Um, is this in the FreeBSD code though? All the message mentions is that it was discussed on the FreeBSD mailing list. By that token Linux must be unstable as it was discussed on the Linux kernel lists.
Just because something is cloneable doesn't make it open. I was there, I lived it. I remember packing particular manufacturers PCs back into boxes and shipping them back to the manufacturer because IBM had nailed them in court for illicitly copying board designs owned by IBM and putting their own name on it.
As the cloners moved in heavily, capitalising on the fact that the PC was made from commodity components, IBM tried to lock them out again with MCA and PS/2's. They missed the beat and the market hopped onto EISA as a response. It took a long time for IBM to give up on this and they steadily staggered to a low stock value. It was only when they moved to a new model of buying in as per the cloners that they placed themselves back on a solid footing.
IBM didn't release an open PC. They released the IBM PC, and people cloned it by reverse engineering it in clean rooms. This isn't open. This is called normal proprietary practice.
Yes, IBM's a different company now, a very different company and yes in the last year they've adopted open source principles and software, but please don't fool yourself into thinking they've always been this open.
Of course it's business people, but then they shape the business.
Linus made it into the list I suspect as symbolic of the Linux dot IPO dot frenzy.
BTW, Steve Jobs? You may have noticed him on the list, had a little to do with Apple. Nobuyuki Idei, Sony president, they do plenty with computers and more importantly consumer electronics. Mary Meeker's an internet analyst; isn't that computing related enough either? And Mike Armstrong, AT&T... nah, they have nothing to do with computing...
The list shows computing and it's uses are all pervasive.
IBM did not "make the PC open". They jumped up and down on cloners, especially those who used their board layouts and BIOS's. And when the cloners became established and they found their OS supplier happily in cahoots with the cloners it hurt IBM (as a look at their stock chart in the 80s-90s will show).
Try getting the history right.
And people do research to create patents too, and the information is made freely available, it's called the patent system.
You can add non-standard extensions which applications demand and which have to be added to other peoples VMs... even releasing the code to them still leaves every VM maker in the world playing catch up.
The ability to make "Unlimited technical changes" is what Richard Stallman demanded for Java... Now here in another arena we see what that means. These are just technical changes so you can't deny people the option of doing them under the RMS ethos. Cheating? No no, just creating an advantage. Pity it destroys all the intangibles of the culture like "fair play". Oh, other people could "cheat" too but now we're in a fragmentory arms war. Carmack's solution of, well, nearly certifying games as fair/allowed to play is doubly ironic when mapped on the idea of a GPLing or Open Source (Debian OSD stlyee) Java.
[a] You use free web sites as a backup medium and destroy all your own copies. [b] You arrange no mirrors, or any mirrors only mirror the binary.... [c] No backups? So you're silly. [d] It should cost you $5000 as a fine for not taking a backup and using free web sites as an exclusive distribution.
Under the GPL, the user with a copy of your source is under *no* compunction to distribute the source code *unless* they are distributing the binary themselves. Go threaten to sue.... using who's money? How much lawyer can you get fot $5000?
If you are going to guard your own interests, you don't do silly things like destroy your own backups and use free web sites as distribution mediums.
The GPL cannot help you in the situation you describe.
Given you have the remarkably large sample of ONE Java program, have you considered that it could be a not well written program? Or are you seriously suggesting people don't write crap code in C?
Then you've written no Java and you are pronouncing from ignorance.
I've got plenty of Java code which runs across a wide range of VMs on numerous platforms just by moving the byte code around.
People like you who spread, well FUD is generous, lets call em like they are, lies as just as bad as the lowest of the marketing slime at Redmond.
Re:It's better than that! We can steal their chang
on
RMS on Java and GPL
·
· Score: 1
Nope, it just breaks all the existing implementations putting you in the position of constantly upgrading JVMs with features which may also get engineered out. This is something you can't easily do with embedded systems so it would damage Java there. It would make the ubiquity tenuous, and damage the corporate use and goodness knows how screwed up browsers would become.
The GPL only protects skilled technology users; it does not protect consumer users.
Ah, that'll be the definition of revenue center where revenue is actually expenditure. Sun hasn't made money out of Java.
As for the acceptance of external chnages, go look at the progress on the JCP. This, unlike the open source path involves writing the spec then writing reference implementations, not the other way around.
Oh hang on, we're on Slashdot aren't we... Larry Wall Good, Sun Evil, Fire Hurt Mongo.
Um, close as in "not an open source license and not a contractual issue but a good ettiquette issue"?... Oh close call as in actually nothing at all to do with a close call. Funny how you don't say mention Corel and their Linux distribution instead and it's actually involving open source and a license violation?
Oh, I forgot, Corel Friend, Sun Enemy, Fire Hurt Mongo.
