The problem is when you don't see any darkness, and, in most of the globe, you need to be exposed to artificial light to do so because natural light is not here by night.
In alaska of very northern regions, summer (when they get 6 month of daylight) is as devastating that winter (6 month of night).
The problem is more: Why are some people living there...
At least, that's a big indicator for the industry that nobody in the UNIX business takes SCO FUD seriously.
One might think that Novell knows what they are talking about when it comes down to UNIX IP...
Of course, none of us need this indicator, but for the managers out there with very little technical knowledge about to say "Hmmm, Linux, let's wait until the SCO problem is settled", that's a pretty good indicator that SCO is just a piece of shit.
This is the underlying difference between GPL'd software and other software. An end-user of GPL'd software can be a programmer, distributor, or just a program user. There is no way to tell, so you have to have a license that governs all types of users.
I find that hard to believe. The definition of an end user is a user at the end of the distribution cycle. That's what the "end" stand for. So regarding this, a distributor is not and end-user. He might be a programmer, granted, and he might modify the source of a GPL program. But unless he does distribute or publish it (and so he falls in the category of "distributor" which is not a end-user) he has nothing to care about the GPL.
FYI, I also read, I don't know if it is true, that Qt is *not* licensed with the GPL but with a home grown licence on the model of the GPL. This one might be more of an EULA than the GPL.
The GPL governs the program end-user by limiting their liability.
Granted, this one applies to everyone. But the GPL clearly specifies that it could/should be overriden by whatever the distributor likes. It basically encourage distributors to write an EULA.
The GPL governs the developer end-user by limiting how they can use it, and release their derivative work.
It does not limit their usage but does limit how they can release their derivative work. But if they release it, they become distributors, don't they. So they are not end-users anymore.
Much of that paper is stupid, but there is some valid comparison
Very true.
Granted LGPL doesn't stand for "Library GPL" but it can be assimilated, I guess. It's just not the right paper to make such gross approximations;-)
But they contradict themselves by limiting liability. Through the liability limitations, they are binding the end-user to an agreement. As you said, just because they pretend their car is blue, doesn't make it so.
Which section are you referring to?
There is a paper I know, I already read it, and find it utterly stupid. I can compare apples and oranges the same way.
The bottom line is that they don't talk about the same thing as we do. We are talking about a End User while they talk about a mix of users, programmers and distributors that they label "users".
This is an exceprt from the paper, that clearly contradict the percentages. If you are free, you are not limited in anyway, are you?:
A clear delineation is made on what this license covers and what it does not. The GPL only covers the copying, modification and redistribution of software. This part of the license grants the following rights:
You are free to use (i.e execute the code of) the software in any way you deem necessary.
You are free to run this software on any hardware platform you want.
Because QT have you click on "I agree" when you install it doesn't mean it's an EULA. They may present it that way, it doesn't mean they are right. If they pretend that my red car is blue, it doesn't mean it is.
Just read the GPL again, it does mention specifically, in the section 0: "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does."
Nothing about John Doe that just want to run OpenOffice to type in his resume. Because he is a user. If I want to install Qt just to use it (read: run it as a program), the GPL license doesn't cover the usage I want to do with it. It is very stupid of them to present it this way.
My Analogy with the DVD was blatlantly wrong seen under this light. The output of running the DVD (the movie) is still copyrighted...
The same could be said for any software EULA, though.
No, that is not true. When you accept the MS EULA, it clearly specify that a user, which is John Doe, has specific restrictions.
For example, part of the MS EULA For Windows XP: "The Product may not be used by more than two (2) processors at any one time on any single Workstation Computer.".
So John Doe that just bought Windows XP on his Dual CPU machine (4 CPU mobo) cannot go to the store and buy two more processors to type his resume with notepad.exe. In other words, by agreeing to the EULA, he has some restrictions for using its software. Hence, End-User License Agreement.
Another example of the MS WinXP EULA: "You may permit a maximum of ten (10) computers or other electronic devices (each a "Device") to connect to the Workstation Computer to utilize the services of the Product solely for File and Print services"
Again, John Doe installing XP on the server of his small company cannot have more than 10 other machines connected to the said network. He just can't buy the 11th machine and plug it in without violating the MSEULA license.
The GPL doesn't even talk about these scenario. If you want to install Linux on your PC, you just don't need to be aware of any license.
