Or, it will lead to some smarter companies charging $.50 more for their $50 media and advertising it as "Conveniently Preformatted - ready to use", make $.25 extra per card and get advertising and market share since 1% extra for a more user friendly product is actually a pretty good selling point. By the time they hit the max license, the extra $.25 each will cover the added labor and hardware to do the formatting in case they hadn't already amortized it in the pre-license days.
Once again, slowly, for those with no knowledge of history but a love of repeating stories they've sort of heard:
The File Allocation Table (FAT) file system was written by Bill Gates as part of Microsoft Disk Basic in 1975-1976.
SCP's QDOS was licensed by Microsoft, reworked by both MS employees and it's author (Tim Patterson) and became both IBM Personal Computer DOS 1.0 (PC-DOS) and Microsoft MS-DOS 1.0 in 1981
QDOS, MS-DOS and PC-DOS weren't even close to being the first time that Microsoft had used FAT
At the time of the Microsoft bailout, Apple was less than a year from being out of cash. Having a billion dollars isn't much when your expenses are hundreds of millions per month and your market share is dropping by huge amounts every month. Believe me, you don't want to be in the position Apple was at the time...
FAT was written by BillG for Microsoft Disk BASIC for the MITS Altair in 1975-6. SCP's QDOS didn't exist for another 5 years and when rewritten (yes, rewritten) as PC-DOS in 1981 used Gates' FAT file system.
FAT is much older than 1981. FAT (File Allocation Table) file system was originally written by Bill Gates for Microsoft's Disk BASIC for the Altair back in 1975.
CP/M used a totally different file system. QDOS is also much later than FAT.
The patents being discussed are not for FAT itself but for the additions to FAT that were done for Windows 95.
And you were wrong. FAT was originally the file system in Microsoft Disk BASIC for the MITS Altair and was out prior to CP/M. It is an Altair era format. (You know, back when Unix was only a few years old)
Apple is almost certainly already licensed to use FAT as part of the cross-license agreement that was signed when Microsoft bailed Apple out of near bankruptcy.
CP/M had a totally different file system than PC-DOS/MS-DOS. Internally they're not even similar. It's one of the biggest differences in the two.
The original FAT filesystem code was written by Bill Gates.
As for DR-DOS, even here on slashdot, it's hard to think that a clone written years later could claim to be an example of prior art to what they copied.
I'm guessing the person who broke in found it quite a while ago.
Or did you mean they're fixed when they're found by the right person who happens to have the desire to debate it and convince whoever owns that piece that it's really broken, debate the patch, discuss when to release it, see if anybody's willing to include it, publicize the fix, get it included in enough releases that the unfixed version isn't being distributed for the next two years, get people to actually rebuild or reinstall that piece, etc...
So when an exploit is found in Windows, it is considered a bad thing that shows how lame of an OS it is.. but when it is found (or not?) in Linux it is a good thing?
Nah, what you see here on/. is:
So when an exploit is found in Windows, it is considered a bad thing that shows how lame of an OS it is.. but when it is found (or not?) in Linux it must be user error!
Notice how many people are discussing how the bozo got a user account password but very, very few are discussing an unknown privilege escalation to root since a bug like that would dispute the religious mantra of "open source is inherently secure and any security bugs that do exist get fixed immediately".
Think it through. A user of a commercial distro or a commercial product (Say, Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS or Windows Server 2003). They pay a fee (from hundreds of dollars to tens of thousands of dollars) for the software in either case.
In either Open Source or Commercial, the Executives get paid out of that.
In either Open Source or Commercial, the Sales reps get paid out of that.
In either Open Source or Commercial, the Marketers get paid out of that.
In either Open Source or Commercial, the Mid-level Managers get paid out of that.
In either Open Source or Commercial, the Lawyers get paid out of that.
In either Open Source or Commercial, the Secretaries get paid out of that.
In either Open Source or Commercial, the Janitors get paid out of that.
In either Open Source or Commercial, the office rent gets paid out of that.
In Commercial, the Developers get paid out of that.
In Open Source, the Developers are expected to donate their work for "the good of the community".
When Red Hat sells a $15,000 Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS license, guess who gets their Porsche payments covered for the month (hint: it isn't the techies)
When IBM sells a half million dollar mainframe with a Linux license, guess who gets their vacation condo payments covered for a year (hint: it isn't the techies)
No but thanks for playing. Software (which you might know something about) is like pharmaceuticals. The first one costs a fortune and the rest cost very little to manufacture. Yes, it means that software companies and drug companies have flexibility on how long the want to take to amortize that initial investment but it doesn't mean they don't have to make up those billions. If you don't understand that, you shouldn't be playing here and should read a little more before posting anything but post about petrified grits. If you do and then you're just flame-baiting. Feel free to let us know which it was.
