If, say, Redomnd comes out with a Microsoft Linux, that isn't linuxy, and misleads the consumer as to its' actual contents, it still becomes actionable as consumer fraud - no trademark registration required.
That's not the case in Europe, and, AFAIK, also not in the US. If the legal situation in Australia is so different, I should refrain from further comments.
Concerning the patents: I always understood the `potentially infringes' as `there are patents where Linux infringes against if they are valid'. Which ones? At least the setuid patent, to start with. There are lots of other patents that cover coloring algorithms used in the scheduler and other places; IBM has a whole bunch of them. They are not `written around' because it's not worth the hassle, and one doesn't know in advance if they will be valid anyhow.
Concerning the lawyer: Your four arguments might be true, I don't know. But if they are -- then you should turn your rage against LMI and not against the lawyer. LMI wants to establish the Linux trademark in Australia, and they engaged that lawyer. It's not his idea and, for all that gets reported, he doesn't do this to get the trademark assigned to his own company. He does it to get the trademark assigned to the non-profit organization that is charged by Linus Torvalds to manage his trademark worldwide.
So, your arguments means actually: Linus shall not have the Linux trademark in Australia. There shall not be any trademark protection at all for the term Linux in Australia. If Microsoft Australia or any other company wants to name one of their offerings Linux, even if it has nothing to do with Linux, then it shall be so. If you think so, say so; don't hide behind the rant against a lawyer.
For my country, Germany, I'm glad that only those can use the trademark Linux who do it according to the rules. And the fees to LMI are negligable, compared with other business expenses.
Linux clearly violates a number of US patents, this has been researched several times, independently. It's also well argued that patent violations are one of the next battle grounds for OSS. Groklaw reports on these issues on a regular base. This is no FUD, this is reality.
Or, do you want to say that Pamela Jones of Groklaw, who presents the same arguments as cited in your ZDnet article, is `adopting the same FUD tactics as other enemies of open source (particularly SCO)'? Please do so, it's making your drivel as risible as it is.
From your other posts, too, you come around as somebody with foam at his mouth everytime you write about Jeremy Malcolm. Do you know him personally? Did you have contact with him previously?
Please note: I'm not involved in any of these discussions. I don't live in Australia and do no business there. I know from other news sources (that I trust) that Linux Mark Institute is triggering these actions in Australia and not this lawyer. I'm just wondering why you're so full of hate against this guy.
This is done because some UML tools generate stub code as such. And most programmers are either to lazy to clean up the stub code, or they think `it might be needed for future enhancements' and let it in.
This is made harder that for round-trips (i.e., for reading the code back again into the UML tool) existance of the stub code is needed sometimes.
Welcome to the new world of programing by bloated diagrams.
You mean, like, checking old security bugs of previous versions does not need to be done for rewrites of some important software component used on millions of desktops?
Very good point. Missing backward compatibility is one of the disadvantages of many open source projects. Sometimes it's worth to pay for the advancement, but sometimes it's just because the developers don't try hard enough.
Please note, I'm not condemning. Sometimes there are reasons. But with glibc, it has happened too often compared to other libc implementations. And this article raises the hypothesis if it's an attitude problem, and not a technical problem.
This should be from-the-guy-who-breaks-glibc-compatibility-with-e very-minor-release.
Seriously, isn't this the same Ulrich Depper who can't even bother to get glibc right? glibc incompatibilities -- even in patch versions -- is a major headache on Linux. Compare that to those ``obsolete'' platforms like AIX and Solaris where I can still run binaries that I have compiled in the early 90s or even the 80s. glibc is one of the main reasons why Linux application deployment sucks in major (read: heterogenous) installations. Kernel differences are actually not as problematic, but glibc is biting ourselves all the day.
He has shown already that he won't bother for people who run computing centers. Here's he, spouting more hobbiest opinions. Nothing new, move forward.
I just went there with Mozilla 1.7 on Linux, and the page greets me with
The browser you are using is not providing you the most efficient online experience. Upgrade to Firefox today and see why Forbes Magazine said, "Microsoft should be worried."
(Bold as on the page, not inserted by me.)
Ben Goodger is ignorant, without doubt. People like him make me stay with my working Mozila...
Very old terminals did the echo themselves sometimes. Typing the backspace key actually deleted the character in front of the cursor. Nevertheless, the mail program (mailx mostly) read a backspace char (0x08). When this char was sent to the recipient (because BS was not the stty erase character, as you explained), it was often represented at the sender side as ^H. It could also be that it did a backspace; this depended on the MUA and the terminal settings.
