Also look into Sun's license fee structure for commercial use. Yeah, Solaris is cheap enough (not quite free beer on x86, but close) for evaluation or some non-commercial uses, but don't forget to count license fees in the rollout budget.
Solaris has some nice management tools for deploying on multiple system, but it isn't that wonderful. (And before anyone asks, I run both Solaris and Linux (mostly the latter) on my home network, and I'm a Sun Certified Solaris Sysadmin, so I'm not grinding a personal axe.)
There was no final judgement, but the judge did issue a written opinion in declining AT&T's request for a preliminary injunction. That's an indication that the judge thought that AT&T didn't have much chance of winning the case.
An indication like that can certainly encourage the plaintiff to see the wisdom of dropping the suit and seeing what kind of settlement they can get.
But "high performance tower computer with 100 MHz CPU" is a descriptive phrase, not a former trademark. (OTOH, you could buy a box of cigars marked "Corona" and not think you're getting parts for a certain model of Toyota.) And see Dennis Ritchies "other UNIX" page for a collection of commercial "UNIX" items that aren't operating systems (hence the use of the mark is allowable).
All Microsoft has to do is claim that their "Windows Unix" certainly has common 'nix features (hierarchical file system, multi-tasking, some degree of POSIX compliance) to beat a deceptive advertising rap. (Hell, nobody has come after them for false advertising for claiming their software does a lot of things that it really sucks at, why should calling it a unix be any different?)
This is getting way overblown due to some bad reporting or some bad reading of the reports.
The issue is not whether the guys that walked can fork the JBoss code -- it's [L]GPL, of course they can -- it's whether they can call the result JBoss.
Assuming JBoss is a trademark (which I believe it is), then they can't, at least not without Fleury's permission. They can call it JPointyHeaded, or JDictator, or JSlavedriver, or even Fred, but not somebody else's trademark.
I think you missed the biggy: the concept that everything (almost) is a file, and (especially) that a file is just a sequence of bytes.
This is probably so "intuitively obvious" and widely copied that today it's about as obvious as water is to a fish, but think back to the OS's of UNIX's early days, particularly mainframe OS's that had a gazillion different file types and access methods and you had to pick the right access method to open the file with. (Kind of like DOS's binary and text files, only worse.)
Some of the other stuff you mention is also significant, but a some of it is rather "Johnny come lately" as far as most of Unix's history goes.
âoeMoving in accordance with the law of nature, it unfolds inexorably in the minds of programmers, assimilating designs to its own nature. All software that would compete with it must become like to it; empty, empty, profoundly empty, perfectly void, hail!.â
Or as Henry Spencer put it: "Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly."
If Unix becomes a generic term, Microsoft could call Windows a Unix (it's bad enough that OS/390 can call itself a UNIX, but at least it passes the certification testing). Unix then becomes a generic term for operating system.
UNIX(R) is a registered trademark of the Open Group.
There is no evidence whatsoever that there was a worldwide flood - and a disaster of that magnitude would leave lots of evidence.
Well, actually, there is and it did. But more like 12,000 (or a bit more) years ago than 5,000. Namely, the rather quick end of the last Ice Age.
Mind, most of the Ice Age coastal areas are still under a couple hundred feet of water.
But yes, most flood legends do seem to arise in river valley civilizations, where the river undergoes seasonal flooding. (It's that seasonal deposit of fresh silt that makes the land so fertile as to encourage civilization there in the first place.)
If the comments are worded the same, that could be pretty convicing evidence.
Yes but evidence of what, exactly?
The most you can say is that it's evidence that both code snippets had the same origin -- but was that origin within UNIX SysV, within Linux, or within some third party's code (BSD, textbook example, etc)?
Just being the same is as much evidence that SCO stole it from Linux as that Linux stole it from SCO.
Coming out of a back room filing cabinet with an amendment that Novell doesn't even have on file sounds like a pretty bizarre circumstance.
It does indeed.
And before anyone says that no company would be so blatant and stupid as to fake evidence, recall a certain videotape that Microsoft presented during its anti-trust trial.
My question is: who signed the amendment for Novell, and where are they now?
AA say that the plane should not allow the pilot to excert that amount of force on the tail mounts, whereas Airbus say that the pilots should never use the rudder in extreme manouvers
If the airspeed indicator was in the green, I'm with AA on this one. Airspeed indicators have a green range, a yellow range, and a red "never exceed" marking. The yellow means roughly "exercise caution, smooth manoeuvers in calm air only" in that speed range, the green means roughly "safe, no control inputs can exert damaging loads at these airspeeds". (And below the green there's the black "you're falling out of the sky through lack of lift" speed range;-)
Those ranges are going to vary some depending on the configuration of the aircraft (flaps, gear, etc).
"What weighs more: a kilogram of bricks or a kilogram of feathers?"
The kilogram of bricks, although the weight difference will be essentially undetectable with current instruments.
Weight is the force of gravity on a mass. g=G*m*M/r^2 (where G is gravitational constant, m is mass of bricks or feathers, M is mass of Earth, and r is distance between the centers of mass of m and M).
