Also, before someone points out that the Slashdot FAQ gives people permission to use the icons, this is only under the condition that credit is given and that the site links back to Slashdot. I didn't see any credit for those icons given to slashdot anywhere on the page.
but will also criminalize the downloading of material from the Internet without the explicit permission of the copyright holder
How do you KNOW if what you're downloading is copyrighted or not and whether or not you have permission. For instance, variouis sites have ripped off Slashdot's icons, which I believe are copyrighted by OSDN and/or Rob Malda.
By accessing the above link, you are downloading copryighted material without the permission of the author.
Um you do relaize that since most people will put all their music in one place & most file sharing programs rescan those places (if not the whole drive) when restarted.
Um, you don't think that's exactly what they had in mind do you?;)
Note that I use libertarian in this case with a small 'l', my views are not always compatible with the ones with a capital 'L'. For instance, I think that *some* limited government interference with the free market is necessary for a truly free market. But nowhere near the level of control they have at this point.
XFS *is* faster except for when you have a bunch of smaller files, true.
But as far as stability goes, I've seen XFS eat my entire hard drive, vs. ReiserFS with which I've never experienced *any* data loss.
Mind you, ReiserFS got its reputation for unreliability in it's earlier days. It's been in the kernel since 2.4.18, and that's how long I've been using it for. So I don't have any experience with reiser PRE 2.4.18, so I can't speak about reliability prior to that.
There wouldn't *be* monopolies in a truly free market. In a truly free market, Microsoft wouldn't have made it this far, they'd've been struck down by their closest competitors. I could write a whole thesis on why this is so, but in summary let's just say that the main thing keeping Windows #1 at this point is Office, and the main thing that's kept Office #1 is the fact that everyone uses the format. That governments and state sanctioned monopolies demand the Office format files is very telling.
I'm conflicted. The open source advocate in my LOVES the idea of 10% of Microsoft sales to a government going to fund Open Source. The libertarian in me says this smells like governments interfering in with free market principles. HELP! I need a bunch of Slashdot users to tell me what to think!;)
An AC claiming to be a SCO employee would probably be able to give details -- but the veracity of his/her statements would be hard to confirm.
Well, of course. OTOH so is the veracity of my statements or your statements, or anybody's statements on Slashdot really. That's why whenever possible, Slashdot users tend to back up what they say with either links to relevant sites known to contain factual information or other source information. Of course, even then what someone says could be entirely untrue. And in the SCO case, backing up with valid sourcei information may (or may not) be impossible.
You have to take everything you read on the Net with a grain of salt, pretty much. CmdrTaco could say that the sky outside his house is hot fuschia, right now. I don't know if he's lying or not, I've never been to his house. But at least I can discern for myself, based on my own past experience that in all likelihood, the sky outside of CmdrTaco's house is not hot fuschia, and CmdrTaco would (hypothetically speaking) be talking out his ass.
The bottom line here is -- I don't think it matters all that much. Go ahead, post it... people will either tell you you're full of shit, or they'll believe you. IT doesn't matter whether your anonymous or not.;)
What about anonymous posting? It's entirely possible given that you could *easily* post anonymously to Slashdot by bouncing off an available open proxy, right?
Actually, we have specific reasons why we format certain clients with FAT32. There are compatibility issues with NTFS with an older vertical market application that we use that we can no longer get updates for because the company that makes the product is now out of business -- nonetheless, the software is critical to our day-to-day operations.
Only clients that use this particular software have FAT32 -- everyone else gets NTFS.
Not to add fuel to the fire, but you are right. You can format and install XP Pro (corporate edition) on an up-to 32 GB FAT32 partition. AFAIK, there is no way to make XP support an *over* 32 GB partition due to inherent limitations in the FAT32 format. I'm a sysadmin, and I've installed 32GB FAT32 partitions using XP setup *all day long* on many many machines and have had no problems whatso
That being said, to bring validity to the OTHER side of the story, I was installing XP Pro (also corporate edition;) on a friends machine and it would absolutely not let me format her 20 GB drive as FAT32, only as NTFS, during install.
That being said, I have no explanation for why it didn't work. If I formatted the drive using fdisk and format from a Win98 boot disk, it seemed to work, but the drive later had errors. I have no explanation for this either. It could be a hardware compatibility issue, or it could be anything.
