A group of people living in the same locality and under the same government.
The district or locality in which such a group lives.
A group of people having common
interests: the scientific community; the
international business community.
Similarity or identity: a community of interests.
.Sharing, participation, and fellowship.
Society as a whole; the public.
and a corportion is defined as...
corporation
A body that is granted a charter legally recognizing it as a separate legal entity having its own rights, privileges, and liabilities distinct from those of its members.
Such a body created for purposes of government. Also called body corporate.
A group of people combined into or acting as one body.
Let's put it this way,
A corporation is a subset of a community.
The fraction is left over from the use of the gold standard when a Spanish gold coin was the base line reference for the markets. There were no cents, only fractions of the coin.
The NYSE moved to dollars and cents back in October or November. Since this is the big board (read DJIA), most of the newer stocks aren't listed in cents. The NASDAQ is supposed to move over to dollars/cents in the next few months. Then you can see RedHat and VALinux traded in dollars and cents rather then fractions of a long gone gold coin.
Cali did try to add competition by seperating out electrical generation and distribution when the "deregulated". I don't know if we'll ever know how well that went since there were so many other variables changed at the same time.
I agree that the redundency isn't needed, but we should take it to it's lowest common factor. In cases like this there should be only one set of wires, one set of pipes, etc. That doesn't mean that there is only one company that runs electric or gas across it. That would be like having The interstate highway system and only allowing one trucking compnay and one bus company to operaate on it and one make of car to use it.
Plus the competion on power can come not just from two electrical companies, but an electrical company and a gas company, then toss in a compnay doing alternative power, solar and wind (and maybe one day fuel cells) and you've got competion, with only one set of wires and pipes.
In a time when peoeple are looking for more and more things to be privatized, putting these service under direct governemt control is a bad idea. Leave the utility commisions and other oversite bodies in place and let private companies run the business.
/me picks up idiot stick and beats notbob upside head.
feel better now?
"DeRegulation and Commercialization of basic utilities was the dumbest idea ever invented.
"Okay what did it help? Not a blithering thing, okay so some jackass in idaho saved $2.95 on his gas bill, which of course is more important then the 14 BILLION dollar debt the California utilities are suffering. "
No, the dumbest idea ever was calling the removal wholesale cost restrictions and keeping consumer charges fixed, deregulation. Lets open the backend to market fluctation and not allow the front end to respond. hmmm that's smart.
By the way, that was Cali's deregulation and had nothing to do with Idaho, Washington, Arizona, Colorado or any other state. If you'r going to deregulate, do it right an open the whole thing to the market.
"De-Regulation was an idea pushed through by greedy assholes trying to convince you it was a good idea while they were planning to run with the profits even more then when they abused the government contracts. "
Uhh huh... Price fixing is a great way to promote greed. Let's charge the customer less then it costs us to provide a power and make a HUGE profit. Then we'll be Billions of dollars of debt and richer the Bill Gates.
"Utilities such as: Gas, Electric, Water, Internet Access, should be GOVERNMENT regulated and provided. "
YES!! more socialism! while we're at it cars, computers, televisions, steak tar tar and beer should also be provided by the government.
"Oh no not that evil government???? I'm sorry but some shit has to be done by the big guys, because they're the only ones not trying to make a buck in fact they loose money constantly."
Ha they don't need to make money, they just spend it and take more from you. So lets give this stuff to people for whom cost is no major impedment, and they still buy form the lowest bidder. Making a buck can be a good thing. It means you provided a good or service for less then people were willing to pay for it.
"Nobody in Cali is building a new Nuclear Plant or Spending billions on alternative energy resources research. "
Damn Right! and that's the problem. If they want the power they've got to generate it somehow. If They don't want a nuclear plant in thier backyard, maybe they can pay the folks in Idaho a few billion dollars to have it in their's. I'm sure the guy in Idaho wouldn't mind getting free power and a check every month from the residents of Cali for that reactor a few miles from his house. OF course maybe Sacremento will realize they can get in on some of that cash down in silicon valley if they are willing to build a reactor or two an d charge a market rate to the folks in the Bay Area.
"Think about shit before you blindly go saying..."
