I'll take a look. The last time I visited the issue (2 years ago?) they were all junk.
I actually did dig up an external modem. Turns out that hylafax doesn't like the Sportster line, but I beat it into submission. Now if I can get WHFC to work...
Thanks for the advice though. It'll make shopping for a new motherboard easier (ISA slot is not a MUST have:).
This is similar to how I switched from RH to Progeny. I installed Progeny with a / and/boot partition (over the old ones) and didn't specify a/home partition./etc was tarred and gzipped.
Upon new boot, change/etc/fstab to point to the old/home (I think I may have had to do a chmod on the directories. Easy for a home system, likely nightmare for a corporate system)
Honestly, they aren't concerned about those albums. Having less capacity for them is a good thing. It means less flogging of the unimaginative stooges who churn out Britney's latest hit.
(BTW, I consider Dark Side of the Moon an epic album, yet contemporary reviews complained about the short length.)
I paid about $5 more for some 128MB chips yesterday. Oh, and another little bit for tax. Because I know the vendor, and they don't give me grief on returns. I also get to look at the product prior to purchase. (Was looking for a PCI modem with a controller on it. IOW, not a WinModem. Anybody know of an internal PCI controller based modem?)
Heck, one time *I* fried some memory. I knew it, they knew it, but they RMA'ed it anyway. Support your local vendor. For an extra 10% or so, it's well worth it.
That's the likely outcome. But there is another potential outcome: Microsoft shows up and asks to move the case to federal court. Then you are pretty much stuck hiring a lawyer, just to figure out how to respond to federal court stuff.
It's not impossible, but it is doable. IANAL, but my brother-in-law was telling me about this when he was in law school.
I think most of this is spot on, but I thought that one of the complaints about the Linux kernel development is that it does NOT use CVS. Well, not silicon-computer based CVS. It uses the LT-AC (Linus Torvalds-Alan Cox) carbon-computer based CVS system.
At that point, it is a matter for the courts to decide. I imagine that a small claims suit asking for about $100 for the $15 CD once or twice a month will get their attention.
Judges may or may not be concerned with the signage. In any case, it must be prominently displayed. Also, vendors cannot sell a product 'as-is' in most cases. Their is an implied warranty of merchantibility, which means that the product will work. Disclaimers can't disclaim this.
These signs (like many others posted by businesses) are their to scare off people who don't know the law and/or their rights.
So no, bringing in the laptop will not prove anything to the dumbshit manager of the store. But it might prove something to the small claims court judge.
They may have a right to protect their investment, but they do not have a right to falsely identify their product. If they say that it is a CD, I should be able to play it in any player with one of those logos (I see the logo on my CDRW drive right now. I've seen it on every CD player I've ever bought. Perhaps 10, not counting computer drives).
Otherwise, they are misrepresenting their product. I believe this can carry rather heavy civil penalties. Now, let's say that the package itself doesn't carry the logo (or doesn't say that it is a CD, or some such). Now the vendor (Sam Goody, Amazon, etc.) would likely have to have a separate section. By lumping these products in with 'real' CD's, they imply that these defective products are 'real' CD's.
Yes, they can do whatever the hell they want, but not if it includes defrauding the public. (Universal Studios, for instance, refuses to properly caption their DVDs. Which means they might should get slapped a bit for displaying the captioning logo on their products.)
Mac II w/o PMMU
Mac Classic (Original 8mHz version)
Mac Performa 476 (LC040)
Mac performa... (Don't remember. One of the lame power pc things that doesn't run it)
Why buy a machine to last three years? Taxes and leases. Most companies do not buy their machines. You lease them. This way, you have a recurring expense that is not taxed. Buying equipment means that you had enough income to be profitable, and therefore taxed.
But, there is a workaround: depreciation. It works kinda like this: you bought a $1000 computer. You would pay $200 in taxes, but at the end of the year, the machine is only worth $800. So you took a loss of $200, which will partially offset your expense.
