Don't I know it, but the SCO debacle has taken on a life of it's own. I'm not sure that MS has much control of their actions anymore now that they've helped feed Darl's ego. Darl has their money and he's just pompus enough to believe that he doesn't need them anymore.
Between this, SCO, and the stuff MS et al have tried in the past year, consider it game on for the war on OSS. I get the feeling that things are really going to heat up as we head into 2004 and get even hotter in 2004. Thankfully, OSS has enough of a foothold to defend itself and (hopefuly) survive. I'll be sending another FSF donation tonight, what else can we do folks? We need some OSS lobbyists or companies with lobbyists to want to help protect OSS. Ideas? Suggestions?
Re:Ummm.. yea, everyone basically does this.
on
Open Source at TiVo
·
· Score: 1
Don't let it get you down. That's why they're Anonymous Cowards. I actually agree with what you said. Having worked for 100% MS shops, Mixed shops and even with an IBM OS390 system, the benefits of an MS solution, especially tech support, are disappearing. It would seem that MS's standard of support is now
Your Product Activation phone call
Patches if a problem becomes public
Windows Update
The sad part is that the zealots on the extremes (OSS and MS) refuse to even consider the other side or even a mixed solution. Ususally because they are too lazy/sick of their job to adapt and feel threatened by something outside of their skill set.
The sad part is the class bully's stock price doesn't go up $1.50 when he starts crying. If you know someone who bought SCO stock today, please throttle them for me. Thanks.
This accusation of IBM pulling strings sounds like FUD, but I think the idea was sparked by a guilty conscience. Remember that people generally only accuse others of things they think are reasonable actions (without evidence of something haenous, that is). I think Darl finds it quite reasonable that a large company would control the actions of a smaller, more litigous company. (MS?)
Darl probably doesn't realize that he just handed IBM an actual good idea. They could build quite a position and reputation by offering themselves as a flag to rally under. Darl needs a PR handler badly.
I don't think Linus' comment that "they are smoking crack" really covered it.
At this point, it's looking more like a PCP addiction than crack rock. That whole superman delusion coupled with rampant hallucinations has kicked in and now they need to kill to feel pure again. The treatment for addiction involves lots of phychotherapy, which I see Darl could use.
It would appear to me that MS is trying to placate or woo hardware manufacturers with prominant branding as a way to save some market share (hardware vendors have a habit of endorsing software that helps them market and brand themselves). The audio stuff in these shots has marketing and branding all over them. The MP3 player properties that show the Philips logo, the Logitech speakers, there's even a shot that has a spot marked off as "branding" (I admit, for who we don't know). I especially like the "Buying a new device" link in that same image.
I wonder if providing pictures of your product and logos will become part of the Windows software/hardware certification process. I also wonder if MS is going to make non-partnered products appear with some kind of friendly warning or desparagement, thus making Joe SixPack think that they're unsafe to use or won't work completely. I bet that $15 digital camera's drivers or that $5 mouse's drivers are literally going to look like shit and not just work like shit in the future.
"if you ship an application that requires interaction with a MySQL database then that application must be GPL"
Not true. Actually, there is no restriction saying that your application must be GPL if it interfaces with MySQL. Heck, you don't even need a MySQL commercial license unless you are distributing MySQL with your application. Since I've been working on an app that I'm going to sell in a closed source full standalone version (don't throw rocks at me - I need to eat too) and tone down to GPL in a "lite" version that works with another GPL product,I've been doing a lot of reading on this very subject. From the MySQL licensing document
If your application is not licensed under GPL or compatible OSI license approved by MySQL AB and you intend to distribute MySQL software (be that internally or externally), you must first obtain a commercial license to the MySQL software in question.
If they required you to GPL your application, then they wouldn't have many paying users as all of the commercial projects would migrate to PostgreSQL, Oracle or SQL Server to avoid the GPL.
Are you saying they would settle? I can hear it now: "We won a major out of court battle about this with a large software company, so you should settle too. Umm.. Yeah. The large company was us, but they... err... we settled!!"
