. . . what effect this will have on Verizon and who uses it, if any. That's something worth following - if Verizon does indeed suffer loss of customers, etc. that may be a powerful club to motivate other companies NOT to give in to the RIAA.
That is of course, if enough people care to boycott/protest/avoid Verizon . ..
Do I think M$ is going to just engage in marketing? No, I don't. M$ will move with the times - when they can't drive them. They blew off the Web then came back with a vengeance.
So, I expect that the bad of lame and FUD-filled marketing campaigns will be coupled with some attempts to make actual, serious improvements. I don't expect any of them to be that original, but I expect them.
M$, being on the top, doesn't have to try as hard to stay there or react as quickly as others. I'd say they know that.
This isn't just going to affect the big boys. There are companies that make various kinds of useful video-delivery, conferencing, and broadcast software that do the exact same things. Not a big market, but a market nonetheless.
This patent covers what they're doing too. I've seen at least two hardware/software suites designed to create similar functionality on a smaller scale.
If Microsoft gets aggressive, I wonder who they'll go after first ..
As to the patent, I'd say I'm surprised . . . but I'm not surprised.
Are you considering suing Linux users that you notified? Anything is always a possibility. If you are going to enforce your contracts, claims and intellectual property, you have to be able to go to ultimately the endpoint of infringement.
It may just be me, but why does this remind me of the RIAA? I think it's because its a mentality of "let's ignore the fact if we annoy our customers they'll hate us."
It also says nothing. It still feels like an attempt at bullying.
-- You're claiming that Linux has been polluted with Unix code that you own, but you have not produced any evidence of that. Will you? We will actually be providing some of the evidence next month to various industry analysts, respected press people and other industry leaders so that they don't have to take our word for it or wait until we show some of that evidence in court. We will actually be showing the code, and the basis for why we have made the allegations that we have. We are very confident about our case. Because we are dealing with confidential source code that we have never released without confidentiality agreements, we will have to put in place nondisclosures [agreements] simply to protect the source. But people will be able to give their opinion as to what they think.
So they'll only release it to people willing to sign the nondisclosure that will possibly restrict what they do anyway. That makes me a bit suspicious myself.
At the same time, WHY NOT wait until court if they're so confident. I smell potential publicity stunt.
--
How many lines of code in the Linux kernel are a direct copyright violation? It's very extensive. It is many different sections of code ranging from five to 10 to 15 lines of code in multiple places that are of issue, up to large blocks of code that have been inappropriately copied into Linux in violation of our source-code licensing contract. That's in the kernel itself, so it is significant. It is not a line or two here or there. It was quite a surprise for us.
5-15 lines of code? That's within the bounds of chance and the fact some programmers use standard techniques. Plus, I'd like to see them prove which came first in these bites of code . ..
And how large is a block to him? 20 lines?
This statement says very little.
-- Novell Inc. says the 1995 agreement governing SCO's purchase of Unix System V from Novell doesn't convey copyrights. What's your response? We certainly have a point of contention regarding their interpretation of that contract. We have statements from all the major parties that were involved in that contract that all the business and IP-related property of Unix and UnixWare was transferred to SCO. I think this is just a desperate act on their part to curry favor with the Linux community.
As opposed, of course, to a desperate atempt to browbeat them.
We'll see how this goes in court.
--
Honestly, this doesn't seem any different than the CEO interview. Its a lot of talk, a lot of prentention, still no proof, and a lot of dodging.
It's hard for me to look at this with a neutral eye, but when I try, it just sounds like an unconvincing pile of weasel-words. It's someone trying to sound all technical yet legal, and somehow failing at both.
The tipping point for us was at Linux World this year, when an IBM executive stood up in front of a large crowd and essentially said, "We're moving our AIX expertise into Linux, and we're going to destroy the value of Unix."
Those comments alone would have been a direct violation of our AIX contract with IBM, under which they license our Unix intellectual property.
Pretty provocative "rephrasing here," which I can't take seriously. Maybe I'm ignorant (IANAL and all) but how does a business decision to change focus violate their contract? I really do wonder if I've missed something here.
