Hmm. I guess I just disagree. You don't criticize Red Hat for GPLing RPM do you? (or maybe you do)
Mandrake chose one of two possible avenues. Both have their advantages & disadvantages. GPLing everything means slightly lower chance for forcing your customers into paying you for the right to use your software, but it leads to more secure, more advanced, & more popular software. Again, it comes down to choice vs. force.
Regarding market sharew, according to this interview with the new (old) CEO of MandrakeSoft, Mandrake currently holds about 33.8% of the US retail market.
Finally, be sad about this decision if Mandrake goes out of business. Since there is no apparent danger of this happening in the near future, you should be happy about this since it improves your user experience no matter what distribution you might choose to use.
Absolutely. They don't force you to pay $129 for the OS, so people bitch when they give you the opportunity to voluntarily give a few bucks.
The fact is that Mandrake ALLOWS you to pay for the software. Microsoft (et al) REQUIRES you to pay. I've read most of the posts here so far & I've yet to find an argument that even makes me begin to see a bad side to this. If Mandrake were a highly profitable company, I could maybe understand the whining. As it is, I see the arguments against as rather absurd.
It's sad that Mandrake chose to GPL their most valuable value-added parts, but that's a decision they're going to have to live with and learn from.
Why is it sad that Mandrake GPLed these components? Mandrake is a healthy company. As others have pointed out already, the reports of Mandrakes imminent demise have been greatly excaggerated. So they fired their management-- that's a bad thing? I sure wish someone would fire the management of MY company, I might not be looking for a new job.
Mandrake is offering a way for those of us who download the distribution an opportunity to give back-- if we want. I downloaded 8.0 & I gave $10. Do I feel had? Absolutely not. I'm glad that my small offering could somehow support the future of Linux.
Actually, they had a very sound busines model. MANY companies have been quite successful at generating a substantial amount of revenue using subscription models similar to Eazel. The venture capital market HAS dried up. True, it is still possible to get funding. However, it is MUCH harder today then it was a year ago, and even then it was five years ago.
And don't blame the entrepreneurs for the failures of the dot coms. True, many of these entrepreneurs had absolutely stupid ideas that no one in their right mind would fund. But of course they did get funding. The collapse of the "New Economy" is solely the fault of the investors.
Fortunately, in a case like this one, the judge doesn't need to know that much about the technology. The issues involved are very narrow, & the patent uses very specific language. Because of this, over the course of the trial, the judge can fairly easily learn what he needs to know. This is much different then a case like the MS antitrust case, since the issue there are much more broad & subtle. There, a good, advance understanding of the issues at hand are much more important.
I use SecureCRT at work, PuTTY at home. SecureCRT does have a few more features, but it costs $100. PuTTY is fast, stable (more so then SecureCRT) and as has already been pointed out, tiny. I recommend it to all my customers. Get it at http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/
What an absurd analogy. This software is specifically designed to send spam. It is actively marketed to send spam. It even includes 25 million email addresses to get you started. Maybe if the film was marketed as "Perfect for all of your child pornography needs" you'd have a case. Otherwise, you're not even close.
The other aspect of this, of course, is under what authority could they possibly force you to pay? The only way AT&T or any other provider could get you to pay a percentage would be to have a contract to that effect in place with you. Unless AT&T was your ISP, then you have no compelling reason to sign such a contract. Of course AT&T could threaten to cut off inbound traffic from their customers, but they have no legal authority to do so, and such tactics almost certainly run afoul of antitrust & other laws.
Unless all hosting & connectivity providers charge similar tarriffs, AT&T's plan will never work in the real world. And of course, common sense says that if you're an ISP, you're best bet is to be the one ISP who doesn't charge these tarriffs-- while you may take a hit on margin, you'll more then make up for it in volume.
While saying that people who hate slashdot shouldn't come here may not be insightful to you, obviously it's not so obvious to them-- otherwise they wouldn't need to be told so.
Nobody said that dissent is bad. I welcome pro-MS posts. Posts critical of Linux are are also fine. What I-- and most everyone else-- finds annoying are all of the anti-/. posts. Is/. biased? Of course. Don't like it? Fine. Want to complain about it? Great-- just do it elsewhere.
