their parallelism expands infinitely to meet your needs
The new BubbleServer GS320 is the industry's fastest NP Solution server, with up to thirty two Glass EV67 plastic rods, the highest levels of availability, and an innovative architecture for managing massive systems in record time. A modular structure allows you to purchase only currently needed glass and rods -- and still be prepared for explosive growth. With upgrades, expect a 20-fold increase in application performance over the lifetime of the system.
The BubbleServer GS320 is ideal for NP-business and other critical enterprise applications with high or unpredictable growth rates -- and as a replacement and growth extension for BubbleServer GS140 customers. A system configured with as little as one glass plate and one rod will be able to grow to a fully loaded 32-way system without operational disruption.. Single system management lets you add capacity and applications without adding people. Unique partitions allow mixed NP systems on the same server, facilitating workload management and server consolidation.
Apple has a history of suing companies that make clones and getting them shut down. Honestly, if Microsoft is ever destroyed, people will look back and realize that by blindly supporting the enemies of Microsoft, they allowed Sun and Apple to do things that no rational person should have let them do. I can't wait until after Microsoft collapses, when we suddenly look around and go 'oops', as we see that AOL-Time Warner, Apple, Sun, and Oracle have amassed incredible power that Microsoft never had...
The soldiers will soon be able to check e-mail and post comments on Slashdot right during the battle. Good thing - there will be less Anonymous Cowards here.
[Background: Men running everywhere, tanks crushing the trenches in the middle of a battle. Two soldiers hide at the end of a trench. One is cursing at a small, handheld LCD screen with a packet radio connection to the internet]
First soldier: Goddamn it, submit! Second: Lets get out of here, man! That's tanks gonna crush us! First: Just a second, I nearly got the first post! [Second soldier runs away, and the tank crushes the first soldier while he continues to yell at the computer. Afterward, another soldier runs up, to find the screen showing this:
Slow down cowboy!
Slashdot requires you to wait 1 minute between each submission of/comments.pl in order to allow everyone to have a fair chance to post.
I don't even believe that consumers are wronged by being shown doctored images from a game system currently in development. ... it won't look like that, and the consumer gets the shaft.
So... consumers like getting the shaft?
I'm not an anti-Microsoft zealot I could make a point about people who like Microsoft also being people who think that consumers like to get the shaft, but I'm not going to.
the image should look like that Anyway, my McBurger doesn't look like in the ads, but you don't see Slashdot complaining.
Nope, I asked, he doesn't. He's still reading through the comments to find a half-decent explaination of what those wacky humans have come up with this time.
Cars will eventually be able to do big loops in the air, as well as even fly about. However, if Chrystler were to show this on their commercials air next month, it would be false advertising, and would be illegal.
But say their new car had a new type of door. If all of the technology and research and design work was in place to make implementing the door a trivial matter, and this was clear, would it still be false advertising if it wasn't on the current development version of the car? Are you really so biased against Microsoft that you can't see a Microsoft programmer being able to use a simple lens flare?
Until the game can actually do it, they can't advertise that it does. False advertising prevent you the consumer from buying a product that was advertised to be able to do more than what the product you bought can do. You cannot buy the development XBox, and the XBox that you will be able to buy will contain all of the features that they advertise. How are you, as the consumer, being wronged?
Microsoft can legally post a screenshot taken from 20 different X-Box generated screens, but if they add even one photoshop generated scene, it's false advertising.
In the little banner ad above the Slashdot site here, I can see some examples of what you can do with the service being advertised, which appear to be commands typed out on a shell (bash, actually). Is it false advertising if those commands were something that you could type into bash and get the result they promise, but if the actual commands shown were put into the image in photoshop? How are you wronged? How is the consumer hurt?
That's right, it's worse. The features that appear in those screenshots will be released when the XBox is released, but they just aren't in the current development version. The 'transparent' XTerm crap will never be fixed, but the claim is still put forth because OSS zealots never put the xterm over anything else.
does the Packager just send an ordinary email and that's it?
