Nor is it the lesson I learned. It was a jab, nothing more.
The lesson is that corruption undermines the goal of revolution.
Perhaps you and I did learn something different from the book. What I learned was more in line with the "moral" you gave, the one about always keeping an eye on the person who's doing the talking or controlling the information. What you state as "the lesson" is anemic as far as lessons go (I don't need to read a book like Animal Farm to learn that corruption undermines things. That's just common sense). A lesson is supposed to teach you something that can help you later in life. Questioning those who (attempt to) control information is a good lesson.
Can I now say that you "wasted your time" and you "didn't bother absorbing the book" because we disagree? Or can we just accept that different people learn different lessons.
I'm not going to tell you what to do. However, I'm sure lots of others here would be happy to do so. Perhaps you should ask one of them?
Regarding "censorship"... I've already retracted that comment so I won't bother doing it a second time.
Regarding Animal Farm... My recommendation to read Animal Farm is 100% appropriate, and I don't consider myself arrogant in the slightest for either recommending it or asking folks to think about which side their views align with the most. Anyone can open a book and skim its text; if you don't bother absorbing the lessons the book teaches you've wasted your time. If 90% of the folks here actually did read the book, I'd have to guess they either did not get the message or they didn't bother remembering it. They should read it again and figuratively put themselves in the story, all the time thinking "how do my opinions line up here".
In the process of defending freedom lots of folks here come close to employing the exact oppression that they claim to oppose. See past discussions on the next GPL for examples ("...Stallman should add a paragraph in the next GPL that allows anybody to use/tweak GPL'd software except for people we don't like..." Sounds like "All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others" to me...). In essence, they (the pigs in AF) become what they once considered the enemy (the humans in AF).
If people read and retain the insights from books like Animal Farm, what is your explanation for their behavior? People need to walk the talk when they discuss freedom
In my view there's a difference between saying "I don't think this article is worth reading" and telling folks in no uncertain terms to avoid the article. One states a viewpoint, the other attempts to impose it. I tend to believe people who engage in the latter actually would block/censor the article if they had the technology or access to do so. Because they don't, the best they can do is campaign for folks to never click on the article's URL.
Regardless, I'll concede that the word "censorship" was used hastily.
The request for folks to read Animal Farm stays, though...:)
I agree with one of the folks who posted about an empty slot between "pros" and "priests" (some "priests" actually do back up their biased opinions with facts, see ESR for one example), and although I disagree with the "terrorist" comparison (I do, however, believe that someone at some point is going to pull a majorly stupid stunt in the name of advocacy), I think the author of the article makes some fairly accurate statements about today's open source advocates.
I say that as a reformed "priest" (and one time "zealot"). Now that I can sit back and objectively watch the open source community react to stuff like this I am shocked by some of the stuff I read/hear, more often than not because I've uttered such things myself in the past. Sorry, folks, but some of you truly are creepy people... Not all, but some. You know who you are, too.
And to those who are dismissing the article as flamebait and are telling folks to simply ignore it... I find interesting the fact you endorse this kind censorship and in the same breath advocate freedom. Personally, now that I can think more clearly on such matters I prefer to get BOTH sides of a story before forming an opinion, thank you very much. I recommend you read Animal Farm some time and see which side of the farm you philosophically relate to the most. I'll spoil the ending for you: when all is said and done, the animals on the farm can't tell the pigs from the humans.
I'll start with a question: is there honestly ANYTHING that could be said regarding "Linux --> Windows" migration that won't be written off as a troll?
I don't believe past credentials say jack about the legitimacy of someone's migration story. I don't care if he used Linux for only a month and said "nope, not for me". It is possible for folks to not like Linux.
However, I'll bite... My story involves a switch to Macs, not Windows, but I'll give you my story anyway.
I started using Linux in 1991 (kernel 0.11), back in the days when there was no such thing as a "distribution", back in the days when Stallman thought Linux was a bad college joke, back when you had to build your system from the ground up, back when Linux was a "boot" floppy and a "root" floppy (of the 5-1/4" variety) image, back when you had to crank up DOS' "debug" and patch bits into the disk images in order to boot directly to a hard drive... I could go on, but you get my drift.
I worked in the Linux software industry from October, 1996 until August this year, which is when I walked away from the industry to return to college. I used Linux consistently at my home until a few years ago when I got fed up with my printer mysteriously not working anymore, or my X configuration needing more adjustments, or going through a ridiculous serious of steps to install fonts just to find that there were steps missing in the HOWTOs (it amazes me that in all the years Linux has been around [12+] there are still parts of its distributions that feel like something designed in the 1970's, and not in a good way either). To be fair, between dropping Linux from my home computers and my Big Switch last January I ran FreeBSD which brought its own set of annoyances. I now only use FreeBSD for servers, mostly because it was the last open sourced OS that I installed. I don't run Linux at all.
