Because I'm looking through the Woody package lists right now, and I see things (like OpenSSL 0.9.6c) that would be unsafe to use on a production system. Sure you can 'apt get' everything, but in that case you're no longer running the vaunted "stable" branch, so what is the point in waiting? And 6 to 12 months on some of the critical items is unacceptable, no matter how the release is classified.
Why would Woody's OpenSSL would be unsafe in production? The latest advisory for OpenSSL listed in its website is CAN-2004-0079, which was fixed in official OpenSSL release 0.9.6l on March 17 2004. Woody had that patched since February. Debian security also mentions two others, CAN-2004-0081 and CAN-2004-0975, patched later in the year.
I'm not one to rush new releases on my productions boxes, but there are many exceptions where the point releases really matter: A minor release of GNU's core utilities fixed a major bug where ACLs were not preserved during normal file operations. Want to fix it yourself? You won't be able to use the stable branch version of autoconf and automake.
Well, that sounds annoying. Did it happen to you? I don't remember that one. If it did, and Debian didn't backport a patch even after the bug was reported, I'd be really surprised.
Want to join Windows XP clients to your Debian PDC? Not with the version of Samba that comes with Woody. It's not vanity, developers issue these point releases to fix bugs as often as they do to add features.
Nothing to argue there. Upgrading the major Samba version would be a headache for current users (such as yours truly), so that won't happen until Sarge. If I needed that, I'd go unstable for that package (so I don't miss security patches), and watch it more closely. I have to say here, though, that Samba 2.2 has never given me any problem. I'm probably not using it like you. I do remember a reccommendation by the Samba team that Samba shouldn't be a PDC. So that's gone now? I'm a bit disconnected from that software.
If you had to clean up after a compromised server, had the rights mysteriously change on users' files, or got strange error messages when attempting to set up Windows client machines on your network, your perspective would change. You'd probably start running Sarge, untested packages be damned.
Indeed it would. I can only thank $DEITY that hasn't happened to me in the years I've been running Debian. Not saying it couldn't happen, of course - it's just not my experience.
Debian users are getting "bashed" because they're attempting to defend themselves from an indefensible position. Whatever ethic is at the core of the Debian release philosophy, it's failing in practice. They can't simply state that, "older is better", because they'd be promoting an unsafe and/or unstable system. You can't then say, "Debian is better because of it's package management system", since other popular distros share the same system but without the long release delays.
Nobody is saying "older is better". For me, stable is better, as long as security patches can be applied immediately. Debian does that. It also has an unstable branch that I can run on workstations, with reasonably (for me at least) recent software. I'd love it if Debian had a larger workforce to do packaging work, so that releases could be shortened, but I absolutely wouldn't want them to change their quality policies concerning upgrades to the stable distribution. If I have to choose between a distro with faster releases but lax policies, and Debian, I choose Debian anytime.
And no, Debian is not better because of the packaging system. The software is good (better than most, I'd say), but that's not what matters most. What's really exceptional is the organization behind that system. In other words, it's not so much how the packages get installed on the system, but how the
No, it is not a problem. There are other problems, "lack of releases" is not one (you can install a new "release" of Debian every couple of hours, if you want to - I don't).
What are you talking about? The last systems I installed Debian on, which I think were reasonably recent, run without a hitch. That includes my current laptop (a cute Thinkpad, every bit of which runs under Debian, including sound, 3D graphics and wireless - well, don't know about the modem, have not had the chance to use yet) and a Dell server (with a SCSI disk that, admittedly, made me spend five additional minutes to configure).
Sorry, but I'm finding it hard to believe that Debian could be "too old" to run on new hardware. Not my experience at all, at the very least.
Debian is bloated. I personally know 2 or 3 "developers" that can't even program a linked list in C, who package small insignificant apps, but have the same voting rights than other true developers. This turned Debian a huge, sluggish, amorphous organization, unable to reach consensus, unable to work, ever stuck in the morass of debate.
I don't know enough about the Debian internal organization to agree or disagree with that characterization, being as I am a user, not a Debian developer. I do think it is at least partially accurate: as is common among democracies, the whole debating and voting and whatnot makes for slow processes and sometimes inefficient bureaucracy. Debian is indeed huge, sluggish and somewhat amorphous.
That said, I strongly disagree with regards to your assertion that "the method failed". As a Debian user, I can't praise enough the results that this organization produces. I happen to administer way more GNU/Linux servers than I would like to, and to even think of using anything else than Debian makes me shudder. Debian makes reliable software. I want to be able to trust that installing or upgrading this or that won't break my servers. Or stuff down my throat some obnoxious license, or code by some unknown h4x0r wannabe that may or may not hid a trojan horse inside a binary. And I certainly don't want to spend hours fishing for dependencies and auditing and building software. And I want security updates as soon as holes are found, and, as much as possible, updates that don't force me to switch to a new and incompatible version of some service or tool that me or my users depend on.
Debian gives me all that.
Even more: I want to run the most recent software in my laptop. I want the latest programs and the latest kernel, and I don't really want to spend much time building that either, nor fixing the mess that immature software sometimes make.
Debian gives me that, too.
All in all, I consider the Debian process a huge success in producing a quality product.
Besides, democracies have their downsides, but all in all, I think they are the best practical social structure known by mankind so far. Or the least bad, if you prefer. Everything else seems to turn ugly and evil much faster. Linux has been doing great under Linus direction, the man is unquestionably an excellent leader. But I honestly don't know what's going to happen the day he retires. In a system like Debian, I don't really worry about that kind of thing (I don't even know who's the head honcho these days).
There I said it. No I'm not trolling or flamebaiting, it's just the simple truth. Every time I've ever used gnome over the last near decade it's been that way.
Well, it used to be pretty bad, I agree. I remember trying a couple of 1.x releases from Debian (potato, I think). Hated it, not so much because it was unstable, but because it was unbearably slow. I kept using FVWM (the thing to use, IMO, in a slow machine). Much later I used XFCE for some months (pretty good, I'd recommend it to anyone, particularly, again, for not-so-fast machines). Then I got a fast laptop, tried Gnome 2.2, and adopted it almost immediately.
Stability is paramount, of course---if I were having segfaults, as you say, I wouldn't be using it. But I haven't, for me at least it is quite stable. And at least in my machine it feels pretty fast. And so, all the rest being the same, here's the main reason I like it so much---actually, the only reason I use it instead of FVWM or XFCE: aesthetics. Call me shallow, but I've grown accustomed to a clean, uncluttered, and overall good looking desktop. I really like the approach the Gnome developers took over that matter (and, incidentally, I can't stand KDE for this very same reason: to me, it is just butt ugly).