No, but I blame the Times for what their reporters write and they print. To my mind, the appropriate analogy here is: submitter == reporter, editor == editor, poster == letter to the editor. I don't blame/. when a poster says something I think is irresponsible - I do blame them when an editor turns a irresponsible statement into an article.
Wrong. The correct analogy would be poster == reporter, submitter == quoted party. If the Times were righting a news article, and they interviewed the submitter, his comment "MS is running scared" would be valid, appropriate content. You'll see the exact same sort of commentary in every newspaper in the world, and nobody complains about it. Because that's how journalism works. If CT had made the comment, your complaint would be accurate (though still stupid-- don't like/.'s well-known bias, go elsewhere), but in it's present context it's just more pro-MS, anti-/. windbagging.
Certainly, the HARDWARE can be acquired from consumer sources, but there will need to be some custom software written. I hate to say it, being a Windows fan, but Linux is probably the OS to start from.
I hate to say it, since I detest Windows, but I suspect you're wrong. All the software I need already exists on Windows. The ATI card mentioned includes the PVR software, which, as you say, is the toughest part. If it wasn't for the hardware support, Linux would be FAR superior to Windows due to it's simple scriptability & better networking. But, until Linux get's support for DVD & PVR, I don't see a way to NOT do this on Windows. Grrr.
As far as the video card... How do I drive the TV without a video card? And, as previously mentioned, the SBLive doesn't do Dolby Digital... Just PCM-- which isn't useful to me. You're final conclusion, though seems right in line with what I've figured. My initial calculations put a well configured, but not loaded system at about $1000, loaded, it's closer to $1500.
Get the $300 Cambridge Soundworks digital home theater system (which I have, excellent speaker set) and you've got digital sound.
This had been part of the plan until I got my FPS2000 speakers a couple months ago. The FPS 2000 is the four-speaker equivalent of the system you mention, and built from the same components, just without the Dolby Digital decoder. Unfortunately, they suck. They sound notably inferior to the FPS 1000's, which cost about half as much. Just goes to show you, paying more doesn't mean you get more, even from the same company.
The main difference under copyright law between non-commercial & commercial use is the penalty: non-commercial use only gets actual damages, commercial use gets puntative damages as well. The commercial or non-commercial nature of the use is considered in determining whether an infringement falls under fair-use, but it is only a factor, and non-commercial use quite often will still be illegal.
Another aspect is the context & substance of the violation: Reading a single sentence of a book will virtually always be considered fair use since I'm not really effecting the merchantability of the book (though your specific example of charging to hear the sentence concievably would result in violation).
Yeah, but with GM, you buy 1 car every 10 years, with MS you buy 10 products each year (at least, if they have their way.) Equals out in the end...
Not at all. My point was that MS has a far larger profit margin on a product by product basis. Your comment actually reinforces my statement, rather then contradicts it.
>Hrm. That's understandable. But what about if there's a likeness of the work already existing (a photograph, say), with no such restrictions? Do I still need to get your permission to distribute copies of that?
Good question! I have no idea.
I suspect that if a previous owner has allowed unfettered distribution of reproductions that any future owner wouldn't have the right to restrict them, but I'm not sure of the specifics.
It wouldn't matter what the source of your copy of an image is, if it's a reproduction of a original artwork that I own, you must get my permission to reproduce it. See any art book & note that any time a painting is reproduced, owenrship credit is given. And since this right has nothing to do with copyright, the right does not expire when the copyright expires.
And, while I'm not certain, I can't see that a paintings changing hands would affect anything. Remember, this is a property right-- Just because the previous owner of my new car let all his friends drive it, doesn't mean that I need to. The same thing would apply here, though anyone with a specific existing right would maintain that right per the previous contract. (Of course. IANAL...)
General Motors is the richest company, leading Wall Mart by about $23 billion (US).
Nope. That's REVENUE, not VALUE. Of course GM generates more revenue then MS does. The average GM car costs, what, $25k? The average MS product is what $250? But, the key question is which is more profitable? The answer is MS by a large margin. MS passed GM about a year & a half ago or so as the most valuable corporation in the world. Six months or so ago, Cisco passed MS, but MS is back in the lead per the article you cited. As far as market valuation, GM is only #46.
Well... although the copyright may expire someday, a movie or any other material does not become public domain, when it does.
