As I understand it this lawsute is basicly Sun suing Kingston for Kingston providing high quaity memory for Sun machines within Suns published specs. What message is Sun sending out? "Don't support us". This patent has value in making sure no one can make computers based on Suns technology. Reasonable enough. However Sun in suing Kingston isn't doing anything to that ends. Instead Sun is preventing someone from providing support for Suns machines.
Amazon "Don't compeate with us" Etoys "Don't even come near us.." Microsoft "Don't use compeating products" Sun "Don't support us..."
This is dumb..
You know if Sun asked Kingston politely I'm sure Kingston would galdly discontinue support for Suns machines. Wouldn't you?
Technicaly Dos had it before Mac.. a technical side effect. Basicly the IBM PC could have a mono-text card and a CGA card in at the same time with no conflicts. It was up to the programmer to accually use this. The Tandy/Radio Shack PCs did make use of this and instore demos would have graphics on one screen and text on the other.
Also some early Dos multitaskers would only run two tasks (limited PC memory made it difficult to run more) some of thies would asign one task to one screen and one to the other. (this way elimiating a lot of technical issues reguarding video interfaces)
To bring this full circle... Xfree 4.0 only just now has this support however Unix has had this for a few years predating the existence of Window, Mac, or even X. Lacking any kind of GUI people working in graphics or CADing would need a graphic terminal and a text terminal. The commands would be entered into the text terminal and the results would show up on the graphic terminal. Xwindow had this support for quite some time (not knowing who of the GUIs had this first). Macs first multi-display was on the early Macs where one screen was built in and one on a card. Not very helpful however as the built in screen wasn't that great to start with. Windows NT had this for a while but I havn't seen it used in any practical way. Mind you I havn't seen NT used in any practical way. But while Xwindow had this for a while.. Xfree did not. If you wanted this feature you had to get a commertal Xwindow manager.
Windows 9x as far as I know still dose not support more than one monitor... But then Windows 9x dosn't support more than one sound card.. They are unqiue in this. (while I only need one monitor I use two sound cards and plan to install a third.. one for my Window Manager, one for SpeekFreely and one for MP3s)...
It is very douptful the first anything is known. Rembering that all this stuff was pritty much hobby back in the start very few people bothered to document themselfs.
It is very likely the first BBS shut down a long time before it could ever become known as "the first". Thies were all hobbys.
The oldest "known" BBS would be the most anyone could hope for.
Same for open access Unix. or any on-line firsts predating the 1990s. I thought my own "random prompts" latter known as "prompty thingies" were the first "ad banners" then I find fortine cookies and Murphys laws predate my "random prompts" by a number of years. More painful is someone had a rotating prompt before my random prompt. His being for advertising no less.
It'll be easyer to document the last BBS or the last open access Unix system than it will to document the first. Ps. Anyone rember Xmodem net?
News agentcys will pick up storys from other news agentcys. It's pritty normal. It was on advagato but not on Slash... If Slashdot breaks a story Advagato will carry it. Becouse thats what "The pros" do. That is assuming Advagato really are pros.
Any given news agentcy wants you to be able to get ALL the news from them. To that ends they will report on ALL news reguardless of who broke the story first. Becouse if your viewers/readers arn't getting the news from you.. they arn't comming back.
Accually this is one of the problems in the news media. Some news agentcys will report on someone elses story but they don't check the facts of the story as such they carry the bies of the preveous reporter.
Example: Reporter [A] reports on Linux, Gets information on Linux from Microsoft, Reporter [B] adds facts from using Linux but otherwise repeates the MsFUD from [A] reporter [C] adds comments with out knowing what is what. However I have noticed that some.. in order to get a better story.. will go back and fact check. Thies reporters will of course give there own slant but that slant will contain NONE of the slant from preveous reports. Reporter [D] files a report devoid of MsFUD and instead files an RMS slant...
But if you get worryed about web sites "stealing" storys.. you'll be after any website with content of any value... Becouse you can not break the story all the time.. some times you need to get it from some place else.
Anyway Slashdot originally wasn't about breaking news it was about pointing everyone to the people who did. The only reporters Slashdot has is the community.. and if the community dosn't break the story thats hardly Slashdots fault.
I let my bosses son (a bright 7 year old) use my system when I'm away to play the video games I have installed (Mostly open source games.. stratagy etc.. he is a smart kid and I end up downloading new games for him a lot)
I was stuck with explaining to him why I would log into his account on my computer on occasion.
Try explainning this to a tech unsavy boss, A judge who never used Unix, a Jury who have no idea what "multiuser" means.
I never had to deal with this. The kid understood and even if he didn't my boss would (he dose know Unix).
Given that such a simple task as installing games for a kid could be missunderstood picture the kind of pain that comes from an admin who made someone mad.
Instead of punishing victoms of ignorence we should instead insist on tech savy in managers.
Apples stratagy includes ownership of the Mac design. This allows Apple total control over the future of the Mac. The ability to discontinue what Apple wishes to reguard as obsolete and the ability to include R&D costs in the price of the machine (as such they can afford outragous R&D costs). If Apple were to open the Mac hardware Apple would lose money. Mind you they have no choice but to price compeate with PCs however they can charg a little more if/when nessisary. However when ever posable Apple would prefer to sell Macs for less than PCs rather than more. If Apple openned the hardware Apple would not be able to include R&D into the price as Mac Clones wouldn't have the same R&D costs (the price of making a clone Mac vs the price of develuping a whole new Mac and writing the operating system and providing support)
Instead of asking Apple open the existing Mac hardware it might be better to ask Apple to build a Mac around an existing standard. This way clonnerd don't have cheapper R&D costs as the primary costs would be on say IBM.. who could add the cost of the R&D to the CPU used in the design. This way everyone end up carrying the R&D costs down to the user.