The packager encrypts a document using ball-tether (I'll get to that later) and then sends it to the reciever, using that reciever's specific series of 4096bit keys. Thus, it is a major pain in the neck to decrypt the transmission, and even if you did you would have no idea what to do with it, since it has to be decrypted in a certain order, and the 'layers' that are peeled off each time a key is used modify the next key. That way, even if you take the binary and manage to find the keys in it (a damn hard task, since most of the keys double as the assembler instructions (If you don't grok low-level stuff, you can ignore that)) you still wouldn't know how to apply them. Each key doubles as the method in which it can be used to decrypt itself. Example:
Key: 001 010 100 010 011 110 100 001 110
001 = ADD
010 = MUL
110 = SUB
Thus, ADD 2 4 MUL 3 SUB 4 ADD 6 = 2+4*3-4+6 = 20
That was a way oversimplified example, but you get the point. This is all done at the assembler or below level: Instructions double as numerics. OK. The transmission is secure, AND you can't just 'extract' the code from the 300k binary. It's just friggn impossible to extract the code, because everything is interdependant in it. The security is built into the very keys and all that. Sorry if that was long winded, but so many people are just suggesting 'well, just do it backwards! yeah!' that I had to put up a coherent explaination.
Could you point me to a reference?
Sorry about that. I forgot that I'm just discussing this with the people on/. Ball-token was a kind of inside joke, because one of the programmers who I know that was working on this liked to play tether-ball, and the product is InTether, so he was brainstorming/playing tetherball when he came up with the way to make this work.
First of all, the first part of ball-token encryption is the ball. I explained part of this above: The ball has shells, and each of these shells can be opened with a key, and as you open the shells the ball changes form. This he thought up after a particularly violent swing that resulted in the ball flying off and breaking, the inner core rolling out of the soft outer shell. (note this was an old tetherball in need of some repair). This makes it an order of magnitude harder to crack the encryption, and using changing 4096bit keys with intercoded instructions makes it nearly impossible for even the most determined hacker.
The other part of this is the token. The token is what prevents you from just dropping to Linux, or (what the hypothetical worst case scenario for us) a modified version of Windows specifically designed to hack our program. The token represents a checksum for executed instructions. I am not going to go into how the checksum is generated, but it basically involves lots and lots of very low level driver code. (Some of it involves sending invalid signals and checking error codes returned, but there is much much more. If you block it, you simply can't decrypt the document.)The 'token' is the checksum from a completed set of commands. Once the set of commands on one keys is executed, the checksum is used to find which key to use next and how to use it. This verifies that the commands are executed properly. The token concept arose from watching the ball go around the pole: To finally hit the top, it had to complete several orbits.
But, come on, how much encryption and "security layers" can you hide in a 300 KB windows executable ?
You have no idea how much encryption is packed into this 300k. You assume this is being made with conventional stuff, like C++, where you have 'lines of code', but that's not true. This is all low level hardware calls; raw assembler; that stuff compiles into a tiny binary. The reason they have it only for Windows is that it actually interfaces directly with the hard drive, and has to write the correct FAT32 headers. Plus, the headers act as a token in ball-token encryption, so that both the headers and the file are completely different based on the microsecond it is created. By using the modification time as a force, the ball is encrypted and the decryption method for the ball is encrypted in the header, using mutually exclusive keys. And how do you get those keys? That's right, the hard disk sector! The bytes of the ball (file data, not headers) will be xored with the header, and the resulting binary number is converted and used as the position on the hard disk to write the file. Now, this gets back to why they only use Windows: This requires the filesystem to be rearranged. Now do you see the beauty in this? If you open the file, you don't get raw HD information. If you hex edit the file, and pull up the raw information, you still won't get the headers. Even if you do a raw dump of the hard drive, you won't be able to change the file without a friggn supercomputer, because the 4096bit encryption keys that take up most of the space in the binary are run in random patterns over the ball and token after they are written to the hard drive, and then the final key is stored on top of it along the adjoining sector, which another OS would read as interferance and discard (fsck does this quite nicely, making the file impossible to open.) As I said, the only way to actually get around this is to do a raw hard disk dump, and even then there are layers and layers of device driver level encryption blocking your path. Good luck.
Hitler was actually a great fan of Napoleon, and knew all about the Russian Winter. However, during the last few months he grew less and less in touch with reality, and trapped his troops in Russia planning to do what Napoleon never could.
liuxnu dusa 0x03q 41si usabt LInux a sux r00s xz limuxo is bad it isuxz ios bad corrput ein hard hdrive bad lienix kill iti kill it bade linux fihn bahjrx hard drive rhard killed mbr fihbad linux hate linux gburt hard drive cirrupted my hare hadrive why sutpdi lihux why "???!
Actually, if you actually read the agreements and legal stuff, you DON'T buy things anymore: You liscense them. Thus, the owners who are liscensing the product out are the MPAA people, and they can decide how the discs get used. Sorry.
