You missed the part that "Zion" is itself in a higher-level Matrix.. that's the whole point of the Architect's speach, of Trinity's ability to Kiss Neo to save him in the first movie, of the Oracle's ability to make predictions that encompass events outside "The Matrix", and of Neo's ability to take down the sentinels at the end of Reloaded.
Neo could well be a machine, according to the rules we seem to have at the end of the second movie.
Okay, the SCO complaint is here, if I understand your reference properly.
Paragraph 80 doesn't explicitly claim that GPL'ed material is public domain, though part of their commentary could be construed thusly.
Paragraph 77 makes no claim whatsoever as to Linux being public domain and SCO IP, and merely discusses Stallman, making two mistakes: Richard Stallman was never a professor at MIT, and his organization is FSF, not GNU.
This section generally is full of groaners of this sort. Paragraph 84 being the one that entertained so many people here previously, of course.
In Paragraph 80 of their complaint, read their claims on GPL copyrights (they say there aren't any). Paragraph 77 (and their general claims overall) seek to thus establish Linux is a combination of public domain and nefariously obtained proprietary SCO IP.
That's silly, and wrong. The GPL is an affirmative grant of rights, providing you comply with its terms. If you don't want to comply with its terms, no problem, you just don't have any rights to copy someone else's stuff. That prohibition on copying someone else's stuff isn't a consequence of the GPL, it's a consequence of copyright law in this country.
The only way for the GPL to lose all effectiveness in the way that you imply would be if a court someplace were to rule that the GPL's terms were ridiculously onerous, and that by handing it out to everyone for public download without requiring a click-through license, the stuff had effectively been placed in the public domain.
This is about as likely as a court someplace declaring that Microsoft's software was licensed with unduly onerous terms, and that their stuff was therefore public domain as well.
I.e., not likely at all. I don't think copyright is like trademark law, where if you don't take steps to protect your mark, you can lose it.
Someone else already mentioned the MobiPocket Reader, which includes some phenomenal high-res fonts for the Clié. Baen Books has much of their catalogue available for download in the MobiPocket format, including their Baen Free Library. The Free Library contains dozens of books, many by established authors. That includes the first couple of books in the Honor Harrington series.
Sony has been consistently pushing new features and lower prices into the PalmOS realm. I bought an SJ-30 a year ago, with 320x320 resolution at 65k colors, 16 megs, memory stick.. all for $250, at a time when Palm and Handspring were selling models with only 160x160 resolution and less memory.
Find a Sony Clié at your price-point, add LauncherX, and go to town.
Of course, that's not a tenable legal position for them to take once things hit the court. They can have their cake and eat it too, at least in the court of public opinion in pre-trial maneuverings, but they absolutely cannot claim in court simultaneously that they object to their code being in Linux and that Linux developers and distributors can't take any action to remediate the situation.
You're claiming that reference counting is a whole lot more powerful and flexible than Java memory management?
Surely you're not claiming that there exists a garbage collector for C++ that can work with arbitrary C++ code? I'd hate to have to reimplement all the libraries I wished to use in order to make them work with a given garbage collector.
Doesn't this have a tiny bit to do with Java always running inside some minimal debugger? Imagine rigging C++ in such a way that it will always run through gdb and on error will provide you with a stacktrace. The stacktrace gives enough info for the majority of the bugs, but would you then with a straight face claim that you can program C++ without ever using a debugger?
Well, could we also arrange it that C++ can run multithreaded in such a way that if any thread throws an exception (on an attempt to dereference a null pointer, say) the other threads can continue to function? And can we arrange things such that it is impossible for any piece of code to scribble over random pieces of memory? Can we also add on a wholly-integrated memory management system, supported by all C++ libraries?
I do claim that I can program Java without ever using a debugger, because Java's rules are stringent enough that silent corruption and delayed effects don't occur, and because the Java Runtime provides enough support in many cases to be able to diagnose things whenever an exception (_not_ a core dump) is thrown.
