it happen to Microsoft more than anyone else?
Three important reasons.
1. Open source and micro kernel. You can fix the problem by replacing the defective part of the system. Like recovering moldy chease by cutting off the bad parts. With open source you find the bad code and fix it. With micro kernel you find the defective file the code in contained in and rewite, patch or replace that segment. Closed source monolythic is like swiss chease. The mold or defect is so burried into the product you'll never cut it out.
2. Learn from your mustakes. Microsoft dosen't reguard most defects as sereous and just ignores them. Including buffer overflows. As such they don't learn from mistakes. Unix people can isolate the culprit and point fingers.. and they do. Linux people are the same only much worse.
3. Alterntives: Windows people don't have easy alterntives Unix and Linux people do.
The way copyright laws are today... Bill Gates turns out to be an immortal, The Quickening happends, someone takes Bill Gates head. Zack L Stalmen (the great grandchild of RMS) still maintains the copyrights of the GPLed works.
My view of copyright reform is that copyrights should expire 5 years after the last update (not the first release) so long as it is still being released (Be it Star Trek, Star Wars or such) hands off. Five years is enough stagnation to consider a body of work to be abandoned. Of course this dose not effect Windows or most GPLed work as the software continues to be develuped to this very day.
Next time use public domain file formats and document the hell out of them using Dos-CP/M text. (Meaning CR and LF) It's universal enough. Everyone uses one or the other some times both. Should continue to work well into the future. (After all 7 bit ASCII text is almost 50 years old.)
Document the formats in ASCII, Englishn(psudo code), French, German, Klingonis.. and list Klingonis as the offical laguage of earth at the time. Just to mess with peoples heads. Then maybe we can wait a whole 50 years before having to recover this.
No mom I do not want a Vio laptop. No grounding it to my deskmis not a good idea. Yes mom I'll remember to answer the phone the next time you call. No mom I don't think electricuting me is a good idea. Yes mom I'll answer the phone.
Your refering to this as a toy makes me think back to the hovering toy I got once back. It used a small fan to lift it off the ground and the wind outside pushed it around. Yep a toy hover not antigrav of any sort. It was neat in any case. Dose this fit the antigrav on the web site?
Slashdot Mirror
Worse case SCO proves Gnu/Linux violated it's IP.
Then what?
SCO is selling binary Linux destros. In short violating the GPL.
(However SCO seams to believe the GPL can be ignored)
SCO gets sued into dust...
Meanwhile SCOs code is removed from Linux.
In the end Caldera and SCO are out of business maybe IBM can buy up the patents and Novel the code... Oh wait I take that last one back Novel can sue whomever buys the code becouse it's not SCOs to sell.
Best case... SCO loses... SCO is sued into dust. No alterations to Linux are needed.
Sounds like SCO is starting to believe IBM and not Linus and RMS created Gnu/Linux.
After all how can IBM possably move away from the GPL liccens?
Or maybe SCO is just thinking the GPL liccens can be infringed while they sue IBM for fictional infractions of SCOs liccens.
The TOC thing has always been a bit mythical.
Sighting all the costs that are occured when using Linux and ignore the fact that all those costs aren't Linux based but PC or office based.
Meaning those costs are occused no matter what operating system you use and most of it is nessisary for any forum of office automation including a fax machine, photo coppier and adding machine.
Security and Reliability:
Windows is a single unform program. We call it a "monolithic" but Windows takes it far byond other monolithic systems (Like Linux).
Nearly every program installed becomes part of the operating system in some way. Not an application running under it.
If there is a defect in any peace of code anywhere in any application, driver, enhancment, or even spyware that defect could be triggered at any time and once triggered could easly have a domino effect crashing the entire operating system.
vs Gnu/Linux:
Linux often receaves harsh critisism for being a monolithic kernel and rightly so.
Any code added to Linux could crash Linux and from that the entire operating system.
But only a small portion of code is actually found in Linux much of the operating system is safely located in the GNU pacage and vareous add on libaries.
Those libarys could be defective and can cause some chaos. But will crash only the applications using it and won't cause a domino effect bringing down the entire system (unless it's a libary critical to the task the computer is preforming)
This limits the posabilitys for disaster and makes it easier to track down problems when they do happen.
