The point is that there are alternative OS licenses to the GPL that do not force devulging their own source code to the world. The GPL is only one open source license among many, so it doesn't follow that what he is suggesting is developing nations to buy proprietary, closed-source software.
In this tech investment climate, combined with the large amount of cash on hand at Rational, it is pretty easy to see why IBM thought this was a reasonable investment. Take a look at the close to $1 billion RATL has in cash/short-term investments:
http://biz.yahoo.com/fin/l/r/ratl_qb.html
I'm sure they wished they could have closed the deal when RATL stock was around $5 instead of $10, but this is about the longer term in preparing IBM to dominate as infrastructure spending improves.
IBM has been OEM'ing CC(LT) for several years - do you think they are bringing back their own CM solution? Are they going to replace market-leading Rose with their own tool?
Rational had plenty of time left without a buyout, and was weathering the stormy tech market fine. This purchase was about strategic positioning, combined with a lower stock price that made it attractive to cash-rich IBM.
- Try to do a rename on a file in CVS and retain the element history. ClearCase does this correctly without having to muck with the repository by hand.
- ClearCase at it's core has a real ACID database to do a better job of preventing data corruption. CVS does not, which can lead to problems - notice newer open source CM solutions (Subversion, BitKeeper, etc.) have followed suit.
ClearCase was originally developed by Atria Software, which was acquired by Pure to form PureAtria, then bought by Rational Software, which is now part of IBM - got that?:)
I believe the hard part of building software to be the specification, design, and testing of this conceptual construct, not the labor of representing it and testing the fidelity of the representation. We still make syntax errors, to be sure; but they are fuzz compared with the conceptual errors in most systems.
Functional languages and other tools might help at the margin, but they don't change the inherently hard problem of specifying and designing high quality software quickly. Focusing on the tools can be mistaking speed for actually getting where you are going!
and here all this time i thought there was such a thing. jeez, do i feel silly (and have i been wasting a lot of time with this whole CS degree). why do some many writers put quotes around terms that are even very technical like "operating system" or "source code". i think the average reader can figure it out from the context. if it wasn't "so-called source code", it must just be computer elves then. i heard if you leave a 486 under your pillow, they will leave you a new p3.
are those of us who spend a lot of time in front of computers and around cell phones in a lot of trouble from all this radition? are there any definitive studies on this? cause i really don't want face cancer...but, if i have drink coffee to avoid it, i guess i'll have to...
the author claims "...you would find links to sites for downloading free Linux code. But you'd have to go to other sites to get instructions on how to proceed, and no one would take responsibility if you ran into problems." i disagree completely. i have had numerious people correspond with me to answer my questions, post fixes from people who had similiar experiences. and, in turn, i have tried to answer questions that i think i might have the answer to. when i have installed linux software, i have generally had a much simpler time navigating configuration files that are plain text for the most part, then trying to deal with missing DLL's and the Windows Registry. How many people out there are able to easily navigate the MS website to find helpful FAQ's? Not once has the MS website helped me install software. as a corporation, they don't want to admit that their software has bugs, while Joe Q. Linux programmer knows and admits freely that his program has bugs, and they usually do a good job of posting them. Also, the number of free alternatives to any one linux program usually means you can get what you want without spending a dime. just my two cents...
if they are starting to grasp the Open Source Model, how long until we see MS-Linux? They could convince the DoJ that there is competition between OSes and expand the base for their applications, plus people would be willing to pay for MS-Linux support. Anyone think it will happen?
did anyone else think that it ended rather suddenly? it felt like they left a lot of the story untold. the whole movie felt kind of strange - especially when Steve Balmer started speaking to the camera as he was "brought out" of the IBM meeting into an art gallery. what was with that?! there were a couple funny parts - i really liked balmers' "oh fortran! fortran!..."
this seems a little more appropriate, less religious and more in tune (i hope) with the spirit of the internet. although, sometimes i could use some extra luck when i'm trying to find something on the 'net... never hurts to have god on your side...
i agree....the best ending i can think of, is when homer receives a basket of fruit after almost killing mr.burns - when questioned by lisa why he received the fruit, followed by "did mr. burns live?", homer replies, "what do i look like, a doctor?"
perhaps the best ending i can remember. cracks me up everytime...and definitely no preaching...
not really. in the article, lucas correctly points out, that the special effects aren't going to be the deciding factor for this movie; that's not what it is about. hell, i thought "Wing Commander" looked like it had good special effects, but I don't think anyone is rushing out to see that movie more than once. by todays standard, the orginal SW's special effects are bad, and I will watch that movie ten times before I would go see a newer movie with better special effects, like "Independence Day". plus, i think the special effects are going to be incredible...
a great article. points out (hopefully, for the last time), that SW isn't science fiction, but more akin to mythology or a fairy tale. his vision for this film promises to make it great. although they help, i think he could tell this story without any special effects (i think they are called books?), and it would still be great. i plan to enjoy the countdown, and suspend disbelief, and to fight the tempation to critize.
"or better yet, sucked"?!?! how can you wish such a thing for anyone? i agree, it would be ironic, but at what cost!? a whole generation would be deprived...
Slashdot Mirror
The point is that there are alternative OS licenses to the GPL that do not force devulging their own source code to the world. The GPL is only one open source license among many, so it doesn't follow that what he is suggesting is developing nations to buy proprietary, closed-source software.