No comment...:)
"Also why can't we get Clinton back? I don't care who sucks his dick just that he doesn't f up my economy like bush or gore will)"
Well a constitutional Amendment for one thing. Durring who's adminstration did this start? So we see his results, but we'll make Bush or Gore guilty even before they can commit the crime, good.
This reminds me of something I read once...
Who is John Galt?
When I left the bilding before, there was a black car with the greek "pi" on the hood and rear quarter panels in gold paint. I think it was a 280. it looked like perm. paint not something for teh day. I'll have to see if I see it tommorow in the lot.
hmmm... CTO, Chief Technology Officer, um management type isn't he supposed to be? know a little something about technology? Supposed to make decisions?
"Typical desktop workplace environment
Susie the secretary will not understand *Nix vs. point and click."
Has he looked at either KDE or Gnome or compared the two? How do either of these NOT provide the point 'n click solution that he is looking for. That would be much better information then something that might be said from someone who hasn't used *nix in 20 years.
"Too many variations of Linux
Which one is really better as they all claim one or two niches over the other"
If he doesn't know what he wants to do, then "choice" can be daunting. Linux is scary as hell for those who don't know what they want. It's excellent for those who know specifically what they want to do.
"Gnome vs. KDE vs. etc.
Why so many desktop environments, sure alternatives are good, but when work needs to be done, money is burnt by time spent figuring out whats what on Linux vs. point and click MS"
A CTO is paid to make a decision, SO DECIDE!! KDE or Gnome for your organization. Who cares about the others. Spend some time comparing the 2, then make a decision.
Oh, This is a Windows CTO, some one who has allowed an outside vendor to make the decisions for them, to do their job for them. Maybe it might be better to understand the technology and it's implications better to do the job better for your company, customers, shareholders and employees. Then again this means there would e some responsibility involved and no more, We can't do that, windows doesn't support it or allow it.
hmmm the wholes here...
a mirrored drive is a bad idea for a disaster recovery plan. It might work for hardware failure, harddrive crash, but it's pretty useless for other problems. Better to get some removable media so you can keep the BU in another location.
You're interested in computers. Then the first thing is to investigate that interest. Find out what "computers" means. Find out the breadth of what "computers" is and what is done with them; from designing chips and fabrication facilities to writing applications and developing specs to running systems and user support to teaching and everything in between. Then decide what "computers" means to you.
Spend your time in college investigating the areas that interest you and getting an education in how to solve problems well.
Learn "how to learn" rather then just what you are taught then any of the areas you are interested in are open to you. You'll know how to educate yourself in a completely different area.
If your interested in both areas, at least initally take a general class in both. Then maybe major in both, find a combined major or minor in both and major in something completely different.
yes it's the viral nature.
A or a modification of A is component of B. A distribution of B should require the Source code for A or it's modification to be provided and under the GPL, but not all of B is distributed this way. This protects the rights of the original author, allows people to contribute modifications to that code, but allow an author to maintain their rights on their original work.
I beleive the LGPL does this.
This might be wrong, I'm weak on the implications of the GPL in this area, but if it's right it's a good demonstration of the idea.
It's like the use of dynamic and statically linked libraries. The dynamic use of libraries doesn't require the release of code under the GPL, statically linkinking the libraries does. What I am saying is that the library could be statically linked, That code would need to be release as source and so should any changes to the code. Other code would not need to be released as source.
I think a better means then the viral nature o the GPL would be modification of the patent or copyright process where a copy of the code is maintianed that can be relased when any IP restrictions are expired, and companies should be encouraged to release code for products that are no longer being maintained or distributed.
It's not easy, and I don't have good means of implementation, but it's a better compromise then the viral nature of the GPL itself.
"This only restriction of the GPL exists to prevent code from becoming locked away - something that the BSD does not prevent"
If that was all it di, then the requirment would be that you only had to release the GPL Code in source form with anything that you distribute. That way the GPL code couldn't be locked away.
It's not clear in the article, but the implication is there, that DSL connections are being shared between groups of users by connecting the neighbors to a dsl connection.
This is a distinction in the use of technology. It's one thing to have a DSL connection shared between several machine in my place, it's another to provide my neighbors access using my connection. Then I'm competing with the DSL provider. Their market is being shrunk be the actions of their customers. They can't sell their service to my neighbors. Why put up with that?