It's true enough that this is less than perfict and flaws will show up. However it's usually easy to point to a single element in Gnu/Linux and replace it untill a sutable fix is made.
With Windows you could remove and replace defective elements with alternitives however seldom will you actually know what is causing the problem.
In both Linux and Windows software defects account for the vast majority of crashes and security defects.
Keeping those defects limited in the damage they can do is just as important as eliminating them once they are found.
The remainder of problems are due to poorly trainned System Admin.
If you hire admin with proper certification from a certification entity you can trust you have your bases covered.
Microsoft is not one of those entitys. Unfortunatly most Windows admin are trainned by Microsoft and do not have the same background in reliability and security that can be found in admin who are trainned by other agentcys.
Depreceating the Microsoft certification program should improve the quality in available certified Windows admin a great deal as there are a number of high quality certification agentcys out there that do certify Windows admin and test to a greater degree than Microsoft.
Linux vs Windows in software quality:
I would like to take a moment and lament how bad Linux applications really are. Often software is abandoned or not properly documented. The interface is often glitchy and way to often the config needs to be hand optomised just so it can find the libarys already installed.
Some applicatioins are so bad they crash and leave me to erase them from the system.
How often is this? Less often than I make it sound. 1 out of 100 programs have some sereous issues and it's very annoying but I can always find an alternitive.
Exactly the same is true of Windows.
Only the defective app usually brings about the domino effect I mentioned above and has a defective install forcing you to live with traces of the software returnning every now and then like some LSD flashback.
In short Linux and Windows have exactly the same problems for exactly the same reasons when it comes to software quality but Windows applifies those problems from minnor annoyences to critical problems.
Linux vs Windows in communitys:
Not often mentioned is the community asspect.
Microsoft sets up and organises develupers and other asspects considered vital by the industry for interaction at all levels.
The upside is it's all in one place. The down side is you really have very little room to be critical of anyone.
The Linux community is grass roots based and brances off like a tree with many many groups.
Plus there is the GNU community who have no reason to be beholden to the Linux icons as a
A retort to Mr.T's clame "Anybody who works for free is a slave" is.
I've heard of a wage slave (working at a wage) but not a hobby slave (Working for free).
I understand his position given the situation. He did not consent to the situation so it's more a case of theft. (The fact that your not being paid dosen't change the fact that the payment was the reason you did the work).
You have hit on something very much key to this.
The reason this early open source worked was becouse the pirces of the mainframs did in fact pay for the software develupment.
This has not ceased to be the case. MacOs X is in fact still paid for by hardware sales yet Apple wishes to keep MacOs X a commertal binary.
SunOs was also subsidised by hardware but Sun didn't open source it.
Just about every hardware driver in existence is closed. Why? You can't sell the driver and with out a driver you can't even sell the hardware. It's stupid.
Most software is compleatly devoid of any commertal value.
Example programs that overwrite your erased data with nulls. It's a nice added security but it's easy to get around so it's hardly worth putting out $10 for so it'll never make it except as a free program.
What ever happened to RipTerm, RipScript and other efforts at low bandwith graphics?
Dead becouse they are propritary.
(Some BBSes like VBBS offered free alternitives)
Flash Media has no alternitives. It's a unique product and so long as it remains unique with no alternitives it will remain valuable.
But should someone produce an open alternitive it is history.
Then you have postscript. An effort to make one commen standard for all printers. It's still used but mostly on high end printers targeting profesionals who may be using high end computers that won't run Windows.
Then there is CUseeme. A great protocal for it's day quickly brushed aside for pritty much anything else once it went commertal.
Some people will even prefer nothing at all do using CUseeme.
What if HTML was propritary?
True thies are protocals and not programs but in each case there is support software to go with it.
Would you pay for daliclock? A nifty app for xwindow and Palm that displays the time and when the time changes it melts to change the display to the current time.
I wouldn't. But I have it installed on my workstation an PDA.
It's a commen myth that if people will use software for free they'll pay for it. More often than not users only use free software becouse it's free and for no other reason.
People will pay for software only if it's of value to them and they believe there is no cheaper alternitive.
(Hence Microsofts old Total Operating Cost FUD.)
Not everything should be in open source. But if your not going to sell it then publish it.
