Microsoft is a convicted monopolistic corporation who still retain a 90%+ share of the desktop OS market and yet still continues to directly use and indirectly fund anti-competitive business practices.
The next version of Windows NT, code-named Cairo and targeted for release sometime in 1995, will be built around the concepts of objects and component software. It will have a native OFS (Object File System) and distributed system support.
Cairo, Microsoft's object-oriented successor to Windows NT, will begin beta testing in early 1996 for release in 1997. Although Microsoft is not revealing the full details of Cairo yet, there are enough clues within current Microsoft OSes to yield a good idea of how it might work.
At the first NT developers conference in 1992, Bill Gates announced that Cairo would arrive in three years and would incorporate object-oriented technologies, especially an object file system. Since then, we've seen Windows NT 3.1, NT 3.5, NT 3.51, and most recently NT 4.0. None is object oriented, none has an object file system, none is Cairo. It seems that Cairo is Microsoft's sly way of promising the world. "Will we see Plug and Play in NT?" "Oh yes, of course, in Cairo." "Will NT ever produce world peace and cheap antigravity?" "You bet -- in Cairo."
The so call Longhorn WinFS directory is just another rencarnation of the Cairo object orientated file system.
Microsoft Corp. has once again shifted the schedule for the release of "Longhorn," the company's next major version of Windows, leaving some users up in the air about an upgrade path.
Microsoft executives from Chairman and Chief Software Architect Bill Gates on down have long described Longhorn as the Redmond, Wash., company's most revolutionary operating system to date. The product was originally expected to ship next year. Then in May of this year, officials pushed back the release date to 2005. But now executives are declining to say when they expect the software to ship.
"We do not yet know the time frame for Longhorn, but it will involve a lot of innovative and exciting work," said Gates at a company financial analyst meeting this summer. Since then, other Microsoft officials have neither retracted nor clarified Gates' statement.
Why should SCO force a new organizational structure upon Linux?
The Linux kernel development already has a tried and true tested organization. Linus Torvalls and crew operating as benevolent dictators, totally open to public scrutiny, with no abolute power to dictate what additional patches the distributions and developers end up using. It has worked and continues to work very well.
All the contributions and development are traceable though both the Bit-tracker/CVS logs and the mailing lists, which makes everything available to public scrutiny for everyone, include those who are publicly defending Linux.
Throughout 2003, the SCO Group's so-called evidence and legal theories have fallen into disrepute though the rediscovery of the combination of the terms of the GNU General Public License and the open development process of both the Linux Kernel and even UNIX itself.
The weight of the historical evidence, including the active participation of both old SCO and Caldera executives and employees in the development and promotion of Linux, tips the scales of justice heavily in favor of IBM, RedHat and Linux end users. In fact the weight of evidence effectively chucks SCO legal position off the scales, out the window and over the cliff like a cartoon catapult.
While each new Darl McBrides threat and new David Boies partners legal theory look impressive at first glance, in practice they are about effective as attaching a giant anvil to a biplane to catch a pigeon.
The
McBride and Bois Show to stop the Penquin is becoming a joke...
Bois you snickering legal type hound, When court time is needed, you're never
around! Those millions you ripped from SCO's legal chest, Should be there for bungling at which you are best! So, Stop The Penguin, Stop The Penguin,Stop The Penguin,Stop The Penguin,Stop The Penguin, Stop The Penguin,
Stop That Penguin How? Sue them! Mud them! Fud them! Charge them! Stop That Penguin Now! You Stowell, start fudding it's worth the chance, For some will believe by the lies that you plants! And Kevin, you invent me a legaly-bob, That catches that Penguin, or I lose my job!
So, Stop The Penguin, Stop The Penguin,Stop The Penguin,Stop The Penguin,Stop The Penguin,Stop The Penguin, Stop That Penguin
How? Sue them! Mud them! Fud them! Charge them! Stop That Penguin Now!
Text on screen: In 2004, the World Trade Center lay in ruins, and foreign nationalists frequented the streets - many of them Arabs (not the streets - the foreign nationals). Anyway, many of these Arabs went into tobacconist's shops to buy cigarettes....
A Arab tourist approaches the shopclerk. The tourist is talking haltingly into a PDA.
Arab: I will not buy this record, it is scratched.
Clerk: Sorry?
Arab: I will not buy this record, it is scratched.
Clerk: Uh, no, no, no. This is a tobacconist's.
Arab: Ah! I will not buy this *tobacconist's*, it is scratched.
Clerk: No, no, no, no. Tobacco...um...cigarettes (holds up a pack).
Arab: Ya! See-gar-ets! Ya! Uh...My hovercraft is full of eels.
Clerk: Sorry?
Arab: My hovercraft (pantomimes puffing a cigarette)...is full of eels (pretends to strike a match).
Clerk: Ahh, matches!
Arab: Ya! Ya! Ya! Ya! Do you waaaaant...do you waaaaaant...to come back to my place, bouncy bouncy?
Clerk: Here, I don't think you're using that thing right.
Arab: You great poof.
Clerk: That'll be six and six, please.