Or better yet.. just ask Apple to document the existing Mac hardware and make it easyer to port other operating systems.. such as switch back to firmware drivers (Like that found on the NuBUSS) larg roms are cheap
Well if it's more expensive than using an operating system where you can not fix the bugs then.. don't fix the bugs.. It'll be exactly the same as using a closed source os but cheaper.
The cost of fixing Linux bugs is counted in hours and pay rate. If it costs you more than $100 (The cost of Windows) or more than $50 ($100 minus cost of offical distro cd) to fix bugs then you need to do the folowing... Fire your SysAdm.. pay your new SysAdm less.. and if your using an offical Linux distro.. use a diffrent distro.. It dosn't take that long to fix... if otherwise your SysAdm isn't very good. Even for a bad SysAdm you are paying him to much if it runs up to $100... (Note... if you are paying your admin $100 an hour he may still be worth it.. if he winks at the system and all bugs vanish.. at $100 an hour your underpaying him)
On the otherhand.. if the Linux distro isn't offical and really dose have thousands of bugs.. Your using a hackers distro.. it's useless... Thies are for 31337 Linux hackers... Or at least major tweeks...
Ferthermore... liccensing source code is a commen practace and at one time was believed to be vital to the continued survival of the busness to have access to the source code no matter what the price. So even if it dose cost more to fix the bugs in Linux that for some mystic reason don't exist in some mystic operating system it is worth it. Becouse even a magical operating system has bugs... [A closed source operating system with fewer bugs than an open sourced operating system is an unlikely event unless the company has huge programmer resources and as such the operating systems price will be rather nasty... or.. the company is run by a demiGod who can mysticly make bugs vanish]
A bugfree operating system is modern fiction. An operating system clamming to be bug free is an operating system whos bugs will never be fixed...
And finnally... closed source dose not mean no access to source code.. it means only crackers have access to source code.. decompilers don't produce anything a SysAdm could use...
Accually "free software" is much less about giving back and being selfless than it is about giving away the code so others can make improvments. I wrote it becouse I want it. I give it away so others can improve it and give the improvements back to me. So there is a greed in open sourcing... Notice how Netscape in turn for giving away Mozilla got a bunch of programmers for free.
Also the stock isn't free... The letter offers to SELL stock at low preIPO prices.. Usually the stock shoots up after the IPO.. thats where you make a killing. Open source companys are answerable to the open source develupers... UNLESS they are answerable to stockholders... thus the letter... But with so few develupers getting Calderas "the letter" one worrys if Caldera has any plans to mainatin any sort of commitment to the open source community. However Caldera also develups DrDos and as such may not rely on Linux forever. But for the moment DrDos isn't a money maker.
It still makes one wonder whats up at Caldera that they focused only on certen groups of develupers rather than going with a wider group or (as it was a big disaster with RedHat) not bother in the first place.
Quick note... I believe Apples famous look and feel os lawsute predates the Lotus 123 lawsute. Apple spent a lot of time designning the MacOs look and feel and clones are basicly theft of this hard work. 123s look and feel fell together and was never part of some grand design. Cloning is the greater effort.
Apples computers do not (to me) seem remarkably diffrent from other hardware. Could Apple sue Digital? Becouse the iMac looks a lot like the Vt100 we have in storage. Put a clear case on a Vt100 and it would look identical to an iMac.
This seems like looking far enough back and copying something someone did before and expecting everyone to forget who did it first...
Just my opinion but we can theries all we want about how a virus might come into existence. Unix has been around for over 30 years and viruses have not been an issue in all this time. One of the reasons people think Linux has no viruses is becouse Linux is new... However Unix isn't... and I doupt something that hasn't happend in 30 years will magicly happen in the next few months...
Ohh Linux will have viruses.. and virus patches.. If the one known virus is any indication.. A linux virus lifespan is on the range of a few months.. vs the avrage Windows virus life span of vertually immortal...
I have known profesional programmers and hobbyists and in my view profesionals are MORE likely to write viruses than less likely.
Add to the mix that back doors in software are writen almost exclusivly by profesional programmers working on high end systems.
This is just my point of view but it seems to me that viruses are writen to attack an operating system and/or platform a person dislikes. A profesional is more likely to have access to a system he dislikes than a hobbyist who would presumably only have the system he likes the most.
Unix admin have long had to use systems they disliked. In some cases a Unix admin prefers one *nix platform but gets stuck with a diffrent *nix platform. He wouldn't write viruses on the companys own system becouse that would get him fired but he would unleash it "into the wild" if posable. In over 30 years.. with every motivation... and a lot of Unix hobbyists (In casse you prefer to belive viruses only come from hobbyists) a Unix virus is vertually unheard of.
To back up my clame that over the years Unix people are every bit as likely to make viruses as anyone else.. even more so... look at the shear number of trojen hourses writen for Unix. Far outnumbering those for Dos. There are sevral reasons for that.. One is that Unix people are not worryed about trojens comming back to haunt them sence they run something diffrent at home. If they use computers at home at all. (Think 30 years ago... the standard admin 1970 used CP/M at home if he had a computer at all.. the standard admin 2000 almost certenly has a server class system at home)
Note shortly after the first Linux virus was uncovered one of the big antivirus companys made a virus scanner for Linux. Then the virus was distoryed rendering the product useless.