In January I got fed up with the whole open source OS scene and moved to Macs. I get the best of all worlds: user friendliness, easy updates, reliability, the ability to run native builds of my favorite open source applications, and easy access to a command line. I'd like to think that Linux would have come close to this in the 12+ years that I've been following it. However, some things in Linux (like user friendliness) simply aren't moving, and with all the petty in-fighting within the Linux "community" I have little hope of it getting better. To a coder or tinkerer, Linux (and other open source OSes) are heavenly. When I decided to stop dinking with my computers and start USING them, the shimmer wore off very quickly.
I've done my time, I was faithful to the Linux cause for many years, but I've had enough. Now I'm a Mac guy. Apple is treating me well, not only in the quality of my iMac and new iBook but also in the AAPL stock that I've purchased (up 20% from when I bought it, don't y'know). I couldn't be happier.
None of this was a troll, but I'm sure I'll be written off as a troller anyway. That's just how things seem to be done here on Slashdot. It's unfortunate. When folks start absorbing stories like mine instead of simply reacting to them, I think Linux will benefit.
Or maybe he actually used WP for Linux and realized what a POS it was. I used it religiously for about a year after Corel cleaned it up. As long as I used it with few applications running in parallel and as long as I didn't want to save my work very often, it worked okay. However, importing Word documents wasn't anywhere near as clean as I had hoped, and if I saved a lot the app would simply freeze. After about a year I got fed up and tried StarOffice. A day or two later I gave up on quality Linux word processing. Maybe I tried an early version of Abiword, which did okay (vi key bindings were cool), but font handling was a PITA. The solution: Crossover Office w/ Office 97.
As for Office use being equivalent to selling out to MS... Nobody is forcing anybody to use Office. Lots of non-MS apps support certain Office file formats, and it's no big deal to insist on one of those "friendly" formats being used. Businesses routinely set criteria for file formats to be used for business interaction, i.e. civil engineering firms insisting on AutoCad 12 version.DWG files or.DXF files even though the world may have moved on to AutoCad 14. Office apps can be set to save documents, spreadsheets, whatever, to older versions of their native file formats. The odds of any Office user noticing the difference would be minimal, plus the documents would be interchangable with many other applications, even Linux apps.
So, would you still have an issue with Office if everyone set their applications to save files in formats that were Linux friendly?
I believe the limit only applies to individual Apple product families, i.e. you can purchase one laptop per year, one copy of Final Cut Express per year, one iPod per year, etc.
Well, first, nobody would bother to opt in (except for the other folks who responded to your comment, and I believe their plan is to opt in somebody other than themselves). Second, many folks unknowingly DO opt in when they purchase goods online, sign up for services, join chat groups, etc. Most of the time there is fine print in the terms of service or end-user license agreement that states (I'm paraphrasing) "by agreeing to this license/agreement/whatever, you are consenting to be solicited by third parties and business partners of our company". When you choose to opt-out, you're only really opting out of the third party solicitations; companies consider their business partners to be extensions of their business and will STILL share your contact info with them.
So, technically speaking, the option to opt-in has been with us for a long time. It's just that few people seem to pay attention long enough to read the fine print of licenses and user agreements before agreeing to them.
I see you've learned how to karma-whore on Slashdot: you have an obvious anti-SCO sentiment, you've made a negative comment about Mormons, and you've implied the presence of a conspiracy.
Bravo, m'boy!
The fact that your post is not only clueless but is also inflamatory doesn't mean dick (the subject of the article is stock price, not the merits of how the company is being run)... As long as you maintain your anti-anything-in-Utah theme you'll be fine.
Actually, the SCOX stock fluctuations are probably resulting from smart investors who have spotted a trend. It doesn't take a mental giant to know that -- at this point -- whenever SCO flexes its muscles the stock is going to go up. If you've spotted a trend in the stock market that's more than just a gamble and you're an active investor it would make sense to make some investments (and subsequent sales) based on the trend, even if the trend was started by clueless investors.
It's similar to the whole "interest rates go down, stock market goes up" scenario, or the deal where Sun's stock goes down and the entire tech industry goes down with it. Serious, long-time investors know the benefits of buying and holding stock, but at the same time they know that clueless investors will act hastily on either of the two scenarios above and will either pump up the market or flush it down the toilet in the process.
