Note also that they get 20% of any equity financing. They've already gotten 10 million from the $50 million Baystar deal. Hardly working on contingency. I mean, yeah, it's a contingency basis, but with a $10 mill downpayment.
Lawsuits is all Yarro's companies produces for revenue generation. Everything else they produce is just fodder for lawsuits. The real product is the lawsuits.
I'm waiting for a new.1 release, though. The.0 releases are always so messy. The SCO v. IBM lawsuit is a.0 release. Even worse, it's like a Microsoft product with a 4.0 release number attached. The worst of the worst. And it'll crash just as badly.
Bruce Schneier reveals the truth of the situation:
The only secure computer system in the world is unplugged, locked in a vault at the bottom of the ocean and only one person knows the location and combination of that vault. And he is dead. --
Applied Cryptography
Easy administration. Easy distribution of new apps...just make a new CD and distribute it. Put the/home dir on the HDD for user files. Buy laptops with smallest HDD possible. Save $$$ on hardware and software licenses.
You claim to be for free speech, yet when the FSF exercises their right to free speech, with no indication that they are calling on anybody to exercise power to stop anybody else from doing anything, you accuse them of "censorship".
I don't know about the FSF or GNU in general, but RMS specifically wants copyright law changed to prohibit software authors from being able to license their software under whatever terms they choose and force them to effectively GPL their code.
As far as RMS is a spokesperson for these groups, there is clear "indication that they are calling on anybody to exercise power to stop anybody else from doing anything..." Is it censorship? No.
But let's not pretend the FSF and the GNU project aren't calling on the government to exercise its power to change law. With RMS at the helm, they most assuredly are calling on the government to change copyright law. They are most definitely lobbying the government to exercise its power to stop everybody from doing one thing in particular: distribute software under closed-source licenses.
Now, as a developer, I presently have the right (granted to me by law, that is) to make that choice for myself...to open or close my software. I like open source. I like sharing and helping others and receiving their help in return. But I like having the choice to do it another way if I like.
Whether I ought to have that choice or not...that is one of the debates RMS (and by extension the GNU project) is embroiled in. He is quite clearly on the side that no, in fact, nobody should be given that choice. In his opinion, it is not a god-given right that software I develop is mine to do with as I please. (I base this on a history of his public statements...I do not purport to be a mind-reader.)
I am undecided on this. I have had this right under current law. And as I said, I *enjoy* having the freedom of choice in the matter. Yet, I am still on the fence as to whether I really deserve to have the freedom to make that choice. But I lean towards, yes I do.
Actually, the couple in the back having sex is placed there by the MPAA. They figure, if you can video tape people having sex with your handi-cam, you won't bother with the movie...
I am in a relatively small organization. We re-image every PC we buy with a standard image of Windows 2000 Pro. Large organizations do this *all the time*.
The undertaking is defining and maintaining the image. Re-imaging new PCs is trivial.
Sorry to respond to myself, but just like many people on/. jump to one side of a bandwagon (or the other), many don't RTFA before posting...myself included.
So I now know HP said they're not paying SCO for licensing...but I still think this is a little suspect. I'll take a wait and see on this one.
Further questions:
Does HP offer indemnity to users of HP-UX against third-party legal action?
What if it turns out HP hardware/software violates somebody else's patents? Do they offer indemnity against other legal action surrounding such issues?
Is this just marketing...like mail-in rebates that are calculated risks (specific percentages of people will invariably purchase items with mail-in rebates and *never* mail them in)?
I don't know if HP bought a SCO license; but, I think it's a little early to start jumping on the "This is awesome! We're winning!" bandwagon or the "HP sux0rs! They're in bed with SCO and they're just doing this to make IBM look bad!" bandwagon.
Of course, this being/., most of us will immediately jump to one side or the other...when what needs to happen is for us to stay calmly in the "undecided" middle and ask a lot of questions. To wit:
What is HP's motivation for this announcement?
Why now? Or maybe put better: What changed in the past 24/48/72/etc. hours that made HP decide this was a good business move when it wasn't before?
Nice idea, DickBreath! (Ahh, it feels good to say that to someone without fear of repercusion.)
Only problem: Without having even read it yet, I can tell you with 99.999% probability that the EULA for that new high end MS Office product expressly forbids its use in this capacity.
In order to use it thusly, every client process connecting to that web service would need its own legal, licensed copy of MS Office.
The fact that we still use IPC's (as monitoring servers, rstat graph displayers, etc) is a testiment to how long they last.
And the fact that a single PoS desktop 486 running Linux still serves as our DHCP server, caching DNS server, and consolidated syslog server is testament to how long they last.
I see nothing special about Sun hardware. It may be really great; but, racks full of commodity equipment running Linux puts Sun's value proposition in a questionable light.
Whois gives you no such option, and would probably actively resist if you even asked.