Mind you, I'm not a newbie by any standard, I think, so I'm not a very good source on how easy or hard it is to use Gnome. I think it's very easy, but I may be wrong, maybe I just spend too much time on the command line to actually notice useability problems of the GUI. Also, I'm a Debian user, so I can't really speak about how easy or hard it is to build and install. For me it was "apt-get install gnome" initially, and "apt-get upgrade" from time to time. Right now I'm running "version 64" from Debian unstable, whatever that means. That's Gnome 2.8, I think. The one where they got rid of the old "file type associations" mechanism and replaced it with the current, cleaner and less obtrusive GUI. As I said, I really like the direction these guys are taking.
It's a shame really because I love C and I like gnome is about, but the bottom line is the results simply aren't there.
Yeah, I'm a C guy too. For me, that's just the icing on the cake:-)
You are posting just to see yourself type. Read the fucking article to see about Intel's official linux driver for ipw2200: http://news.com.com/Intel+lets+Linux+into+Centrino %20+camp/2100-7344_3-5542514.html
Really. From the article: "This time, Intel is moving faster. The company will _support_ Sonoma's wireless networking with Linux within 30 days, Regis said."
I don't suppose you noticed that the word "support" is a link to ipw2100.sourceforge.net.
How is that for "context"? Learn how to fucking read next time before making an ass of yourself. Stupid prick.
Of course, whatever you say, boy. I'm on my way to learn to read, so I won't make an ass of myself next time.
You don't know what you're talking about. Monitor mode is necessary for software such as kismet, and lacking it is a huge point of disappointment with the driver. Most other drivers support that function, as it is used by a lot of software used for monitoring networks.
I see. What I don't see is how this amounts to "suck, for all intents and purposes." Pretty much all I care about is to have a working connection at the office, at my customers' wireless network, and at home. I think that's what most people needs, so I would say that the drivers work perfectly well for most intents and purposes.
Intel itself contributes very little code to this project. It was only created by intel, and intel provides *no* documentation or specs for the card to the people who develop that driver. That is why Intel is releasing their own driver for the card in 30 day's time.
Well. Not that I don't believe you, but something doesn't quite add up there. Some reference would be appreciated.
See, I just come from Intel's site, where they link to the sourceforge projects as the "development site", and state that "Intel has assigned a public maintainer who will work with the Linux community," and "support for this driver will be provided through the open source project." See for yourself. So it looks to me that your "official" driver, if there ever is such a thing, will be nothing more than a snapshot from the sf.net project, probably taken after development freezes and a couple betas are out.
Anyway, the reason I'm wasting my time continuing this conversation is to somewhat counter your unfair and unwarranted putdown of this software. That's because to me it works perfectly well, I'm very grateful that the developers, and Intel itself, went out of their way at all to make it work, and I don't want them to feel like their work is not appreciated, that all their users are pipsqueak ingrates as yourself.
Please know what the fuck you're talking about before entering 'pretentious cock' mode that seems so prevalent on slashdot. You smug fucker.
My, my, aren't we a little touchy today, no? Bad day at school, kid?
Do they, really? And here I was all smug and happy with them. You know, not having any troubles at all to install and use them, and the wonderful speed and range of the thing...
They do *not* support monitor mode which is necessary to do a lot of things, including war driving.
Man. I never knew I needed "monitor mode" for anything. I did need to iwlist wlan0 scanning a couple of times, and it worked perfectly. But now that you mention it, it seems that ipw2100 already has this "monitor mode". Don't know about ipw2200 (the one in my laptop doesn't, I just tried, but it's already a bit old).
Intel's official drivers for ipw2200 will be a much needed improvement over what we have.
But... as far as I know, both ipw2x00 at sf.net were created by Intel to develop support for these cards. What other official driver would that be, that you're waiting?
Yes, there are drivers for Linux, GPL and all, but those require a binary firmware released by Intel under a more restrictive license:
LICENSE. You may copy and use the Software, subject to these conditions:
This Software is licensed for use only in conjunction with Intel component products. Use of the Software in conjunction with non-Intel component products is not licensed hereunder.
You may not copy, modify, rent, sell, distribute or transfer any part of the Software except as provided in this Agreement, and you agree to prevent unauthorized copying of the Software.
You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Software.
You may not sublicense the Software.
The Software may contain the software or other property of third party suppliers.
. ..
That said, they work exceptionally well. On my IBM T42 (Intel PRO/Wireless 2200BG), at least, wireless is very fast, range is excellent, and it eats very little battery.
Wow. <span class="flamebait">For the first time in my life, I think I'd consider a Macintosh, if I were shopping for a new PC. You know, to use it as a real computer.</span>
No, seriously, does Emacs run with antialiased fonts, on the Mac? That's pretty much the only real annoyance in my Gnome desktop. I don't know how hard it would be for Emacs to use XFT or FreeType, but damn, that's needed. Badly.
Also, I understand that a bit of PHB-speak is called for if you actually are a PHB... but this is well beyond ridiculous:
"...going after new targets at the customer level..."
"...we're fine to argue the merits of what we have out there right now (in) the current litigation setting."
"...the majority of the company resources are very directly pegged to the SCO Unix business."
"We haven't gotten to the point yet, where we think that is the play we should be taking on, but it could evolve to that point, and I could see a number of reasons why that would be a good play."
"...we have new things we're working on, and are seeing an opportunity to continue to advance it in the form of upgrades."
"Primarily, as you look at the new higher end chipsets coming out on the AMD or the Intel architecture, we expect that we can add some real value in that space."
"...we expect to come out and put even more emphasis behind the future growth of the industry-leading platform that has been UnixWare."
"On the software developer side of things, I believe there's going to be a move to a develop-for-fee model, rather than develop-for-free, which is currently in vogue."
"We're going to have more details of that as we get into the fall time frame."
The "customer level?" "Very directly pegged?" The "fall time frame?" Man, it doesn't get any cheesier than this.
Yeah, why should they know, does it really matter, no.
Well, it does matter if that omission violates section 2 (c) of the GPL. I'm not saying it does, because I have not a copy of the CD, and anyway I am not a lawyer, but from PJ's description of it, I think it is likely to be a violation.
Sun can put it in there if they want. People companies are using linux for what it's worth. Why do some think that if someone is using linux they must spread the virtures of it and be a sales person for it. Also not having mention fo GNU, or GPL doesn't change what it is.
Ah, but it does! It says so right there in the license. If you do not inform the people you distribute the software to about the rights they have, then you are violating the GPL. Then your rights over the software are revoked, and then your distribution becomes illegal, because it infringes the copyright of the authors of the software. I'd say that pretty much "changes what it is".
