And that would actually be bad. Linux needs to be totally vindicated of containing any tainted SysV code, and there is finally a chance that the GPL will be uphold as a valid enforcabled license. The case being dismissed will not clear Linux just gives SCO more of a chance to spread even more FUD.
Your example is serverly wrong. How about you go into an "all you can eat" buffet and after three plates the manager comes out and says sorry everyone here averages about only two plates and so your over the limit.
You cannot hoard bandwidth. You pay for a certain amount of bandwidth space and you can only use that much bandwidth. There's no loophole, just a bad business model. Back in the earily days of ISPs you would assume only 10% of your members would be online at a time. So by have resources for 20% of your customers you would be "ahead of the curve". Always on broadband services and the multimedia that's availible out there have completely tossed out this model. Why should I go out and buy a new radio when I can get good speakers for my computer and tune into one of the hundreds of online radion stations.
Sure there are those that download gigs and gigs of music and movies but is that the ISP's problem? They are payed to provide bandwidth. How is using a service that you paid for abusing it?
Like I said before you can't hoard bandwidth and use it later. It's like so many cell phone plans, you either use your cell minutes or you don't at the month you loose them (of course there are some that allow you to roll over minutes to the next month but that's not usual).
I think you missed the point of my post. I agree that they according to their TOS they have the right to cap the service into nothing without even telling you.
But the parent post that I was repling to was "Gee this only effects a couple of users, why should I care?" Why should anyone care if it's just going to effect a couple of people.
My thoughts on the matter is that if someone pays for X bps bandwidth and they they advertise unlimited usage, then they better abide by that.
I'm not (thankfully) a Comcast customer, but I think that if I was one I would be shopping around for another ISP. I firmly believe that if I pay for my bandwidth then it shouldn't matter what I use that bandwidth for (legal use at least). I pay for a service and if they can not give me the service I pay for then I will be someone elses customer.
Wow your right... they even state in the service agreement (section 8 item 'l')
# Facilities Allocation: Comcast reserves the right to determine, in its discretion, and on an ongoing basis, the nature and extent of its facilities allocated to support the Service, including, but not limited to, the amount of bandwidth to be utilized and delivered in conjunction with the Service.
Basically saying "Hey we can cap you to nothing and you still have to pay us..."
your post reminded me of the words by Reverend Martin Niemoller (1892-1984)
In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.
Let me first start by saying I don't know if he really can talk to the dead, and let me continue by saying, "I don't care!"
I have in the past watched specials here and there on ESP and para-psychology. I'm very interested in it, I grew up reading X-Men and day-dreaming that I could read minds and move objects with my mind. I find Crossing over farely boring and even worse monotonous. You watch a couple of shows and all the others are like them. The same stories of loved ones etc...
I just don't understand it. 'Crossing Over' which really can't be all that well watched gets tons of air time. Many times when I just witch over to see what's on, it's that show, but Farscape that seems to have a very large loyal base, who they complain isn't gaining any on it's viewer base. They break up the seasons and they never show any type of syndication showing, i.e. repeats at other times than it's time slots. you know a re-showing at 3 in the afternoon on sundays or something.
I'm just hopeing that another channel will pick it up... I'm hoping to be able to cancel my need for extended channels on my cable subscription (Only to get the SCI-Fi channel to watch Farscape, when they do show it)
Does anybody mention Bin Laden anymore? Was Saddam mentionned in any way last year after the attacks?!
Actually I remember watching the news the last couple of nights and reading reports in newspapers about the latest Bin Laden Video that was supposily video taped sometime after last years attack where he mentions the names of 4 of the hijackers.
I also remember vividly last year hearing reports from this news orgization or that news channel on weither or not reports of Saddam contributing money and supplies to Bin Laden's group. And how Bush's speech about going after countries that help and harbor terrorists seemed to be aimed directly at Iraq
So yes Bin Laden does get mentioned even now a year afterwards and how Saddam was talked about even back then.
As I'm shocked at myself for saying this, but... It's a pretty innocent stupid programming error. The basic premise of digital certicates is to check the signature of a cert and compare it to someone you trust. That's it, a hold back of the old pgp keyring days when everyone would get together and sign each other's keys. You get their public key check who they are and sign it and give it back to them. Then if they converse with someone that you both know and has your public key then that person already knows that the person it who they say that are because you said so (it was obviously you because your signature checked out). This is how digital certs are done. Everyone trusts the CAs to only sign cert requests if the requestor validates who they are. The programming error is just not checking to see if the chain is valid all the way up. They assumed that everyone in between checked the validity of the cert request before they signed. But as everyone knows when you assume you end up making an ass out of 'u' and ummmm yourself.
