So while your Swedish, or whatever your second language is, is flawless, you're not smart enough to extract the information from what I wrote?
The best way to spot idiots on slashdot is to look for people who complain about spelling and grammar in posts by "non-natives", but never feel they have anything worthwhile to comment on the contents of the same.
While I think you're correct that there has been a lot of 'bad' or 'uninformed' complaints, I know that there have been some informed too, especially concerning Jonathan Cohen.
One thing that indicates that the SEC is doing something (whatever scope) is that SCO has been late with some documents concerning the Bayster/Royce-deal. The contract says that they only to SCO non-damaging way for them to be late with this particular filing is during a SEC investigation. Someone else should post the details since I'm a little fuzzy on those...
Yes, Center7 via Canopy gave licenses away for PR. I'd guess. The interesting thing is; Does this pierce the corporate veil, if CA Center7 -> Canopy -> SCO where now somehow CA are SCO-customers? That's what I want to know.
That is, if SCO goes under with debt, then Canopy should have to open their coffers for IBM/RedHat/et.al.
An SEC staff member told NewsForge that complaints and tips about suspected under-the-table funding, stock-kiting, illegal insider trading, and money-laundering involving Microsoft or Microsoft-connected individuals to the financially struggling SCO Group have been coming into the agency with regularity since last August.Newsforge
The "problem" is that microsoft SP/patches aren't patches, they're archives of files to replace/delete.
That's a good and "safe" default, but someone with MS resources ought to be able to buy RTPa... I mean, innovate a real patch framework. Especially with Windows Update. MS just needs to 'diff' the major versions. If a file to be updated doesn't hash to one in that set, replace it fully.
>[...] but that's not what milspec crypto means. All it does mean is that the military have judged that it is sufficiently difficult to break to suit their purposes.
There's no such thing as 'military level encryption'. It's snakeoil peddler code for "we don't know what we're talking about".
>All "impossible" has ever meant in any context is "technologically/economically unfeasable at the present time".
That's not what it said, it said "encryption [that] can't be copied or broken". Broken has a specific meaning in cryptography. "Copied" I assume allures to some tamper-proofing, but that's just that "proof". Tamper-proofs are broken all the time.
There are some software titles that just -need- to be ported to linux, do to lack of OSS alternatives. The Macromedia MX line of tools is -definately- one of those.
Why? It's horrible for website navigation and it's pitiful for games.
Not trolling, I just don't get Flash. The only good thing about it is all the flash ads that I don't have to see or even download since I don't run flash.
I disregard costs from PR, packaging and support since they're removed from the actual development. Adding the different executables to the media you're already going to distribute anyway isn't an additional cost the way I see it, and if that's too complicated, just release the executable on the internet. (just don't go Bioware and put all the game resources in some 'Win32-container' and it'll be fine)
Testing? Well, I guess if your worldview is that 'thorough testing' as an expense, then yes, you're not getting it:-)
(I'm simplifying somewhat, but I still stand by my core point; multiplatform development is only more expensive if you're discounting the benefits of the process)
The problem isn't lack of respect for Linux, it's that there isn't enough of a base to be reasonably successful in that market.
I'm going to continue to claim that it's because most game developers (studios) aren't serious about writing solid code. If you write solid portable code from the beginning, there's no additional cost to releasing on multiple platforms, and you get development benefits (better code; less bugs, higher maintainability, better reuse).
[...] but my favorite is the ability to carry dual assault rifles.
I'm guessing this is like in every other game, you still aim them together?
I was thinking that it would be interesting to experiment with individual aim for dual-weapons. You could have 'hold RMB and move mouse to aim second gun' (would subsume looking around) and 'hold RMB and press LMB' to fire.
But it guess it would be odd to controll one weapon as "an arm" and the other like usual (that is "where you look you fire"), so then you'd have to do the same but in reverse for the "left" gun, which I'm sure few gamers would like. Maybe for an option...
Stowell of course is just trying to spin it favourable for SCO. Stowell and McBride are well known liars in my opinion, so why would we trust them?