PJ also says that there is "a rather draconian EULA as you boot into the system that mentions absolutely nothing about the GPL anywhere and expressly forbids you from making copies of the CD." Well, if that is true (and I must say that Ms. Jones has earned a lot of trust and respect from yours truly, because of her work in her site), it feels a lot like a blatant violation of the GPL.
If that is the case, I do hope the FSF will deliver a C&D to Sun promptly. Lax enforcement of the GPL will only lead to more piratage from corporates. Not that I care much about what corporates do or do not, mind you, but I do care about Free software remaining Free, and I think that if you don't keep these people at bay, strictly, next thing you know, not only they are not contributing back but they are suing you for stealing "their" software.
In the end it's the software that matters. If you base how good something is on the if it's GPL or not your pretty much out of it.
Man, then I'm out of it. I mean, yes, that "principles" thing is, like, so out of style now. Time to tell my employer that I'm no longer a useful developer. Such a shame, I kinda liked this gig.
At least some people still believe in their lawsuits.
Great! With Baystar withdrawing their money, SCO was instantly bankrupt (RBC would certainly do the same, to avoid investor liability). No warning shot, no nothing, immediate bankruptcy. That would have been the worst outcome of the whole saga, for us, because then IBM, RedHat, and Novell (and perhaps Chrysler and Autozone) would not have the chance to obliterate SCO in court, clearing away the FUD around Linux in the process.
Now, if Baystar is satisfied with canning Darl and his cronies, and making the new management focus in the lawsuits, and agrees to keep SCO in life support, we stand an excellent chance of watching many wonderful things. Think of...
RedHat, and all of us by extension, come out with a declaration, written by a federal judge, that Linux does not infringe anyone's "IP".
SysV copyrights are finally declared (publicly) unenforceable, becoming public domain. Not that that code is of much use to Linux developers, of course, but that would make much harder for Microsoft to try this particular trick again in the future.
IBM hits Canopy where it really hurts, giving us an excellent thief-head ornament for our porch.
Judge Kollar-Kotelly gets interested in the recent declarations of Baystar (regarding how Microsoft "recommended" investing in SCO).
The SEC treats us with some jailtime for Darl, Stowell, Bench, et al... Well, one can only hope.
Naturally, I do not expect all of these to happen, I don't think we are that lucky. But, overall, I think these are great news. Go, Bay Star! Keep your money in SCO, help Microsoft screw the Linux hippies!
Ok, my question then becomes, would you rather explain to your child why the bad man shot someone or why the bad woman had a penis her mouth?
Given the choice, I take explaining the blowjob, any time.
As a new parent, I know I'll have to explain both eventually. Oral sex (or any kind of non-violent sex, for that matter) is quite easy to explain rationally. Some things are disgusting (shit, I remembered the goatse guy now), and there's the health issue that must be absolutely clear, but all in all it's quite harmless. I don't foresee major difficulties.
Murder, on the other hand, and any kind of violent and dishonest behaviour, are the real ugly subjects. It gives me the creeps to think that I may screw up there. I have not the slightest idea on how to convey with enough strictness, with zero room for misunderstanding or negotiability, that such things are always shameful and regrettable, very seldomly justifiable, and absolutely never cool. Even though the TV and the movies, and the goddamn kids at school, all say and show otherwise.
And I'm not saying that violence and dishonesty should be banned from the media. Mass censorship is stupid. But to portray such things as cool, or, for the love of root, as fun, that is criminal. Remember that scene from Pulp Fiction, when Travolta accidentally shoots the guy's head off? The whole theather bursted out with laughter on that one. I shuddered.
Really, I'd not particularly like it, but I'd much rather see my daughter becoming a porn star, than thief or a murderer.
Re:Solves the wrong problem.
on
Gates on Spam
·
· Score: 1
Man. I feel your pain.
But maybe it would take just a couple of angry notes from the bosses, that their mail is bouncing off everywhere, to get them up their asses and do something about it. I mean, setting up a stupid relay is not precisely rocket science...
Oh, well. Keep in mind that you won't be there forever, if you can take any confort in that.
Re:Solves the wrong problem.
on
Gates on Spam
·
· Score: 1
Well, it would be fairly easy for your college to setup a relay with SASL authentication, so that users can send mail through it. The issue here is a hardly justifiable shortcoming in your college's network, and one that can be easily fixed, not a failure in SPF per se.
SPF is the thing that could rid us of spam and sender-faking worms, once and for all. And it is really easy to publish an SPF record: just add a line to your Bind zone file, or what you have. HotMail and Yahoo! are supposed to be publishing SPF records by mid-year, and the only thing I don't understand is why it's taking them so long.
I've found that the best argument one can make while convincing a sysadmin to implement SPF (which I've done twice, and intend to do as often as I can) is this: this is a mechanism that allows the recipient of a message sent by one of your users to verify that it really comes from your organization. So when a spammer or a worm sends a message using your name, people around the world will be able to see that it is just a fake, and reject it, and your name will not be smeared.
Joe-jobs are probably the most annoying thing that can happen to you, with regard to email. This thing has the potential to eliminate that completely.
From their press release, it seems like the AutoZone suit is not particularly related to "SCO IP in Linux," but to some SCO libraries that AutoZone may or may not have used it improperly.
But it does not matter. Could we discuss AutoZone tomorrow, please?
This is only a distraction from a bleak quarterly report. A rather blantantly obvious diversion. And Timothy, you should know better than this. This story should have been titled "SCO losses double for Q1 2004," or something like that. You should not be helping SCO manipulate the press.
Look, I do understand your point, but I think you are missing the one that is driving mad most of us that are otherwise reasonable people.
Let me try to explain. Right now, I'm writing a piece of software that I intend to release under the GPL. It is nice software---nothing as relevant as Linux or Apache, but cool nevertheless. The reason why I'm commited to doing this, even if it consumes a substantial amount of my otherwise billable time, is because I like doing this stuff, and I'd like to see other people using my software. Maybe it will help some guy with a thight budget somewhere. Or maybe some kid will learn something of my code. It feels good to help people, and in my experience it is also a good strategy for my own benefit, in the long run. Call it "building karma", if you like (go read Lin Yutang on this topic---really insightful stuff).
And I think the guys and gals spending lots of time building Linux, or Apache, are doing it for similar reasons. I just don't see what other reason they can have. Even the big companies, like IBM, should be able to see now how this "helping people" strategy may yield substantial benefits to everyone involved. This is a non-zero sum game.
