Eh!??! What gives? I just paid over A HUNDRED DOLLARS for Jaguar... and now, two weeks later, those sums of beaches are telling me that a new version is out??!!? That's not fair! I'm not paying another over A HUNDRED DOLLARS to get the next version, not two weeks after I got Jaguar!
Apple... what the heck did I expect? I knew I should have stayed with Win XP.
You know, I am so glad that Tiger is finally being released. I have been using Panther for a while, and it is SO GOOD as far as operating systems go. Yes, I used to enjoy tinkering with all the settings in Linux and FreeBSD over the years, setting up desktop and laptop systems exactly the way I wanted them, but there were always problems and things that I couldn't get working properly. With OSX, everything Just Works (tm), obviously because the same people who make OSX make the hardware it runs on.
And Tiger is going to be a beautiful release. There are features in it, especially the searching and process automation, that I've been dreaming about for years. The searching technology first appeared in BeOS with its attribute-based filesystem, but the process automation is actually something that a company I worked for ten years ago tried to invent and couldn't get it working properly. When I saw it on Apple's demo page for Tiger, I basically saw exactly the same thing that we tried to do...
All I'm trying to say is that I thoroughly understand the depth of Apple's success with this software, and the technical achievement they made. This is a UNIX that can do so darn much.
What do you mean that 95% of IT projects are not delivered on time?!??! Can't you see that IT projects are ALWAYS delivered early and under budget? Just look at Debian for cryin' out loud. Debian is ALWAYS released on time. Nobody ever complains that it takes too long for a Debian release.
In other news, the government just announced a new program called The Citizen Information Freedom and Security Act. This act calls for a new government agency, called the Agency For Information Security, to be formed. This agency will have a direct connection to computer databases at the FBI, CIA, NSA, INS, IRS, TSA, and other government agencies that keep a lot of information about people. The government will then parse this information into a "daily digest" format and email it to alqaida@crownprince.sa... The White House is touting this program as increasing security, especially for American travelers to international destinations.
Well, it's not really happening, but if the government really did do something like that, I wouldn't be surprised at all.
When I walk into a room to fix something, everybody in that room immediately stops what they're doing and they all bow down before me. Then I order them to cower before me for I am root. And they cower.
There should be a law that states this: If you write a virus that infects any system running non-Microsoft software, you go to prison forever. If you write a virus that infects systems running Microsoft software, Microsoft is required to pay you a licensing fee of not less than $2,200 for each copy of the virus that propogates. Of course, your virus would be required to send identifying information to a central server, which would keep track of its propogation, so that you would get paid what you are owed.
Yes, this sounds like a good way to get rid of viruses. (Because everyone will switch away from Microsoft software, and then the virus writers will find another profession.)
...an RFID tag system is easy to manage and opt out of, whereas DNA sampling or facial recognition, well, isn't...
That's the mark of the beast... You can't accept it or you will burn in hell forever. Jesus foresaw it. He said that when the end of days approaches, the antichrist will set it up so everyone will have to get the mark of the beast in his hand or his forehead. If you opt out, you will not be able to buy anything, go anywhere, etc. You will be stuck living like in the middle ages.
They'll market it to everyone like it's such a good idea... Like it's so convenient. No identity theft. No lost children. No more carrying around a wallet or change. In fact, there won't be any more paper or coin money. And it will allow "them" to track criminals... rapists, sex offenders. It's so convenient, they'll argue, so why don't you want to get it? Only criminals, they'll argue, will refuse the mark of the beast. Criminals and religious fanatics.
As it is, religion is on its way out the door. They're taking the Ten Commandments down from everywhere. They're getting rid of the cross. The ACLU, all kinds of organizations that claim to be good. And when the mark of the beast becomes mandatory from a practical perspective, because you'll be unable to buy food, or pay for anything without it, you'll be an outcast... Either a criminal or a religious nutcase.
Jesus said, "Another will come in my name and him you will receive."