Arab: If I said you had a beautiful body, would you hold it against me? I...I am no longer infected.
Clerk: Uh, may I, uh...(takes PDA, talks to it)...Costs six and six...ah, here we are. (speaks weird Arabic-sounding words)
Arab punches the clerk.
Meanwhile, a cop on a quiet street cups his ear as if hearing a cry of distress. He sprints for many blocks and finally enters the tobacconist's.
Cop: What's up
Arab: Ah. You have beautiful thighs.
Cop: (looks down at himself) WHAT?!?
Clerk: He hit me!
Arab: Drop your panties, Sir William; I cannot wait 'til lunchtime. (points at clerk)
Cop: RIGHT!!! (drags Arab away by the arm)
Arab: (indignantly) My nipples explode with delight!
penguin7of9 (697383) wrote:"And what's the legal rememdy anyway when companies fail to comply with that requirement?"
This is why the Federal Information Processing Standards Publication 151-2 is important. The other "open" standards bodies don't hold as much legal weight as the federal standard, because the US Govenment requires all contributing parties to "sign off" on the standard. There are a number of Legislative acts past that mandated such open implementable interoperable standards for Federal Information Processing in Govt tenders ( just don't ask me to name them off the top of my head - It's well over a decade since I worked with Ada ).I'm sure that many Govt organizations would not look too kindly on the self claimed "inheritors of Unix" SCO Group attempt at such a U-turn.
For POSIX compatability all that is needed in reality is a semi successfull attempt at passing compatability and a roadmap. Microsoft got by for years claiming POSIX compatibilty in NT for federal tenders, dispite the fact the the native POSIX layer was not stable or trully functional until late 1998 with the release of Interix.
Now The OpenGroup and the Linux Standard Base have a New RoadMap for providing a POSIX shell for Linux LSB.
2.14.1 If, in exceptional situations, technical reasons justify such a step, there is no objection in principle to preparing an International Standard in terms which include the use of items covered by patent rights - defined as patents, utility models and other statutory rights based on inventions, including any published applications for any of the foregoing - even if the terms of the standard are such that there are no alternative means of compliance. The rules given below and in the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2, 2001, Annex H shall be applied.
2.14.2 If technical reasons justify the preparation of a document in terms which include the use of items covered by patent rights, the following procedures shall be complied with.
19.
The originator of a proposal for a document shall draw the attention of the committee to any patent rights of which the originator is aware and considers to cover any item of the proposal. Any party involved in the preparation of a document shall draw the attention of the committee to any patent rights of which it becomes aware during any stage in the development of the document.
20.
If the proposal is accepted on technical grounds, the originator shall ask any holder of such identified patent rights for a statement that the holder would be willing to negotiate worldwide licences under his rights with applicants throughout the world on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions. Such negotiations are left to the parties concerned and are performed outside ISO and/or IEC. A record of the right holder's statement shall be placed in the registry of the ISO Central Secretariat or IEC Central Office as appropriate, and shall be referred to in the introduction to the relevant document [see ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2, 2001, H.3]. If the right holder does not provide such a statement, the committee concerned shall not proceed with inclusion of an item covered by a patent right in the document without authorization from ISO Council or IEC Council as appropriate.
21.
A document shall not be published until the statements of the holders of all identified patent rights have been received, unless the Council concerned gives authorization.
2.14.3 Should it be revealed after publication of a document that licences under patent rights, which appear to cover items included in the document, cannot be obtained under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions, the document shall be referred back to the relevant committee for further consideration
Annex H
(normative)
Patent rights
H.1 All drafts submitted for comment shall include on the cover page the following text: "Recipients of this draft are invited to submit, with their comments, notification of any relevant patent rights of which they are aware and to provide supporting documentation."
H.2 A published document for which no patent rights are identified during the preparation thereof, shall contain the following notice in the foreword:
"Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of patent rights. ISO [and/or] IEC shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights."
H.3 A published document for which patent rights have been identified during the preparation thereof, shall include the following notice in the introduction: "The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) [and/or] International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) draws attention to the fact that it is claimed that compliance with this document may involve the use of a patent concerning (...subject matter...) given in...subclause...). ISO [and/or] IEC take[s] no position concerning the evidence, validity and scope of this patent right. The holder of this patent right has assured the ISO [and/or] IEC that he/she is willing to negotiate licences under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and c
1.2.11 ANSI patent policy - Inclusion of Patents in American National Standards
There is no objection in principle to drafting a proposed American National Standard in terms that include the use of a patented item, if it is considered that technical reasons justify this approach.
If the Institute receives a notice that a proposed American National Standard may require the use of a patented invention, the procedures in 1.2.11.1 through 1.2.11.4 shall be followed.
1.2.11.1 Statement from patent holder
Prior to approval of such a proposed American National Standard, the Institute shall receive from the identified party or patent holder (in a form approved by the Institute) either: assurance in the form of a general disclaimer to the effect that such party does not hold and does not currently intend holding any invention the use of which would be required for compliance with the proposed American National Standard or assurance that:
1.
a license will be made available without compensation to the applicants desiring to utilize the license for the purpose of implementing the standard; or
2.
a license will be made available to applicants under reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably free of any unfair discrimination.