Now, at the end of three years, you can turn in your leased equipment or buy it, much like a car. By turning it in, you have to get new equipment. By buying it out, you have some tax liability (but not as much as buying new machines). Owing to the cost of returning the equipment (must have original manuals, disks, boxes, etc) my company almost always buys out the old stuff. It is either still useful (our WinNT PDC is about 6 years old), or we can give it to some employee who has a kid going off to college. And in some cases, it gets stripped for parts.
As others have said in this subthread, it is largely software upgrades that force new purchases. In the office where I work, we need the OS and the couple of proprietary programs, so old machines are just fine. Luckily, other than Outlook, we don't use M$ Office, so we aren't forced to upgrade.
Look at this: many companies are sticking with Office '95 or '97 (or is it '98?) and NT4 or Win'95 instead of upgrading. No need to upgrade machines. Which is proven by the slowdown in sales reported by Dell, Gateway, etc.
I'm lucky to have a smallish office (40 employees at three locations), so I know the work environment very well. That is why I insist on getting site licenses. Per seat and per user licensing is B$, and I won't stand for it. I can pay to put WinXP on every machine. But I can't afford an audit of licenses.
Speaking of licenses, I've got a fantastic one. I work for a doctor's office, and we have an electronic medical record suite. Rather than pay for each terminal or each user, the software is licensed by doctor. Whether it takes ten terminals and fifteen people to support one doc, or two people and three terminals to support one doc, the costs are the same. Despite this companies many other deficiencies, this is one thing they got right.
Someone elsewhere posited that as the programmers worked for RHAT, they wanted it to appear as though they had done more work than they really did.
I would imagine that the licensing question might be more difficult. But, if Soren (sorry, don't know how to put in that 'o' character) has rights to all of the code, he could additionally license that to the linux kernel, provided his name appeared somewhere (comments in header, name in developer list. Something.) And by this, I don't mean that that is a written or agreed to thing. His inclusion should be a handshake type deal.
Only problem is how pissed off is the original author of the code?
And yet, if it had been incorporated into WinXP, nobody would ever have been the wiser. Who would this guy be whining to then?
Seriously, though, if someone used the code, it must be used under the correct license. Same as if someone uses the linux kernel. They gotta use the GPL.
Again, copyright (and licensing) is a double-edged sword.
They will eventually have to report the GAAP numbers. There was an article in the Washington Post dead tree edition a few Sundays back talking about some of this trickery. As you indicate, this is just PR. The official numbers will happen within a few weeks. A little group known as the SEC demands that the public eventually see those numbers.
BTW, I agree with you. Things are not as rosy as the article or the slashdot 'editor' claim.
I work in a doctor's office. We routinely deal with hundreds of insurance companies, each with their own rules. These rules change about as often as Microsoft API.
Once a week, the billing staff has a meeting. Anything about any insurance company is discussed. Changes must be accompanied by an idea of how to respond (a bug report must contain proposal for new code) and one person decides what change to adopt (one person has CVS commit rights). Heck, for that matter, the analogy can be extended further, as we will sometimes allow one or two people to do something a little different (AC kernel?) before deciding if that is the right path to take.
When all is done, it is written down, so that others (who missed the meeting, join the staff later, etc) can get on the same page.
And like most coding documentation, it's a bit behind and somewhat half-assed.
You are correct. I realized that almost as soon as I hit reply. One of the big points of the article by the lawyer: if you don't agree to this (or any) license, you are still bound by copyright.
No, you can use the program by just agreeing to standard copyright. In order to distribute the program (or modifications thereof) you must agree to the GPL.
(Yes, by now, it's probably -1 Redundant. Deal with it.)
Slashdot Mirror
What the fuck is your major malfunction numbnuts? Did your mommy not love you enough?
I'll take a look. The last time I visited the issue (2 years ago?) they were all junk.
I actually did dig up an external modem. Turns out that hylafax doesn't like the Sportster line, but I beat it into submission. Now if I can get WHFC to work...
Thanks for the advice though. It'll make shopping for a new motherboard easier (ISA slot is not a MUST have:).
This is similar to how I switched from RH to Progeny. I installed Progeny with a / and /boot partition (over the old ones) and didn't specify a /home partition. /etc was tarred and gzipped.