Now, along come these SCO guys. These are men that are trying to make it so that people cannot use free software unless they get paid. They are effectively trying to steal what other people gave to the world. These men have directly called free software authors plagiarists and incompetents, and by not so subtle implication, thieves and terrorists. These men have reaped great finantial gain from free software, and now are turning around stabbing in the back the very people that helped them get where they are.
You see, this is not about what is more "cost effective", or what makes more "business sense", and it is very much a big deal. I bet Mr. "Head Surfer" and his customers like their free Linux, their free Apache, and their free PHP. By paying off SCO, they gave a slap in the face of the people that wrote that software (and many more other programs that EV1 depends on, whether they realize it or not).
I don't know how much it costs to host with this company, but if I were a customer, I'd gladly pay twice anywhere else. Hell, EV1 could pay me to stay, and I wouldn't. This isn't about money at all.
XviD is an open source MPEG-4 codec you know, and should be able to squeeze that puppy down to the size of the original RA stream (or smaller) with no discernable loss in quality.;-)
Indeed I tried it. It is not as compact as Real, regrettably---the result was a stream of some 400 MB of video, if I recall correctly, or near twice the size of the RV dump (and I did space the keyframes a lot, and made as many adjustements as I knew to get better compression with reasonable picture and audio quality). In the end, the poor compression may stem from the fact that the source was not very clean, as it was being recompressed from an already very compressed format. Smaller files can be created by lowering the frame rate of reducing the picture size, but then the quality degrades much more. Real Video, for all its proprietary ugliness, seems to be amazingly effective.
The reason why I chose MPEG-1 was that it seems to me it is really the lowest possible common denominator for digital video, and the one that was most likely to be playable in absolutely all players and devices (in fact, the format used was that for VCD, so that the video could be recorded into a CD-R and played back on a standard TV through an ordinary DVD player). And I segmented the video precisely because 1GB of data is really an awfully big chunk to move around on the net.
Well, that was the idea. But hey, they published my Speex recoding of the audio (I was not aware of that until this Slashdot story reminded me to check their site), so the goal of helping them get a wider distribution of the media in a non-proprietary format was acomplished.
For those of you who appreciate the irony of an FSF speaker being recorded in a proprietary format, I should tell you I have already asked both Eben Moglen and the JOLT Harvard folks to consider distributing their talks in free formats under licenses that allow at least verbatim distribution in any medium.
I actually transcoded the full Darl lecture to MPEG-1, segmented the thing so that individual questions could be easily downloaded, and requested permission to distribute the files. It was denied, on the very reasonable terms that the copyright of the media is owned by Harvard, not JOLT, and so they could not grant anyone any right to distribute the media.
They offered to host the transcoded files, and I made them available for them, so you may be able to get them from the JOLT archive at some point in time.
However, since the full conference in MPEG-1 is over 1GB of data, and since these guys are probably busy, this may take a very long time, or probably won't happen. But for me, that's ok. I prefer that they use their time producing these wonderful webcasts at all, even if they use Real.
Man, for all of your talk about peace and love and "can't we all just get along", you leftists sure show a callous disregard for other's lives.
There you go again, claiming it's all for the good of humanity. You really believe that, don't you? Come on, listen to your fellow Anonymous Cowards in this thread: the US should not be, and is probably not, spending taxpayer dollars for the benefit of us foreigners. My opinion: your war-making efforts, including this space thing, are not about fighting "communism," are not about "terrorism," and certainly are not about "concern for others' lives."
Why is that our problem? First of all, read a frickin history book.
Well, I've been doing just that, and quoting from them. Have you? Anyway, reading books is very healthy indeed, so, is there any particular title you'd like to point me to? I'd point you to "The History of the Peloponnesian War", by Thucydides, 431 BC. You should be able to find a copy in almost any library, and there is a translation by Richard Crawley available online. It may give you some insight on this topic, and its relevance to the current situation of your country, and one possible outcome of it all, may surprise you. You may even experiment an odd deja vu feeling while reading this thing.
Secondly, do you really want to live in a world where psychos like Kim Jong Ill and Saddam Hussein have free reign to do whatever they want to however many millions of people they want to?
Of course not, don't waste rethoric on me. It's just that your "solutions" don't seem to me all that humane and effective as you seem to want me to believe.
Guess what- we've tried that solution before. The result? 6 million Jews died and we ended up getting involved in the war anyway.
Which is terribly sad, indeed. Your response, however, was killing your own millions of German and Japanese civilians, and nearly half a million of your own citizens. Now, I'm not questioning that you did what you had to do. What I'm questioning is that, far from relying on such destruction as a very last resource, once you've been hopelessly and inevitably dragged into a conflict, you are actually going all over the world to play war with all sorts of people, for the oddest reasons, sometimes even triggering wars that would not have come to be. I mean, it used to be a bit better disguised, like Nicaragua or, more recently, Venezuela. But now you're "preemptively," as your president would put it, turning countries into parking lots.
Now that is beyond stupid as a defense and peacekeeping strategy. So please don't blame us for not actually buying the story that you're doing it for the sake of humanity.
Just say that it is all for power and money, that you're busy building and keeping an empire, and be done with it. Not that that's pretty at all, but at least is believable. And a bit of honesty from your side would be quite refreshing. And read that Thucydides, too, for the history of a once glorious empire.
That's the most angry bitter rant I've seen in a while.
I know. That was not like me at all, but I just got carried off.
So pretty much what you're saying is every ill in the world is the direct or indirect fault of America and the world would be a utopia without the US around, just like it was before around the year... uhm... what year was that? It wasn't covered in my history lessons. Maybe your non-American education was superior to mine and you can tell me when this golden era was before America became a super power?
Don't be an asshole, and don't put words in my mouth. What I'm saying is that the US record as world policeman is far less than stellar, and that it really annoys me when they posture as if they were the saviors of the world. The world has never been an utopia, and will probably never be, if only because us humans seem to very much like to kick the crap out of each other, every now and then. It's probably in our nature, I don't know. But what I'm saying is that the US foreign policy has not made things better, and in many cases it has made them definitely worse. And that it may not be a bad idea for you to start minding your own business, for a change.
And to stop with the posturing, please. That holier-than-thou act is really, really tired now.
- North Korea would march right past the 38th parallel and into Seoul and hundreds of thousands of people would die in the process
That may be, but I missed the part where that is a problem where you should be involved. You lack standing to interfere in that affair. And you are welcome to say that you're picking fights with NK to "protect" South Korea citizens, but you should consider that you may be doing just the opposite, by taunting the sick fuck that rules NK to actually use his nukes. And anyway, my very personal belief is that you're doing this only because that particular sick fuck interferes with your control of Asia. Which is not the situation with other sick fucks that you seem to have no problem with, say, the ones you just gave two billion in military financing, and another half a billion in cash each year, to help them kick palestinian butt.