So what you're probably seeing is investors riding a wave that's fairly predictable and is probably making lots of folks lots of money. I'm going to guess it'll continue until SCO suffers a really HUGE legal setback.
That's my spin. (No, I don't own SCOX stock, nor do I plan on purchasing any. I'm a buy-and-hold kinda guy. I tend to avoid companies who are embroiled in legal actions, both their own and those brought against them by others.)
The "common API" was essentially supposed to be whatever's on a base Linux system (like at the glibc level) plus Qt and a few other libraries, standardized on one version of the GNU toolchain... The "common ABI" (for Unixware and OpenServer, at least) was supposed to be LKP, the Linux Kernel Personality. You write your application native to Linux, then run it either on Linux or through LKP. That's not quite the same as straight POSIX development which -- as far as coding goes -- only covers the API part of this scenario.
Of course, the "development kit" that Caldera sold was OpenLinux Workstation which is where the per-seat licensing came into the picture. I won't go there.
How generous. Six months to quit, go on unemployment, and find another job.
I don't know where you live, but here in Utah it's not uncommon for tech folks who are jobless to be unemployed for longer than 6 months. SCO has global coverage so I can't say how economies are in other states/countries, but here, the tech industry sucks.
Wait, let me guess: they should move, right? Pick up everything they own and start over in a new state? Right...
I'm glad the tech industry is so rosy where you live. Don't expect the rest of the world to be like your neighborhood, though.
This has probably been said already, but after reading your post I have no patience to read the follow-ups.
You say out of one side of your mouth that SCO employees are lacking ethics by continuing to work at SCO. You say out of the other side of your mouth that nobody should hire any present or former SCO employees.
So which is it? They're screwed if they stay at SCO, they're screwed if they leave. At least if they stay they can get a paycheck and keep their kids fed and mortgages paid.
Based on comments from people like you, I'd say SCO employees ARE "conscripted". Folks like you and Chris DiBona are endorsing screwing folks whose only fault is that their management decided to wage a legal war. In case you don't understand how these things work, employees have no say whatsoever in such actions.
Chris, you've done a lot for open source and free software, you're an effective advocate, and I'm sure lots of folks owe you an eternal debt of gratitude for introducing them to Linux.
However, after your latest move (telling SCO employees to not bother seeking employment at your company) I believe I can add CHILDISH ASSHOLE to the list.
Employers who act like assholes during recessions are scum, plain and simple... Worse than that, actually: they're the scum that scum scrapes off its shoes. You have the jobs that folks may want so you go on your little God-trip and place ridiculous criteria on employment, all because you can.
Dick...
I walked away from the Linux software industry three weeks ago. Every fscking day I get more validation that I made the right decision. If this is what the "Linux community" has stooped to, you can have it.
It strikes me as odd that telemarketers are so pissed about this do-not-call stuff.
The way I see it, telemarketers are going to be provided the service of being told who not to concentrate on when doing sales pitches. Why waste time on folks who they know will not only NOT buy their stuff but will also openly (even publicly) hate them and the companies that contracted their services? This sounds like a BENEFIT to telemarketers, not a hinderance.
Huh? You must be refering to someone else. I just entered this discussion so I have no exaggerations to remove from any claims.
I'm asking you independent of the previous discussion to explain why NPR is guilty of the things you say they are. I'm not saying I'll disagree, but I would like to hear what leads you to believe the things you said.
...and I think you have a major chip on your shoulder that you aren't willing to acknowledge, otherwise you'd spit a lot less when you respond to simple messages.
Here's the bottom line, my sunny friend: people who compare Macs and PCs tend to compare them on price (i.e. "I can get a XXX PC for what I'd pay for that iMac") while completely ignoring the fact that each one offers a very different user experience than the other. I can only guess you don't actually use Macs, because if you did you'd know how different the user experience truly is compared to PCs. You either like the user experience or you don't, plain and simple. Price isn't going to sway someone into getting something they won't enjoy using.
My comparison of Palm devices to ring-binder planners is a perfect analogy because both serve a very similar purpose (as you yourself acknowledged in your nastygram) yet their user experience is quite different, their prices are different, and they both suffer from the same pointless Us vs. Them debate.
As for comparing Apples to Palms... The analogy was not between Apples and Palms or PCs and binders so your request for enlightenment makes absolutely no sense.