Biometrics aren't that bad when you consider it. But the mark of the beast... only if you do not accept it will you survive the end of days.
It's a real shame that people ruin perfectly good hardware by hitting it, putting it in the deep fryer, or otherwise, when it's really the software at fault. All you have to do is delete Windows, put Linux, and problem solved!
Well, maybe it's not quite that simple... but you can always get a Mac. I used to hate those things, and then OSX came out. Beautiful interface, fast response, and best of all, it's BSD. Hell yeah.
I think the OSS community should collect some kind of fund for advertisements. I know you've all seen those, "How did one company lower its TCO? It switched from Linux to Windows" advertisements. Why not make up similar advertisements all over the newspapers and magazines, telling people, "How did Joe Shmoe end his frustrations with lost data, crashes, slowness, popups, spyware, malware, adware, keystroke loggers, reboots, etc? He switched from Windows to Linux."
And then, on the bottom of the page, it'll say, "Linux. Higher TCO, and worth every extra penny."
The BBC is reporting Microsoft's new user security measure...
Yeah? And what is that?
For immediate release
March 30, 2005
Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ: MSFT) today announced plans to develop new security measures to enhance the security of users of Microsoft software. By leveraging innovative technologies, content provides streamline compelling enterprise solutions. The move is said to eliminate all concerns of flaws and security holes in Microsoft software.
The plan involves modifying all Microsoft TCO advertisements to read, "How did one company lower the TCO for its IT investments? It switched from Windows to any operating system made by a Microsoft competitor or the open source community."
A spokeswoman for Microsoft commented, "By getting users off our software and onto other software, we will essentially eliminate all Windows security concerns."......
Yeah... That's never gonna happen. So how exactly do they plan to offer a new data-security scheme? By fixing their bugs? They've been saying that for 20 years.
"At the time of writing, half an hour into the second week of the vote, we have the lowest participation ever in a Debian project leader election seen so far."
I really hate to say this, knowing that I'll be flamed and modded down, but if Debian would actually release something once in a while, it might help the project's image. I know they want their stuff to be the "best" but there is a rule in software: STFP - Ship The Product (the "F" is silent)... People appreciate that a lot more than just waiting until Real Soon Now (tm).
It's a wonderful thing when the government makes laws that force people to submit their personally identifying and potentially damaging information into government systems, and then the government makes sure that those systems are not secure. I think it should be taken a step further: It's not fair that only h4x0rz and script k1dd1ez get access to your personal information: The government should also sell it to 3rd parties, as long as they're based outside of the United States, for marketing purposes. That way, if you're an old woman, you'll start getting mail and telephone advertisements for enlarging your penis, and stuff like that. This would be an additional source of revenue for the government, allowing it to come up with even more nice programs like this in the future.
This is perfectly acceptable. There are a lot of bad people in the world, like terrorists, who might use VoIP instead of talking on the normal telephone because of lack of wiretapping. If VoIP provides the same service as the normal telephone, then it stands to reason that it should fall under the same rules.
This retarded-ass Immersion Corpse or whatever it's called is so stupid. Don't they know who they're messing with? Sony is not a small company. Sony is large and in charge. Immersion Corpse... Who the heck ever heard of something retarded like that?
Well, actually, if Immersion is some mom-and-pop that's just trying to make a living and Sony really is infringing on some patent that isn't some B.S. patent, but rather something that really is a non-obvious original invention, then that really sucks, and Sony should pay licensing fees.
But otherwise... Immersion: Go take a long walk on a short pier.
That's just too darn complicated. It would be easier for hardware makers to build an LCD display with a transparent backing that would allow crystal clear images on top of a completely transparent background.
Something similar was made years ago, when, I believe it was Toshiba, released a laptop where the back of the screen could be removed to place it on an overhead projector... Sort of a poor man's projector.
Something much better could be made today, and you wouldn't have to put a camera on the back, then perform all kinds of math in real time to transform the image to give it the right viewpoint, and then detect from which angle the user is looking to move the image around... It simply won't work right no matter how you do it.