--
In IBM's case, they came back and said, "If you go down this path, we are going to disengage. We are not going to do any more business with you, and we are going to encourage others not to do any more business with you." That was in fact what happened. The impact was immediate and swift. No doubt, we lost some business and some revenue.
Again, I'm wondering how creative he's getting with IBM's statements. I'd love to hear THEIR side of the story.
And as for losing business, it sounds like SCO hasn't been doing well period.
--
And IBM took the same team that had been working on a Unix code project with us and moved them over to work on Linux code. If you look at the code we believe has been copied in, it's not just a line or two, it's an entire section -- and in some cases, an entire program.
Or is this an example of programmers reusing their own ideas? Using similar ideas? And, can we see this evidence YET?
Until I see reviewed evidence, I'm not buying anything.
--
We would be happy to sit down and get a resolution on this so we can all live together peacefully. But when we file a legal claim and then someone does a denial-of-service attack on our Web site to try to shut us down, it creates concerns for us as to how can you work with this community.
Remember, that DOS launcher represents the entire Linux using community in its entirety. This statement alone shows both contempt for the OS community and extraordinarily small-minded thinking.
--
Q: Microsoft just purchased a Unix license from you. What's significant about that? A: They agree with our approach to intellectual property. They've taken a patent license on our technology to build better integration between Unix and Windows. I believe that sends a statement to others with respect to what it means to honor intellectual property.
Saying Microsoft agrees with him on something is not necessarily going to make him popular among the people he's already annoying. This guy not only burned any bridges with the Linux community, now he's putting mines in the river.
The suspicious timing of the deal is something he should have addressed. This sounds like boilerplate-speak.
--
I believe the way the open-source community works right now has some fundamental flaws that have got to be addressed. We need to address how this open-source intellectual property is developed, routed, and sold. Thousands of software developers send code to contribute to open-source projects -- but there isn't a protective device for the customer using the software to ensure they're not in violation of the law by using stolen code.
I'd ask how, with closed source, one knows for sure it doesn't contain stolen code? After all, its closed. In Open Source at least you have the source out there so things can be caught (which, supposedly, his argument that his company found stolen code proves . ..)
Sounds like he thinks the Linux community operates no different than a company.
--
After reading this interview, I've come to the conclusion this guy not only doesn't get it, he
What I tell people going into a computing major
on
Computing's Lost Allure
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Make sure you enjoy it. Really enjoy it. It's a lifestyle.
Make sure you know what you're doing. If you're going into a CIS major without much experience, you may be in for a nasty surprise.
Get a second major or a minor in something else that is useful, relevant, and can be combined with the computing.
Stay on top of the news, the trends, and move with the times.
Get ANY job experience, any relevant experience ASAP and always maintain that resume.
My irony is that I'm a psychology major who did a lot of research and used a lot of computers. Now half my work involves data abstraction, workflow, working with people, and statistics. If I'd gone into a CIS major I probably would have been a worse programmer - the extra "something" helps.
Beyond the jokes about his popup adds and such, this guy is also interested in technology used in non-annoying ways by the sounds of things. I'm sure there's things I've developed he probably claims he's patented or is trying to patented.
Do I think he'll get ahead on this? Probably not, but only probably - it takes a few people caving to enrich his coffers and get capital flowing in, so he could become a noteable pain in the rump if things go well.
I think the best bet is to keep outing this guy as a jerk, play up the sleazy questions about his past, and make sure people are aware. What company will want to settle with someone like this? It'd be publically humiliating.
It's truly a sad day when I strike a blow for pop-ups.
This is not a clean needle program. That would be equivalent to treating system intrusion as a kind of disorder and providing "safe" systems for them to hack into to deal with their urge to crack.
This is really nothing more than increased security and good programming practices. It's watching your back. That's it.
That said there's a lot to what we in IT should be doing to make the world a safer place. But we can do it without lousy analogies.