There is some Linux antivirus software outthere. They don't do anything useful sence theres no viruses to stop. But some hobbyists are sereous tweeks. Check out freshmeat and take a look at the antivirus software selection
Assume: Viruses are unknown to Linux becouse Linux is new. Wrong: Linux is based on Unix who has been around much longer than MsDos... Linux would have picked up all those wonderful Unix viruses. However like SunOs and BSD (who are much older than Linux) and most other *nix systems there are few if any viruses. (There is one Linux virus that I know of and it has been dead for years. This virus made use of the stupid behavure of running all software as root a big security no no).
But wait... theres annother reason this is offbase... Viruses do not take that long to come into existence. There were allready a wide selection of Mac viruses by the time the Mac was as old as Linux is now.
On the other hand viruses for Unix are allmost unheard of. It is due to the way Unix works.. For the same reason a program can not change system settings, erase data files or generally mess with the system... a virus infecting Linux would be a major effort. Viruses infect Dos and Windows becouse any given program is trusted to do whats right. As such a virus can do anything it wants. Unix is paranoid Dos is nieve and viruses only work on a nieve system.
Virus experts would like to believe it is posable to slip stuff into major protions of source code. However unless someone like Linux or RMS started writing viruses or willingly let others infect the code they maintain this isn't going to happen.
It is easy to forget that each peace of code has a respected "gate keepper" protecting his/her version of the code from bad code, back doors, trojens and viruses.
If ever such an event happend the person who let the bad code in would never be trusted with anything again and he'd never hear the end of it. "There goes Jimmy Deot.. the guy who infected his code" "Ohh you are 'That guy' keep away from me.. some of my friends run Linux and they'd kill me if they knew I was talking with you" "You want to work here... we'll I don't know.. we don't want you anywhere near our computers becouse.. you know... I mean.." "You run Windows for christs sake.. don't worry I won't do anything evil" You get the idea.... They guy who lets this happen won't live happly ever after... piriod...
If Slashdot added this to the Slashdot servers [presumming the signal went backwards in time.. there is some chatter suggesting otherwise] then submitions could be sent back in time and Slashdot could accually scoop the news media.. "The CNN news link will be [here] 3 weeks from today"
This of course would encurage other news agentcys to read Slashdot even more so they can know when news will break and where to get the first linear report (as in first report with out the use of time travle). All those government agentcys could also use this to report porn etc BEFORE it gets transmited. And of course the FBI can use this to catch terrorists before they act [ala '7 Days'].
Mind a "transmit to the past" device needs the folowing... To be allways on.. (if it is off at any point during the travle back in time the signal will stop at the point where the device was off) (If the signal arives at it's destination and the device is off then the signal will not be receaved).
Presume a coil.. send signal into coil.. signal comes back 30 min in the past.. then look at signal.. if destination is ferther in past.. send again... of course signal will overshoot.. once signal is receaved by a time earlyer than destination.. hold signal and transmit on scedual..
Ok again.. device must be on to receave and retransmit... as well as communicating the message on scedual..
Now... device needs reliable operating system... wops GPF... and now we have signal... and now it's gone...
More likely applications... zero "lag" (the time it takes a signal to reach a destination) in procesors speedding system up... Faster bandwith...:) DSL? Cable? No I have a FTL connection...
My application? Lotto numbers... thats all I'm sayin:)
PS... This is a joke.. I'm not even slightly sereous...
What the GUI dose is let a newbe know what commands exist and makes it easy to use them. What a command line offers is more options than can be reasonably stuffed into a GUI (with out making the screen unreadable).
Of course there remains the issue of WHEN to use WHAT command. Each command having it's own unique issues a newbe won't know about but thies issues get documented on a command line document (man pages).
All and all I'd say for a newbe Linux and NT is about the same. With Linux your in deep dodo in trying to "make the network go" with NT you are given enough rope so when something goes wrong you hang yourself.
Linux dosn't let you "wing it" and in a way that is a good thing. You don't want your admin to "wing it". NT cert says "I'm not winging it" a Linux cert needs to say "Expert" sence there is no "winging it" with Linux.
On the other hand you self train on Linux. Visit/sbin and/usr/sbin and look up commands on the man pages. This won't make you an expert but it will bring you up to speed.
A GUI also means you will NOT be getting "up to speed" just by poking around the system. You do need to read manuals and take a class. You do need trainning.
A command line means you can not just jump in and take over the world. But given time.. poking around.. you could do just that.
But thats still not enough for an admin today. With script kiddys and expert crackers running around trying to mess with whomever they take a dislike to an admin needs to be a total systems expert. If Linux is to maintain it's "reliable" image the cert needs to be above par.
RedHats cert is shooting for the poor mans Sun cert not an expensive Microsoft cert.
Sounds like an idea for a new 3D first person shooter... Guns deposited by replicator... You are allowed to add imporvments so each generation of guns is better than the preveous...
Call it OWD Open Wepentry Develupment:) Just a thought
What hardware dose Linux need to support? Linux allready has support for 3D cards and hardware 3d rendering... I suspect what you should have said is the PC dosn't have support. PC 3D cards are still not as good as you'll find on SGI machines.
