and im not buying a smart phone, tablet or iStupid anything , and guess what i buy this pc so i can do work that makes me money rather then spend it like the idiots that sell tablets and such are doing.
While people compare Linux and Windows 7 and have strong reasons for supporting A over B or vice versa, it looks like this is your only upgrade path that I can see, especially, if you have enough microscopes that you might still have them in service in 10 years.
If you plan on keeping those microscopes running in 10 years you may well need to get them running on IPV6 which would be much easier on Linux than XP.
What I don't get is why you didn't start getting a plan together for when Microsoft said they were going to scrap XP. You knew that you either needed new Microscopes or to find something other than Windows to run them about four (five?) years before Microsoft EOLed XP.
I am sure that there is a lot of Windows centric software that is running on the computers attached to the microscopes, but XP support for that software is going to disappear over time as people migrate to the windows 8 version of the software.
Personally I would find a window that you could dual boot one of the microscopes into Linux and see if you couldn't come up with a solution over the next year or two.
But this isn't about an API it is about an internal kernel interface of a monolithic kernel.
The legality of nVidia kernel blobs is at the very edge of copyright law. The fact that the blobs run on Windows is very significant, If the blobs were linux only binary blobs, someone would probably have sued nVidia
There is a reason that RMS created the LGPL and why readline is GPL and not LGPL. Copyright law is not as black and white as people (excluding lawyers getting paid to pontificate about it) would like.
It is important for the contractor to realize that the default is that the contractor owns the code. This means that if you don't own the code, you should be compensated for not owning it.
They don't own the code for Windows, Microsoft Office, the Oracle Database, or most of the rest of what they use. In my experience not giving up copyright typically just means crossing out that section of the contract and asking that it be negotiated separately.
In the US hire means a w-2 and unemployment benefits. If you don' t have those, you are probably a contractor not an employee.
Works for hire only covers employees not contractors. If you commission a painting you won't have copyright of the painting, unless you specify so in the commissioning documents.
IINAL, but it was well worth the day I spent listening to lawyers talk about this..
That's nothing compared to the smug we've been getting out of teabaggers like you for the last few weeks.
FYI Teabagging (NSFW). That combined with the neologism santorum makes me feel sorry for fifth grade teachers that are supposed to be teaching modern US politics.
No, and if Microsoft has said "Sorry, but there are technical problems complying with the law with our new operating system, we need more time to come into compliance." The EU bureacracy probably would have just said something like "OK, let us know when you are back in compliance so we can restart the clock on the consent decree."
Instead Microsoft lied under oath about being in compliance. With the predictable results.
They swore under oath that they were complying with the order when they were not.
This is especially stupid of Microsoft considering that when they swore under oath that they were having problems complying with the order the court basically said, no problem let us know when you will be in compliance.
So the real issue is the sworn statements under penalty of perjury that they were complying when they were not. I would not hire Microsofts attorneys unless I needed some crack disposed of.
Microsoft had been warned and sworn under oath that the choice screen was there when it was not.
To bring you up to speed.
Microsoft lost a law suit and was ordered to give status reports about their compliance. Period. Full Stop.
Microsoft said sure no problem, and was allowed to just send in a signed declaration of if they were complying with the order or if there were technical, logistical problems that prevented them from compying with the order.
Microsoft then had difficulty complying with the order and the court basically said, let us know when you are complying, no big deal.
Micorosoft started to comply with the order.
The court than said, If you want to just send in a sworn declaration of your compliance with the order we'll take your word.
Microsoft noticed that they were not being checked up on.
Microsoft then stopped complying with the order.
Microsoft then submitted statements signed under penalty of perjury to the court that they were complying with the order.
This was brought to Microsofts attention.
Microsoft continued to not comply with the order and submit statements signed under penalty of perjury that they were complying with the order.
The S*t hit the fan
Hairyfeet posts that punishing Microsoft for this behavior is bullshit as they had not been warned that lying under penalty of perjury would have consequences.
Personally I think Microsoft deserves to have there ass handed to them for this one. Lying under penalty of perjury about complying with a reduced settlement is a pretty stupid gamble, but if Microsoft gets away with this, the number of corporations that lie about having complied with court orders will go through the roof, and court orders will become semi-meaningless.
