I thought that jobs like software engineers were supposed to have a steep pay curve. An inexperienced engineer is not worth much, but once you have about five years experience, you are supposed to be much more valuable.
I think that's what you were refering to. The company that filed the bogus lawsuit against IBM, and told all Linux users to pay them $699 per CPU, is *not* Santa Cruz Operations i.e SCO.
Caldera simply adopted the name "The SCO Group" specifically to confuse the public, and the courts. In their latest filings to the bankruptcy court, The SCO Group, carries on about how "SCO" (what they call themselves) used to earn $230 million revenues. But the "SCO" they are refering to is a different company.
Let's suppose VP sued you, and you fought them, and you won. As far as the USA legal is concerned, everything is just fine - you won, justice was served. Nevermind that the time, cost, and inconvenience of the lawsuit is far more the lawsuit was worth - the US legal system does not take that into account.
This is why SLAPP suits are so popular. Major corporations know that average citizens don't have a chance against them in court - it's just a matter of money. This huge loophole also makes extortion essentially legal for companies like scox. This also makes it easy for companies like msft to abuse the system for the "chilling effect."
It seems to me that as long as the legal leaves the doors wide open to such abuse, the the abuses will continue. The current system is like manna from heaven for lawyers, and vexatious litigants.
At least by Hollywood standards. A "nerd" can be anything from a top scientist or engineer, to somebody who owns a lot of shares in a software company, to a guy who works at bestbuy.
Re:I removed Gnome about a month ago, went with Ic
on
GNOME 2.20 Released
·
· Score: 1
>>Isn't advertising your computer specs like going to a bar and telling all of the ladies you have a 3 inch cock?
No, not at all. Frankly, I find peculiar, that anybody would make such a comparison.
I did not post my computer specs to brag, but to inform. Saying "gnome feels sluggish on my system" is completely meaningless unless I give basic system specs.
BTW: chicks are not impressed with your PC specs. Take it from somebody who has actually scored in his life.
There is a time, and a place, for jokes, and artistic statements. The airport is not it. The woman is lucky she wasn't shot.
My dad was a cop, then a pilot, and now works in airport security. He will tell you in minute: you don't say "Hijack" in a joking manner, you don't play jokes with fake guns, or grenades, and for crap sake: you don't go into an airport with a fake bomb.
Save that sort of crap for the frat house, or whatever. Security, at the airport, is deadly serious.
Sleuth? WTF? Any idiot could see scox was lying. All the events below happend in 2003:
* Remember scoforum 2003? That is when scox did the great unvailing of the infringing code. It was proven bogus within one hour.
* Why did scox require journalists to sign an NDA to see the code?
* Scox claimed they could, and would, stop IBM from selling AIX - an outright lie.
* Scox claimed they would audit all AIX customers, they didn't.
* Scox told the court -twice- that scox would provide evidence of UNIX being dumped into Linux. We're still waiting.
* Scox claimed to own UNIX, even though the trademark was clearly owned by the open group.
* What about the odd funding? Remember the halloween memo?
There is probably a lot of stuff I'm forgetting, but those shameless stunts were just in 2003. Scox was proven a liar over, and over, and over. It didn't take any sluething.
To determine if a stock's stock's price is low, you have to compare the share price to the company's future earnings prospects. A few year's back, the price of AAPL was low.
Scox has never earned anything, and is never likely to earn anything. That means that scox is overvalued at any price.
Day traders, and the funds, may send scox's share price up temporarily, if you want to gamble. But, even if you do want to gamble, there are probably better risks.
JMHO.
I removed Gnome about a month ago, went with IceWM
on
GNOME 2.20 Released
·
· Score: 1
My system feels a little more snappy now. I guess gnome was okay, but for me it felt bloated.
My system: 1.6ghz, 512mb, nvidia card with 128mb. Running Debian 4.0 SID.
Scox was formed to sell Linux, now they blame Linux competition for their downfall.
The only time scox had a profitable quarter was when msft gave scox money to sue ibm. And, since that money was offically for a "scosource" license, that money might belong to novell.
Scox has been gushing red ink since the day they opened. Scox opened during that dot-com era and raised a bunch of money for their IPO. Since then, it's all been downhill.