But even if the hardware dose not yet exsist the drivers do.. So it's just a matter of having specs for a 3D PC card that can do the job. Someone has to make such a card first:)
What your saying isn't that the stats were accually made up or that they are fake. But simply that none of the people who should know where they came from know.. It is unlikely that an Encyclopedia as well known as Britannica would make up such a figure. On the other hand... it isn't imposable... This is a question to push... where in hack did this stat come from...
The point/moral remains... accept no statistic blindly... ever... piriod... Even if it is from the Encyclopedia Britannica... No one is perfict and Statistics are bound to be flawed.
Correction... Real christans make up the majority. They are not offended by people who think for themselfs. They are not offended by the actions of others. They are however offended by your notion that anything your doing even comes CLOSE to being christan...
Mind you I'm realising I'm stupid... your not even a fake christan... your a troll... ohh crud... ok you got me on this one...
>Not only that, but he seems to think he invented Linux (see the stupid GNU/Linux issue). Go figure.
RMS is pritty much the grandfather of the whole movement. He started the GNU half of Linux (or has he calls it GNU/Linux) I have a whole counter rant where I argue the correct name is 'Linux' Not GNU/Linux...
Anyway... Linux is the kernel the rest is GNU. Being realistic Linux evolved.. Linus made the kernel and he is responsable for that but RMS made GNU and that was a vital component to making Linux work. ESR, Bruce and even CmdrTaco contributed SOME code to Linux. On the other hand... RMS is NOT the spokesperson. He hates that but it's true. BP and ESR dose FAR more busness level contact. RMS dosn't give marching orders.. it is up to us to kinda ignore him when he gets over the top. However this time he is on the ball....
If he ever gose really totally psyco I'm sure ESR, BP and other Linux advocates [Like Emmit and CmdrTaco] will have a few things to say...
As someone pointed out in annother post. This is a myth. Books by Nolo press also explain how this dosn't work.. I believe it is explained in "Legal care for your software" and/or "Patent it yourself". Of course.. check them out rather than take my word for it:) And they are douptlessly updated majorly in the years sence I have read them.
While the "Poor-Man's copyright" seeks to clame ownership of said item... prior art only seeks to prove no one else dose... It retains ZERO ownership for yourself...
Basicly all you do is... do it... just that simple. Once it's done and documented in some way that this is when it happend you have prior art. Then when someone patents it say 5 years later you say "I did it first"... Patent goes away.. Or better yet.. never gets issued...
Is this the "anything that offends me" standard? I find your "holier than thow" addatude offensive. I find your stuffing religion in peoples faces offensive. I find your "my way" addatude offensive. Dose your standard still aply? Or am I exempt becouse I have a diffrent opinion?
He is not amoral just becouse he isn't hypermoral he isn't anti-christan just becouse he dosn't blindly folow your version of the christan religion.
And on religion. Your version of christanity is flawed. Christ himself said "Judge ye not lest ye be judged" yet you have placed yourself in the position of judge... I myself refer to Christ as an enlightend philosopher. I do not reguard him as a savur or a deity or son of a deity. Thats just how I see it.
As for society... It's not in the gutter yet but thanks to people like you who place imposable standards on socity and thanks to people who go in the other direction realising there is no pleasing your kind.. we are slowly being notched in that direction.
People like you who see anti-christan addatudes in ordenary activitys. People like you who see immorality everywhere... you discust me...
True morality has nothing to do with messing with other peoples lifes. True morality comes from within. To act moral. Not to cram it down everyone elses throats.
I would like to suggest that the most immoral, anti-christan, and indecent of all acts is censorship..
I live in Concord California where WC Cdrom is located and that probably is where my intrest in WC Cdrom begins and ends.
In the artical the idea of many diffrent Linux organisations.. the shatering of Linux.. is seen as a "bad thing" and mergers like this one a "good thing" I'd like to suggest exactly the opposate is the case.
If there is bad code you can not cutaway that bad code and say "this is bad". Instead you have to eat it. Good and bad. Not much diffrent from any closed source product. But with a splitered system there will ALLWAYS be "good" code SOMEPLACE. There is also the issue of no os being "everything to everyone". Linux can be exactly that but not in one pacage. Each Linux distro is something to some people but each distrobution being diffrent Linux on the whole becomes all things to all people.
Yes there is this big bugaboo about how you can not make a single binary that runs on all Linux distrobutions. Just document what IS required and don't worry about it....
BSD however dose have the advantage of having a core os.. Unlike Linux.. however That means thats BSD. For good or ill.
We souldn't push away closed source per-say. Every system I have used excluding one had available source software (Not nessisarly open or totally open).
Commertal software has to compeate with available alternitives. Left to themselfs commertal software companys won't produce quality software. Unless someone injects quality software into the market the software on the market will stink...
This is pritty much what happend with Windows...
On Linux there is a huge base of free software. Any given comertal title must beat that. Failing that commertal titles will not surivive in the Linux market. With Windows if you don't play by Microsofts rules... you are toast... We should welcome comertal develupers over to Linux. We shouldn't shun them.. if they fail to produce high quality software.. there is allways open sourse.... With Linux comertal titles will allways take a back seat to open source...
Slashdot Mirror
It could effect prices for ram for Sun Sparcs but not for PCs or Macs as the patent has to do with Sun memory modules.
It probably won't but it could.
As I understand it this lawsute is basicly Sun suing Kingston for Kingston providing high quaity memory for Sun machines within Suns published specs.
What message is Sun sending out? "Don't support us".
