A BeOS stereo would be amazing. The thing would boot incredibly fast if nothing else. And since the OS was designed largely for embedded devices, I doubt much customization would be necessary.
While I think this is a novel idea, for most people, carrying around a boom box went out in the eighties, along with Vanilla Ice and MC Hammer. If they want any type of embedded device, it's going to be a stereo.
There are a few projects that do this already, but I think it would be cool to have the UI from the boom box project.
I must say though, it would make a lot more sense to use Linux or FreeBSD for a project like that. If you ever wanted to mass produce and sell them, you couldn't if you embedded Windows. You get extra geek points for hacking Linux or BSD properly to work in a car. And, if you care, you won't be violating license agreements. But on the flipside, if you do choose to upload mp3s that you downloaded off the net, you probably don't care about EULAs to begin with.
To be fair though, I know that the first thing I do when I buy a CD is rip it onto my hard drive so that I always have a copy in case my disc breaks. Uploading all of my discs to a stereo PC would be a good way to archive, and would also mean I wouldn't have to lug around my massive CD case anymore.
In all fairness, that's like saying "Linux/*nix are open source, so why do we compare those to Windows?"
Winamp has its pluses and minuses, but considering that millions of people worldwide use Winamp, the software has become the benchmark for audio software. Even xmms has been designed to look like Winamp. If open source developers brush off features in software such as Winamp on the basis that the software is closed source, and therefore not relevant, they lose out on a big source of ideas. The point isn't for open source developers to emulate closed source software; rather, it's that open source developers should be aware of the features of other software packages, and incorporate good ideas into their own code.
...or maybe it's agreeing with you completely? It sounds to me like the submission was suggesting that businesses, regardless of their model, will act ruthlessly in order to secure profit.
If anything, that sentence calls into question the kind of zealotry to which you are referring. The point is not that open source is inherently more good, or less evil, than closed source. Rather, it's that profit comes before good intentions in the business world.
This is the WORST possible choice of lawsuit for SCO, considering that the burden of proof will solely be on them to prove that Novell slandered them. Proving actual malice is difficult when what Novell says is true. However, even if the copyright claims made by Novell are proven to be wrong, SCO will still have difficulty proving Novell acted with actual malice, since Novell believes their statements to be true.
This is another blowhard public relations stunt by _SCOX_. I use the stock ticker symbol because that's the exact reason SCO is filing these lawsuits. As long as their stock performs, they'll have the cash to file lawsuits.
Let's get the facts straight. SCO is posturing since their lifeline is running dry. The recent Motley Fool article shows that the investment community is losing patience with scox. Once the investment runs out, the litigation runs out. Period.
Actually, most businesses tend to use IBM's 4690 POS network. The IBM OS runs a DOS-like CLI, with most applications being menu-based at the console. Touch screen terminals then interface with the server using the X-server protocol. A number of businesses use an application called InfoGenesis.
Since most cash registers you see are actually IBM terminals, businesses tend to buy their servers from IBM to get support for both the terminal AND the server.
The basic principle of copyright is that the creator of a work has exclusive control over who can copy something. In effect, the copyright holder can decide to license the work to two people or two hundred million. However, it is solely the copyright holder that sets the conditions for who can distribute the work.
That being said, the copyright holder for GNU/Linux is the Free Software Foundation. The FSF has set the conditions for copying GNU code within the GPL. When the FSF finds out that someone violates the terms of the GPL, they contact that person and tell them to either become compliant with the terms of the GPL or cease and desist from using GPL code.
The FSF actively enforces its rights to the GNU copyright, and while the terms for distribution may be copyleft, those terms meet the statutory requirements of copyright under 17 USC.
It would seem that SCO is actually infringing on FSF's copyrights by claiming ownership of code that FSF owns. When SCO donated code to Linux - which , contrary to their press machine, they did, and quite often, prior to the new management team at SCO/Caldera - the code is now GPL'd. FSF "owns" that code, in the sense of copyright.