SCO sells me Linux (Caldera). They let me take it home and install it. They then sue me because I have their (alleged)roprietary/copyrighted/patented material, saying that I am breaking the law for using what they sold me. They tell me that the license that they sold it to me under is illegal, so I owe them money for a new license, while they still utilize that license themselves in the manner that they said that I can't.
Isn't that entrapment? Do you have to be a law enforcement agency to entrap? If it's not entrapment, could it be considered extortion? Since they sold me the license, are they an accessory to the crime? If we are guilty, arent they too?
I usually have a more level head than this, but I can't hold it back any longer; Fuck you Darl. If your were standing in front of me, I'd bitchslap you myself. Twice.
Wow! Was that really part of the deal? Jeez. That is shifty. "Help us inflate our stock price with this small investment..." This stuff may not make the best legal or business sense, but there are con artists and inside traders that must dream of being Darl. The backroom deals with these stocks are peeling like an onion - many thin transparent layers that make you cry when you pull them away.
"A reasonable advocate would be working on a method to right now to find coders who have NEVER seen either the SCO code, the licensed IBM code or the stolen Linux code and begin a process of writing true black-box replacements."
I'd have to disagree with you here (well actually more than just here, but this is the point I will address). It's impossible to get anyone who hasn't seen the SCO code, because we don't know what code is (supposedly) SCO's and SCO keeps changing their claim as to how much code that is. Basically it seems that you'd be hiring a kernel programmer that has never seen kernel code since there *might* be some SCO code *somewhere* in the kernel.
Beyond that, why waste time trying to "black-box" the code when most, if not all, of these claims seem unfounded. I take it you've been reading the responses you've gotten so far regarding the BSD nature of the comments, right?
"Oh, how I hope the mainstream tech press 'gets' this."
Even if they don't, I did. Many others here did. Thank you. Thank you very much.
I don't think SCO really knows the history of all of this code. Especially since they are fairly recent to it's ownership. Instead of being silly, they should be hiring guys like you who know this code's history and true origins (sometimes line by line - you guys amaze me) to do a bit of reality checking for them. Then again, I can't think of anyone who would want to work for Darl.
Don't forget to cater to the most popular analogy here. "And my car should always run". Which doesn't always happen unless you buy a new car. Maybe that's what MS is eventually planning. Break it until they have to buy a new one.
"You think it's a good idea to bring the DHS into a computer security matter, one that is entirely pedestrian and civilian in nature?"
So far, it's the only suggestion I've heard.
"You think that every computer and every ISP is part of the nation's infrastructure, and is therefore deserving of federal protection and action?"
No. The DHS does though. Technically, the internet by design was created to be national infrastructure, so they do have a good argument, or at least one that has a chance of standing up in today's court system.
"Apparently in your world it is a great idea to have corporations going after individuals for stupid, nonsensical reasons."
Not just no, but hell no. I don't think he should have gone to jail for this. I DO think he could have avoided it coming to that.
"I think that having this guy email the client list is precisely the correct _systemic_ action to take."
And I think he should have found an alternative before doing something that could bring legal action. Even if the case was crap (which I agree it was), mailing the customers directly is playing with fire. The company would have found something to hang him with and I don't think they really cared what it was.
I'm not going to argue with you guys when I agree with you for the most part. Free Speech (the ideology) is great. People should speak their minds. Free Speech (the implementation) is riddled with the flaws of being part of the real world, where politics and laws can bite you in the ass. Exercising Free Speech (the implementation) takes some thought and planning and contacting the customers directly seemed reactionary and born of (understandable) frustration. As a result, he got into a lot of trouble for a misdirected attempt to help.
As I've mentioned, I agree that he needed to do something. I only question his choice of somethings. Contacting the customers directly should have followed trying to contact some other external organization. In fact, I was hoping for some ideas as to what organizations would be appropriate and/or receptive to such a disclosure. Instead, the post got trolled making me out to be a censor of some sort. Ahhhhhhh/....
If it only uses a parallel port or USB, stay away from it. Being able to plug a printer in anywhere there is a network drop and having it be self sufficient (no I don't mean loading papaer itself, just not a slave to a PC) are a must. Having co-workers clamor around your desk because you have the FAX and the printer sucks and can slow your machine down if the drivers suck(voice of experience).
