Go google or check out Nortons site. There used to be *real* viruses, that would screw up your bios setting and send commands to your hard drive to write to blocks that didn't exist, causing your hard drive to beat itself to dead (stop hitting yourself! stop hitting yourself!...get it?). These are also pretty easy to block viruses if you have AV protection, but this was back in the early 90s, when most computers were never even online except maybe a BBS to dl some warez. (the source of the virii) So most didn't have any AV software installed or updated.
The fun virii were the ones that encrypted your hard drive, so if you booted off a floppy (write protected, of course) you could not read your hard drive to fix the problem. Without removal tools, these were pretty damn hard to fix, because they would be in memory, so they would rewrite the file if you deleted it. I haven't seen many virii lately that attempt to write to boot sectors, unless you count Windows as a virus.
99% of the viruses now are not viruses really, but worms or trojans, designed to deliver payloads of spam or replication. Annoying, but hardly destructive to hardware, and often easy to prevent the spreading of using the "properly configured firewall" we hear so much about on slashdot.
Same here, missed Earthlink. What was really misleading is the fact that I could not see the full header, so I could do a WHOIS on the X-ClientAddr or the first Received From:. Yes, my mother wouldn't do that, but tracing the Xclient is pretty much every day stuff for me. Also, without being able to see the actual source and links, we were handicapped.
I still don't know WHAT was fraud about the Earthlink link anyway.
Perhaps Google should search for similar names next time before they start.
So many companies have relied on their size to justify their "right" to a name. Nissan.com is an example where a company called Nissan (not the car company) was forced to quit using the domain for commercial use, but didn't lose it, in what seems to be a case of "Well, it would cause confusion in the market place and they are bigger than you". Oh yea, the owner's name is Uzi Nissan, the owner of Nissan Computer Corp.
Its nice to see the courts use some common sense on this one. I like Google, but that doesn't make them right on this one.
No, it doesn't. That question isn't worth considering until after a trial has at least started.
You raise a very good point: No trial has even started. (someone correct me I am wrong here) but every case is in the pro-trial mode, with Discovery and Motions galore, but SCO hasn't been able (or willing) to actually begin a trial yet.
At this stage, it is entirely possible that no trial will EVER take place with SCO on either side of the issue. Even RedHat and others may drop their suits once SCO has imploded and ceased to exist as a corporation.
I can see it now, SCO's office, with only Darl left sitting at a desk in an otherwise empty building, doing an impersonation of the Music Industry Guy in the South Park "Chef Aid" episode: "I am above the law!!!!" [*spooge!* add hair cream...].
Amen. I am not sure why so many look to the government to "solve all that ails us". Not only does this strip away rights, it forces entire populations to participate in an experiment. Not only will persons who are at high risk of being addicted be affected, but the vast majority of participants would never have tried those drugs or become addicts, but still forced by government regulations, to share the same risk.
I am not sure how the UK treats "required immunizations", but we have a little choice in the US, from home schooling to waivers for "religious reasons", although most would not have enough information to do so. This strikes me in the same vein as "Big Brother", since the patented 'viruses' that you would have to be injected with are not exactly open source, but are instead proprietary property of some Drug Company(tm) used under the direction of the Federal Government, all in the name of what is best for us.
If that doesn't worry the shit out of you, then there is no hope for any of us.
I think folks are misinterpreting the terms of the GPL. Lets break it down: If you are Company A, and you sell a GPL product only to Company B, then Company B distributes it to everyone in the world, Company A is ONLY obligated to provide the source to Company B. You are only obligated to provide the source to anyone your provide binaries to, NOT everyone that wants it.
If you downloaded a copy from Company B, and you want the source, its is the responsibility of Company B, NOT Company A, because B is who distributed it from you.
If I write a GPL program and only upload it to "download.com", then ONLY download.com can force me to release the source. If you download it from there, you can't force ME to give you the source, because I did not distribute it to you, THEY did. You can force download.com to give you the source (comply with the GPL) or quit offering it for download. The GPL covers distribution, protecting your rights to distribute my software, but if you do, its YOUR responsibility to make the source available.
I know this sounds like an overly technical interpretation, but its the correct one. The reason it exists is simple: To protect the author. If I write version 1.0 of a program, you fork it and distribute it, people can't expect me to provide the source for version 2.0. I am only responsible for what I wrote, and only to who I distributed it to. Often this is the entire world, but not always.