This patent has value in making sure no one can make computers based on Suns technology. Reasonable enough.
However Sun in suing Kingston isn't doing anything to that ends. Instead Sun is preventing someone from providing support for Suns machines.
Amazon "Don't compeate with us"
Etoys "Don't even come near us.."
Microsoft "Don't use compeating products"
Sun "Don't support us..."
This is dumb..
You know if Sun asked Kingston politely I'm sure Kingston would galdly discontinue support for Suns machines. Wouldn't you?
Technicaly Dos had it before Mac.. a technical side effect.
Basicly the IBM PC could have a mono-text card and a CGA card in at the same time with no conflicts. It was up to the programmer to accually use this.
The Tandy/Radio Shack PCs did make use of this and instore demos would have graphics on one screen and text on the other.
Also some early Dos multitaskers would only run two tasks (limited PC memory made it difficult to run more) some of thies would asign one task to one screen and one to the other. (this way elimiating a lot of technical issues reguarding video interfaces)
To bring this full circle... Xfree 4.0 only just now has this support however Unix has had this for a few years predating the existence of Window, Mac, or even X.
Lacking any kind of GUI people working in graphics or CADing would need a graphic terminal and a text terminal. The commands would be entered into the text terminal and the results would show up on the graphic terminal.
Xwindow had this support for quite some time (not knowing who of the GUIs had this first).
Macs first multi-display was on the early Macs where one screen was built in and one on a card. Not very helpful however as the built in screen wasn't that great to start with.
Windows NT had this for a while but I havn't seen it used in any practical way. Mind you I havn't seen NT used in any practical way.
But while Xwindow had this for a while.. Xfree did not. If you wanted this feature you had to get a commertal Xwindow manager.
Windows 9x as far as I know still dose not support more than one monitor... But then Windows 9x dosn't support more than one sound card.. They are unqiue in this. (while I only need one monitor I use two sound cards and plan to install a third.. one for my Window Manager, one for SpeekFreely and one for MP3s)...
It is very douptful the first anything is known.
Rembering that all this stuff was pritty much hobby back in the start very few people bothered to document themselfs.
It is very likely the first BBS shut down a long time before it could ever become known as "the first". Thies were all hobbys.
The oldest "known" BBS would be the most anyone could hope for.
Same for open access Unix.
or any on-line firsts predating the 1990s.
I thought my own "random prompts" latter known as "prompty thingies" were the first "ad banners" then I find fortine cookies and Murphys laws predate my "random prompts" by a number of years. More painful is someone had a rotating prompt before my random prompt. His being for advertising no less.
It'll be easyer to document the last BBS or the last open access Unix system than it will to document the first.
Ps. Anyone rember Xmodem net?
News agentcys will pick up storys from other news agentcys. It's pritty normal.
It was on advagato but not on Slash...
If Slashdot breaks a story Advagato will carry it. Becouse thats what "The pros" do. That is assuming Advagato really are pros.
Any given news agentcy wants you to be able to get ALL the news from them. To that ends they will report on ALL news reguardless of who broke the story first. Becouse if your viewers/readers arn't getting the news from you.. they arn't comming back.
Accually this is one of the problems in the news media. Some news agentcys will report on someone elses story but they don't check the facts of the story as such they carry the bies of the preveous reporter.
Example: Reporter [A] reports on Linux, Gets information on Linux from Microsoft, Reporter [B] adds facts from using Linux but otherwise repeates the MsFUD from [A] reporter [C] adds comments with out knowing what is what.
However I have noticed that some.. in order to get a better story.. will go back and fact check. Thies reporters will of course give there own slant but that slant will contain NONE of the slant from preveous reports.
Reporter [D] files a report devoid of MsFUD and instead files an RMS slant...
But if you get worryed about web sites "stealing" storys.. you'll be after any website with content of any value...
Becouse you can not break the story all the time.. some times you need to get it from some place else.
Anyway Slashdot originally wasn't about breaking news it was about pointing everyone to the people who did. The only reporters Slashdot has is the community.. and if the community dosn't break the story thats hardly Slashdots fault.
I let my bosses son (a bright 7 year old) use my system when I'm away to play the video games I have installed (Mostly open source games.. stratagy etc.. he is a smart kid and I end up downloading new games for him a lot)
I was stuck with explaining to him why I would log into his account on my computer on occasion.
Try explainning this to a tech unsavy boss, A judge who never used Unix, a Jury who have no idea what "multiuser" means.
I never had to deal with this. The kid understood and even if he didn't my boss would (he dose know Unix).
Given that such a simple task as installing games for a kid could be missunderstood picture the kind of pain that comes from an admin who made someone mad.
Instead of punishing victoms of ignorence we should instead insist on tech savy in managers.
It isn't going to happen...
Apples stratagy includes ownership of the Mac design. This allows Apple total control over the future of the Mac. The ability to discontinue what Apple wishes to reguard as obsolete and the ability to include R&D costs in the price of the machine (as such they can afford outragous R&D costs).
If Apple were to open the Mac hardware Apple would lose money.
Mind you they have no choice but to price compeate with PCs however they can charg a little more if/when nessisary. However when ever posable Apple would prefer to sell Macs for less than PCs rather than more. If Apple openned the hardware Apple would not be able to include R&D into the price as Mac Clones wouldn't have the same R&D costs (the price of making a clone Mac vs the price of develuping a whole new Mac and writing the operating system and providing support)
Instead of asking Apple open the existing Mac hardware it might be better to ask Apple to build a Mac around an existing standard. This way clonnerd don't have cheapper R&D costs as the primary costs would be on say IBM.. who could add the cost of the R&D to the CPU used in the design. This way everyone end up carrying the R&D costs down to the user.