My whole argument is that Java really and truly is a significant increase in programmer productivity over C++. If you have this hypothetical super-C++ development environment to go along with your hypothetical super-C++ programmer, perhaps this wouldn't be true for your case.
Well, I've written around 250,000 lines of Java code, and I can count on one hand the number of times I found it necessary to use a debugger. I can't conceive of anyone saying that about C++ with a straight face.
I mean, maybe you have a god-like impression of a good C++ programmer, but having Java's enforced encapsulation, top-to-bottom integrated exception mechanisms (i.e., even for a null pointer), powerful, consistent set of thread-safe libraries..
Sure, if you're writing an operating system or a low-level code execution framework tied to a specific piece of hardware and operating system, use C or C++. If you're wanting to produce high-level code and you're not interested in spending ten times the effort to do it, use Java, or Python, or Perl, or whatever.
Not all languages are equally appropriate tools for every purpose. Java certainly isn't appropriate for everything, but people who believe that C or C++ are appropriate for everything are likewise fooling themselves.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying SCO doesn't deserve to have their IP honored, assuming the facts are as they allege them. But I suspect that part of the reason that SCO is being vague about their allegations is because if it came out that some SCO code was included in an ethernet driver for a 10 year old 3com card, say, then it wouldn't have nearly the media punch.
I don't see why SCO should be allowed to keep the factual details of the case under NDA so as to tar the whole of linux with a stolen IP brush, is all I'm saying.
I think M$ was too agressive about many things, but that doesn't make them a monopoly.
No, their operating system being used on 95% of the computers in the world and the application/compatibility barrier which forces anyone who would try to use another operating system to go without 90% of the world's software is why they're a monopoly.
Remember, it's not illegal to have a monopoly, it's illegal to abuse it in certain ways to extend one's monopoly domination into other fields, which is what Microsoft was actually convicted of.
I didn't say anything about Netscape's quality, I was addressing Microsoft's actions. Prior to IE 4, Netscape clearly *was* superior, though, and that's the time frame in which Microsoft was doing most of its dirty business to try and slow it down or kill it.
SCO is refusing to answer some elementary questions that are essential to put their claims into context. Of course, it suits their purpose to cast FUD on the OSS competitor that is destroying the value of their IP, but there's no reason why reporters should let them do it.
To wit:
Does SCO believe that Linux would be substantially less useful if the code claimed to be excerpted from SYSV were excised? Is the value of the allegedly stolen code significant to the overall value of the Linux system, or is it merely valuable to provide standing for SCO to discourage the use of a free competitor to SCO?
Is the claimed SCO code part of one or more optional components of the Linux kernel, or are they in the kernel's core?
Does the claimed SCO code relate in any way to compatibility with SCO disk partions, file systems, or binary compatibility?
How many lines of code are we talking about?
No, really, how many lines of code are we talking about?
Where is the logic in keeping the outside experts under NDA about what code is believed by SCO to have been copied into Linux? If the code is in the Linux kernel, by definition it cannot be an effective trade secret.. does this mean that the real reason for the proposed NDA is to ensure that Linux developers cannot remove the alleged SCO IP from Linux?
Why doesn't SCO wish for Linux developers to fix the problem, given that SCO has claimed that this is a case against IBM for contract violations?
Does SCO believe that their case for damages would be weakened if the alleged code was removed?
Why does SCO believe it is necessary to prevent Linux developers from fixing the problem, given that there are archives of years of development work on the Linux kernel and utilities. Would SCO consider allowing Linux developers to fix the alleged problem if SCO were given a copy of the entire Kernel development records before revealing this information?
Um, why the hell would you do this? Here's a newsflash.. piracy of copyrighted works is like terrorism.. it provides a justification for extreme countermeasures. Downloading movies is selfish, stupid, and short-sighted.
