Realistically, this is only true if the stupid windows user adds himself to the admins group (or signs in as administrator)
Except that you are wrong. The user that is created when you first launch Windows XP always has administrative privileges by default. So, a "stupid windows user" actually has to remove himself from administrators group and set up a separate account with more limited privileges, and then always use that account. I don't know anybody who has done this, or even is aware that there are more security risks if they don't.
Besides, most windows users (and even many apps written for them) still view a Windows box as a single-user system. i.e., when I use Linux, I can't arbitrarily store my files outside of my home directory without becoming root or another user. In contrast, most Windows users that I know, store their files all over the place under C:\, D:\ or whatever.
I'm not sure, if even MS decided to take administrative rights away from the default user, how many apps that would break or not be able to run under that user at all due to lack of privileges to read/write outside your home directory. Maybe, by the time Longhorn comes around, I am guessing, it won't be as much of an issue.
Windows 2000 and XP give you all the power you need to not make your daily-logon account an admin by default.
I don't know how many are running Win2K, but, again, XP default user has administrative privileges. You retract a little from your previous statement - yes, XP gives you "power" to create a user with less rights, but how many Sixpacks do it? I don't know of any.
It's the largest display you can get on a Dell notebook
Ahh, makes sense - confirming that people (or at least I) pay closer attention to the beginning of sentences/phrases and possibly ignoring the endings.
Still, I am guessing 17" would have been a better offer at that price, considering that you get a much larger display especially for the games that offer widescreen support. It's not as portable but you would be getting a better deal.
Wide-Aspect 15.4" UltraSharpTM WUXGA LCD, the largest available notebook display size... [emphasis mine]
Is a bold faced lie. Apple, Toshiba, HP, and many others make wide-screen 17" display laptops. I don't know what their respective resolutions are, but as far as display size, 15.4" is not even close to "the largest."
I agree. Remember, at the trial MS argued that opening or showing parts of Windows source code would be a threat to national security. Not long after that, they gave their source code to Russia, China, and many multi-national corporations and other organizations as part of their Shared Source initiative. Now, don't know where the source was leaked from, but 1 + 1 = ?
If in fact, this story is true, MS is riding against the wind here. It is feeling pressure from the Open Source while its security, software, and business models are based on keeping the source secret. If so, how long can they keep up?
Absolutely. Just like the X Window System has been for so many years now. The term "window[s]" was and still is generic to software, like if you are in the window cleaning business, the word "glass" is generic and cannot be trademarked.
Yeah, I know, how can an organisation trademark a word that's a common noun?
People do it every day...
Apple [snipped rest]
Apple is allowed a trademark in the computer and software industry. You'd better believe that if they were actually selling apples they wouldn't be able to use that as their trademark.
This has been discussed in previous/. stories as well. Yes, you can use a generic word as a trademark as long as it is not generic to your limited use of that mark in your industry.
The term "windows" was and still is generic to software industry - therefore, it cannot be used as a trademark with regards to software; like an apple salesman cannot trademark "apple" and then start suing everyone who advertises that they sell apples too.
How many times can you tell people never to open attachments until you just give up and accept that a certain casualty rate is to be expected?
How can you blame users for opening attachments or expect them not to? People regularly attach stuff to their e-mails that cannot be embedded inline, like spreadsheet reports, images, word processing documents, etc., etc. Given that a worm e-mail is likely to come from a source you know and "trust" like your friends or co-workers asking the recipient to look at the attachment, it is natural to expect that significant number of users will try to open the attachment.
How about asking Microsoft to not let its mail clients execute attachments? Given there are no execute permissions on Windows filesystems, when the mail client is asked to open an executable attachment, it should ask the user to save the file while displaying a visible warning that file being saved is an executable and running it may not be safe.
They definitely spent more time on TOS than creating "original works" from public domain pictures from 19th century claiming copyright.
If you read the "ORIGINALITY" section they claim it requires artistic and original skills to scan the images and save them as JPEGs; not only that, but in the process, an original piece of art is created (a requirement for copyright). Therefore, even though the original images are 19th century and public domain, they are holding copyright on their scans. By agreeing to their TOS, you agree that that's the case.