*rolls on the floor laughing* Sorry I almost wet my pants on that one. Check your windows EULA. Joe Schmoe can't hold Microsoft accountable for lost data. Joe Schmoe has no options to sue their pants off for anything.
Ummm I use crypto services outside of my browser all the time. My VPN client that I use to attatch to my company's network. I at times have a need to send encrypted/signed emails. My network uses Novell's NDS which heavily uses digital certs (hidden from the user) for authentication. My wife's computer is running WinXP and everytime it loads a driver it checks the digital signature on the driver. I'm sure that others that use Windows more than I do can come up with other applications that use the crypto API.
I'dl ike to suggest that the "white box boys" know their own business better than anyone. If it were really true that they could make more money by pre-installing RH 7.3 and OpenOffice then you can rest assured that some enterprising company would be doing it and eating everyone elses lunch
Why go the route of switch everything? How about Windows plus a copy of (Star|Open)Office instead of MS Office. Thus making the unit $300-$400 less. The consumer gets the same functionality from the sale at a less price and you start starving MS at their stranglehold.
People use MSOffice becaue that's what everyone else they know use, and they want to be able to open the Word document or the eXcel spreadsheet that their co-workers/vendors/constomers send them. You show them something that does the samething and more at a lower price then they will use it.
Once you break their need for MS applications then you can break their need for a MS OS. MS now has a platform. It's MS applications on a MS Operating System. Break that platform and you've broken MS. And I would say the biggest foothold they have on that platform for desktops isn't the ease of use or all the other cool apps that are out there for Windows. It's what I said people are buying and using Windows so they can us MSOffice.
Yes, but reverse engineering is more difficult than, say, me saying 'here you go there's the source
Is it now. If I had a program whose source code is written in 'C' is it more difficult than the same program written in MODSIM?
If I know MODSIM but not 'C' then yes it would be more difficult. But what if I was fluent in both. Gasp I could figure out what the program did by looking at either version.
So now what's the different than dis-assembling a program and looking at exactly what it did, than looking at the source in Java, C, Perl whatever if I'm fluent in assembly, Java, C, Perl, etc.
Your arguement of saying just because it's in object code and not source code makes it more difficult isn't valid as long as there's people that know how to read it.
Cable is a dead tech anyways ready to be thrown on the trash heap with ISDN. I am sure the future of communications for the home user will be wireless.
Wrong... at least for the forseeable future. The reason cable is big right now and will still be big in the near future is because there are lots of people that are in the boon-docks and are not near a wireless access point or can't get DSL. There's still lots of places in the US that still can't get ISDN.
ISDN usage is actually on the rise right now because the demand for bandwidth is always rising (56k dial-up modems don't seem to be able to keep up with ma-pa web surfers that want instant access) and can't get DSL or cable (yes there are places in the US that cable companies haven't reached yet).
Until then neither cable or ISDN will be dead. (Not to mention that ISDN will live on long after it is dead, as ATM)
Arrgghhh, this actually burns me... I can't believe that cable companies are still allowed their monopolies in this day and age... With companies like Charter Communications predicting and running ads that they will be able to do everything for you in the video/audio spectrum in the near future (including phone service), how can you not classify them as a telecommunications company.
I feel that more than likely the only reason they haven't rolled out phone service is that they, don't want to be classified and regulated as a telecommunications service, and stuff like this only just keeps them going.
How long will it be before the is no difference between what "real" telecommunication companies and cable services. It's just the wire and the protocol that runs over it, but on top of that it's just data to both of them and they are providing the same services.
The best thing a "Bell" company can do right now is setup a partnership with a video distribution company (Blockbuster) and start rolling out "Video on Demand" services. I don't think it would be hard for something like DSL connections to split off a few channels for video.
Sure computers did exist, but Bill Gates brought them to the people
Actually lots of other people brought them to the people... Apple was on the scene before microsoft was even founded. There was a time when every business person had to have VisiCal.
There where home kits availible, for the people. How do you think Microsoft even started, it was writing a BASIC interperter for a machine that was already for the people.
What made Microsoft was IBM licensing their OS.
There are many other people that brought computers to the people, Microsoft just being one of them.
I think that that's a stupid road for them to go down. If they are playing the game of "Windows" is now a term synonymous with "Microsoft Windows" products then that would be a case of a trademark becoming generic. In which case they can't hold the trademark since it has now become a generic term.