Especially on a site like Slashdot that is nominally filled with Linux fans.. the Linux "movement" is something akin to PBS, in which people can voluntarily support and share high quality content. It's not a no-morals Pirates R' Us deal, whatever SCO might say, and asses like you who pirate valid copyrighted materials are poisoning the well for everyone.
Yeah, it's really silly that Java has not yet had a standard set of concurrency control classes built on top of the monitor construct. I'm sure tons of Java programmers have rolled their own to get more deadlock-safe control over concurrency.
Re: I've used genetic algorithms
on
Digital Darwin
·
· Score: 1
And the problem with evolution is that it looks more like a psuedo-religion than science, a kind of assertion-by-proxy that God doesn't exist. In short, believing in evolution is not trusting the scientific process. The scientific process has not verified evolution.
Of course it has. We observe evolution all throughout nature, in the laboratory, in computer simulations, everywhere. What the scientific process has not done is to disprove the existence of God.
Given the paucity of evidence FOR the existence of God, that's not such a big deal. Evolution merely provides an explanatory mechanism for the development of life on Earth once a primordial chemical replicator was created.
God (oh, sorry, 'a designer') may well have created that original replicator, and while that is again a thesis without much objective evidence in support of it, is fully compatible with evolutionary theory.
Hm, I just saw this plot in X2..
on
SCO DOS'ed
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Freaks rejected by society engage in a shocking attack against an authority figure, thereby justifying attacks against those freaks.
Just great, now SCO will get all Stryker on Linux's ass, just what we need.
I'm sure there are hundreds of others who've had their code "liberated" without their consent.
Are you saying you've liberated someone else's code for an open source project? I know I have not, and I've not seen any evidence of this having been done in the Linux kernel.
Slashdot Mirror
You missed the part that "Zion" is itself in a higher-level Matrix.. that's the whole point of the Architect's speach, of Trinity's ability to Kiss Neo to save him in the first movie, of the Oracle's ability to make predictions that encompass events outside "The Matrix", and of Neo's ability to take down the sentinels at the end of Reloaded.
Neo could well be a machine, according to the rules we seem to have at the end of the second movie.
Okay, the SCO complaint is here, if I understand your reference properly.
Paragraph 80 doesn't explicitly claim that GPL'ed material is public domain, though part of their commentary could be construed thusly.
Paragraph 77 makes no claim whatsoever as to Linux being public domain and SCO IP, and merely discusses Stallman, making two mistakes: Richard Stallman was never a professor at MIT, and his organization is FSF, not GNU.
This section generally is full of groaners of this sort. Paragraph 84 being the one that entertained so many people here previously, of course.
In Paragraph 80 of their complaint, read their claims on GPL copyrights (they say there aren't any). Paragraph 77 (and their general claims overall) seek to thus establish Linux is a combination of public domain and nefariously obtained proprietary SCO IP.
Do you have a link corroborating that?
Ow.
Note especially this link on his page..
Enforcing the GPL, part I
That's silly, and wrong. The GPL is an affirmative grant of rights, providing you comply with its terms. If you don't want to comply with its terms, no problem, you just don't have any rights to copy someone else's stuff. That prohibition on copying someone else's stuff isn't a consequence of the GPL, it's a consequence of copyright law in this country.
The only way for the GPL to lose all effectiveness in the way that you imply would be if a court someplace were to rule that the GPL's terms were ridiculously onerous, and that by handing it out to everyone for public download without requiring a click-through license, the stuff had effectively been placed in the public domain.
This is about as likely as a court someplace declaring that Microsoft's software was licensed with unduly onerous terms, and that their stuff was therefore public domain as well.
I.e., not likely at all. I don't think copyright is like trademark law, where if you don't take steps to protect your mark, you can lose it.
IANAL, but the guy who drafted the GPL is.
Someone else already mentioned the MobiPocket Reader, which includes some phenomenal high-res fonts for the Clié. Baen Books has much of their catalogue available for download in the MobiPocket format, including their Baen Free Library. The Free Library contains dozens of books, many by established authors. That includes the first couple of books in the Honor Harrington series.