If I share connections with multiple machines in my own place, it's not likely I'll get seperate connections for each machine or that the provider could actually provide them. So there isn't a market for that.
The ToS for my DSL connection pretty much states that, that I won't run a competing business with them. That's fine. I can run servers, connect as many machines as I want and use all my bandwith 24/7. They can deal with that, their pricing models and plans are set to deal with it. I just can't steal customers from them using their service.
You are making assumptions, that even if they were correct, are pointless. Digital = copies everywhere? Why? all that is need is one copy and it can be everywhere with streaming, the number of copies is irrelevent to be everywhere. It's the distribution of the contenet that is illegal, not the copies. So what's needed is distribution protections not copy protections.
You see one slippery slope and fail to see the other more worriesome one, placing profits and income over individual rights.
Thank you for pointing out how old premises and assumptions fail to understand current technologies adn how those technoloiges must be used to fullfill the requirments that created those old assumptions.
The lack of facts does not make a them irrefutable and faulty premises break the first part of the definition of logical argument, soundness, so that fulfulling the second part, validity is irrelevent.
You assume that all copying is instantly piracy. This is false. Piracy is the redistribution of material for profit, or to deny profit from the owner. Copying is perfectly legal for personal use and that is what most of these folks are arguing for. The right to copy content for thier own use, not to sell it or redistribute it. They want to make personal libraries of the things they like.
The reason for copy protection and "other evils" is more because people either fail to understand this or for profit motives.
As for your "cycle" that is only derived from superficaly observation of media exposure in the first place. Specifiacally items 2 and 3 can be demonstrated to be backwards in many cases; ie after a new technology is released, some one tries to hack it, then there is media coverage either of the technology or the hacks. This coverage can generate more interest in the technology or the hacks.
Finally, for open source, open source is about the means, not the content. 'sharing with your neighbors' means sharing the means or method of doing something, not the results of that method. So how to decrypt or save content is worth something, but I'm not interested in your copy of "The Sound of Music" or "Debbie Does Dallas". Both of which it is perfectly legal to have. If someone took those hacks and sold the content or masss distributed it then they should get nailed.
The same things that can save linux can save *BSD.
True it might fade from the commercial stage, it might not be seen for a long time.
But as long as there is 1 copy of the source out there, it won't die. It will just sit on some harddrive, or CD until someone comes along and has a need and or interest in reviving it, then it can come back.
It's harder to kill something that has thousands of copies distributed and no restrictions on it's use then to kill some thing that a company controls and even decides it doesn't want to work with any more. Think Windows 3.1, or even 95 or any of a number of systems that have fell by the side.
MS has given Linux a whole in their Model
on
Linux Is Going Down
·
· Score: 1
Microsoft is restricting OEM and PC makers from shipping a copy of the OS with the System. They are only allowing Recovery Systems to be used.
Thanks Bill.
Now there is a whole new area for Linux businesses to enter; the ability to recover data on all those Windows boxes that are going to have to have the recovery system used and lose everything thats on them.
Then we move onto linux based Windows restore systems. save the data, use the recovery system to rebuild the windows box, then use Linux to restore
the system as quickly as possible.
And while their onsite the Linux folks can demonstrate that with linux there is no need to jump through all these hoops to keep your machines from workstations to servers running after some failure.
They can charge by the hours, everything they need to cover R+D costs as well, and still do faster and cheaper then MS could.
Re:Microsoft can't do anything about free..
on
Linux Is Going Down
·
· Score: 1
It's more like whick will cost more:
Microsoft site license & upgrades and dedicated staff to maintain the system, monitor for and install upgrades or in- house Linux developers?
So at least the same omount of staff pluss the expense of license and copies of software or just pay the people who know what they are doing?
"Why the Berkeley DB? Why not a whole bunch
of databases?"
with...
"I'd go for IMAP first, and worry about POP3 later,..."
First is support for The Berkeley DB package, then the developers or others extend to other DB's. Thats the way of software project development. You develop for your needs/requirements/enviorment then extend to other things.
Congratulations to both sides, for a game well played. And good job to the writer, all the commentors and Slashdot.
No it's not over yet, just the end of a quarter or a round.
Is it stealing?
If you think the law is always right and is the be all and end all of everything, then yes it is. intercepting and decrypting the signal is a violation of the current law.
