Eyewitness Reports from the DC Hearing - SCO Trounced Wednesday, July 21 2004 @ 12:23 PM EDT
I have just heard from two readers who did attend the DC hearing. The eyewitness accounts are subject to later clarification, simply because neither is a lawyer and that can lead to missing certain details, as they disclaim in the reports. But with that disclaimer, this is what they say happened. I know we all wish to thank them both for attending the hearing, so we can get a fast report.
What they are telling me is that DaimlerChrysler's motion for summary disposition was granted in all particulars except one, which is whether they replied fast enough or should have done so within 30 days. What that means is SCO's action against DC is over in all meaningful senses. I can't believe they will wish to spend the money to litigate over something so trivial with no conceivable damages or useful relief, even if they were to prevail, and I doubt they could anyhow. Still, this is SCO, so we will have to wait and see. They were, by both accounts, trounced.
So you can get the full flavor of the day, here are both reports.
REPORT 1, from eggplant37:
Well, like a wolf at a corpse, Judge Chabot has eviscerated SCO's case against Daimler. Here's my narrative of what happened in court:
I arrived at 0800 to the courtroom and found that SCO v DC was 18th on the motion callsheet, nearly close to the end of the session, as there were only 22 cases to be heard this morning. . . . DC's lawyers were rather jovial during the checkin period prior to court being called into session, and SCO's attorneys looked rather concerned but cool about it. Mark Heise reminded me of Superman actor Chris Reeves in appearance. Ryan Tibbits reminded me of a big, blocky Marine drill instructor as to his appearance.
The courtroom didn't open up until 0820 and I watched the various attorneys, both from the SCO v DC case and several other cases being heard this morning, as they checked in. At 0841, the clerk called the SCO v DC attorneys up for a brief discussion, during which I was able to overhear the clerk tell them that he would "like to get [them] in and out."
At 0850, the clerk came over to the SCO side of the bench and spoke briefly with them, telling them "five minutes", I think stating the amount of time that each side would be granted for arguments. DC's attorneys came over and confirmed with the SCO attorneys what the clerk had to say.
Court was called to session at 0905. Judge Chabot is a petite woman with a very short, close-cropped hairdo, and looked determined and no-nonsense in her affect. Judge Chabot heard and ruled on a motion in the first case heard in less than 30 seconds, which seemed to surprise both attorneys in that case. One attorney in that first case jokingly commented that she hoped that this ruling would set precedence in how speedily cases would be heard this morning, which was met with laughter throughout the courtroom.
Second case was heard at 0906, third case at 0917, fourth case at 0921, fifth case at 0931, 6th case at 0940 and 7th case at 0942, so this shows that Judge Chabot is one speedy lady who doesn't muck about while running her courtroom.
SCO v DC was called at 0942. Barry Rosenbaum arguing for SCO and James Feeny arguing for Daimler, and motions were heard to admit Heise and Steven Prout?? pro hac vice for SCO, and also to admit Mark Masuchak from Massachussetts pro hac vice for Daimler, which the Judge granted.
Mr. Rosenbaum argued Daimler's summary dispo motion, noting from the outset that this was a more technical case, dealing with software and licensing agreements, and that he would frame the case briefly, in about 30 seconds. Chrysler says that the case is about whether or not section 2.05 of the SA requires a certification of compliance with detailed enumeration of extraneous facts outside the agreeement, or whether it simply requires a brief certification that licensee has complied with the terms of the license agreement.
Ken Brown's writings are garbage. By publicising this you're just giving him free press. Ignore him. As Alexey Toptygin said : "pay no attention to this man"... "he is talking out of his ass".
EV1 made a big mistake, and now they'll have to live with it. I think they knew exactly what they were doing : they rolled over so SCO would sue their competitors instead. Dirty, dirty, dirty.
Personally, I won't do business with EV1, and I won't do business with any company that is hosted by EV1.
If you work for the "lucky" company that they sue then don't worry, you already have a licence. SCO have even been kind enough to keep a copy of it on their website for you:
Watch for Darl McLied and is cronies to sell up and move to Florida. They can serve their time in prison but any real estate in Florida can't be touched.