Or better yet.. just ask Apple to document the existing Mac hardware and make it easyer to port other operating systems.. such as switch back to firmware drivers (Like that found on the NuBUSS) larg roms are cheap
Well if it's more expensive than using an operating system where you can not fix the bugs then.. don't fix the bugs.. It'll be exactly the same as using a closed source os but cheaper.
The cost of fixing Linux bugs is counted in hours and pay rate.
If it costs you more than $100 (The cost of Windows) or more than $50 ($100 minus cost of offical distro cd) to fix bugs then you need to do the folowing...
Fire your SysAdm.. pay your new SysAdm less.. and if your using an offical Linux distro.. use a diffrent distro..
It dosn't take that long to fix... if otherwise your SysAdm isn't very good.
Even for a bad SysAdm you are paying him to much if it runs up to $100...
(Note... if you are paying your admin $100 an hour he may still be worth it.. if he winks at the system and all bugs vanish.. at $100 an hour your underpaying him)
On the otherhand.. if the Linux distro isn't offical and really dose have thousands of bugs.. Your using a hackers distro.. it's useless... Thies are for 31337 Linux hackers... Or at least major tweeks...
Ferthermore... liccensing source code is a commen practace and at one time was believed to be vital to the continued survival of the busness to have access to the source code no matter what the price. So even if it dose cost more to fix the bugs in Linux that for some mystic reason don't exist in some mystic operating system it is worth it. Becouse even a magical operating system has bugs...
[A closed source operating system with fewer bugs than an open sourced operating system is an unlikely event unless the company has huge programmer resources and as such the operating systems price will be rather nasty... or.. the company is run by a demiGod who can mysticly make bugs vanish]
A bugfree operating system is modern fiction.
An operating system clamming to be bug free is an operating system whos bugs will never be fixed...
And finnally... closed source dose not mean no access to source code.. it means only crackers have access to source code.. decompilers don't produce anything a SysAdm could use...
Accually "free software" is much less about giving back and being selfless than it is about giving away the code so others can make improvments.
I wrote it becouse I want it. I give it away so others can improve it and give the improvements back to me.
So there is a greed in open sourcing...
Notice how Netscape in turn for giving away Mozilla got a bunch of programmers for free.
Also the stock isn't free... The letter offers to SELL stock at low preIPO prices.. Usually the stock shoots up after the IPO.. thats where you make a killing.
Open source companys are answerable to the open source develupers... UNLESS they are answerable to stockholders... thus the letter...
But with so few develupers getting Calderas "the letter" one worrys if Caldera has any plans to mainatin any sort of commitment to the open source community.
However Caldera also develups DrDos and as such may not rely on Linux forever. But for the moment DrDos isn't a money maker.
It still makes one wonder whats up at Caldera that they focused only on certen groups of develupers rather than going with a wider group or (as it was a big disaster with RedHat) not bother in the first place.
Quick note...
I believe Apples famous look and feel os lawsute predates the Lotus 123 lawsute.
Apple spent a lot of time designning the MacOs look and feel and clones are basicly theft of this hard work.
123s look and feel fell together and was never part of some grand design. Cloning is the greater effort.
Apples computers do not (to me) seem remarkably diffrent from other hardware. Could Apple sue Digital? Becouse the iMac looks a lot like the Vt100 we have in storage.
Put a clear case on a Vt100 and it would look identical to an iMac.
This seems like looking far enough back and copying something someone did before and expecting everyone to forget who did it first...
Just my opinion but we can theries all we want about how a virus might come into existence.
:)
Unix has been around for over 30 years and viruses have not been an issue in all this time.
One of the reasons people think Linux has no viruses is becouse Linux is new...
However Unix isn't... and I doupt something that hasn't happend in 30 years will magicly happen in the next few months...
Ohh Linux will have viruses.. and virus patches..
If the one known virus is any indication..
A linux virus lifespan is on the range of a few months.. vs the avrage Windows virus life span of vertually immortal...
It's good to be prepaired..
But not paranoid
I have known profesional programmers and hobbyists and in my view profesionals are MORE likely to write viruses than less likely.
Add to the mix that back doors in software are writen almost exclusivly by profesional programmers working on high end systems.
This is just my point of view but it seems to me that viruses are writen to attack an operating system and/or platform a person dislikes.
A profesional is more likely to have access to a system he dislikes than a hobbyist who would presumably only have the system he likes the most.
Unix admin have long had to use systems they disliked. In some cases a Unix admin prefers one *nix platform but gets stuck with a diffrent *nix platform. He wouldn't write viruses on the companys own system becouse that would get him fired but he would unleash it "into the wild" if posable.
In over 30 years.. with every motivation... and a lot of Unix hobbyists (In casse you prefer to belive viruses only come from hobbyists) a Unix virus is vertually unheard of.
To back up my clame that over the years Unix people are every bit as likely to make viruses as anyone else.. even more so... look at the shear number of trojen hourses writen for Unix. Far outnumbering those for Dos.
There are sevral reasons for that.. One is that Unix people are not worryed about trojens comming back to haunt them sence they run something diffrent at home. If they use computers at home at all.
