Lastly, I don't see what volume has to do with MS corrupting an open source Java.
Volume, by itself, tends to make for a de facto standard. Whatever security Java has, it has because of what is not in Java, and due to a lot of effort by Sun to keep stuff out of Java. Otherwise, any high-volume thingee that sabatoges the standard with attractive gizmos... (Microsoft has already killed client side Java) is the inevitable result. What I've seen from Sun is that they have no intention of letting anyone "kill their baby" and have managed to do a pretty good job so far.
I don't know a single Java developer that would ever consider using a MS Java implementation. Looks great initially. Begins to go sour in 3-5 year. After 10-15 years is thoroughly rotten. This is not what you want Java for.
Re:Doesn't help me now though, does it.
on
My Visit to SCO
·
· Score: 1
Problem with that, is until this is settled one way or another, the pointy-haired-bosses who approve my technology architecture decisions, are likely to be put of from appropriate solutions due to the FUD. After which a lot of people will be scrambling to play catch-up. I doubt this will have much if any long-term effect on Linux, except for some earlier than expected defections to *BSD.
I'm not sure giving SCO lots of money to go away sends the right message This feels like a "Millions for Defence, Not one Cent for Tribute!" sort of thing.
It's not obvious? If I tell the world how my word processing file format works, then someone else is free to come along and write a BETTER word processor that's 100% compatible with mine.
Right. I am a consumer. Do I buy your's, where I am pretty well guaranteed I will never be able to get that BETTER word processor that's 100% compatible with your's? Or do I buy an inferior word processor where I'm pretty well guaranteed that there will be BETTER and 100% compatible alternatives in the future?
Further, if you die, go out of business, or just lose interest, I'm SOL.
Blocking port 25 upstream was an attempt to block spam. Didn't work very well, did it? Microsoft is evil because Bill Gates and friends are paranoid control freaks. Pretty accurate, I'd say. I strongly suspect that the reason that Unix (including AT&T, AIX Solaris BSD Linux, etc, soon to exclude SCO) has outlasted its betters is that the control is not only unnecessary, it is actually counterproductive.
That's assuming that Microsoft's actions will actually accomplish anything useful. Microsoft might catch and punish a few. All that will do is force the spammers to be a bit more inventive and make the world safe for Microsoft-approved spam.
The rules of Brittish Common Law have a lot to do with US law. Almost all precedents ultimately go back to Brittish Common Law. Lousiana is a bit different.
"why waste time reading the law, it might give you ideas for crimes to commit" More like ideas for what should be crimes but aren't because of the exact phrasing of the laws.
And those FUD-scared AIX and Linux customers will run where... Very little if any running. Might keep an eye out with some things put on hold for a bit. The ones to watch are the FUD-scared SCO customers. It will be interesting to see how many of them run to AIX.
The editorial freedom concerning counterstatements should be (and usually is) very limited. The counterstatement has to be published with the same prominence as the original article (same position, same type, etc). The publisher can comment on the counterstatement, but the commentary must not exceed depictions of facts from the publisher's perspective or clarifications of the intended meaning of statements in the original article. Everything else has to be in a separate article. The right of reply still doesn't level the playing field, but it is good enough for many cases which would otherwise end up in front of a judge. [Emphasis added]
If the counterstatement is the ravings of a lunatic, the editor has a few more options. However if the editor comes off as the raving lunatic, (s)he's making the counterstatement seem more legitimate. Even in the absence of laws, it will tend to be somewhat self-policing. In any event it should be effective in keeping minor misunderstandings from escalating into feuds.
It places new legal requirements on the publisher and gives the target of criticism one more stick by which to beat the critic.
Pretty lame stick.
One of the basic rules is to never try to be funnier than a night-club comedian. Even if you are funnier, the deck is heavily loaded in his favor. Similarly you have editorial rights in just how you present the response by your target. This doesn't even begin to level the playing field.