So, there were senders who did not even realize that one could see their edit actions. Similar to those folks who sent around MS.doc files today.
I remember getting emails with ^H in them. Man, I'm feeling old today.;-)
IBM make so much money because they keep themselves efficient.
I stopped reading here. As an IBM supplier and contractor, I can tell you: There are lots of reasons why IBM is making loads of money. That they are efficient is none of it. IBM and efficiency are two anathemes.
Speaking as a European who owns a business -- and not hiding as AC: My employees are a capital I have invested a lot into. That I don't have use for them currently doesn't mean that there won't be the case again. In addition, they made me lots of money in good times, so I won't drop them at the slightest downturn -- because I try to be fair to them.
But this might be a concept you haven't heard of until now. Too bad for you, I'm of the strong opinion that my business will last longer in the long run than yours. (And my company already exists for more than 15 years, and is profitably each year. My first business ran successfully for 10 years, with the same approach. And my parent's business ran successfully for 40 years with that approach. It's tried and tested.)
That said, there might be the time where one needs to lay off employees because one hasn't enough resources to wait until they are productive again, or where they betrayed you (e.g., I had employees stealing company money), etc. But the bland expression `fire all people that are of no use' is not optimal in the long run.
Can you please explain how Sun is a "predecessor-in-interest to SCO/Caldera"?
They bought perpetual rights to Unix from SCO/Caldera, but did not buy the company.
And if you thing that OO.o is the only Open Source activity that Sun funds, open your eyes. GNOME, SunSITEs, just to name the most prominent. That Schwarz is a jerk when it comes to GPL is no argument for an anti-OSS gesture, many BSD folks are likewise. It's not that we haven't our own heated flamewars on licenses and how free they are. If you don't believe me, subscribe to debian-legal...
And, in case my `prejudice' matters: I'm no Sun employee. I neither use OO.o nor GNOME; LaTeX and fvwm is just fine for me. I do use Solaris systems, but only in mission-critical HA environments. OSS is not of much interest there, yet, sadly.
This line of reasoning was valid until you voted Bush in the second time; well knowing what he stands for.
The majority of US citizens either didn't care, or found that christian fundamentalism (i.e., the US-branded Taliban behavior) and ape-level power demonstration is more important than civilized relationship to other countries.
We despise this majority of US citizens for that. We pity the minority who sees what's going on. I'm all for political asylum, as we gave it to US citizens during McCarthy times. (I'm from Europe, btw.)
I have mod points, and instead of modding you flamebait (which your post is, IMNSHO), I react.
You are wrong that only groupthink posts get +5 moderation. Wait half a day, and read at +5. Then you'll see a balanced reaction at most articles, with many critical posts modded up. Bad mods most often happen at the start of a comment phase; in the end most get quite OK.
I'm a CEO, and my company is profitable since 1995 -- I know the risks and the opportunities of projects and associated contracts.
But I also know that non-insistance on precise, predefined requirements got us lots of contracts; in especially the circumstances that our customer doesn't know exactly what he wants and that it is part of our job to find that out.
There are other ways than technical or functional requirement specs to bring this shared understanding in a contract and manage the risk for both sides.
Good IT projects don't react or ride the waves of change, they create them. And these are typically projects where one doesn't have functional requirements up front.
he five steps enumerated here are, sadly, rather untenable. In particular, points one and two make a fundamental assumption that I believe is invalid - get your requirements first. If we have learned nothing in the past 40 years of software, and especially in the last decade, it's that we will never have "the requirements." We will have subsets, or views of the requirements, true. The fact, however, is that requirements change during the life of the product development.
Well spoken. That's the cold hard reality for most of us.
I don't have mod points right now; perhaps with my +1 bonus, some moderator sees your article and mods it up.
Yes, the parent ain't no troll; but it ain't no good advice either.
The poster obviously is not in the position to `get a new consultant'. His problem is how he can hit his management with the clue stick.
Let me tell you a story that happened just a few weeks ago: I'm the CEO of a consulting company that does quite some security work. We were brought into the following situation: A customer of an outsourcer got an `independent' security audit by HP. The HP folks took the (actually very good) CIS benchmarks and demanded that each and every item of that benchmark is followed to the letter. As part of that, they demanded that the NFS and Samba servers are turned off.