The machines at work were all ASUS Pentium 4 motherboards, while my friend's machine was an Elitegroup Athlon motherboard with SiS 735 chipset. Could it be due to compatibility problems with the SiS 735 chipset? I don't know. After banging my head against the wall for a few days, I said "screw it" and got her a different motherboard with a VIA KT400 chipset and had no problems whatsoever. What's really strange is that I have machine here with the same Elitegroup motherboard running the same SiS 735 chipset that has 20 GB hard drive in it that was formatted with FAT32 during install *with no problem at all*. Again, I have no explanation for any of the above, I'm as baffled by it as you probably are while reading this, but I swear it is the truth.
Fry's is rather regional to the American Southwest and Northern California. There are no Fry's anywhere else in the country, like for instance, where I am (Michigan). So no. I think I might have drove past one in San Francisco when I was there a couple of years ago.
Very informative. You should get modded up for that. (Hint).
We are definitely not allowed to cut and paste proprietary code into any open source projects (or vice versa!). There is an IBM committee who can and do approve the release of IBM proprietary or patented technology, like RCU.
So an IBM committee approved the release of RCU, which they got from Sequent. My guess is any such committee at IBM would include technical managers, executives, and also, more importantly, at least one representative from IBM's legal department, particularly attorneys with expertise in IP.
So likely IBM *already knows* they are in the clear on RCU and are prepared to back that claim up. Either that or we'll be seeing a press release from IBM about how some of their legal staff were recently fired for incompetency.;)
OF course SCO isn't claiming copyright infringement, they're claiming trade secret infringement. They know that a copyright claim is VERY shaky, otherwise they wouldn't go after the trade secret claim. They can't very well claim that software that they didn't originate is a trade secret, particularly when the software came from a *competitor*.
The suit also adds illegal export issues stemming from the worldwide availability of open-source software. SCO claims IBM has breached its contract by making multiprocessor operating system technology available "for free distribution to anyone in the world," including residents of Cuba, Iran, Syria, North Korea and Libya, countries to which the United States controls exports. The open-source technology IBM released "can be used for encryption, scientific research and weapons research," the suit said.
Um, who gave Alan Cox the SMP motherboard that he and NOT IBM (who had nothing to do with SMP being in Linux in the first place) used to develop SMP technology in Linux 2.0? Oh right, it was SCO. Hmmmm...
Well, my understanding of the particulars of the USL/Novell v. UC/BSD case isn't as good as it might be; but my understanding is that where Novell and USL were shot down was in their claims of trade secret infringement. Some copyright violation was found, requiring a small amount of code change within BSD to be necessary. In other words, I thought the message of that case was that the SysV code was effectively unencumbered with trade secret issues; but copyrights could still be violated. Is that not correct?
You're right... Except SCO isn't going after *copyright* infringement. They're going after *trade secret* infringement and breach of contract.
Another read on this is that it looks even more than it did before like an attempt to re-try the Unix Systems Labs vs. BSD case.
Yeah, and USL lost on that one. IBM's SysV license comes from AT&T, it did not originate from SCO. So IBM had the license with USL, and then later Novell, and then later SCO, and then later Caldera, and then later SCO.
Okay. So if USL lost, then the precedence has already been set -- USL didn't have rights to derivative works as ruled by the courts, so neither does SCO, because SCO has the same rights USL had, presumably. The OSI position paper covers this.
Yeah, so SCO even in your scenario, is STILL on crack and they STILL aren't sharing.
Also, tinfoil hat mode, Look at Sontag's quote:
We believe that UNIX System V provided the basic building blocks for all Subsequent Computer Operating systems, and that they all tend to be derived from UNIX System V (and therefore are claimed as SCO's intellectual property).
Hmmmmm....conspiracy? they changed their name to SCO Group to reflect their main source of revenue, which apparently is everyone who makes an operating system that comes after Unix.:)
Um, IBM didn't make Linux freely available. Linus Torvalds did. They contributed to the code, but they didn't contribute the SMP code. THey contributed the RCU thing which helps with SMP, but the SMP code itself was already in there, and hence, if anyone is liable for SMP code being in there it's Alan Cox -- and he's in the U.K. and can't be held liable for U.S. export laws.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a fundamental assumption that the government is logical, intelligent, and responsible
In that case, I have some oceanfront property in Kansas you might be interested in...
Also, before someone points out that the Slashdot FAQ gives people permission to use the icons, this is only under the condition that credit is given and that the site links back to Slashdot. I didn't see any credit for those icons given to slashdot anywhere on the page.
but will also criminalize the downloading of material from the Internet without the explicit permission of the copyright holder
How do you KNOW if what you're downloading is copyrighted or not and whether or not you have permission. For instance, variouis sites have ripped off Slashdot's icons, which I believe are copyrighted by OSDN and/or Rob Malda.