Put it another way.If you settle with FSF for copyright violations, and as part of the settlement is that you have a software compliance officer, and the software compliance officer sends a letter every quarter saying that you are proud to state that all of your software that you distribute is in compliance with the GPL where appropriate and that you are in compliance with the GPL and settlement agreement. And then six months later, you remove all the source code from your website, and the comliance officer continues to send out letters saying that you are still complying with the settlement (remember this person's sole job is to determine if the settlement agreement is being followed or not, and is getting paid hundereds of thousands a year to do this one task.) Do you honestly think that the FSF would then ask for anything less than RIAA level damages? This is insane behavior.
MIn countries like the US, and NZ that use British common law as the foundation of their legal system. Legislative intent matters.
If you wrote the law, you can say "That's not what I ment when I wrote the law." Which is work to overcome. (Obviously statements that are were made during the time the law was passed can be used to impeach that statement, but the legislator has an a ace in the hole when being charged with a crime he/she wrote.)
Enterprise software should be installed with something like puppet or cfengine.
the test server(s) should have a script that installs the software from the dev server on a periodic basis (the frequency depends on how long the install takes.) for enterprise software the install should be no more complicated than install-package local-config.txt Otherwise, how the F* are you going to know how the software was installed? The idea of taking days to install software after all the config questions are answered is crazy, but all too common.
The jury somehow concluded that a clunky phone with a keyboard violated Apple's design patent while the Galaxy Tab that is a dead ringer for the iPad and is almost indistinguishable from an at 20 feet away did not.
The jury's verdict didn't make much sense, they decided all the border line stuff in Apple's favor, and the stuff that Apple should win on unless the patents were declared invalid Samsung won. The jury decided to give Apple a little over a billion dollars and then spread the money over the claims. My calculations are that the verdict probably should have been about 1.4 billion, if they believed what my best guess is that they believed. However, if they didn't think the galaxy tab infringed, then I don't see how they came up with damages over 20 million. Just a crazy verdict.
When you get the expertise to store the data securely then consider it.
Once you get into the habit of justifying everything that you store you will be less prone to the woops! plain text password/username/real-name/creditcard table being found by intruders.
Slashdot Mirror
Because that would be the path of least resistance for at least one team.
He asked for a linewidth less than 0.5 mm so a 0.3 mm pencil with a very soft lead would probably be what the poster wants.
And this is a sailboat
IIRC LTE is not a standard and thus not subject to FRAND licensing terms.
IIRC the Apple v. world lawsuits caused the cell phone manufactures to decide to implement LTE in an adhoc basis.
and im not buying a smart phone, tablet or iStupid anything , and guess what i buy this pc so i can do work that makes me money rather then spend it like the idiots that sell tablets and such are doing.
And then go post on slashdot.
Obscure scientific devices tend to have drivers. It is worth an afternoon checking it out and making a decision based on actual data.
Saving data to the SAN?
Only if the use the BSD license.
Look into Upgrading to Linux?
While people compare Linux and Windows 7 and have strong reasons for supporting A over B or vice versa, it looks like this is your only upgrade path that I can see, especially, if you have enough microscopes that you might still have them in service in 10 years.
If you plan on keeping those microscopes running in 10 years you may well need to get them running on IPV6 which would be much easier on Linux than XP.
What I don't get is why you didn't start getting a plan together for when Microsoft said they were going to scrap XP. You knew that you either needed new Microscopes or to find something other than Windows to run them about four (five?) years before Microsoft EOLed XP.
I am sure that there is a lot of Windows centric software that is running on the computers attached to the microscopes, but XP support for that software is going to disappear over time as people migrate to the windows 8 version of the software.
Personally I would find a window that you could dual boot one of the microscopes into Linux and see if you couldn't come up with a solution over the next year or two.
But this isn't about an API it is about an internal kernel interface of a monolithic kernel.
The legality of nVidia kernel blobs is at the very edge of copyright law. The fact that the blobs run on Windows is very significant, If the blobs were linux only binary blobs, someone would probably have sued nVidia
There is a reason that RMS created the LGPL and why readline is GPL and not LGPL. Copyright law is not as black and white as people (excluding lawyers getting paid to pontificate about it) would like.
With the new EU energy usage rules that day may be here sooner than you think.
It is important for the contractor to realize that the default is that the contractor owns the code. This means that if you don't own the code, you should be compensated for not owning it.