It's more likely that the "power failure" is a problem with a software patch which has been applied to some of their switches, or a patch to their switch management software. Those switches which haven't been patched yet won't be affected.
They don't seem to understand. **Even if their claims of code ownership are correct**, Stowell's statement is wrong.
If their code copying claims are validated, a correct version of his statement would read something like this:
"We're the copyright holder for the core Unix operating system. If we want to charge someone a licensing fee for using our copyrighted software that is in UNIX, then we have that prerogative."
"If we want to continue to distribute Linux to our existing customers, we cannot do that because we violated the GPL, and are being sued by the copyright owners of some of the GNU/Linux software."
It contains stolen code. Pay up your $$$$$.
on
Kroupware Komplete
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
The development of Kroupware would not have been possible without the wholesale theft of hundreds of lines of code, complete with programmer comments, bugs, and spelling mistakes from the code of "Mighty$oft Office". It is illegal to use this software, and we will shortly be suing you for ONE MILLION DOLLARS (holds pinky finger to corner of mouth). We cannot identify the sections of code in question as they are trade secrets. Additionally all versions of any groupware software developed by any entity at any point in space-time are OWN3D by us. Pay up now, or else.
You got me thinking again. It turns out that it might not matter if the GPL is or is not enforceable : if SCO win the IBM case on the basis of their claims that they own ALL derivative works and they get a ruling that the Linux kernel is a derivative work then it would mean that SCO would own the code even though it was written by other people.
So the people who wrote the code and distributed it under the GPL would have actually distributed it illegally, as they would have been ruled to not own their own code. It follows that SCO wouldn't need the permission of the authors of the code, and the GPL wouldn't apply to the Linux kernel. Of course it would still apply to GNU software.
Of course this whole situation is absurd. No sensible court would rule that the authors of software don't own the copyright. But sometimes courts reach complicated and strange decisions.
The next (unannounced) step is for SCO to challenge the GPL, or be challenged on it. This is what SCO want, and they think they can win. It's nothing to do with Microsoft.
I've said this twice before on slashdot : SCO are aiming to steal Linux. If they win against IBM and subsequently successfully have the GPL overturned then they will be able to charge for use of Linux. Additionally, if they manage to keep the alleged source code violations sealed, then the community will not be in a position to rewrite the copied code. Linux would be dead to the open source world and would become a proprietary operating system owened by SCO. Click here for my original comment: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=64233&cid=5958 703
In their letter SCO state "SCO will continue to honor all contractual obligations with existing customers including product updates, service, and support.". This action indicates they may very well be violating the GPL by offering Linux OS pathes etc. This invites someone to take them to court for violating the GPL, which is exactly what they want.
So watch for two things: 1. SCO moves to have all source code violations sealed in court. 2. Another court case starts : Open Source Developers vs SCO, fighting over the validity of the GPL.
Has SCO got anything right so far ?
on
SCO SCO SCO!
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
The more I think about it the more I begin to wonder if SCO have grabbed completely the wrong end of the stick. Having read the "Comedy of Errors" link I was thinking about the "ham handed" comment, i.e. the fact that so far SCO have done just about everything wrong. So I ask myself this : is it less likely or more likely that they would have done an equally bad job when doing their technical investigation. Clearly it's more likely that they did a bad job. From that I think there's a good chance that a) yes, there is code in Linux that is also in SCO (I mean, can they really be bluffing, surely not ?). b) investigation of said code will show that the code was appropriate FROM Linux and placed INTO the SCO product. From a technical point of view this is a more likely scenario. And of course that mean that SCO would have to GPL their source code.
I see three serious problems that need a fair bit more thought before I would consider this kind of scheme could work and be reasonably judged as an improvement over the way things are done today:
1. How do you tax alternative-fuel / dual-fuel vehicles ? I might run my vehicle on any of electric/gas, petroleum gas/natural gas, diesel/recycled cooking oil. How do they determine which miles where driven using what fuel. If the answer is to tax all fuels at the same rate then this is a disincentive for people to migrate away petroleum to alternatives.