If I libel or slander someone I can expect to show up in court.
With this law I would have to incur this small amount of work even when I'm right and they're wrong. Why should I have to turn over my forum or take my viewers out of my forum just because someone claims to be wronged? [Emphasis added]
Seems better if you can keep it all molehill sized. Just add a "Dissenting opinions" section. I imagine you'd be ok just counting disagreeing opinions in most cases.
Why is the government in the business of regulating speech by private citizens? It's not regulating speech, it's regulating the soapboxes from which the speeches are made. Because of the easy opportunity for rebuttal, it would actually encourage free speech.
You publish their response as their response. (With appropriate editorial commentary;)
If I want to share my experiences with SBC DSL tech support, it would be an extremely negative view, and I would definitely feel rights of free speech were being violated if I was forced to host some marketing/damage control FUD on my site. Think that one through. Imagine the juxtaposition of technical complaints and marketing hype. What is blatently obvious is the inappropriateness of their response to the issues.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't see it as chilling, more the opposite. My right to free speech does not include my right to silence you. If you disagree with me, you can state so and why. I am not however required to give you an unedited soapbox. I can also state responses as "apparently from", "supposedly from", or "claiming to be from" or "purportedly from" the responder.
Sometimes. Methinks it can apply a lot of subliminal pressure as to what is to be considered "normal".
I have no problem with wresling. It's done in the ring. Methinks everybody would be horrified if the exact same things done in the ring were being done by the spectators outside the ring. Despite any games with "realism", there is a clear distinction between fantasy and reality.
The problem is when a sleazy way of life is portrayed as normal and desirable.
"Dumbing-down is trickling down. Not content with infantilizing the end user, the purveyors of point-and-click seem determined to infantilize the programmer as well."
And don't you just love those pop-ups where "your" computer tells you what it wants you to do!
Interesting. It does show the power of Open Source.
Actually, there's a great deal of difference, and sadly, for quite a while, it's been the cause of RHAS being less stable and reliable than the 7.X, 8 and 9 "vanilla" Red Hat versions.
The "more stable and less updates" line is RedHat's intention and I'm sure a lot of resources are put into trying to make it so. Enterprise software is a different beastie.
I can take an old workstation, put a semi-current RedHat on it, apply a few fixes, and if the install doesn't barf, be pretty well assured of a nice stable server. This is not what AS would be good for.
Enterprise software will stress the system, in places where consumer software doesn't have places. You don't run enterprise software for light loads. You run enterprise software for heavy loads, and with lots of heavy loads, cracks appear that could never be apparent with light loads. (If the cracks don't appear, you're not loading it heavily enough;) Five 9's is not a better breed of three 9's, it a completely different beast.
a tool that does 90% of what you need it to do is no substitute for a tool that does 100% of what you need it to do.
No software really does 100% of what you need it to do. The software does 100% of what that software does, but ability does not equate with need. OSS probably does 90% of what you need. Windows is probably 65-80% of what you need. There is maybe 10% that Windows does and OSS doesn't, but there's 20-35% that OSS does and Microsoft Windows doesn't. There's a reason for the "At all cost, don't lose out to Linux". Side by side, in the hands of the grunts, comparisons will be made, and like IE for Macs, Microsoft can't compete.
Slashdot Mirror
Lastly, I don't see what volume has to do with MS corrupting an open source Java.
... (Microsoft has already killed client side Java) is the inevitable result.
Volume, by itself, tends to make for a de facto standard.
Whatever security Java has, it has because of what is not in Java, and due to a lot of effort by Sun to keep stuff out of Java.
Otherwise, any high-volume thingee that sabatoges the standard with attractive gizmos
What I've seen from Sun is that they have no intention of letting anyone "kill their baby" and have managed to do a pretty good job so far.
I don't know a single Java developer that would ever consider using a MS Java implementation.
Looks great initially. Begins to go sour in 3-5 year. After 10-15 years is thoroughly rotten. This is not what you want Java for.