The article, perhaps unintentionally, makes the point that programming and psychology will have points of intersection in the future, and these will not go away.
Treating computers anthropomorphically may seem stupid, but perhaps that's also a self-fullfiling prophecy - that they will have humanlike traits because we expect them too, and thus, we may need to cope with their flaws in a similar manner.
So, it's not letting the punishment fit the crime, it's trying to give people a high sentance to deter others over a non-violent minor crime that's also in a legal and ethical gray zone.
Brilliant. I'm constantly amazed at the ability of people to function with only an active brainstem.
I've known several victims of violent crime, crimes I'd have no problems sentencing the perps to life for, and the perps were never arrested. But thank GODS that we've now got someone to go after the File Sharers ruining society.
A problem that CAN be solved by throwing money at it. I'm enthused about it for the rarity value alone.
Actually, in all seriousness, it'd probably take a federal campaign to get it going, even though the results would be good for America. I'd also hate to see us fall behind the curve of technology.
Even if the PS3 is ready to go and backwards compatable to PS1, what's the point? There's nothing to use the new technology.
I have no doubt Sony wants the technology as a ready as soon as possible, but they're not going to release unless there's a Killer Game or three out there and available and even more in the pipes. Otherwise what's the point?
I'm all for spotting bogus science. The problem with some of these rules is assuming: A) That there's always a friendly attitude towards actual innovation in science. B) That there's no corruption in "accepted" scientific communities.
The "respected" scientists of various fields can be manipulated and manipulating, have their own vested interests, and have their reasons to be questioned as well.
That being said, I think a lot of these are spot-on, and that people do need the knowledge to ask good questions and spot frauds.
Sounds like a good example of the odds
on
The Space Elevator
·
· Score: 1
A space elevator has a lot of odds against it. This book sounds like a good example of the fact that the odds tell you what you have to do to succeed - not to give you a reason to quit.
Besides, they don't call it Space Exploration for nothing. Exploration denotes a lot of unknowns.
It's how you meet them that matters.
I'm usually not thrilled with/. book reviews, but this one actually intrigues me.
Software engineering is a shameful dark-grey art, on par with the discipline of Psychology.
I majored in psychology before I became a programmer. An amazing amount of my coursework is relevant to my IT work, both directly and indirectly - and half the time, its the "human-factors" level.
Software is engineering IDEALLY, in a pure world where everything is defined and organized and parameterized.
But in the real world, it's definitely in the realm of the gray arts. My own experience seems to bear that out.
Bringing it full circle to the subject, though Aspects sounds kind of neat, there are psychological factors to consider - is it explanable, does it work with people's existing concepts, etc.
I'd like to make a witty post or something, but all I can honestly do is extend my sympathies.
Even programmers can be pretty bad about this. Even good ones. External factors, pressures, etc. can cause almost as much damage as ignorance, thus even good programmers can use lousy procedures.
From reading the review, I'm not sure Aspects are going to really do much for me. It seems to be "encapsulating" some code needs in an object format, and that's about it.
I see plenty of crappy code all the time. I see lousy use of OOD/OOP. People haven't even adapted to OOD/OOP very well. I can't see this being much more than a technique curiosity that may solve some needs here and there for quite some time to come.
Likely there will be an alternative - probably with disclaimers on how insecure it is.
Good point though. How good is Voice Recognition for someone who is mute, for instance? Technological advances can also mean you have a really cool, high-tech, extremely narrow range of options.
Though I'm all behind this (and the additional technologies it'll bring), this is more than just protecting clients - it's protecting the bank.
Take a look at the Citibank issue. Having advanced security technology like this is a great way to protect your customers - which in turn protects your reputation and protects you from lawsuits.
I also wonder if this will raise the bar for other institutions.
Slashdot Mirror
. . . what effect this will have on Verizon and who uses it, if any. That's something worth following - if Verizon does indeed suffer loss of customers, etc. that may be a powerful club to motivate other companies NOT to give in to the RIAA.
.
That is of course, if enough people care to boycott/protest/avoid Verizon . .