Well, as it stands, the EU tends to listen more to open source users more than the US. Logically, that would indicate that the US needs more lobbying pressure on the behalf of open source users.
Perhaps they could also use some of this fund, or another one, to start lobbying for less restrictive copyright laws? Even better, lobbying for legal recognition of the GPL would be a better goal. If the GPL is codified into law as an enforcable license, absurd lawsuits would carry far less weight in a court.
Of course, given the current makeup of the Congress, it would be more likely to see the GPL invalidated in national legislation than supported.
It's a wash, actually. As a patent holder, you can specify what terms to license your patents. To be compatible with the GPL, if you have a patent, you must agree to license your patents for use under the GPL. That is, you still retain the rights to your patents, but anyone who makes derivative code based upon code you GPL'd can't be held liable for infringement of your patent.
That said, SCO is claiming to NOT use the GPL. As such, they aren't protected from infringement liability, since they have no implicit protection from IBM against claims. If, on the other hand, the infringing technologies were fully licensed under the GPL, there wouldn't be any problem from IBM.
So the bottom line is, Linux developers have a license (per the GPL) to use the four IBM-patented technologies free of charge, whereas SCO would have to negotiate license terms to use the patented technologies outside of the GPL.
Didn't take long to slashdot that site. Maybe next time we can just post his credit card so that we can just charge the amount we just put on his bandwidth bill?
I suppose Microsoft will soon be claiming that the Kerberos auth in GNU infringes on their IP. This is a load of fud and Microsoft knows it. Source contamination with Microsoft code would be nearly impossible, as getting the source code is damn near impossible to begin with. Even with the shared source program, you can't get source for a lot of the fundimental features of Windows, as Microsoft claims releasing that code would compromise security.
What's more like is the same "embrace and extend" garbage that we've seen for the past decade. Microsoft improves on open standard (which is good). But Microsoft patents the modified code (that's bad). Free interoperable software is being developed (that's good). But Microsoft will cease-and-desist any projects that show near-Microsoft functionality (that's bad). You get a free frogurt (that's good). But the frogurt is cursed (that's bad).
The argument about clones inevitably infringing IP certainly raises some eyebrows. Patents cover implementation, not function. IP holders often forget that in their zeal, but developing similar functionality doesn't necessarily violate a patent unless the same procedure (or code, in many cases) was used to reach the same end. On the flipside, because Microsoft has used the BSD license to its advantage, they've locked up quite a many protocols as Microsoft-only. With the addition of encryption or file protection, this may get even dirtier, as Microsoft will probably claim 1201 protection under the DMCA.
In the long run, open source development won't be hurt by all of this IP fud. Project coordinators will pay more attention to the origin of their code, as will code contributers. Linux won't die so easily. Even if Microsoft pulls a fast one in the DC Circuit Court and somehow gains ownership of Linux, the vast distribution of Linux will make stopping the spread impossible. This isn't like DeCSS; Linux code has been available freely for ten years. You can't expect that to just go away.
I believe Senator Hatch would say that this is another example of the DMCA working. The concept behind intellectual property is express consent from the government to monopolize something. In the case of copyright, an entity monopolizes the distribution of a work. In patent law, a company monopolizes a novel implementation of some idea.
The DMCA expands copyright into a sort of paracopoyright arena, adding access control as a right of an inventor or content holder. Which brings us to Lexmark. The DMCA was SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to limit competition. In the Lexmark example, the basic idea is that if a company creates a product, say, a printer cartridge, they should be able to decide how it's accessed or used; more specifically, they should be able to decide what parts are put into the printer.
This principle, of course, goes against the evolution of business. If the Japanese hadn't tinkered with the inerts of a car, they wouldn't have designed cheaper cars, and in turn American businesses wouldn't have raced to catch up with Japanese innovation. Paracopyright does create a barrier to innovation; however, that was the intent of the law. The DMCA was drafted to protect the profits of companies, whether record companies, movie studios, or printer manufacturers, by expanding the artificial trade of so-called intellectual properties, and by limiting consumers' access to the products they buy.