Because Qt wants you to doesn't mean you have to. They are just wrong.
Again, this is wrong. Lets stop using analogies. You don't need a drivers license to run your car (drive) -- you need it to drive on public roads. I was driving plenty before I actually had a license, but it wasn't on public roads.
Ok, let's stop analogies. I'm tired of fucking white Unicorns every time I eat cereals.
I'm saying the GPL can be an EULA. It is entirely possible, and feasible, for it to be used as an EULA and is in many cases.
Again, not true. You don't have to care about the GPL is you just use a piece of GPL code. See below.
The GPL does for some software. You can't just make a blanket statement, "The GPL is not an EULA." Any user of Qt or any other library must agree to the GPL as an end-user agreement. Using a GPL'd library means linking it into your code, right? So the GPL is, under all circumstances, an EULA.
It is true that when you link a library to your code, you bound you own code with the GPL. But you don't have to care about it unless you distribute the said library. If you just use it for you own purposes, you don't care about it. Only if you distribute it.
Please, I'm tired of saying it in all my posts, so just give me one example where a user of a piece of GPL code have to care about the GPL unless he distributes it. Then we will be settled (if the example is valid;-).
Uhm, if the EULA is only available on the CD-ROM, how do you not need a PC?
Agreed, it's splitting hairs, but you don't need to click on the button to accept it. Just send a letter to MS if you want telling them that you accept it. Makes no sense, granted. No more sense than getting a driving licence without the intention of driving...
When did you ever own XP? Microsoft didn't sell you XP, they sold you a license.
Again, bad terminology on my part. I can buy a car as easily as I can buy a CD with XP on it. I own my car as well as I own my CD.
I just need to get a driving license to run my car and need to accept the EULA to run whatever is on my CD.
Hence, Mandrake has a EULA. Red Hat (I think) has a EULA. Some software (Qt) has a EULA.
So we agree that GPL is not an EULA, right?
Here's how it breaks down:
By using (the source), running the application, or distributing it, your rights (with the possible exception of running the application, which doesn't require implied consent to the GPL) are governed by what the GPL allows. You have no rights in addition to what the GPL allows. You have no claim for liability as an end-user.
The key part is the one I put in bold. That is the user. He doesn't care about the GPL. The GPL just doesn't talk about him. In that sense the GPL is not an EULA.
Those conditions are enough to satisfy the conditions for an end-user license. Even just removing liability does that.
BTW, the next time you put some milk in your cereals, think about the unicorn;-)
You don't need a car to have a drivers license.
Granted. You don't need a PC to accept M$ EULA either. What's your point?
You don't need a drivers license to own a car. Never said so. You must learn to read sometimes. You need a drivers license to "run" your car.
I don't need to accept M$ EULA in order to own Windows XP. I just need it to run it.
Analogy still works.
Ok, that must be the difference you were looking for.
Not quite.
Well, none of your arguments make sense so far, probably this one is of the same source.
Wrong again. What stops me from exporting the DVD signal from S-Video out and distributing it on VHS? I'm "using" the DVD on my computer and distributing it while using (running) it.
You really need to take some reading lessons. I didn't say that YOU COULDN'T USE IT TO DUPLICATE IT. I said that you don't NEED it. you have solutions to duplicate WITHOUT running it. THAT is the point.
Keep the argument on what it is. Do you really need analogies? When you put milk in your cereal do you say, "This is like fucking a white unicorn in the ass?"
If you think about it, the analogy makes some kind of sense.
You fucking people are astounding... you can't attempt to make a point without using an analogy.
That's because you don't seem to get the point, the difference between running and distributing a software. So I thought it would be easier with something you understand.
Let's try it again:
HP distribute WindowsXP, but they don't agree with the EULA.
I buy an HP computer, when I first turn it on, I need to accept the EULA if I want to use XP.
I am a user. They are a distributor.
What part of that don't you understand?
For the GPL not being an EULA, here is the same example with Red Hat:
Red Hat distribute Linux. They have to know, agree and comply with the GPL.
I buy a RH CD, I don't give a shit about the GPL. I can use it for free. Unless RH writes an EULA (for me to accept) I don't actually have to read or accept anything while installing my Linux.
What is the difference between using a software program and copying it?
What's the difference between running a car and selling it?
To push the analogy a little further, the EULA for a car is the "Driver's Handbook". When you agree with it and the DMV made sure you did and understood it, they give you a driving license.