Do I think M$ is going to just engage in marketing? No, I don't. M$ will move with the times - when they can't drive them. They blew off the Web then came back with a vengeance.
So, I expect that the bad of lame and FUD-filled marketing campaigns will be coupled with some attempts to make actual, serious improvements. I don't expect any of them to be that original, but I expect them.
M$, being on the top, doesn't have to try as hard to stay there or react as quickly as others. I'd say they know that.
This isn't just going to affect the big boys. There are companies that make various kinds of useful video-delivery, conferencing, and broadcast software that do the exact same things. Not a big market, but a market nonetheless.
.
This patent covers what they're doing too. I've seen at least two hardware/software suites designed to create similar functionality on a smaller scale.
If Microsoft gets aggressive, I wonder who they'll go after first .
As to the patent, I'd say I'm surprised . . . but I'm not surprised.
A few thoughts on the latest statements:
.
--
Are you considering suing Linux users that you notified? Anything is always a possibility. If you are going to enforce your contracts, claims and intellectual property, you have to be able to go to ultimately the endpoint of infringement.
It may just be me, but why does this remind me of the RIAA? I think it's because its a mentality of "let's ignore the fact if we annoy our customers they'll hate us."
It also says nothing. It still feels like an attempt at bullying.
--
You're claiming that Linux has been polluted with Unix code that you own, but you have not produced any evidence of that. Will you? We will actually be providing some of the evidence next month to various industry analysts, respected press people and other industry leaders so that they don't have to take our word for it or wait until we show some of that evidence in court. We will actually be showing the code, and the basis for why we have made the allegations that we have. We are very confident about our case. Because we are dealing with confidential source code that we have never released without confidentiality agreements, we will have to put in place nondisclosures [agreements] simply to protect the source. But people will be able to give their opinion as to what they think.
So they'll only release it to people willing to sign the nondisclosure that will possibly restrict what they do anyway. That makes me a bit suspicious myself.
At the same time, WHY NOT wait until court if they're so confident. I smell potential publicity stunt.
--
How many lines of code in the Linux kernel are a direct copyright violation? It's very extensive. It is many different sections of code ranging from five to 10 to 15 lines of code in multiple places that are of issue, up to large blocks of code that have been inappropriately copied into Linux in violation of our source-code licensing contract. That's in the kernel itself, so it is significant. It is not a line or two here or there. It was quite a surprise for us.
5-15 lines of code? That's within the bounds of chance and the fact some programmers use standard techniques. Plus, I'd like to see them prove which came first in these bites of code . .
And how large is a block to him? 20 lines?
This statement says very little.
--
Novell Inc. says the 1995 agreement governing SCO's purchase of Unix System V from Novell doesn't convey copyrights. What's your response? We certainly have a point of contention regarding their interpretation of that contract. We have statements from all the major parties that were involved in that contract that all the business and IP-related property of Unix and UnixWare was transferred to SCO. I think this is just a desperate act on their part to curry favor with the Linux community.
As opposed, of course, to a desperate atempt to browbeat them.
We'll see how this goes in court.
--
Honestly, this doesn't seem any different than the CEO interview. Its a lot of talk, a lot of prentention, still no proof, and a lot of dodging.
It's hard for me to look at this with a neutral eye, but when I try, it just sounds like an unconvincing pile of weasel-words. It's someone trying to sound all technical yet legal, and somehow failing at both.
Let's say this is true. Hey, it may well be.
There's still something to be learned from all of this - namely Microsoft's problem with people not trusting them is very real.
In short, Microsoft is not a company that a lot of people would give the benefit of a doubt.
After so much FUD, how can we trust them?
--
The tipping point for us was at Linux World this year, when an IBM executive stood up in front of a large crowd and essentially said, "We're moving our AIX expertise into Linux, and we're going to destroy the value of Unix."
Those comments alone would have been a direct violation of our AIX contract with IBM, under which they license our Unix intellectual property.
Pretty provocative "rephrasing here," which I can't take seriously. Maybe I'm ignorant (IANAL and all) but how does a business decision to change focus violate their contract? I really do wonder if I've missed something here.