The Ford analogy in the article is right on the mark. Automakers already have a stranglehold on the new car market, as they refuse to disclose diagnostic codes to small auto shops. Because the chips on which these codes are programmed is protected by a TPM, reverse engineering would be a no-no. As automakers make even newer cars, it's likely that they'll install chips in each part that report when the part goes bad - which is certainly an advantage for consumers. However, the "digital" side of the chip would, of course, be protected by the DMCA, and, like the whole Lexmark debacle, would suddenly force consumers to use official parts.
I don't expect Detroit to start rolling out those parts until additions to the DMCA are passed by Congress - which, I would add, will happen within the next three years, IMHO. Now would be a good time to start lobbying.
...but isn't it true, if we're going to be postmodern for a minute, that you're wrong?;)
There's nothing wrong with choosing to be subjective with your perception, but the bus that hits you whilst you cross the street won't subjectively be invisible when it slams into you.
Actually, the idea that the earth has only existed for 6,000 years comes from Hebrew tradition, following the calendar from Eden up to the common era. You'll find that Y2K actually is AM 5760 according to Jewish tradition, where AM is Anno Mundi, Latin for "Year of the World". AM was derived from a number of rabbis around the Middle Ages; nowadays, many Jews choose to follow the Gregorian calendar, though they refer to history in terms of "Before Common Era" and "Common Era" rather than "Before Christ" and "Year of Our Lord".
Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after The First Post: for they shall have the Third or Fourth Post.
Well, at least we know you subscribe to one point of your sermon.
However, I believe you forgot several more:
Blessed are they who submit stories, for their submission will be rehashed three days later.
Blessed are the poor-spellers and grammatically challenged, for they be published for all to read and heckle.
Blessed are they that actually read the article, their wit will smite the egos of slashdot editors.
Blessed are the developers, thanks to them their formula for a daily toast-and-jam routine will be GPL'd and forked repeatedly, causing widespread debate and confrontation on the DTAJKML.
Blessed are the fools who neglect to preview their posts, their karma shall remain lower than the latest kernel pre-version number.
I'm not quite sure why anyone would want to sue Microsoft in a federal court under the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Microsoft WILL win the case, regardless of its merits. Microsoft has dominated that Circuit Court; the judges have such a bias in favor of Microsoft that you're practically shooting yourself in the foot by using said district. You sue, perhaps win, perhaps lose, the case goes to appeal, and you DO lose. And given the Supreme Court's unwillingness to review cases, that pretty much puts an end to your action.
A better strategy is to sue in a court under the juristiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth has repeatedly shown technical know-how and a willingness to embrace and extend technology, though certainly not in the Microsoft sense. The bottom line is, don't sue if it's obvious you're going to lose from the start.
This sounds like an Ig Nobel Prize candidate to me. To quote the website, "Every Ig Nobel Prize winner has done something that first makes people LAUGH, then makes them THINK. Technically speaking, the Igs honor people whose achievements 'cannot or should not be reproduced.'"
Sounds like we have a real winner, unless they've ported NetBSD to a toaster yet.
Windows nighties would frighten me even more. Imagining Craig Mundie modeling one of those would be enough to turn me off from sex for the rest of my life.
If my memory serves me correctly, wouldn't tying the software and hardware together create an antitrust issue? Game consoles have always been treated differently than computers, but Microsoft seems to make it fuzzy as to whether xbox is a computer or a console. If its a console, Microsoft would, at least in theory, be able to tie hardware and software together, wrapped neatly in some DMCA TPM. However, if xbox is a computer, then you should be able to load any damn OS that pleases you. Of course, xbox live is a different story. If you subscribe to the network, you have to follow the terms of service.
Slashdot Mirror
A BeOS stereo would be amazing. The thing would boot incredibly fast if nothing else. And since the OS was designed largely for embedded devices, I doubt much customization would be necessary.
Fatal exception error at memory address MC Hammer.