I don't see how scanning public domain pictures calling them your own qualifies as an original work. It qualifies for extortion though:
- get hold of a rare public domain document/picture/book/etc. - scan it and save scans as JPEGs/PDFs/whatever; - lock the original public domain work in a safe; - you've got a brand new never-expiring copyright and you didn't even have to produce anything! - sell the art and PROFIT!!!
can we then as folks who have contributed code to GNU and Linux and all the GPL'd goodies not seek damages from SCO in a class action suit for their violations of the GPL?
Well, IANAL, but you cannot technically sue anyone for violating GPL - since nobody is required to accept the license. However, since GPL is the only way SCO could distribute Linux, and they have not complied with it, then they are in direct and clear copyright violation.
What's more, SCO continues to sell Linux and derivative works that they have no right to distribute. And they are doing this for their own financial gain. This amounts to a criminal as well as civil copyright violations as far as I am aware. There is a better write-up on groklaw on this of course.
It was the same with DeCSS, it will be the same here. Everyone thinks they know what the result will be because they can't imagine the other side will pull something out of their hat, and they all have their own opinion about how the law should work.
Except that SCO doesn't know exactly what they are doing themselves. Of a high importance, as other posters and groklaw pointed out, is that SCO has dropped the trade secret allegation from their lawsuit. This is, or rather was, one of the biggest parts of their lawsuit. Besides, the copyright claims they added are in regards to AIX, not Linux.
Remember, SCO has also argued they may have a problem disclosing what source code has been copied because their trade secrets were going to be violated. Now, they have switched their tune to - we need IBM to give us the source code of everything they have ever written so we can find out if and what they copied.
IANAL, but what I gather from groklaw summary is that judge ordered SCO to produce evidence, so IBM could reply to their claims. If SCO cannot provide any evidence, then judge cannot order IBM to give SCO source code to all their software.
Besides, IBM pointed out that its contributions to Linux kernel are a matter of looking up publicly available records, and it cannot be unnecessarily burdened to produce the same evidence that is already available in public. However, I cannot discern what SCO's logical response to that was. They had none in the groklaw summary.
Anyway, it seems like the judge will issue a strict order to SCO to comply, giving them 2-4 additional weeks. I somehow don't understand - was the previous court order not a strict one?
I totally agree. I couldn't read the article (/.ed), but read someone's repost and assuming it was correct, the review is not really a review! I installed KDE 3.2 overnight and here are the things I noticed that you may not get out of a paraphrased changelog.
First of all, let me say, it's a wonderful upgrade - plastik is nice, Konqueror is faster and better, KDE itself is much faster, Kontact, KDevelop, etc, etc. So, if you want the latest and greatest definitely upgrade. Having said that, here are the few things I noticed:
1. Automatic spell checking in Konqueror (or KHTML?). This is a nice addition. When you misspell in textboxes it hightlights the word(s) in red./. doesn't need a spell checker after all; who knew?
2. When you increase/decrease volume or mute/un-mute from your keyboard (assuming you own one that can), it gives you a quick feedback on screen. Before it was a blind guess at what percentage the volume was on.
3. Konqueror has domain-specific plug-in permissions. No more annoying forced flash ads from some websites. Although I'll admit I'd like to see the same for images, like in Mozilla.
4. I didn't like KGoldrunner at all. First of all, the default mouse controls are confusing and not natural. Yes, you can switch to keyboard mode but even keyboard controls are clumsy. Then again, xscavenger has been around for awhile, it has better graphics and more natural and better keyboard controls. IMO, overall, xscavenger is a better game. KGoldrunner needs improvement.
5. I don't know what all the fuss around KGpg, JuK, Wireless network module, and slideshow background is all about. These applications/functionalities have been available in earlier versions of KDE as well.
6. Previously Kate editor had both modern and classic styles available. I can't seem to find this in the new one. I liked the classic style with the file selector on the side as a separate window (always on top); it seems like it's impossible to accomplish the same with the new Kate. I'll be evaluating Quanta and KDevelop more closely.
7. Konqueror starts extremely quickly even without preloading an instance at KDE startup.
8. Screensaver configuration is finally fully compliant to xscreensaver. And everything works too! Thank you, KDE team! This has been working in GNOME well for awhile but some screensavers were not listed in KDE and/or you were not able to configure some of them.
Anyway, there's a lot of new stuff and someone with more time needs to (and probably will) review KDE 3.2 and report with findings.
This is a public forum that most people in the word (with a computer) have acccess to.
Same goes to *.advocacy newsgroups. Maybe CNN, ABC, BBC, and everybody else should consider basing "facts" in their articles on comments made in those newsgroups? I hope not!