Actually, this is not correct. With a published work, once copyright expires, it enters the public domain & can be reproduced freely. Original artwork, on the other hand is different & I suspect this is the source of your confusion. If I own a Picasso (for example), you must recieve my permission to publish any reproduction of it. For those rights, I can charge you whatever fees we can agree upon. This right has nothing to do with copyright. It's an ownership right-- I not only own the painting, I own it's likeness as well. This right never expires.
Works Originally Created On or After January 1, 1978:
A work that is created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the author's life plus an additional 70 years after the author's death. In the case of "a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire," the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author's death. For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the author's identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.
Works Originally Created Before January 1, 1978, But Not Published or Registered by That Date:
These works have been automatically brought under the statute and are now given federal copyright protection. The duration of copyright in these works will generally be computed in the same way as for works created on or after January 1, 1978: the life-plus-70 or 95/120-year terms will apply to them as well. The law provides that in no case will the term of copyright for works in this category expire before December 31, 2002, and for works published on or before December 31, 2002, the term of copyright will not expire before December 31, 2047.
Works Originally Created and Published or Registered Before January 1, 1978:
Under the law in effect before 1978, copyright was secured either on the date a work was published with a copyright notice or on the date of registration if the work was registered in unpublished form. In either case, the copyright endured for a first term of 28 years from the date it was secured. During the last (28th) year of the first term, the copyright was eligible for renewal. The Copyright Act of 1976 extended the renewal term from 28 to 47 years for copyrights that were subsisting on January 1, 1978, or for pre-1978 copyrights restored under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), making these works eligible for a total term of protection of 75 years. Public Law 105-298, enacted on October 27, 1998, further extended the renewal term of copyrights still subsisting on that date by an additional 20 years, providing for a renewal term of 67 years and a total term of protection of 95 years.
Public Law 102-307, enacted on June 26, 1992, amended the 1976 Copyright Act to provide for automatic renewal of the term of copyrights secured between January 1, 1964, and December 31, 1977. Although the renewal term is automatically provided, the Copyright Office does not issue a renewal certificate for these works unless a renewal application and fee are received and registered in the Copyright Office.
Public Law 102-307 makes renewal registration optional. Thus, filing for renewal registration is no longer required in order to extend the original 28-year copyright term to the full 95 years. However, some benefits accrue from making a renewal registration during the 28th year of the original term.
For more detailed information on renewal of copyright and the copyright term, request Circular 15, "Renewal of Copyright"; Circular 15a, "Duration of Copyright"; and Circular 15t, "Extension of Copyright Terms."
>A kernel driver can crash the entire system. If it's binary only, it can't be fixed by the community.
True. But then if a company is releasing the driver as an "offical" driver for it's hardware, it should already be stable and functional. If it isn't, then they have to fix it. This has been the case on Windows and other OS's for quiet some time. If the driver stinks, don't buy the hardware; you wouldn't use a peice of software that doesn't work, so why hardware?
In the end, theirs very little reason why a company can't just release binary drivers for a product, apart from the screaming zealots. Oh well.
That attitude is correct, but asking for trouble. A driver only has to be "good enough". If it causes occasional crashes, especially difficult to diagnose ones, most companies won't put forth too much effort to fix the problems. Factor in to that picture several companies using the same tactics & pretty soon, Linux crashes as often as windows. While I don't have a strong opinion on the question in general, this is a VERY significant issue. One of Linux's primary advantages is it's stability. maintaining that stability is absolutely paramount for it's continued growth.
IANALOJ (Or Judge), but I think this is incorrect. Judges at all levels have the right to determine the legality of a law. In fact, by your interpretation, it would be extremely difficult to overturn a law since merely losing a case isn't grounds for appeal. If I'm not mistaken, you must lose the case AND court procedure must have been violated (the merits of the law violated are not grounds for appeal). The Scopes trial is actually an excellent counter-example. The law may have been unconstitutional, but if the trial was legally valid (ie. the defendants rights were not violated), it would not be subject to appeal. In fact the Scopes trial was later won on appeal on the basis of a judicial error, not legal merit. (see http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/scop es.htm). Of course the losing party pretty much always has the right to appeal if a law is declared invalid, so rarely will the matter stop at a trial judge, but that doesn't mean they have no ability to overturn a law. Any Lawyers in the house, corrections are appreciated...
Actually, I think you're misinterpreting the other posts...
