Basically, you're arguing that I'll have to pay for internet connectivity. I already do that. What does VoIP have to do with it? If they try to stop VoIP, it will just evolve as P2P had to do. If everything is encrypted, then will it be easy to distinguish "good" internet traffic (i.e. Microsoft Longhorn DRM, advertising, selling, consuming, etc.) from "bad" internet traffic (i.e. people trying to communicate, joke, gossip, circulate news, entertain themselves, etc.).
I *really* don't think one per year is a reasonable upgrade rate. I upgrade my mac every 2 years or so and it works fine for me.
It all depends on how fast your OS is changing. As a longtime Mac user, I agree with you. But as a Linux user I disagree. I started with SuSE Linux 5.2. Each year, the OS has improved dramatically. (Like System 6 to System 7, remember that one?) I just built a new box with SuSE 8.1 last spring. I haven't gotten 8.2. I'm skipping 9.0. So the next SuSE, whatever they call it (9.1 maybe?) that would release next spring, will the the one I get next. I can't imagine just how much it will have improved. New kernel. New KDE. New Mozilla. New OpenOffice. Tons of other stuff.
I'd say that for Linux desktops, one year upgrades bring pretty dramatic upgrades. Not just new window dressing. Not just an expensive service pack dressed up as a new product (Windows 98, 98SE, ME). And I'm not just saying that looking forward. That has been my experience for four years now. From a "desktop" four years ago that I would NOT consider suitable for end users to what it is today and tomorrow.
Looks like the look is derrived from the default PlaySchool theme of XP.
Re:Keep putting it off. Please !
on
Longhorn in 2006
·
· Score: 1
SANS also had a "Green" condition on their Stormwatch site, through two weeks of MSBlaster, Welchia and SoBigF. Go figure.
What do you mean "Go figure" ?
The green is the correct indicator condition. Microsoft is still making money hand over fist selling your insecure products that you have no choice to buy. Green seems like the correct "Stormwatch" condition to me. The storm of open source has not (yet) changed the indicator condition from green.
....your customers, who you thought were a bunch of luddite rubes....
SunnComm's customers are a bunch of luddite rubes. I believe so. Nothing you said in your post disproves this.
You can in fact be a luddite rube and still discover after it is too late that the magic snake oil you bought doesn't perform as promised. The snake oil vendor can indeed be pissed, as you say, when customer find's out. But all of this can apply to a luddite customer. In fact, I would say that finding out after it is too late that the snake oil doesn't work is evidence that supports the theory of the customer being a luddite.
Whether or not SunnComm's customers (the RIAA) are luddites is an open question. I believe they are. Nothing you said disproves that.
and unlike Red Hat, SUSE didn't wait for a lawsuit to arrive before sucessfully going to court for their injunction.
Please clarify what you are saying? What lawsuit did Red Hat wait for to arrive before RH sued? RH is the plaintif in their suit.
Not relevant to my question above, but FYI, I buy and run SuSE, and don't particularly care for RH's distro -- in fact, I almost gave up on Linux after installing RH 5.2 having been a longtime Mac user, no KDE, etc. After trying SuSE 5.x in 1999 I was immediately able to use it. My Point: I'm not one to favor RH over SuSE. But in fairness, I think RH deserves real credit here for what they have done vs. SuSE. Maybe they've just done the same thing, and SuSE's is over sooner due to a saner legal system. But RH's fight will cost more, and is likely to accomplish more, given that RH is making other claims about their business being damaged, etc. not just the "put up or shut up" argument.
I think the "economic value" of copied portions matter at least as much as the "amount of copied material" in a copyright infringement.
I could write a review of a book. In it, I could copy a few very small portions of text. Normally this would be "fair use". But suppose the portions I copied completely destroyed the economic value. One possible example of many would include that I copied a portion that gave away the surprise ending, or revealed the major unexpected plot twist.
One of the the four criteria that the Judge considers is the economic harm that 200 copied lines or an atoi() function causes. I don't remember the other criteria that are used to determine whether copyright infringement vs. "fair use" occured, or what the damages are. But I know there are four criteria. After all, I read it on slashdot, so it must be right.
I agree that in all fairness we should consider the possibility that something has been improperly contributed to the kernel.
I think that this point has been fairly considered. There are people trying to compare code, study it, etc. One problem of course, is SCO's refusal to identify whatever code is (allegedly) improperly contributed. And SCO's tactics of going after users who have no liability.
