Actually back then the bow and arrow was a superior weapon compared to the musket. A commanche could shoot and hit 10 settlers before a settler could reload their musket and shoot one commanche. It wasn't until the invention of the six shooter that the bow and arrow went the way of the do-do.
Actually I don't believe that 100% pay is conpensation enough. Usually when one leaves a job (A) for another job (B), there is a monatery increase of 10%-15%. Otherwise, why would you leave? I think it would be better to ask for 115% of your pay for a non-compete. Esp. a blanket non-compete. I think that the bottom line is, don't try handling this yourself! Get an Lawyer, that specializes in this area! Otherwise, you *will* get screwed.
I also agree. If he didn't want people basing a product off of his work he should not have made it available in the first place. At least, he could have made it, very clear that the term SSH was not to be used in any derivative products. If he had done that in the first place, I don't think that OpenSSH would have used the name OpenSSH. In any case, I think that the SSH trademark is questionable.
The debate between OpenSSH and SSH somewhat reminds me of the Debate between Guiness and GuinessSucks . . . except that OpenSSH is offering something and the XXXSucks were just complaining about XXX. My point is, if you don't confuse GuinessSucks with Guiness, why would you confuse OpenSSH with SSH?
I do believe that the guy has a right to defend his trademark. So my advice to him is defend it, so the courts can throw it out. If he happens to win, then OpenSSH can Change it's name to OpenShell or something. Until then, I don't really think that he can trademark SSH because just like RSH and the others it's a standard acronym.
SSH - secure shell
RSH - remote shell
SH - shell
BASH - Bourne Again Shell
KSH - Korn Shell
etc... but he probably has the right to try.
One interesting thing to note, who does he sue in this case, the developers? Anyone who distributs OpenSSH?
I've been a contractor now for the last 9 months. I used web sites like www.dice.com and www.monster.com. From there, the recruiters took over and got me the job interviews for those contracts that I was interested in doing. As with most jobs, the most important parts are the resume and the interview (course it helps if you actually have programming skills too). In essence, you have to be able to sell yourself and you abilities. Having done past projects is always a good thing as it gives you something to focus on and talk about with an employer.
As far as telecommuting goes, I haven't done that yet, but I have been someplaces that allow you to telecommute a few days out of the week. Just build up a resume, post it, and wait for the phone calls . . . I've also heard about a new place called www.justunixjobs.com which seems interesting . . .
This site is helpful as well: http://www.cehandbook.com/
Actually you can solve the leap year problem by making every fourth year a two day new years . . . Hell that's what we do in Feburary now anyways is add a day. And since new years is the only day without a weekday association, the weekdays still doesn't change. I like it, every four years we throw one hellva party!
Actually, I don't think that said "tool" would be legal. It is true that this tool will allow the owner to recover the contents of their own document. But, in order for this tool to do it's job it must reverse engineer the document format and any protections that format may contain. The tool then has the ability to obtain information from document's to which you don't own the copyright; hence, by the DMCA this tool IS A circumvention tool and is therefore illegal. It is in the same situation as the DeCSS tool. By itself, DeCSS is not a pirate tool, but it can be used as a pirate tool. I could make my own DVD movies and encode them with the MPAA's format so that others could see my movie. I would then own the copyright to my own movie and should be able to recover it from my own DVD (say in case my masters were destroyed). However, I can't recover my original content because the tool that would allow me to do this is illegal. The tool is illegal because the tool can also recover content from others without their permission. From what I can see DeCSS is not about what the tool actually does but what it is capable of doing. If a tool, makes it possible to circumvent the copyright of others (whether it is used as such is irrelevant), then it is illegal by the DMCA.
His comment is indeed insightful. And I can see that one could create content that you own, but can't access or use because your access was taken away. This may be a good example of why the DMCA should not be allowed to exist. It could create a situation where software users are at the mercy of their tools.
I think they should put two ethernet ports and a small harddrive on it and go into the low end firewall market. I think that there are plenty of users and/or small businesses who would rather have a small and lean (in both senses of the words) machine than an old pentium with a huge 15" monitor. I could see someone paying 500-700 for that kind of machine easy. I think that someone might pay a 1000 or more but that would limit the customers.
Gee, Maybe they should sell different models at different prices that target different consumers. They could put some RCA connectors and a small harddrive (and a power adapter) for those who want an inboard mp3 player for their car.
There are many many possibilities. All they need to do is listen and *ACT* on a few of the ideas.
It is an attack on Open Source Software. The atricle leads the 'average' reader to conclude the following:
1. Source code is available for Linux and Solaris. (this is true)
2.Rogue programmers can add malitious code to the codebase of these OS's because 1. is true. (this is also true)
3. Because of 1. & 2. being true, Malitious Code is in the OS's that are currently being used on the net. (this is blatently false).
They make this claim (3) without any facts to back it up in an attempt to promote their web site and their product Network Associates' CyberCop. The truth of the matter is that companies like Red Hat, SUSE, and Caldera and organizations like the FSF all check their code to make sure it is reliable and free of such things (refer to 3).
I think it is important that we get a letter of complaint (signed by members of the open source community) sent to Network Associates ((A tactful one)) stating that they should have facts NOT CONJECTURE before they release such highly incorrect statements in public. We (The Open Source Community) should not tolerate this type of behavior. FUD has gone on too long. It is time that we make it clear to companies that the Open Source Community will be holding them responsible for what they say. It may not have a short term effect, but I believe it will have a long term effect. It is also important to get these to the media somehow. I know that what I am saying is easier said than done but without the first step the goal is always out of reach.