What really irks me is that rather than invent new solutions to existing problems, the free software community waits for a commercial vendor to implement a solution, and then copies it.
I'm sorry, but you totally miss the point here. First, you have to realize the original source of FOSS, which was Unix, before AT&T started suing people. Code was shared freely, thus the standards that the entire Internet are based on are either Free or PD. Apache isn't exactly a rip off of IIS. Sendmail is a clone of what? Inn, Perl, awk, sed? Most widely used software in the Free movement were designed to provide interoperability, or scratch an itch that a group had.
Yes, many products are like Open Office, designed to provide a Free (as in speech) alternative to commercial products. Most of the tools I use for mail servers, sendmail, spamassassin, clamav, etc. may have proprietary equivelents, but that is far from them being a clone of a proprietary program.
Isn't IE a proprietary implimentation of Mozaic? Doesn't Microsoft's FTP have a copyright notice to BSD inside? (yes, it does). What about MS's telnet client? Are these not proprietary implemintations of Free programs? What about ActiveState's port of Perl to win32? Wasn't MS chat a proprietary implimentation of IRC? I could go on and on.
When it comes to internet technology, the Open source community has contributed more than any close source company CAN, simply because everyone can participate freely. I think its fine that MS participates, the problem is: MS tends to be the last one to come to the party, and yet tends to think the party is in their honor. They use BSD code, but are not willing to contribute back. When it comes to internet standards, we should not have to PAY for using a standard. Use a proprietary product that uses the standard? Fine, charge what you want. But the standard itself MUST be truly free (any Free license) or the community is not going to be willing to participate, which of course, is MS's goal. "We had to set the standard, no one else would".
This kind of licensing is like the boss who says "we are partners" without a contract, and as soon as he starts making money, fires you.
Actually, it is a big deal. The old BSD license that had the advertising nag is NOT GPL compatible, per the FSF.
They're both licences that apply to the use of software.
You need to READ the GPL. It flatly says you need NO license to use it, only to distribute it. This is a major difference in Free and non Free licenses.
Newsflash: licences are contracts.
Not according to the law. A license is a grant to someone to use copywrited material. There is more than enough case law on the differences that I won't go into detail here, google it.
Isn't that more of a self-defence clause in case people find bugs and want to sue Microsoft about it?
Yes. And it is so vague and broad in scope that the potential for abuse is a serious concern.
Big deal. Why does everything have to be GPL compatible? What would be wrong with, say, a BSD-style license for this particular application?
That would be fine. A modern BSD license *is* GPL compatible. (without the ad nag). This license is not "Free". Its not the worse license in the world, but its still not Free. When it comes to software that sets standards for the entire internet, it is much better for it to be Free, so that one company does not abuse it. Technically, this license would allow MS to change its mind once the technology is developed, and start charging people to use the technology. THAT is why the license must be free, to protect everyone who uses the internet, including your right to sell the software for any price you want.
I don't care about the license for MS Office, I can choose to use Open Office, but if MS patents this, then gets greedy, I can't run mail servers without paying a royalty (at least the servers wont be able to connect to other servers that require this 'patented' protocol). This is not acceptable to me, even if it is not likely to happen.
After a quick view of the license, here are the obvious problems I found with it, and why it is not compatible with Free software:
1. You can only use the code for software that is related to Caller ID (section 2.1)
2. Annoying advertising clause that says if you want to rebrand the code you must get permission from Microsoft. In other words, you can't fork the code under a different name. (section 2.2)
3. Overall reading seems to indicate that you must accept the license in order to USE the software, even though you did not sign anything. This is directly in opposition to the GPL.
4. The focus of the document is how you have the "right" to use their "patented" code. If this doesn't throw up red flags, nothing does. This means they can withdraw the license at any time, since it is more of a contract to use patented software than it is a license to distribute.
5. The clause in section 2.4 "Defensive Suspension" gives Microsoft broad discression to "terminate all license grants" if _they_ are sued in any way regarding the technology. This means, "sue us over the restrictions and we can instantly take away your right to use it, and thus your right to transfer email". It guarantees a bullet proof monopoly on the Patented technology.
