When did I call TrollTech evil? I am a happy customer, sending them thousands of dollars/year, and using Linux desktops based upon KDE?
Indeed, you never even implied them to be evil. But you still got the KDE history wrong. QT existed before KDE and was choosen by the KDE founder(s), none of whom were a Trolltech employee (AFAIK). Later on, some of the KDE developers got hired by Trolltech, though. But the reason for KDE's existance was never that it might be a marketing tool for QT.
God damn, they aren't selling drugs to minors or something like that. Give them a break.
What if someone had quit SCO, one week before IBM would cave in and buys SCO?
You can bet everyone at SCO _is_ looking for a new job (even Darl McBride, lol) , but what on earth could, say,a programmer achieve by quitting his job there? In the end, it would help SCO, because they aren't interested in paying programmers anyway.
Oh, and maybe we'll see some "Halloween" documents from SCO in the future, just because there are still some good guys left there.
Re:Any ideas?
on
Back To SCO
·
· Score: 5, Informative
IBM has taken steps to silence them. Go to groklaw and read up on IBM's subpoena agains canopy (not SCO!). IBM has done the right thing, in that they are avoiding beating an already dead horse (SCO) and going for its owner.
Canopy will happily lead SCO to corporate suicide, as long as they are able to cash in. IBM now has changed the rules of the game, because they have signaled they are going to drag Canopy from their VIP lounges onto the playing field.
The above subpoena is IMO the most interesting and important development in this whole SCO fiasco, and I'm really surprised that it doesn't get the attention it deserves.
When this whole debacle got rolling, the first thing that occurred to me was IBM has it's own copy of the SysV sources.. The shred idea is clever but I don't think its so clever that it didn't immediately occur to the IBM engineers that have been sicced on this issue. Blowing SCO's so-called evidence out of the water is too obvious for IBM to miss. They have to be doing something like this. Its also another good reason for IBM to drag this out(in addition to making them burn through cash). Establishing the exact provenance of the matches to courtroom perfection and then indexing them will take time. Everytime time SCO introduces some of their tripe into evidence, you want to find the counter evidence immediately.
Maybe, maybe not. I find this idea original enough that it might be that IBM hadn't thought to use this brute force approach.
As we have seen yesterday with IBMs subpoena (see groklaw) against Canopy (not SCO!), they seem to _really_ play this game the hard way, and they have a lot more weapons on their hands than comparing SCO's code vs. linux.
As I interpret it, they wanted to show the canopy guys that this is goin to be tough, also for canopy, not only for SCO.
I have no idea what suprises the canopy guys are in for next, but if I were IBM, at some point of the future I would suggest to the canopy guys how many of the companies they have a stake in are probably violating some of my patents.
This tool OTOH makes linux developers sort of independent from IBM, in that they now are able to hurt SCO themselves, for example by showing evidence that SCO has stolen OSS code.
There was a message yesterday about the new subpoena from IBM (see groklaw if you haven't read it yet).
24 ugly points concerning documents which IBM wants to be handed over from canopy.
Can you imagine another subpoena from IBM with 1340243 points like
1. All documents concerning any statements, declaration, affidavit, analysis, assessment, or opinion rrelating to plaintiff's rights to lines 23-25 of/src/drivers/net/somedriver.c
2. All documents concerning any statements, declaration, affidavit, analysis, assessment, or opinion rrelating to plaintiff's rights lines 47-49 of/src/drivers/net/somedriver.c
3. All documents concerning any statements, declaration, affidavit, analysis, assessment, or opinion rrelating to plaintiff's rights lines 113-115 of/src/drivers/ide/anotherdriver.c
Whatever people feel about Darl Mcbride bashing him don't do the Linux community any good. And whatever people feel about SCO they have allways concentrated on the case on copyright infringment and not tried to take some easy shots on the Linux community.
WTF??? Have you been in a cage the last half year? No easy shots? Look at this diamond (yeah, they removed the page since then).
Or how about: ""A significant flaw of Linux is the inability and/or unwillingness of the Linux process manager, Linus Torvalds, to identify the intellectual-property origins of contributed source code that comes in from those many different software developers" who contribute to Linux, the suit said.
I think the next version of Postgres (or already the current one???) will support windows natively. There are already native ports out there, btw, so this is no vapour ware.
It IS a razor blade business model. Because antivirus products could and have been made that prevent certain classes of activity (messing with the MBR, eg)
This is a feature of nearly any modern consumer bios.
sending out mail inappropriately, etc.
See Tiny Personal Firewall or ZoneAlarm
But they lost out to the "search for a million signatures that you have to update daily" class of product that can only react after a virus is loose.