Selling new games is a bust because they're sold everywhere online and offline.
Selling old games is a bust because they're sold extensively on Ebay, etc.
Hmm... Let's do both and call it a 'Business Plan'!
My windows 2000 desktop is rock solid I run linux (and BSD now) for the applications
Wow, I think I'm dizzy, all of the words seem to be whirling around... it almost looks like somebody is using BSD for applications and Windows for stability... wow...
Unfortunately, you are wrong. Microsoft® WindowsNT® and Windows2000® products can give you a reliability guarantee that no other products, certainly not this supposedly 'free' software, can provide. That's right, the nine fives promise. You heard it correctly. Microsoft will guarantee an uptime of %55.5555555. Yes: More than half of the time, your servers will be up and running, allowing you to take advantage of the new, electronic economy. With that kind of power, you can transform your business. That's the kind of leverage Microsoft provides.
IE was given away 'solely' (you have no actual idea of Microsoft's ideas at the time) for the purpose of driving Netscape and Mosaic out of the marketplace. Linux was given away 'solely' (you have no actual idea of Torvald's ideas at the time) for the purpose of driving Windows and Unix off of the marketplace. GPLed software is designed to drive non-GPLed and proprietary software off of the market place (viral clause). Should they all be banned?
How can you claim they have a monopoly on a web site that is run on PC hardware using a non-Microsoft OS? Slashdot doesn't actually exist. It is only a hypothetical construct. Proof: It uses a non-Microsoft OS. Microsoft has a monopoly on the OS market. As these two facts contradict, It must not exist.
Microsoft doesn't even compete on most hardware platforms, and only competes effectively on one. Microsoft competes on Windows3.1, Windows98, WindowsNT, and a number of other platforms. They have a complete monopoly over the entire Windows platform!
If I don't pay for their crap, why do you think you are forced to?
You pay taxes. The taxes go to fund the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice sues Microsoft. Your money is spend because of Microsoft's products.
As for IBM, they always have offered, and continue to offer, their own OS; AIX. It's superior to Windows in many ways. However, most consumers don't want it. This demands better programming and marketting from IBM, not government intervention. No, you seem to miss an important point: The consumers cannot chose AIX because Microsoft forces them to use Windows. The Department of Justice realizes that if most consumers are using Windows, then clearly Microsoft is forcing competing products ou of the marketplace, because clearly Windows couldn't have been so successful without using some illegal tactic. Thus, Microsoft is acting illegally. Understand?
buildings and rooms in a VR environment, killing off rogue processes with your trusty sword of SIGTERM.
I walk through my process space with a shotgun. After a week as the new sysadmin, I'm finally getting used to the environment. Barrels of toxic waste are scattered throughout, providing temporary recourse against the onslaught of processes. Of course, if the fighting gets too bad, the processes fight among themselves, but only if there are too many processes. Most of the time I must go out on my own. With each shot, a nice command, with each frag, a kill -9. I keep the process space safe for users and processes alike. Within the month, I plan to aquire the rocket launcher, so that I can finally clean out the daemons of X11 sessions gone bad. Right now though, I have but a shotgun, and I cannot go head to head with the monsterous processes that haunt the upper stack. But soon I will.. soon I will succeed...
Your post reminds me of a nice little program that I found a while back... Sysadmin Doom.
This knee jerk reaction is completely unjustified.
Imagine: Ford Motor company decides it may want to make a movie about Motors.
Does "Motore" (Spanish for "Motor") 'belong' to Ford Motor? Only Ford can forever title movies containing "Motore"?
No, but if Ford has recieved a trademark on the usage of the name 'Motore' for their movie, then you can't make your own movie called 'Motore'. Think of something original. (Although I hightly doubt they would ignore the chance for some precious advertising time by calling the movie 'Ford Motere'. Same for apple. If you make a movie called 'Bob the Movie', or a motor oil called 'Bob the Motor Oil', and you trademark it, nobody else can call their movie or motor oil that. Is that so bad?
Should Microsoft be allowed to release the next windows under the name Linux? No. That would violate Linus Torvald's trademark. Likewise, should Redhat be allowed to release a distro of linux called WindowsNT? No. That would violate Microsoft's trademark. Do you want to live in a world where you download the latest version of Slackware, only to find that Microsoft has named one of their products that? Should the makers of Slackware have no legal recourse if that happens?
