Despite the fact that they seem to compete with Microsoft, they are also Microsoft supportors. It's the same thing as Corel - they make software for windows on one hand (WP Office 2000), so they support Microsoft, but they try to demolish Microsoft Office on the other. It's the way the world works - practically every grown-up company is like this - you have to deal with Microsoft.
The AOL/Netscape/Time-Warner (and possibly Sun) thing is only the start of the recognition of media as the future profitiable idea of the internet. They certainly weren't the first, but they'll definitely be the strongest for a little bit, until (of course) Microsoft catches up, perhaps with a purchase of NBC and @Home. The future, as it appears now, will be of consumers paying for digial media content - paying one way or another, with their plastic or their eyes for advertisements.
Technologies such as QNX, BeIA, Linux, and PocketPC (or whatever they're calling it today) are in the forefront of the client-side devices, and they all have markets in the future in client-side devices. As people rush to deliver media over the 'net, we (the community) either have to 1. sit back and watch, or 2. form community sites of our own. I'm not talking about Slashdot here - while/. is nice, Andover.net (VA Linux) is a media company (division) devoted to making profits through application-over-the-web and other media ideas. What's needed is something more like PBS, but online - a sponsored but not advertised web media presence. Sadly, these animated gifs (and java ads) seem to be taking over the web.
I've worked on several PPC macs running Linux (though never installed it). My question is not directly related - will Apple support all of the hardware that Darwin is ported to? If I up-and-port Darwin to the earlier 603-based Macs, will Apple support MacOS X on that architecture? What about porting it to something non-Apple, say, an independent motherboard? If they choose not to, can I replace the MacOS X kernel with a Darwin kernel and will it still work? Or will they break binary compatibility between Darwin and OSX to avoid having OSX run on non-Apple hardware?
Nope - you morph into a species frighteningly like species 8472 in STVOY, and you become M$'s evil servant. Over time, it will happen to you anyway if you use their software:-P
I've just returned from the year 2010, and can tell you all the future of software-based devices. Are you ready?
The future of software-based devices will be introduced by Bill Gates in the year 2008. In the year 2008, computers become obsolete because of this innovation. The innovation? The software-based computer. That's right - the future computer will simply be a drug you inject yourself with, and you gain all of the abilities of a computer. If you need a 'net connection, you can obtain cybernetic ethernet ports for your head. To use the computer, inject yourself with the genetically ingeneered drug, and stare at the picture of Bill Gates. You should soon see a Windows logo appear, floating in mid air, and as soon as your brain starts the computer it will be replaced with the Internet Office Explorer 2008 interface. Linux will come out with a similar solution based on organically produced foods - no genetic engineering!
I'm not talking cut-and-paste copying, but careful adaptation to the MS environment. One of the primary reasons (I think) they switched everything to NT was that it made porting easier - much code that didn't like DOS before now compiles out-of-the box on Win2K. They'd do it. Note how much BSD and GNU software is used on BeOS, which has a completely different OS paradigm.
I know this was a troll, but the question needs to be answered - because there's a wealth of commercial software built for SVR4 Unix that employs Motif. If companies hope to ween themselves off of SVR4, they need a good Motif for Linux, and if they hope to open up some of their user-space tools, they need to open up Motif for it to be useful.
SCO (like most SVR4 vendors) pacakges Motif (with CDE) in their OSes. As a Motif licensee (and a member of the Open Group) you have the power to lobby for a free version of Motif to enable further development on Linux. This would be of innumerable benifit to the community and to application vendors who don't necessarily want to staticly link with Motif. Would you consider lobbying TOG, perhaps with other member Linux companies like SGI?
Microsoft has just enough pride to go incorporate the source into another product (quietly), and then promote it as a feature. They (supposedly) have and will continue to use software stolen from BSD - the Win2K TCP stack apparently bears great resemblence to the OpenBSD stack. I wouldn't put it beyond them. SCO needs to remember that by entering into open-source, they trod on a fine line with competing with Microsoft on a general scale. But good for them - it shows that they truely believe that open source will previal in the end. Heck, I wouldn't even care if they kept the kernel proprietary, and their X server proprietary, and just made all of the user-land tools open-source. That'd be fine with me - I am a BeOS user.