* Somebody put BSD code into GPL code, and did not keep the original copyright tags. A totally isolated incident.
* Althought the GPL coder was technically wrong, there was no harm done, and the situation has been fixed.
* The BSD community has been having a screeming bitch-fest for weeks, making all kinds of insane accusations and threats.
* Although the BSD community has no problem at with BSD code hidden in a msft binary, they get their panties all in a wad about BSD code put into Linux.
* Theo de Raadt is so bitchy and irratating that even his fellow BSD zealots can't stand him much of the time. And even though Theo is clearly unqualified about legal matters, much of the BSD is getting behind on this.
A poster on InvestorVillage.com (atul66) makes a good point:
The BK filing alerts us to the existence of another entity, "SCO Operations, Inc.", a legally distinct subsidiary of the SCO Group proper. If I'm reading the creditor list properly, SCO Operations is one of SCO Group's creditors, so they basically owe money to themselves, at least on paper. I'm no corporate law guru, but this smells bad. Mysterious shell companies, money and possibly assets flowing around. Piecing together what's been going on under the hood could get really... interesting.
Unreal. Absolutely unbelivable. I have never seen the likes of it.
All this bitching, over an isolated incident, that has already been fixed. And the only difference between the msft and linux use is that, with msft, an obscure command, certainly unknown to 99% of the population, can be used - if you know where to search and so on. Oh and the command is not native to windows. And the BSD folks have their panties all in a wad of this?
I am now convinced that BSD zealots are *much* worse than linux zealots, or even apple zealots. I doubt I will ever use anything BSD. The community seems bloody insane.
1) Debian's net install download is under 200mb. I don't have to download, install, and un-install a lot of cruft that I don't want.
2) With debian, I upgrade as I go. I don't worry about the six-month goofy name release. I install debian once.
3) Debian is indifferent to which WM/DE you use. For all debian cares, you don't have to run any GUI. Don't even install X11, it's all the same to debian. And you don't need a different *untu, or whatever, to use a differnt GUI. I happen to use IceWM.
4) IMO, Debian has the best package management in the business.
5) With debian I can run a super-stable server, or a bleeding-edge desk, or whatever else. Debian is not a one trick pony. Debian is more like a blank canvas, I can make into whatever I want.
I am glad to see Ubuntu, or any version of Linux, catching on. But I happen to be happy enough with debian.
Exactly, and the BSD license gives anybody the *right* to *copy* - with essentially no restriections. If you don't want people to claim your work as their own, don't license it under BSD.
I am also confused about the BSD bitching. BSD doesn't mind msft taking BSD code and releasing it as msft's own code. But the BSD advocates bitch about Linux? WTF?
Debian is my primary desktop. I use, and advocate, linux all the time. But, I must admit, windows seems to have a crisper, snappier, gui. I have dual booted several PCs, with several different versions of linux, and several different WM/DEs, but windows is always noticably faster.
I think part of it may be linux, but I'm guessing that it mostly because of X11.
In the early 90s, before NT had a foothold, UNIX could have taken over the server market.
The problem was: which UNIX? The major vendors gave lip service to integrating standards, but actually the majors were more interested in protecting their own turf. So you couldn't write a program for one UNIX, and expect it to run on another. Supporting the product would have been another huge headache. Also, UNIX was very expensive.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought that jobs like software engineers were supposed to have a steep pay curve. An inexperienced engineer is not worth much, but once you have about five years experience, you are supposed to be much more valuable.
I think that's what you were refering to. The company that filed the bogus lawsuit against IBM, and told all Linux users to pay them $699 per CPU, is *not* Santa Cruz Operations i.e SCO.
Caldera simply adopted the name "The SCO Group" specifically to confuse the public, and the courts. In their latest filings to the bankruptcy court, The SCO Group, carries on about how "SCO" (what they call themselves) used to earn $230 million revenues. But the "SCO" they are refering to is a different company.
Let's suppose VP sued you, and you fought them, and you won. As far as the USA legal is concerned, everything is just fine - you won, justice was served. Nevermind that the time, cost, and inconvenience of the lawsuit is far more the lawsuit was worth - the US legal system does not take that into account.