No one said "The Insight is crap & should be ditched in favor of TDI". To paraphrase what they did say: "The Insight looks impressive, but when you consider the alternatives already on the market, it looks much less so". Does that mean that Honda should stop all future work on Electric cars? Of course not. Does that mean that no one should buy an Insight? No. All it means is be sure to check out the TDI before you invest in an Insight. One, two, five years from now, that statement probably wqon't apply. But since we're not talking about five years from now, we're talking about now, the statement DOES apply & is HIGHLY relevant.
And, no, Honda won't buy them all back from the owners... Not only is such a thing pointless (that sort of R&D is done BEFORE a product is released), but when was the last time you heard of a manufacturer doing such a thing? Admittedly that doesn't mean that it couldn't happen in the future, but I find it a highly unlikely prospect.
Because that's what Linux advocates trump up. Ever since Linux became 'popular', advocates have been pitting it against the big bad evil Microsoft. Nevermind that until recently, Solaris was just as closed-source and dealt in the same underhanded tricks as Microsoft. Nevermind that they're two completely different types of operating systems aimed at two entirely different classes of people.
Perhaps a less biased way of saying this is "Because Windows is, arguably, the main competition for Linux. While AIX & Solaris are also viewed as competitors, due to Linux' current weakness in scalability, they are not considered direct competitors."
Now, that said, I'll respond by saying you're an idiot. Linux & Windows 2k ARE NOT designed for two different types of users. Both are designed for general use, high-end workstations low-to-mid end servers. In particular, in the context of the question, they are designed for EXACTLY the same market.
As far as AIX & Solaris, they are also the competition. But, most people who have the budget to run a high -end unix server have a reason to spend the money (Support, a boss that's an idiot, or a need for specialized capabilities or scalability that Linux & Windows don't allow). Linux is rapidly advancing, & is beginning to address the last two issues (scalability & features), but at present it's hard to directly compare Linux to some of the commercial Unixes. And of course, you again need to consider the context. Since the question was specifically in response to a benchmark comparing Linux to Win2k, why would you even expect AIX or Solaris to be brought up?
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm. I guess I just disagree. You don't criticize Red Hat for GPLing RPM do you? (or maybe you do)
Mandrake chose one of two possible avenues. Both have their advantages & disadvantages. GPLing everything means slightly lower chance for forcing your customers into paying you for the right to use your software, but it leads to more secure, more advanced, & more popular software. Again, it comes down to choice vs. force.
Regarding market sharew, according to this interview with the new (old) CEO of MandrakeSoft, Mandrake currently holds about 33.8% of the US retail market.
Finally, be sad about this decision if Mandrake goes out of business. Since there is no apparent danger of this happening in the near future, you should be happy about this since it improves your user experience no matter what distribution you might choose to use.
Absolutely. They don't force you to pay $129 for the OS, so people bitch when they give you the opportunity to voluntarily give a few bucks.
The fact is that Mandrake ALLOWS you to pay for the software. Microsoft (et al) REQUIRES you to pay. I've read most of the posts here so far & I've yet to find an argument that even makes me begin to see a bad side to this. If Mandrake were a highly profitable company, I could maybe understand the whining. As it is, I see the arguments against as rather absurd.
It's sad that Mandrake chose to GPL their most valuable value-added parts, but that's a decision they're going to have to live with and learn from.
Why is it sad that Mandrake GPLed these components? Mandrake is a healthy company. As others have pointed out already, the reports of Mandrakes imminent demise have been greatly excaggerated. So they fired their management-- that's a bad thing? I sure wish someone would fire the management of MY company, I might not be looking for a new job.
Mandrake is offering a way for those of us who download the distribution an opportunity to give back-- if we want. I downloaded 8.0 & I gave $10. Do I feel had? Absolutely not. I'm glad that my small offering could somehow support the future of Linux.
Actually, they had a very sound busines model. MANY companies have been quite successful at generating a substantial amount of revenue using subscription models similar to Eazel. The venture capital market HAS dried up. True, it is still possible to get funding. However, it is MUCH harder today then it was a year ago, and even then it was five years ago.
And don't blame the entrepreneurs for the failures of the dot coms. True, many of these entrepreneurs had absolutely stupid ideas that no one in their right mind would fund. But of course they did get funding. The collapse of the "New Economy" is solely the fault of the investors.
