I know lots of people that enjoy telemarking calls. My grandmother was one of them. I think she was lonely or something, but she always wanted to talk to them.. She'd ask how their day was, blah blah blah. She'd invite the freaking mormons and JW's in to talk.
Just because you can't imagine why anyone would want to talk to them doesn't mean everyone must be tricked into it.
BTW, AT&T lost their suit against BSDi on a technicality. The fact that they didn't post copyright notices on their code (which is no longer required for copyright to be enforced). I wouldn't go crowing about that. If not for that technicality, a technicality which would not save them today, BSDi would have been in a lot of trouble.
You assume that any copyright claim would be grandfathered from that decision, however any code developed since then would not be subject to that decision, especially if the code was developed after the change to copyright law that allowed for unmarked copyright enforcement. However, even so, the settlement between AT&T and BSDi was not a complete win for BSDi, as BSDi was required to stop distributing certain files as well as to post USL copyrights in various files.
My point is, sure.. you were right. But the facts available at the time did not provide to any reasonable person an assurance of that. Only those with blind faith could honestly say that "SCO was full of shit". It wasn't until much later in the case when things failed to materialize that one could safely assume that. Everything else up to that point was wishful thinking.
I think you mean NAT, and yes they do.. because SIP, like FTP, includes IP addresses within the packets. Those IP addresses have to be either futzed with by the implementation (not standard compliant) or futzed with by the firewall, which isn't standards compliant either.
Most new technologies will not succeed without marketing. That requires income. And of course marketing does not guarantee success, and there are exceptions where products without marketing have become wildly successful (P2P for instance).
Yes, commercial entities can use open standards in their products, but most of the early pioneers run into problems that there is no open standard solution for, or they simply don't want to compete on a level playing field, so they create their own. Why do you think most of the popular VOIP services like Skype, Vonage, etc.. all use proprietary or semi-proprietary tools? (Vonage uses SIP/RTP but lock up the equipment so you are forced to use their equipment. I also think they use something proprietary to get around firewall issues).
The certificate is only part of the problem, the other part is that HTTPS doesn't have a facility to use hostname to distinguish between sites, so it will send all requests to the same site.
Nevermind the fact that many protocols have problems with NAT, VOIP for instance, which is becoming more and more popular. Forcing vendors to use proprietary protocols like IAX and Skype to get around it.
Not entirely true. Yes, HTTP 1.1 can support many sites on one IP address, but https cannot. You can only have one secure "site" per IP address. If everyone is behind a NAT firewall, then that means all the viruses are behind it as well. Kind of defeats the purpose, does it not?
You review a small percentage, and if that looks good, a small percentage more, etc.. giving ample opportunity to reject the code based on its quality. The submitter should not ever have to win a popularity contest.
If the code is bad, it will be shown as such quickly. You don't have to review the whole thing. You only have to review the whole thing for code that is otherwise excellent but might have a small problem.
Re:Groklaw is an example of the power of open sour
on
Grokking SCO's Demise
·
· Score: 1
SFU is based on Interix, which in turn was based on OpenNT bought from Softway. It's true that Interix has OpenBSD userspace utilities by default, the kernel is System V based. You can also install the System V utilities optionally.
You misunderstand. I'm talking about evaluating the code. Not the submitter. I could care less if the submitter is Linus or Charles Manson, if the code is good, it should be used, regardless of any "personality" conflicts or whether someone is well known or not.
The quality of the code doesn't change because you don't know or like the submitter.
So let me get this straight. Whether a patch gets accepted seems to have nothing to do with the code itself, which might be perfect and create world peace, but if the contributor isn't known and doesn't make friends with everyone, it will never make it into the kernel?
Wow.
Re:Copyright provenance as the initial question
on
Grokking SCO's Demise
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Even Novell didn't know they still owned the copyrights, so anyone "pointing out the question" was simply grasping at straws. You caught one;)
Novell, for years, had lost the paperwork and had no idea that it still had any interest in Unixware. All the people that had done the deal were gone, and the current regime spent a lot of time digging up the paperwork to figure out what was going on.
five years! Just to throw out what folks who knew better (read: those of us who lived/worked/breathed Linux) saw instantly as an obvious cock-and-bull scam by a dying dot-bust corporation.
Ahh the hubris of the lucky.
Just as many people claimed OJ was guilty, before ever hearing a shred of evidence, solely because he was a black man, so to did many people claim SCO was full of crap before ever hearing a shred of evidence (because they didn't want them to be right). It turned out in both cases to be true, but that was only luck, since in both cases the people jumping to conclusions had no facts, and only belief to guide them.