Microsoft must make money to pay for marketing, sales, developers, accountants, lawyers and support. This cost isn't insignificant.
And Red Hat, must make money to pay for marketing, sales, accountants, lawyers and limited support. This cost isn't insignificant.
Note that the only people not getting paid in open source are the techies. The developers and to a lesser degree the more technical support staff are conned into doing charity work to pay for the Porsches of the non-geeks. All profits go to the non-technical people almost in directly inverse proportion to their tech skills. At least in the commercial world, somebody besides the PHBs gets a cut.
It's mind-boggling that a group of self-proclaimed geeks would promote a system that ends up as yet another reward system for the technically incompetent. Does somebody think that marketing and managers aren't getting their fair share and geeks are just too well rewarded?
So, summarizing the responses, the reason that Public Domain is frowned upon comes down to control and ego. So much for the vaunted "Gift Culture" and "giving back" that are so often cited. It sure looks like GPL really comes down to an intentionally restrictive license for code that isn't commercially viable.
Seriously. I don't see the problem of implementing a true gift culture rather than replacing one restrictive license with another. I'd seriously like to hear some good reasons why the GPL offers anything to anybody besides certain people's ego trips.
Wait three years and people here will be extolling the virtues of a 400x400 analog clock and saying how bogus it is for Microsoft to have ripped off the Gnome UI innovated analog clock sidebar...
Nah, the whole point of doing this early a preview is to give time for the Open Source community to clone the UI in time to say they had it first and Microsoft just doesn't innovate.
Nonsense. That would be the case if there were no dependancies built AND if all the effort put into competing libs weren't wasted on relgious wars AND if the egos involved would allow for best of each case revisions AND if there were total consistancy between each lib AND if each time you needed some functionality you didn't have to research 20 competing implementations and test each one for compatibility with each other.
I'll stick with the assertion that a single unified language provides a simple integrated method of programming where improvements are driven not by "see how clever I am" but by actual need for product improvement.
As opposed to the other guy who actually IS a programmer and is concerned with getting programs written as opposed to looking fashionable to his friends. Sad isn't it when even geeks are more concerned with how they look than what they can do...
Slashdot Mirror
Bzzzt.
One of the biggest differences between PC-DOS and SCP's DOS was that it used BillG's filesystem
Or, it will lead to some smarter companies charging $.50 more for their $50 media and advertising it as "Conveniently Preformatted - ready to use", make $.25 extra per card and get advertising and market share since 1% extra for a more user friendly product is actually a pretty good selling point. By the time they hit the max license, the extra $.25 each will cover the added labor and hardware to do the formatting in case they hadn't already amortized it in the pre-license days.
Once again, slowly, for those with no knowledge of history but a love of repeating stories they've sort of heard: The File Allocation Table (FAT) file system was written by Bill Gates as part of Microsoft Disk Basic in 1975-1976. SCP's QDOS was licensed by Microsoft, reworked by both MS employees and it's author (Tim Patterson) and became both IBM Personal Computer DOS 1.0 (PC-DOS) and Microsoft MS-DOS 1.0 in 1981 QDOS, MS-DOS and PC-DOS weren't even close to being the first time that Microsoft had used FAT
At the time of the Microsoft bailout, Apple was less than a year from being out of cash. Having a billion dollars isn't much when your expenses are hundreds of millions per month and your market share is dropping by huge amounts every month. Believe me, you don't want to be in the position Apple was at the time...
BZZZT!!! Wrong! yourself.
FAT was written by BillG for Microsoft Disk BASIC for the MITS Altair in 1975-6. SCP's QDOS didn't exist for another 5 years and when rewritten (yes, rewritten) as PC-DOS in 1981 used Gates' FAT file system.
I believe the cross licensing was in perpetuity for patents existing at the time of the signing.
The patents aren't for FAT, they're for enhancements to FAT (like Long File Name support) that were added in the 1990s.
The original 12-bit FAT format patents are probably expired by now but IANAL.
FAT is much older than 1981. FAT (File Allocation Table) file system was originally written by Bill Gates for Microsoft's Disk BASIC for the Altair back in 1975.
CP/M used a totally different file system. QDOS is also much later than FAT.
The patents being discussed are not for FAT itself but for the additions to FAT that were done for Windows 95.
And you were wrong. FAT was originally the file system in Microsoft Disk BASIC for the MITS Altair and was out prior to CP/M. It is an Altair era format. (You know, back when Unix was only a few years old)
Apple is almost certainly already licensed to use FAT as part of the cross-license agreement that was signed when Microsoft bailed Apple out of near bankruptcy.
Microsoft absolutely invented FAT. In fact, it's about the last bit of actual BillG code still around from his coding days.