They don't own the code for Windows, Microsoft Office, the Oracle Database, or most of the rest of what they use. In my experience not giving up copyright typically just means crossing out that section of the contract and asking that it be negotiated separately.
In the US hire means a w-2 and unemployment benefits. If you don' t have those, you are probably a contractor not an employee.
Works for hire only covers employees not contractors. If you commission a painting you won't have copyright of the painting, unless you specify so in the commissioning documents.
IINAL, but it was well worth the day I spent listening to lawyers talk about this..
IANAL, but not in most cases.
In most cases unless there is a copyright assignment clause in the contract the copyright stays with the developer.
This is how Ross Perot made his billions
You don't get copyright to Oracle's database software even if you cut a seven figure check. Small developers are no different.
I'm not an apple fan, but that is a reasonable option if you are in the iphone ecosystem.
That's nothing compared to the smug we've been getting out of teabaggers like you for the last few weeks.
FYI Teabagging (NSFW). That combined with the neologism santorum makes me feel sorry for fifth grade teachers that are supposed to be teaching modern US politics.
However lying about something that nobody cares about. WTF were they thinking?
No, and if Microsoft has said "Sorry, but there are technical problems complying with the law with our new operating system, we need more time to come into compliance." The EU bureacracy probably would have just said something like "OK, let us know when you are back in compliance so we can restart the clock on the consent decree."
Instead Microsoft lied under oath about being in compliance. With the predictable results.
They swore under oath that they were complying with the order when they were not.
This is especially stupid of Microsoft considering that when they swore under oath that they were having problems complying with the order the court basically said, no problem let us know when you will be in compliance.
So the real issue is the sworn statements under penalty of perjury that they were complying when they were not. I would not hire Microsofts attorneys unless I needed some crack disposed of.
Microsoft had been warned and sworn under oath that the choice screen was there when it was not.
To bring you up to speed.
Personally I think Microsoft deserves to have there ass handed to them for this one. Lying under penalty of perjury about complying with a reduced settlement is a pretty stupid gamble, but if Microsoft gets away with this, the number of corporations that lie about having complied with court orders will go through the roof, and court orders will become semi-meaningless.
Put it another way.If you settle with FSF for copyright violations, and as part of the settlement is that you have a software compliance officer, and the software compliance officer sends a letter every quarter saying that you are proud to state that all of your software that you distribute is in compliance with the GPL where appropriate and that you are in compliance with the GPL and settlement agreement. And then six months later, you remove all the source code from your website, and the comliance officer continues to send out letters saying that you are still complying with the settlement (remember this person's sole job is to determine if the settlement agreement is being followed or not, and is getting paid hundereds of thousands a year to do this one task.) Do you honestly think that the FSF would then ask for anything less than RIAA level damages? This is insane behavior.
MIn countries like the US, and NZ that use British common law as the foundation of their legal system. Legislative intent matters.
If you wrote the law, you can say "That's not what I ment when I wrote the law." Which is work to overcome. (Obviously statements that are were made during the time the law was passed can be used to impeach that statement, but the legislator has an a ace in the hole when being charged with a crime he/she wrote.)
Your comment is half way there.
Enterprise software should be installed with something like puppet or cfengine.
the test server(s) should have a script that installs the software from the dev server on a periodic basis (the frequency depends on how long the install takes.) for enterprise software the install should be no more complicated than install-package local-config.txt Otherwise, how the F* are you going to know how the software was installed? The idea of taking days to install software after all the config questions are answered is crazy, but all too common.
The jury somehow concluded that a clunky phone with a keyboard violated Apple's design patent while the Galaxy Tab that is a dead ringer for the iPad and is almost indistinguishable from an at 20 feet away did not.
The jury's verdict didn't make much sense, they decided all the border line stuff in Apple's favor, and the stuff that Apple should win on unless the patents were declared invalid Samsung won. The jury decided to give Apple a little over a billion dollars and then spread the money over the claims. My calculations are that the verdict probably should have been about 1.4 billion, if they believed what my best guess is that they believed. However, if they didn't think the galaxy tab infringed, then I don't see how they came up with damages over 20 million. Just a crazy verdict.
Just don't.
When you get the expertise to store the data securely then consider it.
Once you get into the habit of justifying everything that you store you will be less prone to the woops! plain text password/username/real-name/creditcard table being found by intruders.
There are some very smart people in the political arena. The fact that you are unaware of this works to their advantage.