Their claims that all of XFS, JFS, Numa, RCU for example constitute improper contributions should also be considered fairly. I'm sure that the organizations who contributed these works have contracts that state that derivitave works are their own property. This will all get a fair hearing.
I don't think I missed anything. I did state: "so what?". This is a response. If there is something, then so what? The contributor will be punished. Not me. Not you. Provable damages to SCO will also be recovered. Damages caused by the party who made the contribution, and who will have liability for the damages.
My particular reaction that you quote is because I have seen lots of resistance to other advances in the past. Plenty of it is even evident in this discussion. So while you may not be resisting, plenty do. There is also the whole thing about something should not be created because *I* don't want to run it.
Not that long ago on slashdot there was even a very obvious current of "I don't like it because it makes the system too easy to use for normal people".
So clearly, I am reacting to something. But maybe not anything specific in your post -- other than how I color the question you asked about fixing it if it isn't broken.
Why are we replacing all our punch card keypunch stations with these frickin' interactive terminals? The punch cards have always worked fine.
Why are we replacing perfectly good command line interfaces with GUI's?
Why are we trying to replace X with something modern?
Why are most people dumping FVWM95 for KDE or GNOME?
Why are our filesystems all getting features such as arbitrary metadata attachments on files, and ACL's? (Metadata in filesystems is a feature that could make desktop systems *way* more friendly.)
Why this? Why that? Why....? Why...?
Answer: It's called progress. The things being replaced are being *improved*.
Nobody is forcing you to use them. That's the nice thing about open source. It can fork or branch as many times as necessary to satisfy anyone.
Me, I'm hoping for a Free desktop computer system that is as well integrated as both Mac and Windows. For instance, a "services" control panel that really does have an integrated idea of services, knowing more about them than just "start" or "stop". Apache should be able to show me its status. But do so through a mechanism that other deamons use to do the same thing.
I am always amused at the resistance there is to every single improvement that will make a really good Linux desktop possible. Nobody is taking away *your* Linux system. Why do you want to take away *mine* before it is even born?
Okay, but the distributors didn't put in the (allegedly) infringing code either.
And it is a matter of fact that all the public noise SCO is making is about END USERS not distributors paying license fees.
So again, SCO has done NOTHING to try to remedy the alleged infringement. They won't reveal what is allegedly infringing. They won't work with anyone on the problem.
Probably not. Microsoft would be forced to replace the code and perhaps pay you a bit for the license violation.
Microsoft would have to pay for damages.
You would have to prove how much you were damaged. If it were code with a significant function that added real value, you may have real actual damages.
These important brief code fragments (which were replaced by better preexisting routines already in the kernel) may have caused vast economic damages which SCO has suffered as a result of the willful wrongful infringement done by SGI as part of a vast conspiracy to undermine the economic value of UNIX. These routines are worth at least $1 Billion in damages, and tripple damages because of the motives and serious nature of the willful infringement.
SCO can argue that lots of companies made money off of Linux and if their IP is in there then they should get a cut.
So just how large is the economic damage that SCO has suffered? SCO will have to prove this. They have to show how they calculate these damages. Among the stuff IBM subpoenaed from SCO was all documents showing how SCO calculates the damages they claim to have suffered.
I wonder what the economic damages are from an improper 200 line contribution of trivial routines such as atoi()? Would the lack of SCO's version of this routine have caused you to buy SCO instead of Linux?
If SGI / IBM etc. improperly contributed code into Linux, they they not you have infringed copyright and possibly caused economic harm.
If IBM did something wrong, they will pay their $3 Billion and that will be the end of it. Ditto for SGI. This whole $699 licensing for end users is nonsense -- like licensing readers of a plagarized book.
SCO not only has to prove infringement, but has to prove damages. What are the vast economic damages that SCO has suffered as a result of SGI's couple hundred line contribution?
They have an example of how easy it is to fix the problem (SGI) and this is not conducive to their case. They are contributing to the infringement of their property by refusing to give us the information needed to fix it, if there is any. This allows them to "rack up the damages" to their ancient code.
No damages are being racked up. SCO cannot claim damages that they help to create. SCO has to act to help stop the infringement. You are not willfully infringing prior to even knowing of any infringement.
Any damages that may exist are caused by IBM or in this case SGI. Not by you. You have no liability for damages. You bought something in good faith. Or downloaded it for free. Like a book containing plagarized material that you purchased or received as a gift. Whoever contributed the infringing material have caused whatever damages may exist.