2. This reduces any incentive to drive in a fuel efficient manner ; if you are taxed on distance travelled it becomes not so expensive to drive in a faster less fuel efficient manner. Additionally, if you are taxed higher at certain times of the day, it is also in your interests to drive faster and hence get off the road quicker. So a side effect of this scheme is to increase speeding and dangerous driving.
3. The price of fuel would surely come down once the integrated tax had been eliminated. But two problems : a) the oil companies won't bring the price all the way down, you'll see a hidden 4 or 5 cent raise built into the reduced price. b) if you're only using GPS tax on (new) GPS equipped vehicles then how do you sell gas : you have to charge a different price depending on whether the vehicle is GPS equipped or not. Do you upgrade all fuel pumps ? Who pays ?
Yes, but not, as I alluded to in my original posting, if the GPL had been judged to be legally unenforcable. In this scenario the GPL would be meaningless and SCO would own Linux, which they would then be free to distribute under a license of their own design. If the GPL was upheld, then yes you are correct.
However, with regards to your first point, I suggest that you read my comment before making such claims. If I write an application program I do not have to release it under the GPL. I can craft a GPL-like licence that bars SCO from using my software. Granted, you can't retroactively make the GPL more restrictive, but there is scope for changing the GPL in future and applying it where it can be used ; where it cannot be used, you stick with the existing GPL. It may be that the entire kernel would have to remain GPL, but if SCO were frozen out from using newly written applications they would very quickly become an even more insignificant player in the Linux market.
This nothing less than an attempt at "stealing" Linux so they are the sole owner, and the only legal version of Linux would be Caldera.
Here's how it works: 1. Stop selling OpenLinux. 2. Sue everyone except Caldera OpenLinux users, and win. 3. SCO are now the only company able to legally use the Linux source code, and they effectively own it. This could result in the GPL being legally nullified. 4. Once the legal battle is won, start marketing Linux again, as the only vendor.
I suggest that all future work to Linux source code and GPL'd applications is released under a new version of the GPL. This version should include a new clause which specifically prohibits the use of the code and application by SCO, any of it's subsidiaries, or any parent companies.
On a broader point I think the issue isn't a technological one, it's one based on marketing and churn rates. Verizon must have their own motivations but the fact is that in the last couple of years all the telecoms companies have spent a great deal of money upgrading their software systems. Presumably this includes Verizon. Or are they really that far behind schedule ? Surely not.
As other posters have mentioned WNP is a great thing for consumers because it promotes competition. Competition promotes customer turnover, or "churn", which is good for the competetive telecos, not so good for the uncompetetive telecos.
Is this a sign that Verizon are worried that they are uncompetetive ? They were for me : I'd been a subscriber for 2 years, but they couldn't offer me a rate plan that was anything like close to being competetive so I jumped ship to tmobile.
It will be interesting to see if any other major telecos come out and support Verizon's position. I expect that most of them, having spent the time and money to upgrade their software systems will be eager to roll out WNP.
I don't understand why they're charging $20 for Intel but not for Sparc. It can't be for covering the bandwidth (do you seriously think it should cost $20 to download a few gigs of data ?), so there must be some other reason.
Putting a charge onto a "free" developer version doesn't seem like a good way of encouraging developers to download and try it out.
Sun should also consider that the fewer developers who are using the "free" version on small Intel boxen, the fewer developers there will be to work on projects using the commerical version on large scale hardware. Limiting access to your products is not a good way of making them popular !
I agree, but until there is worldwide legislation brought in to stop spamming then spam is going to remain a problem. Likewise, the issue with false positives is a problem. That said, I've been using Popfile, never had a single false positive and get almost exactly 1% false negatives. It's about the best solution I've seen that's available today.