There aren't many replies to this story yet, but I can already see it: Lots of people are going to complain, "Why the fsck do we need yet another packaging solution?!?! We already have rpm, deb, tgz, blah blah blah..."
The reason is that most of these packaging solutions, while great for developers and those who want detailed knowledge of the inner workings of their systems, simply suck when given to mortal users.
And they don't handle a number of edge cases too well... What if you want different versions of some software to coexist on the same system? What if you want ten different versions of a library? Yes, these can all be handled by current stuff... but not very well. It's bad enough that when we install software here, we actually get the rpms or whatever and then re-package them ourselves to serve our needs.
A packaging solution that actually works is desperately needed.
When designing and coding software, it is extremely important to separate data that is produced internally in the program from data that comes from outside.
Your program has control over data it produces internally. But there is no such control over data coming in from outside. User input, for example, can never be trusted, and must be verified for conformance to the requirements of your algorithms before it is used. Data coming in over the network is even worse... Not only does it come from outside of your program, but it comes from outside of the computer, and even from the other side of the globe.
The trouble with too much software is that too many assumptions are made about data, without respect for the fact that computers are GIGO systems: Garbage In, Garbage Out.
I think most programmers have gotten that memo... Except the ones working for Microsoft.
It seems that the defenders of the holy IP principle have hoisted the skull and bones.
If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: I firmly believe that when SCO was Caldera and Caldera was developing Linux, contributing to Linux, and open sourcing some of their proprietary software, a lot of stuff that was used in their proprietary code was placed in Linux, and a lot of stuff that was in Linux was then placed in their proprietary software.
In other words, the programmers there had access to the source for both systems, and instead of reinventing things that already existed on one system for implementation in the other, they copied and pasted, perhaps making some modifications in the process. I firmly believe that this company did not keep a record of what was copied and in which direction.
Then, Caldera became SCO. Then, some idiot named Darl looked at Linux code, saw something that looked strikingly similar to SCO code, and jumped to the conclusion that it must mean that proprietary SCO code was illegally copied into Linux. Since IBM had access to SCO code, this was proof, in Darl's crooked mind, that IBM illegally copied SCO code into Linux.
He didn't consider the following possibilities:
Linux code originally developed by--and belonging to--the community was illegally copied into SCO code. Darl assumed that any code present in both systems was originally developed at SCO and illegally copied into Linux.
SCO code originally developed by SCO or some company it bought in the past was contributed by SCO into Linux. Darl assumed that any code present in both systems was originally developed at SCO and illegally copied into Linux.
Code developed by parties who created *BSD--or by other parties not affiliated with SCO or with the Linux community--was illegally copied by SCO into SCO code, and this copying was later forgiven by the rightful copyright owners when it was discovered that both parties mutually copied from each other. Similar or identical code was later copied from open source projects such as the *BSDs into Linux. This may or may not be proper, depending on the rightful owner's wishes, but SCO never had rightful ownership of this code, and therefore was never wronged by its presence in Linux. Darl assumed that any code present in both systems was originally developed at SCO and illegally copied into Linux.
I am not surprised at all that SCO is doing this thing with Groklaw's content. I'd give it a few weeks, and you'll see SCO suing Groklaw for copying SCO's copyright-protected text off SCO's webpage...
WTF?!? Did MSNBC just buy /.?
on
Apple Easter Egg
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
If this Easter Egg was discovered so many years ago, then how come the news is only appearing on Slashdot now?
This is reminiscent of the way that print-format "IT" magazines (the ones designed to keep business technology administrators "in the know" on hot, current technologies and technology issues) only discuss emerging technologies months after they've been released, and only discuss worms, viruses, and other flaws months after they've already been fixed and are no longer an issue.