It tends to be a mixed bag - near as I can tell, I'm the only one creating a derived work from OpenTracker, and I am fixing bugs as I go (I'll submit the patches soon, promise...). There seems to be nobody except a couple of developers on the whole OpenTracker project - developers that have been with it from the beginning. Other projects tend to go faster. But companies forget that they need to nurture the development before the rest of us kick in.
By the way, some companies' open-source-project pages are intimidating - they don't seem to welcome me into the development. Perhaps all companies that start a project should get a sourceforge server to host the development - it's much more friendly!
I've noticed you've started to open-source parts of your user-space tools - good for you, and you're especially comitted given that you use the BSD license. But what I'm worried about is some of the technology that's in the kernel. Does AT&T still have any say over some of the SVR4 kernel source, or do you own all of that? If AT&T owns it, could AT&T stop any potential open-sourcing of kernel-space components as being "derived works"? If you own it, could you force other SVR4 licencees to open up their kernels? Or maybe just open up yours, and "encourage" projects that emulate features found in other SVR4 unicies.
Why does someone have to post something like this every time something is open-sourced with a BSD license? It is getting to be the same as the "First" posters to me.
Sorry - I was joking. Didn't mean to sound like that - I just don't want to hear anything of that from the rest of the line. I use a BSD license in stuff that I do, but I don't jump around over the GPL like that.
First of all, I'll echo the obligatory "BSD licencse rulez! GPL SUCKZ!" so that everybody else gets moderated at 0, Redundant.
Secondly, I'd like to say that SCO is very brave releasing as BSD instead of GPL or a custom-designed licence deisgned to protect them. Under the BSD license, (IANAL) incorporation into proprietary products is allowed - that means that Mickeysoft could go off and take SCO's stuff and come out with Visual (insert name of SCO tool here)++. Good for them - it shows true faith in the Open Source community.
Thirdly, this might be an experiment by SCO on Open Source. Let's not let them down - further openings will be good. Let's not forget that there is some virtue to SVR4 Unix, and I'd like to see some of those tools and abilities on Linux.
Well, I finally downloaded the official NS6 preview the other day (*hint* *hint* want speed? use net+!) and I found it to be quite a bit faster than NS4.7 on my dual PII 400mhz - on some sites, NS4.7 just sucked, speed wise. I don't understand where the speed complaints come from - NS4.7 is the slowest thing there is, and Mozilla has always been faster, from the time they redid the engine.
A while back, while a friend and I were doing research, we got completely frustrated with altavista, (this was before we knew about google), and asked it why it was so stupid. The first answer that comes up - a link to altavista. Gotta love that question answering technology.
I suppose this might be what "broadband distribution issues" meant, but @Home filters out video >5min long, and yells at you if you download files >500MB consistently - trying to "conserve bandwidth", to make up for the fact that they have 5.2e2063 people on a node. They say they don't want the broadband competing with cable - does this mean that the largest cable ISP (to which I subscribe) will be effectively "out of the loop" when it comes to distribution? I hope not. Anyway, they need to work this out with AT&T and Excite@Home.
I have to say I agree on a personal level - I'd rather read the dead tree version. Keep the computer for programming, and keep the book for the reading. Hands up - how many of you own the dead tree versions of books, esp. animal books? Who wants to fiddle with a computer?
But more to the point, who is this guy to decide my reading preferences? Putting books online opens up a wide realm of possibilities, such as voice readers for the disabled. It only delays the inevitable - others will put them up, (reference project gutenberg).
As usual, what you would expect from Caldera. But I'd expect the same from Corel, or any other proprietary linux vendor - they think of linux as "their" linux, not as "our" linux. This might be why people see linux as fragmenting - because everybody thinks of linux as "theirs" and not "ours". Instead of making things more of the same and competing on their virtues, Linux vendors want to make things difficult for me, the administrator. Tell me why init scripts are in/sbin/rc.d on SuSe, but live in/etc/rc.d in redhat? Hmm? Now tell me why software that works perfectly on RedHat bombs on Turbolinux, and./autogen.sh screws up on Turbo? Hmm? Get a clue - until linux is "ours" and not "theirs", linux will continue to be a mess like it is now. I don't particuarly have any strong feelings about where init scripts should go - I won't choose a distribution for/sbin/rc.d instead of/etc/rc.d. I'll choose a distro based on bundled software, and other features. Keep the rest the same!