Since bricks are more dense than feathers, the center of mass of the bricks will be slightly closer to the center of mass of the Earth than would be the center of mass of the feathers, making r in the above smaller for the bricks, thus g would be bigger.
Now, if you'd asked about a pound of bricks and feathers...;-)
The Atlantis was on the pad being prepped for a launch 30 days later. If Columbia had gone into a low power, extended duration configuration, they could likely have held out that long, and in more comfort than the Apollo 13 crew had.
Taking risk is one thing, but there's an implicit bargain that the ground crew (including management) will do their bit to help out when the shit does (as it inevitably will) hit the fan, not just throw up their hands with an "we're not even going to look for damage because there's nothing we can do anyway". Trying and failing is understandable. Not trying is unforgiveable.
Exactly. Anybody who has driven a car after a snowfall without clearing all the snow off the hood understands this intuitively. (Especially if the snow has frozen into hard chunks that don't come off until you're up to an airspeed of 60 MPH or so...)
John Brunner described this decades earlier than that in either "Stand on Zanzibar" or "Shockwave Rider" (I forget which, I read them both about the same time). He called them geckopads.
This is just a way for Microsoft to keep SCO afloat while they fight out the IBM (and whomever else) lawsuit, without getting the SEC, DOC or DOJ involved (as they would be if Microsoft just tried to buy out SCO). It also gives Microsoft the appearance of being at arm's length in that conflict ("Us? We're just an innocent bystander!").
Finally, should somebody else (IBM, Sun, RedHat, whomever) decide to buy out SCO, MSFT will already have a (perpetual, one assumes) license to the Unix code should they ever decide they need it (versus needing one and having to negotiate for same with IBM or Sun or RedHat, etc.)
In other words, a typical Microsoft strategic move, like a "fork" in chess, that can be played out either way.
Slashdot Mirror
SCOing, SCOing, SCOne!!!
Mmmm, scones!....
Also look into Sun's license fee structure for commercial use. Yeah, Solaris is cheap enough (not quite free beer on x86, but close) for evaluation or some non-commercial uses, but don't forget to count license fees in the rollout budget.
Solaris has some nice management tools for deploying on multiple system, but it isn't that wonderful. (And before anyone asks, I run both Solaris and Linux (mostly the latter) on my home network, and I'm a Sun Certified Solaris Sysadmin, so I'm not grinding a personal axe.)
And there's always *BSD.
There was no final judgement, but the judge did issue a written opinion in declining AT&T's request for a preliminary injunction. That's an indication that the judge thought that AT&T didn't have much chance of winning the case.
An indication like that can certainly encourage the plaintiff to see the wisdom of dropping the suit and seeing what kind of settlement they can get.
But I sound just as silling saying 'blog' as I do 'wiki'.
Yeah, so do I. Which is why I don't say either, and why I chose a less silly word ('cosy') for my ancient text based equivalent.
Not a spokesperson, just another (vaguely Java related) product.
Man, anyone who subscribes to this service really needs to get a life. One of their own, not Christina's.
But "high performance tower computer with 100 MHz CPU" is a descriptive phrase, not a former trademark. (OTOH, you could buy a box of cigars marked "Corona" and not think you're getting parts for a certain model of Toyota.) And see
Dennis Ritchies "other UNIX" page for a collection of commercial "UNIX" items that aren't operating systems (hence the use of the mark is allowable).
All Microsoft has to do is claim that their "Windows Unix" certainly has common 'nix features (hierarchical file system, multi-tasking, some degree of POSIX compliance) to beat a deceptive advertising rap. (Hell, nobody has come after them for false advertising for claiming their software does a lot of things that it really sucks at, why should calling it a unix be any different?)
This is getting way overblown due to some bad reporting or some bad reading of the reports.
The issue is not whether the guys that walked can fork the JBoss code -- it's [L]GPL, of course they can -- it's whether they can call the result JBoss.
Assuming JBoss is a trademark (which I believe it is), then they can't, at least not without Fleury's permission. They can call it JPointyHeaded, or JDictator, or JSlavedriver, or even Fred, but not somebody else's trademark.
(What the hell kind of name is "Darl" anyway? Did they mean to type in "Carl", but slip up?)
I don't know, maybe he was named "Darlene" before the SC operation?
I think you missed the biggy: the concept that everything (almost) is a file, and (especially) that a file is just a sequence of bytes.
This is probably so "intuitively obvious" and widely copied that today it's about as obvious as water is to a fish, but think back to the OS's of UNIX's early days, particularly mainframe OS's that had a gazillion different file types and access methods and you had to pick the right access method to open the file with. (Kind of like DOS's binary and text files, only worse.)
Some of the other stuff you mention is also significant, but a some of it is rather "Johnny come lately" as far as most of Unix's history goes.
âoeMoving in accordance with the law of nature, it unfolds inexorably in the minds of programmers, assimilating designs to its own nature. All software that would compete with it must become like to it; empty, empty, profoundly empty, perfectly void, hail!.â
Or as Henry Spencer put it: "Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly."
Actually that would be rather stupid.
If Unix becomes a generic term, Microsoft could call Windows a Unix (it's bad enough that OS/390 can call itself a UNIX, but at least it passes the certification testing). Unix then becomes a generic term for operating system.