But... oh wait... you don't need to agree with it if you are selling the car as opposed as driving it.
Ok, that must be the difference you were looking for.
Using a software, ie: running it. Copying a software, ie: not running it.
Another good analogy is DVDs: 1. In order to use a DVD, you need a RIAA approved device/program that will play the movie 2. In order to distribute a DVD, you just need a way to clone it, like with a DVD press (in theory, those big commercial ones), you don't need to agree with the EULA and use any RIAA approved device (at least not those approved for "playing" a DVD). Of course, depending on the material, you may need the Copyright's holder approval / license...
I've been waiting for this moment for a long time. Now everyone selling and using Linux has a good reason and some kind of urgency to sue SCO.
Amazing to see how SCO is underestimating the Linux community. I hope that'll slap their face hard. In no time we'll all laugh at the little - what's their name again ? hmmm.... ah! I remember! SCO !! Ah ahhahahhhah ahah aha ha ha!!!!
Well, it doesn't have to be. We could say that a company wants to send 250 people to London and want to use the 6 hours flight to have a corporate meeting in the plane... You're kind of screwed with 10 planes containing 100 people...
In this case option 3 makes sense.
You could say that the 6 hours is a reasonnable limit but sometimes (not predictable) you need as many people as you can in England before (amound of time not predictable either). In this case, option 1 make sense because both options 2 and 3 doesn't deliver anything before the 6 hour delay.
Every solution has to be chosen corresponding to any specific need. My point was just to show that in most cases the cluster makes sense. Of course some special cases might be better suited by option 1 or 3.
you couldn't surgically separate them
How do you stuff them in the plane then?;-)
A good constraint for option 1 would be that you need to have them ASAP and the overall transfer could be interrupted anytime (before the 6th hour) and at that at that time you still want as much people as possible. Let's say 3 hours. Option 1 will have brought half the people there while option 2 leave all the planes above iceland at hour 3 with noone in England.
Well, almost. Let's say I have a plane that can accomodate 100 people and does NY->London in 6 hours.
My problem is that I have to move 1000 people from NY to London
Now I can either:
1. I can buy a plane that is 20 time faster, 20 times more expensive. That's the supercomputer 2. I can buy 9 other planes (same as mine) and accomodate the same results as in 1 for less than half the price (I'll let you do the math). That's the cluster. 3. I can buy a plane that has a capacity of 1000 people. That's the parallel supercomputer. But if that one can do the deal for my specific problem, it proves to be not that flexible if my problem changes (ie: 500 people NY->London and 500 people from NY->LA).
The FUD can do a lot and convince customers to stay away from Linux (and therefore, RH). They are suing SCO to prove that they cannot sue their customers, and then to get big bucks from SCO on all the customers they have potentially lost because of the FUD.
Since SCO claims that Linux stole them $1b, I guess RH can sue SCO for $1b too, it seems just fair.
How old are they? Does that matter? My old 486 is still running dude! No hardware change whatsoever. I've recycled my first Pentium 75 as a print server at my dad's office... still running like a charm.
I'm not talking only about reliability of the new hardware, but also the longevity.
BTW, one of these boxes was bought (new) last year. The rest might be no more than 3 years old (the age of my company). I don't know the models number or anything...
My company has a lot of Sun boxes, and invariably, every month (sometimes every other week) one piece of hardware fails (CPU, Memory, Mobo...) and the Sun guys come in and replace it.
I never, never had this failure rate with an x86 platform. Even when you buy the cheap "noname" taiwanese chips!!
Usually, web designers and UI people would prefer having something nice and flashy, with a specific "home" look and feel, all the real estate used, very well optimized and lightweight.
They don't care about a tag that would say "this is important" without begin sure how the important thing is rendered.
Of course, that makes it hard to make a perfect cross-browser product.
Slashdot Mirror
Holy crap, did you read yourself?
The problem is when you don't see any darkness, and, in most of the globe, you need to be exposed to artificial light to do so because natural light is not here by night.
In alaska of very northern regions, summer (when they get 6 month of daylight) is as devastating that winter (6 month of night).
The problem is more: Why are some people living there...
At least, that's a big indicator for the industry that nobody in the UNIX business takes SCO FUD seriously.
One might think that Novell knows what they are talking about when it comes down to UNIX IP...