1.2.11.2 Record of statement
A record of the patent holder's statement shall be placed and retained in the files of the Institute.
1.2.11.3 Notice
When the Institute receives from a patent holder the assurance set forth in 1.2.11.1 a) or b), the standard shall include a note as follows:
NOTE - The user's attention is called to the possibility that compliance with this standard may require use of an invention covered by patent rights.
By publication of this standard, no position is taken with respect to the validity of this claim or of any patent rights in connection therewith. The patent holder has, however, filed a statement of willingness to grant a license under these rights on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms and conditions to applicants desiring to obtain such a license. Details may be obtained from the standards developer.
1.2.11.4 Responsibility for identifying patents
The Institute shall not be responsible for identifying all patents for which a license may be required by an American National Standard or for conducting inquiries into the legal validity or scope of those patents that are brought to its attention.
It's a requirement of the ISO, IEEE and ANSI standards body that participants involved in the development of standards must pre-declare and clearly lable and identify any section of a standard in developent that an implementation would be dependent upon a patent for which royalties must be paid.
Both AT&T and Santa Cruz Operation participated in the development of the POSIX / FIPS 151-X standards and they did not identify any such royalty/patent dependent section as required for Federal endorsed standards.
In terms of copyright, anyone and any organization who has purchased and ISO standard is free to release implementations based upon those standards.
As of 4 Aug 2003, IA-64 ( Itanium ) Linux kernel builds out of Linus' tree, this is the same IA64/Trillian project that employees from both Old SCO and Caldera contributed to in scalability under the terms of the GPL.
It is noteworthy to point out that the one Linux kernel tree support all architectures and scales from small embedded to multiproccessor monsters. This dispite the August 2000 claims of the then SCO CEO Ransom Love.
SCO's legal case against any end users of the Linux kernel 2.6.X+ is further screwed.
Back in September Microsoft's advocates were harping on about the "Migration" to Windows Server 2003
The
original netcraft article on the "Migration" to Windows Server 2003 hints at the fact that that most of the migration is occuring on hosted systems, where the hosting providers have received very favorable terms ( read as bribes ) to switch to Windows2003. Myhosting.com continues to be the top hoster of active Windows Server 2003 sites, and now has over 98% of their active sites migrated to Windows 2003. The month before, Myhosting.com was hosting 13,504 , in comparison to last months 32,810, an increase which accounts for the 5%. Yes, one provider.
Today, a new bunch of Microsoft advocates use the opposite argument as was used in September, by NOT counting deployments on hosting providers to spin the numbers in their favor.
Ok. If the ARIA and the RIAA are going to sue ISP for what their customers use there internet connections for, then lets sue the ARIA and the RIAA for support for all the children conceived by teenagers listening to the record companies artists sexually suggestive music and music vidios.
Many Australians have been voicing their concern about this country's front-line role in the campaign to attack Iraq, but so far the Howard Government has stood firm.
So how will it deal with another Australian who's reportedly declared Government policy against Iraq is dumb and not worth the risk?
Well, not so easily, when that opinion comes from a senior analyst in the Office of National Assessment, Andrew Wilkie, and pinned to that is his resignation.
The Office of National Assessment gathers and interprets an enormous flow of global intelligence material and briefs the PM accordingly.
Andrew Wilkie is a Duntroon graduate, a former soldier, a lieutenant colonel and has dropped a bombshell in the national capital tonight with a stinging criticism of the Howard Government's policy on Iraq.
He joins me now from Canberra.
Andrew Wilkie, is it accurate to describe you as a senior analyst with the Office of National Assessment?
ANDREW WILKIE, FORMER ANALYST, OFFICE OF NATIONAL ASSESSMENTS: Yes, Kerry.
KERRY O'BRIEN: And you were originally seconded to work there from the army back in '99.
ANDREW WILKIE: That's right, '99 and 2000 I was seconded there as a strategic analyst in the strategic analysis branch.
KERRY O'BRIEN: And the Office of National Assessments more recently, have you been privy to top level intelligence on areas like terrorism issues and Afghanistan and Iraq?
ANDREW WILKIE: Over the last 15 months or so I've been working global terrorism and transnational issues.
Because I'm one of the very small number of ex-military people in the office, I keep across potential military problems and am called in to work in the national intelligence watch office when those crises blow up.
Hence I've worked on Afghanistan, Kosovo and I was on stand-by to work on Iraq.
KERRY O'BRIEN: Why have you resigned?
ANDREW WILKIE: Kerry, war must obviously be justified and it must obviously be the option of last resort.
I'm not satisfied that in this case it is either justified or it's been viewed as the option of last resort.
KERRY O'BRIEN: Was there a particular moment that pushed you over the edge on this decision, I mean it is a big decision.
You've walked away on a career.
ANDREW WILKIE: It's the biggest decision I think I've ever made in my life.
Frankly I don't know what tomorrow will bring for me.
Was there a particular point in time?
No it's been accumulating over many, many weeks, if not months.