/etc/fstab to point to the old /home (I think I may have had to do a chmod on the directories. Easy for a home system, likely nightmare for a corporate system)
/etc and copy the pertinent files.
Upon new boot, change
Unzip the
And yes, I also switched purely for apt-get.
When did the last epic album come out?
Honestly, they aren't concerned about those albums. Having less capacity for them is a good thing. It means less flogging of the unimaginative stooges who churn out Britney's latest hit.
(BTW, I consider Dark Side of the Moon an epic album, yet contemporary reviews complained about the short length.)
I paid about $5 more for some 128MB chips yesterday. Oh, and another little bit for tax. Because I know the vendor, and they don't give me grief on returns. I also get to look at the product prior to purchase. (Was looking for a PCI modem with a controller on it. IOW, not a WinModem. Anybody know of an internal PCI controller based modem?)
Heck, one time *I* fried some memory. I knew it, they knew it, but they RMA'ed it anyway. Support your local vendor. For an extra 10% or so, it's well worth it.
That's the likely outcome. But there is another potential outcome: Microsoft shows up and asks to move the case to federal court. Then you are pretty much stuck hiring a lawyer, just to figure out how to respond to federal court stuff.
It's not impossible, but it is doable. IANAL, but my brother-in-law was telling me about this when he was in law school.
I think most of this is spot on, but I thought that one of the complaints about the Linux kernel development is that it does NOT use CVS. Well, not silicon-computer based CVS. It uses the LT-AC (Linus Torvalds-Alan Cox) carbon-computer based CVS system.
I might check mkLinux again soon in that case. I usually check that, ppclinux, netbsd, etc. about once every six months or so.
At that point, it is a matter for the courts to decide. I imagine that a small claims suit asking for about $100 for the $15 CD once or twice a month will get their attention.
Judges may or may not be concerned with the signage. In any case, it must be prominently displayed. Also, vendors cannot sell a product 'as-is' in most cases. Their is an implied warranty of merchantibility, which means that the product will work. Disclaimers can't disclaim this.
These signs (like many others posted by businesses) are their to scare off people who don't know the law and/or their rights.
So no, bringing in the laptop will not prove anything to the dumbshit manager of the store. But it might prove something to the small claims court judge.
They may have a right to protect their investment, but they do not have a right to falsely identify their product. If they say that it is a CD, I should be able to play it in any player with one of those logos (I see the logo on my CDRW drive right now. I've seen it on every CD player I've ever bought. Perhaps 10, not counting computer drives).
Otherwise, they are misrepresenting their product. I believe this can carry rather heavy civil penalties. Now, let's say that the package itself doesn't carry the logo (or doesn't say that it is a CD, or some such). Now the vendor (Sam Goody, Amazon, etc.) would likely have to have a separate section. By lumping these products in with 'real' CD's, they imply that these defective products are 'real' CD's.
Yes, they can do whatever the hell they want, but not if it includes defrauding the public. (Universal Studios, for instance, refuses to properly caption their DVDs. Which means they might should get slapped a bit for displaying the captioning logo on their products.)
>Simple solution: install Netbsd on the mac.
... (Don't remember. One of the lame power pc things that doesn't run it)
I'd love to, but...
Mac II w/o PMMU
Mac Classic (Original 8mHz version)
Mac Performa 476 (LC040)
Mac performa
Why did I keep getting these damned road Apples?
Why buy a machine to last three years? Taxes and leases. Most companies do not buy their machines. You lease them. This way, you have a recurring expense that is not taxed. Buying equipment means that you had enough income to be profitable, and therefore taxed.
But, there is a workaround: depreciation. It works kinda like this: you bought a $1000 computer. You would pay $200 in taxes, but at the end of the year, the machine is only worth $800. So you took a loss of $200, which will partially offset your expense.
Now, at the end of three years, you can turn in your leased equipment or buy it, much like a car. By turning it in, you have to get new equipment. By buying it out, you have some tax liability (but not as much as buying new machines). Owing to the cost of returning the equipment (must have original manuals, disks, boxes, etc) my company almost always buys out the old stuff. It is either still useful (our WinNT PDC is about 6 years old), or we can give it to some employee who has a kid going off to college. And in some cases, it gets stripped for parts.
