I think that's part of the reason, but he also understands his high profile and doesn't want the process to be more "legitimized" through his involvement when he thinks the basic outcome was predetermined.
"Now, maybe there's something in the law that would let you make a case against them if you could prove that they intentionally funded the company for the specific purpose of attacking IBM, since otherwise, you could have ridiculous things like bin Laden setting up companies with the specific purpose of killing Americans and getting away with it"
Criminal activity is not protected by corporate law and "attacking" IBM is not a crime.
But the RIAA suits aren't really intended to make a lot of money, but to send a message. I don't think SCO is attempting to send a message, they want the money.
Successfully defending against a baseless lawsuit doesn't make you "a nuclear power". IBM's resources are exactly the reason why they are such an attractive target. If you had a well founded case, you'd be crazy not to sue them.
Given IBM's past bad behavior, that doesn't seem likely. Perhaps they see this as more of a PR campaign aimed at convincing F/OSS fans that they're really good guys. In the meantime, they continue profiting from their proprietary software and kill any inexpensive products (such as Visual Test) that threaten their more expensive alternatives, instead of making them open source.
So IBM is going to support their expensive proprietary software on Red Flag linux. Given the economic conditions of China and their lack of a "Nobody ever got fired for buying an IBM product" culture, I wonder how successful they will be and how much impact their support will have on the adoption of Linux in China.
Yes, I have no doubt that MS could build a brand-new OS that at a minimum would be as stable and secure as Linux, but it doesn't make any business sense to do it. The new OS would just join the ranks of other OSs that aren't compatible with the applications that most people use.
Why pay money for an OS that doesn't meet your current needs when Linux doesn't meet those needs today and it doesn't cost anything.
Being relevent is all about how others view you or your work. If you have a worthwhile project you're doing out of faith, it doesn't matter what people think.
Sorry to break it to you, but the OS world is made up of far more than Unix/BSD/Linux and Windows.
"Like a purpose written linux/bsd etc kernel?"
No, not at all. If one were to successfully convert a non-realtime OS like Linux into a real-time one, it would essentially be a completely different OS. The same goes for Windows, BSD, UNIX, VMS, etc.
"Real-time operating systems can respond to external events within a guaranteed time frame"
That's not really what real-time is about. Real-time is about consistent timing, not absolute timing. Thus a 100MHZ system can be more real-time than 1GHZ system.
"One kinda important difference is that copyright automatically attaches to any software that is written."
This is a cop-out argument. If you write software and choose not to protect it, the copyright is meanlingless. Putting a copyright notice on your software and thus signaling to the world that you intend to protect it (as RMS does) is just as active an act as filing for a patent.
I'll give you an offtopic example. In the late 70's in California an inititive passed called proposition 13 which limited property taxes and more importantly added a requirement to the state constitution that a 2/3 majority in both legislative houses was needed for future tax increases.
Proponents argued that the property tax savings would be passed on to renters. Opponents claimed that a lot of state services would eliminated or greatly curtailed.
As things turned out, passage of the inititive didn't reduce rents but did produce even more dire consequences than the worst-case scenarios opponents imagined. Libraries closed, the school system is not longer the envy of the nation, infrastructure is crumbling, affordable housing has disappered and a minority of legislators can control the destiny of the state.
Once the proposition passed the proponents got what they wanted and haven't to this day admitted they were wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
"Each out-of-court settlement counts for a lot of CDs"
Perhaps, but not nearly enough unless they're suing people who have millions in assets.
I think that's part of the reason, but he also understands his high profile and doesn't want the process to be more "legitimized" through his involvement when he thinks the basic outcome was predetermined.
As the largetst patent holder in the US, they should "just say no" to patents if they're really interested in reform.
"Now, maybe there's something in the law that would let you make a case against them if you could prove that they intentionally funded the company for the specific purpose of attacking IBM, since otherwise, you could have ridiculous things like bin Laden setting up companies with the specific purpose of killing Americans and getting away with it"
Criminal activity is not protected by corporate law and "attacking" IBM is not a crime.
