...this is WAY more answer than we needed. Here's what Slashdot wants to hear (and all it can understand): "x86 will die a horrible flaming death in 9 months. Also, it's girlfriend will leave it." -- Compaq dropping MAILWorks?
...human speech is no good as input to a computer.
There are a lot of confused people out there. Let's draw some distinctions.
1) The Perl Example: Perl is distributed under two licenses, the GPL and the "Artistic License". The ENTIRETY of Perl is under BOTH of these licenses.
2) The Ghostscript) Example: Ghostscript is distributed under two licenses, the GPL (IIRC) and a commercial one. However, any given copy of ghostscript is only covered under ONE license. The newest version is commercial, all previous versions are GPL'd. So say the newest version is 10.3. If I get 10.3 from them, I have a commercial license. But if I get 10.2 from them, it is GPL'd.
3) The I Can't Think Of One Example: There are packages out there (and unfortunately I can't think of one right now) where it is released under different licenses depending on, for instance, the platform you are going to run on. So the Linux version is GPL'd but the Windows version is commercial. This is similar to the Ghostscript Example--only one license applies to each copy of the software.
Notice that none of these examples are like hypothetical software S: S is a package containing 100 source files. 50 of the source files are GPL'd, 25 of them are BSD'd and 25 of them are commercially licensed. AFAIK, the GPL doesn't allow this. My interpretation of this situation is that the 50 files would be considered a "work" and the full 100 would be a "derivative"--so the sets of 25 would have to be GPL'd as well.
All that said, what does it mean exactly, that "Doom is released under multiple licenses"? -- Compaq dropping MAILWorks?
I see a lot of comments that are probably going to be marked as "trolls" or "flamebait". What we need is a "they are just trash talking to keep people from slashdotting the server until they've got their's downloaded." -- Compaq dropping MAILWorks?
I worked for a year at a company--then I (naively) applied for the "team leader" position. Two years later, I couldn't STAND my job, so I quit (I also couldn't stand some of my coworkers, the benefits had gone downhill, the company was getting stupider by the minute).
I've been where I am now for 6 months and I love it. But people have already called me the "project leader"--the former project leader was laid off (for other reasons) and I'm the only one who is "coming up with ideas". With any luck I'll be able to dodge that bullet by coming up with some boneheaded plans.
I agree with others' assessment that the Peter Principle is at work here (you get promoted to your level of incompetence), but I think there's more than that for technologist positions: buffers.
Most non-technical managers HATE managing technical people (let's not speculate why for now). So they figure "I'll promote one of those programmers to be a 'team leader'--that'll turn him to the dark side just enough we'll be able to talk AND I won't have to deal with the rest of them." -- Compaq dropping MAILWorks?
Isn't that kinda...slow and dumb? Why not ZIP/Jaz disks? On the other hand, maybe they figure the people who refuse to use flash+cable are unlikely to have ZIP drives... -- Compaq dropping MAILWorks?
That might let me get a head-start on an Itanium port without spending any money. But when will the Real Thing be available? Or is it already and I missed it? -- Compaq dropping MAILWorks?
Instead of a lame spin-n-disappear, how about "spin to get your attention"? Beats the pants off of "flashing title bar" or "tiny light in the corner of the window". -- Compaq dropping MAILWorks?
"...stock prices jumped up on news that Judge Jackson had ruled for the breakup."
And we all know how smart those Wall Street types are. In any case, it only went up ~3 points--and it has since dropped 2, leaving it just below 68.
"Even the baby-bills will be profitable."
Don't be so sure. The Baby Bells and Baby Oils were each profitable because they had been split geographically--they each had an effective local monopoly. The Baby Bills are being split along business lines. This is a much more effective measure, especially against MS. For instance, how much harder is it to retain an OS monopoly if you don't have a stranglehold on applications.
And lest you think I'm pulling this out of my ass, there are Wall Street analyst-types who are saying the same thing. Check out www.nasdaq.com news some time. -- Compaq dropping MAILWorks?
Sure, in a race between the two the plasma rocket sounds like it would win--by a long shot.
But if I want to be on Mars ASAP, which technology is going to get me there first? Conventional, tried-and-true, already-exists rockets? Or untested, not-yet-mature, haven't-built-one-yet technology?