Excuse me if I'm not up on Canada's laws but is this different than if someone mails you something that you didn't order (say like a mail order company screwing up an order to your neighbors and puts your name and address on the shipping label) then you are under no obligation to return it.
I can't remember what the Act was but I know it was abused massively by people signing up for the music clubs getting a bunch of CDs/tapes but when the bill came they said that they never signed up (the order form didn't have a spot for a signature) and thus would get the CDs for free. (Of course now all such forms require a signature as proof of identity).
But the idea is the same. The farmer didn't ask for the seeds, but they where "delivered" to his farm without asking, thus he should be able to do as he pleased.
After all at least in the U.S. possession is 9/10ths of the law. He possessed the seeds through no fault of his own, therefor he should have owned the seeds.
I've used the Solaris Gnome Installer from HelixCode and it works fine... In fact the updater works as well (as I used it to update itself to their new updater that use/var/cache/helix-install vs/tmp/helix-install) without any problems.
One thing I have notice is that by default filedescriptor limits is set to 64 which is the updater wants more so just limit descriptors 256 and your all set.
Just as a test I did a ftp session to ftp.kernel.org (zeus.kernel.org) and did some transfers and this is what I got.
get linux-2.4.0-test6.tar.bz2
local: linux-2.4.0-test6.tar.bz2 remote: linux-2.4.0-test6.tar.bz2
200 PORT command successful.
150 Opening BINARY mode data connection for linux-2.4.0-test6.tar.bz2 (18106527 bytes).
226 Transfer complete.
18106527 bytes received in 122 secs (1.5e+02 Kbytes/sec)
That's what I expect 1.2Mbps download speed, so as you can see it's not an all 128k cap on everything.
FYI... I've heard from someone at SBC is that they use a rule of thumb of 4-5 DSL users for each DS1 from the Central Office which basically means they are allocating about 386k per DSL users.
Slashdot Mirror
And that would actually be bad. Linux needs to be totally vindicated of containing any tainted SysV code, and there is finally a chance that the GPL will be uphold as a valid enforcabled license. The case being dismissed will not clear Linux just gives SCO more of a chance to spread even more FUD.
Doh! platypus is right it's trademarks not copyrights.
IANAL but I'm pretty sure you can't lose a patent. I think your thinking of a copyright. That can be losed if you don't enforce them.
Your example is serverly wrong. How about you go into an "all you can eat" buffet and after three plates the manager comes out and says sorry everyone here averages about only two plates and so your over the limit.
You cannot hoard bandwidth. You pay for a certain amount of bandwidth space and you can only use that much bandwidth. There's no loophole, just a bad business model. Back in the earily days of ISPs you would assume only 10% of your members would be online at a time. So by have resources for 20% of your customers you would be "ahead of the curve". Always on broadband services and the multimedia that's availible out there have completely tossed out this model. Why should I go out and buy a new radio when I can get good speakers for my computer and tune into one of the hundreds of online radion stations.
Sure there are those that download gigs and gigs of music and movies but is that the ISP's problem? They are payed to provide bandwidth. How is using a service that you paid for abusing it?
Like I said before you can't hoard bandwidth and use it later. It's like so many cell phone plans, you either use your cell minutes or you don't at the month you loose them (of course there are some that allow you to roll over minutes to the next month but that's not usual).
I think you missed the point of my post. I agree that they according to their TOS they have the right to cap the service into nothing without even telling you.
But the parent post that I was repling to was "Gee this only effects a couple of users, why should I care?" Why should anyone care if it's just going to effect a couple of people.
My thoughts on the matter is that if someone pays for X bps bandwidth and they they advertise unlimited usage, then they better abide by that.
I'm not (thankfully) a Comcast customer, but I think that if I was one I would be shopping around for another ISP. I firmly believe that if I pay for my bandwidth then it shouldn't matter what I use that bandwidth for (legal use at least). I pay for a service and if they can not give me the service I pay for then I will be someone elses customer.
Wow your right... they even state in the service agreement (section 8 item 'l')
# Facilities Allocation: Comcast reserves the right to determine, in its discretion, and on an ongoing basis, the nature and extent of its facilities allocated to support the Service, including, but not limited to, the amount of bandwidth to be utilized and delivered in conjunction with the Service.
Basically saying "Hey we can cap you to nothing and you still have to pay us..."