Slashdot Mirror
.gnu!!!!
---------------------------------
Anybody want to register .sig? :-P
---------------------------------
Despite the fact that they seem to compete with Microsoft, they are also Microsoft supportors. It's the same thing as Corel - they make software for windows on one hand (WP Office 2000), so they support Microsoft, but they try to demolish Microsoft Office on the other. It's the way the world works - practically every grown-up company is like this - you have to deal with Microsoft.
---------------------------------
Technologies such as QNX, BeIA, Linux, and PocketPC (or whatever they're calling it today) are in the forefront of the client-side devices, and they all have markets in the future in client-side devices. As people rush to deliver media over the 'net, we (the community) either have to 1. sit back and watch, or 2. form community sites of our own. I'm not talking about Slashdot here - while /. is nice, Andover.net (VA Linux) is a media company (division) devoted to making profits through application-over-the-web and other media ideas. What's needed is something more like PBS, but online - a sponsored but not advertised web media presence. Sadly, these animated gifs (and java ads) seem to be taking over the web.
It's time for the community to take back the web!
---------------------------------
I've worked on several PPC macs running Linux (though never installed it). My question is not directly related - will Apple support all of the hardware that Darwin is ported to? If I up-and-port Darwin to the earlier 603-based Macs, will Apple support MacOS X on that architecture? What about porting it to something non-Apple, say, an independent motherboard? If they choose not to, can I replace the MacOS X kernel with a Darwin kernel and will it still work? Or will they break binary compatibility between Darwin and OSX to avoid having OSX run on non-Apple hardware?
---------------------------------
Nope - you morph into a species frighteningly like species 8472 in STVOY, and you become M$'s evil servant. Over time, it will happen to you anyway if you use their software :-P
---------------------------------
The future of software-based devices will be introduced by Bill Gates in the year 2008. In the year 2008, computers become obsolete because of this innovation. The innovation? The software-based computer. That's right - the future computer will simply be a drug you inject yourself with, and you gain all of the abilities of a computer. If you need a 'net connection, you can obtain cybernetic ethernet ports for your head. To use the computer, inject yourself with the genetically ingeneered drug, and stare at the picture of Bill Gates. You should soon see a Windows logo appear, floating in mid air, and as soon as your brain starts the computer it will be replaced with the Internet Office Explorer 2008 interface. Linux will come out with a similar solution based on organically produced foods - no genetic engineering!
Microsoft will soon start buying Celera stock...
---------------------------------
I'm not talking cut-and-paste copying, but careful adaptation to the MS environment. One of the primary reasons (I think) they switched everything to NT was that it made porting easier - much code that didn't like DOS before now compiles out-of-the box on Win2K. They'd do it. Note how much BSD and GNU software is used on BeOS, which has a completely different OS paradigm.
---------------------------------
I know this was a troll, but the question needs to be answered - because there's a wealth of commercial software built for SVR4 Unix that employs Motif. If companies hope to ween themselves off of SVR4, they need a good Motif for Linux, and if they hope to open up some of their user-space tools, they need to open up Motif for it to be useful.
---------------------------------
SCO (like most SVR4 vendors) pacakges Motif (with CDE) in their OSes. As a Motif licensee (and a member of the Open Group) you have the power to lobby for a free version of Motif to enable further development on Linux. This would be of innumerable benifit to the community and to application vendors who don't necessarily want to staticly link with Motif. Would you consider lobbying TOG, perhaps with other member Linux companies like SGI?