--
In IBM's case, they came back and said, "If you go down this path, we are going to disengage. We are not going to do any more business with you, and we are going to encourage others not to do any more business with you." That was in fact what happened. The impact was immediate and swift. No doubt, we lost some business and some revenue.
Again, I'm wondering how creative he's getting with IBM's statements. I'd love to hear THEIR side of the story.
And as for losing business, it sounds like SCO hasn't been doing well period.
--
And IBM took the same team that had been working on a Unix code project with us and moved them over to work on Linux code. If you look at the code we believe has been copied in, it's not just a line or two, it's an entire section -- and in some cases, an entire program.
Or is this an example of programmers reusing their own ideas? Using similar ideas? And, can we see this evidence YET?
Until I see reviewed evidence, I'm not buying anything.
--
We would be happy to sit down and get a resolution on this so we can all live together peacefully. But when we file a legal claim and then someone does a denial-of-service attack on our Web site to try to shut us down, it creates concerns for us as to how can you work with this community.
Remember, that DOS launcher represents the entire Linux using community in its entirety. This statement alone shows both contempt for the OS community and extraordinarily small-minded thinking.
--
Q: Microsoft just purchased a Unix license from you. What's significant about that?
A: They agree with our approach to intellectual property. They've taken a patent license on our technology to build better integration between Unix and Windows. I believe that sends a statement to others with respect to what it means to honor intellectual property.
Saying Microsoft agrees with him on something is not necessarily going to make him popular among the people he's already annoying. This guy not only burned any bridges with the Linux community, now he's putting mines in the river.
The suspicious timing of the deal is something he should have addressed. This sounds like boilerplate-speak.
--
I believe the way the open-source community works right now has some fundamental flaws that have got to be addressed. We need to address how this open-source intellectual property is developed, routed, and sold. Thousands of software developers send code to contribute to open-source projects -- but there isn't a protective device for the customer using the software to ensure they're not in violation of the law by using stolen code.
I'd ask how, with closed source, one knows for sure it doesn't contain stolen code? After all, its closed. In Open Source at least you have the source out there so things can be caught (which, supposedly, his argument that his company found stolen code proves . .
Sounds like he thinks the Linux community operates no different than a company.
--
After reading this interview, I've come to the conclusion this guy not only doesn't get it, he
My irony is that I'm a psychology major who did a lot of research and used a lot of computers. Now half my work involves data abstraction, workflow, working with people, and statistics. If I'd gone into a CIS major I probably would have been a worse programmer - the extra "something" helps.
Beyond the jokes about his popup adds and such, this guy is also interested in technology used in non-annoying ways by the sounds of things. I'm sure there's things I've developed he probably claims he's patented or is trying to patented.
Do I think he'll get ahead on this? Probably not, but only probably - it takes a few people caving to enrich his coffers and get capital flowing in, so he could become a noteable pain in the rump if things go well.
I think the best bet is to keep outing this guy as a jerk, play up the sleazy questions about his past, and make sure people are aware. What company will want to settle with someone like this? It'd be publically humiliating.
It's truly a sad day when I strike a blow for pop-ups.
This is not a clean needle program. That would be equivalent to treating system intrusion as a kind of disorder and providing "safe" systems for them to hack into to deal with their urge to crack.
This is really nothing more than increased security and good programming practices. It's watching your back. That's it.
That said there's a lot to what we in IT should be doing to make the world a safer place. But we can do it without lousy analogies.
The article, perhaps unintentionally, makes the point that programming and psychology will have points of intersection in the future, and these will not go away.
Treating computers anthropomorphically may seem stupid, but perhaps that's also a self-fullfiling prophecy - that they will have humanlike traits because we expect them too, and thus, we may need to cope with their flaws in a similar manner.
So, it's not letting the punishment fit the crime, it's trying to give people a high sentance to deter others over a non-violent minor crime that's also in a legal and ethical gray zone.