In order to collect any damages, SCO must first prove that damage was done. We need to measure the vast economic harm that SGI has caused SCO by SGI improperly contributing an atoi() function, and other minor tidbits. If those 200 lines of code had not been put into Linux, you would no doubt, have dropped Linux like as if it were a bad Windows habit and gone running to SCO to solve all your problems.
If a figurehead/spokesperson for my company talked like that [Venn diagrams], I'd kick him out too. Nobody who's not a geek understands what that means.
I did them in the fifth grade, let's see, that would have been about 1972. My daughter did them last year in the fourth grade.
So are you saying any of the following?
That you don't understand fourth-fifth grade math.
Or that being able to do fourth-fifth grade math makes you a math geek.
People who make important public statements should be forbidden from having math knowledge as high as a fourth-fifth grade level. (Of course, this would explain a lot about the world today.)
The public school curriculum needs to be be revised so as not to waste time on elementary math skills.
In fact, that will be my new sig. (Ooops, forgot to patent it before clicking submit. It's in digital form. Therefore a form of software played back by your browser. Therefore patentable.)
In some cases, they can't release complete specs for the hardware, because some of their proprietary stuff (or, worse, other people's) is in software.
If you have secrets to keep, then do not statically link your precious secrets into the kernel. The kernel specifically allows binary-only loadable kernel modules. If Linksys had gone this route, then the community could compile new kernels and still use the secret loadable kernel modules -- without source.
Even better idea: if you have secrets to keep, not only don't statically link to the kernel, but don't even use open source. Please. That way I'll have more motivation to buy your competitors product.
What are they suggesting, that we try to change human nature? Genetically engineer better humans?
Maybe it is a precursor to some RIAA-like efforts against virus writers.
Or maybe Microsoft needs DRM to be able to "trust" your computer not only to play only authorized media, but also not to write wrongthink articles, or software.
Slashdot Mirror
Basically, you're arguing that I'll have to pay for internet connectivity. I already do that. What does VoIP have to do with it? If they try to stop VoIP, it will just evolve as P2P had to do. If everything is encrypted, then will it be easy to distinguish "good" internet traffic (i.e. Microsoft Longhorn DRM, advertising, selling, consuming, etc.) from "bad" internet traffic (i.e. people trying to communicate, joke, gossip, circulate news, entertain themselves, etc.).
Well, they could just get ISP's to not allow anyone to run a "server" (whatever that means) unless you pay a "business" rate (whatever that means).
Maybe they just want us to believe they are putting it off.
After all, they know that we know that they know that we know that Linux still has some work to do on the desktop.
If they told us how the DRM works, then they would have to kill Linux.
I *really* don't think one per year is a reasonable upgrade rate. I upgrade my mac every 2 years or so and it works fine for me.
It all depends on how fast your OS is changing. As a longtime Mac user, I agree with you. But as a Linux user I disagree. I started with SuSE Linux 5.2. Each year, the OS has improved dramatically. (Like System 6 to System 7, remember that one?) I just built a new box with SuSE 8.1 last spring. I haven't gotten 8.2. I'm skipping 9.0. So the next SuSE, whatever they call it (9.1 maybe?) that would release next spring, will the the one I get next. I can't imagine just how much it will have improved. New kernel. New KDE. New Mozilla. New OpenOffice. Tons of other stuff.
I'd say that for Linux desktops, one year upgrades bring pretty dramatic upgrades. Not just new window dressing. Not just an expensive service pack dressed up as a new product (Windows 98, 98SE, ME). And I'm not just saying that looking forward. That has been my experience for four years now. From a "desktop" four years ago that I would NOT consider suitable for end users to what it is today and tomorrow.
Looks like the look is derrived from the default PlaySchool theme of XP.
SANS also had a "Green" condition on their Stormwatch site, through two weeks of MSBlaster, Welchia and SoBigF. Go figure.
What do you mean "Go figure" ?
The green is the correct indicator condition. Microsoft is still making money hand over fist selling your insecure products that you have no choice to buy. Green seems like the correct "Stormwatch" condition to me. The storm of open source has not (yet) changed the indicator condition from green.
....your customers, who you thought were a bunch of luddite rubes....
SunnComm's customers are a bunch of luddite rubes. I believe so. Nothing you said in your post disproves this.
You can in fact be a luddite rube and still discover after it is too late that the magic snake oil you bought doesn't perform as promised. The snake oil vendor can indeed be pissed, as you say, when customer find's out. But all of this can apply to a luddite customer. In fact, I would say that finding out after it is too late that the snake oil doesn't work is evidence that supports the theory of the customer being a luddite.