By accessing the above link, you are downloading copryighted material without the permission of the author.
Um you do relaize that since most people will put all their music in one place & most file sharing programs rescan those places (if not the whole drive) when restarted.
;)
Um, you don't think that's exactly what they had in mind do you?
I'm anti-MS and pro-libertarian.
Note that I use libertarian in this case with a small 'l', my views are not always compatible with the ones with a capital 'L'. For instance, I think that *some* limited government interference with the free market is necessary for a truly free market. But nowhere near the level of control they have at this point.
XFS *is* faster except for when you have a bunch of smaller files, true.
But as far as stability goes, I've seen XFS eat my entire hard drive, vs. ReiserFS with which I've never experienced *any* data loss.
Mind you, ReiserFS got its reputation for unreliability in it's earlier days. It's been in the kernel since 2.4.18, and that's how long I've been using it for. So I don't have any experience with reiser PRE 2.4.18, so I can't speak about reliability prior to that.
Come to think of it, I do need one of those ultracool case mod windows, a Linux bumpersticker, and a case or two of Bawls. ;)
There wouldn't *be* monopolies in a truly free market. In a truly free market, Microsoft wouldn't have made it this far, they'd've been struck down by their closest competitors. I could write a whole thesis on why this is so, but in summary let's just say that the main thing keeping Windows #1 at this point is Office, and the main thing that's kept Office #1 is the fact that everyone uses the format. That governments and state sanctioned monopolies demand the Office format files is very telling.
American law doesn't matter in this case, this is in South Africa, actually.
Thank you, Dan. I knew someone would make my point for me. ;)
Bill Gates becomes popular on Slashdot
;)
According to this googlefight, Bill Gates is more popular than Linus Torvalds on Slashdot.
I'm conflicted. The open source advocate in my LOVES the idea of 10% of Microsoft sales to a government going to fund Open Source. The libertarian in me says this smells like governments interfering in with free market principles. HELP! I need a bunch of Slashdot users to tell me what to think! ;)
An AC claiming to be a SCO employee would probably be able to give details -- but the veracity of his/her statements would be hard to confirm.
;)
Well, of course. OTOH so is the veracity of my statements or your statements, or anybody's statements on Slashdot really. That's why whenever possible, Slashdot users tend to back up what they say with either links to relevant sites known to contain factual information or other source information. Of course, even then what someone says could be entirely untrue. And in the SCO case, backing up with valid sourcei information may (or may not) be impossible.
You have to take everything you read on the Net with a grain of salt, pretty much. CmdrTaco could say that the sky outside his house is hot fuschia, right now. I don't know if he's lying or not, I've never been to his house. But at least I can discern for myself, based on my own past experience that in all likelihood, the sky outside of CmdrTaco's house is not hot fuschia, and CmdrTaco would (hypothetically speaking) be talking out his ass.
The bottom line here is -- I don't think it matters all that much. Go ahead, post it... people will either tell you you're full of shit, or they'll believe you. IT doesn't matter whether your anonymous or not.
What about anonymous posting? It's entirely possible given that you could *easily* post anonymously to Slashdot by bouncing off an available open proxy, right?
Actually, we have specific reasons why we format certain clients with FAT32. There are compatibility issues with NTFS with an older vertical market application that we use that we can no longer get updates for because the company that makes the product is now out of business -- nonetheless, the software is critical to our day-to-day operations.
Only clients that use this particular software have FAT32 -- everyone else gets NTFS.
Not to add fuel to the fire, but you are right. You can format and install XP Pro (corporate edition) on an up-to 32 GB FAT32 partition. AFAIK, there is no way to make XP support an *over* 32 GB partition due to inherent limitations in the FAT32 format. I'm a sysadmin, and I've installed 32GB FAT32 partitions using XP setup *all day long* on many many machines and have had no problems whatso
;) on a friends machine and it would absolutely not let me format her 20 GB drive as FAT32, only as NTFS, during install.
That being said, to bring validity to the OTHER side of the story, I was installing XP Pro (also corporate edition
That being said, I have no explanation for why it didn't work. If I formatted the drive using fdisk and format from a Win98 boot disk, it seemed to work, but the drive later had errors. I have no explanation for this either. It could be a hardware compatibility issue, or it could be anything.