On a moral side, it doesn't appear to be stealing. The signal is broadcast, available for anyone in the broadcast area to intercept. I'm not taking something from the company or thier customers. Heck the company is beaming it too them. If they can intercept, they should be able to process it. If they can successfully process it, they can do what they want with it.
This is where technology and morality intersect. Very interisting place. If you add in economic interest, this intersection turns into law.
Bussiness people already know how to make money in broadcasting, and that's what this is. They've been doing it for 50+ years. They integrated the profit making capability into the signal itself, called advertising. And Look we are about to see the biggest advertising event in the world, it's about the only one where people actually sit there and want to watch the advertising.
This is a game between technical people. the other part of the game is that the business people and the lawyers haven't caught on yet. So someone gets to have fun at work and home.:)
Please take the whole brief and write it completely in your favorite programming language.
If this is a compiled language, please submit 1 compile attempt even if it is all error codes.
We will then submit the completed briefs to the court and at some point in the future make available to the court a number of coders to read to them and translate the complete brief. These
coders will most likely consist of several classes of programming students, that will be drawn from various programs and schools based on the language that they are studying.
All submissions should be accompanied by the Coders name, email address, development environment , OS and if it is being released under the GPL, LGPL or BSD license.
No virii, trojans or easter eggs should be included as this will be a part of the public record and anyone might try and run this code at some point and time. We don't want some poor law student to find themselves in some IRC channel or hosting a Quake III server while doing research for some Moot Court 10 years form now.
A new release gets a new bright shinny clean slate. It'll save time in trying to sort out all the patches that have been developed.
Get everything prioritized:
What patches fix immediate bugs in the current code that need to be fixed. The really apperent things, like buffer overflows.
What are deficiencies in the code to make it useful? Things like "I brought the can of soup, but forgot the can opener"
What is actually dev? "The stove works fine, we can get a microwave later"
Over time, I'd imagine there have been a large number of patches submitted. Several of those probably have several versions submitted, if people have been keeping up with code changes in their patches. So which version to use? Instead of trying to manage all the patches, delare the kernel version that all patches must work with, then use them. That gives you a level field to work with for all the patches and a place to start looking at including and excluding patches into the release and placing into the Dev area.
This might piss people off, but these are most likely folks that are thinking of just thier patches and not of the kernel as a whole and users in general.
Linus is doing the smart thing to maintain the kernel in a very good manner.
I congratulate him and hope he keeps up the good work.
Slashdot Mirror
community
and a corportion is defined as...
corporation
Let's put it this way,
A corporation is a subset of a community.
Two pence none the richer.
The NYSE moved to dollars and cents back in October or November. Since this is the big board (read DJIA), most of the newer stocks aren't listed in cents. The NASDAQ is supposed to move over to dollars/cents in the next few months. Then you can see RedHat and VALinux traded in dollars and cents rather then fractions of a long gone gold coin.
I agree that the redundency isn't needed, but we should take it to it's lowest common factor. In cases like this there should be only one set of wires, one set of pipes, etc. That doesn't mean that there is only one company that runs electric or gas across it. That would be like having The interstate highway system and only allowing one trucking compnay and one bus company to operaate on it and one make of car to use it.
Plus the competion on power can come not just from two electrical companies, but an electrical company and a gas company, then toss in a compnay doing alternative power, solar and wind (and maybe one day fuel cells) and you've got competion, with only one set of wires and pipes.
In a time when peoeple are looking for more and more things to be privatized, putting these service under direct governemt control is a bad idea. Leave the utility commisions and other oversite bodies in place and let private companies run the business.
feel better now?
"DeRegulation and Commercialization of basic utilities was the dumbest idea ever invented.
"Okay what did it help? Not a blithering thing, okay so some jackass in idaho saved $2.95 on his gas bill, which of course is more important then the 14 BILLION dollar debt the California utilities are suffering. "
No, the dumbest idea ever was calling the removal wholesale cost restrictions and keeping consumer charges fixed, deregulation. Lets open the backend to market fluctation and not allow the front end to respond. hmmm that's smart.
By the way, that was Cali's deregulation and had nothing to do with Idaho, Washington, Arizona, Colorado or any other state. If you'r going to deregulate, do it right an open the whole thing to the market.