Because there is a very high wastage percent. This isn't necessarily anything to do with phone companies being "stupid" as I've seen suggested, it's just a natural outcome of the way phone numbers work. Consider area codes (i.e. the first 3 digits or NPA) : you can't have an area code that is 911, because that is the emergency services number. Likewise, you can't have area codes that are the same as any special number at all. Another example is 011 , international direct dial. So straight away, there is a big hit on area codes.
On top of that, phone system numbering has traditionally been based upon physical geography, i.e. the location of exchanges and switching offices. In the days of mechanical exchanges this was realistically the only way things could be done. So a lot of the issues that we might today perceive as bad or short sighted design are really just a legacy of physical restrictions that we had in the past.
So why not just change things ? Because telephone billing, switching, rating, and customer care computer systems are all extremely complicated and these changes take a great deal of time, effort, money, regulation, cooperation, and testing. Until you've worked on the behind-the-scenes side of telephone systems it's unlikely you'll have a good understanding of how complicated things can get. Even most folks who've worked for phone companies for years don't really have a good feel for it. Having said that, large scale efforts are underway, and are in fact already late and should have gone live a while ago. In the not too distant future there will be "WNPP" for cell phones, that's Wireless Number Portability and Pooling. This means that the 10,000 number blocks will become 1,000 number blocks, and you will be able to take your phone number with you when you move. Eventually this should apply to landline phone systems too.
I'm not sure about the 11 digit dialing though. In Atlanta they have area codes 404, 678, 770, and I think there's another one coming soon. If you're in one of these area codes you only dial 10 digits, and eleven digits if you're calling a number in any other area code.
Slashdot Mirror
Eyewitness Reports from the DC Hearing - SCO Trounced
Wednesday, July 21 2004 @ 12:23 PM EDT
I have just heard from two readers who did attend the DC hearing. The eyewitness accounts are subject to later clarification, simply because neither is a lawyer and that can lead to missing certain details, as they disclaim in the reports. But with that disclaimer, this is what they say happened. I know we all wish to thank them both for attending the hearing, so we can get a fast report.
What they are telling me is that DaimlerChrysler's motion for summary disposition was granted in all particulars except one, which is whether they replied fast enough or should have done so within 30 days. What that means is SCO's action against DC is over in all meaningful senses. I can't believe they will wish to spend the money to litigate over something so trivial with no conceivable damages or useful relief, even if they were to prevail, and I doubt they could anyhow. Still, this is SCO, so we will have to wait and see. They were, by both accounts, trounced.
So you can get the full flavor of the day, here are both reports.
REPORT 1, from eggplant37:
Well, like a wolf at a corpse, Judge Chabot has eviscerated SCO's case against Daimler. Here's my narrative of what happened in court:
I arrived at 0800 to the courtroom and found that SCO v DC was 18th on the motion callsheet, nearly close to the end of the session, as there were only 22 cases to be heard this morning. . . . DC's lawyers were rather jovial during the checkin period prior to court being called into session, and SCO's attorneys looked rather concerned but cool about it. Mark Heise reminded me of Superman actor Chris Reeves in appearance. Ryan Tibbits reminded me of a big, blocky Marine drill instructor as to his appearance.
The courtroom didn't open up until 0820 and I watched the various attorneys, both from the SCO v DC case and several other cases being heard this morning, as they checked in. At 0841, the clerk called the SCO v DC attorneys up for a brief discussion, during which I was able to overhear the clerk tell them that he would "like to get [them] in and out."
At 0850, the clerk came over to the SCO side of the bench and spoke briefly with them, telling them "five minutes", I think stating the amount of time that each side would be granted for arguments. DC's attorneys came over and confirmed with the SCO attorneys what the clerk had to say.
Court was called to session at 0905. Judge Chabot is a petite woman with a very short, close-cropped hairdo, and looked determined and no-nonsense in her affect. Judge Chabot heard and ruled on a motion in the first case heard in less than 30 seconds, which seemed to surprise both attorneys in that case. One attorney in that first case jokingly commented that she hoped that this ruling would set precedence in how speedily cases would be heard this morning, which was met with laughter throughout the courtroom.