And yes, there are plenty of other things that are at odds with the GPL, those are just the EASY to find items. See it yourself at the PDF link you provided.
I think this would qualify as propeganda spam. I also get spam telling me about how great Jesus was and how I should seek him, blah blah blah. I always forward stuff like this to abuse@.
Whether or not there is any truth in the email (I have no idea) doesn't matter. Its still spam with the intent to influence opinions. Everyone has the right to protest, but they don't have the right to FORCE me to listen to it. Sending this (or the religious or viagra variety) is forcing me to read their message. I don't diffentiate spam by the content. If its designed to make me do something (spend money, click on a banner ad, accept a deity, etc) and I did not sign up to receive it, then it is spam.
Actually, I read about half the forum posts in that thread. Lots of "lets string him up" and "I am so offended, this is spam!". Now please, don't get my wrong, but it seems like a lot of people pissing an whining about ONE email from someone who was trying to WARN everyone of a security problem, in a way that is probably not good. So what?
They seemed all freaked out and disturbed. The first thing I thought was that these guys won't make it in the real world, dealing with real problems, contracts, business deals and real life frustration. I understand not liking it, but if you read the actual forums, half the crowd is freaked out beyond all common sense.
These can NOT possibly be nerds. Most nerds I know have had a box 0wned once or twice, or a site defaced, etc. *Real* problems that had to be dealt with. But so someone has a list of your email addresses. I can simply wget the forums, write about 40 lines of code to grep out the user names, and build the same damn list.
My question is when is my car going to become cheaper? My car costs me more money every year, yet it's fundamentally the same thing sold in the sixties.
Actually, its not. The govt. now forces car companies to install safety equipment, forces them to perform crash testing, makes them design in a level of impact tolorance, CAFE standards insure better gas mileage, etc.
It looks basically the same, but the government has decided that its in the publics interest to pay more for cars that are safer, with or without your approval. This cuts both ways, obviously, but the car makers expenses are much higher than they were in the 60s. Had they not realized savings in production, productivity, computer design, etc. then you would be paying even more.
(materials + labor + research + regulations + inflation) - (productivity gains + economies of scale)
I could be wrong, but I believe they do use Methadone for severe alcoholics, and other addictions as well since it "plugs into" similar receptors. I could google it, but it looks like we both are too lazy:D
How do you check closed source propietary software for violations, to see if they have in fact taken GPL code and used it? Is this easily done, or do you have to guess, or get a leak from inside the company, or what? I admit I don't know enough about coding to understand this.
Actually, this is a very good question, and I am no expert by any means ( I code a *little* Perl is all) but if you can get the file, often you can open it with a hexeditor (think text editor for binary files) or reverse engineer it. One common method to prove a file is based on another is bugs, ironically. If you can make a program so something wrong with a particular input, and another program does the same thing, you may have a copy.
There are probably plenty here who are much better at explaining this, and if someone is a real programmer, please do explain in better detail, since this really is a very valid question.
This brings up an interesting question in my mind. Lets hypothesize for a moment that SCO loses all it's lawsuits and the GPL is proven in a US court to be valid and legally binding. How will future lawsuits dealing with violations of the GPL handled?
The beauty of precedent (we dont have a precedent here yet) is that you usually don't HAVE to deal with lawsuits. Once the GPL is found to be fully legal and binding, if XYZ Inc. is infringing, FSF sends a letter to them saying to release the source, then XYZ's lawyers tells XYZ's CEO "look, you will lose in court, you should release the code". Its the same reason people don't go around shooting others they are mad at: precedent has upheld the law that makes shooting people illegal, so you know you will do the time if you commit the offense.
anyway, can't folks in the judicial system can still use this as 'precedent' in a way?
IANAL, but technically, "yes and no". It can't be an actual precedent because a precedent is a prior ruling/interpretation on the SAME law, which isn't the case since it was a ruling on a German law. However, it can still be quoted by an attorney as previous ruling, to demonstrate that upholding the GPL is not so unusual and is "universal". The GPL isn't American or German, after all. The judge can do with that info as he pleases, consider or discard it. A smart judge would probably look at it and at least say "hmm".
I bought a WineX subscription... but that kinda defeats the point eh?