"De-Regulation was an idea pushed through by greedy assholes trying to convince you it was a good idea while they were planning to run with the profits even more then when they abused the government contracts. "
Uhh huh... Price fixing is a great way to promote greed. Let's charge the customer less then it costs us to provide a power and make a HUGE profit. Then we'll be Billions of dollars of debt and richer the Bill Gates.
"Utilities such as: Gas, Electric, Water, Internet Access, should be GOVERNMENT regulated and provided. "
YES!! more socialism! while we're at it cars, computers, televisions, steak tar tar and beer should also be provided by the government.
"Oh no not that evil government???? I'm sorry but some shit has to be done by the big guys, because they're the only ones not trying to make a buck in fact they loose money constantly."
Ha they don't need to make money, they just spend it and take more from you. So lets give this stuff to people for whom cost is no major impedment, and they still buy form the lowest bidder. Making a buck can be a good thing. It means you provided a good or service for less then people were willing to pay for it.
"Nobody in Cali is building a new Nuclear Plant or Spending billions on alternative energy resources research. "
Damn Right! and that's the problem. If they want the power they've got to generate it somehow. If They don't want a nuclear plant in thier backyard, maybe they can pay the folks in Idaho a few billion dollars to have it in their's. I'm sure the guy in Idaho wouldn't mind getting free power and a check every month from the residents of Cali for that reactor a few miles from his house. OF course maybe Sacremento will realize they can get in on some of that cash down in silicon valley if they are willing to build a reactor or two an d charge a market rate to the folks in the Bay Area.
"Think about shit before you blindly go saying ..."
No comment... :)
"Also why can't we get Clinton back? I don't care who sucks his dick just that he doesn't f up my economy like bush or gore will)"
Well a constitutional Amendment for one thing. Durring who's adminstration did this start? So we see his results, but we'll make Bush or Gore guilty even before they can commit the crime, good.
This reminds me of something I read once...
Who is John Galt?
When I left the bilding before, there was a black car with the greek "pi" on the hood and rear quarter panels in gold paint. I think it was a 280. it looked like perm. paint not something for teh day. I'll have to see if I see it tommorow in the lot.
hmmm... CTO, Chief Technology Officer, um management type isn't he supposed to be? know a little something about technology? Supposed to make decisions?
"Typical desktop workplace environment
Susie the secretary will not understand *Nix vs. point and click."
Has he looked at either KDE or Gnome or compared the two? How do either of these NOT provide the point 'n click solution that he is looking for. That would be much better information then something that might be said from someone who hasn't used *nix in 20 years.
"Too many variations of Linux
Which one is really better as they all claim one or two niches over the other"
If he doesn't know what he wants to do, then "choice" can be daunting. Linux is scary as hell for those who don't know what they want. It's excellent for those who know specifically what they want to do.
"Gnome vs. KDE vs. etc.
Why so many desktop environments, sure alternatives are good, but when work needs to be done, money is burnt by time spent figuring out whats what on Linux vs. point and click MS"
A CTO is paid to make a decision, SO DECIDE!! KDE or Gnome for your organization. Who cares about the others. Spend some time comparing the 2, then make a decision.
Oh, This is a Windows CTO, some one who has allowed an outside vendor to make the decisions for them, to do their job for them. Maybe it might be better to understand the technology and it's implications better to do the job better for your company, customers, shareholders and employees. Then again this means there would e some responsibility involved and no more, We can't do that, windows doesn't support it or allow it.
hmmm the wholes here...
a mirrored drive is a bad idea for a disaster recovery plan. It might work for hardware failure, harddrive crash, but it's pretty useless for other problems. Better to get some removable media so you can keep the BU in another location.
You're interested in computers. Then the first thing is to investigate that interest. Find out what "computers" means. Find out the breadth of what "computers" is and what is done with them; from designing chips and fabrication facilities to writing applications and developing specs to running systems and user support to teaching and everything in between. Then decide what "computers" means to you.
Spend your time in college investigating the areas that interest you and getting an education in how to solve problems well.
Learn "how to learn" rather then just what you are taught then any of the areas you are interested in are open to you. You'll know how to educate yourself in a completely different area.