You see, trademarks aren't for protecting big business, or small business, or the 'evil plutocrats'. Trademarks protect us, the consumers. Those who wouldn't know the difference between Slackware 'Slackware' and Microsoft 'Slackware', or Bob's 'Bob the Motor Oil' and my 'Bob the Motor Oil'.
That letter was perfectly justified, and if you've ever written commercial software in your life you know damn well why. There is free software, and there is commercial software, and you can't just go and do with commercial software what you can with free software. (a.k.a., you can't just run off a dozen copies of a Win98 CD)
Slashdot Mirror
I can move pikachu with my mind!
their parallelism expands infinitely to meet your needs
The new BubbleServer GS320 is the industry's fastest NP Solution server, with up to thirty two Glass EV67 plastic rods, the highest levels of availability, and an innovative architecture for managing massive systems in record time. A modular structure allows you to purchase only currently needed glass and rods -- and still be prepared for explosive growth. With upgrades, expect a 20-fold increase in application performance over the lifetime of the system.
The BubbleServer GS320 is ideal for NP-business and other critical enterprise applications with high or unpredictable growth rates -- and as a replacement and growth extension for BubbleServer GS140 customers. A system configured with as little as one glass plate and one rod will be able to grow to a fully loaded 32-way system without operational disruption.. Single system management lets you add capacity and applications without adding people. Unique partitions allow mixed NP systems on the same server, facilitating workload management and server consolidation.
[From the Compaq AlphaServer Site]
You can read it in all of the appropriate formats
.VOB?
Can we read it in
why dont you start a company to make clones
Apple has a history of suing companies that make clones and getting them shut down. Honestly, if Microsoft is ever destroyed, people will look back and realize that by blindly supporting the enemies of Microsoft, they allowed Sun and Apple to do things that no rational person should have let them do. I can't wait until after Microsoft collapses, when we suddenly look around and go 'oops', as we see that AOL-Time Warner, Apple, Sun, and Oracle have amassed incredible power that Microsoft never had...
[Background: Men running everywhere, tanks crushing the trenches in the middle of a battle. Two soldiers hide at the end of a trench. One is cursing at a small, handheld LCD screen with a packet radio connection to the internet]
First soldier: Goddamn it, submit!
Second: Lets get out of here, man! That's tanks gonna crush us!
First: Just a second, I nearly got the first post!
[Second soldier runs away, and the tank crushes the first soldier while he continues to yell at the computer. Afterward, another soldier runs up, to find the screen showing this:
I don't even believe that consumers are wronged by being shown doctored images from a game system currently in development.
...
it won't look like that, and the consumer gets the shaft.
So... consumers like getting the shaft?
I'm not an anti-Microsoft zealot
I could make a point about people who like Microsoft also being people who think that consumers like to get the shaft, but I'm not going to.
the image should look like that
Anyway, my McBurger doesn't look like in the ads, but you don't see Slashdot complaining.
surely GOD knows it
Nope, I asked, he doesn't. He's still reading through the comments to find a half-decent explaination of what those wacky humans have come up with this time.
Cars will eventually be able to do big loops in the air, as well as even fly about. However, if Chrystler were to show this on their commercials air next month, it would be false advertising, and would be illegal.
But say their new car had a new type of door. If all of the technology and research and design work was in place to make implementing the door a trivial matter, and this was clear, would it still be false advertising if it wasn't on the current development version of the car? Are you really so biased against Microsoft that you can't see a Microsoft programmer being able to use a simple lens flare?
Until the game can actually do it, they can't advertise that it does.
False advertising prevent you the consumer from buying a product that was advertised to be able to do more than what the product you bought can do. You cannot buy the development XBox, and the XBox that you will be able to buy will contain all of the features that they advertise. How are you, as the consumer, being wronged?
Microsoft can legally post a screenshot taken from 20 different X-Box generated screens, but if they add even one photoshop generated scene, it's false advertising.
In the little banner ad above the Slashdot site here, I can see some examples of what you can do with the service being advertised, which appear to be commands typed out on a shell (bash, actually). Is it false advertising if those commands were something that you could type into bash and get the result they promise, but if the actual commands shown were put into the image in photoshop? How are you wronged? How is the consumer hurt?
What you just mention is not "touching up".
That's right, it's worse. The features that appear in those screenshots will be released when the XBox is released, but they just aren't in the current development version. The 'transparent' XTerm crap will never be fixed, but the claim is still put forth because OSS zealots never put the xterm over anything else.