Although there have been some particular incidents which stick in my mind as incidents which annoyed me very much at the time.
For example, when Colin Powell presented evidence to the Security Council some weeks ago now about links between Al Qaeda and Iraq and as far as I'm aware there was no hard evidence and there is still no hard evidence that there is any active cooperation between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
KERRY O'BRIEN: But are you satisfied that you're really in a position to know that, to know that in the face of Colin Powell and all the credibility that he might muster?
ANDREW WILKIE: Yes, we are obviously privy to a substantial flow of intelligence, of hard intelligence from the US.
We haven't seen anything to prove that there is a link between the two organisations.
And, in fact, if you just approach it from first principles, there's a lot of good reasons why there wouldn't be a link.
Unless, of course, Saddam Hussein is pushed into establishing a relationship with Al Qaeda and that's one of the things that I worry about, if there is an invasion of Iraq that that will be just one of the sorts of forces that could push him towards a closer relationship with A
Why did I repost those articles again in entirety? Because I have yet to come across any decent answers to the issues raised by those same officals who at there time were at the highest level of briefing.
This War Will Disabilize The Entire Middle East Region And Set Off A Global Shockwave Of Anti-americanism By Nathan Eckert
George W. Bush may think that a war against Iraq is the solution to our problems, but the reality is, it will only serve to create far more.
This war will not put an end to anti-Americanism; it will fan the flames of hatred even higher. It will not end the threat of weapons of mass destruction; it will make possible their further proliferation. And it will not lay the groundwork for the flourishing of democracy throughout the Mideast; it will harden the resolve of Arab states to drive out all Western (i.e. U.S.) influence.
If you thought Osama bin Laden was bad, just wait until the countless children who become orphaned by U.S. bombs in the coming weeks are all grown up. Do you think they will forget what country dropped the bombs that killed their parents? In 10 or 15 years, we will look back fondly on the days when there were only a few thousand Middle Easterners dedicated to destroying the U.S. and willing to die for the fundamentalist cause. From this war, a million bin Ladens will bloom.
And what exactly is our endgame here? Do we really believe that we can install Gen. Tommy Franks as the ruler of Iraq? Is our arrogance and hubris so great that we actually believe that a U.S. provisional military regime will be welcomed with open arms by the Iraqi people? Democracy cannot possibly thrive under coercion. To take over a country and impose one's own system of government without regard for the people of that country is the very antithesis of democracy. And it is doomed to fail.
A war against Iraq is not only morally wrong, it will be an unmitigated disaster.
No It Won't By Bob Sheffer
No it won't.
It just won't. None of that will happen.
You're getting worked up over nothing. Everything is going to be fine. So just relax, okay? You're really overreacting.
"This war will not put an end to anti-Americanism; it will fan the flames of hatred even higher"?
It won't.
"It will harden the resolve of Arab states to drive out all Western (i.e. U.S.) influence"?
Not really.
"A war against Iraq is not only morally wrong, it will be an unmitigated disaster"?
Sorry, no, I disagree.
"To take over a country and impose one's own system of government without regard for the people of that country is the very antithesis of democracy"?
You are completely wrong.
Trust me, it's all going to work out perfect. Nothing bad is going to happen. It's all under control.
Why do you keep saying these things? I can tell when there's trouble looming, and I really don't sense that right now. We're in control of this situation, and we know what we're doing. So stop being so pessimistic.
Look, you've been proven wrong, so stop talking. You've had your say already.
Be quiet, okay? Everything's fine.
You're wrong.
Looking back at the article today, it's not funny , just very very sad.
Friday, 14 March 2003, 3:16 pm
Speech: U.S. Senator
U.S. SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY
CONTACT: Office of Senator Leahy, 202-224-4242
VERMONT
Statement of Senator Patrick Leahy
On The Senate Floor
Concerning Iraq
The Countdown To War
March 13, 2003
Mr. President, last Thursday at his press conference, the President gave his reasons to justify the use of military force to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
The President said again that he has not made up his mind to go to war, but his own advisers are saying that even if Iraq fully complies with UN Security Council Resolution 1441, Saddam Hussein must be removed from power.
The President said his goal is protecting the American people from terrorism, a goal we all share, but he offered no evidence that Iraq had anything to do with the September 11 attacks or any details of IraqA's links to al Queda.
He offered no new information about the potential costs of a war, either in American and Iraqi lives, or in dollars. Both Republicans and Democrats have urged the President to be more forthcoming with the American people, yet he is apparently ready to send hundreds of thousands of the sons and daughters of American taxpayers into battle without saying anything about the costs and risks.
The President repeatedly spoke of the danger of "doing nothing," as if doing nothing is what those who urge patience and caution A- with war only as a last resort A- are recommending. In fact, virtually no one is saying that we should do nothing about Saddam Hussein.
Even most of the millions of people who have joined protests and demonstrations against the use of force without UN Security Council authorization, are not saying that the world should ignore the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
Yet that is the PresidentA's answer to those who oppose a preemptive U.S. invasion, and who, contrary to wanting to do nothing, want to give the United Nations more time to try to solve this crisis without war.