There's just one small problem -- the actual service the outsourcer was providing to the customer is -- tada! -- file service over NFS and CIFS! The outsourcer pointed this out to their customer's management. That management is a bunch of morons and just told them back: But this is a security audit of HP, they know their thing! So they had to bring us in, to give their opinion `management cloud' by creating pretty PPTs.
Even though we earned quite some money on that job; I would have prefered to work on really improving the security, in particular the processes, instead of fencing unprofessional HP security `consultants' and idiotic management PHBs.
I think you meant hypothesis when you wrote theories.
There are not `lots of theories' put forward. A theory is a closed mathematical concept with observations that support it. Hypothesis don't need observations. E.g., the article at hand puts forward a hypothesis, not a theory.
You might work in US law enforcement, but you have no idea at all about European laws, in particular about Swedish ones. This is a case in Sweden, you ignorant fool -- and Sweden is in Europe, in case you didn't know that.
You are right. I apologise for my broad painting of US citizens, but couldn't resist. Whereas -- even if it is not PC -- I admit that I see some insights in folk opinions of social realities, conveyed through common prejudices. It is as true in opinions about US, as it is about Germany, my home country.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not the case in Europe, and, AFAIK, also not in the US. If the legal situation in Australia is so different, I should refrain from further comments.
Concerning the lawyer: Your four arguments might be true, I don't know. But if they are -- then you should turn your rage against LMI and not against the lawyer. LMI wants to establish the Linux trademark in Australia, and they engaged that lawyer. It's not his idea and, for all that gets reported, he doesn't do this to get the trademark assigned to his own company. He does it to get the trademark assigned to the non-profit organization that is charged by Linus Torvalds to manage his trademark worldwide.
So, your arguments means actually: Linus shall not have the Linux trademark in Australia. There shall not be any trademark protection at all for the term Linux in Australia. If Microsoft Australia or any other company wants to name one of their offerings Linux, even if it has nothing to do with Linux, then it shall be so. If you think so, say so; don't hide behind the rant against a lawyer.
For my country, Germany, I'm glad that only those can use the trademark Linux who do it according to the rules. And the fees to LMI are negligable, compared with other business expenses.
Linux clearly violates a number of US patents, this has been researched several times, independently. It's also well argued that patent violations are one of the next battle grounds for OSS. Groklaw reports on these issues on a regular base. This is no FUD, this is reality.
Or, do you want to say that Pamela Jones of Groklaw, who presents the same arguments as cited in your ZDnet article, is `adopting the same FUD tactics as other enemies of open source (particularly SCO)'? Please do so, it's making your drivel as risible as it is.
From your other posts, too, you come around as somebody with foam at his mouth everytime you write about Jeremy Malcolm. Do you know him personally? Did you have contact with him previously?
Please note: I'm not involved in any of these discussions. I don't live in Australia and do no business there. I know from other news sources (that I trust) that Linux Mark Institute is triggering these actions in Australia and not this lawyer. I'm just wondering why you're so full of hate against this guy.
This is made harder that for round-trips (i.e., for reading the code back again into the UML tool) existance of the stub code is needed sometimes.
Welcome to the new world of programing by bloated diagrams.
Try Allistor Reynolds, for example. One of the best new hard SF authors, IMO.
You are not concerned by the Cascade of Attention-Deficit Teenagers (CADT), are you?
Please note, I'm not condemning. Sometimes there are reasons. But with glibc, it has happened too often compared to other libc implementations. And this article raises the hypothesis if it's an attitude problem, and not a technical problem.
Seriously, isn't this the same Ulrich Depper who can't even bother to get glibc right? glibc incompatibilities -- even in patch versions -- is a major headache on Linux. Compare that to those ``obsolete'' platforms like AIX and Solaris where I can still run binaries that I have compiled in the early 90s or even the 80s. glibc is one of the main reasons why Linux application deployment sucks in major (read: heterogenous) installations. Kernel differences are actually not as problematic, but glibc is biting ourselves all the day.
He has shown already that he won't bother for people who run computing centers. Here's he, spouting more hobbiest opinions. Nothing new, move forward.
Ben Goodger is ignorant, without doubt. People like him make me stay with my working Mozila...
Very old terminals did the echo themselves sometimes. Typing the backspace key actually deleted the character in front of the cursor. Nevertheless, the mail program (mailx mostly) read a backspace char (0x08). When this char was sent to the recipient (because BS was not the stty erase character, as you explained), it was often represented at the sender side as ^H. It could also be that it did a backspace; this depended on the MUA and the terminal settings.
So, there were senders who did not even realize that one could see their edit actions. Similar to those folks who sent around MS .doc files today.