While I think this is a novel idea, for most people, carrying around a boom box went out in the eighties, along with Vanilla Ice and MC Hammer. If they want any type of embedded device, it's going to be a stereo.
There are a few projects that do this already, but I think it would be cool to have the UI from the boom box project.
I must say though, it would make a lot more sense to use Linux or FreeBSD for a project like that. If you ever wanted to mass produce and sell them, you couldn't if you embedded Windows. You get extra geek points for hacking Linux or BSD properly to work in a car. And, if you care, you won't be violating license agreements. But on the flipside, if you do choose to upload mp3s that you downloaded off the net, you probably don't care about EULAs to begin with.
To be fair though, I know that the first thing I do when I buy a CD is rip it onto my hard drive so that I always have a copy in case my disc breaks. Uploading all of my discs to a stereo PC would be a good way to archive, and would also mean I wouldn't have to lug around my massive CD case anymore.
"Professor Shatz, how much did I shat today?"
So now you won't just know how much llama ass Winamp whoops, but also what came out of that ass.
In all fairness, that's like saying "Linux/*nix are open source, so why do we compare those to Windows?"
Winamp has its pluses and minuses, but considering that millions of people worldwide use Winamp, the software has become the benchmark for audio software. Even xmms has been designed to look like Winamp. If open source developers brush off features in software such as Winamp on the basis that the software is closed source, and therefore not relevant, they lose out on a big source of ideas. The point isn't for open source developers to emulate closed source software; rather, it's that open source developers should be aware of the features of other software packages, and incorporate good ideas into their own code.
Buffering...
...or maybe it's agreeing with you completely? It sounds to me like the submission was suggesting that businesses, regardless of their model, will act ruthlessly in order to secure profit.
If anything, that sentence calls into question the kind of zealotry to which you are referring. The point is not that open source is inherently more good, or less evil, than closed source. Rather, it's that profit comes before good intentions in the business world.
God uses Gentoo with blackbox. He's got more foo than you. His desktop reminds him why he needs to take breaks from playing The Sims in wine.
This is the WORST possible choice of lawsuit for SCO, considering that the burden of proof will solely be on them to prove that Novell slandered them. Proving actual malice is difficult when what Novell says is true. However, even if the copyright claims made by Novell are proven to be wrong, SCO will still have difficulty proving Novell acted with actual malice, since Novell believes their statements to be true.
This is another blowhard public relations stunt by _SCOX_. I use the stock ticker symbol because that's the exact reason SCO is filing these lawsuits. As long as their stock performs, they'll have the cash to file lawsuits.
Let's get the facts straight. SCO is posturing since their lifeline is running dry. The recent Motley Fool article shows that the investment community is losing patience with scox. Once the investment runs out, the litigation runs out. Period.
Actually, most businesses tend to use IBM's 4690 POS network. The IBM OS runs a DOS-like CLI, with most applications being menu-based at the console. Touch screen terminals then interface with the server using the X-server protocol. A number of businesses use an application called InfoGenesis.
Since most cash registers you see are actually IBM terminals, businesses tend to buy their servers from IBM to get support for both the terminal AND the server.
SCO is so wrong about this it's sick.
The basic principle of copyright is that the creator of a work has exclusive control over who can copy something. In effect, the copyright holder can decide to license the work to two people or two hundred million. However, it is solely the copyright holder that sets the conditions for who can distribute the work.
That being said, the copyright holder for GNU/Linux is the Free Software Foundation. The FSF has set the conditions for copying GNU code within the GPL. When the FSF finds out that someone violates the terms of the GPL, they contact that person and tell them to either become compliant with the terms of the GPL or cease and desist from using GPL code.
The FSF actively enforces its rights to the GNU copyright, and while the terms for distribution may be copyleft, those terms meet the statutory requirements of copyright under 17 USC.
It would seem that SCO is actually infringing on FSF's copyrights by claiming ownership of code that FSF owns. When SCO donated code to Linux - which , contrary to their press machine, they did, and quite often, prior to the new management team at SCO/Caldera - the code is now GPL'd. FSF "owns" that code, in the sense of copyright.