As for being upset... Only one of us is spitting nails over this: you. Your choice of computers is all yours and doesn't affect me. Why you're so pissy about this issue is mystery. Perhaps you need to turn off your computer and enjoy some high resolution, real time, 3D, first-person outdoors and interact with real, high resolution, non-AI human beings face to face, huh?
(Deep breaths -- it's only a computer, it's only a computer, it's only a computer...)
To all those who insist on putting the price of a PC up against the price of a "comparable" Mac...
Let's get something out of the way right up front: a Mac is a Mac and a PC is a PC. Sure, that's obvious, but it surprises me how little it's acknowledged in these kinds of discussions. $1500 worth of PC hardware won't give you a Mac no matter what you put on it. The same goes the other way; Mac hardware and software will never get you a PC no matter what combination you use. In the end, a PC is still a PC and a Mac is still a Mac. Play with numbers all you want, it won't change a thing. Folks who want a Mac will not be happy with anything but a Mac, not even a comparably spec'd out PC, period. The reverse is just as true.
Comparing Apple computers to PCs is like comparing Palm devices to ring-binder planner systems (nothing should be implied by the order in which those items were listed, by the way). Both serve similar purposes, and there are folks who use each who would never think of ditching their choice for the other. So would it be safe to say that all Palm users should ditch their Palm devices for ring-binder planners purely on the basis of a price tag? I think not. Palm users love their expensive Palm devices and binder planner users love their slightly less expensive binders, and neither is going to be wrong for sticking to their preferences.
I find the whole Mac vs. PC debate silly for the reasons described above. I use both, although I prefer my Macs to my PCs. That's just me. My wife loves her PCs and despises my Macs. Life goes on.
And once again I have to remind YOU that end users are not the ones who would be adding "offending code" to Linux. For that matter, nobody has determined in a court of law or anywhere else that there even IS "offending code" in Linux.
There's a difference between what you're talking about and what pretty much everyone else is talking about: you're saying everyone who has ever touched Linux is a criminal and needs to pay for their crimes, while I say that there's no way in hell that hundreds of thousands (or even millions?) of Linux users could have leaked SCO's alleged "offending code" into Linux.
How is that logistically possible? It's not, of course. I have been using Linux since 1991 and I haven't contributed so much as a single line of code ever, much less SCO code (which I have never seen, nor care to see at this point). I would venture to guess that most of the rest of Linux's user base has not contributed code either. So what have I stolen? Not a damn thing as far as I'm concerned.
Here's the real truth about SCO's refusal to show the code IMHO: if the code is removed, there is no ongoing revenue stream because there will be nothing for SCO to license at $1,400/CPU. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Before SCO started filing lawsuits and trying to impose fees for the use of Linux, Caldera was described as a parasite that took from Linux and never gave anything back. No amount of correction from me or anyone else seemed to sway you. In fact, all that I accomplished in this effort was shutting some folks up for a week or so, after which they'd jump right back in the ring, thrashing Caldera as brutally as ever.
Now that SCO's doing what it's doing, all of a sudden you people are SCOURING for Caldera contributions and are uncovering all kinds of interesting stuff. Gee, could it be that the stuff I've been saying here for years is true, that Caldera wasn't the parasite that you folks made them out to be??
Here's what really kills me: you folks may not have the power to kill a company, but I can't help but think that if Caldera got a bit more support from you people -- or even just a bit less of a thrashing -- the odds of SCO not being in the picture would have increased significantly. Ponder that for a moment. I'll wait...
Before you, RMS, whoever (you know who you are), pick out the next legitimate Linux company to make into a pariah, perhaps you'll do a similar amount of research and uncover the truth about the company first.
Like others here, I sincerely want to believe the original post was a joke (a lame joke, but a joke nonetheless).
However, if it wasn't...
Having spent more than my fair share of time in Linux tech support, I can say with a fair degree of certainty (in case there are those who have not encountered the original poster's confusion) that whenever "Linux X.X" is mentioned it's probably a reference to Red Hat. Crap like that used to drive me nuts. No matter how many times you tell these folks that Red Hat != Linux they still insist on linking "Linux" with the latest version of Red Hat.
In this particular case, the gentleman didn't even get the version right. There is no such thing as Red Hat Linux 9.0; it's just 9, no ".0".
Yikes... And he's selling Linux into customer sites, huh? If he can't even say the name of the product correctly, what else can't he do?
Slashdot Mirror
That is not the lesson I learnt from Animal Farm.
Nor is it the lesson I learned. It was a jab, nothing more.
The lesson is that corruption undermines the goal of revolution.