(Think 30 years ago... the standard admin 1970 used CP/M at home if he had a computer at all.. the standard admin 2000 almost certenly has a server class system at home)
Note shortly after the first Linux virus was uncovered one of the big antivirus companys made a virus scanner for Linux. Then the virus was distoryed rendering the product useless.
There is some Linux antivirus software outthere. They don't do anything useful sence theres no viruses to stop. But some hobbyists are sereous tweeks.
Check out freshmeat and take a look at the antivirus software selection
Assume: Viruses are unknown to Linux becouse Linux is new.
Wrong: Linux is based on Unix who has been around much longer than MsDos...
Linux would have picked up all those wonderful Unix viruses.
However like SunOs and BSD (who are much older than Linux) and most other *nix systems there are few if any viruses. (There is one Linux virus that I know of and it has been dead for years. This virus made use of the stupid behavure of running all software as root a big security no no).
But wait... theres annother reason this is offbase...
Viruses do not take that long to come into existence. There were allready a wide selection of Mac viruses by the time the Mac was as old as Linux is now.
On the other hand viruses for Unix are allmost unheard of.
It is due to the way Unix works.. For the same reason a program can not change system settings, erase data files or generally mess with the system... a virus infecting Linux would be a major effort.
Viruses infect Dos and Windows becouse any given program is trusted to do whats right. As such a virus can do anything it wants.
Unix is paranoid Dos is nieve and viruses only work on a nieve system.
Virus experts would like to believe it is posable to slip stuff into major protions of source code. However unless someone like Linux or RMS started writing viruses or willingly let others infect the code they maintain this isn't going to happen.
It is easy to forget that each peace of code has a respected "gate keepper" protecting his/her version of the code from bad code, back doors, trojens and viruses.
If ever such an event happend the person who let the bad code in would never be trusted with anything again and he'd never hear the end of it.
"There goes Jimmy Deot.. the guy who infected his code"
"Ohh you are 'That guy' keep away from me.. some of my friends run Linux and they'd kill me if they knew I was talking with you"
"You want to work here... we'll I don't know.. we don't want you anywhere near our computers becouse.. you know... I mean.." "You run Windows for christs sake.. don't worry I won't do anything evil"
You get the idea.... They guy who lets this happen won't live happly ever after... piriod...
I knew I heard this before...</a>
This story most likely has more information than the preveous incarnation.
Anyway
If Slashdot added this to the Slashdot servers [presumming the signal went backwards in time.. there is some chatter suggesting otherwise] then submitions could be sent back in time and Slashdot could accually scoop the news media..
.. once signal is receaved by a time earlyer than destination.. hold signal and transmit on scedual..
:) DSL? Cable? No I have a FTL connection...
:)
"The CNN news link will be [here] 3 weeks from today"
This of course would encurage other news agentcys to read Slashdot even more so they can know when news will break and where to get the first linear report (as in first report with out the use of time travle).
All those government agentcys could also use this to report porn etc BEFORE it gets transmited.
And of course the FBI can use this to catch terrorists before they act [ala '7 Days'].
Mind a "transmit to the past" device needs the folowing...
To be allways on.. (if it is off at any point during the travle back in time the signal will stop at the point where the device was off)
(If the signal arives at it's destination and the device is off then the signal will not be receaved).
Presume a coil.. send signal into coil.. signal comes back 30 min in the past.. then look at signal.. if destination is ferther in past.. send again... of course signal will overshoot
Ok again.. device must be on to receave and retransmit... as well as communicating the message on scedual..
Now... device needs reliable operating system... wops GPF... and now we have signal... and now it's gone...
Could this work? Not likely...
Practical aplications of device... predict downtime. Predict stocks.. Predict criminal activity.
More likely applications...
zero "lag" (the time it takes a signal to reach a destination) in procesors speedding system up...
Faster bandwith...
My application? Lotto numbers... thats all I'm sayin
PS... This is a joke.. I'm not even slightly sereous...
What the GUI dose is let a newbe know what commands exist and makes it easy to use them.
/sbin and /usr/sbin and look up commands on the man pages. This won't make you an expert but it will bring you up to speed.
What a command line offers is more options than can be reasonably stuffed into a GUI (with out making the screen unreadable).
Of course there remains the issue of WHEN to use WHAT command. Each command having it's own unique issues a newbe won't know about but thies issues get documented on a command line document (man pages).
All and all I'd say for a newbe Linux and NT is about the same. With Linux your in deep dodo in trying to "make the network go" with NT you are given enough rope so when something goes wrong you hang yourself.
Linux dosn't let you "wing it" and in a way that is a good thing. You don't want your admin to "wing it". NT cert says "I'm not winging it" a Linux cert needs to say "Expert" sence there is no "winging it" with Linux.
On the other hand you self train on Linux. Visit
A GUI also means you will NOT be getting "up to speed" just by poking around the system. You do need to read manuals and take a class. You do need trainning.
A command line means you can not just jump in and take over the world. But given time.. poking around.. you could do just that.
But thats still not enough for an admin today. With script kiddys and expert crackers running around trying to mess with whomever they take a dislike to an admin needs to be a total systems expert. If Linux is to maintain it's "reliable" image the cert needs to be above par.
RedHats cert is shooting for the poor mans Sun cert not an expensive Microsoft cert.
Sounds like an idea for a new 3D first person shooter...
:)
Guns deposited by replicator... You are allowed to add imporvments so each generation of guns is better than the preveous...
Call it OWD Open Wepentry Develupment
Just a thought
What hardware dose Linux need to support?