Except that Slashdot is not print format, so there is no excuse for a lag of several months, and Slashdot is supposed to be "in the know" on things the same day they happen... No excuse here, guys!!! Unless MSNBC just bought Slashdot, or something retarded like that. If this thing was discovered years ago, then it should have been discussed here years ago. Just my $0.02
I said that the way Wolfram went about publishing his research meant that he got almost zero input from the community until after he published a book.
Not that I know that much about Mr. Wolfram personally, but you can't argue with success: The man's company made him millions. That's a fact. And those millions allowed him to go about his research, while his innovative engineers and businesspersons with whom he surrounded himself produce his software and his income. That is very smart indeed...
Google wants to be surrounded by smart people. They have more PhDs working for them than any other company, iirc. Wolfram's success stems, imho, from similar actions. Most companies, on the other hand, are full of mediocre people. Every business manager complains about that. The real genius isn't in how some line of code is written... it's in finding the right people and surrounding yourself with them. That's how Google, Apple, and Wolfram have gained so much success with what little they started out with.
And to answer that thing about Wolfram not getting any input from others while doing his research: Have you looked at the first few pages of his phone-book sized book? It's in fine print, two columns per page, perhaps several hundred lines per column... names of people around the world, some of whose names I cannot pronounce because I don't know what some of the letters in their names are, with whom he collaborated on the science he reinvented. I'm not saying his research is some new truth that affects all of science... though he might believe it is, but he had some good ideas, and some concrete products (Mathematica) came out of it that help businesses of all kinds today. Prick or not, you can't argue with success.
They are obviously doing this to shut up the European courts that want to fine them about $5,000,000 bucks per day for failing to comply.
I think the courts should under no circumstances let this pass. This is a bunch of BS, and I think that unless Microsoft complies fully and delivers the complete format of the data files, they should be fined not $5,000,000 per day until they comply but $5,000,000 per day until at least 100 independant open source computer programs exist that can handle Microsoft document files in their entirety, with no major user complaints about the functionality of these programs.
It's very interesting and refreshing to see a technology company that is actually run, as a business, in as innovative a fashion as its programs do from a technical perspective. And most surprising is that Google is actually quite successful. Companies like that can be counted on perhaps one hand.
But one does have to remember one thing: It's not easy to make a company succeed in this fashion. Sometimes, as a manager, one wants to give one's employees everything, but one simply can't because of lack of resources. At Google, that isn't quite as large a problem, and they have the ability to perform some very long-range thinking and innovation, because their commercial success is giving them the freedom to do so. Their annual revenue is in the billions.
I would say that Apple is also quite innovative in quite the same respect, though that will be highly debated, as is Wolfram Research, which will probably not be debated very much.
Business that treat their employees like crap will ultimately lose. Businesses that are innovative in every respect, including business practice itself, don't have guaranteed success, but those that do succeed will do so in large quantities and the people who work there will have great fun in the process.
Here's what Microsoft should do: Use all of available RAM, except one byte, for operating system functions and for applications that Microsoft makes.
That one byte that isn't used for Microsoft apps will be used to run all other applications. Those programs will continue to be written as if they have normal access to RAM, but Windows will operate them in the following manner: All of the memory of those applications will be stored on the hard drive in a format that is very slow to read and write. Each byte will be converted into a string, so a 127, for example, will turn into the string, "One hundred and twenty-seven." These will be stored with one string on a line. As the program executes, each individual byte of it will be swapped in from the disk, being interpreted from a string into a byte, to that one byte in memory, and then swapped back to the disk to make room for the next byte. Not only will each individual memory access become incredibly slow (hundreds of thousands of times slower than under normal execution), but it will also promise that the processor will waste nearly all of its time managing this mess:
Time will be wasted converting bytes to and from strings.
Each time the processor needs to access any byte of program code or data, it will trigger a page fault, which will have to be handled by Windows.
32-bit data formats, such as integers, will have to be processed byte-by-byte.