Just launch a damn ship NOW. -- Compaq dropping MAILWorks?
From the site: "In order to view a sample of the optimal ClearType filters, you must view this page on an LCD with RGB stripes. You will not be able to see the full ClearType effects on a CRT. Some LCDs (such as in the iMac), use BGR stripes, which will not work with these samples." -- Compaq dropping MAILWorks?
What if I become handicapped (blind, lose arm/hand/finger)? Suddenly I can't use my software because I don't type the same?
What about other people in the same house? What if I sell the software? What if what if what if?
This is just dumb. Of course, knowing the software industry, the first product to include a license management scheme that locks you out if your keyboard skills change will be "Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing"... -- Compaq dropping MAILWorks?
The RIAA (and MPAA) clearly has no idea how technology works. How long until a consultant or low-level flunky points out that all software piracy software has one common denominator: an operating system.
Yes, soon the RIAA (and MPAA) will launch a suit against MS, Apple, RedHat, IBM, etc claiming that their so-called "Operating Systems", being in use by 100% of software pirates, constitute a illegal piracy tool. And since the UCITA will guarantee that OS's have "remote shutdown" MS, Apple, IBM, etc will be forced to "kick their users off the system" (i.e. remotely shutdown those machines). Only those people running Open Source OS's will survive (because they removed any shutdown code).
Except for whatever-we-used-at-school-5-to-10-years-ago and more recently, a little Tru64 and AIX, the only Unix I have experience with is Linux. I've never used any SCO products and furthermore I never hear about them. So my question is:
What does SCO have that Linux wants? That is, SCO obviously wants to stay alive as a Unix vendor and currently that means: Support (or better yet, produce) Linux. But what does/can Linux gain from this relationship? I'm looking for hard technical stuff--no touchy-feelie "PHBs trust SCO!" responses (however insightful you feel them to be). -- Compaq dropping MAILWorks?
I'd hate to play a text adventure game even on my Palm (which has decent text entry) let alone on a cell-phone.
However, I'll tell you what I would pay money for: If I could call up and a sexy, young, female voice would read a text adventure to me: "You draw your weapon and repeatedly thrust it deep into....oh 'Conan' you really know how to play this game." -- Compaq dropping MAILWorks?
Open Source is all about "better code" or "better security" or "faster development". Free Software is about the human (especially programmer) rights.
I don't understand why people keep trying to come up with ways that companies can release their source code "safely". What we (should) want isn't safe for companies. We want to take some power back from the Sun's, Microsoft's and Corel's of the world. Have access to the source code is just a feature. But the GPL enables a whole new "paradigm" (I don't usually like that word, but it's true here) where IP doesn't apply. -- Wanna hook MAPI clients to your Tru64/AIX/Linux server?
If only we could. But note the word "legally" in "legally binding". If you and I have a contract signed with non-legally binding signatures, and one of us backs out the other one has no recourse. -- Wanna hook MAPI clients to your Tru64/AIX/Linux server?
Someone please tell me that they are doing this the Right Way: An electronic signature is only legally binding if the software used to encrypt/validate it is "reasonably secure" (i.e. no Microsoft products).
I'd really hate to get in a situation where Microsoft Signature 1.0 (known to the rest of us as "a simple text entry box") is the norm with online merchants. -- Wanna hook MAPI clients to your Tru64/AIX/Linux server?
You DO realize that silently auto-starting servers is EXACTLY what many people hate about Microsoft, don't you? And don't give me a line about how secure you've made this server--the best security is NO server. -- Wanna hook MAPI clients to your Tru64/AIX/Linux server?
Slashdot Mirror
...this is WAY more answer than we needed. Here's what Slashdot wants to hear (and all it can understand): "x86 will die a horrible flaming death in 9 months. Also, it's girlfriend will leave it."
--
Compaq dropping MAILWorks?
...human speech is no good as input to a computer.
There are a lot of confused people out there. Let's draw some distinctions.
1) The Perl Example: Perl is distributed under two licenses, the GPL and the "Artistic License". The ENTIRETY of Perl is under BOTH of these licenses.