Wrong, see above. It's just that despite there are products which try to defend against certain virus activities (activities btw., which are not exclusively undertaken by malware which can be called a virus), there's still a market for "search for a million signatures" type software. And it's not the virus vendors fault that thanks to certain software vendors, it's nearly impossible with certain operating systems to achieve that kind of inherent security which you are talking about.
Isn't this the same give-away-the-razor-sell-the-blades marketing technique that makes us hate the printer manufacturers?
No, because I for one just hate the people who are stupid enough to buy these printers, and therefore add to a just-buy-cheap-and-throw-away-later culture. And no, because in this case, the cost of creating the "content" (virus definitions) _constitutes_ the main expenses of the antivir software companies (as opposed to your printer example). Therefore this prize model is better for the consumer, for example because it would make it cheaper for him to change vendors.
If I had the money, maybe I'd try to start a antivirus software company with completely open sourced and as-plattform-independent-as-possible clients (and free-as-in-beer) and just sell the virus definitions - as cheap as possible. The only thing which one had to do use an encryption scheme which would make it possible to tie the definition files to clients (and some kind of volume licenses for networks etc.).
Then again, immediately going after IBM wasn't the smartest thing in the world, so maybe they are just nuts...
I think at this point there are clearly only two alternatives:
1) They are absolutely dumb 2) They had concluded that this would be the way to maximize profit for some important entities in and around SCO, and consequentially followed some plan. It's quite possible that their plan didn't work out as they thought and the situation is not in their control anymore.
The first alternative is only explainable by aliens that have invaded Utah to test some brain melting secret weapons against humans.
TechHandle: ZI22-ARIN TechName: Role Account TechPhone: +1-866-373-6714 TechEmail: noc@ibm.com
# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2003-08-26 19:15 # Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.
So the one SCO Server which still works and coincidentally is for Investor Relations is hosted on the IBM Global Network (I think), and the IP block is still registered for Sequent. The irony.
* Wirzenius wrote this portably, Torvalds fucked it up:-) ./lib/vsprintf.c /* If you fuck with this, update ret_from_syscall code too. */ \ ./include/asm-sparc64/system.h /* Only Sun can take such nice parts and fuck up the programming interface /* This card is _fucking_ hot... */ /* This card is _fucking_ hot... */ /* This card is _fucking_ hot... */ ./drivers/net/sunhme.c
* These chips are basically fucked by design, and getting this driver ./drivers/block/cmd640.c
* how bad the target and/or ESP fucks things up.
* phase things. We don't want to fuck directly with /* Be careful, we could really get fucked during synchronous ./drivers/scsi/esp.c /* Am I fucking pedantic or what? */ ./drivers/scsi/qlogicpti.h
* how bad the target and/or ESP fucks things up.
* phase things. We don't want to fuck directly with /* Be careful, we could really get fucked during synchronous ./drivers/scsi/NCR53C9x.c
CURRENT=req->next;/* task can fuck it up GTL */ ./drivers/cdrom/sbpcd.c /* XXX Why the fuck is it called modename if it identifies the board? */ ./drivers/video/tgafb.c /* Some BIOS's are fucked and don't set all MTRRs the same! */ ./arch/i386/kernel/mtrr.c /* fuck me plenty */ ./arch/sparc/kernel/process.c /* Binary compatibility is good American knowhow fuckin' up. */ ./arch/sparc/kernel/sunos_ioctl.c #if 0/* XXX No fucking way dude... */ ./arch/mips/kernel/irixelf.c
* irixioctl.c: A fucking mess... ./arch/mips/kernel/irixioctl.c
* fucking with the memory controller because it needs to know the ./arch/mips/sgi/kernel/setup.c [...]
Maybe I'm ignoring the severity of this new Microsoft flaw, but why the Dept. of Homeland Security issuing ANY statement about security flaws in any operating system?
Maybe because their PR department was scheduled to prodce some proof for their right to exists,but they didn't have any terrorists handy ATM.
Seriously, this shouldn't be their job, in the end they will be just echoing CERT or bugtraq, while wasting a lot of money into "network security research".
The point is, from the hardware side apple is lightyears away from machines like this. And then the OS must be capable of taking advantage/adapt to things like NUMA (which is not necessarily implement in this machines, but in many of this size), which I think OS X (or its BSD personality) is not able to.
I haven't seen anyone mention this, but I realized the other day that since Jaguar is fully 32-bit, you should be able to take 64-bit hardware and run two full instances of Jaguar on it in parallel.
Hmm, I'd like to know what kind of esoteric idea of "bitness" of cpus let's you conclude that. At least, you seem to share it with one moderator.
Slashdot Mirror
When did I call TrollTech evil? I am a happy customer, sending them thousands of dollars/year, and using Linux desktops based upon KDE?