This site is a probably the only good resource to get an idea of linux-advocate attitudes.
I don't think so - although popular, it's just a discussion board; there are thousands of others like it, not only advocating Linux, but others doing the same for Windows, OS X, etc. I'd like to see BBC take comments made in those discussions (if that's what they did with/.) and base their "factual" or accusatory claims on them. That's called flaming, I think.
There is nothing wrong with joking but a little professional consideration wouldn't hurt.
That's another point. People are joking/trolling/flaming/etc. for crying out loud - it's a discussion thread; they do it in almost every discussion thread! If you want a more serious view, check out FSF's reply, or the letter on groklaw.net./. comments are not the place to come for your newsflashes or opinion columns for BBC (unless you are discussing "what's funny for geeks" or something).
If BBC is taking +5 Funny comments on/. as basis for their articles, maybe next they can tell us how Britney Spears is growing hair on her back. Or how about check out all the *.advocacy newsgroups and report back with the latest fresh theories!
By the way, BBC kindly replied to my feedback stating that
'Stephen Evan's weekly "stateside" column is not a news story' and this whole thing we are discussing 'was not the point of Stephen's article, somehow running that as an excuse for gross factual misstatements that were claimed; and leaving those corrections unanswered.
Unfounded claim my ass. Slashdot has a field day every time there's a juicy update for SCO.
A little bit of reality check here: you are comparing/. comments to a BBC article and expect them to follow the same journalistic integrity?/. is a discussion board; it's NOT journalism, it's NOT news reporting or anything similar. BBC is a respected news source with top-notch journalists that many organizations and people around the world follow and listen to. They have a much higher standard to follow in their news reporting; like checking important obvious publicly available facts before publishing something that stupid.
Now you've got the media turning its guns against you. Well gee. It was worth it to get that +5 Funny, mmm?
Next, maybe BBC should check out *.advocacy.* newsgroups - it could have a lot of guns to turn in a lot of different directions. The BBC article in question qualifies for one of those groups anyway - I just didn't know BBC lowered its bar to the standard (or lack thereof) of online discussion boards.
Someone check that guy's bank account for wire transfers from SCO (or MS). It's so full of FUD and wrong facts, you may officially want to put BBC on your tabloid list. Some examples:
The MyDoom virus represents a new level of sophistication in attacks on company websites. It is also a new front in a war waged by those who want to preserve the open-source Linux operating system.
And how does attacking SCO accomplish the "preservation" of Linux? Where is the logic here?
It has attacked a company based in Utah called SCO, bringing down its website with a barrage of emails sent from countless computers into which the worm had been insinuated, unbeknownst to the users.
SCO's website didn't go down because of "emails sent from countless computers," it went down because of a distributed DoS attack (reportedly). The guy has no idea what he is talking about and/or is lying on purpose.
If anyone's anger has no measure, it is the wrath of internet zealots who believe that code should be free to all (open source).
So, it seems likely that the perpetrators of the MyDoom virus and its variants are internet vandals with a specific grudge.
If anyone's actions have no measure, it is the greedy executives of a loser corporation that are trying to execute an illegal "pump and dump" scheme while trying to extort money from others.
So, it seems likely that the perpetrators of the MyDoom virus and its variants are corporate vandals with specific agenda to display themselves as victims of an "injustice" to portray their case more believable in the short term.
Despite the law-suits against users by SCO... Meanwhile the court dispute between SCO and Linux users (rather than the cyberspace war between SCO and the hackers) is scheduled for next year in a court in Utah.
Which court case is he talking about? Which "Linux users" did SCO sue in Utah? All "Linux users?" Now I am convinced the guy is lying. I didn't think you could be this dumb and employed at BBC.
I always love to read kernel changelogs. They are always really long and a great way to visualize just how much work is being done on linux all the time. The problem is, that while they are fun to read, they are not particularly informative to the average joe.
Yes, but consider that compiling and installing Linux kernels is not average Joes like installing Winamp is. Kernel compiles and updates are for power users and developers, and they do prefer more detailed information. Average Joes should wait until their distros support the new kernel and advertize its features when deciding whether to upgrade.
Except that 2.0.xx kernel is still getting updated with security patches and bug fixes, thanks to David; while Windows 95 is not secure, and any existing or future vulnerabilities, bugs, leaks, data loss, etc. will not be fixed by Microsoft.