The only omission is the details of the case. That is not the issue. They also do not associate etoy with the attacks. If you want to attack anyone for that association, attack RTMark who are organising the attack to "help out" etoy.
The finger for the attack is correctly pointed at RTMark.
Or they were writing about web security and not about etoy vs etoys. They did not misrepresent the case; they just didn't go into any detail on it. Etoys has taken action to prevent the use of etoy as a domain name. Really, if you want to be pedantic, the word should have been prohibit, but they aren't, as I said, writing about the dispute; just the effects of the dispute.
Microsoft does not license Windows to people who want to produce a Windows system which runs on platforms which compete with Microsoft's own products. Sun applies no such restriction.
Sun's free means always free, not a give away of products which would normally be charged for. And, BTW, MSDN membership costs money too. You'd be surprised how much and what the restrictions on those give aways are.
You don't see it because you are looking at the index page to the security evaluations, *not* the actual C2 Evaluation for NT 4.0. The index page is marked 1998 (the content is probably last modified that date, the index itself dynamically generated). The evaluation itself is dated 1999.
But then hey, why not spread some conspiracy theory instead... I mean it's much more fun isn't it. No need to be accurate where Microsoft are concerned.
The Pioneer uses DVD-RW. Unlike DVD-RAM, DVD-RW us playable on ordinary DVD players. It's a different system. $500 doesn't buy you *the computer hardware* that you need to encode the movie either, which is what's in the Pioneer box. It's a consumer item, not a geek toy.
Er... the Philips is actually wonderful. There's 7 hard buttons on there for "the things you press without looking" (ch+/-,vol +/-, l/r, mute). Everything else *you* can layout. So want a "everything switched over for watching sattelite whilst recording off another channel while..." you can create it. And you can get access to direct codes that let you override tv power toggles or input selectors. Currently, for the money, there isn't a better more functional remote. Forget the palm pilot ideas, forget the Sony master remote (low configurability) forget the one 4 alls (consumerish junk at the end of the day). The Philips Pronto is *the* remote. Oh, and really forget the "Take Control"; it's an epoch making step back in technology.
Eric, you've said to my face that Open Source isn't magic pixie dust, so why insist that it is essential for success, totemising the openness of source as essential for success?
Slashdot Mirror
Um, is this in the FreeBSD code though? All the message mentions is that it was discussed on the FreeBSD mailing list. By that token Linux must be unstable as it was discussed on the Linux kernel lists.
Or is this just Linux Nu-FUD(TM).
Just because something is cloneable doesn't make it open. I was there, I lived it. I remember packing particular manufacturers PCs back into boxes and shipping them back to the manufacturer because IBM had nailed them in court for illicitly copying board designs owned by IBM and putting their own name on it.
As the cloners moved in heavily, capitalising on the fact that the PC was made from commodity components, IBM tried to lock them out again with MCA and PS/2's. They missed the beat and the market hopped onto EISA as a response. It took a long time for IBM to give up on this and they steadily staggered to a low stock value. It was only when they moved to a new model of buying in as per the cloners that they placed themselves back on a solid footing.
IBM didn't release an open PC. They released the IBM PC, and people cloned it by reverse engineering it in clean rooms. This isn't open. This is called normal proprietary practice.
Yes, IBM's a different company now, a very different company and yes in the last year they've adopted open source principles and software, but please don't fool yourself into thinking they've always been this open.
It's *Fortune* magazine, not What-Geek?
Of course it's business people, but then they shape the business.
Linus made it into the list I suspect as symbolic of the Linux dot IPO dot frenzy.
BTW, Steve Jobs? You may have noticed him on the list, had a little to do with Apple. Nobuyuki Idei, Sony president, they do plenty with computers and more importantly consumer electronics. Mary Meeker's an internet analyst;
isn't that computing related enough either? And Mike Armstrong, AT&T... nah, they have nothing to
do with computing...
The list shows computing and it's uses are all pervasive.
That'll be the Jeff Bezos who heads up the Fortune list of people to watch list...
Or didn't you read the article?
IBM did not "make the PC open". They jumped up and down on cloners, especially those who used their board layouts and BIOS's. And when the cloners became established and they found their OS supplier happily in cahoots with the cloners it hurt IBM (as a look at their stock chart in the 80s-90s will show).
Try getting the history right.
And people do research to create patents too, and the information is made freely available, it's called the patent system.
You can add non-standard extensions which applications demand and which have to be added to other peoples VMs... even releasing the code to them still leaves every VM maker in the world playing catch up.
The ability to make "Unlimited technical changes" is what Richard Stallman demanded for Java... Now here in another arena we see what that means. These are just technical changes so you can't deny people the option of doing them under the RMS ethos. Cheating? No no, just creating an advantage. Pity it destroys all the intangibles of the culture like "fair play". Oh, other people could "cheat" too but now we're in a fragmentory arms war. Carmack's solution of, well, nearly certifying games as fair/allowed to play is doubly ironic when mapped on the idea of a GPLing or Open Source (Debian OSD stlyee) Java.