In fact, it would actually be too difficult to let the real processor in the machine handle all of this crap. For that, Microsoft will integrate Bochs into its code, and use Bochs to execute all non-Microsoft programs. Bochs will be reverse-optimized, of course, by inserting deliberate delays in various strategic places, making inner loops process too much junk unnecessarily, and, finally, by running Bochs itself in an interpreted environment, with the interpreter being written in Visual Basic 6, which Microsoft no longer supports. To make graphics work really, really, really slowly, all operations will be converted into a string of GetPixel, PutPixel calls to draw individual pixels.
Microsoft will explain that all of this benefits the consumer and corporate customer because: By leveraging innovative technologies, content providers streamline compelling enterprise solutions. In the meantime, only programs made by Microsoft will execute quickly. Microsoft will advertise that all other software companies make slow software, and therefore that you should ONLY buy Microsoft software. And they'll tell you that Linux has a higher TCO, lower ROI, and you'll get sued for using it. Stupid PHBs will believe them, and it will come to pass.
I don't see a problem here, as long as the GPL 3 solves enough of the current legal issues. (Hey, maybe there should be a Bugzilla database for the GPL license itself.)
Switching licenses shouldn't be a problem because the GPL notice in every source file states that you can use this (at your option) under version 2 or any later version of the GPL. Therefore, all GPLed software is already licensed under version 3, in a sense.
Besides, the GPL license should state that although an infinite number of developers might contribute to a project, the person who originally released that project under a specific name is the owner, and has the right to change license schemes at any time, and the new license takes effect upon the release of the first copy with that license. This would mean several things:
First, that, e.g., Linus could say, "Ok, Linux is going to be GPL 3 from now on." And no contributers or others who have their hand in Linux could complain about it, because Linus was the first to name and released Linux.
Second, that if Linus takes crack one day and decides to put Linux under, say, a Microsoft EULA, then all versions up to that version are still GPL (remember, you can't stop others from having the same rights as you had), so a fork could form at that time, where Linus can continue his work under a EULA version, and everybody else in the world can continue working on the GPL version.
By the way, this would require someone to change the name and release a version. Probably, there will be hundreds of versions released right away, with hundreds of names, but one or two of them will survive and become the new "Linux"...
This goes for all other projects using the GPL, not just Linux.
I think it's about time Adobe starts offering products on Linux... I don't care if this is a bloated peace of junk... I'm using Mac OS X since last year, and there's no problem reading PDFs or PS files there. But Linux is cool for all my server crap, and with more support coming its way, that's fresh and dope.
Now if only they'll port Photoshop, Illustrator, Premiere, InDesign, and all their other stuff... In other words, gimme the finger, I want the whole hand.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple... what the heck did I expect? I knew I should have stayed with Win XP.
And Tiger is going to be a beautiful release. There are features in it, especially the searching and process automation, that I've been dreaming about for years. The searching technology first appeared in BeOS with its attribute-based filesystem, but the process automation is actually something that a company I worked for ten years ago tried to invent and couldn't get it working properly. When I saw it on Apple's demo page for Tiger, I basically saw exactly the same thing that we tried to do...
All I'm trying to say is that I thoroughly understand the depth of Apple's success with this software, and the technical achievement they made. This is a UNIX that can do so darn much.
Oh, wait...
Well, it's not really happening, but if the government really did do something like that, I wouldn't be surprised at all.
In fact, government should have a motto... Let's see, I think I know the perfect one:
Yeah... That's about right.So it shall be written. So it shall be done.
Yes, this sounds like a good way to get rid of viruses. (Because everyone will switch away from Microsoft software, and then the virus writers will find another profession.)
That's the mark of the beast... You can't accept it or you will burn in hell forever. Jesus foresaw it. He said that when the end of days approaches, the antichrist will set it up so everyone will have to get the mark of the beast in his hand or his forehead. If you opt out, you will not be able to buy anything, go anywhere, etc. You will be stuck living like in the middle ages.