If your interested in both areas, at least initally take a general class in both. Then maybe major in both, find a combined major or minor in both and major in something completely different.
yes it's the viral nature. A or a modification of A is component of B. A distribution of B should require the Source code for A or it's modification to be provided and under the GPL, but not all of B is distributed this way. This protects the rights of the original author, allows people to contribute modifications to that code, but allow an author to maintain their rights on their original work. I beleive the LGPL does this. This might be wrong, I'm weak on the implications of the GPL in this area, but if it's right it's a good demonstration of the idea. It's like the use of dynamic and statically linked libraries. The dynamic use of libraries doesn't require the release of code under the GPL, statically linkinking the libraries does. What I am saying is that the library could be statically linked, That code would need to be release as source and so should any changes to the code. Other code would not need to be released as source. I think a better means then the viral nature o the GPL would be modification of the patent or copyright process where a copy of the code is maintianed that can be relased when any IP restrictions are expired, and companies should be encouraged to release code for products that are no longer being maintained or distributed. It's not easy, and I don't have good means of implementation, but it's a better compromise then the viral nature of the GPL itself.
"This only restriction of the GPL exists to prevent code from becoming locked away - something that the BSD does not prevent"
If that was all it di, then the requirment would be that you only had to release the GPL Code in source form with anything that you distribute. That way the GPL code couldn't be locked away.
This is why universities have tenure.
It's not clear in the article, but the implication is there, that DSL connections are being shared between groups of users by connecting the neighbors to a dsl connection.
This is a distinction in the use of technology. It's one thing to have a DSL connection shared between several machine in my place, it's another to provide my neighbors access using my connection. Then I'm competing with the DSL provider. Their market is being shrunk be the actions of their customers. They can't sell their service to my neighbors. Why put up with that?
If I share connections with multiple machines in my own place, it's not likely I'll get seperate connections for each machine or that the provider could actually provide them. So there isn't a market for that.
The ToS for my DSL connection pretty much states that, that I won't run a competing business with them. That's fine. I can run servers, connect as many machines as I want and use all my bandwith 24/7. They can deal with that, their pricing models and plans are set to deal with it. I just can't steal customers from them using their service.
That's what you get when you cross Microsoft and the House UnAmerican Activities Committee (HUAC), 1934-77.
You will recant!
You will confess!
you will use XP!!!!
You are making assumptions, that even if they were correct, are pointless. Digital = copies everywhere? Why? all that is need is one copy and it can be everywhere with streaming, the number of copies is irrelevent to be everywhere. It's the distribution of the contenet that is illegal, not the copies. So what's needed is distribution protections not copy protections.
You see one slippery slope and fail to see the other more worriesome one, placing profits and income over individual rights.
Thank you for pointing out how old premises and assumptions fail to understand current technologies adn how those technoloiges must be used to fullfill the requirments that created those old assumptions.
The lack of facts does not make a them irrefutable and faulty premises break the first part of the definition of logical argument, soundness, so that fulfulling the second part, validity is irrelevent.
You assume that all copying is instantly piracy. This is false. Piracy is the redistribution of material for profit, or to deny profit from the owner. Copying is perfectly legal for personal use and that is what most of these folks are arguing for. The right to copy content for thier own use, not to sell it or redistribute it. They want to make personal libraries of the things they like.
The reason for copy protection and "other evils" is more because people either fail to understand this or for profit motives.
As for your "cycle" that is only derived from superficaly observation of media exposure in the first place. Specifiacally items 2 and 3 can be demonstrated to be backwards in many cases; ie after a new technology is released, some one tries to hack it, then there is media coverage either of the technology or the hacks. This coverage can generate more interest in the technology or the hacks.
Finally, for open source, open source is about the means, not the content. 'sharing with your neighbors' means sharing the means or method of doing something, not the results of that method. So how to decrypt or save content is worth something, but I'm not interested in your copy of "The Sound of Music" or "Debbie Does Dallas". Both of which it is perfectly legal to have. If someone took those hacks and sold the content or masss distributed it then they should get nailed.
Good job. Thanks.
The same things that can save linux can save *BSD.
True it might fade from the commercial stage, it might not be seen for a long time.
But as long as there is 1 copy of the source out there, it won't die. It will just sit on some harddrive, or CD until someone comes along and has a need and or interest in reviving it, then it can come back.