Perhaps you and I did learn something different from the book. What I learned was more in line with the "moral" you gave, the one about always keeping an eye on the person who's doing the talking or controlling the information. What you state as "the lesson" is anemic as far as lessons go (I don't need to read a book like Animal Farm to learn that corruption undermines things. That's just common sense). A lesson is supposed to teach you something that can help you later in life. Questioning those who (attempt to) control information is a good lesson.
Can I now say that you "wasted your time" and you "didn't bother absorbing the book" because we disagree? Or can we just accept that different people learn different lessons.
I'm not going to tell you what to do. However, I'm sure lots of others here would be happy to do so. Perhaps you should ask one of them?
Regarding "censorship"... I've already retracted that comment so I won't bother doing it a second time.
Regarding Animal Farm... My recommendation to read Animal Farm is 100% appropriate, and I don't consider myself arrogant in the slightest for either recommending it or asking folks to think about which side their views align with the most. Anyone can open a book and skim its text; if you don't bother absorbing the lessons the book teaches you've wasted your time. If 90% of the folks here actually did read the book, I'd have to guess they either did not get the message or they didn't bother remembering it. They should read it again and figuratively put themselves in the story, all the time thinking "how do my opinions line up here".
In the process of defending freedom lots of folks here come close to employing the exact oppression that they claim to oppose. See past discussions on the next GPL for examples ("...Stallman should add a paragraph in the next GPL that allows anybody to use/tweak GPL'd software except for people we don't like..." Sounds like "All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others" to me...). In essence, they (the pigs in AF) become what they once considered the enemy (the humans in AF).
If people read and retain the insights from books like Animal Farm, what is your explanation for their behavior? People need to walk the talk when they discuss freedom
In my view there's a difference between saying "I don't think this article is worth reading" and telling folks in no uncertain terms to avoid the article. One states a viewpoint, the other attempts to impose it. I tend to believe people who engage in the latter actually would block/censor the article if they had the technology or access to do so. Because they don't, the best they can do is campaign for folks to never click on the article's URL.
:)
Regardless, I'll concede that the word "censorship" was used hastily.
The request for folks to read Animal Farm stays, though...
I agree with one of the folks who posted about an empty slot between "pros" and "priests" (some "priests" actually do back up their biased opinions with facts, see ESR for one example), and although I disagree with the "terrorist" comparison (I do, however, believe that someone at some point is going to pull a majorly stupid stunt in the name of advocacy), I think the author of the article makes some fairly accurate statements about today's open source advocates.
I say that as a reformed "priest" (and one time "zealot"). Now that I can sit back and objectively watch the open source community react to stuff like this I am shocked by some of the stuff I read/hear, more often than not because I've uttered such things myself in the past. Sorry, folks, but some of you truly are creepy people... Not all, but some. You know who you are, too.
And to those who are dismissing the article as flamebait and are telling folks to simply ignore it... I find interesting the fact you endorse this kind censorship and in the same breath advocate freedom. Personally, now that I can think more clearly on such matters I prefer to get BOTH sides of a story before forming an opinion, thank you very much. I recommend you read Animal Farm some time and see which side of the farm you philosophically relate to the most. I'll spoil the ending for you: when all is said and done, the animals on the farm can't tell the pigs from the humans.
Discuss...
I'll start with a question: is there honestly ANYTHING that could be said regarding "Linux --> Windows" migration that won't be written off as a troll?
I don't believe past credentials say jack about the legitimacy of someone's migration story. I don't care if he used Linux for only a month and said "nope, not for me". It is possible for folks to not like Linux.
However, I'll bite... My story involves a switch to Macs, not Windows, but I'll give you my story anyway.
I started using Linux in 1991 (kernel 0.11), back in the days when there was no such thing as a "distribution", back in the days when Stallman thought Linux was a bad college joke, back when you had to build your system from the ground up, back when Linux was a "boot" floppy and a "root" floppy (of the 5-1/4" variety) image, back when you had to crank up DOS' "debug" and patch bits into the disk images in order to boot directly to a hard drive... I could go on, but you get my drift.
I worked in the Linux software industry from October, 1996 until August this year, which is when I walked away from the industry to return to college. I used Linux consistently at my home until a few years ago when I got fed up with my printer mysteriously not working anymore, or my X configuration needing more adjustments, or going through a ridiculous serious of steps to install fonts just to find that there were steps missing in the HOWTOs (it amazes me that in all the years Linux has been around [12+] there are still parts of its distributions that feel like something designed in the 1970's, and not in a good way either). To be fair, between dropping Linux from my home computers and my Big Switch last January I ran FreeBSD which brought its own set of annoyances. I now only use FreeBSD for servers, mostly because it was the last open sourced OS that I installed. I don't run Linux at all.