Fortunately, in a case like this one, the judge doesn't need to know that much about the technology. The issues involved are very narrow, & the patent uses very specific language. Because of this, over the course of the trial, the judge can fairly easily learn what he needs to know. This is much different then a case like the MS antitrust case, since the issue there are much more broad & subtle. There, a good, advance understanding of the issues at hand are much more important.
I use SecureCRT at work, PuTTY at home. SecureCRT does have a few more features, but it costs $100. PuTTY is fast, stable (more so then SecureCRT) and as has already been pointed out, tiny. I recommend it to all my customers. Get it at http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/
What an absurd analogy. This software is specifically designed to send spam. It is actively marketed to send spam. It even includes 25 million email addresses to get you started. Maybe if the film was marketed as "Perfect for all of your child pornography needs" you'd have a case. Otherwise, you're not even close.
Unless all hosting & connectivity providers charge similar tarriffs, AT&T's plan will never work in the real world. And of course, common sense says that if you're an ISP, you're best bet is to be the one ISP who doesn't charge these tarriffs-- while you may take a hit on margin, you'll more then make up for it in volume.
While saying that people who hate slashdot shouldn't come here may not be insightful to you, obviously it's not so obvious to them-- otherwise they wouldn't need to be told so.
/. biased? Of course. Don't like it? Fine. Want to complain about it? Great-- just do it elsewhere.
Nobody said that dissent is bad. I welcome pro-MS posts. Posts critical of Linux are are also fine. What I-- and most everyone else-- finds annoying are all of the anti-/. posts. Is
No, but I blame the Times for what their reporters write and they print. To my mind, the appropriate analogy here is: submitter == reporter, editor == editor, poster == letter to the editor. I don't blame /. when a poster says something I think is irresponsible - I do blame them when an editor turns a irresponsible statement into an article.
/.'s well-known bias, go elsewhere), but in it's present context it's just more pro-MS, anti-/. windbagging.
Wrong. The correct analogy would be poster == reporter, submitter == quoted party. If the Times were righting a news article, and they interviewed the submitter, his comment "MS is running scared" would be valid, appropriate content. You'll see the exact same sort of commentary in every newspaper in the world, and nobody complains about it. Because that's how journalism works. If CT had made the comment, your complaint would be accurate (though still stupid-- don't like
It's called Indrema.
Sounds good, but it appears to lack one of the key features: PVR (Tivo) features. If they added that, it would be VERY close to what I want.
Certainly, the HARDWARE can be acquired from consumer sources, but there will need to be some custom software written. I hate to say it, being a Windows fan, but Linux is probably the OS to start from.
I hate to say it, since I detest Windows, but I suspect you're wrong. All the software I need already exists on Windows. The ATI card mentioned includes the PVR software, which, as you say, is the toughest part. If it wasn't for the hardware support, Linux would be FAR superior to Windows due to it's simple scriptability & better networking. But, until Linux get's support for DVD & PVR, I don't see a way to NOT do this on Windows. Grrr.
As far as the video card... How do I drive the TV without a video card? And, as previously mentioned, the SBLive doesn't do Dolby Digital... Just PCM-- which isn't useful to me. You're final conclusion, though seems right in line with what I've figured. My initial calculations put a well configured, but not loaded system at about $1000, loaded, it's closer to $1500.
Get the $300 Cambridge Soundworks digital home theater system (which I have, excellent speaker set) and you've got digital sound.
This had been part of the plan until I got my FPS2000 speakers a couple months ago. The FPS 2000 is the four-speaker equivalent of the system you mention, and built from the same components, just without the Dolby Digital decoder. Unfortunately, they suck. They sound notably inferior to the FPS 1000's, which cost about half as much. Just goes to show you, paying more doesn't mean you get more, even from the same company.
Sorry, but this is basically completely wrong.
The main difference under copyright law between non-commercial & commercial use is the penalty: non-commercial use only gets actual damages, commercial use gets puntative damages as well. The commercial or non-commercial nature of the use is considered in determining whether an infringement falls under fair-use, but it is only a factor, and non-commercial use quite often will still be illegal.
Another aspect is the context & substance of the violation: Reading a single sentence of a book will virtually always be considered fair use since I'm not really effecting the merchantability of the book (though your specific example of charging to hear the sentence concievably would result in violation).
So what would be involved in setting this up as an x-terminal? If it's easy, this could be a VERY cool toy...