I remember getting emails with ^H in them. Man, I'm feeling old today. ;-)
I stopped reading here. As an IBM supplier and contractor, I can tell you: There are lots of reasons why IBM is making loads of money. That they are efficient is none of it. IBM and efficiency are two anathemes.
But this might be a concept you haven't heard of until now. Too bad for you, I'm of the strong opinion that my business will last longer in the long run than yours. (And my company already exists for more than 15 years, and is profitably each year. My first business ran successfully for 10 years, with the same approach. And my parent's business ran successfully for 40 years with that approach. It's tried and tested.)
That said, there might be the time where one needs to lay off employees because one hasn't enough resources to wait until they are productive again, or where they betrayed you (e.g., I had employees stealing company money), etc. But the bland expression `fire all people that are of no use' is not optimal in the long run.
Your hypothesis about Sun wanting to get into the IBM/SCO struggle on the side of SCO with that buy-in, is not even sensible with a tin-foil hat.
They bought perpetual rights to Unix from SCO/Caldera, but did not buy the company.
And if you thing that OO.o is the only Open Source activity that Sun funds, open your eyes. GNOME, SunSITEs, just to name the most prominent. That Schwarz is a jerk when it comes to GPL is no argument for an anti-OSS gesture, many BSD folks are likewise. It's not that we haven't our own heated flamewars on licenses and how free they are. If you don't believe me, subscribe to debian-legal...
And, in case my `prejudice' matters: I'm no Sun employee. I neither use OO.o nor GNOME; LaTeX and fvwm is just fine for me. I do use Solaris systems, but only in mission-critical HA environments. OSS is not of much interest there, yet, sadly.
The majority of US citizens either didn't care, or found that christian fundamentalism (i.e., the US-branded Taliban behavior) and ape-level power demonstration is more important than civilized relationship to other countries.
We despise this majority of US citizens for that. We pity the minority who sees what's going on. I'm all for political asylum, as we gave it to US citizens during McCarthy times. (I'm from Europe, btw.)
As reported on LWN, the data was in SCCS format. Hardly proprietary.
You are wrong that only groupthink posts get +5 moderation. Wait half a day, and read at +5. Then you'll see a balanced reaction at most articles, with many critical posts modded up. Bad mods most often happen at the start of a comment phase; in the end most get quite OK.
You got this from Groklaw, or from where?
But I also know that non-insistance on precise, predefined requirements got us lots of contracts; in especially the circumstances that our customer doesn't know exactly what he wants and that it is part of our job to find that out.
There are other ways than technical or functional requirement specs to bring this shared understanding in a contract and manage the risk for both sides.
Good IT projects don't react or ride the waves of change, they create them. And these are typically projects where one doesn't have functional requirements up front.
I don't have mod points right now; perhaps with my +1 bonus, some moderator sees your article and mods it up.
The poster obviously is not in the position to `get a new consultant'. His problem is how he can hit his management with the clue stick.
Let me tell you a story that happened just a few weeks ago: I'm the CEO of a consulting company that does quite some security work. We were brought into the following situation: A customer of an outsourcer got an `independent' security audit by HP. The HP folks took the (actually very good) CIS benchmarks and demanded that each and every item of that benchmark is followed to the letter. As part of that, they demanded that the NFS and Samba servers are turned off.
There's just one small problem -- the actual service the outsourcer was providing to the customer is -- tada! -- file service over NFS and CIFS! The outsourcer pointed this out to their customer's management. That management is a bunch of morons and just told them back: But this is a security audit of HP, they know their thing! So they had to bring us in, to give their opinion `management cloud' by creating pretty PPTs.
Even though we earned quite some money on that job; I would have prefered to work on really improving the security, in particular the processes, instead of fencing unprofessional HP security `consultants' and idiotic management PHBs.
There are not `lots of theories' put forward. A theory is a closed mathematical concept with observations that support it. Hypothesis don't need observations. E.g., the article at hand puts forward a hypothesis, not a theory.
You might work in US law enforcement, but you have no idea at all about European laws, in particular about Swedish ones. This is a case in Sweden, you ignorant fool -- and Sweden is in Europe, in case you didn't know that.
You are right. I apologise for my broad painting of US citizens, but couldn't resist. Whereas -- even if it is not PC -- I admit that I see some insights in folk opinions of social realities, conveyed through common prejudices. It is as true in opinions about US, as it is about Germany, my home country.
I'm so sorry that I posted already, and can't mod you up. Well said!