The packager encrypts a document using ball-tether (I'll get to that later) and then sends it to the reciever, using that reciever's specific series of 4096bit keys. Thus, it is a major pain in the neck to decrypt the transmission, and even if you did you would have no idea what to do with it, since it has to be decrypted in a certain order, and the 'layers' that are peeled off each time a key is used modify the next key. That way, even if you take the binary and manage to find the keys in it (a damn hard task, since most of the keys double as the assembler instructions (If you don't grok low-level stuff, you can ignore that)) you still wouldn't know how to apply them. Each key doubles as the method in which it can be used to decrypt itself. Example: That was a way oversimplified example, but you get the point. This is all done at the assembler or below level: Instructions double as numerics. OK. The transmission is secure, AND you can't just 'extract' the code from the 300k binary. It's just friggn impossible to extract the code, because everything is interdependant in it. The security is built into the very keys and all that. Sorry if that was long winded, but so many people are just suggesting 'well, just do it backwards! yeah!' that I had to put up a coherent explaination.
Could you point me to a reference?
Sorry about that. I forgot that I'm just discussing this with the people on
First of all, the first part of ball-token encryption is the ball. I explained part of this above: The ball has shells, and each of these shells can be opened with a key, and as you open the shells the ball changes form. This he thought up after a particularly violent swing that resulted in the ball flying off and breaking, the inner core rolling out of the soft outer shell. (note this was an old tetherball in need of some repair). This makes it an order of magnitude harder to crack the encryption, and using changing 4096bit keys with intercoded instructions makes it nearly impossible for even the most determined hacker.
The other part of this is the token. The token is what prevents you from just dropping to Linux, or (what the hypothetical worst case scenario for us) a modified version of Windows specifically designed to hack our program. The token represents a checksum for executed instructions. I am not going to go into how the checksum is generated, but it basically involves lots and lots of very low level driver code. (Some of it involves sending invalid signals and checking error codes returned, but there is much much more. If you block it, you simply can't decrypt the document.)The 'token' is the checksum from a completed set of commands. Once the set of commands on one keys is executed, the checksum is used to find which key to use next and how to use it. This verifies that the commands are executed properly. The token concept arose from watching the ball go around the pole: To finally hit the top, it had to complete several orbits.
But, come on, how much encryption and "security layers" can you hide in a 300 KB windows executable ?
You have no idea how much encryption is packed into this 300k. You assume this is being made with conventional stuff, like C++, where you have 'lines of code', but that's not true. This is all low level hardware calls; raw assembler; that stuff compiles into a tiny binary. The reason they have it only for Windows is that it actually interfaces directly with the hard drive, and has to write the correct FAT32 headers. Plus, the headers act as a token in ball-token encryption, so that both the headers and the file are completely different based on the microsecond it is created. By using the modification time as a force, the ball is encrypted and the decryption method for the ball is encrypted in the header, using mutually exclusive keys. And how do you get those keys? That's right, the hard disk sector! The bytes of the ball (file data, not headers) will be xored with the header, and the resulting binary number is converted and used as the position on the hard disk to write the file. Now, this gets back to why they only use Windows: This requires the filesystem to be rearranged. Now do you see the beauty in this? If you open the file, you don't get raw HD information. If you hex edit the file, and pull up the raw information, you still won't get the headers. Even if you do a raw dump of the hard drive, you won't be able to change the file without a friggn supercomputer, because the 4096bit encryption keys that take up most of the space in the binary are run in random patterns over the ball and token after they are written to the hard drive, and then the final key is stored on top of it along the adjoining sector, which another OS would read as interferance and discard (fsck does this quite nicely, making the file impossible to open.) As I said, the only way to actually get around this is to do a raw hard disk dump, and even then there are layers and layers of device driver level encryption blocking your path. Good luck.
a networking protocol that is better at supporting censorship
The... ah.. Aquinas protocol, perhaps?
Hitler was actually a great fan of Napoleon, and knew all about the Russian Winter. However, during the last few months he grew less and less in touch with reality, and trapped his troops in Russia planning to do what Napoleon never could.
liuxnu dusa 0x03q 41si usabt LInux a sux r00s xz limuxo is bad it isuxz ios bad corrput ein hard hdrive bad lienix kill iti kill it bade linux fihn bahjrx hard drive rhard killed mbr fihbad linux hate linux gburt hard drive cirrupted my hare hadrive why sutpdi lihux why "???!
Actually, if you actually read the agreements and legal stuff, you DON'T buy things anymore: You liscense them. Thus, the owners who are liscensing the product out are the MPAA people, and they can decide how the discs get used. Sorry.