I dont think so. Its like how they give alcoholics Methadone to help them get over the addiction;) There are some Windows apps that have no Linux counterpart yet, so if WineX helps someone run Linux exclusively, while keeping productive by running their Windows apps, then I say its a great approach.
I have had mixed results with Wine, but have used it to run a few apps, like Forte's Agent (Much prefer over any Linux USENET news reader). To me, using Wine isn't admitting defeat to Microsoft, it's helping defeat Microsoft by giving people choice of OS to run Win32 apps.
Part of my sales pitch to get the boss to switch from Win32 to Linux *IS* Wine, so we can still use some older apps that have no Linux equivelent yet.
You'll probably see games and security software first.
UT2003 was one of the first to run on Linux right out of the box, so I tend to agree with you on this one. Also, because of the commonality of linux users and gamers, both having a somewhat better understanding of computers and not afraid to tweak a bit.
I am waiting for mainstream apps like a good replacement for Peachtree, etc. for 10 to 20 users, myself. apps in the $500 to $2000 range, for small (but not tiny) companies. Once you start seeing those, Linux has arrived.
I would be happy to bet that I could count on my fingers the number of people here that have BOUGHT a piece of software that runs on linux. I can proudly say that I have (Matlab), but then again I don't use the fact that a distro is free as an advantage over windows. I think the programmers should be compensated...I don't like being dependent on them without anything in return.
I have bought several programs that run on Linux only. Also, you can spend tens of thousands of dollars or more to run Oracle and any middleware program, SAP, or thousands of other apps. Most of the apps for pay are enterprise apps at this point, but there are many out there. This is increasing all the time.
My attraction to Linux is NOT cost of the distro, I have PAID for RH, Mandrake, and other distros for years, happily. I like the freedom, the ease of maintaining many different systems from one desktop (via ssh and scripts) and the robustness of the OS.
As a side note, what will happen if Linux becomes ultra popular? More programmers will be needed, all working for free? Its not going to happen!
There is no reason you can't sell apps for Linux, the same as for Windows. This is a big misconception. If you take GPL code of someone else and build on that, then you have to release your code as GPL, but any project from scratch that doesn't use GPL libs (LGPL is ok) isn't subject to the GPL at all.
I think you are mistaken - Dell did not ship compouters with preinstalled Linux for a long time. They have just begun to test shipping Linux.
You are correct on the desktop, but they have shipped servers with Linux for several years now, or with no OS. I ordered a small Dell server, 1400sc a few years ago, with no OS, and it came with kickstart files ready to install RedHat 7.2. You just had to have your own RH disks. You load their CD in, it reads, prompts for the 7,2 disks, writes with NO input from you except for changing CDs, then when it reboots Linux is fully installed. Again, only on their servers. I asked why I could not get desktops this way, they mumbled about special licensing from MS....
Why should i spend my time buidling a machine? Will i save enough money to make it worth my time? How about support - with Dell i get a better chance that the company will be around in 2-3 years when parts start to go bad.
First, most people do NOT build their own to save money. Building your own almost always costs more than off the shelf, if you are using all new parts. The primary reason for building is performance and/or features, since you can use better quality parts and combination of features. Most of these people (myself included) have never called tech support, since it takes less time to fix it yourself than to wait on hold.
I don't understand your prejudice that anyone looking to NOT spend their time configuring and bargain shopping should stick to Windows and/or is stupid. Personally i have other things to do with my time. Like reading/.
Personally, I do both. I have bought many Dell boxes over the years, and build my own as well. When I decided to buy mom a computer, I bought a Dell because I live 1300 miles from her, and wanted her to have the support if she needed it. The last home server I built (3 months ago) was built completely from parts, because I wanted very specific parts for performance reasons, and wanted special features, like several swappable drives for testing multiple OSs. Not everyone either buys off the shelf exclusively, or builds exclusively.
Slashdot Mirror
Did we need any more proof that caldera has been acting in bad faith?
;)
Caldera? Who is that? This is about USL, who used to be SCO...
If the author had read the entire Groklaw article, toward the bottom she says:
....
UPDATE: I missed something. This next one was registered in 1993 and cancelled in 2000. Here it is:
Owner - (REGISTRANT) UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES, INC. CORPORATION DELAWARE 190 River Road Summit NEW JERSEY 07901
So it wasn't abandoned in 1993, it expired perhaps in 2000. Big difference.