But forget that, here's another and possibly better SCO story:
"That's what pushed EV1Servers, one of SCO's first Linux licensees, to pay up. At a press conference announcing the deal, reporters asked chief Robert Marsh whether he'll demand a refund should SCO lose its Linux cases.
McBride jumped in: "You don't call up your auto insurance company and say, 'Hey, I didn't get in a car wreck.'" -- Yahoo
Note the word 'insurance'. McBride basically is admitting to racketeering!
I'll bet this will come back to haunt him in court filings in the future.
This was removed by SCO from the final court filing against Daimler:
"(C)ertain of plaintiff's copyrighted software code has been materially or exactly copied by Linus Torvalds and/or others for inclusion into one or more distributions of Linux with the copyright management information intentionally removed." -- news.com.com
[...] exactly how would ESR go about doing that, hmm?
Ask for more documents. Forging a few Kb can be done, but as you approach 20, 100, 200KB... that's another story.
If the source is real, would he not have access to more? Surely he would. He could quickly supply a couple of more documents and pass them on from an IP in the SCO-block.
This would greatly increase the likelihood of the source being legit, but of course it would not directly settle the question of his/hers motivations.
I see myself as a sceptic, but on the other hand...
>Patenting IPX? give me a break.
Would you categorize this as more or less preposterous compared to the statements "There are millions of literal lines of System V copied into linux" and "We own the UNIX operating system"?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure this exact thing is why almost everyone was against the new licensing when it was announced.
Can't come as a suprise.
So while your Swedish, or whatever your second language is, is flawless, you're not smart enough to extract the information from what I wrote?
The best way to spot idiots on slashdot is to look for people who complain about spelling and grammar in posts by "non-natives", but never feel they have anything worthwhile to comment on the contents of the same.
"If you have an agreement that calls for certain aspects to be protected, then you would hope that that would be respected."
SCO are already claiming IBM leaked the Halloween X e-mail. I'm guessing this is their great plan for.. LOOK AT THE WOOKIE!
While I think you're correct that there has been a lot of 'bad' or 'uninformed' complaints, I know that there have been some informed too, especially concerning Jonathan Cohen.
One thing that indicates that the SEC is doing something (whatever scope) is that SCO has been late with some documents concerning the Bayster/Royce-deal. The contract says that they only to SCO non-damaging way for them to be late with this particular filing is during a SEC investigation. Someone else should post the details since I'm a little fuzzy on those...
Yes, Center7 via Canopy gave licenses away for PR. I'd guess. The interesting thing is; Does this pierce the corporate veil, if CA Center7 -> Canopy -> SCO where now somehow CA are SCO-customers? That's what I want to know.
That is, if SCO goes under with debt, then Canopy should have to open their coffers for IBM/RedHat/et.al.
An SEC staff member told NewsForge that complaints and tips about suspected under-the-table funding, stock-kiting, illegal insider trading, and money-laundering involving Microsoft or Microsoft-connected individuals to the financially struggling SCO Group have been coming into the agency with regularity since last August. Newsforge
Good game. Reminds me of Zaxxon, both of which were some of the first games I ever played.
Ah... Barbarian, Commando Libya, both sources of moral panic at the time. There's also that old game... what was its name.. General Custer?
> Of course it's unethical, but you name one business that hasn't done something unethical for the sake of their company.
Why, that's easy... SCO!
They wouldn't do anything unethical because they have these rules, you know.
The "problem" is that microsoft SP/patches aren't patches, they're archives of files to replace/delete.
That's a good and "safe" default, but someone with MS resources ought to be able to buy RTPa... I mean, innovate a real patch framework. Especially with Windows Update. MS just needs to 'diff' the major versions. If a file to be updated doesn't hash to one in that set, replace it fully.
>[...] but that's not what milspec crypto means. All it does mean is that the military have judged that it is sufficiently difficult to break to suit their purposes.
There's no such thing as 'military level encryption'. It's snakeoil peddler code for "we don't know what we're talking about".
>All "impossible" has ever meant in any context is "technologically/economically unfeasable at the present time".