Indeed, you never even implied them to be evil. But you still got the KDE history wrong. QT existed before KDE and was choosen by the KDE founder(s), none of whom were a Trolltech employee (AFAIK).
Later on, some of the KDE developers got hired by Trolltech, though.
But the reason for KDE's existance was never that it might be a marketing tool for QT.
God damn, they aren't selling drugs to minors or something like that. Give them a break.
,a programmer achieve by quitting his job there? In the end, it would help SCO, because they aren't interested in paying programmers anyway.
What if someone had quit SCO, one week before IBM would cave in and buys SCO?
You can bet everyone at SCO _is_ looking for a new job (even Darl McBride, lol) , but what on earth could, say
Oh, and maybe we'll see some "Halloween" documents from SCO in the future, just because there are still some good guys left there.
IBM has taken steps to silence them.
Go to groklaw and read up on IBM's subpoena agains canopy (not SCO!). IBM has done the right thing, in that they are avoiding beating an already dead horse (SCO) and going for its owner.
Canopy will happily lead SCO to corporate suicide, as long as they are able to cash in. IBM now has changed the rules of the game, because they have signaled they are going to drag Canopy from their VIP lounges onto the playing field.
The above subpoena is IMO the most interesting and important development in this whole SCO fiasco, and I'm really surprised that it doesn't get the attention it deserves.
When this whole debacle got rolling, the first thing that occurred to me was IBM has it's own copy of the SysV sources.. The shred idea is clever but I don't think its so clever that it didn't immediately occur to the IBM engineers that have been sicced on this issue. Blowing SCO's so-called evidence out of the water is too obvious for IBM to miss. They have to be doing something like this. Its also another good reason for IBM to drag this out(in addition to making them burn through cash). Establishing the exact provenance of the matches to courtroom perfection and then indexing them will take time. Everytime time SCO introduces some of their tripe into evidence, you want to find the counter evidence immediately.
Maybe, maybe not. I find this idea original enough that it might be that IBM hadn't thought to use this brute force approach.
As we have seen yesterday with IBMs subpoena (see groklaw) against Canopy (not SCO!), they seem to _really_ play this game the hard way, and they have a lot more weapons on their hands than comparing SCO's code vs. linux.
As I interpret it, they wanted to show the canopy guys that this is goin to be tough, also for canopy, not only for SCO.
I have no idea what suprises the canopy guys are in for next, but if I were IBM, at some point of the future I would suggest to the canopy guys how many of the companies they have a stake in are probably violating some of my patents.
This tool OTOH makes linux developers sort of independent from IBM, in that they now are able to hurt SCO themselves, for example by showing evidence that SCO has stolen OSS code.
There was a message yesterday about the new subpoena from IBM (see groklaw if you haven't read it yet).
/src/drivers/net/somedriver.c
/src/drivers/net/somedriver.c
/src/drivers/ide/anotherdriver.c
24 ugly points concerning documents which IBM wants to be handed over from canopy.
Can you imagine another subpoena from IBM with 1340243 points like
1. All documents concerning any statements, declaration, affidavit, analysis, assessment, or opinion rrelating to plaintiff's rights to lines 23-25 of
2. All documents concerning any statements, declaration, affidavit, analysis, assessment, or opinion rrelating to plaintiff's rights lines 47-49 of
3. All documents concerning any statements, declaration, affidavit, analysis, assessment, or opinion rrelating to plaintiff's rights lines 113-115 of
[...]
Whatever people feel about Darl Mcbride bashing him don't do the Linux community any good. And whatever people feel about SCO they have allways concentrated on the case on copyright infringment and not tried to take some easy shots on the Linux community.
WTF??? Have you been in a cage the last half year? No easy shots?
Look at this diamond (yeah, they removed the page since then).
Or how about:
""A significant flaw of Linux is the inability and/or unwillingness of the Linux process manager, Linus Torvalds, to identify the intellectual-property origins of contributed source code that comes in from those many different software developers" who contribute to Linux, the suit said.
I'm curios, don't you see "sponsored links" when you click on that link?
... as long as these tiles don't contain the phrase "12 monkeys", that is.
I think the next version of Postgres (or already the current one???) will support windows natively. There are already native ports out there, btw, so this is no vapour ware.
It IS a razor blade business model. Because antivirus products could and have been made that prevent certain classes of activity
(messing with the MBR, eg)
This is a feature of nearly any modern consumer bios.
sending out mail inappropriately, etc.
See Tiny Personal Firewall or ZoneAlarm
But they lost out to the "search for a million signatures that you have to update daily" class of product that can only react after a virus is loose.