Second case was heard at 0906, third case at 0917, fourth case at 0921, fifth case at 0931, 6th case at 0940 and 7th case at 0942, so this shows that Judge Chabot is one speedy lady who doesn't muck about while running her courtroom.
SCO v DC was called at 0942. Barry Rosenbaum arguing for SCO and James Feeny arguing for Daimler, and motions were heard to admit Heise and Steven Prout?? pro hac vice for SCO, and also to admit Mark Masuchak from Massachussetts pro hac vice for Daimler, which the Judge granted.
Mr. Rosenbaum argued Daimler's summary dispo motion, noting from the outset that this was a more technical case, dealing with software and licensing agreements, and that he would frame the case briefly, in about 30 seconds. Chrysler says that the case is about whether or not section 2.05 of the SA requires a certification of compliance with detailed enumeration of extraneous facts outside the agreeement, or whether it simply requires a brief certification that licensee has complied with the terms of the license agreement.
Ken Brown's writings are garbage. By publicising this you're just giving him free press. Ignore him. As Alexey Toptygin said : "pay no attention to this man" ... "he is talking out of his ass".
Except your "home directories" script, who | awk '{print $1}' | sort | uniq | sed 's@^@/home/@g'
/etc/passwd|sort|awk -F ":" '{print $6}'
does not list the home directories of any users. It just prints out the user names with "home" glued to the front.
What you want is something like this (and I'm sure there's a MUCH better way of doing this, but it does give a certain amount of job security...)
egrep $(echo $(who | awk '{print $1}' | sort | uniq | tr '\n' '|') | sed -e 's/|$//')
EV1 made a big mistake, and now they'll have to live with it. I think they knew exactly what they were doing : they rolled over so SCO would sue their competitors instead. Dirty, dirty, dirty.
Personally, I won't do business with EV1, and I won't do business with any company that is hosted by EV1.
If you work for the "lucky" company that they sue then don't worry, you already have a licence. SCO have even been kind enough to keep a copy of it on their website for you :
http://sco.com/soss/info/gpl.html
Watch for Darl McLied and is cronies to sell up and move to Florida. They can serve their time in prison but any real estate in Florida can't be touched.
Would they have ever got anywhere with this in court ?
1 10902a.htm
I doubt it, as it as the keyboard shortcut is common knowledge.
For example, it's been posted here for a long time
http://familyinternet.about.com/library/weekly/aa
It's more likely that the "power failure" is a problem with a software patch which has been applied to some of their switches, or a patch to their switch management software. Those switches which haven't been patched yet won't be affected.
They don't seem to understand. **Even if their claims of code ownership are correct**, Stowell's statement is wrong.
:
If their code copying claims are validated, a correct version of his statement would read something like this
"We're the copyright holder for the core Unix operating system. If we want to charge someone a licensing fee for using our copyrighted software that is in UNIX, then we have that prerogative."
"If we want to continue to distribute Linux to our existing customers, we cannot do that because we violated the GPL, and are being sued by the copyright owners of some of the GNU/Linux software."
The development of Kroupware would not have been possible without the wholesale theft of hundreds of lines of code, complete with programmer comments, bugs, and spelling mistakes from the code of "Mighty$oft Office". It is illegal to use this software, and we will shortly be suing you for ONE MILLION DOLLARS (holds pinky finger to corner of mouth). We cannot identify the sections of code in question as they are trade secrets. Additionally all versions of any groupware software developed by any entity at any point in space-time are OWN3D by us. Pay up now, or else.
You got me thinking again. It turns out that it might not matter if the GPL is or is not enforceable : if SCO win the IBM case on the basis of their claims that they own ALL derivative works and they get a ruling that the Linux kernel is a derivative work then it would mean that SCO would own the code even though it was written by other people.
So the people who wrote the code and distributed it under the GPL would have actually distributed it illegally, as they would have been ruled to not own their own code. It follows that SCO wouldn't need the permission of the authors of the code, and the GPL wouldn't apply to the Linux kernel. Of course it would still apply to GNU software.