Of course, none of us need this indicator, but for the managers out there with very little technical knowledge about to say "Hmmm, Linux, let's wait until the SCO problem is settled", that's a pretty good indicator that SCO is just a piece of shit.
I just don't get it... why suing EVERYONE at the same time?
If you were a super villain - say, OCS - and tried to take over the world, you wouldn't go after ALL THE SUPERHEROES at the same time, would you?
One might think that they are easy to beat up one by one, right?
OTOH, the WWII is the living proof that super villain doesn't think this way.
You'll notice that the article didn't mention TiVo. So, for once, SCO didn't do/say anything wrong around this extremely specific point.
For all the rest, they are of course wrong.
This is the underlying difference between GPL'd software and other software. An end-user of GPL'd software can be a programmer, distributor, or just a program user. There is no way to tell, so you have to have a license that governs all types of users.
;-)
I find that hard to believe. The definition of an end user is a user at the end of the distribution cycle. That's what the "end" stand for. So regarding this, a distributor is not and end-user. He might be a programmer, granted, and he might modify the source of a GPL program. But unless he does distribute or publish it (and so he falls in the category of "distributor" which is not a end-user) he has nothing to care about the GPL.
FYI, I also read, I don't know if it is true, that Qt is *not* licensed with the GPL but with a home grown licence on the model of the GPL. This one might be more of an EULA than the GPL.
The GPL governs the program end-user by limiting their liability.
Granted, this one applies to everyone. But the GPL clearly specifies that it could/should be overriden by whatever the distributor likes. It basically encourage distributors to write an EULA.
The GPL governs the developer end-user by limiting how they can use it, and release their derivative work.
It does not limit their usage but does limit how they can release their derivative work. But if they release it, they become distributors, don't they. So they are not end-users anymore.
Much of that paper is stupid, but there is some valid comparison
Very true.
Granted LGPL doesn't stand for "Library GPL" but it can be assimilated, I guess. It's just not the right paper to make such gross approximations
Which section are you referring to?
There is a paper
I know, I already read it, and find it utterly stupid. I can compare apples and oranges the same way.
The bottom line is that they don't talk about the same thing as we do. We are talking about a End User while they talk about a mix of users, programmers and distributors that they label "users".
This is an exceprt from the paper, that clearly contradict the percentages. If you are free, you are not limited in anyway, are you?
A clear delineation is made on what this license covers and what it does not. The GPL only covers the copying, modification and redistribution of software.
This part of the license grants the following rights:
Because QT have you click on "I agree" when you install it doesn't mean it's an EULA. They may present it that way, it doesn't mean they are right. If they pretend that my red car is blue, it doesn't mean it is.
Just read the GPL again, it does mention specifically, in the section 0:
"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does."
Nothing about John Doe that just want to run OpenOffice to type in his resume. Because he is a user. If I want to install Qt just to use it (read: run it as a program), the GPL license doesn't cover the usage I want to do with it. It is very stupid of them to present it this way.
My Analogy with the DVD was blatlantly wrong seen under this light. The output of running the DVD (the movie) is still copyrighted...
The same could be said for any software EULA, though.
No, that is not true. When you accept the MS EULA, it clearly specify that a user, which is John Doe, has specific restrictions.
For example, part of the MS EULA For Windows XP:
"The Product may not be used by more than two (2) processors at any one time on any single Workstation Computer.".
So John Doe that just bought Windows XP on his Dual CPU machine (4 CPU mobo) cannot go to the store and buy two more processors to type his resume with notepad.exe. In other words, by agreeing to the EULA, he has some restrictions for using its software. Hence, End-User License Agreement.
Another example of the MS WinXP EULA:
"You may permit a maximum of ten (10) computers or other electronic devices (each a "Device") to connect to the Workstation Computer to utilize the services of the Product solely for File and Print services"
Again, John Doe installing XP on the server of his small company cannot have more than 10 other machines connected to the said network. He just can't buy the 11th machine and plug it in without violating the MSEULA license.
The GPL doesn't even talk about these scenario. If you want to install Linux on your PC, you just don't need to be aware of any license.
Because Qt wants you to doesn't mean you have to. They are just wrong.
Again, this is wrong. Lets stop using analogies. You don't need a drivers license to run your car (drive) -- you need it to drive on public roads. I was driving plenty before I actually had a license, but it wasn't on public roads.
;-).
Ok, let's stop analogies. I'm tired of fucking white Unicorns every time I eat cereals.