The President also failed to address a key concern that divides Americans, that divides us from many of our closest European allies, that divides our allies from each other, and that divides the UN Security Council. That issue is not whether or not Saddam Hussein is a deceptive, despicable, dangerous despot who should be disarmed. There is little if any disagreement about that.
Nor is it whether or not force should ever be used. Most people accept that the United States, like any country, has a right of self defense if faced with an imminent threat. And if the UN inspectors fail to disarm Iraq, force may become the only option.
Most people also agree that a U.S.-led invasion would quickly overwhelm and defeat IraqA's ill-equipped, demoralized army.
Rather, the President said almost nothing about the concern that by attacking Iraq to enforce Security Council Resolution 1441 without the support of key allies on the UN Security Council, we risk seriously weakening the Security CouncilA's future effectiveness and our own ability to rally international support A- not only to prevent this war and future wars, but to deal with other global threats like terrorism.
And this concern is exacerbated by the increasing resentment of the AdministrationA's domineering and simplistic "you are either with us or against us" approach, which has already damaged long-standing relationships, both with our neighbors in this hemisphere and our friends across the Atlantic.
The President says that if the Security Council does not support the use of force today, it risks becoming irrelevant. But the President has it backward. The Security Council will not become irrelevant because it refuses to agree with the President of the United States. Rather, the Security CouncilA's effectiveness is threatened if the United States, the worldA's only superpower, ignores the will of key allies on the Security Council regarding the enforcement of a Security Council resolution.
Letters of resignation, particularly those from State Department diplomats to their superiors, are not ordinarily a forum for disagreements about the course of American foreign policy. The following letter of resignation, written by career diplomat John Brady Kiesling to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, is unusual for its content and length. Kiesling, 45, served in several U.S. embassies before his most recent post in Athens. He shared a 1994 award from the American Foreign Service Association for "constructive dissent" after he and 12 others signed a letter of protest over the lack of U.S. intervention in the conflict in Bosnia.
February 27, 2003
Dear Mr. Secretary:
I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart.
The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal.
It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature. But until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer.
The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security.
The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a uniquely American problem. Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safegua! rds that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to do to ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo?
We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners. Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model of Afghanistan is little
Robin Cook, the now former UK Foreign Minister, resigned his position due to his great consern over the actions of the UK and the USA.
What follows is a copy of his resignation speech in the House of Commons, which won applause from some backbenchers in unprecedented Commons scenes.
This is the first time for 20 years that I have addressed the House from the back benches.
I must confess that I had forgotten how much better the view is from here.
None of those 20 years were more enjoyable or more rewarding than the past two, in which I have had the immense privilege of serving this House as Leader of the House, which were made all the more enjoyable, Mr Speaker, by the opportunity of working closely with you.
It was frequently the necessity for me as Leader of the House to talk my way out of accusations that a statement had been preceded by a press interview.
On this occasion I can say with complete confidence that no press interview has been given before this statement.
I have chosen to address the House first on why I cannot support a war without international agreement or domestic support.
The present Prime Minister is the most successful leader of the Labour party in my lifetime.
I hope that he will continue to be the leader of our party, and I hope that he will continue to be successful. I have no sympathy with, and I will give no comfort to, those who want to use this crisis to displace him.
I applaud the heroic efforts that the prime minister has made in trying to secure a second resolution.
I do not think that anybody could have done better than the foreign secretary in working to get support for a second resolution within the Security Council.
But the very intensity of those attempts underlines how important it was to succeed.
Now that those attempts have failed, we cannot pretend that getting a second resolution was of no importance.
France has been at the receiving end of bucket loads of commentary in recent days.
It is not France alone that wants more time for inspections. Germany wants more time for inspections; Russia wants more time for inspections; indeed, at no time have we signed up even the minimum necessary to carry a second resolution.
We delude ourselves if we think that the degree of international hostility is all the result of President Chirac.
The reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading partner - not NATO, not the European Union and, now, not the Security Council.
To end up in such diplomatic weakness is a serious reverse.
Only a year ago, we and the United States were part of a coalition against terrorism that was wider and more diverse than I would ever have imagined possible.
History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition.
The US can afford to go it alone, but Britain is not a superpower.
Our interests are best protected not by unilateral action but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules.
Yet tonight the international partnerships most important to us are weakened: the European Union is divided; the Security Council is in stalemate.
Those are heavy casualties of a war in which a shot has yet to be fired.
I have heard some parallels between military action in these circumstances and the military action that we took in Kosovo. There was no doubt about the multilateral support that we had for the action that we took in Kosovo.
It was supported by NATO; it was supported by the European Union; it was supported by every single one of the seven neighbours in the region. France and Germany were our active allies.