Selling new games is a bust because they're sold everywhere online and offline.
Selling old games is a bust because they're sold extensively on Ebay, etc.
Hmm... Let's do both and call it a 'Business Plan'!
My windows 2000 desktop is rock solid
I run linux (and BSD now) for the applications
Wow, I think I'm dizzy, all of the words seem to be whirling around... it almost looks like somebody is using BSD for applications and Windows for stability... wow...
linux doesn't have a monopoly
Just a hypothetical question: If linux did have a monopoly, would you support actions against it?
Unfortunately, you are wrong. Microsoft® WindowsNT® and Windows2000® products can give you a reliability guarantee that no other products, certainly not this supposedly 'free' software, can provide. That's right, the nine fives promise. You heard it correctly. Microsoft will guarantee an uptime of %55.5555555. Yes: More than half of the time, your servers will be up and running, allowing you to take advantage of the new, electronic economy. With that kind of power, you can transform your business. That's the kind of leverage Microsoft provides.
War3 doo u w4nt 2 g0 70d@y!!!1©
IE was given away 'solely' (you have no actual idea of Microsoft's ideas at the time) for the purpose of driving Netscape and Mosaic out of the marketplace. Linux was given away 'solely' (you have no actual idea of Torvald's ideas at the time) for the purpose of driving Windows and Unix off of the marketplace. GPLed software is designed to drive non-GPLed and proprietary software off of the market place (viral clause). Should they all be banned?
How can you claim they have a monopoly on a web site that is run on PC hardware using a non-Microsoft OS?
Slashdot doesn't actually exist. It is only a hypothetical construct. Proof: It uses a non-Microsoft OS. Microsoft has a monopoly on the OS market. As these two facts contradict, It must not exist.
Microsoft doesn't even compete on most hardware platforms, and only competes effectively on one.
Microsoft competes on Windows3.1, Windows98, WindowsNT, and a number of other platforms. They have a complete monopoly over the entire Windows platform!
If I don't pay for their crap, why do you think you are forced to?
You pay taxes. The taxes go to fund the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice sues Microsoft. Your money is spend because of Microsoft's products.
As for IBM, they always have offered, and continue to offer, their own OS; AIX. It's superior to Windows in many ways. However, most consumers don't want it. This demands better programming and marketting from IBM, not government intervention.
No, you seem to miss an important point: The consumers cannot chose AIX because Microsoft forces them to use Windows. The Department of Justice realizes that if most consumers are using Windows, then clearly Microsoft is forcing competing products ou of the marketplace, because clearly Windows couldn't have been so successful without using some illegal tactic. Thus, Microsoft is acting illegally. Understand?
This knee jerk reaction is completely unjustified.
Imagine: Ford Motor company decides it may want to make a movie about Motors.
Does "Motore" (Spanish for "Motor") 'belong' to Ford Motor? Only Ford can forever title movies containing "Motore"?
No, but if Ford has recieved a trademark on the usage of the name 'Motore' for their movie, then you can't make your own movie called 'Motore'. Think of something original. (Although I hightly doubt they would ignore the chance for some precious advertising time by calling the movie 'Ford Motere'. Same for apple. If you make a movie called 'Bob the Movie', or a motor oil called 'Bob the Motor Oil', and you trademark it, nobody else can call their movie or motor oil that. Is that so bad?
Should Microsoft be allowed to release the next windows under the name Linux? No. That would violate Linus Torvald's trademark. Likewise, should Redhat be allowed to release a distro of linux called WindowsNT? No. That would violate Microsoft's trademark. Do you want to live in a world where you download the latest version of Slackware, only to find that Microsoft has named one of their products that? Should the makers of Slackware have no legal recourse if that happens?
You see, trademarks aren't for protecting big business, or small business, or the 'evil plutocrats'. Trademarks protect us, the consumers. Those who wouldn't know the difference between Slackware 'Slackware' and Microsoft 'Slackware', or Bob's 'Bob the Motor Oil' and my 'Bob the Motor Oil'.
Imagine if you were a dolphin, being about as smart as you are, but trapped in a fishlike body, unable to do much but swim around
Imagine if you were a human, being as smart as you are, but trapped in a mammal-like body, unable to do much but walk around. Think about it.
That letter was perfectly justified, and if you've ever written commercial software in your life you know damn well why. There is free software, and there is commercial software, and you can't just go and do with commercial software what you can with free software. (a.k.a., you can't just run off a dozen copies of a Win98 CD)