Go google or check out Nortons site. There used to be *real* viruses, that would screw up your bios setting and send commands to your hard drive to write to blocks that didn't exist, causing your hard drive to beat itself to dead (stop hitting yourself! stop hitting yourself!...get it?). These are also pretty easy to block viruses if you have AV protection, but this was back in the early 90s, when most computers were never even online except maybe a BBS to dl some warez. (the source of the virii) So most didn't have any AV software installed or updated.
The fun virii were the ones that encrypted your hard drive, so if you booted off a floppy (write protected, of course) you could not read your hard drive to fix the problem. Without removal tools, these were pretty damn hard to fix, because they would be in memory, so they would rewrite the file if you deleted it. I haven't seen many virii lately that attempt to write to boot sectors, unless you count Windows as a virus.
99% of the viruses now are not viruses really, but worms or trojans, designed to deliver payloads of spam or replication. Annoying, but hardly destructive to hardware, and often easy to prevent the spreading of using the "properly configured firewall" we hear so much about on slashdot.
Personally, I think replacing F with PH is pretty lame, in all things...
Same here, missed Earthlink. What was really misleading is the fact that I could not see the full header, so I could do a WHOIS on the X-ClientAddr or the first Received From:. Yes, my mother wouldn't do that, but tracing the Xclient is pretty much every day stuff for me. Also, without being able to see the actual source and links, we were handicapped.
I still don't know WHAT was fraud about the Earthlink link anyway.
Perhaps Google should search for similar names next time before they start.
So many companies have relied on their size to justify their "right" to a name. Nissan.com is an example where a company called Nissan (not the car company) was forced to quit using the domain for commercial use, but didn't lose it, in what seems to be a case of "Well, it would cause confusion in the market place and they are bigger than you". Oh yea, the owner's name is Uzi Nissan, the owner of Nissan Computer Corp.
Its nice to see the courts use some common sense on this one. I like Google, but that doesn't make them right on this one.
No, it doesn't. That question isn't worth considering until after a trial has at least started.
You raise a very good point: No trial has even started. (someone correct me I am wrong here) but every case is in the pro-trial mode, with Discovery and Motions galore, but SCO hasn't been able (or willing) to actually begin a trial yet.
At this stage, it is entirely possible that no trial will EVER take place with SCO on either side of the issue. Even RedHat and others may drop their suits once SCO has imploded and ceased to exist as a corporation.
I can see it now, SCO's office, with only Darl left sitting at a desk in an otherwise empty building, doing an impersonation of the Music Industry Guy in the South Park "Chef Aid" episode: "I am above the law!!!!" [*spooge!* add hair cream...].
Amen. I am not sure why so many look to the government to "solve all that ails us". Not only does this strip away rights, it forces entire populations to participate in an experiment. Not only will persons who are at high risk of being addicted be affected, but the vast majority of participants would never have tried those drugs or become addicts, but still forced by government regulations, to share the same risk.
I am not sure how the UK treats "required immunizations", but we have a little choice in the US, from home schooling to waivers for "religious reasons", although most would not have enough information to do so. This strikes me in the same vein as "Big Brother", since the patented 'viruses' that you would have to be injected with are not exactly open source, but are instead proprietary property of some Drug Company(tm) used under the direction of the Federal Government, all in the name of what is best for us.
If that doesn't worry the shit out of you, then there is no hope for any of us.
I think folks are misinterpreting the terms of the GPL. Lets break it down: If you are Company A, and you sell a GPL product only to Company B, then Company B distributes it to everyone in the world, Company A is ONLY obligated to provide the source to Company B. You are only obligated to provide the source to anyone your provide binaries to, NOT everyone that wants it.
If you downloaded a copy from Company B, and you want the source, its is the responsibility of Company B, NOT Company A, because B is who distributed it from you.
If I write a GPL program and only upload it to "download.com", then ONLY download.com can force me to release the source. If you download it from there, you can't force ME to give you the source, because I did not distribute it to you, THEY did. You can force download.com to give you the source (comply with the GPL) or quit offering it for download. The GPL covers distribution, protecting your rights to distribute my software, but if you do, its YOUR responsibility to make the source available.