On an unrelated note, David says:
Then I had a hard-disk crash in January (yes, an IBM DeathStar, of course... Heed my advice, never buy one!). While I had backups and of most of my stuff, I didn't have a backup of my latest kernel-tree...
Those DeathStars are nothing but trouble. Mine would freeze the system every once in a while (with the HD activity light on), refuse to boot and make funny noises. Looking back, it looks like ReiserFS saved my data quite a few times before I installed a new Barracuda. 0 problems since. Maybe he could port ReiserFS to 2.0? Not that I see any reason to do so.
there are two big "Download Now" buttons on this site. both lead to the non-free premium player. in the margin on the right, with grey text over a grey background, there is a link to the free player.
that is bullshit. i know the free player is there, and that real plays tricks, so i specifically look for it. the average internet user, on the other hand, may not be that aware.
real are still assholes, and i am glad cartalk is moving away from their format because of their shitty tactics.
Wait... as opposed to what? I go to microsoft.com and it tells me I need either Windows or Solaris to use media player? I still prefer real.
You realistically have the choice of poeple who voted and/or supported the Patriot Act (Kerry, Dean, Edwards, Leiberman, i.e. the entire Democratic field) *OR* the guy that actually signed the shit into law, Mr. G.W. Bush. Whutta choice.:/
You have a choice to vote for Dennis Kucinich and encourage others to do so as well. How realistic is that? Not much right now. But he is praised by many green party supporters and has a strict stance against the PATRIOT Act (PDF link).
If SCOX released those into linux under the GPL (and they did,) then they cannot go after *anyone* (including Unix licensees) for using a version of linux with those files without violating the GPL. Additionally, if *they* distribute a version of linux which contains those files (and they do) they are in violation of the copyright of every other contributer to any such linux distribution that they are distributing.
That's what I have been saying for some time now. Two further points:
First, even if it's true that the code in dispute got into Linux "by accident," and given that SCO is not willing to license them under GPL, SCO still has no right to distribute the rest of Linux and derivative works that it is not disputing the ownership of. i.e., if SCO has a dispute and it cannot comply with the GPL, it does not have any other permission to distribute Linux; so it should have ceased right away.
Second, if SCO finds IBM, SGI, or anybody else that has violated their contracts and copyrights, it's an issue between SCO and those parties. A judge could determine the amount of damages to award to SCO and issue a further injunction to remove the disputed part from all future Linux releases after a reasonable date. When I buy a book containing a collection of short stories I am not worried whether the publisher has violated copyrights of some or all of the stories, and that I would have to pay additional fees to original copyright owners. That's just not how copyright works. That's how SCO's FUD engine works though.
now if this was the list of the most unethical companies.....
But people don't know. Just this morning Darl was interviewed on CNN where he painted the picture that those "Linux hackers" are attacking his business. Then he was asked a question about SCO's reward for leads ($250K) - could it be that the "bad guy" could turn someone in just to get the reward?
Darl's answer was - yeah, potentially... that's what it has come down to, they can't sell Linux, it's free, so they attack us to get the money.
Not exactly in those words, but same idea. First of all, I don't understand how CNN allowed this kind of interview in the first place; but more importantly, Linux needs more mainstream press (not just tech mainstream) so that all the facts are out there, everyone knows what's going on, and Linux gains even more popularity after the show is over.
I bet that's not what MS would have been counting on when they donated cash to SCO for their lawsuits.
Slashdot Mirror
But most of those usually belong to a separate category called "feature enhancements" or something similar. Ahh... the irony.
Except that you are wrong. The user that is created when you first launch Windows XP always has administrative privileges by default. So, a "stupid windows user" actually has to remove himself from administrators group and set up a separate account with more limited privileges, and then always use that account. I don't know anybody who has done this, or even is aware that there are more security risks if they don't.
Besides, most windows users (and even many apps written for them) still view a Windows box as a single-user system. i.e., when I use Linux, I can't arbitrarily store my files outside of my home directory without becoming root or another user. In contrast, most Windows users that I know, store their files all over the place under C:\, D:\ or whatever.
I'm not sure, if even MS decided to take administrative rights away from the default user, how many apps that would break or not be able to run under that user at all due to lack of privileges to read/write outside your home directory. Maybe, by the time Longhorn comes around, I am guessing, it won't be as much of an issue.