Hell, you'd probably love to get China, too, except for the little annoying fact that the Chinese can actually defend themselves against you (maybe even kick your ass, at that). But hey, at least you are quite good at badmouthing them.
- Pakistan and India would lob their brand new nukes at each other over Kashmir killing millions of people
As for Pakistan and India, may I remind you of your little show at East Pakistan, in early 1971? You know, the one the "Bangladesh concert" was about, the one that inspired catchy headlines such as "Bloodbath Inferno," by the Washington Post; "Pakistan, Dacca, City of the Dead," by the Times Magazine; and "Vast Destruction but No Fighting," by the New York Times. The one where the Pakistan Army, with American armament and led by U.S. trained officers, engaged in one of the bloodiest slaughters of the past century to reassert Islamabad's authority over the Bengalis. Damn ungrateful Bengalis, they should be thanking you dearly for all the "good" you've done with your "military power."
- The Muslims and Christians in south eastern europe would begin to kill each other again because there would be nobody to stop them
- Every country in the world that currently relies on the US for defense (and there are A LOT of countries that do rely on us through treaties and non-proliferation agreements) would collectivly crap a load of bricks and scramble to buy their own weapons
- Much of the world would degrade into dog-eat-dog anarchy, but this time everybody would have better technology.
You know, that kind of patronising bullshit gets really annoying after a while. Look, I'm not saying that what you say is an absolute lie, or that what I say must be held as absolute truth. But when it comes to our dear US of A as the white knight, defender of justice and democracy, well... Looking at your field record, I can't help but think that you have even less credibility than McBride ranting about his heroic defense on the "new frontier" of intellectual property.
Yeah, it's fun to watch for, ahem, inaccuracies fed by SCO to the press, and is easy to believe they are less than honest. But it's wrong to just assume they are lying, and to say so, without evidence to support it. So I apologize. Thanks for pointing that out.
It's probably just that this company infuriates me. I can't remember being so angry at a company. It has become really hard to maintain objectivity when dealing with these bozos.
Wait a minute. So the only two "SCO source" licensees are Microsoft and Sun, and there's proof in this "10Q" document (slashdotted already, but I believe you). Now Microsoft, IIRC, paid for some "IP" for their UNIX compatibility thing for NT. And we're told here that Sun bought a "'clean-up' license to cover items that were outside the scope of Sun's initial UNIX license".
"This Fortune 500 company recognizes the importance of paying for SCO's intellectual property that is found in Linux, and (they) can now run Linux in their environment under a legitimate license from SCO," Chris Sontag, head of the company's SCOsource effort to extract more revenue from its Unix intellectual property, said in a statement.
Shouldn't they had to disclose that sale too in this "10Q" filing? But it wasn't Microsoft, it wasn't Sun, and they didn't sold anything else. So what's going on here? Could it be that... oh no... that SCO... either then or now... lied?
Slashdot Mirror
Why would Woody's OpenSSL would be unsafe in production? The latest advisory for OpenSSL listed in its website is CAN-2004-0079, which was fixed in official OpenSSL release 0.9.6l on March 17 2004. Woody had that patched since February. Debian security also mentions two others, CAN-2004-0081 and CAN-2004-0975, patched later in the year.
Well, that sounds annoying. Did it happen to you? I don't remember that one. If it did, and Debian didn't backport a patch even after the bug was reported, I'd be really surprised.
Nothing to argue there. Upgrading the major Samba version would be a headache for current users (such as yours truly), so that won't happen until Sarge. If I needed that, I'd go unstable for that package (so I don't miss security patches), and watch it more closely. I have to say here, though, that Samba 2.2 has never given me any problem. I'm probably not using it like you. I do remember a reccommendation by the Samba team that Samba shouldn't be a PDC. So that's gone now? I'm a bit disconnected from that software.
Indeed it would. I can only thank $DEITY that hasn't happened to me in the years I've been running Debian. Not saying it couldn't happen, of course - it's just not my experience.
Nobody is saying "older is better". For me, stable is better, as long as security patches can be applied immediately. Debian does that. It also has an unstable branch that I can run on workstations, with reasonably (for me at least) recent software. I'd love it if Debian had a larger workforce to do packaging work, so that releases could be shortened, but I absolutely wouldn't want them to change their quality policies concerning upgrades to the stable distribution. If I have to choose between a distro with faster releases but lax policies, and Debian, I choose Debian anytime.
And no, Debian is not better because of the packaging system. The software is good (better than most, I'd say), but that's not what matters most. What's really exceptional is the organization behind that system. In other words, it's not so much how the packages get installed on the system, but how the
No, it is not a problem. There are other problems, "lack of releases" is not one (you can install a new "release" of Debian every couple of hours, if you want to - I don't).
And I don't really care about how I "look".
What are you talking about? The last systems I installed Debian on, which I think were reasonably recent, run without a hitch. That includes my current laptop (a cute Thinkpad, every bit of which runs under Debian, including sound, 3D graphics and wireless - well, don't know about the modem, have not had the chance to use yet) and a Dell server (with a SCSI disk that, admittedly, made me spend five additional minutes to configure).
Sorry, but I'm finding it hard to believe that Debian could be "too old" to run on new hardware. Not my experience at all, at the very least.
I don't know enough about the Debian internal organization to agree or disagree with that characterization, being as I am a user, not a Debian developer. I do think it is at least partially accurate: as is common among democracies, the whole debating and voting and whatnot makes for slow processes and sometimes inefficient bureaucracy. Debian is indeed huge, sluggish and somewhat amorphous.
That said, I strongly disagree with regards to your assertion that "the method failed". As a Debian user, I can't praise enough the results that this organization produces. I happen to administer way more GNU/Linux servers than I would like to, and to even think of using anything else than Debian makes me shudder. Debian makes reliable software. I want to be able to trust that installing or upgrading this or that won't break my servers. Or stuff down my throat some obnoxious license, or code by some unknown h4x0r wannabe that may or may not hid a trojan horse inside a binary. And I certainly don't want to spend hours fishing for dependencies and auditing and building software. And I want security updates as soon as holes are found, and, as much as possible, updates that don't force me to switch to a new and incompatible version of some service or tool that me or my users depend on.
Debian gives me all that.
Even more: I want to run the most recent software in my laptop. I want the latest programs and the latest kernel, and I don't really want to spend much time building that either, nor fixing the mess that immature software sometimes make.