It's harder to kill something that has thousands of copies distributed and no restrictions on it's use then to kill some thing that a company controls and even decides it doesn't want to work with any more. Think Windows 3.1, or even 95 or any of a number of systems that have fell by the side.
Microsoft is restricting OEM and PC makers from shipping a copy of the OS with the System. They are only allowing Recovery Systems to be used.
Thanks Bill.
Now there is a whole new area for Linux businesses to enter; the ability to recover data on all those Windows boxes that are going to have to have the recovery system used and lose everything thats on them.
Then we move onto linux based Windows restore systems. save the data, use the recovery system to rebuild the windows box, then use Linux to restore
the system as quickly as possible.
And while their onsite the Linux folks can demonstrate that with linux there is no need to jump through all these hoops to keep your machines from workstations to servers running after some failure.
They can charge by the hours, everything they need to cover R+D costs as well, and still do faster and cheaper then MS could.
It's more like whick will cost more:
Microsoft site license & upgrades and dedicated staff to maintain the system, monitor for and install upgrades or in- house Linux developers?
So at least the same omount of staff pluss the expense of license and copies of software or just pay the people who know what they are doing?
with...
"I'd go for IMAP first, and worry about POP3 later, ..."
First is support for The Berkeley DB package, then the developers or others extend to other DB's. Thats the way of software project development. You develop for your needs/requirements/enviorment then extend to other things.
A great story and comments.
:)
Congratulations to both sides, for a game well played. And good job to the writer, all the commentors and Slashdot.
No it's not over yet, just the end of a quarter or a round.
Is it stealing?
If you think the law is always right and is the be all and end all of everything, then yes it is. intercepting and decrypting the signal is a violation of the current law.
On a moral side, it doesn't appear to be stealing. The signal is broadcast, available for anyone in the broadcast area to intercept. I'm not taking something from the company or thier customers. Heck the company is beaming it too them. If they can intercept, they should be able to process it. If they can successfully process it, they can do what they want with it.
This is where technology and morality intersect. Very interisting place. If you add in economic interest, this intersection turns into law.
Bussiness people already know how to make money in broadcasting, and that's what this is. They've been doing it for 50+ years. They integrated the profit making capability into the signal itself, called advertising. And Look we are about to see the biggest advertising event in the world, it's about the only one where people actually sit there and want to watch the advertising.
This is a game between technical people. the other part of the game is that the business people and the lawyers haven't caught on yet. So someone gets to have fun at work and home.
Please take the whole brief and write it completely in your favorite programming language.
If this is a compiled language, please submit 1 compile attempt even if it is all error codes.
We will then submit the completed briefs to the court and at some point in the future make available to the court a number of coders to read to them and translate the complete brief. These
coders will most likely consist of several classes of programming students, that will be drawn from various programs and schools based on the language that they are studying.
All submissions should be accompanied by the Coders name, email address, development environment , OS and if it is being released under the GPL, LGPL or BSD license.
No virii, trojans or easter eggs should be included as this will be a part of the public record and anyone might try and run this code at some point and time. We don't want some poor law student to find themselves in some IRC channel or hosting a Quake III server while doing research for some Moot Court 10 years form now.
Thank you.
Not in distoro's?
It's been in Mandrake, all nicely incorporated into the install so you can build a system from scratch using it.
I've done it several times and helped other too as well.
Haven't had a problem and am happy with the servers that run it.
This isn't bad.
A new release gets a new bright shinny clean slate. It'll save time in trying to sort out all the patches that have been developed.
Get everything prioritized:
What patches fix immediate bugs in the current code that need to be fixed. The really apperent things, like buffer overflows.
What are deficiencies in the code to make it useful? Things like "I brought the can of soup, but forgot the can opener"
What is actually dev? "The stove works fine, we can get a microwave later"
Over time, I'd imagine there have been a large number of patches submitted. Several of those probably have several versions submitted, if people have been keeping up with code changes in their patches. So which version to use? Instead of trying to manage all the patches, delare the kernel version that all patches must work with, then use them. That gives you a level field to work with for all the patches and a place to start looking at including and excluding patches into the release and placing into the Dev area.
This might piss people off, but these are most likely folks that are thinking of just thier patches and not of the kernel as a whole and users in general.
Linus is doing the smart thing to maintain the kernel in a very good manner.
I congratulate him and hope he keeps up the good work.