Sorry, but the reactionary poster had my blood boiling and he ended it with a dubious blanket generalization. Even when there is an actual fire, you can't do something like run across town to another theater and yell "fire" there too. There are legal limits to speech in this country that are mostly to protect the public from "undue panic". I don't always agree with them, but they are there. Given that most judges are not very well technologically informed, the company could have easily used the "fire" accusation and probably gotten away with it (look what they actually did get away with!). I'm not saying that he didn't have a right to say anything, I just think he didn't cover his ass very well.
"Excuse me, but exactly WHY do you think he shouldn't have emailed the customers?"
I'll fight the urge to rant - accusing you of only reading the subject of my post and not the post itself. Instead, I'll clarify my post.
I didn't say that he shouldn't make the exploit public or that he shouldn't use some sort of leverage to make them fix the exploit, but messing with a companies customers will always incur wrath. Whether the company prossecuted him for this or something else, they would have prossecuted him for something or ruined his life in some other way because he messed with the customers.
A co-worker pointed out that he could have contacted the Department of Homeland Security, since this deals with a part of our nations "electronic infrastructure". I think that would have been a great idea. They would have applied pressure quietly, but effectively and the Fed would have been on his side.
As to "We have the right in this country to say whatever the fuck we want, to whoever we want to say it to", no we don't. We cannot cause undue panic within the populace (yelling "fire" in a theater), which he bordered on doing by e-mailing the customers. There are even more limits to our "Free Speech", but that's a whole other tirade. I'm simply addressing the need for a better choice of who to blow the whistle to.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't I know it, but the SCO debacle has taken on a life of it's own. I'm not sure that MS has much control of their actions anymore now that they've helped feed Darl's ego. Darl has their money and he's just pompus enough to believe that he doesn't need them anymore.
Between this, SCO, and the stuff MS et al have tried in the past year, consider it game on for the war on OSS. I get the feeling that things are really going to heat up as we head into 2004 and get even hotter in 2004. Thankfully, OSS has enough of a foothold to defend itself and (hopefuly) survive. I'll be sending another FSF donation tonight, what else can we do folks? We need some OSS lobbyists or companies with lobbyists to want to help protect OSS. Ideas? Suggestions?
- Your Product Activation phone call
- Patches if a problem becomes public
- Windows Update
The sad part is that the zealots on the extremes (OSS and MS) refuse to even consider the other side or even a mixed solution. Ususally because they are too lazy/sick of their job to adapt and feel threatened by something outside of their skill set.The sad part is the class bully's stock price doesn't go up $1.50 when he starts crying. If you know someone who bought SCO stock today, please throttle them for me. Thanks.
Darl probably doesn't realize that he just handed IBM an actual good idea. They could build quite a position and reputation by offering themselves as a flag to rally under. Darl needs a PR handler badly.
I wonder if providing pictures of your product and logos will become part of the Windows software/hardware certification process. I also wonder if MS is going to make non-partnered products appear with some kind of friendly warning or desparagement, thus making Joe SixPack think that they're unsafe to use or won't work completely. I bet that $15 digital camera's drivers or that $5 mouse's drivers are literally going to look like shit and not just work like shit in the future.
Nah, It's an old kind of karma whoring. But at least a useful one at times :)
Are you saying they would settle? I can hear it now: "We won a major out of court battle about this with a large software company, so you should settle too. Umm.. Yeah. The large company was us, but they... err... we settled!!"
SCO contributed ice cubes to the iceberg and helped set it afloat. They made the damn iceberg!
Isn't that entrapment? Do you have to be a law enforcement agency to entrap? If it's not entrapment, could it be considered extortion? Since they sold me the license, are they an accessory to the crime? If we are guilty, arent they too?
I usually have a more level head than this, but I can't hold it back any longer; Fuck you Darl. If your were standing in front of me, I'd bitchslap you myself. Twice.
Wow! Was that really part of the deal? Jeez. That is shifty. "Help us inflate our stock price with this small investment..." This stuff may not make the best legal or business sense, but there are con artists and inside traders that must dream of being Darl. The backroom deals with these stocks are peeling like an onion - many thin transparent layers that make you cry when you pull them away.