Debian gives me that, too.
All in all, I consider the Debian process a huge success in producing a quality product.
Besides, democracies have their downsides, but all in all, I think they are the best practical social structure known by mankind so far. Or the least bad, if you prefer. Everything else seems to turn ugly and evil much faster. Linux has been doing great under Linus direction, the man is unquestionably an excellent leader. But I honestly don't know what's going to happen the day he retires. In a system like Debian, I don't really worry about that kind of thing (I don't even know who's the head honcho these days).
Well, it used to be pretty bad, I agree. I remember trying a couple of 1.x releases from Debian (potato, I think). Hated it, not so much because it was unstable, but because it was unbearably slow. I kept using FVWM (the thing to use, IMO, in a slow machine). Much later I used XFCE for some months (pretty good, I'd recommend it to anyone, particularly, again, for not-so-fast machines). Then I got a fast laptop, tried Gnome 2.2, and adopted it almost immediately.
Stability is paramount, of course---if I were having segfaults, as you say, I wouldn't be using it. But I haven't, for me at least it is quite stable. And at least in my machine it feels pretty fast. And so, all the rest being the same, here's the main reason I like it so much---actually, the only reason I use it instead of FVWM or XFCE: aesthetics. Call me shallow, but I've grown accustomed to a clean, uncluttered, and overall good looking desktop. I really like the approach the Gnome developers took over that matter (and, incidentally, I can't stand KDE for this very same reason: to me, it is just butt ugly).
Mind you, I'm not a newbie by any standard, I think, so I'm not a very good source on how easy or hard it is to use Gnome. I think it's very easy, but I may be wrong, maybe I just spend too much time on the command line to actually notice useability problems of the GUI. Also, I'm a Debian user, so I can't really speak about how easy or hard it is to build and install. For me it was "apt-get install gnome" initially, and "apt-get upgrade" from time to time. Right now I'm running "version 64" from Debian unstable, whatever that means. That's Gnome 2.8, I think. The one where they got rid of the old "file type associations" mechanism and replaced it with the current, cleaner and less obtrusive GUI. As I said, I really like the direction these guys are taking.
Yeah, I'm a C guy too. For me, that's just the icing on the cake :-)
Really. From the article: "This time, Intel is moving faster. The company will _support_ Sonoma's wireless networking with Linux within 30 days, Regis said."
I don't suppose you noticed that the word "support" is a link to ipw2100.sourceforge.net.
Of course, whatever you say, boy. I'm on my way to learn to read, so I won't make an ass of myself next time.
I see. What I don't see is how this amounts to "suck, for all intents and purposes." Pretty much all I care about is to have a working connection at the office, at my customers' wireless network, and at home. I think that's what most people needs, so I would say that the drivers work perfectly well for most intents and purposes.
Well. Not that I don't believe you, but something doesn't quite add up there. Some reference would be appreciated.
See, I just come from Intel's site, where they link to the sourceforge projects as the "development site", and state that "Intel has assigned a public maintainer who will work with the Linux community," and "support for this driver will be provided through the open source project." See for yourself. So it looks to me that your "official" driver, if there ever is such a thing, will be nothing more than a snapshot from the sf.net project, probably taken after development freezes and a couple betas are out.
Anyway, the reason I'm wasting my time continuing this conversation is to somewhat counter your unfair and unwarranted putdown of this software. That's because to me it works perfectly well, I'm very grateful that the developers, and Intel itself, went out of their way at all to make it work, and I don't want them to feel like their work is not appreciated, that all their users are pipsqueak ingrates as yourself.
My, my, aren't we a little touchy today, no? Bad day at school, kid?
Do they, really? And here I was all smug and happy with them. You know, not having any troubles at all to install and use them, and the wonderful speed and range of the thing...
Man. I never knew I needed "monitor mode" for anything. I did need to iwlist wlan0 scanning a couple of times, and it worked perfectly. But now that you mention it, it seems that ipw2100 already has this "monitor mode". Don't know about ipw2200 (the one in my laptop doesn't, I just tried, but it's already a bit old).
But... as far as I know, both ipw2x00 at sf.net were created by Intel to develop support for these cards. What other official driver would that be, that you're waiting?
Yes, there are drivers for Linux, GPL and all, but those require a binary firmware released by Intel under a more restrictive license:
That said, they work exceptionally well. On my IBM T42 (Intel PRO/Wireless 2200BG), at least, wireless is very fast, range is excellent, and it eats very little battery.
Wow. <span class="flamebait">For the first time in my life, I think I'd consider a Macintosh, if I were shopping for a new PC. You know, to use it as a real computer.</span>
No, seriously, does Emacs run with antialiased fonts, on the Mac? That's pretty much the only real annoyance in my Gnome desktop. I don't know how hard it would be for Emacs to use XFT or FreeType, but damn, that's needed. Badly.
Indeed.
Also, I understand that a bit of PHB-speak is called for if you actually are a PHB... but this is well beyond ridiculous:
"...going after new targets at the customer level..."
"...we're fine to argue the merits of what we have out there right now (in) the current litigation setting."
"...the majority of the company resources are very directly pegged to the SCO Unix business."
"We haven't gotten to the point yet, where we think that is the play we should be taking on, but it could evolve to that point, and I could see a number of reasons why that would be a good play."
"...we have new things we're working on, and are seeing an opportunity to continue to advance it in the form of upgrades."
"Primarily, as you look at the new higher end chipsets coming out on the AMD or the Intel architecture, we expect that we can add some real value in that space."
"...we expect to come out and put even more emphasis behind the future growth of the industry-leading platform that has been UnixWare."
"On the software developer side of things, I believe there's going to be a move to a develop-for-fee model, rather than develop-for-free, which is currently in vogue."
"We're going to have more details of that as we get into the fall time frame."
The "customer level?" "Very directly pegged?" The "fall time frame?" Man, it doesn't get any cheesier than this.
Well, it does matter if that omission violates section 2 (c) of the GPL. I'm not saying it does, because I have not a copy of the CD, and anyway I am not a lawyer, but from PJ's description of it, I think it is likely to be a violation.
Ah, but it does! It says so right there in the license. If you do not inform the people you distribute the software to about the rights they have, then you are violating the GPL. Then your rights over the software are revoked, and then your distribution becomes illegal, because it infringes the copyright of the authors of the software. I'd say that pretty much "changes what it is".