You can sue SCO for damages, you can't sue individual investors. That's exactly why companies incorporate.
But the RIAA suits aren't really intended to make a lot of money, but to send a message. I don't think SCO is attempting to send a message, they want the money.
Successfully defending against a baseless lawsuit doesn't make you "a nuclear power". IBM's resources are exactly the reason why they are such an attractive target. If you had a well founded case, you'd be crazy not to sue them.
I doubt that IBM was paying a team of lawyers to sit around doing nothing until SCO sued them.
Given IBM's past bad behavior, that doesn't seem likely. Perhaps they see this as more of a PR campaign aimed at convincing F/OSS fans that they're really good guys. In the meantime, they continue profiting from their proprietary software and kill any inexpensive products (such as Visual Test) that threaten their more expensive alternatives, instead of making them open source.
I see. You guys don't use money in the 23rd century, so it doesn't matter if nobody buys your router.
So IBM is going to support their expensive proprietary software on Red Flag linux. Given the economic conditions of China and their lack of a "Nobody ever got fired for buying an IBM product" culture, I wonder how successful they will be and how much impact their support will have on the adoption of Linux in China.
Yes, I have no doubt that MS could build a brand-new OS that at a minimum would be as stable and secure as Linux, but it doesn't make any business sense to do it. The new OS would just join the ranks of other OSs that aren't compatible with the applications that most people use.
Why pay money for an OS that doesn't meet your current needs when Linux doesn't meet those needs today and it doesn't cost anything.
And I didn't understand where to put the "you" in my last post.
Being relevent is all about how others view you or your work. If you have a worthwhile project you're doing out of faith, it doesn't matter what people think.
Apparently don't understand what a definition is.
Just as proprietary software will never be able to eliminate "free" software, the FSF will never eliminate proprietary software.
"Are you implying that the F/OSS movement is communist?"
No. How did you conclude that?
Communism isn't so much as a political movement as it is ad hominem label like "troll".
"By definition, competition is a key value for any successful group activity."
What definition are you referring to? Social Darwinism?
"Otherwise, the given activity would be crowded out by other more competitive activities"
I didn't realize there was a limited space in which activities take place.
I wasn't aware that competition was such a key value for the F/OSS movement.
"So you prefer to trust windoze?"
Sorry to break it to you, but the OS world is made up of far more than Unix/BSD/Linux and Windows.
"Like a purpose written linux/bsd etc kernel?"
No, not at all. If one were to successfully convert a non-realtime OS like Linux into a real-time one, it would essentially be a completely different OS. The same goes for Windows, BSD, UNIX, VMS, etc.
Sorry, but your A construction dosesn't match the form of my argument. Perhaps you're confused.
"Real-time operating systems can respond to external events within a guaranteed time frame"
That's not really what real-time is about. Real-time is about consistent timing, not absolute timing. Thus a 100MHZ system can be more real-time than 1GHZ system.
"One kinda important difference is that copyright automatically attaches to any software that is written."
This is a cop-out argument. If you write software and choose not to protect it, the copyright is meanlingless. Putting a copyright notice on your software and thus signaling to the world that you intend to protect it (as RMS does) is just as active an act as filing for a patent.
"To suggest that rent would be lowered simply because owners pay less taxes is ridiculous."
I agree, but that was how they tried to "sell" it to renters.
I'll give you an offtopic example. In the late 70's in California an inititive passed called proposition 13 which limited property taxes and more importantly added a requirement to the state constitution that a 2/3 majority in both legislative houses was needed for future tax increases.
Proponents argued that the property tax savings would be passed on to renters. Opponents claimed that a lot of state services would eliminated or greatly curtailed.
As things turned out, passage of the inititive didn't reduce rents but did produce even more dire consequences than the worst-case scenarios opponents imagined. Libraries closed, the school system is not longer the envy of the nation, infrastructure is crumbling, affordable housing has disappered and a minority of legislators can control the destiny of the state.
Once the proposition passed the proponents got what they wanted and haven't to this day admitted they were wrong.