Beyond that, I like the Weasel Reader, an ebook reader dedicated to reading Project Gutenberg etexts.
Both MobiPocket Reader and Weasel Reader support the jogwheel, Memory Stick, and hi-res fonts on the Clié. Highly recommended.
Sony has been consistently pushing new features and lower prices into the PalmOS realm. I bought an SJ-30 a year ago, with 320x320 resolution at 65k colors, 16 megs, memory stick.. all for $250, at a time when Palm and Handspring were selling models with only 160x160 resolution and less memory.
Find a Sony Clié at your price-point, add LauncherX, and go to town.
Of course, AS/400 has deep roots in the medical industry too..
Interesting, thanks.
Of course, that's not a tenable legal position for them to take once things hit the court. They can have their cake and eat it too, at least in the court of public opinion in pre-trial maneuverings, but they absolutely cannot claim in court simultaneously that they object to their code being in Linux and that Linux developers and distributors can't take any action to remediate the situation.
IANAL, of course.
You're claiming that reference counting is a whole lot more powerful and flexible than Java memory management?
Surely you're not claiming that there exists a garbage collector for C++ that can work with arbitrary C++ code? I'd hate to have to reimplement all the libraries I wished to use in order to make them work with a given garbage collector.
Doesn't this have a tiny bit to do with Java always running inside some minimal debugger? Imagine rigging C++ in such a way that it will always run through gdb and on error will provide you with a stacktrace. The stacktrace gives enough info for the majority of the bugs, but would you then with a straight face claim that you can program C++ without ever using a debugger?
Well, could we also arrange it that C++ can run multithreaded in such a way that if any thread throws an exception (on an attempt to dereference a null pointer, say) the other threads can continue to function? And can we arrange things such that it is impossible for any piece of code to scribble over random pieces of memory? Can we also add on a wholly-integrated memory management system, supported by all C++ libraries?
I do claim that I can program Java without ever using a debugger, because Java's rules are stringent enough that silent corruption and delayed effects don't occur, and because the Java Runtime provides enough support in many cases to be able to diagnose things whenever an exception (_not_ a core dump) is thrown.
My whole argument is that Java really and truly is a significant increase in programmer productivity over C++. If you have this hypothetical super-C++ development environment to go along with your hypothetical super-C++ programmer, perhaps this wouldn't be true for your case.
Well, I've written around 250,000 lines of Java code, and I can count on one hand the number of times I found it necessary to use a debugger. I can't conceive of anyone saying that about C++ with a straight face.
I mean, maybe you have a god-like impression of a good C++ programmer, but having Java's enforced encapsulation, top-to-bottom integrated exception mechanisms (i.e., even for a null pointer), powerful, consistent set of thread-safe libraries..
Sure, if you're writing an operating system or a low-level code execution framework tied to a specific piece of hardware and operating system, use C or C++. If you're wanting to produce high-level code and you're not interested in spending ten times the effort to do it, use Java, or Python, or Perl, or whatever.
Not all languages are equally appropriate tools for every purpose. Java certainly isn't appropriate for everything, but people who believe that C or C++ are appropriate for everything are likewise fooling themselves.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying SCO doesn't deserve to have their IP honored, assuming the facts are as they allege them. But I suspect that part of the reason that SCO is being vague about their allegations is because if it came out that some SCO code was included in an ethernet driver for a 10 year old 3com card, say, then it wouldn't have nearly the media punch.
I don't see why SCO should be allowed to keep the factual details of the case under NDA so as to tar the whole of linux with a stolen IP brush, is all I'm saying.
I think M$ was too agressive about many things, but that doesn't make them a monopoly.
No, their operating system being used on 95% of the computers in the world and the application/compatibility barrier which forces anyone who would try to use another operating system to go without 90% of the world's software is why they're a monopoly.
Remember, it's not illegal to have a monopoly, it's illegal to abuse it in certain ways to extend one's monopoly domination into other fields, which is what Microsoft was actually convicted of.