I know this sounds like an overly technical interpretation, but its the correct one. The reason it exists is simple: To protect the author. If I write version 1.0 of a program, you fork it and distribute it, people can't expect me to provide the source for version 2.0. I am only responsible for what I wrote, and only to who I distributed it to. Often this is the entire world, but not always.
What really irks me is that rather than invent new solutions to existing problems, the free software community waits for a commercial vendor to implement a solution, and then copies it.
I'm sorry, but you totally miss the point here. First, you have to realize the original source of FOSS, which was Unix, before AT&T started suing people. Code was shared freely, thus the standards that the entire Internet are based on are either Free or PD. Apache isn't exactly a rip off of IIS. Sendmail is a clone of what? Inn, Perl, awk, sed? Most widely used software in the Free movement were designed to provide interoperability, or scratch an itch that a group had.
Yes, many products are like Open Office, designed to provide a Free (as in speech) alternative to commercial products. Most of the tools I use for mail servers, sendmail, spamassassin, clamav, etc. may have proprietary equivelents, but that is far from them being a clone of a proprietary program.
Isn't IE a proprietary implimentation of Mozaic? Doesn't Microsoft's FTP have a copyright notice to BSD inside? (yes, it does). What about MS's telnet client? Are these not proprietary implemintations of Free programs? What about ActiveState's port of Perl to win32? Wasn't MS chat a proprietary implimentation of IRC? I could go on and on.
When it comes to internet technology, the Open source community has contributed more than any close source company CAN, simply because everyone can participate freely. I think its fine that MS participates, the problem is: MS tends to be the last one to come to the party, and yet tends to think the party is in their honor. They use BSD code, but are not willing to contribute back. When it comes to internet standards, we should not have to PAY for using a standard. Use a proprietary product that uses the standard? Fine, charge what you want. But the standard itself MUST be truly free (any Free license) or the community is not going to be willing to participate, which of course, is MS's goal. "We had to set the standard, no one else would".
This kind of licensing is like the boss who says "we are partners" without a contract, and as soon as he starts making money, fires you.
So it's more BSD-like then, big deal.
Actually, it is a big deal. The old BSD license that had the advertising nag is NOT GPL compatible, per the FSF.
They're both licences that apply to the use of software.
You need to READ the GPL. It flatly says you need NO license to use it, only to distribute it. This is a major difference in Free and non Free licenses.
Newsflash: licences are contracts.
Not according to the law. A license is a grant to someone to use copywrited material. There is more than enough case law on the differences that I won't go into detail here, google it.
Isn't that more of a self-defence clause in case people find bugs and want to sue Microsoft about it?
Yes. And it is so vague and broad in scope that the potential for abuse is a serious concern.
Big deal. Why does everything have to be GPL compatible? What would be wrong with, say, a BSD-style license for this particular application?
That would be fine. A modern BSD license *is* GPL compatible. (without the ad nag). This license is not "Free". Its not the worse license in the world, but its still not Free. When it comes to software that sets standards for the entire internet, it is much better for it to be Free, so that one company does not abuse it. Technically, this license would allow MS to change its mind once the technology is developed, and start charging people to use the technology. THAT is why the license must be free, to protect everyone who uses the internet, including your right to sell the software for any price you want.
I don't care about the license for MS Office, I can choose to use Open Office, but if MS patents this, then gets greedy, I can't run mail servers without paying a royalty (at least the servers wont be able to connect to other servers that require this 'patented' protocol). This is not acceptable to me, even if it is not likely to happen.
After a quick view of the license, here are the obvious problems I found with it, and why it is not compatible with Free software:
1. You can only use the code for software that is related to Caller ID (section 2.1)
2. Annoying advertising clause that says if you want to rebrand the code you must get permission from Microsoft. In other words, you can't fork the code under a different name. (section 2.2)
3. Overall reading seems to indicate that you must accept the license in order to USE the software, even though you did not sign anything. This is directly in opposition to the GPL.
4. The focus of the document is how you have the "right" to use their "patented" code. If this doesn't throw up red flags, nothing does. This means they can withdraw the license at any time, since it is more of a contract to use patented software than it is a license to distribute.