They'll market it to everyone like it's such a good idea... Like it's so convenient. No identity theft. No lost children. No more carrying around a wallet or change. In fact, there won't be any more paper or coin money. And it will allow "them" to track criminals... rapists, sex offenders. It's so convenient, they'll argue, so why don't you want to get it? Only criminals, they'll argue, will refuse the mark of the beast. Criminals and religious fanatics.
As it is, religion is on its way out the door. They're taking the Ten Commandments down from everywhere. They're getting rid of the cross. The ACLU, all kinds of organizations that claim to be good. And when the mark of the beast becomes mandatory from a practical perspective, because you'll be unable to buy food, or pay for anything without it, you'll be an outcast... Either a criminal or a religious nutcase.
Jesus said, "Another will come in my name and him you will receive."
Biometrics aren't that bad when you consider it. But the mark of the beast... only if you do not accept it will you survive the end of days.
Well, maybe it's not quite that simple... but you can always get a Mac. I used to hate those things, and then OSX came out. Beautiful interface, fast response, and best of all, it's BSD. Hell yeah.
I think the OSS community should collect some kind of fund for advertisements. I know you've all seen those, "How did one company lower its TCO? It switched from Linux to Windows" advertisements. Why not make up similar advertisements all over the newspapers and magazines, telling people, "How did Joe Shmoe end his frustrations with lost data, crashes, slowness, popups, spyware, malware, adware, keystroke loggers, reboots, etc? He switched from Windows to Linux."
And then, on the bottom of the page, it'll say, "Linux. Higher TCO, and worth every extra penny."
Yeah? And what is that?
Yeah... That's never gonna happen. So how exactly do they plan to offer a new data-security scheme? By fixing their bugs? They've been saying that for 20 years.I really hate to say this, knowing that I'll be flamed and modded down, but if Debian would actually release something once in a while, it might help the project's image. I know they want their stuff to be the "best" but there is a rule in software: STFP - Ship The Product (the "F" is silent)... People appreciate that a lot more than just waiting until Real Soon Now (tm).
Government. Where do you want to go today?
This is perfectly acceptable. There are a lot of bad people in the world, like terrorists, who might use VoIP instead of talking on the normal telephone because of lack of wiretapping. If VoIP provides the same service as the normal telephone, then it stands to reason that it should fall under the same rules.
Well, actually, if Immersion is some mom-and-pop that's just trying to make a living and Sony really is infringing on some patent that isn't some B.S. patent, but rather something that really is a non-obvious original invention, then that really sucks, and Sony should pay licensing fees.
But otherwise... Immersion: Go take a long walk on a short pier.
Something similar was made years ago, when, I believe it was Toshiba, released a laptop where the back of the screen could be removed to place it on an overhead projector... Sort of a poor man's projector.
Something much better could be made today, and you wouldn't have to put a camera on the back, then perform all kinds of math in real time to transform the image to give it the right viewpoint, and then detect from which angle the user is looking to move the image around... It simply won't work right no matter how you do it.
The reason is that most of these packaging solutions, while great for developers and those who want detailed knowledge of the inner workings of their systems, simply suck when given to mortal users.
And they don't handle a number of edge cases too well... What if you want different versions of some software to coexist on the same system? What if you want ten different versions of a library? Yes, these can all be handled by current stuff... but not very well. It's bad enough that when we install software here, we actually get the rpms or whatever and then re-package them ourselves to serve our needs.
A packaging solution that actually works is desperately needed.
Your program has control over data it produces internally. But there is no such control over data coming in from outside. User input, for example, can never be trusted, and must be verified for conformance to the requirements of your algorithms before it is used. Data coming in over the network is even worse... Not only does it come from outside of your program, but it comes from outside of the computer, and even from the other side of the globe.
The trouble with too much software is that too many assumptions are made about data, without respect for the fact that computers are GIGO systems: Garbage In, Garbage Out.
I think most programmers have gotten that memo... Except the ones working for Microsoft.