It's like some relative saying "I told you so" after you crashed and burned at something. They just wanted you to fail, and the fact that you did was lucky for them.
Bask in the glory, but don't for second believe that you "knew" the outcome of this. You guessed the outcome, based on what you wanted to believe to be true. And thakfully, that turned out to be the case.
Re:Groklaw is an example of the power of open sour
on
Grokking SCO's Demise
·
· Score: 2, Informative
SFU is a licensed port os System Vr4 running on Windows. It's not BSD based and never was. Also, remember that Xenix was sold to The Santa Cruz Operation (SCO) and Microsoft made agreements with them about what they could and couldn't do. SCO later sold all their Unix intersts to Caldera, and changed their name to Tarantella, and Caldera became the "new" SCO.
There's never been any mystery in why Microsoft took out a license (the same reason Sun did), they both made use of SCO owned IP. Microsoft has it's Services for Unix that includes a fully licensed System V implementation running on Windows. I don't think there's anyone questioning whether or not SCO had the right to sell System V licenses.
Only people trying to make some kind of deeper conspiracy use words like "why is something of a mystery". The fact of the matter is, Microsoft has it's fingers in virtually EVERYTHING in computers. You can find a connection from anyone and anything to Microsoft, including Linux. That doesn't mean it's not impossible for Microsoft to have been involved, but the "evidence" everyone likes to use is so circumstantial and so easily explained by other means that it's ridiculous.
Talk about rewriting history, yours is completely wrong.
Windows 95 shipped with a TCP/IP stack. There was a lot of outcry by people who complained that Microsoft was putting trumpet out of business. Microsoft shipped Internet Explorer at the same time as Windows 95 (August 95) but did not include it in Windows until the "A" version (known as OSR1). Considering that Netscape only existed for 1 year prior to that (they were founded in 1994), Your "for the longest time" seems a rather stupid comment.
Yes, Windows 95 shipped with MSN Network as well, but it was really just their attempt to compete with AOL and Compuserve.
"Windows 95 originally shipped without Internet Explorer, and the default network installation did not install TCP/IP, the network protocol used on the Internet. At the release date of Windows 95, Internet Explorer 1.0 was available, but only in the Plus! add-on pack for Windows 95"
I do not believe that the web, or HTML of any version would have been the wild success without the marketing efforts of both Netscape and Microsoft. They would have simply fallen flat. And while both of them could have used only "standard" versions of HTML, they did not. It wasn't until the W3C was created and later caught up with what the proprietary people were doing that "standard" HTML became popular.
Remember, HTML 3 was not a standard, yet it was the most popular version of HTML for nearly 5 years. HTML 3.2 was the W3C's response to the popularity of the "proprietary" HTML 3.
Corporate email systems were largely proprietary protocols too. These systems predated the popularity of the internet (though not the internet itself). As the internet became popular, people wanted to email just like they did in their corporate or AOL or Compuserve or whatever systems. BitTorrent came out of Napster, Morpheus, Kazaa, etc.. all of which were proprietary.
As an example of my point, how popular is SVG? How popular is XHTML (i mean the real XHTML used for it's intended purpose, not the bastardized XHTML most people use).
Also, like I said, HTML was only made popular by bastardized commercial versions of it.
HTML is older than 15 years, and yes it started out open, but it was made popular as proprietized versions by Netscape and Microsoft. XML is just a reformulation of SGML, which was largely proprietarized as well, but not part of the internet.
Sorry, meant 15 years, not 5. And before you say it, yes, i know email existed on the internet and arpanet for years, but it wasn't as popular as corporate email systems.
I wouldn't say the internet thrives on open standards. I'd say that closed source, proprietary technologies cause the internet to thrive and progress, and when the open standards people catch up to what most people have been doing for 5 years, it's usually a good thing.
Nearly all the advances that have happened on the internet over the last 15 years have been started as proprietary technology, while the technologies that began life open have wallowed and gone virtually nowhere. It's only when the proprietary technologies become open that things become better.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, that's not true.
I know lots of people that enjoy telemarking calls. My grandmother was one of them. I think she was lonely or something, but she always wanted to talk to them.. She'd ask how their day was, blah blah blah. She'd invite the freaking mormons and JW's in to talk.
Just because you can't imagine why anyone would want to talk to them doesn't mean everyone must be tricked into it.
Nice and witty, but you just proved my point.