5. The clause in section 2.4 "Defensive Suspension" gives Microsoft broad discression to "terminate all license grants" if _they_ are sued in any way regarding the technology. This means, "sue us over the restrictions and we can instantly take away your right to use it, and thus your right to transfer email". It guarantees a bullet proof monopoly on the Patented technology.
And yes, there are plenty of other things that are at odds with the GPL, those are just the EASY to find items. See it yourself at the PDF link you provided.
I think this would qualify as propeganda spam. I also get spam telling me about how great Jesus was and how I should seek him, blah blah blah. I always forward stuff like this to abuse@.
Whether or not there is any truth in the email (I have no idea) doesn't matter. Its still spam with the intent to influence opinions. Everyone has the right to protest, but they don't have the right to FORCE me to listen to it. Sending this (or the religious or viagra variety) is forcing me to read their message. I don't diffentiate spam by the content. If its designed to make me do something (spend money, click on a banner ad, accept a deity, etc) and I did not sign up to receive it, then it is spam.
Actually, I read about half the forum posts in that thread. Lots of "lets string him up" and "I am so offended, this is spam!". Now please, don't get my wrong, but it seems like a lot of people pissing an whining about ONE email from someone who was trying to WARN everyone of a security problem, in a way that is probably not good. So what?
They seemed all freaked out and disturbed. The first thing I thought was that these guys won't make it in the real world, dealing with real problems, contracts, business deals and real life frustration. I understand not liking it, but if you read the actual forums, half the crowd is freaked out beyond all common sense.
These can NOT possibly be nerds. Most nerds I know have had a box 0wned once or twice, or a site defaced, etc. *Real* problems that had to be dealt with. But so someone has a list of your email addresses. I can simply wget the forums, write about 40 lines of code to grep out the user names, and build the same damn list.
Get over yourselves Mac/spy/wannabes.
My question is when is my car going to become cheaper? My car costs me more money every year, yet it's fundamentally the same thing sold in the sixties.
Actually, its not. The govt. now forces car companies to install safety equipment, forces them to perform crash testing, makes them design in a level of impact tolorance, CAFE standards insure better gas mileage, etc.
It looks basically the same, but the government has decided that its in the publics interest to pay more for cars that are safer, with or without your approval. This cuts both ways, obviously, but the car makers expenses are much higher than they were in the 60s. Had they not realized savings in production, productivity, computer design, etc. then you would be paying even more.
(materials + labor + research + regulations + inflation) - (productivity gains + economies of scale)
I could be wrong, but I believe they do use Methadone for severe alcoholics, and other addictions as well since it "plugs into" similar receptors. I could google it, but it looks like we both are too lazy :D
How do you check closed source propietary software for violations, to see if they have in fact taken GPL code and used it? Is this easily done, or do you have to guess, or get a leak from inside the company, or what? I admit I don't know enough about coding to understand this.
Actually, this is a very good question, and I am no expert by any means ( I code a *little* Perl is all) but if you can get the file, often you can open it with a hexeditor (think text editor for binary files) or reverse engineer it. One common method to prove a file is based on another is bugs, ironically. If you can make a program so something wrong with a particular input, and another program does the same thing, you may have a copy.
There are probably plenty here who are much better at explaining this, and if someone is a real programmer, please do explain in better detail, since this really is a very valid question.
This brings up an interesting question in my mind. Lets hypothesize for a moment that SCO loses all it's lawsuits and the GPL is proven in a US court to be valid and legally binding. How will future lawsuits dealing with violations of the GPL handled?
The beauty of precedent (we dont have a precedent here yet) is that you usually don't HAVE to deal with lawsuits. Once the GPL is found to be fully legal and binding, if XYZ Inc. is infringing, FSF sends a letter to them saying to release the source, then XYZ's lawyers tells XYZ's CEO "look, you will lose in court, you should release the code". Its the same reason people don't go around shooting others they are mad at: precedent has upheld the law that makes shooting people illegal, so you know you will do the time if you commit the offense.
anyway, can't folks in the judicial system can still use this as 'precedent' in a way?
IANAL, but technically, "yes and no". It can't be an actual precedent because a precedent is a prior ruling/interpretation on the SAME law, which isn't the case since it was a ruling on a German law. However, it can still be quoted by an attorney as previous ruling, to demonstrate that upholding the GPL is not so unusual and is "universal". The GPL isn't American or German, after all. The judge can do with that info as he pleases, consider or discard it. A smart judge would probably look at it and at least say "hmm".