Slashdot Mirror
Projected: The look on George Lucas's face as thousands of angry fans give in to the darkside
Priceless
Actually back then the bow and arrow was a superior weapon compared to the musket. A commanche could shoot and hit 10 settlers before a settler could reload their musket and shoot one commanche. It wasn't until the invention of the six shooter that the bow and arrow went the way of the do-do.
Actually I don't believe that 100% pay is conpensation enough. Usually when one leaves a job (A) for another job (B), there is a monatery increase of 10%-15%. Otherwise, why would you leave? I think it would be better to ask for 115% of your pay for a non-compete. Esp. a blanket non-compete. I think that the bottom line is, don't try handling this yourself! Get an Lawyer, that specializes in this area! Otherwise, you *will* get screwed.
Juan
I also agree. If he didn't want people basing a product off of his work he should not have made it available in the first place. At least, he could have made it, very clear that the term SSH was not to be used in any derivative products. If he had done that in the first place, I don't think that OpenSSH would have used the name OpenSSH. In any case, I think that the SSH trademark is questionable.
The debate between OpenSSH and SSH somewhat reminds me of the Debate between Guiness and GuinessSucks . . . except that OpenSSH is offering something and the XXXSucks were just complaining about XXX. My point is, if you don't confuse GuinessSucks with Guiness, why would you confuse OpenSSH with SSH?
I do believe that the guy has a right to defend his trademark. So my advice to him is defend it, so the courts can throw it out. If he happens to win, then OpenSSH can Change it's name to OpenShell or something. Until then, I don't really think that he can trademark SSH because just like RSH and the others it's a standard acronym.
SSH - secure shell
RSH - remote shell
SH - shell
BASH - Bourne Again Shell
KSH - Korn Shell
etc... but he probably has the right to try.
One interesting thing to note, who does he sue in this case, the developers? Anyone who distributs OpenSSH?
I've been a contractor now for the last 9 months. I used web sites like www.dice.com and www.monster.com. From there, the recruiters took over and got me the job interviews for those contracts that I was interested in doing. As with most jobs, the most important parts are the resume and the interview (course it helps if you actually have programming skills too). In essence, you have to be able to sell yourself and you abilities. Having done past projects is always a good thing as it gives you something to focus on and talk about with an employer.
As far as telecommuting goes, I haven't done that yet, but I have been someplaces that allow you to telecommute a few days out of the week. Just build up a resume, post it, and wait for the phone calls . . . I've also heard about a new place called www.justunixjobs.com which seems interesting . . .
This site is helpful as well: http://www.cehandbook.com/
Actually you can solve the leap year problem by making every fourth year a two day new years . . . Hell that's what we do in Feburary now anyways is add a day. And since new years is the only day without a weekday association, the weekdays still doesn't change. I like it, every four years we throw one hellva party!
Actually, I don't think that said "tool" would be legal. It is true that this tool will allow the owner to recover the contents of their own document. But, in order for this tool to do it's job it must reverse engineer the document format and any protections that format may contain. The tool then has the ability to obtain information from document's to which you don't own the copyright; hence, by the DMCA this tool IS A circumvention tool and is therefore illegal. It is in the same situation as the DeCSS tool. By itself, DeCSS is not a pirate tool, but it can be used as a pirate tool. I could make my own DVD movies and encode them with the MPAA's format so that others could see my movie. I would then own the copyright to my own movie and should be able to recover it from my own DVD (say in case my masters were destroyed). However, I can't recover my original content because the tool that would allow me to do this is illegal. The tool is illegal because the tool can also recover content from others without their permission. From what I can see DeCSS is not about what the tool actually does but what it is capable of doing. If a tool, makes it possible to circumvent the copyright of others (whether it is used as such is irrelevant), then it is illegal by the DMCA.
His comment is indeed insightful. And I can see that one could create content that you own, but can't access or use because your access was taken away. This may be a good example of why the DMCA should not be allowed to exist. It could create a situation where software users are at the mercy of their tools.
I wonder if this constitutes cruel and unusual punishment?
I think they should put two ethernet ports and a small harddrive on it and go into the low end firewall market. I think that there are plenty of users and/or small businesses who would rather have a small and lean (in both senses of the words) machine than an old pentium with a huge 15" monitor. I could see someone paying 500-700 for that kind of machine easy. I think that someone might pay a 1000 or more but that would limit the customers.
Gee, Maybe they should sell different models at different prices that target different consumers.
They could put some RCA connectors and a small harddrive (and a power adapter) for those who want an inboard mp3 player for their car.
There are many many possibilities. All they need to do is listen and *ACT* on a few of the ideas.
It is an attack on Open Source Software. The atricle leads the 'average' reader to conclude the following:
1. Source code is available for Linux and Solaris.
(this is true)
2.Rogue programmers can add malitious code to the codebase of these OS's because 1. is true.
(this is also true)
3. Because of 1. & 2. being true, Malitious Code is in the OS's that are currently being used on the net. (this is blatently false).
They make this claim (3) without any facts to back it up in an attempt to promote their web site and their product Network Associates' CyberCop. The truth of the matter is that companies like Red Hat, SUSE, and Caldera and organizations like the FSF all check their code to make sure it is reliable and free of such things (refer to 3).
I think it is important that we get a letter of complaint (signed by members of the open source community) sent to Network Associates ((A tactful one)) stating that they should have facts NOT CONJECTURE before they release such highly incorrect statements in public. We (The Open Source Community) should not tolerate this type of behavior. FUD has gone on too long. It is time that we make it clear to companies that the Open Source Community will be holding them responsible for what they say. It may not have a short term effect, but I believe it will have a long term effect. It is also important to get these to the media somehow. I know that what I am saying is easier said than done but without the first step the goal is always out of reach.