Let's also consider that registering a domain is an action taken by choice. If you wish to play, the rules are known and have been for some time. Nobody forces individuals to expose this info. And a lot of whois databases have been published in ways that make it harder for bots to harvest info. I think it is an exceedingly bad idea to obfuscate the contact information because it gets in the way of legitimate communication just because some people might take advantage.
If you don't want your personal info published in whois, you can easily pay a hosting organization to put your website at http://www.hostcompanydomain.com/mywebsite instead of registering and hosting http://www.mydomain.com/
And if the site is for business purposes, you can easily put in the name "System Administrator" whose e-mail is sysadmin@mydomain.com which is not assigned to any particular user but whomever has the role of System Administrator.
I think the better route (and I admit I haven't checked the site) would be to say after 50,000 copies sell or 18 months pass...or we go out of business...whichever comes first.
Slashdot Mirror
Note also that they get 20% of any equity financing. They've already gotten 10 million from the $50 million Baystar deal. Hardly working on contingency. I mean, yeah, it's a contingency basis, but with a $10 mill downpayment.
You forgot:
8. PROFIT!
Closing the analog hole
In other words: lawsuits are his companies.
.1 release, though. The .0 releases are always so messy. The SCO v. IBM lawsuit is a .0 release. Even worse, it's like a Microsoft product with a 4.0 release number attached. The worst of the worst. And it'll crash just as badly.
Lawsuits is all Yarro's companies produces for revenue generation. Everything else they produce is just fodder for lawsuits. The real product is the lawsuits.
I'm waiting for a new
Bruce Schneier reveals the truth of the situation:
130,000 Knoppix CDs?
/home dir on the HDD for user files. Buy laptops with smallest HDD possible. Save $$$ on hardware and software licenses.
Easy administration. Easy distribution of new apps...just make a new CD and distribute it. Put the
etc...
As far as RMS is a spokesperson for these groups, there is clear "indication that they are calling on anybody to exercise power to stop anybody else from doing anything..." Is it censorship? No.
But let's not pretend the FSF and the GNU project aren't calling on the government to exercise its power to change law. With RMS at the helm, they most assuredly are calling on the government to change copyright law. They are most definitely lobbying the government to exercise its power to stop everybody from doing one thing in particular: distribute software under closed-source licenses.
Now, as a developer, I presently have the right (granted to me by law, that is) to make that choice for myself...to open or close my software. I like open source. I like sharing and helping others and receiving their help in return. But I like having the choice to do it another way if I like.
Whether I ought to have that choice or not...that is one of the debates RMS (and by extension the GNU project) is embroiled in. He is quite clearly on the side that no, in fact, nobody should be given that choice. In his opinion, it is not a god-given right that software I develop is mine to do with as I please. (I base this on a history of his public statements...I do not purport to be a mind-reader.)
I am undecided on this. I have had this right under current law. And as I said, I *enjoy* having the freedom of choice in the matter. Yet, I am still on the fence as to whether I really deserve to have the freedom to make that choice. But I lean towards, yes I do.
wreq
I searched responses and saw no mention of it. We use it. It works well.
Actually, the couple in the back having sex is placed there by the MPAA. They figure, if you can video tape people having sex with your handi-cam, you won't bother with the movie...
We use PDF995. If you site license it, you get it for less than $9.95 per user.
It works well for us...and it's based on ghostscript, which I find interesting.
I am in a relatively small organization. We re-image every PC we buy with a standard image of Windows 2000 Pro. Large organizations do this *all the time*.
The undertaking is defining and maintaining the image. Re-imaging new PCs is trivial.
So I now know HP said they're not paying SCO for licensing...but I still think this is a little suspect. I'll take a wait and see on this one.
Further questions:
Of course, this being
Nice idea, DickBreath! (Ahh, it feels good to say that to someone without fear of repercusion.)
Only problem: Without having even read it yet, I can tell you with 99.999% probability that the EULA for that new high end MS Office product expressly forbids its use in this capacity.
In order to use it thusly, every client process connecting to that web service would need its own legal, licensed copy of MS Office.
(/me ducks and runs for cover...)
I see nothing special about Sun hardware. It may be really great; but, racks full of commodity equipment running Linux puts Sun's value proposition in a questionable light.
If you don't want your personal info published in whois, you can easily pay a hosting organization to put your website at http://www.hostcompanydomain.com/mywebsite instead of registering and hosting http://www.mydomain.com/
And if the site is for business purposes, you can easily put in the name "System Administrator" whose e-mail is sysadmin@mydomain.com which is not assigned to any particular user but whomever has the role of System Administrator.
Much ado about nothing, imho.
Weren't subscriptions instituted because slashdot was having trouble staying afloat?
No.
You're wrong. There is at least one other business model:
Perhaps.
I think the better route (and I admit I haven't checked the site) would be to say after 50,000 copies sell or 18 months pass...or we go out of business...whichever comes first.
Hey, wait just a minute!!!
I can sell my morals for a pool?!?! YES!!!