BTW, AT&T lost their suit against BSDi on a technicality. The fact that they didn't post copyright notices on their code (which is no longer required for copyright to be enforced). I wouldn't go crowing about that. If not for that technicality, a technicality which would not save them today, BSDi would have been in a lot of trouble.
You assume that any copyright claim would be grandfathered from that decision, however any code developed since then would not be subject to that decision, especially if the code was developed after the change to copyright law that allowed for unmarked copyright enforcement. However, even so, the settlement between AT&T and BSDi was not a complete win for BSDi, as BSDi was required to stop distributing certain files as well as to post USL copyrights in various files.
My point is, sure.. you were right. But the facts available at the time did not provide to any reasonable person an assurance of that. Only those with blind faith could honestly say that "SCO was full of shit". It wasn't until much later in the case when things failed to materialize that one could safely assume that. Everything else up to that point was wishful thinking.
I think you mean NAT, and yes they do.. because SIP, like FTP, includes IP addresses within the packets. Those IP addresses have to be either futzed with by the implementation (not standard compliant) or futzed with by the firewall, which isn't standards compliant either.
Most new technologies will not succeed without marketing. That requires income. And of course marketing does not guarantee success, and there are exceptions where products without marketing have become wildly successful (P2P for instance).
Yes, commercial entities can use open standards in their products, but most of the early pioneers run into problems that there is no open standard solution for, or they simply don't want to compete on a level playing field, so they create their own. Why do you think most of the popular VOIP services like Skype, Vonage, etc.. all use proprietary or semi-proprietary tools? (Vonage uses SIP/RTP but lock up the equipment so you are forced to use their equipment. I also think they use something proprietary to get around firewall issues).
The certificate is only part of the problem, the other part is that HTTPS doesn't have a facility to use hostname to distinguish between sites, so it will send all requests to the same site.
Nevermind the fact that many protocols have problems with NAT, VOIP for instance, which is becoming more and more popular. Forcing vendors to use proprietary protocols like IAX and Skype to get around it.
Not entirely true. Yes, HTTP 1.1 can support many sites on one IP address, but https cannot. You can only have one secure "site" per IP address. If everyone is behind a NAT firewall, then that means all the viruses are behind it as well. Kind of defeats the purpose, does it not?
That line of thinking goes entirely against all that open source stands for.
Like I said, let the code speak for itself, not the cult of personality of it's submitter.
And again, if the code is bad, a simple perusal should show that.
You review a small percentage, and if that looks good, a small percentage more, etc.. giving ample opportunity to reject the code based on its quality. The submitter should not ever have to win a popularity contest.
If the code is bad, it will be shown as such quickly. You don't have to review the whole thing. You only have to review the whole thing for code that is otherwise excellent but might have a small problem.
SFU is based on Interix, which in turn was based on OpenNT bought from Softway. It's true that Interix has OpenBSD userspace utilities by default, the kernel is System V based. You can also install the System V utilities optionally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interix
I first used OpenNT about 10 years ago, and it was billed by Softway as "A licensed port of System Vr4 Unix running on Windows NT".
You misunderstand. I'm talking about evaluating the code. Not the submitter. I could care less if the submitter is Linus or Charles Manson, if the code is good, it should be used, regardless of any "personality" conflicts or whether someone is well known or not.
The quality of the code doesn't change because you don't know or like the submitter.
So let me get this straight. Whether a patch gets accepted seems to have nothing to do with the code itself, which might be perfect and create world peace, but if the contributor isn't known and doesn't make friends with everyone, it will never make it into the kernel?
Wow.
Even Novell didn't know they still owned the copyrights, so anyone "pointing out the question" was simply grasping at straws. You caught one ;)
Novell, for years, had lost the paperwork and had no idea that it still had any interest in Unixware. All the people that had done the deal were gone, and the current regime spent a lot of time digging up the paperwork to figure out what was going on.
five years! Just to throw out what folks who knew better (read: those of us who lived/worked/breathed Linux) saw instantly as an obvious cock-and-bull scam by a dying dot-bust corporation.
Ahh the hubris of the lucky.
Just as many people claimed OJ was guilty, before ever hearing a shred of evidence, solely because he was a black man, so to did many people claim SCO was full of crap before ever hearing a shred of evidence (because they didn't want them to be right). It turned out in both cases to be true, but that was only luck, since in both cases the people jumping to conclusions had no facts, and only belief to guide them.
It's like some relative saying "I told you so" after you crashed and burned at something. They just wanted you to fail, and the fact that you did was lucky for them.