Of course this whole situation is absurd. No sensible court would rule that the authors of software don't own the copyright. But sometimes courts reach complicated and strange decisions.
Of course that should read "OS patches" not "OS pathes".
The next (unannounced) step is for SCO to challenge the GPL, or be challenged on it. This is what SCO want, and they think they can win. It's nothing to do with Microsoft.
:8 703
I've said this twice before on slashdot : SCO are aiming to steal Linux. If they win against IBM and subsequently successfully have the GPL overturned then they will be able to charge for use of Linux. Additionally, if they manage to keep the alleged source code violations sealed, then the community will not be in a position to rewrite the copied code. Linux would be dead to the open source world and would become a proprietary operating system owened by SCO. Click here for my original comment
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=64233&cid=595
In their letter SCO state "SCO will continue to honor all contractual obligations with existing customers including product updates, service, and support.". This action indicates they may very well be violating the GPL by offering Linux OS pathes etc. This invites someone to take them to court for violating the GPL, which is exactly what they want.
So watch for two things:
1. SCO moves to have all source code violations sealed in court.
2. Another court case starts : Open Source Developers vs SCO, fighting over the validity of the GPL.
Seems like I was right. Hate to say "I told you so" but...
8 703
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=64233&cid=595
The more I think about it the more I begin to wonder if SCO have grabbed completely the wrong end of the stick. Having read the "Comedy of Errors" link I was thinking about the "ham handed" comment, i.e. the fact that so far SCO have done just about everything wrong. So I ask myself this : is it less likely or more likely that they would have done an equally bad job when doing their technical investigation. Clearly it's more likely that they did a bad job. From that I think there's a good chance that a) yes, there is code in Linux that is also in SCO (I mean, can they really be bluffing, surely not ?). b) investigation of said code will show that the code was appropriate FROM Linux and placed INTO the SCO product. From a technical point of view this is a more likely scenario. And of course that mean that SCO would have to GPL their source code.
I see three serious problems that need a fair bit more thought before I would consider this kind of scheme could work and be reasonably judged as an improvement over the way things are done today :
1. How do you tax alternative-fuel / dual-fuel vehicles ? I might run my vehicle on any of electric/gas, petroleum gas/natural gas, diesel/recycled cooking oil. How do they determine which miles where driven using what fuel. If the answer is to tax all fuels at the same rate then this is a disincentive for people to migrate away petroleum to alternatives.
2. This reduces any incentive to drive in a fuel efficient manner ; if you are taxed on distance travelled it becomes not so expensive to drive in a faster less fuel efficient manner. Additionally, if you are taxed higher at certain times of the day, it is also in your interests to drive faster and hence get off the road quicker. So a side effect of this scheme is to increase speeding and dangerous driving.
3. The price of fuel would surely come down once the integrated tax had been eliminated. But two problems : a) the oil companies won't bring the price all the way down, you'll see a hidden 4 or 5 cent raise built into the reduced price. b) if you're only using GPS tax on (new) GPS equipped vehicles then how do you sell gas : you have to charge a different price depending on whether the vehicle is GPS equipped or not. Do you upgrade all fuel pumps ? Who pays ?
Yes, but not, as I alluded to in my original posting, if the GPL had been judged to be legally unenforcable. In this scenario the GPL would be meaningless and SCO would own Linux, which they would then be free to distribute under a license of their own design. If the GPL was upheld, then yes you are correct.
I agree with your second point.
However, with regards to your first point, I suggest that you read my comment before making such claims. If I write an application program I do not have to release it under the GPL. I can craft a GPL-like licence that bars SCO from using my software. Granted, you can't retroactively make the GPL more restrictive, but there is scope for changing the GPL in future and applying it where it can be used ; where it cannot be used, you stick with the existing GPL. It may be that the entire kernel would have to remain GPL, but if SCO were frozen out from using newly written applications they would very quickly become an even more insignificant player in the Linux market.
This nothing less than an attempt at "stealing" Linux so they are the sole owner, and the only legal version of Linux would be Caldera.