Whether or not SunnComm's customers (the RIAA) are luddites is an open question. I believe they are. Nothing you said disproves that.
and unlike Red Hat, SUSE didn't wait for a lawsuit to arrive before sucessfully going to court for their injunction.
Please clarify what you are saying? What lawsuit did Red Hat wait for to arrive before RH sued? RH is the plaintif in their suit.
Not relevant to my question above, but FYI, I buy and run SuSE, and don't particularly care for RH's distro -- in fact, I almost gave up on Linux after installing RH 5.2 having been a longtime Mac user, no KDE, etc. After trying SuSE 5.x in 1999 I was immediately able to use it. My Point: I'm not one to favor RH over SuSE. But in fairness, I think RH deserves real credit here for what they have done vs. SuSE. Maybe they've just done the same thing, and SuSE's is over sooner due to a saner legal system. But RH's fight will cost more, and is likely to accomplish more, given that RH is making other claims about their business being damaged, etc. not just the "put up or shut up" argument.
I think the "economic value" of copied portions matter at least as much as the "amount of copied material" in a copyright infringement.
I could write a review of a book. In it, I could copy a few very small portions of text. Normally this would be "fair use". But suppose the portions I copied completely destroyed the economic value. One possible example of many would include that I copied a portion that gave away the surprise ending, or revealed the major unexpected plot twist.
One of the the four criteria that the Judge considers is the economic harm that 200 copied lines or an atoi() function causes. I don't remember the other criteria that are used to determine whether copyright infringement vs. "fair use" occured, or what the damages are. But I know there are four criteria. After all, I read it on slashdot, so it must be right.
I agree that in all fairness we should consider the possibility that something has been improperly contributed to the kernel.
I think that this point has been fairly considered. There are people trying to compare code, study it, etc. One problem of course, is SCO's refusal to identify whatever code is (allegedly) improperly contributed. And SCO's tactics of going after users who have no liability.
Their claims that all of XFS, JFS, Numa, RCU for example constitute improper contributions should also be considered fairly. I'm sure that the organizations who contributed these works have contracts that state that derivitave works are their own property. This will all get a fair hearing.
I don't think I missed anything. I did state: "so what?". This is a response. If there is something, then so what? The contributor will be punished. Not me. Not you. Provable damages to SCO will also be recovered. Damages caused by the party who made the contribution, and who will have liability for the damages.
My particular reaction that you quote is because I have seen lots of resistance to other advances in the past. Plenty of it is even evident in this discussion. So while you may not be resisting, plenty do. There is also the whole thing about something should not be created because *I* don't want to run it.
Not that long ago on slashdot there was even a very obvious current of "I don't like it because it makes the system too easy to use for normal people".
So clearly, I am reacting to something. But maybe not anything specific in your post -- other than how I color the question you asked about fixing it if it isn't broken.
Why are we replacing all our punch card keypunch stations with these frickin' interactive terminals? The punch cards have always worked fine.
Why are we replacing perfectly good command line interfaces with GUI's?
Why are we trying to replace X with something modern?
Why are most people dumping FVWM95 for KDE or GNOME?
Why are our filesystems all getting features such as arbitrary metadata attachments on files, and ACL's? (Metadata in filesystems is a feature that could make desktop systems *way* more friendly.)
Why this? Why that? Why....? Why...?
Answer: It's called progress. The things being replaced are being *improved*.
Nobody is forcing you to use them. That's the nice thing about open source. It can fork or branch as many times as necessary to satisfy anyone.
Me, I'm hoping for a Free desktop computer system that is as well integrated as both Mac and Windows. For instance, a "services" control panel that really does have an integrated idea of services, knowing more about them than just "start" or "stop". Apache should be able to show me its status. But do so through a mechanism that other deamons use to do the same thing.
I am always amused at the resistance there is to every single improvement that will make a really good Linux desktop possible. Nobody is taking away *your* Linux system. Why do you want to take away *mine* before it is even born?
If it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
Okay, but the distributors didn't put in the (allegedly) infringing code either.
And it is a matter of fact that all the public noise SCO is making is about END USERS not distributors paying license fees.
So again, SCO has done NOTHING to try to remedy the alleged infringement. They won't reveal what is allegedly infringing. They won't work with anyone on the problem.
Probably not. Microsoft would be forced to replace the code and perhaps pay you a bit for the license violation.
Microsoft would have to pay for damages.
You would have to prove how much you were damaged. If it were code with a significant function that added real value, you may have real actual damages.