Problem with that, is until this is settled one way or another, the pointy-haired-bosses who approve my technology architecture decisions, are likely to be put of from appropriate solutions due to the FUD.
After which a lot of people will be scrambling to play catch-up. I doubt this will have much if any long-term effect on Linux, except for some earlier than expected defections to *BSD.
I'm not sure giving SCO lots of money to go away sends the right message
This feels like a "Millions for Defence, Not one Cent for Tribute!" sort of thing.
It's not obvious? If I tell the world how my word processing file format works, then someone else is free to come along and write a BETTER word processor that's 100% compatible with mine.
Right.
I am a consumer. Do I buy your's, where I am pretty well guaranteed I will never be able to get that BETTER word processor that's 100% compatible with your's?
Or do I buy an inferior word processor where I'm pretty well guaranteed that there will be BETTER and 100% compatible alternatives in the future?
Further, if you die, go out of business, or just lose interest, I'm SOL.
Blocking port 25 upstream was an attempt to block spam. Didn't work very well, did it?
Microsoft is evil because Bill Gates and friends are paranoid control freaks.
Pretty accurate, I'd say. I strongly suspect that the reason that Unix (including AT&T, AIX Solaris BSD Linux, etc, soon to exclude SCO) has outlasted its betters is that the control is not only unnecessary, it is actually counterproductive.
That's assuming that Microsoft's actions will actually accomplish anything useful. Microsoft might catch and punish a few. All that will do is force the spammers to be a bit more inventive and make the world safe for Microsoft-approved spam.
The rules of Brittish Common Law have a lot to do with US law.
Almost all precedents ultimately go back to Brittish Common Law.
Lousiana is a bit different.
"why waste time reading the law, it might give you ideas for crimes to commit"
More like ideas for what should be crimes but aren't because of the exact phrasing of the laws.
Do you mean "everything under the sun" or "everything but the kitchen sink"?
With anybody else, yes. But this is Microsoft.
Huh?
"SCO will integrate key AIX technologies into future releases of UnixWare 7. This will be done to enhance the functionality of UnixWare 7"
There's IBM code in UnixWare 7
There's IBM code in Linux
Hmmmm.
And those FUD-scared AIX and Linux customers will run where...
Very little if any running. Might keep an eye out with some things put on hold for a bit.
The ones to watch are the FUD-scared SCO customers. It will be interesting to see how many of them run to AIX.
The editorial freedom concerning counterstatements should be (and usually is) very limited. The counterstatement has to be published with the same prominence as the original article (same position, same type, etc). The publisher can comment on the counterstatement, but the commentary must not exceed depictions of facts from the publisher's perspective or clarifications of the intended meaning of statements in the original article. Everything else has to be in a separate article. The right of reply still doesn't level the playing field, but it is good enough for many cases which would otherwise end up in front of a judge. [Emphasis added]
If the counterstatement is the ravings of a lunatic, the editor has a few more options. However if the editor comes off as the raving lunatic, (s)he's making the counterstatement seem more legitimate. Even in the absence of laws, it will tend to be somewhat self-policing. In any event it should be effective in keeping minor misunderstandings from escalating into feuds.
It places new legal requirements on the publisher and gives the target of criticism one more stick by which to beat the critic.
Pretty lame stick.
One of the basic rules is to never try to be funnier than a night-club comedian. Even if you are funnier, the deck is heavily loaded in his favor. Similarly you have editorial rights in just how you present the response by your target. This doesn't even begin to level the playing field.
If I libel or slander someone I can expect to show up in court.
With this law I would have to incur this small amount of work even when I'm right and they're wrong. Why should I have to turn over my forum or take my viewers out of my forum just because someone claims to be wronged? [Emphasis added]
Seems better if you can keep it all molehill sized. Just add a "Dissenting opinions" section. I imagine you'd be ok just counting disagreeing opinions in most cases.