Here's a clue - Nobody has a quantum computer.
The article was bollocks, and that's the technical term.
So
[a] You use free web sites as a backup medium and destroy all your own copies.
[b] You arrange no mirrors, or any mirrors only mirror the binary....
[c] No backups? So you're silly.
[d] It should cost you $5000 as a fine for not taking a backup and using free web sites as an exclusive distribution.
Under the GPL, the user with a copy of your source is under *no* compunction to distribute the source code *unless* they are distributing the binary themselves. Go threaten to sue.... using who's money? How much lawyer can you get fot $5000?
If you are going to guard your own interests, you don't do silly things like destroy your own backups and use free web sites as distribution mediums.
The GPL cannot help you in the situation you describe.
Given you have the remarkably large sample of ONE Java program, have you considered that it could be a not well written program? Or are you seriously suggesting people don't write crap code in C?
Then you've written no Java and you are pronouncing from ignorance.
I've got plenty of Java code which runs across a wide range of VMs on numerous platforms just by moving the byte code around.
People like you who spread, well FUD is generous, lets call em like they are, lies as just as bad as the lowest of the marketing slime at Redmond.
Nope, it just breaks all the existing implementations putting you in the position of constantly upgrading JVMs with features which may also get engineered out. This is something you can't easily do with embedded systems so it would damage Java there. It would make the ubiquity tenuous, and damage the corporate use and goodness knows how screwed up browsers would become.
The GPL only protects skilled technology users; it does not protect consumer users.
Ah, that'll be the definition of revenue center where revenue is actually expenditure. Sun hasn't made money out of Java.
As for the acceptance of external chnages, go look at the progress on the JCP. This, unlike the open source path involves writing the spec then writing reference implementations, not the other way around.
Oh hang on, we're on Slashdot aren't we... Larry Wall Good, Sun Evil, Fire Hurt Mongo.
Irrelevant to the point. Corel violated elements of the GPL. Sun did not. Sun get named as the "close call", not Corel. How does that work then?
A "close call in the Sun/Blackdown fiasco"?
Um, close as in "not an open source license and not a contractual issue but a good ettiquette issue"?... Oh close call as in actually nothing at all to do with a close call. Funny how you don't say mention Corel and their Linux distribution instead and it's actually involving open source and a license violation?
Oh, I forgot, Corel Friend, Sun Enemy, Fire Hurt Mongo.
:)
The only omission is the details of the case. That is not the issue. They also do not associate etoy with the attacks. If you want to attack anyone for that association, attack RTMark who are organising the attack to "help out" etoy.
The finger for the attack is correctly pointed at RTMark.
Or they were writing about web security and not about etoy vs etoys. They did not misrepresent the case; they just didn't go into any detail on it. Etoys has taken action to prevent the use of etoy as a domain name. Really, if you want to be pedantic, the word should have been prohibit, but they aren't, as I said, writing about the dispute; just the effects of the dispute.
Microsoft does not license Windows to people who want to produce a Windows system which runs on platforms which compete with Microsoft's own products. Sun applies no such restriction.
Sun's free means always free, not a give away of products which would normally be charged for. And, BTW, MSDN membership costs money too. You'd be surprised how much and what the restrictions on those give aways are.
Same site? Two documents. Oh sorry, maybe I'm raining on the Linux community's movement into the FUD department.
But then hey, why not spread some conspiracy theory instead... I mean it's much more fun isn't it. No need to be accurate where Microsoft are concerned.
Do you measure the time the user has been away from the site before initiating the order? That's
the non-obvious 1-Click trick.
Neat feature.... And here you can discuss cheesey poofs and a desire to eat them
The Pioneer uses DVD-RW. Unlike DVD-RAM, DVD-RW us playable on ordinary DVD players. It's a different system. $500 doesn't buy you *the computer hardware* that you need to encode the movie either, which is what's in the Pioneer box. It's a consumer item, not a geek toy.
Er... the Philips is actually wonderful. There's
7 hard buttons on there for "the things you press without looking" (ch+/-,vol +/-, l/r, mute). Everything else *you* can layout. So want a "everything switched over for watching sattelite whilst recording off another channel while..." you can create it. And you can get access to direct codes that let you override tv power toggles or input selectors. Currently, for the money, there isn't a better more functional remote. Forget the palm pilot ideas, forget the Sony master remote (low configurability) forget the one 4 alls (consumerish junk at the end of the day). The Philips Pronto is *the* remote. Oh, and really forget the "Take Control"; it's an epoch making step back in technology.
Eric, you've said to my face that Open Source isn't magic pixie dust, so why insist that it is essential for success, totemising the openness of source as essential for success?