2) The Ghostscript) Example: Ghostscript is distributed under two licenses, the GPL (IIRC) and a commercial one. However, any given copy of ghostscript is only covered under ONE license. The newest version is commercial, all previous versions are GPL'd. So say the newest version is 10.3. If I get 10.3 from them, I have a commercial license. But if I get 10.2 from them, it is GPL'd.
3) The I Can't Think Of One Example: There are packages out there (and unfortunately I can't think of one right now) where it is released under different licenses depending on, for instance, the platform you are going to run on. So the Linux version is GPL'd but the Windows version is commercial. This is similar to the Ghostscript Example--only one license applies to each copy of the software.
Notice that none of these examples are like hypothetical software S: S is a package containing 100 source files. 50 of the source files are GPL'd, 25 of them are BSD'd and 25 of them are commercially licensed. AFAIK, the GPL doesn't allow this. My interpretation of this situation is that the 50 files would be considered a "work" and the full 100 would be a "derivative"--so the sets of 25 would have to be GPL'd as well.
All that said, what does it mean exactly, that "Doom is released under multiple licenses"?
--
Compaq dropping MAILWorks?
...it must be working.
--
Compaq dropping MAILWorks?
I see a lot of comments that are probably going to be marked as "trolls" or "flamebait". What we need is a "they are just trash talking to keep people from slashdotting the server until they've got their's downloaded."
--
Compaq dropping MAILWorks?
I worked for a year at a company--then I (naively) applied for the "team leader" position. Two years later, I couldn't STAND my job, so I quit (I also couldn't stand some of my coworkers, the benefits had gone downhill, the company was getting stupider by the minute).
I've been where I am now for 6 months and I love it. But people have already called me the "project leader"--the former project leader was laid off (for other reasons) and I'm the only one who is "coming up with ideas". With any luck I'll be able to dodge that bullet by coming up with some boneheaded plans.
I agree with others' assessment that the Peter Principle is at work here (you get promoted to your level of incompetence), but I think there's more than that for technologist positions: buffers.
Most non-technical managers HATE managing technical people (let's not speculate why for now). So they figure "I'll promote one of those programmers to be a 'team leader'--that'll turn him to the dark side just enough we'll be able to talk AND I won't have to deal with the rest of them."
--
Compaq dropping MAILWorks?
Isn't that kinda...slow and dumb? Why not ZIP/Jaz disks? On the other hand, maybe they figure the people who refuse to use flash+cable are unlikely to have ZIP drives...
--
Compaq dropping MAILWorks?
"...what do people think the coolest thing to build would be?"
I want to build a to-scale model of Earth.
--
Compaq dropping MAILWorks?
That might let me get a head-start on an Itanium port without spending any money. But when will the Real Thing be available? Or is it already and I missed it?
--
Compaq dropping MAILWorks?
Instead of a lame spin-n-disappear, how about "spin to get your attention"? Beats the pants off of "flashing title bar" or "tiny light in the corner of the window".
--
Compaq dropping MAILWorks?
"...stock prices jumped up on news that Judge Jackson had ruled for the breakup."
And we all know how smart those Wall Street types are. In any case, it only went up ~3 points--and it has since dropped 2, leaving it just below 68.
"Even the baby-bills will be profitable."
Don't be so sure. The Baby Bells and Baby Oils were each profitable because they had been split geographically--they each had an effective local monopoly. The Baby Bills are being split along business lines. This is a much more effective measure, especially against MS. For instance, how much harder is it to retain an OS monopoly if you don't have a stranglehold on applications.
And lest you think I'm pulling this out of my ass, there are Wall Street analyst-types who are saying the same thing. Check out www.nasdaq.com news some time.
--
Compaq dropping MAILWorks?
Sure, in a race between the two the plasma rocket sounds like it would win--by a long shot.
But if I want to be on Mars ASAP, which technology is going to get me there first? Conventional, tried-and-true, already-exists rockets? Or untested, not-yet-mature, haven't-built-one-yet technology?
Just launch a damn ship NOW.
--
Compaq dropping MAILWorks?
...unless you have an LCD (which is not an iMac).
From the site: "In order to view a sample of the optimal ClearType filters, you must view this page on an LCD with RGB stripes. You will not be able to see the full ClearType effects on a CRT. Some LCDs (such as in the iMac), use BGR stripes, which will not work with these samples."
--
Compaq dropping MAILWorks?