This is why SLAPP suits are so popular. Major corporations know that average citizens don't have a chance against them in court - it's just a matter of money. This huge loophole also makes extortion essentially legal for companies like scox. This also makes it easy for companies like msft to abuse the system for the "chilling effect."
It seems to me that as long as the legal leaves the doors wide open to such abuse, the the abuses will continue. The current system is like manna from heaven for lawyers, and vexatious litigants.
At least by Hollywood standards. A "nerd" can be anything from a top scientist or engineer, to somebody who owns a lot of shares in a software company, to a guy who works at bestbuy.
>>Isn't advertising your computer specs like going to a bar and telling all of the ladies you have a 3 inch cock?
No, not at all. Frankly, I find peculiar, that anybody would make such a comparison.
I did not post my computer specs to brag, but to inform. Saying "gnome feels sluggish on my system" is completely meaningless unless I give basic system specs.
BTW: chicks are not impressed with your PC specs. Take it from somebody who has actually scored in his life.
There is a time, and a place, for jokes, and artistic statements. The airport is not it. The woman is lucky she wasn't shot.
My dad was a cop, then a pilot, and now works in airport security. He will tell you in minute: you don't say "Hijack" in a joking manner, you don't play jokes with fake guns, or grenades, and for crap sake: you don't go into an airport with a fake bomb.
Save that sort of crap for the frat house, or whatever. Security, at the airport, is deadly serious.
Sleuth? WTF? Any idiot could see scox was lying. All the events below happend in 2003:
* Remember scoforum 2003? That is when scox did the great unvailing of the infringing code. It was proven bogus within one hour.
* Why did scox require journalists to sign an NDA to see the code?
* Scox claimed they could, and would, stop IBM from selling AIX - an outright lie.
* Scox claimed they would audit all AIX customers, they didn't.
* Scox told the court -twice- that scox would provide evidence of UNIX being dumped into Linux. We're still waiting.
* Scox claimed to own UNIX, even though the trademark was clearly owned by the open group.
* What about the odd funding? Remember the halloween memo?
There is probably a lot of stuff I'm forgetting, but those shameless stunts were just in 2003. Scox was proven a liar over, and over, and over. It didn't take any sluething.
which leads to three months off between contracts while you collect unemployment compensation.
To determine if a stock's stock's price is low, you have to compare the share price to the company's future earnings prospects. A few year's back, the price of AAPL was low.
Scox has never earned anything, and is never likely to earn anything. That means that scox is overvalued at any price.
Day traders, and the funds, may send scox's share price up temporarily, if you want to gamble. But, even if you do want to gamble, there are probably better risks.
JMHO.
My system feels a little more snappy now. I guess gnome was okay, but for me it felt bloated.
My system: 1.6ghz, 512mb, nvidia card with 128mb. Running Debian 4.0 SID.
Scox was formed to sell Linux, now they blame Linux competition for their downfall.
The only time scox had a profitable quarter was when msft gave scox money to sue ibm. And, since that money was offically for a "scosource" license, that money might belong to novell.
Scox has been gushing red ink since the day they opened. Scox opened during that dot-com era and raised a bunch of money for their IPO. Since then, it's all been downhill.
I think this is the part of scam where scox makes witnesses harder to find, and hey! what happend to all the documents?
Think about it, all of the sudden the accounting staff is gone - the day before their bogus bankruptcy hearing?
* Somebody put BSD code into GPL code, and did not keep the original copyright tags. A totally isolated incident.
* Althought the GPL coder was technically wrong, there was no harm done, and the situation has been fixed.
* The BSD community has been having a screeming bitch-fest for weeks, making all kinds of insane accusations and threats.
* Although the BSD community has no problem at with BSD code hidden in a msft binary, they get their panties all in a wad about BSD code put into Linux.
* Theo de Raadt is so bitchy and irratating that even his fellow BSD zealots can't stand him much of the time. And even though Theo is clearly unqualified about legal matters, much of the BSD is getting behind on this.
Is that about right?
Or, can scox delay until there is nothing left for anybody to sue, and then leave the issue unresolved?