I don't know how many are running Win2K, but, again, XP default user has administrative privileges. You retract a little from your previous statement - yes, XP gives you "power" to create a user with less rights, but how many Sixpacks do it? I don't know of any.
Ahh, makes sense - confirming that people (or at least I) pay closer attention to the beginning of sentences/phrases and possibly ignoring the endings.
Still, I am guessing 17" would have been a better offer at that price, considering that you get a much larger display especially for the games that offer widescreen support. It's not as portable but you would be getting a better deal.
Wide-Aspect 15.4" UltraSharpTM WUXGA LCD, the largest available notebook display size ...
[emphasis mine]
Is a bold faced lie. Apple, Toshiba, HP, and many others make wide-screen 17" display laptops. I don't know what their respective resolutions are, but as far as display size, 15.4" is not even close to "the largest."
You mean like:
// my javascript here
<html>
<head>
<script type="text/javascript">
</script>
<script type="text/vbscript">
' my vbscript here
</script>
</head>
</html>
This has been an HTML standard for how long? USPTO scares me.
Like a significant part of BSD code that many systems share? Maybe MS is/was just testing waters with SCO.
I agree. Remember, at the trial MS argued that opening or showing parts of Windows source code would be a threat to national security. Not long after that, they gave their source code to Russia, China, and many multi-national corporations and other organizations as part of their Shared Source initiative. Now, don't know where the source was leaked from, but 1 + 1 = ?
If in fact, this story is true, MS is riding against the wind here. It is feeling pressure from the Open Source while its security, software, and business models are based on keeping the source secret. If so, how long can they keep up?
Absolutely. Just like the X Window System has been for so many years now. The term "window[s]" was and still is generic to software, like if you are in the window cleaning business, the word "glass" is generic and cannot be trademarked.
Apple is allowed a trademark in the computer and software industry. You'd better believe that if they were actually selling apples they wouldn't be able to use that as their trademark.
This has been discussed in previous
The term "windows" was and still is generic to software industry - therefore, it cannot be used as a trademark with regards to software; like an apple salesman cannot trademark "apple" and then start suing everyone who advertises that they sell apples too.
How can you blame users for opening attachments or expect them not to? People regularly attach stuff to their e-mails that cannot be embedded inline, like spreadsheet reports, images, word processing documents, etc., etc. Given that a worm e-mail is likely to come from a source you know and "trust" like your friends or co-workers asking the recipient to look at the attachment, it is natural to expect that significant number of users will try to open the attachment.
How about asking Microsoft to not let its mail clients execute attachments? Given there are no execute permissions on Windows filesystems, when the mail client is asked to open an executable attachment, it should ask the user to save the file while displaying a visible warning that file being saved is an executable and running it may not be safe.
They definitely spent more time on TOS than creating "original works" from public domain pictures from 19th century claiming copyright.
If you read the "ORIGINALITY" section they claim it requires artistic and original skills to scan the images and save them as JPEGs; not only that, but in the process, an original piece of art is created (a requirement for copyright). Therefore, even though the original images are 19th century and public domain, they are holding copyright on their scans. By agreeing to their TOS, you agree that that's the case.
I don't see how scanning public domain pictures calling them your own qualifies as an original work. It qualifies for extortion though:
- get hold of a rare public domain document/picture/book/etc.
- scan it and save scans as JPEGs/PDFs/whatever;
- lock the original public domain work in a safe;
- you've got a brand new never-expiring copyright and you didn't even have to produce anything!
- sell the art and PROFIT!!!
Actually, it should have read "have been available for earlier versions of KDE as well" to be correct.
Well, IANAL, but you cannot technically sue anyone for violating GPL - since nobody is required to accept the license. However, since GPL is the only way SCO could distribute Linux, and they have not complied with it, then they are in direct and clear copyright violation.
What's more, SCO continues to sell Linux and derivative works that they have no right to distribute. And they are doing this for their own financial gain. This amounts to a criminal as well as civil copyright violations as far as I am aware. There is a better write-up on groklaw on this of course.
Except that SCO doesn't know exactly what they are doing themselves. Of a high importance, as other posters and groklaw pointed out, is that SCO has dropped the trade secret allegation from their lawsuit. This is, or rather was, one of the biggest parts of their lawsuit. Besides, the copyright claims they added are in regards to AIX, not Linux.
Remember, SCO has also argued they may have a problem disclosing what source code has been copied because their trade secrets were going to be violated. Now, they have switched their tune to - we need IBM to give us the source code of everything they have ever written so we can find out if and what they copied.