Admittedly punch cards aren't in use anymore and Usenet is.
Still Usenet is used by a shrinking group of users and the few remaining useful newsgroups have procedures in place for spam that would just as quickly be deploied against any technology Microsoft has to offer.
Usenet already has a number of means of deploying binary files so it appears Microsoft is simply going to mimic exiting resources.
You know actually I'm pritty sure I've been violating the "Computer system for managment of resources" patent for most of my life.
...." Is really saying "We don't know our @** from a hole in the ground when it comes to ecommerce."
Actually maybe we all have.
Every sence I've been born I've used electricity and I'm told the day I was born my father called my grandmother (moms side).
(Not sure how long computers have been used for power plants probably not as far back as 1969 however the phone company has used computers to "manage" the "resources" of the phone network for quite some time).
"Ordering and downloading resources from computerized reporitories" Compuserve's CompUstore and Fantacy Plaza.
I ran a BBS with file xfer so I've personally violated the downloading part.
"mechanism for dependably managing web synchronization and tracking operations among multiple browsers"
Ok now name me someone with a website who dosen't do this.
Got the name ready? Bzzzt... HTML everyone uses it. Just becouse they use it incorrectly dosen't mean a thing they still use it.
On the face of it I'd say NEC got a copy of some "E-Commerce made easy" book done in the early 1990's and patented everything inside.
Some of this stuff can be found in many HTML 2.0 tutorials.
The rest found in early electronic stores (Like CompUstore and Fantacy plaza)
When did NEC get those patents anyway?
There have been a number of Internet stores that came and went long before Yahoo was an Internet search engen (let alone a ecommerce site).
Not to long after Netscape enhanced web pages showed up there was CGI to identify the browser and serve off the appropreate web page.
NEC eather got the patent after the CGI (prior art) or when HTML standards were still a reliable means of univsersal browser support.
And as HTML standards remainned a reliable means of getting universal support for quite some time after the introduction of the web browser detection CGI code there remains the posability that when NEC got it's patent there as not a single website in existence that wasn't an example of prior art.
The fact is there are so many ways to make your website portable that any website that says "We don't have the resources to support anything other than
Yahoo uses a unique method of reliably supporting many web browsers so if NECs patent applys to it there is little hope NECs patent isn't overly broud. Unless NECs patent process includes corprate spys seeing what other companys are working on so they can patent same before those technologys become public.
Let's have some fun with this. I'll create some "patents" and you find the prior art.
A method of upgrading an existing black and white live image transmission to include color.
A method or means of extending a cable legth byond spec with out a loss of data.
A method or means of sending a microwave signal byond it's normal range with out altering the antana, boosting the signal stregth or changing the transmission frequency.
A means of obtaining noise when not picking up a signal.
A method used to make one program that works on more than one program.
(this has many posabile answers that I'm aware of)
A means of recycling natrally occuring waist.
(Just a hint... Ewwww)
Finally..
A method or system by such that air is reprocessed for plants that is self sufficant and capable of self repair, self improvent and if nessisary self destruction and may also provide for other needs of plants as nessisary.
I have an old 5 1/4 Dos floppy disk with a compressed file on it that I can't open becouse I desided to be cute and used a password for it. One that I'd never forget...
and I haven't remembered that pasword sense...
(Actually the file is probably dead by now)
Solution.. don't aim so low.
Diffrent problem.. Line of sight.
This would work like the string and can approch to phone calls.
This would be a workable plan for getting a signal over miles and miles of unpopulated land and could even be addopted by "Southern Bell" of Texas where they run phone lines over such long stretches of land and then can't afford to maintain same.
To avoid the 'walking between the beams' problem you put them up on a poll above the house (or on the second story if you have a greater than one story house)
You don't see the beam unless your directly inline with it (looking right at it) making your point about being blinded even more important becouse there isn't a way to avoid but the kids playing in the beams is a non-issue.
Actually such devices do exist they are line of sign communications devices they are sold for hobby as a kit they are a secure form of communication becouse of the line of signt aspect.
But for exactly the same reason they are totally impractical.
If you've got two buildings next to each other with a public street between and want to connect two lans this might be a better answer than hanging wires between the buildings and maybe getting in trubble with local athoritys.