CP/M had a totally different file system than PC-DOS/MS-DOS. Internally they're not even similar. It's one of the biggest differences in the two. The original FAT filesystem code was written by Bill Gates. As for DR-DOS, even here on slashdot, it's hard to think that a clone written years later could claim to be an example of prior art to what they copied.
Or did you mean they're fixed when they're found by the right person who happens to have the desire to debate it and convince whoever owns that piece that it's really broken, debate the patch, discuss when to release it, see if anybody's willing to include it, publicize the fix, get it included in enough releases that the unfixed version isn't being distributed for the next two years, get people to actually rebuild or reinstall that piece, etc...
Nah, what you see here on /. is:
So when an exploit is found in Windows, it is considered a bad thing that shows how lame of an OS it is.. but when it is found (or not?) in Linux it must be user error!
Notice how many people are discussing how the bozo got a user account password but very, very few are discussing an unknown privilege escalation to root since a bug like that would dispute the religious mantra of "open source is inherently secure and any security bugs that do exist get fixed immediately".
The Motorola MPx200 Windows Smartphone is available in the US now. (with a good introductory rebate/bundle promo at CompUSA for another day or two).
Apparently not easy enough since those with moderator points didn't get it. Wanna bet they're not developers?
Think it through. A user of a commercial distro or a commercial product (Say, Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS or Windows Server 2003). They pay a fee (from hundreds of dollars to tens of thousands of dollars) for the software in either case.
In either Open Source or Commercial, the Executives get paid out of that.
In either Open Source or Commercial, the Sales reps get paid out of that.
In either Open Source or Commercial, the Marketers get paid out of that.
In either Open Source or Commercial, the Mid-level Managers get paid out of that.
In either Open Source or Commercial, the Lawyers get paid out of that.
In either Open Source or Commercial, the Secretaries get paid out of that.
In either Open Source or Commercial, the Janitors get paid out of that.
In either Open Source or Commercial, the office rent gets paid out of that.
In Commercial, the Developers get paid out of that.
In Open Source, the Developers are expected to donate their work for "the good of the community".
When Red Hat sells a $15,000 Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS license, guess who gets their Porsche payments covered for the month (hint: it isn't the techies)
When IBM sells a half million dollar mainframe with a Linux license, guess who gets their vacation condo payments covered for a year (hint: it isn't the techies)
Clear enough?
No but thanks for playing. Software (which you might know something about) is like pharmaceuticals. The first one costs a fortune and the rest cost very little to manufacture. Yes, it means that software companies and drug companies have flexibility on how long the want to take to amortize that initial investment but it doesn't mean they don't have to make up those billions. If you don't understand that, you shouldn't be playing here and should read a little more before posting anything but post about petrified grits. If you do and then you're just flame-baiting. Feel free to let us know which it was.
Microsoft must make money to pay for marketing, sales, developers, accountants, lawyers and support. This cost isn't insignificant.
And Red Hat, must make money to pay for marketing, sales, accountants, lawyers and limited support. This cost isn't insignificant.
Note that the only people not getting paid in open source are the techies. The developers and to a lesser degree the more technical support staff are conned into doing charity work to pay for the Porsches of the non-geeks. All profits go to the non-technical people almost in directly inverse proportion to their tech skills. At least in the commercial world, somebody besides the PHBs gets a cut.
It's mind-boggling that a group of self-proclaimed geeks would promote a system that ends up as yet another reward system for the technically incompetent. Does somebody think that marketing and managers aren't getting their fair share and geeks are just too well rewarded?
So, summarizing the responses, the reason that Public Domain is frowned upon comes down to control and ego. So much for the vaunted "Gift Culture" and "giving back" that are so often cited. It sure looks like GPL really comes down to an intentionally restrictive license for code that isn't commercially viable.
Seriously. I don't see the problem of implementing a true gift culture rather than replacing one restrictive license with another. I'd seriously like to hear some good reasons why the GPL offers anything to anybody besides certain people's ego trips.
Wait three years and people here will be extolling the virtues of a 400x400 analog clock and saying how bogus it is for Microsoft to have ripped off the Gnome UI innovated analog clock sidebar...
Nah, the whole point of doing this early a preview is to give time for the Open Source community to clone the UI in time to say they had it first and Microsoft just doesn't innovate.
Nonsense. That would be the case if there were no dependancies built AND if all the effort put into competing libs weren't wasted on relgious wars AND if the egos involved would allow for best of each case revisions AND if there were total consistancy between each lib AND if each time you needed some functionality you didn't have to research 20 competing implementations and test each one for compatibility with each other.
I'll stick with the assertion that a single unified language provides a simple integrated method of programming where improvements are driven not by "see how clever I am" but by actual need for product improvement.
As opposed to the other guy who actually IS a programmer and is concerned with getting programs written as opposed to looking fashionable to his friends. Sad isn't it when even geeks are more concerned with how they look than what they can do...