:)
Linux allready has support for 3D cards and hardware 3d rendering...
I suspect what you should have said is the PC dosn't have support. PC 3D cards are still not as good as you'll find on SGI machines.
But even if the hardware dose not yet exsist the drivers do.. So it's just a matter of having specs
for a 3D PC card that can do the job. Someone has to make such a card first
What your saying isn't that the stats were accually made up or that they are fake.
But simply that none of the people who should know where they came from know..
It is unlikely that an Encyclopedia as well known as Britannica would make up such a figure.
On the other hand... it isn't imposable...
This is a question to push... where in hack did this stat come from...
The point/moral remains... accept no statistic blindly... ever... piriod...
Even if it is from the Encyclopedia Britannica...
No one is perfict and Statistics are bound to be flawed.
Correction... Real christans make up the majority.
They are not offended by people who think for themselfs.
They are not offended by the actions of others.
They are however offended by your notion that anything your doing even comes CLOSE to being christan...
Mind you I'm realising I'm stupid... your not even a fake christan... your a troll... ohh crud... ok you got me on this one...
>Not only that, but he seems to think he invented Linux (see the stupid GNU/Linux issue). Go figure.
RMS is pritty much the grandfather of the whole movement. He started the GNU half of Linux (or has he calls it GNU/Linux) I have a whole counter rant where I argue the correct name is 'Linux' Not GNU/Linux...
Anyway... Linux is the kernel the rest is GNU.
Being realistic Linux evolved.. Linus made the kernel and he is responsable for that but RMS made GNU and that was a vital component to making Linux work.
ESR, Bruce and even CmdrTaco contributed SOME code to Linux.
On the other hand... RMS is NOT the spokesperson. He hates that but it's true. BP and ESR dose FAR more busness level contact. RMS dosn't give marching orders.. it is up to us to kinda ignore him when he gets over the top. However this time he is on the ball....
If he ever gose really totally psyco I'm sure ESR, BP and other Linux advocates [Like Emmit and CmdrTaco] will have a few things to say...
As someone pointed out in annother post. This is a myth. Books by Nolo press also explain how this dosn't work.. I believe it is explained in "Legal care for your software" and/or "Patent it yourself". Of course.. check them out rather than take my word for it :) And they are douptlessly updated majorly in the years sence I have read them.
While the "Poor-Man's copyright" seeks to clame ownership of said item... prior art only seeks to prove no one else dose...
It retains ZERO ownership for yourself...
Basicly all you do is... do it... just that simple. Once it's done and documented in some way that this is when it happend you have prior art.
Then when someone patents it say 5 years later you say "I did it first"... Patent goes away..
Or better yet.. never gets issued...
Is this the "anything that offends me" standard?
I find your "holier than thow" addatude offensive. I find your stuffing religion in peoples faces offensive. I find your "my way" addatude offensive. Dose your standard still aply?
Or am I exempt becouse I have a diffrent opinion?
He is not amoral just becouse he isn't hypermoral he isn't anti-christan just becouse he dosn't blindly folow your version of the christan religion.
And on religion. Your version of christanity is flawed. Christ himself said "Judge ye not lest ye be judged" yet you have placed yourself in the position of judge...
I myself refer to Christ as an enlightend philosopher. I do not reguard him as a savur or a deity or son of a deity. Thats just how I see it.
As for society... It's not in the gutter yet but thanks to people like you who place imposable standards on socity and thanks to people who go in the other direction realising there is no pleasing your kind.. we are slowly being notched in that direction.
People like you who see anti-christan addatudes in ordenary activitys. People like you who see immorality everywhere... you discust me...
True morality has nothing to do with messing with other peoples lifes. True morality comes from within. To act moral. Not to cram it down everyone elses throats.
I would like to suggest that the most immoral, anti-christan, and indecent of all acts is censorship..
I live in Concord California where WC Cdrom is located and that probably is where my intrest in WC Cdrom begins and ends.
In the artical the idea of many diffrent Linux organisations.. the shatering of Linux.. is seen as a "bad thing" and mergers like this one a "good thing" I'd like to suggest exactly the opposate is the case.
If there is bad code you can not cutaway that bad code and say "this is bad". Instead you have to eat it. Good and bad. Not much diffrent from any closed source product.
But with a splitered system there will ALLWAYS be "good" code SOMEPLACE.
There is also the issue of no os being "everything to everyone". Linux can be exactly that but not in one pacage. Each Linux distro is something to some people but each distrobution being diffrent Linux on the whole becomes all things to all people.
Yes there is this big bugaboo about how you can not make a single binary that runs on all Linux distrobutions. Just document what IS required and don't worry about it....
BSD however dose have the advantage of having a core os.. Unlike Linux.. however That means thats BSD. For good or ill.
We souldn't push away closed source per-say.
Every system I have used excluding one had available source software (Not nessisarly open or totally open).
Commertal software has to compeate with available alternitives. Left to themselfs commertal software companys won't produce quality software. Unless someone injects quality software into the market the software on the market will stink...
This is pritty much what happend with Windows...
On Linux there is a huge base of free software. Any given comertal title must beat that. Failing that commertal titles will not surivive in the Linux market.
With Windows if you don't play by Microsofts rules... you are toast...
We should welcome comertal develupers over to Linux. We shouldn't shun them.. if they fail to produce high quality software.. there is allways open sourse.... With Linux comertal titles will allways take a back seat to open source...