Nice...
your post reminded me of the words by Reverend Martin Niemoller (1892-1984)
In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.
check out linux-bcom4301.sourceforge.net
Let me first start by saying I don't know if he really can talk to the dead, and let me continue by saying, "I don't care!"
I have in the past watched specials here and there on ESP and para-psychology. I'm very interested in it, I grew up reading X-Men and day-dreaming that I could read minds and move objects with my mind. I find Crossing over farely boring and even worse monotonous. You watch a couple of shows and all the others are like them. The same stories of loved ones etc...
I just don't understand it. 'Crossing Over' which really can't be all that well watched gets tons of air time. Many times when I just witch over to see what's on, it's that show, but Farscape that seems to have a very large loyal base, who they complain isn't gaining any on it's viewer base. They break up the seasons and they never show any type of syndication showing, i.e. repeats at other times than it's time slots. you know a re-showing at 3 in the afternoon on sundays or something.
I'm just hopeing that another channel will pick it up... I'm hoping to be able to cancel my need for extended channels on my cable subscription (Only to get the SCI-Fi channel to watch Farscape, when they do show it)
Does anybody mention Bin Laden anymore? Was Saddam mentionned in any way last year after the attacks?!
Actually I remember watching the news the last couple of nights and reading reports in newspapers about the latest Bin Laden Video that was supposily video taped sometime after last years attack where he mentions the names of 4 of the hijackers.
I also remember vividly last year hearing reports from this news orgization or that news channel on weither or not reports of Saddam contributing money and supplies to Bin Laden's group. And how Bush's speech about going after countries that help and harbor terrorists seemed to be aimed directly at Iraq
So yes Bin Laden does get mentioned even now a year afterwards and how Saddam was talked about even back then.
As I'm shocked at myself for saying this, but... It's a pretty innocent stupid programming error. The basic premise of digital certicates is to check the signature of a cert and compare it to someone you trust. That's it, a hold back of the old pgp keyring days when everyone would get together and sign each other's keys. You get their public key check who they are and sign it and give it back to them. Then if they converse with someone that you both know and has your public key then that person already knows that the person it who they say that are because you said so (it was obviously you because your signature checked out). This is how digital certs are done. Everyone trusts the CAs to only sign cert requests if the requestor validates who they are. The programming error is just not checking to see if the chain is valid all the way up. They assumed that everyone in between checked the validity of the cert request before they signed.
But as everyone knows when you assume you end up making an ass out of 'u' and ummmm yourself.
*rolls on the floor laughing* Sorry I almost wet my pants on that one. Check your windows EULA. Joe Schmoe can't hold Microsoft accountable for lost data. Joe Schmoe has no options to sue their pants off for anything.
Ummm I use crypto services outside of my browser all the time. My VPN client that I use to attatch to my company's network. I at times have a need to send encrypted/signed emails. My network uses Novell's NDS which heavily uses digital certs (hidden from the user) for authentication. My wife's computer is running WinXP and everytime it loads a driver it checks the digital signature on the driver.
I'm sure that others that use Windows more than I do can come up with other applications that use the crypto API.
I'dl ike to suggest that the "white box boys" know their own business better than anyone. If it were really true that they could make more money by pre-installing RH 7.3 and OpenOffice then you can rest assured that some enterprising company would be doing it and eating everyone elses lunch
Why go the route of switch everything? How about Windows plus a copy of (Star|Open)Office instead of MS Office. Thus making the unit $300-$400 less. The consumer gets the same functionality from the sale at a less price and you start starving MS at their stranglehold.
People use MSOffice becaue that's what everyone else they know use, and they want to be able to open the Word document or the eXcel spreadsheet that their co-workers/vendors/constomers send them. You show them something that does the samething and more at a lower price then they will use it.
Once you break their need for MS applications then you can break their need for a MS OS. MS now has a platform. It's MS applications on a MS Operating System. Break that platform and you've broken MS. And I would say the biggest foothold they have on that platform for desktops isn't the ease of use or all the other cool apps that are out there for Windows. It's what I said people are buying and using Windows so they can us MSOffice.
Yes, but reverse engineering is more difficult than, say, me saying 'here you go there's the source
Is it now. If I had a program whose source code is written in 'C' is it more difficult than the same program written in MODSIM?
If I know MODSIM but not 'C' then yes it would be more difficult. But what if I was fluent in both. Gasp I could figure out what the program did by looking at either version.
So now what's the different than dis-assembling a program and looking at exactly what it did, than looking at the source in Java, C, Perl whatever if I'm fluent in assembly, Java, C, Perl, etc.