I'm saying the GPL can be an EULA. It is entirely possible, and feasible, for it to be used as an EULA and is in many cases.
Again, not true. You don't have to care about the GPL is you just use a piece of GPL code. See below.
The GPL does for some software. You can't just make a blanket statement, "The GPL is not an EULA." Any user of Qt or any other library must agree to the GPL as an end-user agreement. Using a GPL'd library means linking it into your code, right? So the GPL is, under all circumstances, an EULA.
It is true that when you link a library to your code, you bound you own code with the GPL. But you don't have to care about it unless you distribute the said library. If you just use it for you own purposes, you don't care about it. Only if you distribute it.
Please, I'm tired of saying it in all my posts, so just give me one example where a user of a piece of GPL code have to care about the GPL unless he distributes it. Then we will be settled (if the example is valid
Uhm, if the EULA is only available on the CD-ROM, how do you not need a PC?
;-)
Agreed, it's splitting hairs, but you don't need to click on the button to accept it. Just send a letter to MS if you want telling them that you accept it. Makes no sense, granted. No more sense than getting a driving licence without the intention of driving...
When did you ever own XP? Microsoft didn't sell you XP, they sold you a license.
Again, bad terminology on my part. I can buy a car as easily as I can buy a CD with XP on it. I own my car as well as I own my CD.
I just need to get a driving license to run my car and need to accept the EULA to run whatever is on my CD.
Hence, Mandrake has a EULA. Red Hat (I think) has a EULA. Some software (Qt) has a EULA.
So we agree that GPL is not an EULA, right?
Here's how it breaks down:
By using (the source), running the application, or distributing it, your rights (with the possible exception of running the application, which doesn't require implied consent to the GPL) are governed by what the GPL allows. You have no rights in addition to what the GPL allows. You have no claim for liability as an end-user.
The key part is the one I put in bold. That is the user. He doesn't care about the GPL. The GPL just doesn't talk about him. In that sense the GPL is not an EULA.
Those conditions are enough to satisfy the conditions for an end-user license. Even just removing liability does that.
BTW, the next time you put some milk in your cereals, think about the unicorn
Retarded analogy, as most of them are on here.
Sure, let's see:
You don't need a car to have a drivers license.
Granted. You don't need a PC to accept M$ EULA either. What's your point?
You don't need a drivers license to own a car.
Never said so. You must learn to read sometimes. You need a drivers license to "run" your car.
I don't need to accept M$ EULA in order to own Windows XP. I just need it to run it.
Analogy still works.
Ok, that must be the difference you were looking for.
Not quite.
Well, none of your arguments make sense so far, probably this one is of the same source.
Wrong again. What stops me from exporting the DVD signal from S-Video out and distributing it on VHS? I'm "using" the DVD on my computer and distributing it while using (running) it.
You really need to take some reading lessons. I didn't say that YOU COULDN'T USE IT TO DUPLICATE IT. I said that you don't NEED it. you have solutions to duplicate WITHOUT running it. THAT is the point.
Keep the argument on what it is. Do you really need analogies? When you put milk in your cereal do you say, "This is like fucking a white unicorn in the ass?"
If you think about it, the analogy makes some kind of sense.
You fucking people are astounding... you can't attempt to make a point without using an analogy.
That's because you don't seem to get the point, the difference between running and distributing a software. So I thought it would be easier with something you understand.
Let's try it again:
HP distribute WindowsXP, but they don't agree with the EULA.
I buy an HP computer, when I first turn it on, I need to accept the EULA if I want to use XP.
I am a user. They are a distributor.
What part of that don't you understand?
For the GPL not being an EULA, here is the same example with Red Hat:
Red Hat distribute Linux. They have to know, agree and comply with the GPL.
I buy a RH CD, I don't give a shit about the GPL. I can use it for free. Unless RH writes an EULA (for me to accept) I don't actually have to read or accept anything while installing my Linux.
RH is the distributor. I am the user.
What part of this one don't you understand?
Under Sun? Is that another Unix licensing issue ?
What is the difference between using a software program and copying it?
What's the difference between running a car and selling it?
To push the analogy a little further, the EULA for a car is the "Driver's Handbook". When you agree with it and the DMV made sure you did and understood it, they give you a driving license.
But... oh wait... you don't need to agree with it if you are selling the car as opposed as driving it.