The end. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.
Well, as it stands, the EU tends to listen more to open source users more than the US. Logically, that would indicate that the US needs more lobbying pressure on the behalf of open source users.
Perhaps they could also use some of this fund, or another one, to start lobbying for less restrictive copyright laws? Even better, lobbying for legal recognition of the GPL would be a better goal. If the GPL is codified into law as an enforcable license, absurd lawsuits would carry far less weight in a court.
Of course, given the current makeup of the Congress, it would be more likely to see the GPL invalidated in national legislation than supported.
That's GNU/Tyres!
It's a wash, actually. As a patent holder, you can specify what terms to license your patents. To be compatible with the GPL, if you have a patent, you must agree to license your patents for use under the GPL. That is, you still retain the rights to your patents, but anyone who makes derivative code based upon code you GPL'd can't be held liable for infringement of your patent.
That said, SCO is claiming to NOT use the GPL. As such, they aren't protected from infringement liability, since they have no implicit protection from IBM against claims. If, on the other hand, the infringing technologies were fully licensed under the GPL, there wouldn't be any problem from IBM.
So the bottom line is, Linux developers have a license (per the GPL) to use the four IBM-patented technologies free of charge, whereas SCO would have to negotiate license terms to use the patented technologies outside of the GPL.
Sucks for them.
Didn't take long to slashdot that site. Maybe next time we can just post his credit card so that we can just charge the amount we just put on his bandwidth bill?
I suppose Microsoft will soon be claiming that the Kerberos auth in GNU infringes on their IP. This is a load of fud and Microsoft knows it. Source contamination with Microsoft code would be nearly impossible, as getting the source code is damn near impossible to begin with. Even with the shared source program, you can't get source for a lot of the fundimental features of Windows, as Microsoft claims releasing that code would compromise security.
What's more like is the same "embrace and extend" garbage that we've seen for the past decade. Microsoft improves on open standard (which is good). But Microsoft patents the modified code (that's bad). Free interoperable software is being developed (that's good). But Microsoft will cease-and-desist any projects that show near-Microsoft functionality (that's bad). You get a free frogurt (that's good). But the frogurt is cursed (that's bad).
The argument about clones inevitably infringing IP certainly raises some eyebrows. Patents cover implementation, not function. IP holders often forget that in their zeal, but developing similar functionality doesn't necessarily violate a patent unless the same procedure (or code, in many cases) was used to reach the same end. On the flipside, because Microsoft has used the BSD license to its advantage, they've locked up quite a many protocols as Microsoft-only. With the addition of encryption or file protection, this may get even dirtier, as Microsoft will probably claim 1201 protection under the DMCA.
In the long run, open source development won't be hurt by all of this IP fud. Project coordinators will pay more attention to the origin of their code, as will code contributers. Linux won't die so easily. Even if Microsoft pulls a fast one in the DC Circuit Court and somehow gains ownership of Linux, the vast distribution of Linux will make stopping the spread impossible. This isn't like DeCSS; Linux code has been available freely for ten years. You can't expect that to just go away.
I believe Senator Hatch would say that this is another example of the DMCA working. The concept behind intellectual property is express consent from the government to monopolize something. In the case of copyright, an entity monopolizes the distribution of a work. In patent law, a company monopolizes a novel implementation of some idea.
The DMCA expands copyright into a sort of paracopoyright arena, adding access control as a right of an inventor or content holder. Which brings us to Lexmark. The DMCA was SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to limit competition. In the Lexmark example, the basic idea is that if a company creates a product, say, a printer cartridge, they should be able to decide how it's accessed or used; more specifically, they should be able to decide what parts are put into the printer.