---------------------------------
Microsoft has just enough pride to go incorporate the source into another product (quietly), and then promote it as a feature. They (supposedly) have and will continue to use software stolen from BSD - the Win2K TCP stack apparently bears great resemblence to the OpenBSD stack. I wouldn't put it beyond them. SCO needs to remember that by entering into open-source, they trod on a fine line with competing with Microsoft on a general scale. But good for them - it shows that they truely believe that open source will previal in the end. Heck, I wouldn't even care if they kept the kernel proprietary, and their X server proprietary, and just made all of the user-land tools open-source. That'd be fine with me - I am a BeOS user.
---------------------------------
By the way, some companies' open-source-project pages are intimidating - they don't seem to welcome me into the development. Perhaps all companies that start a project should get a sourceforge server to host the development - it's much more friendly!
---------------------------------
I've noticed you've started to open-source parts of your user-space tools - good for you, and you're especially comitted given that you use the BSD license. But what I'm worried about is some of the technology that's in the kernel. Does AT&T still have any say over some of the SVR4 kernel source, or do you own all of that? If AT&T owns it, could AT&T stop any potential open-sourcing of kernel-space components as being "derived works"? If you own it, could you force other SVR4 licencees to open up their kernels? Or maybe just open up yours, and "encourage" projects that emulate features found in other SVR4 unicies.
---------------------------------
Sorry - I was joking. Didn't mean to sound like that - I just don't want to hear anything of that from the rest of the line. I use a BSD license in stuff that I do, but I don't jump around over the GPL like that.
---------------------------------
Secondly, I'd like to say that SCO is very brave releasing as BSD instead of GPL or a custom-designed licence deisgned to protect them. Under the BSD license, (IANAL) incorporation into proprietary products is allowed - that means that Mickeysoft could go off and take SCO's stuff and come out with Visual (insert name of SCO tool here)++. Good for them - it shows true faith in the Open Source community.
Thirdly, this might be an experiment by SCO on Open Source. Let's not let them down - further openings will be good. Let's not forget that there is some virtue to SVR4 Unix, and I'd like to see some of those tools and abilities on Linux.
---------------------------------
Keep the baby out of the way, or asbestos-pad the delivery room!
---------------------------------
Well, I finally downloaded the official NS6 preview the other day (*hint* *hint* want speed? use net+!) and I found it to be quite a bit faster than NS4.7 on my dual PII 400mhz - on some sites, NS4.7 just sucked, speed wise. I don't understand where the speed complaints come from - NS4.7 is the slowest thing there is, and Mozilla has always been faster, from the time they redid the engine.
---------------------------------
A while back, while a friend and I were doing research, we got completely frustrated with altavista, (this was before we knew about google), and asked it why it was so stupid. The first answer that comes up - a link to altavista. Gotta love that question answering technology.
---------------------------------
I suppose this might be what "broadband distribution issues" meant, but @Home filters out video >5min long, and yells at you if you download files >500MB consistently - trying to "conserve bandwidth", to make up for the fact that they have 5.2e2063 people on a node. They say they don't want the broadband competing with cable - does this mean that the largest cable ISP (to which I subscribe) will be effectively "out of the loop" when it comes to distribution? I hope not. Anyway, they need to work this out with AT&T and Excite@Home.
---------------------------------
But more to the point, who is this guy to decide my reading preferences? Putting books online opens up a wide realm of possibilities, such as voice readers for the disabled. It only delays the inevitable - others will put them up, (reference project gutenberg).
---------------------------------
As usual, what you would expect from Caldera. But I'd expect the same from Corel, or any other proprietary linux vendor - they think of linux as "their" linux, not as "our" linux. This might be why people see linux as fragmenting - because everybody thinks of linux as "theirs" and not "ours". Instead of making things more of the same and competing on their virtues, Linux vendors want to make things difficult for me, the administrator. Tell me why init scripts are in /sbin/rc.d on SuSe, but live in /etc/rc.d in redhat? Hmm? Now tell me why software that works perfectly on RedHat bombs on Turbolinux, and ./autogen.sh screws up on Turbo? Hmm? Get a clue - until linux is "ours" and not "theirs", linux will continue to be a mess like it is now. I don't particuarly have any strong feelings about where init scripts should go - I won't choose a distribution for /sbin/rc.d instead of /etc/rc.d. I'll choose a distro based on bundled software, and other features. Keep the rest the same!
---------------------------------