Wrong, see above. It's just that despite there are products which try to defend against certain virus activities (activities btw., which are not exclusively undertaken by malware which can be called a virus), there's still a market for "search for a million signatures" type software. And it's not the virus vendors fault that thanks to certain software vendors, it's nearly impossible with certain operating systems to achieve that kind of inherent security which you are talking about.
Isn't this the same give-away-the-razor-sell-the-blades marketing technique that makes us hate the printer manufacturers?
No, because I for one just hate the people who are stupid enough to buy these printers, and therefore add to a just-buy-cheap-and-throw-away-later culture.
And no, because in this case, the cost of creating the "content" (virus definitions) _constitutes_ the main expenses of the antivir software companies (as opposed to your printer example).
Therefore this prize model is better for the consumer, for example because it would make it cheaper for him to change vendors.
If I had the money, maybe I'd try to start a antivirus software company with completely open sourced and as-plattform-independent-as-possible clients (and free-as-in-beer) and just sell the virus definitions - as cheap as possible.
The only thing which one had to do use an encryption scheme which would make it possible to tie the definition files to clients (and some kind of volume licenses for networks etc.).
Then again, immediately going after IBM wasn't the smartest thing in the world, so maybe they are just nuts...
I think at this point there are clearly only two alternatives:
1) They are absolutely dumb
2) They had concluded that this would be the way to maximize profit for some important entities in and around SCO, and consequentially followed some plan. It's quite possible that their plan didn't work out as they thought and the situation is not in their control anymore.
The first alternative is only explainable by aliens that have invaded Utah to test some brain melting secret weapons against humans.
Do you want to know what's really intersting and funny?
IP block ir.sco.com
OrgName: Sequent Computer Systems, Incorporated
OrgID: SCS-65
Address: 1000 River Street
City: Essex Junction
StateProv: VT
PostalCode: 05452
Country: US
NetRange: 170.224.0.0 - 170.227.255.255
CIDR: 170.224.0.0/14
NetName: SEQUENT-B
NetHandle: NET-170-224-0-0-1
Parent: NET-170-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Assignment
NameServer: NS1.RALEIGH.USF.IBM.COM
NameServer: NS2.RALEIGH.USF.IBM.COM
Comment:
RegDate: 1995-04-21
Updated: 2001-04-06
TechHandle: ZI22-ARIN
TechName: Role Account
TechPhone: +1-866-373-6714
TechEmail: noc@ibm.com
# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2003-08-26 19:15
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.
So the one SCO Server which still works and coincidentally is for Investor Relations is hosted on the IBM Global Network (I think), and the IP block is still registered for Sequent. The irony.
Hmm, don't you see any "sponsored links" when you click this link?
Just steal an extra identity and use that.
I think it would be huge - and profitable - if Apple embraced open source fully and released all of OSX under GPL.
This would be nice, if it wasn't for the minor problem that porting projects for OS to i386 would emerge instantly. And that would kill Apple.
Insofar I think it's a little bit off from the FSF to critizice Apple for not doing what would eventually mean corporate suicide.
Maybe I'm ignoring the severity of this new Microsoft flaw, but why the Dept. of Homeland Security issuing ANY statement about security flaws in any operating system?
Maybe because their PR department was scheduled to prodce some proof for their right to exists,but they didn't have any terrorists handy ATM.
Seriously, this shouldn't be their job, in the end they will be just echoing CERT or bugtraq, while wasting a lot of money into "network security research".
Maybe you'd like to post some kernel compile times? ;)
I hated it, if it helps.
The point is, from the hardware side apple is lightyears away from machines like this. And then the OS must be capable of taking advantage/adapt to things like NUMA (which is not necessarily implement in this machines, but in many of this size), which I think OS X (or its BSD personality) is not able to.
WTF is up with Boromir son of Faram?
Looking at his user page shows an astounding mass of clueless posts (sadly, some moderate quite high).
Looks like a live expirement with a opencyc.
I haven't seen anyone mention this, but I realized the other day that since Jaguar is fully 32-bit, you should be able to take 64-bit hardware and run two full instances of Jaguar on it in parallel.
Hmm, I'd like to know what kind of esoteric idea of "bitness" of cpus let's you conclude that.
At least, you seem to share it with one moderator.
But Apache isn't in that boat - it's considered to be mature. Which version were they studying?
.
Don't laugh. They studied apache 2.1
IOW. an open source product tagged alpha is comparable to a typical closed source product.
What has become of getting people to appreciate an album because it's a nice complete works?
If I would've bought only "Time", I clearly would have decided that I want the whole of DSotM.
OTOH, I haven't heard artists lime Madonna complain when people bought their singles, or maxi remixes.