I didn't say anything about Netscape's quality, I was addressing Microsoft's actions. Prior to IE 4, Netscape clearly *was* superior, though, and that's the time frame in which Microsoft was doing most of its dirty business to try and slow it down or kill it.
Microsoft was convicted of illegally acting to preserve and extend their monopoly.
Microsoft pulled every dirty trick they could think of to kill Netscape, including paying people not to use it, out of their monopoly Windows profits.
I can't imagine having any kind of competitive economy if monopolists can do things of that kind without fear of contradiction by the legal system.
SCO is refusing to answer some elementary questions that are essential to put their claims into context. Of course, it suits their purpose to cast FUD on the OSS competitor that is destroying the value of their IP, but there's no reason why reporters should let them do it.
To wit:
Does SCO believe that Linux would be substantially less useful if the code claimed to be excerpted from SYSV were excised? Is the value of the allegedly stolen code significant to the overall value of the Linux system, or is it merely valuable to provide standing for SCO to discourage the use of a free competitor to SCO?
Is the claimed SCO code part of one or more optional components of the Linux kernel, or are they in the kernel's core?
Does the claimed SCO code relate in any way to compatibility with SCO disk partions, file systems, or binary compatibility?
How many lines of code are we talking about?
No, really, how many lines of code are we talking about?
Where is the logic in keeping the outside experts under NDA about what code is believed by SCO to have been copied into Linux? If the code is in the Linux kernel, by definition it cannot be an effective trade secret.. does this mean that the real reason for the proposed NDA is to ensure that Linux developers cannot remove the alleged SCO IP from Linux?
Why doesn't SCO wish for Linux developers to fix the problem, given that SCO has claimed that this is a case against IBM for contract violations?
Does SCO believe that their case for damages would be weakened if the alleged code was removed?
Why does SCO believe it is necessary to prevent Linux developers from fixing the problem, given that there are archives of years of development work on the Linux kernel and utilities. Would SCO consider allowing Linux developers to fix the alleged problem if SCO were given a copy of the entire Kernel development records before revealing this information?
Um, why the hell would you do this? Here's a newsflash.. piracy of copyrighted works is like terrorism.. it provides a justification for extreme countermeasures. Downloading movies is selfish, stupid, and short-sighted.
Especially on a site like Slashdot that is nominally filled with Linux fans.. the Linux "movement" is something akin to PBS, in which people can voluntarily support and share high quality content. It's not a no-morals Pirates R' Us deal, whatever SCO might say, and asses like you who pirate valid copyrighted materials are poisoning the well for everyone.
Give it the fuck over.
Yeah, it's really silly that Java has not yet had a standard set of concurrency control classes built on top of the monitor construct. I'm sure tons of Java programmers have rolled their own to get more deadlock-safe control over concurrency.
And the problem with evolution is that it looks more like a psuedo-religion than science, a kind of assertion-by-proxy that God doesn't exist. In short, believing in evolution is not trusting the scientific process. The scientific process has not verified evolution.
Of course it has. We observe evolution all throughout nature, in the laboratory, in computer simulations, everywhere. What the scientific process has not done is to disprove the existence of God.
Given the paucity of evidence FOR the existence of God, that's not such a big deal. Evolution merely provides an explanatory mechanism for the development of life on Earth once a primordial chemical replicator was created.
God (oh, sorry, 'a designer') may well have created that original replicator, and while that is again a thesis without much objective evidence in support of it, is fully compatible with evolutionary theory.
Freaks rejected by society engage in a shocking attack against an authority figure, thereby justifying attacks against those freaks.
Just great, now SCO will get all Stryker on Linux's ass, just what we need.
I'm sure there are hundreds of others who've had their code "liberated" without their consent.
Are you saying you've liberated someone else's code for an open source project? I know I have not, and I've not seen any evidence of this having been done in the Linux kernel.
Where's the evidence?