IANAL, but what I gather from groklaw summary is that judge ordered SCO to produce evidence, so IBM could reply to their claims. If SCO cannot provide any evidence, then judge cannot order IBM to give SCO source code to all their software.
Besides, IBM pointed out that its contributions to Linux kernel are a matter of looking up publicly available records, and it cannot be unnecessarily burdened to produce the same evidence that is already available in public. However, I cannot discern what SCO's logical response to that was. They had none in the groklaw summary.
Anyway, it seems like the judge will issue a strict order to SCO to comply, giving them 2-4 additional weeks. I somehow don't understand - was the previous court order not a strict one?
I totally agree. I couldn't read the article (/.ed), but read someone's repost and assuming it was correct, the review is not really a review! I installed KDE 3.2 overnight and here are the things I noticed that you may not get out of a paraphrased changelog.
/. doesn't need a spell checker after all; who knew?
First of all, let me say, it's a wonderful upgrade - plastik is nice, Konqueror is faster and better, KDE itself is much faster, Kontact, KDevelop, etc, etc. So, if you want the latest and greatest definitely upgrade. Having said that, here are the few things I noticed:
1. Automatic spell checking in Konqueror (or KHTML?). This is a nice addition. When you misspell in textboxes it hightlights the word(s) in red.
2. When you increase/decrease volume or mute/un-mute from your keyboard (assuming you own one that can), it gives you a quick feedback on screen. Before it was a blind guess at what percentage the volume was on.
3. Konqueror has domain-specific plug-in permissions. No more annoying forced flash ads from some websites. Although I'll admit I'd like to see the same for images, like in Mozilla.
4. I didn't like KGoldrunner at all. First of all, the default mouse controls are confusing and not natural. Yes, you can switch to keyboard mode but even keyboard controls are clumsy. Then again, xscavenger has been around for awhile, it has better graphics and more natural and better keyboard controls. IMO, overall, xscavenger is a better game. KGoldrunner needs improvement.
5. I don't know what all the fuss around KGpg, JuK, Wireless network module, and slideshow background is all about. These applications/functionalities have been available in earlier versions of KDE as well.
6. Previously Kate editor had both modern and classic styles available. I can't seem to find this in the new one. I liked the classic style with the file selector on the side as a separate window (always on top); it seems like it's impossible to accomplish the same with the new Kate. I'll be evaluating Quanta and KDevelop more closely.
7. Konqueror starts extremely quickly even without preloading an instance at KDE startup.
8. Screensaver configuration is finally fully compliant to xscreensaver. And everything works too! Thank you, KDE team! This has been working in GNOME well for awhile but some screensavers were not listed in KDE and/or you were not able to configure some of them.
Anyway, there's a lot of new stuff and someone with more time needs to (and probably will) review KDE 3.2 and report with findings.
Same goes to *.advocacy newsgroups. Maybe CNN, ABC, BBC, and everybody else should consider basing "facts" in their articles on comments made in those newsgroups? I hope not!
I don't think so - although popular, it's just a discussion board; there are thousands of others like it, not only advocating Linux, but others doing the same for Windows, OS X, etc. I'd like to see BBC take comments made in those discussions (if that's what they did with
That's another point. People are joking/trolling/flaming/etc. for crying out loud - it's a discussion thread; they do it in almost every discussion thread! If you want a more serious view, check out FSF's reply, or the letter on groklaw.net.
If BBC is taking +5 Funny comments on /. as basis for their articles, maybe next they can tell us how Britney Spears is growing hair on her back. Or how about check out all the *.advocacy newsgroups and report back with the latest fresh theories!
By the way, BBC kindly replied to my feedback stating that
'Stephen Evan's weekly "stateside" column is not a news story' and this whole thing we are discussing 'was not the point of Stephen's article, somehow running that as an excuse for gross factual misstatements that were claimed; and leaving those corrections unanswered.
A little bit of reality check here: you are comparing
Next, maybe BBC should check out *.advocacy.* newsgroups - it could have a lot of guns to turn in a lot of different directions. The BBC article in question qualifies for one of those groups anyway - I just didn't know BBC lowered its bar to the standard (or lack thereof) of online discussion boards.
Someone check that guy's bank account for wire transfers from SCO (or MS). It's so full of FUD and wrong facts, you may officially want to put BBC on your tabloid list. Some examples:
...