Bask in the glory, but don't for second believe that you "knew" the outcome of this. You guessed the outcome, based on what you wanted to believe to be true. And thakfully, that turned out to be the case.
SFU is a licensed port os System Vr4 running on Windows. It's not BSD based and never was. Also, remember that Xenix was sold to The Santa Cruz Operation (SCO) and Microsoft made agreements with them about what they could and couldn't do. SCO later sold all their Unix intersts to Caldera, and changed their name to Tarantella, and Caldera became the "new" SCO.
There's never been any mystery in why Microsoft took out a license (the same reason Sun did), they both made use of SCO owned IP. Microsoft has it's Services for Unix that includes a fully licensed System V implementation running on Windows. I don't think there's anyone questioning whether or not SCO had the right to sell System V licenses.
Only people trying to make some kind of deeper conspiracy use words like "why is something of a mystery". The fact of the matter is, Microsoft has it's fingers in virtually EVERYTHING in computers. You can find a connection from anyone and anything to Microsoft, including Linux. That doesn't mean it's not impossible for Microsoft to have been involved, but the "evidence" everyone likes to use is so circumstantial and so easily explained by other means that it's ridiculous.
Talk about rewriting history, yours is completely wrong.
Windows 95 shipped with a TCP/IP stack. There was a lot of outcry by people who complained that Microsoft was putting trumpet out of business. Microsoft shipped Internet Explorer at the same time as Windows 95 (August 95) but did not include it in Windows until the "A" version (known as OSR1). Considering that Netscape only existed for 1 year prior to that (they were founded in 1994), Your "for the longest time" seems a rather stupid comment.
Yes, Windows 95 shipped with MSN Network as well, but it was really just their attempt to compete with AOL and Compuserve.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows95
"Windows 95 originally shipped without Internet Explorer, and the default network installation did not install TCP/IP, the network protocol used on the Internet. At the release date of Windows 95, Internet Explorer 1.0 was available, but only in the Plus! add-on pack for Windows 95"
I do not believe that the web, or HTML of any version would have been the wild success without the marketing efforts of both Netscape and Microsoft. They would have simply fallen flat. And while both of them could have used only "standard" versions of HTML, they did not. It wasn't until the W3C was created and later caught up with what the proprietary people were doing that "standard" HTML became popular.
Remember, HTML 3 was not a standard, yet it was the most popular version of HTML for nearly 5 years. HTML 3.2 was the W3C's response to the popularity of the "proprietary" HTML 3.
Corporate email systems were largely proprietary protocols too. These systems predated the popularity of the internet (though not the internet itself). As the internet became popular, people wanted to email just like they did in their corporate or AOL or Compuserve or whatever systems. BitTorrent came out of Napster, Morpheus, Kazaa, etc.. all of which were proprietary.
As an example of my point, how popular is SVG? How popular is XHTML (i mean the real XHTML used for it's intended purpose, not the bastardized XHTML most people use).
Also, like I said, HTML was only made popular by bastardized commercial versions of it.
Good question, Mr AC. I at least have the balls to not be an AC when I post my opinions.
I think you mean 2001. But I was talking about stuff like SVG, Canvas, etc.. all of which have gone nowhere.
I think you are imagining things. I didn't say "open source people". In fact, i said nothing about open source.
But since you mention it, gnash.
HTML is older than 15 years, and yes it started out open, but it was made popular as proprietized versions by Netscape and Microsoft. XML is just a reformulation of SGML, which was largely proprietarized as well, but not part of the internet.
Sorry, meant 15 years, not 5. And before you say it, yes, i know email existed on the internet and arpanet for years, but it wasn't as popular as corporate email systems.
Actually, you proved my point.
1) Email is older than 5 years, and it was largely made popular by proprietary corporate systems, then became popular over the internet.
2) SSH began life as freeware, but was quickly proprietarized by the creator. Later, open source versions appeared.
3) BitTorrent was never a standard of any kind and still isn't, BitTorrent corporation is proprietary.
4) HTML was largely made popular by Netscape and Microsoft, both of whome flouted standards for years creating proprietary tags.
I wouldn't say the internet thrives on open standards. I'd say that closed source, proprietary technologies cause the internet to thrive and progress, and when the open standards people catch up to what most people have been doing for 5 years, it's usually a good thing.
Nearly all the advances that have happened on the internet over the last 15 years have been started as proprietary technology, while the technologies that began life open have wallowed and gone virtually nowhere. It's only when the proprietary technologies become open that things become better.