Brilliant. I'm constantly amazed at the ability of people to function with only an active brainstem.
I've known several victims of violent crime, crimes I'd have no problems sentencing the perps to life for, and the perps were never arrested. But thank GODS that we've now got someone to go after the File Sharers ruining society.
Though I have no doubt this is happening, and will have an impact, I think the fear of "all our IT jobs are leaving" is unfounded.
Not all IT jobs can be outsourced - it depends on the kind of business, the kind of product, and the kind of standards.
It also depends on how much you're willing to move with the times. I've had to change my IT career focus three times in the past 8 years.
A problem that CAN be solved by throwing money at it. I'm enthused about it for the rarity value alone.
Actually, in all seriousness, it'd probably take a federal campaign to get it going, even though the results would be good for America. I'd also hate to see us fall behind the curve of technology.
Even if the PS3 is ready to go and backwards compatable to PS1, what's the point? There's nothing to use the new technology.
I have no doubt Sony wants the technology as a ready as soon as possible, but they're not going to release unless there's a Killer Game or three out there and available and even more in the pipes. Otherwise what's the point?
Most of these apply to programmers I know. Ironically, including myself.
I'm all for spotting bogus science. The problem with some of these rules is assuming:
A) That there's always a friendly attitude towards actual innovation in science.
B) That there's no corruption in "accepted" scientific communities.
The "respected" scientists of various fields can be manipulated and manipulating, have their own vested interests, and have their reasons to be questioned as well.
That being said, I think a lot of these are spot-on, and that people do need the knowledge to ask good questions and spot frauds.
A space elevator has a lot of odds against it. This book sounds like a good example of the fact that the odds tell you what you have to do to succeed - not to give you a reason to quit.
/. book reviews, but this one actually intrigues me.
Besides, they don't call it Space Exploration for nothing. Exploration denotes a lot of unknowns.
It's how you meet them that matters.
I'm usually not thrilled with
Software engineering is a shameful dark-grey art, on par with the discipline of Psychology.
I majored in psychology before I became a programmer. An amazing amount of my coursework is relevant to my IT work, both directly and indirectly - and half the time, its the "human-factors" level.
Software is engineering IDEALLY, in a pure world where everything is defined and organized and parameterized.
But in the real world, it's definitely in the realm of the gray arts. My own experience seems to bear that out.
Bringing it full circle to the subject, though Aspects sounds kind of neat, there are psychological factors to consider - is it explanable, does it work with people's existing concepts, etc.
I'd like to make a witty post or something, but all I can honestly do is extend my sympathies.
Even programmers can be pretty bad about this. Even good ones. External factors, pressures, etc. can cause almost as much damage as ignorance, thus even good programmers can use lousy procedures.
From reading the review, I'm not sure Aspects are going to really do much for me. It seems to be "encapsulating" some code needs in an object format, and that's about it.
I see plenty of crappy code all the time. I see lousy use of OOD/OOP. People haven't even adapted to OOD/OOP very well. I can't see this being much more than a technique curiosity that may solve some needs here and there for quite some time to come.
Likely there will be an alternative - probably with disclaimers on how insecure it is.
Good point though. How good is Voice Recognition for someone who is mute, for instance? Technological advances can also mean you have a really cool, high-tech, extremely narrow range of options.
Though I'm all behind this (and the additional technologies it'll bring), this is more than just protecting clients - it's protecting the bank.
Take a look at the Citibank issue. Having advanced security technology like this is a great way to protect your customers - which in turn protects your reputation and protects you from lawsuits.
I also wonder if this will raise the bar for other institutions.
The first casualty of war is truth, but that truth may exist in many forms.
One has to wonder how many wars have destroyed vital technologies and pieces of history.
OK, so I can move to Sun's version of Linux and put up with their methodologies, or just move to a different kind of Linux.
I honestly don't see Sun's strategy as being particuarly sound, unless they think they can leverage their name and reputation against Microsoft.
Create clothes that have deoderant in them instead. I know several people that could use self-deoderizing clothes as opposed to better-smelling ones.