If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: I firmly believe that when SCO was Caldera and Caldera was developing Linux, contributing to Linux, and open sourcing some of their proprietary software, a lot of stuff that was used in their proprietary code was placed in Linux, and a lot of stuff that was in Linux was then placed in their proprietary software.
In other words, the programmers there had access to the source for both systems, and instead of reinventing things that already existed on one system for implementation in the other, they copied and pasted, perhaps making some modifications in the process. I firmly believe that this company did not keep a record of what was copied and in which direction.
Then, Caldera became SCO. Then, some idiot named Darl looked at Linux code, saw something that looked strikingly similar to SCO code, and jumped to the conclusion that it must mean that proprietary SCO code was illegally copied into Linux. Since IBM had access to SCO code, this was proof, in Darl's crooked mind, that IBM illegally copied SCO code into Linux.
He didn't consider the following possibilities:
- Linux code originally developed by--and belonging to--the community was illegally copied into SCO code. Darl assumed that any code present in both systems was originally developed at SCO and illegally copied into Linux.
- SCO code originally developed by SCO or some company it bought in the past was contributed by SCO into Linux. Darl assumed that any code present in both systems was originally developed at SCO and illegally copied into Linux.
- Code developed by parties who created *BSD--or by other parties not affiliated with SCO or with the Linux community--was illegally copied by SCO into SCO code, and this copying was later forgiven by the rightful copyright owners when it was discovered that both parties mutually copied from each other. Similar or identical code was later copied from open source projects such as the *BSDs into Linux. This may or may not be proper, depending on the rightful owner's wishes, but SCO never had rightful ownership of this code, and therefore was never wronged by its presence in Linux. Darl assumed that any code present in both systems was originally developed at SCO and illegally copied into Linux.
I am not surprised at all that SCO is doing this thing with Groklaw's content. I'd give it a few weeks, and you'll see SCO suing Groklaw for copying SCO's copyright-protected text off SCO's webpage...This is reminiscent of the way that print-format "IT" magazines (the ones designed to keep business technology administrators "in the know" on hot, current technologies and technology issues) only discuss emerging technologies months after they've been released, and only discuss worms, viruses, and other flaws months after they've already been fixed and are no longer an issue.
Except that Slashdot is not print format, so there is no excuse for a lag of several months, and Slashdot is supposed to be "in the know" on things the same day they happen... No excuse here, guys!!! Unless MSNBC just bought Slashdot, or something retarded like that. If this thing was discovered years ago, then it should have been discussed here years ago. Just my $0.02
Not that I know that much about Mr. Wolfram personally, but you can't argue with success: The man's company made him millions. That's a fact. And those millions allowed him to go about his research, while his innovative engineers and businesspersons with whom he surrounded himself produce his software and his income. That is very smart indeed...
Google wants to be surrounded by smart people. They have more PhDs working for them than any other company, iirc. Wolfram's success stems, imho, from similar actions. Most companies, on the other hand, are full of mediocre people. Every business manager complains about that. The real genius isn't in how some line of code is written... it's in finding the right people and surrounding yourself with them. That's how Google, Apple, and Wolfram have gained so much success with what little they started out with.
And to answer that thing about Wolfram not getting any input from others while doing his research: Have you looked at the first few pages of his phone-book sized book? It's in fine print, two columns per page, perhaps several hundred lines per column... names of people around the world, some of whose names I cannot pronounce because I don't know what some of the letters in their names are, with whom he collaborated on the science he reinvented. I'm not saying his research is some new truth that affects all of science... though he might believe it is, but he had some good ideas, and some concrete products (Mathematica) came out of it that help businesses of all kinds today. Prick or not, you can't argue with success.
I think the courts should under no circumstances let this pass. This is a bunch of BS, and I think that unless Microsoft complies fully and delivers the complete format of the data files, they should be fined not $5,000,000 per day until they comply but $5,000,000 per day until at least 100 independant open source computer programs exist that can handle Microsoft document files in their entirety, with no major user complaints about the functionality of these programs.