PJ also says that there is "a rather draconian EULA as you boot into the system that mentions absolutely nothing about the GPL anywhere and expressly forbids you from making copies of the CD." Well, if that is true (and I must say that Ms. Jones has earned a lot of trust and respect from yours truly, because of her work in her site), it feels a lot like a blatant violation of the GPL.
If that is the case, I do hope the FSF will deliver a C&D to Sun promptly. Lax enforcement of the GPL will only lead to more piratage from corporates. Not that I care much about what corporates do or do not, mind you, but I do care about Free software remaining Free, and I think that if you don't keep these people at bay, strictly, next thing you know, not only they are not contributing back but they are suing you for stealing "their" software.
Man, then I'm out of it. I mean, yes, that "principles" thing is, like, so out of style now. Time to tell my employer that I'm no longer a useful developer. Such a shame, I kinda liked this gig.
Great! With Baystar withdrawing their money, SCO was instantly bankrupt (RBC would certainly do the same, to avoid investor liability). No warning shot, no nothing, immediate bankruptcy. That would have been the worst outcome of the whole saga, for us, because then IBM, RedHat, and Novell (and perhaps Chrysler and Autozone) would not have the chance to obliterate SCO in court, clearing away the FUD around Linux in the process.
Now, if Baystar is satisfied with canning Darl and his cronies, and making the new management focus in the lawsuits, and agrees to keep SCO in life support, we stand an excellent chance of watching many wonderful things. Think of...
Naturally, I do not expect all of these to happen, I don't think we are that lucky. But, overall, I think these are great news. Go, Bay Star! Keep your money in SCO, help Microsoft screw the Linux hippies!
Given the choice, I take explaining the blowjob, any time.
As a new parent, I know I'll have to explain both eventually. Oral sex (or any kind of non-violent sex, for that matter) is quite easy to explain rationally. Some things are disgusting (shit, I remembered the goatse guy now), and there's the health issue that must be absolutely clear, but all in all it's quite harmless. I don't foresee major difficulties.
Murder, on the other hand, and any kind of violent and dishonest behaviour, are the real ugly subjects. It gives me the creeps to think that I may screw up there. I have not the slightest idea on how to convey with enough strictness, with zero room for misunderstanding or negotiability, that such things are always shameful and regrettable, very seldomly justifiable, and absolutely never cool. Even though the TV and the movies, and the goddamn kids at school, all say and show otherwise.
And I'm not saying that violence and dishonesty should be banned from the media. Mass censorship is stupid. But to portray such things as cool, or, for the love of root, as fun, that is criminal. Remember that scene from Pulp Fiction, when Travolta accidentally shoots the guy's head off? The whole theather bursted out with laughter on that one. I shuddered.
Really, I'd not particularly like it, but I'd much rather see my daughter becoming a porn star, than thief or a murderer.
Man. I feel your pain.
But maybe it would take just a couple of angry notes from the bosses, that their mail is bouncing off everywhere, to get them up their asses and do something about it. I mean, setting up a stupid relay is not precisely rocket science...
Oh, well. Keep in mind that you won't be there forever, if you can take any confort in that.
Well, it would be fairly easy for your college to setup a relay with SASL authentication, so that users can send mail through it. The issue here is a hardly justifiable shortcoming in your college's network, and one that can be easily fixed, not a failure in SPF per se.
SPF is the thing that could rid us of spam and sender-faking worms, once and for all. And it is really easy to publish an SPF record: just add a line to your Bind zone file, or what you have. HotMail and Yahoo! are supposed to be publishing SPF records by mid-year, and the only thing I don't understand is why it's taking them so long.
I've found that the best argument one can make while convincing a sysadmin to implement SPF (which I've done twice, and intend to do as often as I can) is this: this is a mechanism that allows the recipient of a message sent by one of your users to verify that it really comes from your organization. So when a spammer or a worm sends a message using your name, people around the world will be able to see that it is just a fake, and reject it, and your name will not be smeared.
Joe-jobs are probably the most annoying thing that can happen to you, with regard to email. This thing has the potential to eliminate that completely.
From their press release, it seems like the AutoZone suit is not particularly related to "SCO IP in Linux," but to some SCO libraries that AutoZone may or may not have used it improperly.
But it does not matter. Could we discuss AutoZone tomorrow, please?
This is only a distraction from a bleak quarterly report. A rather blantantly obvious diversion. And Timothy, you should know better than this. This story should have been titled "SCO losses double for Q1 2004," or something like that. You should not be helping SCO manipulate the press.
Look, I do understand your point, but I think you are missing the one that is driving mad most of us that are otherwise reasonable people.
Let me try to explain. Right now, I'm writing a piece of software that I intend to release under the GPL. It is nice software---nothing as relevant as Linux or Apache, but cool nevertheless. The reason why I'm commited to doing this, even if it consumes a substantial amount of my otherwise billable time, is because I like doing this stuff, and I'd like to see other people using my software. Maybe it will help some guy with a thight budget somewhere. Or maybe some kid will learn something of my code. It feels good to help people, and in my experience it is also a good strategy for my own benefit, in the long run. Call it "building karma", if you like (go read Lin Yutang on this topic---really insightful stuff).
And I think the guys and gals spending lots of time building Linux, or Apache, are doing it for similar reasons. I just don't see what other reason they can have. Even the big companies, like IBM, should be able to see now how this "helping people" strategy may yield substantial benefits to everyone involved. This is a non-zero sum game.
Now, along come these SCO guys. These are men that are trying to make it so that people cannot use free software unless they get paid. They are effectively trying to steal what other people gave to the world. These men have directly called free software authors plagiarists and incompetents, and by not so subtle implication, thieves and terrorists. These men have reaped great finantial gain from free software, and now are turning around stabbing in the back the very people that helped them get where they are.
You see, this is not about what is more "cost effective", or what makes more "business sense", and it is very much a big deal. I bet Mr. "Head Surfer" and his customers like their free Linux, their free Apache, and their free PHP. By paying off SCO, they gave a slap in the face of the people that wrote that software (and many more other programs that EV1 depends on, whether they realize it or not).
I don't know how much it costs to host with this company, but if I were a customer, I'd gladly pay twice anywhere else. Hell, EV1 could pay me to stay, and I wouldn't. This isn't about money at all.
Indeed I tried it. It is not as compact as Real, regrettably---the result was a stream of some 400 MB of video, if I recall correctly, or near twice the size of the RV dump (and I did space the keyframes a lot, and made as many adjustements as I knew to get better compression with reasonable picture and audio quality). In the end, the poor compression may stem from the fact that the source was not very clean, as it was being recompressed from an already very compressed format. Smaller files can be created by lowering the frame rate of reducing the picture size, but then the quality degrades much more. Real Video, for all its proprietary ugliness, seems to be amazingly effective.