SCO selling Linux binarys violating the GPL (Sorry even if it dose contain SCOs IP it also contains a bunch of other peoples IP and the mix of the two means nobody on the face of the earth has any right to do anything with Linux at all piriod end of story good bye)
Of the technologys SCO is suing IBM over is IBMs to start with.
It appears the code SCO "found" by discription was given to SCO and Linux by system manufactuerers so that the consummers may use SCO or Linux if they so chouse permitting the manufacter to sell more computers. That code is given to anyone who asks. There would be no reason IBM would have said code let alone introduce it into Linux as it would mean supporting compeating producs something IBM is clearly not going to do if they can at all avoid it.
SCO clames ownership of System V and Novel clames otherwise.
Now SCO regestures that clame with the copyright office.
If I understand everything correctly (Hay IANAL nore am I omipotent so I nither have all the facts nore do I know law) I'd say quite soon SCO will cease to exist soon enough...
I'm Selling my SCO stock and buying stock in humanity while faith in SCO is high an faith in humanity is low becouse I think when SCO folds faith in humanity will hit an all time high....
Based mostly on the replys I'd say the patent office isn't really checking patents very well and realisticly can not actually do a halfway decent job.
This sets up a bad situation.
So what is needed is a public/advocate review phase so the public can present publcly known prior art to the patent office before patents are issued and then have to go to cort with obveous prior art.
I hope the Australian government would think long and hard before adopting them for workstation use.
You mean desktop.
Classicly workstations are servers turnned into desktops.
The reason for calling it a "work station" is that they have the limitations and benifits of server class systems that are not found on desktops.
Example: You need to do 3D rendering on the most powerful computer you can get your hands on.
Super computers and clusters are typicly servers.
So you make due with a workstation.
This is why Windows 9X is not sold as a workstation and Windows NT is not sold as a "home"/Desktop os.
(NT being designed by Microsoft for servers)
Linux makes a very good workstation.
That is to say it makes a very good "Desktop wanabe".
I'm sorry to hear about your problems with Gnome. I use KDE and don't have the same problems but more often than not find myself in fvwm and the first thing you'll notice is that it's not as feature packed as Windows.. it's also the last thing you'll notice as you punch up the programs you need from the icon bar.
The avrage secretary today is a technical profesional. Many are MCSE certified in Microsoft office. Your not talking the secretarys of the 1980s who's salery was dictated by typing speed. Todays secretarys are computer profesionals.
The cost of software is a very small part of the whole picture. The trainning and retrainning costs are very important.
The staff who uses Microsoft Windows have to retrain every year to keep ahead of all the changes in Microsofts products.
The office staff who uses Linux do not. The admin and support staff do but the office staff do not.
The biggest issue of all is the applications and do they do the job.
Open Office is getting there... slowly....
Maybe next year...
You know every time Microsoft comes out with something (Like the X Box) I'm hoping it has bugs.
The X Box couldn't have survived unless it was good. Your first entrence into a market is going to key your future in that market.
The entertainment industry is very nasty about quality control. You don't "make due" with a sucky TV show. You switch channels or turn the TV off. It's something you CAN live with out and if it sucks well.. you will.
So if the X Box had Microsofts typical "Crash and burn" style... We wouldn't have our favoret little Linux console now would we?
The funny part is the only defect we found so far is the one that let's us install Linux.
I don't feel fear about this. It's that whole irrational hate of all things Microsoft that comes when people make webpages for IE7 instead of for web browsers.
When I get e-mail in Microsoft word instead of PDF or better yet TEXT.
Or any other occasion when someone says "Well just use Windows."
Makes me just want to start kicking the person in the groin and say "Well just get a sex change".
But you do realise it's not actualy Microsoft but some irrational idiots who do this.
Note that Microsofties say "Just use Windows" not "try" or "Give it a chance" but "How dare you NOT use Windows.." and it's even more blasphamy to use Linux. You'll get a while speal about how "Linux will never be useful as a desktop" for saying "I use" not "Please try"
Linuz Zellots however are "Try Linux it MIGHT work for you." and GIVE you a CD.
I've seen Linux zellots compaired to Amiga fanatics and Mac zellots by Microsofties and it really bugs me how much they forget of the Amiga and Mac counterparts.