It is precisely because we have none of that support in this case that it was all the more important to get agreement in the Security Council as the last hope of demonstrating i
Because this is legitimate political comentary and to save the webarchive being slashdotted here is a copy of the article From web.archive.org/web/20000816
SPECIAL REPORT/CLINTON'S CRISES MARCH 2, 1998 VOL. 151 NO. 8
Why We Didn't Remove Saddam
By GEORGE BUSH AND BRENT SCOWCROFT
The end of effective Iraqi resistance came with a rapidity which surprised us all, and we were perhaps psychologically unprepared for the sudden transition from fighting to peacemaking. True to the guidelines we had established, when we had achieved our strategic objectives (ejecting Iraqi forces from Kuwait and eroding Saddam's threat to the region) we stopped the fighting. But the necessary limitations placed on our objectives, the fog of war, and the lack of "battleship Missouri" surrender unfortunately left unresolved problems, and new ones arose.
We were disappointed that Saddam's defeat did not break his hold on power, as many of our Arab allies had predicted and we had come to expect. President Bush repeatedly declared that the fate of Saddam Hussein was up to the Iraqi people. Occasionally, he indicated that removal of Saddam would be welcome, but for very practical reasons there was never a promise to aid an uprising. While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.
We discussed at length forcing Saddam himself to accept the terms of Iraqi defeat at Safwan--just north of the Kuwait-Iraq border--and thus the responsibility and political consequences for the humiliation of such a devastating defeat. In the end, we asked ourselves what we would do if he refused. We concluded that we would be left with two options: continue the conflict until he backed down, or retreat from our demands. The latter would have sent a disastrous signal. The former would have split our Arab colleagues from the coalition and, de facto, forced us to change our objectives. Given those unpalatable choices, we allowed Saddam to avoid personal surrender and permitted him to send one of his generals. Perhaps we could have devised a system of selected punishment, such as air strikes on different military units, which would have proved a viable third option, but we had fulfilled our well-defined mission; Safwan was waiting.
As the conflict wound down, we felt a sense of urgency on the part of the coalition Arabs to get it over with and return to normal. This meant quickly withdrawing U.S. forces to an absolute minimum. Earlier there had been some concern in Arab ranks that once they allowed U.S. forces into the Middle East, we would be there to stay. Saddam's propaganda machine fanned these worries. Our prompt withdrawal helped cement ou
Simone Bordet, David Blevins, David Jencks, Dain Sundstrom, Greg Wilkins, Bruce Snyder, Jan Bartel, Jeremy Boynes , James Strachan, Jules Golsnell, Richard Monson-Haefel and Jason Dillon.
Almost ALL of the Geronimo developers with commit rights have also worked on the same JBoss code base. Thats too many developers in common to provide a fresh perspective nessary to create a non-derivative clone.
Other than manual inspection of the resulting compiler binary, a solution
for this is too use many third party C compilers and enviroments for the
original bootstrap compiler build and compare the resulting code after
the resulting compiler has rebuild itself for the third time. If the
result greatly differs then manualy inspect the generated code where
it differs.
You can do this with GCC, but I don't know if the source Microsoft's C
compiler is currently portable enough to do this.
The rest just good secure housekeeping, Don't build as Root and
keep the build systems isolated and secure as you should be
doing for vital public key signing enviroments.
The introduction of this technology over the next five or so years offers a window of opportunity to collectivly develop Free/Liberty/Open Licensed optical RISC ( Reduced Instruction Set CPU) technology.
The shift from electronic to optical results in a massive reduction in the time it take to change states, to the point where it possible to, once again, build a CPU from relatively widely spaced modular optical components. You can build a single optical CPU spread over a motherboard or even cabinet sized area and it will still be several magnitude times faster than the fastest silicon/electronic single chip CPU.
No one but the biggest companies are going to have the capital nessary to collect and shrink the resulting designs down into single optical chip hardware and manufacture the result, with a further magnitude increase in performance. As with the existing CPU industry, it is likely that the market could maintain only a few such CPU companies. Opening up the design and development process, as with open source development, would result is a far more rapid pace of development. Relative obsolescence woul;d insure that there would plenty of opertunity for large profits for the large and small manufactures.
Microsoft needs a Virtual Server for backward compatibility for it's NGSCB ( Next Generation Secure Computing Base ) DRM ( Denial of Rights Mechanism ) platform.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft is a convicted monopolistic corporation who still retain a 90%+ share of the desktop OS market and yet still continues to directly use and indirectly fund anti-competitive business practices.
September 1, 2003 Eweek 'Longhorn' Rollout Slips
Reread What evidence of origin,ownership,copyright + GPL (Score:5, Interesting).
The Linux kernel development already has a tried and true tested organization. Linus Torvalls and crew operating as benevolent dictators, totally open to public scrutiny, with no abolute power to dictate what additional patches the distributions and developers end up using. It has worked and continues to work very well.
All the contributions and development are traceable though both the Bit-tracker/CVS logs and the mailing lists, which makes everything available to public scrutiny for everyone, include those who are publicly defending Linux.
Throughout 2003, the SCO Group's so-called evidence and legal theories have fallen into disrepute though the rediscovery of the combination of the terms of the GNU General Public License and the open development process of both the Linux Kernel and even UNIX itself.
The weight of the historical evidence, including the active participation of both old SCO and Caldera executives and employees in the development and promotion of Linux, tips the scales of justice heavily in favor of IBM, RedHat and Linux end users. In fact the weight of evidence effectively chucks SCO legal position off the scales, out the window and over the cliff like a cartoon catapult.