The MyDoom virus represents a new level of sophistication in attacks on company websites. It is also a new front in a war waged by those who want to preserve the open-source Linux operating system.
And how does attacking SCO accomplish the "preservation" of Linux? Where is the logic here?
It has attacked a company based in Utah called SCO, bringing down its website with a barrage of emails sent from countless computers into which the worm had been insinuated, unbeknownst to the users.
SCO's website didn't go down because of "emails sent from countless computers," it went down because of a distributed DoS attack (reportedly). The guy has no idea what he is talking about and/or is lying on purpose.
If anyone's anger has no measure, it is the wrath of internet zealots who believe that code should be free to all (open source).
So, it seems likely that the perpetrators of the MyDoom virus and its variants are internet vandals with a specific grudge.
If anyone's actions have no measure, it is the greedy executives of a loser corporation that are trying to execute an illegal "pump and dump" scheme while trying to extort money from others.
So, it seems likely that the perpetrators of the MyDoom virus and its variants are corporate vandals with specific agenda to display themselves as victims of an "injustice" to portray their case more believable in the short term.
Despite the law-suits against users by SCO
Meanwhile the court dispute between SCO and Linux users (rather than the cyberspace war between SCO and the hackers) is scheduled for next year in a court in Utah.
Which court case is he talking about? Which "Linux users" did SCO sue in Utah? All "Linux users?" Now I am convinced the guy is lying. I didn't think you could be this dumb and employed at BBC.
Yes, but consider that compiling and installing Linux kernels is not average Joes like installing Winamp is. Kernel compiles and updates are for power users and developers, and they do prefer more detailed information. Average Joes should wait until their distros support the new kernel and advertize its features when deciding whether to upgrade.
Except that 2.0.xx kernel is still getting updated with security patches and bug fixes, thanks to David; while Windows 95 is not secure, and any existing or future vulnerabilities, bugs, leaks, data loss, etc. will not be fixed by Microsoft.
On an unrelated note, David says:
Then I had a hard-disk crash in January (yes, an IBM DeathStar, of course... Heed my advice, never buy one!). While I had backups and of most of my stuff, I didn't have a backup of my latest kernel-tree
Those DeathStars are nothing but trouble. Mine would freeze the system every once in a while (with the HD activity light on), refuse to boot and make funny noises. Looking back, it looks like ReiserFS saved my data quite a few times before I installed a new Barracuda. 0 problems since. Maybe he could port ReiserFS to 2.0? Not that I see any reason to do so.
Wait... as opposed to what? I go to microsoft.com and it tells me I need either Windows or Solaris to use media player? I still prefer real.
You have a choice to vote for Dennis Kucinich and encourage others to do so as well. How realistic is that? Not much right now. But he is praised by many green party supporters and has a strict stance against the PATRIOT Act (PDF link).
That's what I have been saying for some time now. Two further points:
First, even if it's true that the code in dispute got into Linux "by accident," and given that SCO is not willing to license them under GPL, SCO still has no right to distribute the rest of Linux and derivative works that it is not disputing the ownership of. i.e., if SCO has a dispute and it cannot comply with the GPL, it does not have any other permission to distribute Linux; so it should have ceased right away.
Second, if SCO finds IBM, SGI, or anybody else that has violated their contracts and copyrights, it's an issue between SCO and those parties. A judge could determine the amount of damages to award to SCO and issue a further injunction to remove the disputed part from all future Linux releases after a reasonable date. When I buy a book containing a collection of short stories I am not worried whether the publisher has violated copyrights of some or all of the stories, and that I would have to pay additional fees to original copyright owners. That's just not how copyright works. That's how SCO's FUD engine works though.
But people don't know. Just this morning Darl was interviewed on CNN where he painted the picture that those "Linux hackers" are attacking his business. Then he was asked a question about SCO's reward for leads ($250K) - could it be that the "bad guy" could turn someone in just to get the reward?
Darl's answer was - yeah, potentially... that's what it has come down to, they can't sell Linux, it's free, so they attack us to get the money.
Not exactly in those words, but same idea. First of all, I don't understand how CNN allowed this kind of interview in the first place; but more importantly, Linux needs more mainstream press (not just tech mainstream) so that all the facts are out there, everyone knows what's going on, and Linux gains even more popularity after the show is over.
I bet that's not what MS would have been counting on when they donated cash to SCO for their lawsuits.