If the issue is left unresolved, the scam will be a slam-dunk victory for msft, scox, and BSF.
As it is, the scammers have already won in many ways. Scox was as good as dead before the lawsuit, so scox had nothing to lose.
I think the issue will be resolved. I hope it will.
I'm not sure what that means.
A poster on InvestorVillage.com (atul66) makes a good point:
The BK filing alerts us to the existence of another entity, "SCO Operations, Inc.", a legally distinct subsidiary of the SCO Group proper. If I'm reading the creditor list properly, SCO Operations is one of SCO Group's creditors, so they basically owe money to themselves, at least on paper. I'm no corporate law guru, but this smells bad. Mysterious shell companies, money and possibly assets flowing around. Piecing together what's been going on under the hood could get really... interesting.
As PJ noted over on GL, S2/Anderer contracted with SCO Operations, not SCO Group, way back when. Here's their contract: http://contracts.onecle.com/sco/s2.svc.2003.07.01.shtml
"strings ftp.exe | grep Regents"
Unreal. Absolutely unbelivable. I have never seen the likes of it.
All this bitching, over an isolated incident, that has already been fixed. And the only difference between the msft and linux use is that, with msft, an obscure command, certainly unknown to 99% of the population, can be used - if you know where to search and so on. Oh and the command is not native to windows. And the BSD folks have their panties all in a wad of this?
I am now convinced that BSD zealots are *much* worse than linux zealots, or even apple zealots. I doubt I will ever use anything BSD. The community seems bloody insane.
1) Debian's net install download is under 200mb. I don't have to download, install, and un-install a lot of cruft that I don't want.
2) With debian, I upgrade as I go. I don't worry about the six-month goofy name release. I install debian once.
3) Debian is indifferent to which WM/DE you use. For all debian cares, you don't have to run any GUI. Don't even install X11, it's all the same to debian. And you don't need a different *untu, or whatever, to use a differnt GUI. I happen to use IceWM.
4) IMO, Debian has the best package management in the business.
5) With debian I can run a super-stable server, or a bleeding-edge desk, or whatever else. Debian is not a one trick pony. Debian is more like a blank canvas, I can make into whatever I want.
I am glad to see Ubuntu, or any version of Linux, catching on. But I happen to be happy enough with debian.
I see no reference to BSD licenses in msft's EULA. And the code is closed. So has is the BSD license not "stripped" by msft?
So all of this bitching is about one single case that has already been fixed? Maybe the BSD zealots need to get a life.
I took a look at the license, and I don't see anything prohibiting anybody from taking BSD code and putting into a GPL project.
Furthermore, I don't see how doing that could conflict with the "spirit" of the wide-open BSD license.
Are BSD advocates just nut jobs? Or is this msft anti-gpl fud? Or am I missing something?
I take code from your BSD project "A" and put that code in my GPL project "B".
The code is still in your BSD project. It still has the same license. How is it any less free?
To me, the entire arguemnt stinks of msft anti-GPL fud.
"Shit son, it's called copyright"
Exactly, and the BSD license gives anybody the *right* to *copy* - with essentially no restriections. If you don't want people to claim your work as their own, don't license it under BSD.
I am also confused about the BSD bitching. BSD doesn't mind msft taking BSD code and releasing it as msft's own code. But the BSD advocates bitch about Linux? WTF?
Debian is my primary desktop. I use, and advocate, linux all the time. But, I must admit, windows seems to have a crisper, snappier, gui. I have dual booted several PCs, with several different versions of linux, and several different WM/DEs, but windows is always noticably faster.
I think part of it may be linux, but I'm guessing that it mostly because of X11.
In the early 90s, before NT had a foothold, UNIX could have taken over the server market.
The problem was: which UNIX? The major vendors gave lip service to integrating standards, but actually the majors were more interested in protecting their own turf. So you couldn't write a program for one UNIX, and expect it to run on another. Supporting the product would have been another huge headache. Also, UNIX was very expensive.
Microsoft stepped in and solved the problem.
JMHO.
> What did SUN ever do that was amazing?
Although nothing special by today's statndards: NFS, NIS, and Java, were innovative, and important technologies, at the time.