This looks cool... According to the FAQ, there are Linux drivers available for the thing. Any ideas on the status of Linux support?
Also, any ideas on using a remote control with it?
Yeah, but with GM, you buy 1 car every 10 years, with MS you buy 10 products each year (at least, if they have their way.) Equals out in the end...
Not at all. My point was that MS has a far larger profit margin on a product by product basis. Your comment actually reinforces my statement, rather then contradicts it.
>Hrm. That's understandable. But what about if there's a likeness of the work already existing (a photograph, say), with no such restrictions? Do I still need to get your permission to distribute copies of that?
Good question! I have no idea.
I suspect that if a previous owner has allowed unfettered distribution of reproductions that any future owner wouldn't have the right to restrict them, but I'm not sure of the specifics.
It wouldn't matter what the source of your copy of an image is, if it's a reproduction of a original artwork that I own, you must get my permission to reproduce it. See any art book & note that any time a painting is reproduced, owenrship credit is given. And since this right has nothing to do with copyright, the right does not expire when the copyright expires.
And, while I'm not certain, I can't see that a paintings changing hands would affect anything. Remember, this is a property right-- Just because the previous owner of my new car let all his friends drive it, doesn't mean that I need to. The same thing would apply here, though anyone with a specific existing right would maintain that right per the previous contract. (Of course. IANAL...)
General Motors is the richest company, leading Wall Mart by about $23 billion (US).
Nope. That's REVENUE, not VALUE. Of course GM generates more revenue then MS does. The average GM car costs, what, $25k? The average MS product is what $250? But, the key question is which is more profitable? The answer is MS by a large margin. MS passed GM about a year & a half ago or so as the most valuable corporation in the world. Six months or so ago, Cisco passed MS, but MS is back in the lead per the article you cited. As far as market valuation, GM is only #46.
Well... although the copyright may expire someday, a movie or any other material does not become public domain, when it does.
Actually, this is not correct. With a published work, once copyright expires, it enters the public domain & can be reproduced freely. Original artwork, on the other hand is different & I suspect this is the source of your confusion. If I own a Picasso (for example), you must recieve my permission to publish any reproduction of it. For those rights, I can charge you whatever fees we can agree upon. This right has nothing to do with copyright. It's an ownership right-- I not only own the painting, I own it's likeness as well. This right never expires.
No, it was 75 years until the Sonny Bono Copyright Act, which extended them to 100 years. This applies to at least books too.
Close, but no cigar... Per the US copyright office:
HOW LONG COPYRIGHT PROTECTION ENDURES
Works Originally Created On or After January 1, 1978:
A work that is created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the author's life plus an additional 70 years after the author's death. In the case of "a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire," the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author's death. For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the author's identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.
Works Originally Created Before January 1, 1978, But Not Published or Registered by That Date:
These works have been automatically brought under the statute and are now given federal copyright protection. The duration of copyright in these works will generally be computed in the same way as for works created on or after January 1, 1978: the life-plus-70 or 95/120-year terms will apply to them as well. The law provides that in no case will the term of copyright for works in this category expire before December 31, 2002, and for works published on or before December 31, 2002, the term of copyright will not expire before December 31, 2047.
Works Originally Created and Published or Registered Before January 1, 1978:
Under the law in effect before 1978, copyright was secured either on the date a work was published with a copyright notice or on the date of registration if the work was registered in unpublished form. In either case, the copyright endured for a first term of 28 years from the date it was secured. During the last (28th) year of the first term, the copyright was eligible for renewal. The Copyright Act of 1976 extended the renewal term from 28 to 47 years for copyrights that were subsisting on January 1, 1978, or for pre-1978 copyrights restored under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), making these works eligible for a total term of protection of 75 years. Public Law 105-298, enacted on October 27, 1998, further extended the renewal term of copyrights still subsisting on that date by an additional 20 years, providing for a renewal term of 67 years and a total term of protection of 95 years.
Public Law 102-307, enacted on June 26, 1992, amended the 1976 Copyright Act to provide for automatic renewal of the term of copyrights secured between January 1, 1964, and December 31, 1977. Although the renewal term is automatically provided, the Copyright Office does not issue a renewal certificate for these works unless a renewal application and fee are received and registered in the Copyright Office.