Your arguement of saying just because it's in object code and not source code makes it more difficult isn't valid as long as there's people that know how to read it.
Cable is a dead tech anyways ready to be thrown on the trash heap with ISDN. I am sure the future of communications for the home user will be wireless.
Wrong... at least for the forseeable future. The reason cable is big right now and will still be big in the near future is because there are lots of people that are in the boon-docks and are not near a wireless access point or can't get DSL. There's still lots of places in the US that still can't get ISDN.
ISDN usage is actually on the rise right now because the demand for bandwidth is always rising (56k dial-up modems don't seem to be able to keep up with ma-pa web surfers that want instant access) and can't get DSL or cable (yes there are places in the US that cable companies haven't reached yet).
Until then neither cable or ISDN will be dead. (Not to mention that ISDN will live on long after it is dead, as ATM)
Arrgghhh, this actually burns me... I can't believe that cable companies are still allowed their monopolies in this day and age... With companies like Charter Communications predicting and running ads that they will be able to do everything for you in the video/audio spectrum in the near future (including phone service), how can you not classify them as a telecommunications company.
I feel that more than likely the only reason they haven't rolled out phone service is that they, don't want to be classified and regulated as a telecommunications service, and stuff like this only just keeps them going.
How long will it be before the is no difference between what "real" telecommunication companies and cable services. It's just the wire and the protocol that runs over it, but on top of that it's just data to both of them and they are providing the same services.
The best thing a "Bell" company can do right now is setup a partnership with a video distribution company (Blockbuster) and start rolling out "Video on Demand" services. I don't think it would be hard for something like DSL connections to split off a few channels for video.
Sure computers did exist, but Bill Gates brought them to the people
Actually lots of other people brought them to the people... Apple was on the scene before microsoft was even founded. There was a time when every business person had to have VisiCal.
There where home kits availible, for the people. How do you think Microsoft even started, it was writing a BASIC interperter for a machine that was already for the people.
What made Microsoft was IBM licensing their OS.
There are many other people that brought computers to the people, Microsoft just being one of them.
I think that that's a stupid road for them to go down. If they are playing the game of "Windows" is now a term synonymous with "Microsoft Windows" products then that would be a case of a trademark becoming generic. In which case they can't hold the trademark since it has now become a generic term.
Just my 2cents.
...but I don't think anyone would assume Buzz is real...
You've never asked my 2yr old son then *grin*...
We've already seen the start of this... anyone remember Max Headroom from the '80s... Started off on a Coke commercial and got his own show...
Excuse me if I'm not up on Canada's laws but is this different than if someone mails you something that you didn't order (say like a mail order company screwing up an order to your neighbors and puts your name and address on the shipping label) then you are under no obligation to return it.
I can't remember what the Act was but I know it was abused massively by people signing up for the music clubs getting a bunch of CDs/tapes but when the bill came they said that they never signed up (the order form didn't have a spot for a signature) and thus would get the CDs for free. (Of course now all such forms require a signature as proof of identity).
But the idea is the same. The farmer didn't ask for the seeds, but they where "delivered" to his farm without asking, thus he should be able to do as he pleased.
After all at least in the U.S. possession is 9/10ths of the law. He possessed the seeds through no fault of his own, therefor he should have owned the seeds.
just my 2 cents...
Heya...
/var/cache/helix-install vs /tmp/helix-install) without any problems.
I've used the Solaris Gnome Installer from HelixCode and it works fine... In fact the updater works as well (as I used it to update itself to their new updater that use
One thing I have notice is that by default filedescriptor limits is set to 64 which is the updater wants more so just limit descriptors 256 and your all set.
Just as a test I did a ftp session to ftp.kernel.org (zeus.kernel.org) and did some transfers and this is what I got.
get linux-2.4.0-test6.tar.bz2
local: linux-2.4.0-test6.tar.bz2 remote: linux-2.4.0-test6.tar.bz2
200 PORT command successful.
150 Opening BINARY mode data connection for linux-2.4.0-test6.tar.bz2 (18106527 bytes).
226 Transfer complete.
18106527 bytes received in 122 secs (1.5e+02 Kbytes/sec)
That's what I expect 1.2Mbps download speed, so as you can see it's not an all 128k cap on everything.
FYI... I've heard from someone at SBC is that they use a rule of thumb of 4-5 DSL users for each DS1 from the Central Office which basically means they are allocating about 386k per DSL users.