Amiga: Anytime someone comes up with some new technology "Amiga did it first".. While true it's still quite an acomplishment to bring those Amiga features to other platforms.
Mac: Woah be it to anyone who mentions the Mac was designed to be user friendly.
People early on took this to mean the Mac isn't powerful but it has proven itself quite powerful.
Still today Mac users will lynch anyone who mentions the downsides of the GUI. (Any GUI)
I'd say Linux Zellots are quite mild.
But that dosen't mean slamming everything Microsoft puts out is exactly ummmm....
Is it even right to call them Linux Zellots when they'd support APPLE, BeOS, OS/2 or Palm over Microsoft?
Anyway just becouse Microsoft puts it out dosen't mean it's going suck.
Just the irrtaional little Anti-Micro side of me hopes it will.
For years now Linux has been a key threat to Microsofts monopoly tactics.
By being open then whole gnu/linux system has become a place Microsoft can't crush. A holy ground sort to speak. A place Microsofts tactics fail.
As Linux gains momentum is dose not become more a threat but mearly more obveous. The threat it is it has always been and always will be.
But right now is a unque time for Gnu/Linux. A challange faced before but never quite so sereous and like it or not Microsoft faces it as well.
SCO has reduced the threat of Limux for now and may eliminate it entirely. They don't plan to stop there. They plan to use Linux as a test case to see if they can establish ownership of many key features found in most operating systems including Windows and Microsofts name has come up as a possable target.
So realisticly Linux should be priority 5 right now.
If this SCO BS blows over then yeah Linux is threat number 2 behind the ecconomy.
Microsoft is sales driven. No sales mean no Microsoft.
If it is proven that SCO had nothing to liccens when offering liccenses to Linux code dose this mean SCO can be sued for fraud?
Who knows maybe by the end of this Linux will have some SCO code... as a settelemt deal for fraud.
By the way didn't this happen before? There has been a number of attempts to clame ownership of Linux it's like the next big 'Make it rich' scam.
First the whole DotCom rush then patent frenzy and next clame ownership of exsisting populare software.
Well hay I'll clame Mosaic. Isn't that the core of IE?
Or better yet Dos...
Or how about claming IP rights on the ansi C language and get just about everyone.
Ear, Tail or scalp (depending on the bounty) were needed as proof in the old west for having killed an unwanted animal or a native american.
My guess is he was compairing spammers to what the old west considered pests.
How about "we have concrete evidence that he has weapons of mass destruction"?
Better not. If you don't find any when your done your toast.
There are a number of ways they can (and do) 'take back the land'.
One fun way is to break the os with a service patch or a whole os release.
Netscape clamed Microsoft broke network support on purpous by creating a whole diffrent networking API for Win 95.
This gave IE an edge as Netscape had to be modified for 95 and IE was updated as part of the 95 dev cycle.
Microsoft can sneak FUD into the disk, os, website and news letters about your product.
IBM learned Microsoft was feeding it's users FUD matereal by means of a text file in Windows. This way the FUD came from the users and not some offical 'talking head'.
If the FUD looks like it originated from a third party then it's unlikely to be called into doupt.
Or they can include a Microsoft counterpart in Windows or office.
They can buy slanted test results.
They can even call your product "alternitive" suggesting most don't like it.
The nabor anolog works but if you really want the proper anolog...
Your nabor is the tyrent emperer.
Also the way the US government insists on inserting itself into every aspect of our lifes.
In the early 1990s (like 93 I think) there was an effort to bring about phone and Internet over cable. Early broudband. This was done with out any fedral aproval.
At first cable companys wanted to do two way cable to bring us internet access and interactive TV. The FCC said "No you have one way data.. only the phone company can do two way" so the local phone carrers asked if they could run coax. Same no.. only cable companys.
Well the Internet was a big deal and everyone wantted in.
Phone companys and Cable companys started striking agreements so they could do two way cable. Cable companys could provide phone service phone companys could provide TV service both would have the data service it was the best of all worlds for the consummer and we'd have it quickly.
No... The fedral government had to get involved and new laws were past. Then they desided it was a good idea and past yet more laws. And today we have what we could have had almost 10 years ago.