That's not what it said, it said "encryption [that] can't be copied or broken". Broken has a specific meaning in cryptography. "Copied" I assume allures to some tamper-proofing, but that's just that "proof". Tamper-proofs are broken all the time.
Cypak says the card's encryption can't be copied or broken, enabling it to deliver "military-class security."
sigh.
While I'm at it, I'll make sure all future communication is ASCII.
On the web? Glad to have you on my side.
"oh, how wonderful it would be if the net were truly a multimedia platform,"
The net? You mean the web?
Obviously we live in different worlds, because this isn't a sentiment I share, nor can remember anyone saying.
There are some software titles that just -need- to be ported to linux, do to lack of OSS alternatives. The Macromedia MX line of tools is -definately- one of those.
Why? It's horrible for website navigation and it's pitiful for games.
Not trolling, I just don't get Flash. The only good thing about it is all the flash ads that I don't have to see or even download since I don't run flash.
I disregard costs from PR, packaging and support since they're removed from the actual development. Adding the different executables to the media you're already going to distribute anyway isn't an additional cost the way I see it, and if that's too complicated, just release the executable on the internet. (just don't go Bioware and put all the game resources in some 'Win32-container' and it'll be fine)
Testing? Well, I guess if your worldview is that 'thorough testing' as an expense, then yes, you're not getting it :-)
(I'm simplifying somewhat, but I still stand by my core point; multiplatform development is only more expensive if you're discounting the benefits of the process)
The problem isn't lack of respect for Linux, it's that there isn't enough of a base to be reasonably successful in that market.
I'm going to continue to claim that it's because most game developers (studios) aren't serious about writing solid code. If you write solid portable code from the beginning, there's no additional cost to releasing on multiple platforms, and you get development benefits (better code; less bugs, higher maintainability, better reuse).
In short, games should target SDL as the backend.
[...] but my favorite is the ability to carry dual assault rifles.
I'm guessing this is like in every other game, you still aim them together?
I was thinking that it would be interesting to experiment with individual aim for dual-weapons. You could have 'hold RMB and move mouse to aim second gun' (would subsume looking around) and 'hold RMB and press LMB' to fire.
But it guess it would be odd to controll one weapon as "an arm" and the other like usual (that is "where you look you fire"), so then you'd have to do the same but in reverse for the "left" gun, which I'm sure few gamers would like. Maybe for an option...
Just a thought.
Yes, ESR gets the math wrong.
Stowell of course is just trying to spin it favourable for SCO. Stowell and McBride are well known liars in my opinion, so why would we trust them?
But forget that, here's another and possibly better SCO story:
Note the word 'insurance'. McBride basically is admitting to racketeering!
I'll bet this will come back to haunt him in court filings in the future.
There's nothing mysterious here. SCO is simply "saying" that they aquired 7-figures worth of PR from the deal.
It's only (oh, well) EV1's Mar[s|c]h who's not smart enough to separate SCO-speak from literal-speak.
My guess is that the monetary sum is between $10K and $50K.
"Blake Stowell, SCO's director of communications, acknowledged that the leaked memo is real." -- eweek
So it's like role-playing but without [most of] the creativity?
This was removed by SCO from the final court filing against Daimler:
"(C)ertain of plaintiff's copyrighted software code has been materially or exactly copied by Linus Torvalds and/or others for inclusion into one or more distributions of Linux with the copyright management information intentionally removed." -- news.com.com
CHICKEN!
[...] exactly how would ESR go about doing that, hmm?
Ask for more documents. Forging a few Kb can be done, but as you approach 20, 100, 200KB... that's another story.If the source is real, would he not have access to more? Surely he would. He could quickly supply a couple of more documents and pass them on from an IP in the SCO-block.
This would greatly increase the likelihood of the source being legit, but of course it would not directly settle the question of his/hers motivations.
I see myself as a sceptic, but on the other hand...
>Patenting IPX? give me a break.
Would you categorize this as more or less preposterous compared to the statements "There are millions of literal lines of System V copied into linux" and "We own the UNIX operating system"?
Just imagine a "If this is true then;" in front of every post. That's what the rest of us do.