While each new Darl McBrides threat and new David Boies partners legal theory look impressive at first glance, in practice they are about effective as attaching a giant anvil to a biplane to catch a pigeon.
See http://www.tibonia.com/Dmeg1.htm
The McBride and Bois Show to stop the Penquin is becoming a joke ...
http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/thelostskeleton ofcadavra/index.html
Text on screen: In 2004, the World Trade Center lay in ruins, and foreign nationalists frequented the streets - many of them Arabs (not the streets - the foreign nationals). Anyway, many of these Arabs went into tobacconist's shops to buy cigarettes....
A Arab tourist approaches the shopclerk. The tourist is talking haltingly into a PDA.
Arab: I will not buy this record, it is scratched.
Clerk: Sorry?
Arab: I will not buy this record, it is scratched.
Clerk: Uh, no, no, no. This is a tobacconist's.
Arab: Ah! I will not buy this *tobacconist's*, it is scratched.
Clerk: No, no, no, no. Tobacco...um...cigarettes (holds up a pack).
Arab: Ya! See-gar-ets! Ya! Uh...My hovercraft is full of eels.
Clerk: Sorry?
Arab: My hovercraft (pantomimes puffing a cigarette)...is full of eels (pretends to strike a match).
Clerk: Ahh, matches!
Arab: Ya! Ya! Ya! Ya! Do you waaaaant...do you waaaaaant...to come back to my place, bouncy bouncy?
Clerk: Here, I don't think you're using that thing right.
Arab: You great poof.
Clerk: That'll be six and six, please.
Arab: If I said you had a beautiful body, would you hold it against me? I...I am no longer infected.
Clerk: Uh, may I, uh...(takes PDA, talks to it)...Costs six and six...ah, here we are. (speaks weird Arabic-sounding words)
Arab punches the clerk.
Meanwhile, a cop on a quiet street cups his ear as if hearing a cry of distress. He sprints for many blocks and finally enters the tobacconist's.
Cop: What's up
Arab: Ah. You have beautiful thighs.
Cop: (looks down at himself) WHAT?!?
Clerk: He hit me!
Arab: Drop your panties, Sir William; I cannot wait 'til lunchtime. (points at clerk)
Cop: RIGHT!!! (drags Arab away by the arm)
Arab: (indignantly) My nipples explode with delight!
This is why the Federal Information Processing Standards Publication 151-2 is important. The other "open" standards bodies don't hold as much legal weight as the federal standard, because the US Govenment requires all contributing parties to "sign off" on the standard. There are a number of Legislative acts past that mandated such open implementable interoperable standards for Federal Information Processing in Govt tenders ( just don't ask me to name them off the top of my head - It's well over a decade since I worked with Ada ).I'm sure that many Govt organizations would not look too kindly on the self claimed "inheritors of Unix" SCO Group attempt at such a U-turn.
For POSIX compatability all that is needed in reality is a semi successfull attempt at passing compatability and a roadmap. Microsoft got by for years claiming POSIX compatibilty in NT for federal tenders, dispite the fact the the native POSIX layer was not stable or trully functional until late 1998 with the release of Interix. Now The OpenGroup and the Linux Standard Base have a New RoadMap for providing a POSIX shell for Linux LSB.
ISO and IEC Patent Policy
...subclause...). ISO [and/or] IEC take[s] no position concerning the evidence, validity and scope of this patent right. The holder of this patent right has assured the ISO [and/or] IEC that he/she is willing to negotiate licences under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and c
2.14.1 If, in exceptional situations, technical reasons justify such a step, there is no objection in principle to preparing an International Standard in terms which include the use of items covered by patent rights - defined as patents, utility models and other statutory rights based on inventions, including any published applications for any of the foregoing - even if the terms of the standard are such that there are no alternative means of compliance. The rules given below and in the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2, 2001, Annex H shall be applied.
2.14.2 If technical reasons justify the preparation of a document in terms which include the use of items covered by patent rights, the following procedures shall be complied with.
19.
The originator of a proposal for a document shall draw the attention of the committee to any patent rights of which the originator is aware and considers to cover any item of the proposal. Any party involved in the preparation of a document shall draw the attention of the committee to any patent rights of which it becomes aware during any stage in the development of the document.
20.
If the proposal is accepted on technical grounds, the originator shall ask any holder of such identified patent rights for a statement that the holder would be willing to negotiate worldwide licences under his rights with applicants throughout the world on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions. Such negotiations are left to the parties concerned and are performed outside ISO and/or IEC. A record of the right holder's statement shall be placed in the registry of the ISO Central Secretariat or IEC Central Office as appropriate, and shall be referred to in the introduction to the relevant document [see ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2, 2001, H.3]. If the right holder does not provide such a statement, the committee concerned shall not proceed with inclusion of an item covered by a patent right in the document without authorization from ISO Council or IEC Council as appropriate.
21.
A document shall not be published until the statements of the holders of all identified patent rights have been received, unless the Council concerned gives authorization.