Beyond that, why waste time trying to "black-box" the code when most, if not all, of these claims seem unfounded. I take it you've been reading the responses you've gotten so far regarding the BSD nature of the comments, right?
The fool. He must be quite the whipping^^^^^marketing boy. Waddya bet they offered him stock options.
Even if they don't, I did. Many others here did. Thank you. Thank you very much.
I don't think SCO really knows the history of all of this code. Especially since they are fairly recent to it's ownership. Instead of being silly, they should be hiring guys like you who know this code's history and true origins (sometimes line by line - you guys amaze me) to do a bit of reality checking for them. Then again, I can't think of anyone who would want to work for Darl.
Don't forget to cater to the most popular analogy here. "And my car should always run". Which doesn't always happen unless you buy a new car. Maybe that's what MS is eventually planning. Break it until they have to buy a new one.
"You think it's a good idea to bring the DHS into a computer security matter, one that is entirely pedestrian and civilian in nature?"
So far, it's the only suggestion I've heard.
"You think that every computer and every ISP is part of the nation's infrastructure, and is therefore deserving of federal protection and action?"
No. The DHS does though. Technically, the internet by design was created to be national infrastructure, so they do have a good argument, or at least one that has a chance of standing up in today's court system.
"Apparently in your world it is a great idea to have corporations going after individuals for stupid, nonsensical reasons."
Not just no, but hell no. I don't think he should have gone to jail for this. I DO think he could have avoided it coming to that.
"I think that having this guy email the client list is precisely the correct _systemic_ action to take."
And I think he should have found an alternative before doing something that could bring legal action. Even if the case was crap (which I agree it was), mailing the customers directly is playing with fire. The company would have found something to hang him with and I don't think they really cared what it was.
I actually agree with
As I've mentioned, I agree that he needed to do something. I only question his choice of somethings. Contacting the customers directly should have followed trying to contact some other external organization. In fact, I was hoping for some ideas as to what organizations would be appropriate and/or receptive to such a disclosure. Instead, the post got trolled making me out to be a censor of some sort. Ahhhhhhh /. ...
If it only uses a parallel port or USB, stay away from it. Being able to plug a printer in anywhere there is a network drop and having it be self sufficient (no I don't mean loading papaer itself, just not a slave to a PC) are a must. Having co-workers clamor around your desk because you have the FAX and the printer sucks and can slow your machine down if the drivers suck(voice of experience).
Sorry, but the reactionary poster had my blood boiling and he ended it with a dubious blanket generalization. Even when there is an actual fire, you can't do something like run across town to another theater and yell "fire" there too. There are legal limits to speech in this country that are mostly to protect the public from "undue panic". I don't always agree with them, but they are there. Given that most judges are not very well technologically informed, the company could have easily used the "fire" accusation and probably gotten away with it (look what they actually did get away with!). I'm not saying that he didn't have a right to say anything, I just think he didn't cover his ass very well.
I didn't say that he shouldn't make the exploit public or that he shouldn't use some sort of leverage to make them fix the exploit, but messing with a companies customers will always incur wrath. Whether the company prossecuted him for this or something else, they would have prossecuted him for something or ruined his life in some other way because he messed with the customers.
A co-worker pointed out that he could have contacted the Department of Homeland Security, since this deals with a part of our nations "electronic infrastructure". I think that would have been a great idea. They would have applied pressure quietly, but effectively and the Fed would have been on his side.
As to "We have the right in this country to say whatever the fuck we want, to whoever we want to say it to", no we don't. We cannot cause undue panic within the populace (yelling "fire" in a theater), which he bordered on doing by e-mailing the customers. There are even more limits to our "Free Speech", but that's a whole other tirade. I'm simply addressing the need for a better choice of who to blow the whistle to.
- "So what did Tornado?"
- "They've expanding the definition"
The mistakes here have the signature of a MS Word spell/grammar check. It just goes to show that living, breathing, real editors are still needed.So did he secure his hole or did he publicly announce an open port and a vulnerability to the end users? ba-dum-ba....