In January I got fed up with the whole open source OS scene and moved to Macs. I get the best of all worlds: user friendliness, easy updates, reliability, the ability to run native builds of my favorite open source applications, and easy access to a command line. I'd like to think that Linux would have come close to this in the 12+ years that I've been following it. However, some things in Linux (like user friendliness) simply aren't moving, and with all the petty in-fighting within the Linux "community" I have little hope of it getting better. To a coder or tinkerer, Linux (and other open source OSes) are heavenly. When I decided to stop dinking with my computers and start USING them, the shimmer wore off very quickly.
I've done my time, I was faithful to the Linux cause for many years, but I've had enough. Now I'm a Mac guy. Apple is treating me well, not only in the quality of my iMac and new iBook but also in the AAPL stock that I've purchased (up 20% from when I bought it, don't y'know). I couldn't be happier.
None of this was a troll, but I'm sure I'll be written off as a troller anyway. That's just how things seem to be done here on Slashdot. It's unfortunate. When folks start absorbing stories like mine instead of simply reacting to them, I think Linux will benefit.
Or maybe he actually used WP for Linux and realized what a POS it was. I used it religiously for about a year after Corel cleaned it up. As long as I used it with few applications running in parallel and as long as I didn't want to save my work very often, it worked okay. However, importing Word documents wasn't anywhere near as clean as I had hoped, and if I saved a lot the app would simply freeze. After about a year I got fed up and tried StarOffice. A day or two later I gave up on quality Linux word processing. Maybe I tried an early version of Abiword, which did okay (vi key bindings were cool), but font handling was a PITA. The solution: Crossover Office w/ Office 97.
.DWG files or .DXF files even though the world may have moved on to AutoCad 14. Office apps can be set to save documents, spreadsheets, whatever, to older versions of their native file formats. The odds of any Office user noticing the difference would be minimal, plus the documents would be interchangable with many other applications, even Linux apps.
As for Office use being equivalent to selling out to MS... Nobody is forcing anybody to use Office. Lots of non-MS apps support certain Office file formats, and it's no big deal to insist on one of those "friendly" formats being used. Businesses routinely set criteria for file formats to be used for business interaction, i.e. civil engineering firms insisting on AutoCad 12 version
So, would you still have an issue with Office if everyone set their applications to save files in formats that were Linux friendly?
I believe the limit only applies to individual Apple product families, i.e. you can purchase one laptop per year, one copy of Final Cut Express per year, one iPod per year, etc.
I hate to suggest this, but maybe it's a phone number (310-228-3655)? Wouldn't that be in Wash. D.C.?
Well, first, nobody would bother to opt in (except for the other folks who responded to your comment, and I believe their plan is to opt in somebody other than themselves). Second, many folks unknowingly DO opt in when they purchase goods online, sign up for services, join chat groups, etc. Most of the time there is fine print in the terms of service or end-user license agreement that states (I'm paraphrasing) "by agreeing to this license/agreement/whatever, you are consenting to be solicited by third parties and business partners of our company". When you choose to opt-out, you're only really opting out of the third party solicitations; companies consider their business partners to be extensions of their business and will STILL share your contact info with them.
So, technically speaking, the option to opt-in has been with us for a long time. It's just that few people seem to pay attention long enough to read the fine print of licenses and user agreements before agreeing to them.
I see you've learned how to karma-whore on Slashdot: you have an obvious anti-SCO sentiment, you've made a negative comment about Mormons, and you've implied the presence of a conspiracy.
Bravo, m'boy!
The fact that your post is not only clueless but is also inflamatory doesn't mean dick (the subject of the article is stock price, not the merits of how the company is being run)... As long as you maintain your anti-anything-in-Utah theme you'll be fine.
Actually, the SCOX stock fluctuations are probably resulting from smart investors who have spotted a trend. It doesn't take a mental giant to know that -- at this point -- whenever SCO flexes its muscles the stock is going to go up. If you've spotted a trend in the stock market that's more than just a gamble and you're an active investor it would make sense to make some investments (and subsequent sales) based on the trend, even if the trend was started by clueless investors.
It's similar to the whole "interest rates go down, stock market goes up" scenario, or the deal where Sun's stock goes down and the entire tech industry goes down with it. Serious, long-time investors know the benefits of buying and holding stock, but at the same time they know that clueless investors will act hastily on either of the two scenarios above and will either pump up the market or flush it down the toilet in the process.