Here's how it works:
1. Stop selling OpenLinux.
2. Sue everyone except Caldera OpenLinux users, and win.
3. SCO are now the only company able to legally use the Linux source code, and they effectively own it. This could result in the GPL being legally nullified.
4. Once the legal battle is won, start marketing Linux again, as the only vendor.
I suggest that all future work to Linux source code and GPL'd applications is released under a new version of the GPL. This version should include a new clause which specifically prohibits the use of the code and application by SCO, any of it's subsidiaries, or any parent companies.
That is a pretty good explanation.
On a broader point I think the issue isn't a technological one, it's one based on marketing and churn rates. Verizon must have their own motivations but the fact is that in the last couple of years all the telecoms companies have spent a great deal of money upgrading their software systems. Presumably this includes Verizon. Or are they really that far behind schedule ? Surely not.
As other posters have mentioned WNP is a great thing for consumers because it promotes competition. Competition promotes customer turnover, or "churn", which is good for the competetive telecos, not so good for the uncompetetive telecos.
Is this a sign that Verizon are worried that they are uncompetetive ? They were for me : I'd been a subscriber for 2 years, but they couldn't offer me a rate plan that was anything like close to being competetive so I jumped ship to tmobile.
It will be interesting to see if any other major telecos come out and support Verizon's position. I expect that most of them, having spent the time and money to upgrade their software systems will be eager to roll out WNP.
Just my 0.02 dollars worth.
Close, but not perfect. You got IMSI right. MSISDN stands for Mobile Station Integrated Services Digital Network.
It looks like http://www.iraqinews.com has also been hit.
I don't understand why they're charging $20 for Intel but not for Sparc. It can't be for covering the bandwidth (do you seriously think it should cost $20 to download a few gigs of data ?), so there must be some other reason.
Putting a charge onto a "free" developer version doesn't seem like a good way of encouraging developers to download and try it out.
Sun should also consider that the fewer developers who are using the "free" version on small Intel boxen, the fewer developers there will be to work on projects using the commerical version on large scale hardware. Limiting access to your products is not a good way of making them popular !
I agree, but until there is worldwide legislation brought in to stop spamming then spam is going to remain a problem. Likewise, the issue with false positives is a problem. That said, I've been using Popfile, never had a single false positive and get almost exactly 1% false negatives. It's about the best solution I've seen that's available today.
Because there is a very high wastage percent. This isn't necessarily anything to do with phone companies being "stupid" as I've seen suggested, it's just a natural outcome of the way phone numbers work. Consider area codes (i.e. the first 3 digits or NPA) : you can't have an area code that is 911, because that is the emergency services number. Likewise, you can't have area codes that are the same as any special number at all. Another example is 011 , international direct dial. So straight away, there is a big hit on area codes.
On top of that, phone system numbering has traditionally been based upon physical geography, i.e. the location of exchanges and switching offices. In the days of mechanical exchanges this was realistically the only way things could be done. So a lot of the issues that we might today perceive as bad or short sighted design are really just a legacy of physical restrictions that we had in the past.
So why not just change things ? Because telephone billing, switching, rating, and customer care computer systems are all extremely complicated and these changes take a great deal of time, effort, money, regulation, cooperation, and testing. Until you've worked on the behind-the-scenes side of telephone systems it's unlikely you'll have a good understanding of how complicated things can get. Even most folks who've worked for phone companies for years don't really have a good feel for it.
Having said that, large scale efforts are underway, and are in fact already late and should have gone live a while ago. In the not too distant future there will be "WNPP" for cell phones, that's Wireless Number Portability and Pooling. This means that the 10,000 number blocks will become 1,000 number blocks, and you will be able to take your phone number with you when you move. Eventually this should apply to landline phone systems too.
I'm not sure about the 11 digit dialing though. In Atlanta they have area codes 404, 678, 770, and I think there's another one coming soon. If you're in one of these area codes you only dial 10 digits, and eleven digits if you're calling a number in any other area code.