ClearCase was *never* a stand-alone company, it was developed by Atria Software. So cross off #2 on your list, and you are close to right.
http://biz.yahoo.com/fin/l/r/ratl.html
In this tech investment climate, combined with the large amount of cash on hand at Rational, it is pretty easy to see why IBM thought this was a reasonable investment. Take a look at the close to $1 billion RATL has in cash/short-term investments:
http://biz.yahoo.com/fin/l/r/ratl_qb.html
I'm sure they wished they could have closed the deal when RATL stock was around $5 instead of $10, but this is about the longer term in preparing IBM to dominate as infrastructure spending improves.
IBM has been OEM'ing CC(LT) for several years - do you think they are bringing back their own CM solution? Are they going to replace market-leading Rose with their own tool?
Rational had plenty of time left without a buyout, and was weathering the stormy tech market fine. This purchase was about strategic positioning, combined with a lower stock price that made it attractive to cash-rich IBM.
Here's a couple more small things:
- Try to do a rename on a file in CVS and retain the element history. ClearCase does this correctly without having to muck with the repository by hand.
- ClearCase at it's core has a real ACID database to do a better job of preventing data corruption. CVS does not, which can lead to problems - notice newer open source CM solutions (Subversion, BitKeeper, etc.) have followed suit.
ClearCase was originally developed by Atria Software, which was acquired by Pure to form PureAtria, then bought by Rational Software, which is now part of IBM - got that? :)
Functional languages and other tools might help at the margin, but they don't change the inherently hard problem of specifying and designing high quality software quickly. Focusing on the tools can be mistaking speed for actually getting where you are going!
and here all this time i thought there was such a thing. jeez, do i feel silly (and have i been wasting a lot of time with this whole CS degree). why do some many writers put quotes around terms that are even very technical like "operating system" or "source code". i think the average reader can figure it out from the context.
if it wasn't "so-called source code", it must just be computer elves then. i heard if you leave a 486 under your pillow, they will leave you a new p3.
are those of us who spend a lot of time in front of computers and around cell phones in a lot of trouble from all this radition? are there any definitive studies on this? cause i really don't want face cancer...but, if i have drink coffee to avoid it, i guess i'll have to...
the author claims "...you would find links to sites for downloading free Linux code. But you'd have to go to other sites to get instructions on how to proceed, and no one would take responsibility if you ran into problems." i disagree completely. i have had numerious people correspond with me to answer my questions, post fixes from people who had similiar experiences. and, in turn, i have tried to answer questions that i think i might have the answer to. when i have installed linux software, i have generally had a much simpler time navigating configuration files that are plain text for the most part, then trying to deal with missing DLL's and the Windows Registry. How many people out there are able to easily navigate the MS website to find helpful FAQ's? Not once has the MS website helped me install software. as a corporation, they don't want to admit that their software has bugs, while Joe Q. Linux programmer knows and admits freely that his program has bugs, and they usually do a good job of posting them. Also, the number of free alternatives to any one linux program usually means you can get what you want without spending a dime. just my two cents...
maybe this will be a chance to test the GPL in court to see what happens when someone tries to make OSS into proprietary software...
if they are starting to grasp the Open Source Model, how long until we see MS-Linux? They could convince the DoJ that there is competition between OSes and expand the base for their applications, plus people would be willing to pay for MS-Linux support. Anyone think it will happen?
I'm all in favor of it! bring it on! we need something to connect the entire world!
did anyone else think that it ended rather suddenly? it felt like they left a lot of the story untold. the whole movie felt kind of strange - especially when Steve Balmer started speaking to the camera as he was "brought out" of the IBM meeting into an art gallery. what was with that?!
there were a couple funny parts - i really liked balmers' "oh fortran! fortran!..."
this seems a little more appropriate, less religious and more in tune (i hope) with the spirit of the internet.
although, sometimes i could use some extra luck when i'm trying to find something on the 'net...
never hurts to have god on your side...
I think I will have to take him up on his offer once the SW toys come out for Taco Bell....
i agree....the best ending i can think of, is when homer receives a basket of fruit after almost killing mr.burns - when questioned by lisa why he received the fruit, followed by "did mr. burns live?",
homer replies, "what do i look like, a doctor?"
perhaps the best ending i can remember. cracks me up everytime...and definitely no preaching...
not really.
in the article, lucas correctly points out, that the special effects aren't going to be the deciding factor for this movie; that's not what it is about.
hell, i thought "Wing Commander" looked like it had good special effects, but I don't think anyone is rushing out to see that movie more than once.
by todays standard, the orginal SW's special effects are bad, and I will watch that movie ten times before I would go see a newer movie with better special effects, like "Independence Day".
plus, i think the special effects are going to be incredible...
a great article. points out (hopefully, for the last time), that SW isn't science fiction, but more akin to mythology or a fairy tale.
his vision for this film promises to make it great. although they help, i think he could tell this story without any special effects (i think they are called books?), and it would still be great.
i plan to enjoy the countdown, and suspend disbelief, and to fight the tempation to critize.
"or better yet, sucked"?!?! how can you wish such a thing for anyone? i agree, it would be ironic, but at what cost!? a whole generation would be deprived...