So what you're probably seeing is investors riding a wave that's fairly predictable and is probably making lots of folks lots of money. I'm going to guess it'll continue until SCO suffers a really HUGE legal setback.
That's my spin. (No, I don't own SCOX stock, nor do I plan on purchasing any. I'm a buy-and-hold kinda guy. I tend to avoid companies who are embroiled in legal actions, both their own and those brought against them by others.)
You're missing something, yes.
The "common API" was essentially supposed to be whatever's on a base Linux system (like at the glibc level) plus Qt and a few other libraries, standardized on one version of the GNU toolchain... The "common ABI" (for Unixware and OpenServer, at least) was supposed to be LKP, the Linux Kernel Personality. You write your application native to Linux, then run it either on Linux or through LKP. That's not quite the same as straight POSIX development which -- as far as coding goes -- only covers the API part of this scenario.
Of course, the "development kit" that Caldera sold was OpenLinux Workstation which is where the per-seat licensing came into the picture. I won't go there.
How generous. Six months to quit, go on unemployment, and find another job.
I don't know where you live, but here in Utah it's not uncommon for tech folks who are jobless to be unemployed for longer than 6 months. SCO has global coverage so I can't say how economies are in other states/countries, but here, the tech industry sucks.
Wait, let me guess: they should move, right? Pick up everything they own and start over in a new state? Right...
I'm glad the tech industry is so rosy where you live. Don't expect the rest of the world to be like your neighborhood, though.
This has probably been said already, but after reading your post I have no patience to read the follow-ups.
You say out of one side of your mouth that SCO employees are lacking ethics by continuing to work at SCO. You say out of the other side of your mouth that nobody should hire any present or former SCO employees.
So which is it? They're screwed if they stay at SCO, they're screwed if they leave. At least if they stay they can get a paycheck and keep their kids fed and mortgages paid.
Based on comments from people like you, I'd say SCO employees ARE "conscripted". Folks like you and Chris DiBona are endorsing screwing folks whose only fault is that their management decided to wage a legal war. In case you don't understand how these things work, employees have no say whatsoever in such actions.
If I could only mod the parent post up to 20...
Chris, you've done a lot for open source and free software, you're an effective advocate, and I'm sure lots of folks owe you an eternal debt of gratitude for introducing them to Linux.
However, after your latest move (telling SCO employees to not bother seeking employment at your company) I believe I can add CHILDISH ASSHOLE to the list.
Employers who act like assholes during recessions are scum, plain and simple... Worse than that, actually: they're the scum that scum scrapes off its shoes. You have the jobs that folks may want so you go on your little God-trip and place ridiculous criteria on employment, all because you can.
Dick...
I walked away from the Linux software industry three weeks ago. Every fscking day I get more validation that I made the right decision. If this is what the "Linux community" has stooped to, you can have it.
It strikes me as odd that telemarketers are so pissed about this do-not-call stuff.
The way I see it, telemarketers are going to be provided the service of being told who not to concentrate on when doing sales pitches. Why waste time on folks who they know will not only NOT buy their stuff but will also openly (even publicly) hate them and the companies that contracted their services? This sounds like a BENEFIT to telemarketers, not a hinderance.
Huh? You must be refering to someone else. I just entered this discussion so I have no exaggerations to remove from any claims.
I'm asking you independent of the previous discussion to explain why NPR is guilty of the things you say they are. I'm not saying I'll disagree, but I would like to hear what leads you to believe the things you said.
"NPR is also a Leftist mouthpiece and whipping boy of the powerful Jewish lobby."
Okay, now it's your turn to provide evidence. "Objective and rational sources for your position" would be appreciated.
...and I think you have a major chip on your shoulder that you aren't willing to acknowledge, otherwise you'd spit a lot less when you respond to simple messages.
Here's the bottom line, my sunny friend: people who compare Macs and PCs tend to compare them on price (i.e. "I can get a XXX PC for what I'd pay for that iMac") while completely ignoring the fact that each one offers a very different user experience than the other. I can only guess you don't actually use Macs, because if you did you'd know how different the user experience truly is compared to PCs. You either like the user experience or you don't, plain and simple. Price isn't going to sway someone into getting something they won't enjoy using.
My comparison of Palm devices to ring-binder planners is a perfect analogy because both serve a very similar purpose (as you yourself acknowledged in your nastygram) yet their user experience is quite different, their prices are different, and they both suffer from the same pointless Us vs. Them debate.
As for comparing Apples to Palms... The analogy was not between Apples and Palms or PCs and binders so your request for enlightenment makes absolutely no sense.