The machines at work were all ASUS Pentium 4 motherboards, while my friend's machine was an Elitegroup Athlon motherboard with SiS 735 chipset. Could it be due to compatibility problems with the SiS 735 chipset? I don't know. After banging my head against the wall for a few days, I said "screw it" and got her a different motherboard with a VIA KT400 chipset and had no problems whatsoever. What's really strange is that I have machine here with the same Elitegroup motherboard running the same SiS 735 chipset that has 20 GB hard drive in it that was formatted with FAT32 during install *with no problem at all*. Again, I have no explanation for any of the above, I'm as baffled by it as you probably are while reading this, but I swear it is the truth.
*shrug*
Fry's is rather regional to the American Southwest and Northern California. There are no Fry's anywhere else in the country, like for instance, where I am (Michigan). So no. I think I might have drove past one in San Francisco when I was there a couple of years ago.
For some reason, I don't think it's a good idea for 'palm' and 'wrist' to be in same sentence on Slashdot. Not sure why....
Dude? You buy your Dorito's at a hardware store????
Very informative. You should get modded up for that. (Hint).
;)
We are definitely not allowed to cut and paste proprietary code into any open source projects (or vice versa!). There is an IBM committee who can and do approve the release of IBM proprietary or patented technology, like RCU.
So an IBM committee approved the release of RCU, which they got from Sequent. My guess is any such committee at IBM would include technical managers, executives, and also, more importantly, at least one representative from IBM's legal department, particularly attorneys with expertise in IP.
So likely IBM *already knows* they are in the clear on RCU and are prepared to back that claim up. Either that or we'll be seeing a press release from IBM about how some of their legal staff were recently fired for incompetency.
OF course SCO isn't claiming copyright infringement, they're claiming trade secret infringement. They know that a copyright claim is VERY shaky, otherwise they wouldn't go after the trade secret claim. They can't very well claim that software that they didn't originate is a trade secret, particularly when the software came from a *competitor*.
Crack. I'm telling you. They're on crack. Why won't anyone believe me?
The suit also adds illegal export issues stemming from the worldwide availability of open-source software. SCO claims IBM has breached its contract by making multiprocessor operating system technology available "for free distribution to anyone in the world," including residents of Cuba, Iran, Syria, North Korea and Libya, countries to which the United States controls exports. The open-source technology IBM released "can be used for encryption, scientific research and weapons research," the suit said.
Um, who gave Alan Cox the SMP motherboard that he and NOT IBM (who had nothing to do with SMP being in Linux in the first place) used to develop SMP technology in Linux 2.0? Oh right, it was SCO. Hmmmm...
Well, my understanding of the particulars of the USL/Novell v. UC/BSD case isn't as good as it might be; but my understanding is that where Novell and USL were shot down was in their claims of trade secret infringement. Some copyright violation was found, requiring a small amount of code change within BSD to be necessary. In other words, I thought the message of that case was that the SysV code was effectively unencumbered with trade secret issues; but copyrights could still be violated. Is that not correct?
You're right... Except SCO isn't going after *copyright* infringement. They're going after *trade secret* infringement and breach of contract.
Another read on this is that it looks even more than it did before like an attempt to re-try the Unix Systems Labs vs. BSD case.
....conspiracy? they changed their name to SCO Group to reflect their main source of revenue, which apparently is everyone who makes an operating system that comes after Unix. :)
Yeah, and USL lost on that one. IBM's SysV license comes from AT&T, it did not originate from SCO. So IBM had the license with USL, and then later Novell, and then later SCO, and then later Caldera, and then later SCO.
Okay. So if USL lost, then the precedence has already been set -- USL didn't have rights to derivative works as ruled by the courts, so neither does SCO, because SCO has the same rights USL had, presumably. The OSI position paper covers this.
Yeah, so SCO even in your scenario, is STILL on crack and they STILL aren't sharing.
Also, tinfoil hat mode, Look at Sontag's quote:
We believe that UNIX System V provided the basic building blocks for all Subsequent Computer Operating systems, and that they all tend to be derived from UNIX System V (and therefore are claimed as SCO's intellectual property).
Hmmmmm
Um, IBM didn't make Linux freely available. Linus Torvalds did. They contributed to the code, but they didn't contribute the SMP code. THey contributed the RCU thing which helps with SMP, but the SMP code itself was already in there, and hence, if anyone is liable for SMP code being in there it's Alan Cox -- and he's in the U.K. and can't be held liable for U.S. export laws.
;)
SCO is high. That's the only explanation here.