As others have said in this subthread, it is largely software upgrades that force new purchases. In the office where I work, we need the OS and the couple of proprietary programs, so old machines are just fine. Luckily, other than Outlook, we don't use M$ Office, so we aren't forced to upgrade.
Look at this: many companies are sticking with Office '95 or '97 (or is it '98?) and NT4 or Win'95 instead of upgrading. No need to upgrade machines. Which is proven by the slowdown in sales reported by Dell, Gateway, etc.
I'm lucky to have a smallish office (40 employees at three locations), so I know the work environment very well. That is why I insist on getting site licenses. Per seat and per user licensing is B$, and I won't stand for it. I can pay to put WinXP on every machine. But I can't afford an audit of licenses.
Speaking of licenses, I've got a fantastic one. I work for a doctor's office, and we have an electronic medical record suite. Rather than pay for each terminal or each user, the software is licensed by doctor. Whether it takes ten terminals and fifteen people to support one doc, or two people and three terminals to support one doc, the costs are the same. Despite this companies many other deficiencies, this is one thing they got right.
I may be. But at least I don't do myself the indignity of referring to them in that manner prior to mealtime.
It's probably been stated, but...
With a name spelled like that, it is quite possible that Søren lives/works outside of the US, and nobody gives two farts about the DMCA where he is.
Also, I believe that the DMCA only outlawed the breaking of protection or encryption or some such.
If that helps you sleep at night, no problem with me.
At least I'm not feeding the trolls.
Someone elsewhere posited that as the programmers worked for RHAT, they wanted it to appear as though they had done more work than they really did.
I would imagine that the licensing question might be more difficult. But, if Soren (sorry, don't know how to put in that 'o' character) has rights to all of the code, he could additionally license that to the linux kernel, provided his name appeared somewhere (comments in header, name in developer list. Something.) And by this, I don't mean that that is a written or agreed to thing. His inclusion should be a handshake type deal.
Only problem is how pissed off is the original author of the code?
They should. But they haven't.
And yet, if it had been incorporated into WinXP, nobody would ever have been the wiser. Who would this guy be whining to then?
Seriously, though, if someone used the code, it must be used under the correct license. Same as if someone uses the linux kernel. They gotta use the GPL.
Again, copyright (and licensing) is a double-edged sword.
Uh oh, man, prepare for a bitchslapping.
They will eventually have to report the GAAP numbers. There was an article in the Washington Post dead tree edition a few Sundays back talking about some of this trickery. As you indicate, this is just PR. The official numbers will happen within a few weeks. A little group known as the SEC demands that the public eventually see those numbers.
BTW, I agree with you. Things are not as rosy as the article or the slashdot 'editor' claim.
"I'm sorry Osama, we could only hijack four planes instead of ten."
"Why you infidel? Allah will not be pleased!"
"Well, the other six leaders had drives that developed the 'Click of Death' and couldn't read the plans."
"I'll give you Click of Death!!!!!"
I work in a doctor's office. We routinely deal with hundreds of insurance companies, each with their own rules. These rules change about as often as Microsoft API.
Once a week, the billing staff has a meeting. Anything about any insurance company is discussed. Changes must be accompanied by an idea of how to respond (a bug report must contain proposal for new code) and one person decides what change to adopt (one person has CVS commit rights). Heck, for that matter, the analogy can be extended further, as we will sometimes allow one or two people to do something a little different (AC kernel?) before deciding if that is the right path to take.
When all is done, it is written down, so that others (who missed the meeting, join the staff later, etc) can get on the same page.
And like most coding documentation, it's a bit behind and somewhat half-assed.
You are correct. I realized that almost as soon as I hit reply. One of the big points of the article by the lawyer: if you don't agree to this (or any) license, you are still bound by copyright.
I got an email announcement last week that it is now available in PCI.
No, you can use the program by just agreeing to standard copyright. In order to distribute the program (or modifications thereof) you must agree to the GPL.
(Yes, by now, it's probably -1 Redundant. Deal with it.)