Not to say the fedral government is entirely evil. Right now there is some debate over a preposal for brodband over powerlines. Short version is "Sure you can have it but dump all your radio equipment FOREVER Muahahahaha." I think that sums it up nice a sloppy... I hate cliff notes so read the link if you really want to know otherwise use my cliff notes and look like an idiot.
I think I understand. To bad you couldn't use that for 802.11[?] carrer signals but I'm going to guess the signal would degrade before it got very far.
Ban guns becouse people use guns to murder. Not that guns encurrage murder or even the absence of the gun would have prevented the murder. Just feel good knowing nobody will ever be shot to death again. They'll be stabbed.
Same reasoning. Violent video games do not make kids violent or even begin to justify violent behavure.
Ban violent video games, ban RPGs, ban stratagy games. Then?
Then you'll have the desprite loner going on a murder spree. Sound familure?
It's the ignoring the kid. Not recognising his problems and not addressing the issues when the signs show.
It's the school system that ignores obveous signs that a kid is isolated and alone and the parents who don't get involved in the kids regulare lifes.
Way back someone turnned to my mother and said "It's 10o clock do you know where your kids are?"
and she said matter of factly
"Shawna's at a party with friends and Jeff is in his room writing a program."
Moms friend doupted her so she introduced me as I was writing code for my BBS and then later sis came home from the party.
And the moral of this story is?
Some parents give up and other parents try harder.
Mom tried harder.
It's just that simple.
Short answer, No. Unix and security experts have a buffer overflow feddish as to crackers.
This is an easy mistake to make so it happends to nearly everyone once and it's a preticularly nasty mistake as well.
There are programs for Linux and Unix to deal with this sort of defect to actually crash programs that behave this way and the 386 (onward) trys to prevent this sort of behavure.
Some of my early games had this defect (you could run off the screen into system memory.. like tron.. and wrek havok on the system.. Opps)
Using this defect you could edit system memory and overwite parts of the os and all you have to do to enable this mistake is not keep track of your data to be sure your not putting more data into memory than you've requested from the os.
So why dose it happen to Microsoft more than anyone else?
Three important reasons.
1. Open source and micro kernel. You can fix the problem by replacing the defective part of the system. Like recovering moldy chease by cutting off the bad parts.
With open source you find the bad code and fix it. With micro kernel you find the defective file the code in contained in and rewite, patch or replace that segment.
Closed source monolythic is like swiss chease. The mold or defect is so burried into the product you'll never cut it out.
2. Learn from your mustakes.
Microsoft dosen't reguard most defects as sereous and just ignores them. Including buffer overflows. As such they don't learn from mistakes.
Unix people can isolate the culprit and point fingers.. and they do.
Linux people are the same only much worse.
3. Alterntives: Windows people don't have easy alterntives Unix and Linux people do.
The way copyright laws are today...
Bill Gates turns out to be an immortal, The Quickening happends, someone takes Bill Gates head.
Zack L Stalmen (the great grandchild of RMS) still maintains the copyrights of the GPLed works.
My view of copyright reform is that copyrights should expire 5 years after the last update (not the first release) so long as it is still being released (Be it Star Trek, Star Wars or such) hands off.
Five years is enough stagnation to consider a body of work to be abandoned.
Of course this dose not effect Windows or most GPLed work as the software continues to be develuped to this very day.
Next time use public domain file formats and document the hell out of them using Dos-CP/M text.
(Meaning CR and LF)
It's universal enough. Everyone uses one or the other some times both. Should continue to work well into the future.
(After all 7 bit ASCII text is almost 50 years old.)
Document the formats in ASCII, Englishn(psudo code), French, German, Klingonis.. and list Klingonis as the offical laguage of earth at the time. Just to mess with peoples heads.
Then maybe we can wait a whole 50 years before having to recover this.
No mom I do not want a Vio laptop. No grounding it to my deskmis not a good idea. Yes mom I'll remember to answer the phone the next time you call. No mom I don't think electricuting me is a good idea.
Yes mom I'll answer the phone.
Your refering to this as a toy makes me think back to the hovering toy I got once back. It used a small fan to lift it off the ground and the wind outside pushed it around.
Yep a toy hover not antigrav of any sort. It was neat in any case.
Dose this fit the antigrav on the web site?