Ok, that must be the difference you were looking for.
Using a software, ie: running it.
Copying a software, ie: not running it.
Another good analogy is DVDs:
1. In order to use a DVD, you need a RIAA approved device/program that will play the movie
2. In order to distribute a DVD, you just need a way to clone it, like with a DVD press (in theory, those big commercial ones), you don't need to agree with the EULA and use any RIAA approved device (at least not those approved for "playing" a DVD). Of course, depending on the material, you may need the Copyright's holder approval / license...
What did you smoke this morning ?
I've been waiting for this moment for a long time.
Now everyone selling and using Linux has a good reason and some kind of urgency to sue SCO.
Amazing to see how SCO is underestimating the Linux community. I hope that'll slap their face hard. In no time we'll all laugh at the little - what's their name again ? hmmm.... ah! I remember! SCO !! Ah ahhahahhhah ahah aha ha ha!!!!
The end is near my friends, just wait and see.
I so much agree with you. Just every bit of linux distributor/user all over the world should sue SCO. Right now.
In no time they'll be out of business.
Wait a minute, would that be called a Legal DDoS? Same idea right?
When you post in the wrong thread, I find it hard to tell people they are retards...
Well, it doesn't have to be. We could say that a company wants to send 250 people to London and want to use the 6 hours flight to have a corporate meeting in the plane... You're kind of screwed with 10 planes containing 100 people...
In this case option 3 makes sense.
You could say that the 6 hours is a reasonnable limit but sometimes (not predictable) you need as many people as you can in England before (amound of time not predictable either). In this case, option 1 make sense because both options 2 and 3 doesn't deliver anything before the 6 hour delay.
Every solution has to be chosen corresponding to any specific need. My point was just to show that in most cases the cluster makes sense. Of course some special cases might be better suited by option 1 or 3.
;-)
you couldn't surgically separate them
How do you stuff them in the plane then?
A good constraint for option 1 would be that you need to have them ASAP and the overall transfer could be interrupted anytime (before the 6th hour) and at that at that time you still want as much people as possible. Let's say 3 hours. Option 1 will have brought half the people there while option 2 leave all the planes above iceland at hour 3 with noone in England.
Well, almost. Let's say I have a plane that can accomodate 100 people and does NY->London in 6 hours.
My problem is that I have to move 1000 people from NY to London
Now I can either:
1. I can buy a plane that is 20 time faster, 20 times more expensive. That's the supercomputer
2. I can buy 9 other planes (same as mine) and accomodate the same results as in 1 for less than half the price (I'll let you do the math). That's the cluster.
3. I can buy a plane that has a capacity of 1000 people. That's the parallel supercomputer. But if that one can do the deal for my specific problem, it proves to be not that flexible if my problem changes (ie: 500 people NY->London and 500 people from NY->LA).
That's the power of the bewolf cluster!!!
The FUD can do a lot and convince customers to stay away from Linux (and therefore, RH). They are suing SCO to prove that they cannot sue their customers, and then to get big bucks from SCO on all the customers they have potentially lost because of the FUD.
Since SCO claims that Linux stole them $1b, I guess RH can sue SCO for $1b too, it seems just fair.
Well, since they are not going to print this one, I guess nobody cares about it...
Dude, we are talking about open source. Nobody controls the brand.
How old are they? Does that matter? My old 486 is still running dude! No hardware change whatsoever. I've recycled my first Pentium 75 as a print server at my dad's office... still running like a charm.
I'm not talking only about reliability of the new hardware, but also the longevity.
BTW, one of these boxes was bought (new) last year. The rest might be no more than 3 years old (the age of my company). I don't know the models number or anything...
They made some good hardware
Hmm...
My company has a lot of Sun boxes, and invariably, every month (sometimes every other week) one piece of hardware fails (CPU, Memory, Mobo...) and the Sun guys come in and replace it.
I never, never had this failure rate with an x86 platform. Even when you buy the cheap "noname" taiwanese chips!!
Usually, web designers and UI people would prefer having something nice and flashy, with a specific "home" look and feel, all the real estate used, very well optimized and lightweight.
They don't care about a tag that would say "this is important" without begin sure how the important thing is rendered.
Of course, that makes it hard to make a perfect cross-browser product.
not even talking about PDAs & other stuff...
That is so true, I don't even know why I didn't think about it!!!!!
MOD PARENT UP!!!!!!