SCO hasn't litigated yet. They are asking for a license fee, which you can argue is a mutually acceptable solution.
Talk about confused. You are mixing up two parties here.
1. SCO hasn't litigated against SGI yet.
2. They are asking me for license fees, not SGI. But I have no liability.
Mutually acceptable to who? What parties does "mutually acceptable" refer to?
But if the code is removed, then SCO can't charge everyone under the sun with licensing fees.
It is everyone under Linux that they want to charge licensing fees. Sun's license is in good standing.
These important brief code fragments (which were replaced by better preexisting routines already in the kernel) may have caused vast economic damages which SCO has suffered as a result of the willful wrongful infringement done by SGI as part of a vast conspiracy to undermine the economic value of UNIX. These routines are worth at least $1 Billion in damages, and tripple damages because of the motives and serious nature of the willful infringement.
Don't you think so?
SCO can argue that lots of companies made money off of Linux and if their IP is in there then they should get a cut.
So just how large is the economic damage that SCO has suffered? SCO will have to prove this. They have to show how they calculate these damages. Among the stuff IBM subpoenaed from SCO was all documents showing how SCO calculates the damages they claim to have suffered.
I wonder what the economic damages are from an improper 200 line contribution of trivial routines such as atoi()? Would the lack of SCO's version of this routine have caused you to buy SCO instead of Linux?
Maybe SCO really does know.
Maybe they do. So what?
If SGI / IBM etc. improperly contributed code into Linux, they they not you have infringed copyright and possibly caused economic harm.
If IBM did something wrong, they will pay their $3 Billion and that will be the end of it. Ditto for SGI. This whole $699 licensing for end users is nonsense -- like licensing readers of a plagarized book.
SCO not only has to prove infringement, but has to prove damages. What are the vast economic damages that SCO has suffered as a result of SGI's couple hundred line contribution?
What a spin job.
That is what SCO does.
They have an example of how easy it is to fix the problem (SGI) and this is not conducive to their case. They are contributing to the infringement of their property by refusing to give us the information needed to fix it, if there is any. This allows them to "rack up the damages" to their ancient code.
No damages are being racked up. SCO cannot claim damages that they help to create. SCO has to act to help stop the infringement. You are not willfully infringing prior to even knowing of any infringement.
Any damages that may exist are caused by IBM or in this case SGI. Not by you. You have no liability for damages. You bought something in good faith. Or downloaded it for free. Like a book containing plagarized material that you purchased or received as a gift. Whoever contributed the infringing material have caused whatever damages may exist.
In order to collect any damages, SCO must first prove that damage was done. We need to measure the vast economic harm that SGI has caused SCO by SGI improperly contributing an atoi() function, and other minor tidbits. If those 200 lines of code had not been put into Linux, you would no doubt, have dropped Linux like as if it were a bad Windows habit and gone running to SCO to solve all your problems.
I did them in the fifth grade, let's see, that would have been about 1972. My daughter did them last year in the fourth grade.
So are you saying any of the following?
- That you don't understand fourth-fifth grade math.
- Or that being able to do fourth-fifth grade math makes you a math geek.
- People who make important public statements should be forbidden from having math knowledge as high as a fourth-fifth grade level. (Of course, this would explain a lot about the world today.)
- The public school curriculum needs to be be revised so as not to waste time on elementary math skills.
- All of the above.
- None of the above.
If none of the above, then please clarify.The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
Um..., wrong.
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
In fact, that will be my new sig. (Ooops, forgot to patent it before clicking submit. It's in digital form. Therefore a form of software played back by your browser. Therefore patentable.)
Don't you mean LinkSCO?
The ad ends with: The future is closed.
Any of: SCO, Linksys, LinkCis, Cisco?
In some cases, they can't release complete specs for the hardware, because some of their proprietary stuff (or, worse, other people's) is in software.
If you have secrets to keep, then do not statically link your precious secrets into the kernel. The kernel specifically allows binary-only loadable kernel modules. If Linksys had gone this route, then the community could compile new kernels and still use the secret loadable kernel modules -- without source.
Even better idea: if you have secrets to keep, not only don't statically link to the kernel, but don't even use open source. Please. That way I'll have more motivation to buy your competitors product.
What are they suggesting, that we try to change human nature? Genetically engineer better humans?
Maybe it is a precursor to some RIAA-like efforts against virus writers.
Or maybe Microsoft needs DRM to be able to "trust" your computer not only to play only authorized media, but also not to write wrongthink articles, or software.