The reason why I chose MPEG-1 was that it seems to me it is really the lowest possible common denominator for digital video, and the one that was most likely to be playable in absolutely all players and devices (in fact, the format used was that for VCD, so that the video could be recorded into a CD-R and played back on a standard TV through an ordinary DVD player). And I segmented the video precisely because 1GB of data is really an awfully big chunk to move around on the net.
Well, that was the idea. But hey, they published my Speex recoding of the audio (I was not aware of that until this Slashdot story reminded me to check their site), so the goal of helping them get a wider distribution of the media in a non-proprietary format was acomplished.
I actually transcoded the full Darl lecture to MPEG-1, segmented the thing so that individual questions could be easily downloaded, and requested permission to distribute the files. It was denied, on the very reasonable terms that the copyright of the media is owned by Harvard, not JOLT, and so they could not grant anyone any right to distribute the media.
They offered to host the transcoded files, and I made them available for them, so you may be able to get them from the JOLT archive at some point in time.
However, since the full conference in MPEG-1 is over 1GB of data, and since these guys are probably busy, this may take a very long time, or probably won't happen. But for me, that's ok. I prefer that they use their time producing these wonderful webcasts at all, even if they use Real.
There you go again, claiming it's all for the good of humanity. You really believe that, don't you? Come on, listen to your fellow Anonymous Cowards in this thread: the US should not be, and is probably not, spending taxpayer dollars for the benefit of us foreigners. My opinion: your war-making efforts, including this space thing, are not about fighting "communism," are not about "terrorism," and certainly are not about "concern for others' lives."
Well, I've been doing just that, and quoting from them. Have you? Anyway, reading books is very healthy indeed, so, is there any particular title you'd like to point me to? I'd point you to "The History of the Peloponnesian War", by Thucydides, 431 BC. You should be able to find a copy in almost any library, and there is a translation by Richard Crawley available online. It may give you some insight on this topic, and its relevance to the current situation of your country, and one possible outcome of it all, may surprise you. You may even experiment an odd deja vu feeling while reading this thing.
Of course not, don't waste rethoric on me. It's just that your "solutions" don't seem to me all that humane and effective as you seem to want me to believe.
Which is terribly sad, indeed. Your response, however, was killing your own millions of German and Japanese civilians, and nearly half a million of your own citizens. Now, I'm not questioning that you did what you had to do. What I'm questioning is that, far from relying on such destruction as a very last resource, once you've been hopelessly and inevitably dragged into a conflict, you are actually going all over the world to play war with all sorts of people, for the oddest reasons, sometimes even triggering wars that would not have come to be. I mean, it used to be a bit better disguised, like Nicaragua or, more recently, Venezuela. But now you're "preemptively," as your president would put it, turning countries into parking lots.
Now that is beyond stupid as a defense and peacekeeping strategy. So please don't blame us for not actually buying the story that you're doing it for the sake of humanity.
Just say that it is all for power and money, that you're busy building and keeping an empire, and be done with it. Not that that's pretty at all, but at least is believable. And a bit of honesty from your side would be quite refreshing. And read that Thucydides, too, for the history of a once glorious empire.
I know. That was not like me at all, but I just got carried off.
Don't be an asshole, and don't put words in my mouth. What I'm saying is that the US record as world policeman is far less than stellar, and that it really annoys me when they posture as if they were the saviors of the world. The world has never been an utopia, and will probably never be, if only because us humans seem to very much like to kick the crap out of each other, every now and then. It's probably in our nature, I don't know. But what I'm saying is that the US foreign policy has not made things better, and in many cases it has made them definitely worse. And that it may not be a bad idea for you to start minding your own business, for a change.
And to stop with the posturing, please. That holier-than-thou act is really, really tired now.
That may be, but I missed the part where that is a problem where you should be involved. You lack standing to interfere in that affair. And you are welcome to say that you're picking fights with NK to "protect" South Korea citizens, but you should consider that you may be doing just the opposite, by taunting the sick fuck that rules NK to actually use his nukes. And anyway, my very personal belief is that you're doing this only because that particular sick fuck interferes with your control of Asia. Which is not the situation with other sick fucks that you seem to have no problem with, say, the ones you just gave two billion in military financing, and another half a billion in cash each year, to help them kick palestinian butt.
Hell, you'd probably love to get China, too, except for the little annoying fact that the Chinese can actually defend themselves against you (maybe even kick your ass, at that). But hey, at least you are quite good at badmouthing them.
As for Pakistan and India, may I remind you of your little show at East Pakistan, in early 1971? You know, the one the "Bangladesh concert" was about, the one that inspired catchy headlines such as "Bloodbath Inferno," by the Washington Post; "Pakistan, Dacca, City of the Dead," by the Times Magazine; and "Vast Destruction but No Fighting," by the New York Times. The one where the Pakistan Army, with American armament and led by U.S. trained officers, engaged in one of the bloodiest slaughters of the past century to reassert Islamabad's authority over the Bengalis. Damn ungrateful Bengalis, they should be thanking you dearly for all the "good" you've done with your "military power."
You know, that kind of patronising bullshit gets really annoying after a while. Look, I'm not saying that what you say is an absolute lie, or that what I say must be held as absolute truth. But when it comes to our dear US of A as the white knight, defender of justice and democracy, well... Looking at your field record, I can't help but think that you have even less credibility than McBride ranting about his heroic defense on the "new frontier" of intellectual property.
I see.
Yeah, it's fun to watch for, ahem, inaccuracies fed by SCO to the press, and is easy to believe they are less than honest. But it's wrong to just assume they are lying, and to say so, without evidence to support it. So I apologize. Thanks for pointing that out.
It's probably just that this company infuriates me. I can't remember being so angry at a company. It has become really hard to maintain objectivity when dealing with these bozos.
Wait a minute. So the only two "SCO source" licensees are Microsoft and Sun, and there's proof in this "10Q" document (slashdotted already, but I believe you). Now Microsoft, IIRC, paid for some "IP" for their UNIX compatibility thing for NT. And we're told here that Sun bought a "'clean-up' license to cover items that were outside the scope of Sun's initial UNIX license".
Well that's all nice and good, except that neither of those licenses seem to be Linux-related, and I vividly recall Sontag bragging about how they actually sold a Linux license to some mystery "Fortune 500 company":
Shouldn't they had to disclose that sale too in this "10Q" filing? But it wasn't Microsoft, it wasn't Sun, and they didn't sold anything else. So what's going on here? Could it be that... oh no... that SCO... either then or now... lied?