2.14.3 Should it be revealed after publication of a document that licences under patent rights, which appear to cover items included in the document, cannot be obtained under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions, the document shall be referred back to the relevant committee for further consideration
Annex H
(normative)
Patent rights
H.1 All drafts submitted for comment shall include on the cover page the following text: "Recipients of this draft are invited to submit, with their comments, notification of any relevant patent rights of which they are aware and to provide supporting documentation."
H.2 A published document for which no patent rights are identified during the preparation thereof, shall contain the following notice in the foreword:
"Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of patent rights. ISO [and/or] IEC shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights."
H.3 A published document for which patent rights have been identified during the preparation thereof, shall include the following notice in the introduction: "The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) [and/or] International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) draws attention to the fact that it is claimed that compliance with this document may involve the use of a patent concerning (...subject matter...) given in
ANSI Patent policy
1.2.11 ANSI patent policy - Inclusion of Patents in American National Standards
There is no objection in principle to drafting a proposed American National Standard in terms that include the use of a patented item, if it is considered that technical reasons justify this approach.
If the Institute receives a notice that a proposed American National Standard may require the use of a patented invention, the procedures in 1.2.11.1 through 1.2.11.4 shall be followed.
1.2.11.1 Statement from patent holder
Prior to approval of such a proposed American National Standard, the Institute shall receive from the identified party or patent holder (in a form approved by the Institute) either: assurance in the form of a general disclaimer to the effect that such party does not hold and does not currently intend holding any invention the use of which would be required for compliance with the proposed American National Standard or assurance that:
1.
a license will be made available without compensation to the applicants desiring to utilize the license for the purpose of implementing the standard; or
2.
a license will be made available to applicants under reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably free of any unfair discrimination.
1.2.11.2 Record of statement
A record of the patent holder's statement shall be placed and retained in the files of the Institute.
1.2.11.3 Notice
When the Institute receives from a patent holder the assurance set forth in 1.2.11.1 a) or b), the standard shall include a note as follows:
NOTE - The user's attention is called to the possibility that compliance with this standard may require use of an invention covered by patent rights.
By publication of this standard, no position is taken with respect to the validity of this claim or of any patent rights in connection therewith. The patent holder has, however, filed a statement of willingness to grant a license under these rights on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms and conditions to applicants desiring to obtain such a license. Details may be obtained from the standards developer.
1.2.11.4 Responsibility for identifying patents
The Institute shall not be responsible for identifying all patents for which a license may be required by an American National Standard or for conducting inquiries into the legal validity or scope of those patents that are brought to its attention.
Both AT&T and Santa Cruz Operation participated in the development of the POSIX / FIPS 151-X standards and they did not identify any such royalty/patent dependent section as required for Federal endorsed standards.
In terms of copyright, anyone and any organization who has purchased and ISO standard is free to release implementations based upon those standards.
... And lastly to totally blow away your argument From This is the final listing of Testing Laboratories and Validated Products from the NIST POSIX Testing Program, dated December 31, 1997.
Linux has met the required standard as a POSIX plaform and today Linux *IS* the defacto industry standard for the common Unix platform.It is noteworthy to point out that the one Linux kernel tree support all architectures and scales from small embedded to multiproccessor monsters. This dispite the August 2000 claims of the then SCO CEO Ransom Love.
SCO's legal case against any end users of the Linux kernel 2.6.X+ is further screwed.
Today, a new bunch of Microsoft advocates use the opposite argument as was used in September, by NOT counting deployments on hosting providers to spin the numbers in their favor.
Meanwhile the overall drop in Microsoft's share continues.
Screw hollywood and the recording industry.
At the time many thought this 26 MARCH 2003 article from The Onion was a joke
Looking back at the article today, it's not funny , just very very sad.VOTE!
Speech: U.S. Senator
U.S. SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY
What follows is a copy of his resignation speech in the House of Commons, which won applause from some backbenchers in unprecedented Commons scenes.
Simone Bordet, David Blevins, David Jencks, Dain Sundstrom, Greg Wilkins, Bruce Snyder, Jan Bartel, Jeremy Boynes , James Strachan, Jules Golsnell, Richard Monson-Haefel and Jason Dillon.
Almost ALL of the Geronimo developers with commit rights have also worked on the same JBoss code base. Thats too many developers in common to provide a fresh perspective nessary to create a non-derivative clone.
The shift from electronic to optical results in a massive reduction in the time it take to change states, to the point where it possible to, once again, build a CPU from relatively widely spaced modular optical components. You can build a single optical CPU spread over a motherboard or even cabinet sized area and it will still be several magnitude times faster than the fastest silicon/electronic single chip CPU.
No one but the biggest companies are going to have the capital nessary to collect and shrink the resulting designs down into single optical chip hardware and manufacture the result, with a further magnitude increase in performance. As with the existing CPU industry, it is likely that the market could maintain only a few such CPU companies. Opening up the design and development process, as with open source development, would result is a far more rapid pace of development. Relative obsolescence woul;d insure that there would plenty of opertunity for large profits for the large and small manufactures.