Why is the government in the business of regulating speech by private citizens?
It's not regulating speech, it's regulating the soapboxes from which the speeches are made. Because of the easy opportunity for rebuttal, it would actually encourage free speech.
You publish their response as their response.
(With appropriate editorial commentary;)
If I want to share my experiences with SBC DSL tech support, it would be an extremely negative view, and I would definitely feel rights of free speech were being violated if I was forced to host some marketing/damage control FUD on my site.
Think that one through. Imagine the juxtaposition of technical complaints and marketing hype. What is blatently obvious is the inappropriateness of their response to the issues.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't see it as chilling, more the opposite.
My right to free speech does not include my right to silence you. If you disagree with me, you can state so and why. I am not however required to give you an unedited soapbox. I can also state responses as "apparently from", "supposedly from", or "claiming to be from" or "purportedly from" the responder.
Response from _____
*** expletives deleted ***
*** goatse link deleted ***
*** 39,999.5 pages deleted ***
That they report back to some software (which could frankly be run on any embedded OS) which then tells them what to do next is almost irrelevant.
What is not irrelevant is that the OS is ready, willing, and able to tell them what to do next, no matter what else is going on.
Drive a mountain road at high speeds. Make most of the curves.
None of the above.
...
You hate to say it because
Driving an elevator has its ups and downs.
"I hate to say this, but who actually thought IBM would give in to this undersized bully?"
Translation: Stupid question, but did anyone actually think that IBM would give in?
Chorus of beligerent responses, in agreement, actually, but that's not the point.
I hate to say it (hehehehe), but SCO is not well liked in these parts.
"You can't fight the Open Source movement, just look at what they did to SCO!"
Whatever makes you think it's just the Open Source movement that's after SCO's hide?
It's entertainment, nothing more, nothing less.
Sometimes.
Methinks it can apply a lot of subliminal pressure as to what is to be considered "normal".
I have no problem with wresling. It's done in the ring. Methinks everybody would be horrified if the exact same things done in the ring were being done by the spectators outside the ring. Despite any games with "realism", there is a clear distinction between fantasy and reality.
The problem is when a sleazy way of life is portrayed as normal and desirable.
"Dumbing-down is trickling down. Not content with infantilizing the end user, the purveyors of point-and-click seem determined to infantilize the programmer as well."
And don't you just love those pop-ups where "your" computer tells you what it wants you to do!
> Am I missing something?
No, nothing important. Just a bad dream.
Interesting. It does show the power of Open Source.
Actually, there's a great deal of difference, and sadly, for quite a while, it's been the cause of RHAS being less stable and reliable than the 7.X, 8 and 9 "vanilla" Red Hat versions.
The "more stable and less updates" line is RedHat's intention and I'm sure a lot of resources are put into trying to make it so. Enterprise software is a different beastie.
I can take an old workstation, put a semi-current RedHat on it, apply a few fixes, and if the install doesn't barf, be pretty well assured of a nice stable server. This is not what AS would be good for.
Enterprise software will stress the system, in places where consumer software doesn't have places. You don't run enterprise software for light loads. You run enterprise software for heavy loads, and with lots of heavy loads, cracks appear that could never be apparent with light loads. (If the cracks don't appear, you're not loading it heavily enough;) Five 9's is not a better breed of three 9's, it a completely different beast.
a tool that does 90% of what you need it to do is no substitute for a tool that does 100% of what you need it to do.
No software really does 100% of what you need it to do.
The software does 100% of what that software does, but ability does not equate with need.
OSS probably does 90% of what you need. Windows is probably 65-80% of what you need. There is maybe 10% that Windows does and OSS doesn't, but there's 20-35% that OSS does and Microsoft Windows doesn't. There's a reason for the "At all cost, don't lose out to Linux". Side by side, in the hands of the grunts, comparisons will be made, and like IE for Macs, Microsoft can't compete.