Public Law 102-307 makes renewal registration optional. Thus, filing for renewal registration is no longer required in order to extend the original 28-year copyright term to the full 95 years. However, some benefits accrue from making a renewal registration during the 28th year of the original term.
For more detailed information on renewal of copyright and the copyright term, request Circular 15, "Renewal of Copyright"; Circular 15a, "Duration of Copyright"; and Circular 15t, "Extension of Copyright Terms."
>A kernel driver can crash the entire system. If it's binary only, it can't be fixed by the community.
True. But then if a company is releasing the driver as an "offical" driver for it's hardware, it should already be stable and functional. If it isn't, then they have to fix it. This has been the case on Windows and other OS's for quiet some time. If the driver stinks, don't buy the hardware; you wouldn't use a peice of software that doesn't work, so why hardware?
In the end, theirs very little reason why a company can't just release binary drivers for a product, apart from the screaming zealots. Oh well.
That attitude is correct, but asking for trouble. A driver only has to be "good enough". If it causes occasional crashes, especially difficult to diagnose ones, most companies won't put forth too much effort to fix the problems. Factor in to that picture several companies using the same tactics & pretty soon, Linux crashes as often as windows. While I don't have a strong opinion on the question in general, this is a VERY significant issue. One of Linux's primary advantages is it's stability. maintaining that stability is absolutely paramount for it's continued growth.
IANALOJ (Or Judge), but I think this is incorrect. Judges at all levels have the right to determine the legality of a law. In fact, by your interpretation, it would be extremely difficult to overturn a law since merely losing a case isn't grounds for appeal. If I'm not mistaken, you must lose the case AND court procedure must have been violated (the merits of the law violated are not grounds for appeal). The Scopes trial is actually an excellent counter-example. The law may have been unconstitutional, but if the trial was legally valid (ie. the defendants rights were not violated), it would not be subject to appeal. In fact the Scopes trial was later won on appeal on the basis of a judicial error, not legal merit. (see http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/scop es.htm). Of course the losing party pretty much always has the right to appeal if a law is declared invalid, so rarely will the matter stop at a trial judge, but that doesn't mean they have no ability to overturn a law. Any Lawyers in the house, corrections are appreciated...
Actually, I think you're misinterpreting the other posts...
No one said "The Insight is crap & should be ditched in favor of TDI". To paraphrase what they did say: "The Insight looks impressive, but when you consider the alternatives already on the market, it looks much less so". Does that mean that Honda should stop all future work on Electric cars? Of course not. Does that mean that no one should buy an Insight? No. All it means is be sure to check out the TDI before you invest in an Insight. One, two, five years from now, that statement probably wqon't apply. But since we're not talking about five years from now, we're talking about now, the statement DOES apply & is HIGHLY relevant.
And, no, Honda won't buy them all back from the owners... Not only is such a thing pointless (that sort of R&D is done BEFORE a product is released), but when was the last time you heard of a manufacturer doing such a thing? Admittedly that doesn't mean that it couldn't happen in the future, but I find it a highly unlikely prospect.
Because that's what Linux advocates trump up. Ever since Linux became 'popular', advocates have been pitting it against the big bad evil Microsoft. Nevermind that until recently, Solaris was just as closed-source and dealt in the same underhanded tricks as Microsoft. Nevermind that they're two completely different types of operating systems aimed at two entirely different classes of people.
Perhaps a less biased way of saying this is "Because Windows is, arguably, the main competition for Linux. While AIX & Solaris are also viewed as competitors, due to Linux' current weakness in scalability, they are not considered direct competitors."
Now, that said, I'll respond by saying you're an idiot. Linux & Windows 2k ARE NOT designed for two different types of users. Both are designed for general use, high-end workstations low-to-mid end servers. In particular, in the context of the question, they are designed for EXACTLY the same market.
As far as AIX & Solaris, they are also the competition. But, most people who have the budget to run a high -end unix server have a reason to spend the money (Support, a boss that's an idiot, or a need for specialized capabilities or scalability that Linux & Windows don't allow). Linux is rapidly advancing, & is beginning to address the last two issues (scalability & features), but at present it's hard to directly compare Linux to some of the commercial Unixes. And of course, you again need to consider the context. Since the question was specifically in response to a benchmark comparing Linux to Win2k, why would you even expect AIX or Solaris to be brought up?