I bought a WineX subscription... but that kinda defeats the point eh?
;) There are some Windows apps that have no Linux counterpart yet, so if WineX helps someone run Linux exclusively, while keeping productive by running their Windows apps, then I say its a great approach.
I dont think so. Its like how they give alcoholics Methadone to help them get over the addiction
I have had mixed results with Wine, but have used it to run a few apps, like Forte's Agent (Much prefer over any Linux USENET news reader). To me, using Wine isn't admitting defeat to Microsoft, it's helping defeat Microsoft by giving people choice of OS to run Win32 apps.
Part of my sales pitch to get the boss to switch from Win32 to Linux *IS* Wine, so we can still use some older apps that have no Linux equivelent yet.
You'll probably see games and security software first.
UT2003 was one of the first to run on Linux right out of the box, so I tend to agree with you on this one. Also, because of the commonality of linux users and gamers, both having a somewhat better understanding of computers and not afraid to tweak a bit.
I am waiting for mainstream apps like a good replacement for Peachtree, etc. for 10 to 20 users, myself. apps in the $500 to $2000 range, for small (but not tiny) companies. Once you start seeing those, Linux has arrived.
I would be happy to bet that I could count on my fingers the number of people here that have BOUGHT a piece of software that runs on linux. I can proudly say that I have (Matlab), but then again I don't use the fact that a distro is free as an advantage over windows. I think the programmers should be compensated...I don't like being dependent on them without anything in return.
I have bought several programs that run on Linux only. Also, you can spend tens of thousands of dollars or more to run Oracle and any middleware program, SAP, or thousands of other apps. Most of the apps for pay are enterprise apps at this point, but there are many out there. This is increasing all the time.
My attraction to Linux is NOT cost of the distro, I have PAID for RH, Mandrake, and other distros for years, happily. I like the freedom, the ease of maintaining many different systems from one desktop (via ssh and scripts) and the robustness of the OS.
As a side note, what will happen if Linux becomes ultra popular? More programmers will be needed, all working for free? Its not going to happen!
There is no reason you can't sell apps for Linux, the same as for Windows. This is a big misconception. If you take GPL code of someone else and build on that, then you have to release your code as GPL, but any project from scratch that doesn't use GPL libs (LGPL is ok) isn't subject to the GPL at all.
I think you are mistaken - Dell did not ship compouters with preinstalled Linux for a long time. They have just begun to test shipping Linux.
You are correct on the desktop, but they have shipped servers with Linux for several years now, or with no OS. I ordered a small Dell server, 1400sc a few years ago, with no OS, and it came with kickstart files ready to install RedHat 7.2. You just had to have your own RH disks. You load their CD in, it reads, prompts for the 7,2 disks, writes with NO input from you except for changing CDs, then when it reboots Linux is fully installed. Again, only on their servers. I asked why I could not get desktops this way, they mumbled about special licensing from MS....
...and nobody is going to take that computer then 3 years from the date of purchase and slap linux on it then..
I hope you are joking. This is probably how the majority of Linux installs happen, take an older box and put Linux on it.
Why should i spend my time buidling a machine? Will i save enough money to make it worth my time? How about support - with Dell i get a better chance that the company will be around in 2-3 years when parts start to go bad.
/.
First, most people do NOT build their own to save money. Building your own almost always costs more than off the shelf, if you are using all new parts. The primary reason for building is performance and/or features, since you can use better quality parts and combination of features. Most of these people (myself included) have never called tech support, since it takes less time to fix it yourself than to wait on hold.
I don't understand your prejudice that anyone looking to NOT spend their time configuring and bargain shopping should stick to Windows and/or is stupid. Personally i have other things to do with my time. Like reading
Personally, I do both. I have bought many Dell boxes over the years, and build my own as well. When I decided to buy mom a computer, I bought a Dell because I live 1300 miles from her, and wanted her to have the support if she needed it. The last home server I built (3 months ago) was built completely from parts, because I wanted very specific parts for performance reasons, and wanted special features, like several swappable drives for testing multiple OSs. Not everyone either buys off the shelf exclusively, or builds exclusively.