As for being upset... Only one of us is spitting nails over this: you. Your choice of computers is all yours and doesn't affect me. Why you're so pissy about this issue is mystery. Perhaps you need to turn off your computer and enjoy some high resolution, real time, 3D, first-person outdoors and interact with real, high resolution, non-AI human beings face to face, huh?
(Deep breaths -- it's only a computer, it's only a computer, it's only a computer...)
To all those who insist on putting the price of a PC up against the price of a "comparable" Mac...
Let's get something out of the way right up front: a Mac is a Mac and a PC is a PC. Sure, that's obvious, but it surprises me how little it's acknowledged in these kinds of discussions. $1500 worth of PC hardware won't give you a Mac no matter what you put on it. The same goes the other way; Mac hardware and software will never get you a PC no matter what combination you use. In the end, a PC is still a PC and a Mac is still a Mac. Play with numbers all you want, it won't change a thing. Folks who want a Mac will not be happy with anything but a Mac, not even a comparably spec'd out PC, period. The reverse is just as true.
Comparing Apple computers to PCs is like comparing Palm devices to ring-binder planner systems (nothing should be implied by the order in which those items were listed, by the way). Both serve similar purposes, and there are folks who use each who would never think of ditching their choice for the other. So would it be safe to say that all Palm users should ditch their Palm devices for ring-binder planners purely on the basis of a price tag? I think not. Palm users love their expensive Palm devices and binder planner users love their slightly less expensive binders, and neither is going to be wrong for sticking to their preferences.
I find the whole Mac vs. PC debate silly for the reasons described above. I use both, although I prefer my Macs to my PCs. That's just me. My wife loves her PCs and despises my Macs. Life goes on.
And once again I have to remind YOU that end users are not the ones who would be adding "offending code" to Linux. For that matter, nobody has determined in a court of law or anywhere else that there even IS "offending code" in Linux.
There's a difference between what you're talking about and what pretty much everyone else is talking about: you're saying everyone who has ever touched Linux is a criminal and needs to pay for their crimes, while I say that there's no way in hell that hundreds of thousands (or even millions?) of Linux users could have leaked SCO's alleged "offending code" into Linux.
How is that logistically possible? It's not, of course. I have been using Linux since 1991 and I haven't contributed so much as a single line of code ever, much less SCO code (which I have never seen, nor care to see at this point). I would venture to guess that most of the rest of Linux's user base has not contributed code either. So what have I stolen? Not a damn thing as far as I'm concerned.
Here's the real truth about SCO's refusal to show the code IMHO: if the code is removed, there is no ongoing revenue stream because there will be nothing for SCO to license at $1,400/CPU. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Can't Jabber do a lot of what you're asking for?
Before SCO started filing lawsuits and trying to impose fees for the use of Linux, Caldera was described as a parasite that took from Linux and never gave anything back. No amount of correction from me or anyone else seemed to sway you. In fact, all that I accomplished in this effort was shutting some folks up for a week or so, after which they'd jump right back in the ring, thrashing Caldera as brutally as ever.
Now that SCO's doing what it's doing, all of a sudden you people are SCOURING for Caldera contributions and are uncovering all kinds of interesting stuff. Gee, could it be that the stuff I've been saying here for years is true, that Caldera wasn't the parasite that you folks made them out to be??
Here's what really kills me: you folks may not have the power to kill a company, but I can't help but think that if Caldera got a bit more support from you people -- or even just a bit less of a thrashing -- the odds of SCO not being in the picture would have increased significantly. Ponder that for a moment. I'll wait...
Before you, RMS, whoever (you know who you are), pick out the next legitimate Linux company to make into a pariah, perhaps you'll do a similar amount of research and uncover the truth about the company first.
Like others here, I sincerely want to believe the original post was a joke (a lame joke, but a joke nonetheless).
However, if it wasn't...
Having spent more than my fair share of time in Linux tech support, I can say with a fair degree of certainty (in case there are those who have not encountered the original poster's confusion) that whenever "Linux X.X" is mentioned it's probably a reference to Red Hat. Crap like that used to drive me nuts. No matter how many times you tell these folks that Red Hat != Linux they still insist on linking "Linux" with the latest version of Red Hat.
In this particular case, the gentleman didn't even get the version right. There is no such thing as Red Hat Linux 9.0; it's just 9, no ".0".
Yikes... And he's selling Linux into customer sites, huh? If he can't even say the name of the product correctly, what else can't he do?
I guess there was a window in which applications could be ported to Linux and Novell missed it?