But one does have to remember one thing: It's not easy to make a company succeed in this fashion. Sometimes, as a manager, one wants to give one's employees everything, but one simply can't because of lack of resources. At Google, that isn't quite as large a problem, and they have the ability to perform some very long-range thinking and innovation, because their commercial success is giving them the freedom to do so. Their annual revenue is in the billions.
I would say that Apple is also quite innovative in quite the same respect, though that will be highly debated, as is Wolfram Research, which will probably not be debated very much.
Business that treat their employees like crap will ultimately lose. Businesses that are innovative in every respect, including business practice itself, don't have guaranteed success, but those that do succeed will do so in large quantities and the people who work there will have great fun in the process.
That one byte that isn't used for Microsoft apps will be used to run all other applications. Those programs will continue to be written as if they have normal access to RAM, but Windows will operate them in the following manner: All of the memory of those applications will be stored on the hard drive in a format that is very slow to read and write. Each byte will be converted into a string, so a 127, for example, will turn into the string, "One hundred and twenty-seven." These will be stored with one string on a line. As the program executes, each individual byte of it will be swapped in from the disk, being interpreted from a string into a byte, to that one byte in memory, and then swapped back to the disk to make room for the next byte. Not only will each individual memory access become incredibly slow (hundreds of thousands of times slower than under normal execution), but it will also promise that the processor will waste nearly all of its time managing this mess:
Time will be wasted converting bytes to and from strings.
Each time the processor needs to access any byte of program code or data, it will trigger a page fault, which will have to be handled by Windows.
32-bit data formats, such as integers, will have to be processed byte-by-byte.
In fact, it would actually be too difficult to let the real processor in the machine handle all of this crap. For that, Microsoft will integrate Bochs into its code, and use Bochs to execute all non-Microsoft programs. Bochs will be reverse-optimized, of course, by inserting deliberate delays in various strategic places, making inner loops process too much junk unnecessarily, and, finally, by running Bochs itself in an interpreted environment, with the interpreter being written in Visual Basic 6, which Microsoft no longer supports. To make graphics work really, really, really slowly, all operations will be converted into a string of GetPixel, PutPixel calls to draw individual pixels.
Microsoft will explain that all of this benefits the consumer and corporate customer because: By leveraging innovative technologies, content providers streamline compelling enterprise solutions. In the meantime, only programs made by Microsoft will execute quickly. Microsoft will advertise that all other software companies make slow software, and therefore that you should ONLY buy Microsoft software. And they'll tell you that Linux has a higher TCO, lower ROI, and you'll get sued for using it. Stupid PHBs will believe them, and it will come to pass.
So it shall be written. So it shall be done.
Switching licenses shouldn't be a problem because the GPL notice in every source file states that you can use this (at your option) under version 2 or any later version of the GPL. Therefore, all GPLed software is already licensed under version 3, in a sense.
Besides, the GPL license should state that although an infinite number of developers might contribute to a project, the person who originally released that project under a specific name is the owner, and has the right to change license schemes at any time, and the new license takes effect upon the release of the first copy with that license. This would mean several things:
First, that, e.g., Linus could say, "Ok, Linux is going to be GPL 3 from now on." And no contributers or others who have their hand in Linux could complain about it, because Linus was the first to name and released Linux.
Second, that if Linus takes crack one day and decides to put Linux under, say, a Microsoft EULA, then all versions up to that version are still GPL (remember, you can't stop others from having the same rights as you had), so a fork could form at that time, where Linus can continue his work under a EULA version, and everybody else in the world can continue working on the GPL version.
By the way, this would require someone to change the name and release a version. Probably, there will be hundreds of versions released right away, with hundreds of names, but one or two of them will survive and become the new "Linux"...
This goes for all other projects using the GPL, not just Linux.
Now if only they'll port Photoshop, Illustrator, Premiere, InDesign, and all their other stuff... In other words, gimme the finger, I want the whole hand.