What if I become handicapped (blind, lose arm/hand/finger)? Suddenly I can't use my software because I don't type the same?
What about other people in the same house? What if I sell the software? What if what if what if?
This is just dumb. Of course, knowing the software industry, the first product to include a license management scheme that locks you out if your keyboard skills change will be "Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing"...
--
Compaq dropping MAILWorks?
The RIAA (and MPAA) clearly has no idea how technology works. How long until a consultant or low-level flunky points out that all software piracy software has one common denominator: an operating system.
Yes, soon the RIAA (and MPAA) will launch a suit against MS, Apple, RedHat, IBM, etc claiming that their so-called "Operating Systems", being in use by 100% of software pirates, constitute a illegal piracy tool. And since the UCITA will guarantee that OS's have "remote shutdown" MS, Apple, IBM, etc will be forced to "kick their users off the system" (i.e. remotely shutdown those machines). Only those people running Open Source OS's will survive (because they removed any shutdown code).
--
Compaq dropping MAILWorks?
...I didn't know him, Horatio.
What the heck were LinSight and LinDeveloper? The site doesn't seem to indicate anything except "we're done now".
--
Compaq dropping MAILWorks?
Except for whatever-we-used-at-school-5-to-10-years-ago and more recently, a little Tru64 and AIX, the only Unix I have experience with is Linux. I've never used any SCO products and furthermore I never hear about them. So my question is:
What does SCO have that Linux wants? That is, SCO obviously wants to stay alive as a Unix vendor and currently that means: Support (or better yet, produce) Linux. But what does/can Linux gain from this relationship? I'm looking for hard technical stuff--no touchy-feelie "PHBs trust SCO!" responses (however insightful you feel them to be).
--
Compaq dropping MAILWorks?
Physical security is of the utmost importance. After all, it's only cardboard and wax paper.
Ooooh...I thought you said "How to secure a cracker box"...
--
Compaq dropping MAILWorks?
I'd hate to play a text adventure game even on my Palm (which has decent text entry) let alone on a cell-phone.
However, I'll tell you what I would pay money for: If I could call up and a sexy, young, female voice would read a text adventure to me: "You draw your weapon and repeatedly thrust it deep into....oh 'Conan' you really know how to play this game."
--
Compaq dropping MAILWorks?
"Does 'Open Source' Have To Mean 'Free'?"
No. That's exactly the problem.
Open Source is all about "better code" or "better security" or "faster development". Free Software is about the human (especially programmer) rights.
I don't understand why people keep trying to come up with ways that companies can release their source code "safely". What we (should) want isn't safe for companies. We want to take some power back from the Sun's, Microsoft's and Corel's of the world. Have access to the source code is just a feature. But the GPL enables a whole new "paradigm" (I don't usually like that word, but it's true here) where IP doesn't apply.
--
Wanna hook MAPI clients to your Tru64/AIX/Linux server?
"The transactions taking place [on ebay] are legally binding."
Ummm...no, they aren't. They are "ebay binding", but they aren't legally binding.
--
Wanna hook MAPI clients to your Tru64/AIX/Linux server?
"I say to let the market handle these things."
If only we could. But note the word "legally" in "legally binding". If you and I have a contract signed with non-legally binding signatures, and one of us backs out the other one has no recourse.
--
Wanna hook MAPI clients to your Tru64/AIX/Linux server?
Someone please tell me that they are doing this the Right Way: An electronic signature is only legally binding if the software used to encrypt/validate it is "reasonably secure" (i.e. no Microsoft products).
I'd really hate to get in a situation where Microsoft Signature 1.0 (known to the rest of us as "a simple text entry box") is the norm with online merchants.
--
Wanna hook MAPI clients to your Tru64/AIX/Linux server?
It's exactly like that! Now you're catching on!
I didn't say it was NICE, I just said it would WORK.
--
Wanna hook MAPI clients to your Tru64/AIX/Linux server?
The goal here is "be useful to user" not "emulate Microsoft".
--
Wanna hook MAPI clients to your Tru64/AIX/Linux server?
You DO realize that silently auto-starting servers is EXACTLY what many people hate about Microsoft, don't you? And don't give me a line about how secure you've made this server--the best security is NO server.
--
Wanna hook MAPI clients to your Tru64/AIX/Linux server?