This principle, of course, goes against the evolution of business. If the Japanese hadn't tinkered with the inerts of a car, they wouldn't have designed cheaper cars, and in turn American businesses wouldn't have raced to catch up with Japanese innovation. Paracopyright does create a barrier to innovation; however, that was the intent of the law. The DMCA was drafted to protect the profits of companies, whether record companies, movie studios, or printer manufacturers, by expanding the artificial trade of so-called intellectual properties, and by limiting consumers' access to the products they buy.
The Ford analogy in the article is right on the mark. Automakers already have a stranglehold on the new car market, as they refuse to disclose diagnostic codes to small auto shops. Because the chips on which these codes are programmed is protected by a TPM, reverse engineering would be a no-no. As automakers make even newer cars, it's likely that they'll install chips in each part that report when the part goes bad - which is certainly an advantage for consumers. However, the "digital" side of the chip would, of course, be protected by the DMCA, and, like the whole Lexmark debacle, would suddenly force consumers to use official parts.
I don't expect Detroit to start rolling out those parts until additions to the DMCA are passed by Congress - which, I would add, will happen within the next three years, IMHO. Now would be a good time to start lobbying.
...but isn't it true, if we're going to be postmodern for a minute, that you're wrong? ;)
There's nothing wrong with choosing to be subjective with your perception, but the bus that hits you whilst you cross the street won't subjectively be invisible when it slams into you.
Actually, the idea that the earth has only existed for 6,000 years comes from Hebrew tradition, following the calendar from Eden up to the common era. You'll find that Y2K actually is AM 5760 according to Jewish tradition, where AM is Anno Mundi, Latin for "Year of the World". AM was derived from a number of rabbis around the Middle Ages; nowadays, many Jews choose to follow the Gregorian calendar, though they refer to history in terms of "Before Common Era" and "Common Era" rather than "Before Christ" and "Year of Our Lord".
Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after The First Post: for they shall have the Third or Fourth Post.
Well, at least we know you subscribe to one point of your sermon.
However, I believe you forgot several more:
Blessed are they who submit stories, for their submission will be rehashed three days later.
Blessed are the poor-spellers and grammatically challenged, for they be published for all to read and heckle.
Blessed are they that actually read the article, their wit will smite the egos of slashdot editors.
Blessed are the developers, thanks to them their formula for a daily toast-and-jam routine will be GPL'd and forked repeatedly, causing widespread debate and confrontation on the DTAJKML.
Blessed are the fools who neglect to preview their posts, their karma shall remain lower than the latest kernel pre-version number.
I'm not quite sure why anyone would want to sue Microsoft in a federal court under the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Microsoft WILL win the case, regardless of its merits. Microsoft has dominated that Circuit Court; the judges have such a bias in favor of Microsoft that you're practically shooting yourself in the foot by using said district. You sue, perhaps win, perhaps lose, the case goes to appeal, and you DO lose. And given the Supreme Court's unwillingness to review cases, that pretty much puts an end to your action.
A better strategy is to sue in a court under the juristiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth has repeatedly shown technical know-how and a willingness to embrace and extend technology, though certainly not in the Microsoft sense. The bottom line is, don't sue if it's obvious you're going to lose from the start.
This sounds like an Ig Nobel Prize candidate to me. To quote the website, "Every Ig Nobel Prize winner has done something that first makes people LAUGH, then makes them THINK. Technically speaking, the Igs honor people whose achievements 'cannot or should not be reproduced.'"
Sounds like we have a real winner, unless they've ported NetBSD to a toaster yet.
Windows nighties would frighten me even more. Imagining Craig Mundie modeling one of those would be enough to turn me off from sex for the rest of my life.
If my memory serves me correctly, wouldn't tying the software and hardware together create an antitrust issue? Game consoles have always been treated differently than computers, but Microsoft seems to make it fuzzy as to whether xbox is a computer or a console. If its a console, Microsoft would, at least in theory, be able to tie hardware and software together, wrapped neatly in some DMCA TPM. However, if xbox is a computer, then you should be able to load any damn OS that pleases you. Of course, xbox live is a different story. If you subscribe to the network, you have to follow the terms of service.