UNIX(R) is a registered trademark of the Open Group.
There is no evidence whatsoever that there was a worldwide flood - and a disaster of that magnitude would leave lots of evidence.
Well, actually, there is and it did. But more like 12,000 (or a bit more) years ago than 5,000. Namely, the rather quick end of the last Ice Age.
Mind, most of the Ice Age coastal areas are still under a couple hundred feet of water.
But yes, most flood legends do seem to arise in river valley civilizations, where the river undergoes seasonal flooding. (It's that seasonal deposit of fresh silt that makes the land so fertile as to encourage civilization there in the first place.)
Right. And cyanide takes its name from the color you turn after you inhale/ingest it.
2 CPU's & massive amounts of memory for example
/proc/version
Piffle. My $79.95 SuSE Pro 8.1 supports at least 2 CPUs and 64 GB memory out of the box.
$cat
Linux version 2.4.19-64GB-SMP (root@SMP_X86.suse.de) (gcc version 3.2) #1 SMP Fri Sep 13 13:15:53 UTC 2002
Not that I have 64 GB of memory installed, but I am running dual CPUs.
Need still:
1) Warp technology - not yet, still working on atom particle engines.
Do a google on "alcubierre". There's a later paper on how to double-bubble the Alcubierre warp but I can't locate a link right now.
2) Universal translator - nope.
Well, there's babelfish... Again, not quite ready for prime time.
Well, yes.
;-)
It's a physics question, right? Assume a spherical cow...
How much jail time did whoever edited the phony videotape evidence in the Microsoft trial serve?
If the comments are worded the same, that could be pretty convicing evidence.
Yes but evidence of what, exactly?
The most you can say is that it's evidence that both code snippets had the same origin -- but was that origin within UNIX SysV, within Linux, or within some third party's code (BSD, textbook example, etc)?
Just being the same is as much evidence that SCO stole it from Linux as that Linux stole it from SCO.
Coming out of a back room filing cabinet with an amendment that Novell doesn't even have on file sounds like a pretty bizarre circumstance.
It does indeed.
And before anyone says that no company would be so blatant and stupid as to fake evidence, recall a certain videotape that Microsoft presented during its anti-trust trial.
My question is: who signed the amendment for Novell, and where are they now?
AA say that the plane should not allow the pilot to excert that amount of force on the tail mounts, whereas Airbus say that the pilots should never use the rudder in extreme manouvers
;-)
If the airspeed indicator was in the green, I'm with AA on this one. Airspeed indicators have a green range, a yellow range, and a red "never exceed" marking. The yellow means roughly "exercise caution, smooth manoeuvers in calm air only" in that speed range, the green means roughly "safe, no control inputs can exert damaging loads at these airspeeds". (And below the green there's the black "you're falling out of the sky through lack of lift" speed range
Those ranges are going to vary some depending on the configuration of the aircraft (flaps, gear, etc).
"What weighs more: a kilogram of bricks or a kilogram of feathers?"
;-)
The kilogram of bricks, although the weight difference will be essentially undetectable with current instruments.
Weight is the force of gravity on a mass. g=G*m*M/r^2 (where G is gravitational constant, m is mass of bricks or feathers, M is mass of Earth, and r is distance between the centers of mass of m and M).
Since bricks are more dense than feathers, the center of mass of the bricks will be slightly closer to the center of mass of the Earth than would be the center of mass of the feathers, making r in the above smaller for the bricks, thus g would be bigger.
Now, if you'd asked about a pound of bricks and feathers...
In the end there wasn't much that could be done
The Atlantis was on the pad being prepped for a launch 30 days later. If Columbia had gone into a low power, extended duration configuration, they could likely have held out that long, and in more comfort than the Apollo 13 crew had.
Taking risk is one thing, but there's an implicit bargain that the ground crew (including management) will do their bit to help out when the shit does (as it inevitably will) hit the fan, not just throw up their hands with an "we're not even going to look for damage because there's nothing we can do anyway". Trying and failing is understandable. Not trying is unforgiveable.
Exactly. Anybody who has driven a car after a snowfall without clearing all the snow off the hood understands this intuitively. (Especially if the snow has frozen into hard chunks that don't come off until you're up to an airspeed of 60 MPH or so...)
John Brunner described this decades earlier than that in either "Stand on Zanzibar" or "Shockwave Rider" (I forget which, I read them both about the same time). He called them geckopads.
This is just a way for Microsoft to keep SCO afloat while they fight out the IBM (and whomever else) lawsuit, without getting the SEC, DOC or DOJ involved (as they would be if Microsoft just tried to buy out SCO). It also gives Microsoft the appearance of being at arm's length in that conflict ("Us? We're just an innocent bystander!").
Finally, should somebody else (IBM, Sun, RedHat, whomever) decide to buy out SCO, MSFT will already have a (perpetual, one assumes) license to the Unix code should they ever decide they need it (versus needing one and having to negotiate for same with IBM or Sun or RedHat, etc.)
In other words, a typical Microsoft strategic move, like a "fork" in chess, that can be played out either way.