"No amount of technology will make a bad story into a good one." I recall reading that this principle was set in stone (literally) at Pixar's headquarters.
Disney (and DreamWorks, for that matter) has forgotten that gee-whiz 3D rendering doesn't automatically translate into a great movie. They like to blame the failure of their 2D features on hand-drawn animation being passe, but they're just kidding themselves. The movies tanked because the stories sucked - due to lack of quality voice acting, direction, or bad writing.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of this move, because Apple loses some cachet as the "Think Different" platform. However, there are a number of pros and cons to such a move:
In favor: - A couple of years ago, I read a report that Apple engineers maintained a current build of OSX on Intel hardware. I forget if this was as a clandestine endeavor or at Jobs' behest because he likes to keep his options open. - Steve Jobs likes to make bold moves when it suits his purposes (e.g., switching from Disney to player-to-be-named-later for Pixar films, turning NeXT from a hardware/software company to a pure software company right before they were set to release their M88k-based hardware). - Apple lost some face with the G5 rollout, when they claimed it would be the fastest PC on the market and then a bunch of bloggers went and proved otherwise. - Apple needs greater CPU diversity in its product line, from Mac Minis to Mac servers. Diversification wouldn't be in IBM's best intersts as a supplier, because it force them into a producing lower volumes of more different chips. Economies of scale don't favor that. - OS X on generic PCs??
Not in favor: - Causes Apple to lose some credibility among the anti-Wintel crowd by embracing one half of that union. - Resentment among customers that just bought Apple hardware that will likely not be supported by new software in the future, unless Apple has a NeXTSTEP-style fat binaries support planned. - If Apple moves to Intel, that opens up the possibility of customers dumping OSX for Windows on their Macs. - Forces Apple to support two CPU architectures until the end-of-support on G4/G5-based Macs. - Seems to be pushing against direction of industry, with IBM providing the core Cell processor technology for all 3 next-generation console systems. A better move would have been to Cell technology.
That's one of the problems the GPL is designed to prevent. By forcing everything into the commons, the license can guarantee the rights of authors of derivative works.
Not at all. Patents protect inventions, are a negative right, granted by Congress under the same power as copyrights, and are relatively limited. Just as copyrights protect works, regardless of the medium in which they're fixed, patents protect inventions, regardless of where they're practiced. They are more similar to one another than either is to anything else.
Copyrights and patent may be similar to each other in the sense that you describe, but they are necessarily dissimilar in what they cover. Further, I'm speaking to how they're practiced. Patents are generally broader in practice. The copyright analog to the patent land grab would be finding all the permutations of notes and copyrighting them so that anyone seeking to use them would need a license.
The small companies of the world are supposed to be protected by patents,...
The other side of the coin is that the large companies of the world file broad patents and cross-license them with other large companies. The effect is such that a small business is unlikely to be able to produce a product without getting stuck in the patent web. The patent system has ironically created a barrier to the progress it was designed to create - unless that progress is made by large companies.
If you have a good case, then it's not particularly difficult to get a lawyer to work on contingency, if you can't pay his regular fees.
That's only when the infrigement has been found. Most rightsholders don't have the means to investigate infringement. Google may be an aid to finding some infringement, but it's by no means complete.
Patents are an entirely different breed of animal. The only thing they have in common with copyrights is that they are grouped under the "intellectual property" umbrella. A copyright protects a specific work. A patent protects whole classes of works and (improperly) "protects" ideas rather than inventions.
Also, I wouldn't say the patent system has worked fine. Lately it's been counterproductive, even in the world of material goods. The small companies of the world are supposed to be protected by patents, but companies like Wal-Mart have so many lawyers that they look for the loophole in the patent to produce a product that is close enough to the original to subvert it, without having to pay for patent licenses.
The system is generous to rightsholders with the resources to defend themselves. For rightsholders without resources, it's like telling someone on welfare to go buy an ADT security system.
They're giving a clear message here: "if you threaten the linux kernel, you may have to deal with us".
Yes, but unless their pledge is extended to all GPL'd software, it's useless. The GPL doesn't allow a work to be subject to a patent encumberance such that someone seeking to create a derivative work would have to ask Nokia (or other patent holders) for permission to release it.
Because GPL software cannot benefit from the patent pledge unless it covers all GPL software. The license does not allow for software to be subject to separate licenses. If I were to fork Linux, I should not have to ask Nokia if it's okay with them for me to publish my work.
There's no point to a copyright regime without teeth. If the burden of enforcement falls solely on the copyright holder, then there's no point to having copyright in the first place - it is easy to operate under the radar. If there's no point in having copyrights, then we have a problem with the constitutionally-guaranteed monopolies for a limited time for the purpose of advancing the arts.
If we're going to have copyrights, then it needs to be done in an enforceable way. Leaving it to the realm of civil law is not enough...unless you're okay with copyright developing tools to scour the net for infringing content in an ever-more-invasive way. You can't expect copyright holders to investigate infringement themselves and abide by the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure.
Onto the second half of the original point. The FBI already has a charge to police copyrights. It is the FBI that polices software and music/film piracy in the physical world. How do you distinguish the difference in policy between physical production/distribution and virtual production/distribution? You can't create a philosophically clean line between the two. The point to it being in criminal law is to serve as a deterrent - jail time means a lot more to some people than a legal judgement, which in most cases is like trying to squeeze blood from a turnip.
Not a big jump at all. Giving copyright holders leave to be the sole means of enforcing copyrights means they'll take it as leave to prevent copyright infringement rather than having to react to it by filing civil suits. It's not a problem that can be solved by saying "let them sue".
You failed to see the difference. One is a case of voluntarily putting a lock on the door. The copyright holders can decide to only offer their content when there's a "lock on the door". That's their right. The other is a case of mandating that a lock be put on the door and that it meet certain specifications.
Do you really want the copyright holders deciding how to police infringement? Do you want them having the authority to legally use tools that can disable P2P networks or your PC? I stopped using P2P networks (except for BitTorrent for Linux distro downloads) because the RIAA and MPAA are policing the networks. Although I don't download unauthorized content, I have neither the time nor the money to defend myself from wrongful prosecution by overzealous copyright holders if their tools were to get something wrong.
It is not Congress's job to produce legislation with the express aim of protecting the MPAA member companies' business models. It is their job to produce legislation that protects their copyrights.
Personally, I think prevention is not the way to go here, because it presumes that all consumers are thieves. It would be far better from a "YRO" point of view to equip law enforcement with better tools to find those who are violating copyrights. They're choosing the easier way out, because it's easier to try to block distribution than it is to police it.
McVoy just rehashed the same tired argument that has been used against open source all along. Just because the speaker changed doesn't make it any less of a paranoid FUD fantasy.
For Mozilla to wait to release security updates would increase the amount of time it takes to deliver security fixes. Mozilla's advantage is that it doesn't wait to deliver updates, so security holes can be filled quickly, unlike the competition.
On one of those 80s shows (That's Incredible or Real People) they ran a story about a family that made an exer-bike powered TV. The pedals generated the power to keep it running.
The fact of the matter is that there are certain of Sun's terms that don't suit the business model or philosophy of other parties. Harmony will provide a way to provide a version of Java that is compatible with those interests.
I'm a power user that doesn't need support for my operating system, so there's no reason to buy the boxed versions other than to provide financial support to the vendor or to acquire software the distribution is prohibited from providing for free download due to licensing restrictions -- like Java. It doesn't make sense to pay to get something free.
Kaffe and GCJ don't cut it because they are not completely compatible to the spec and their performance is woeful compared to Sun's JVM, let alone JRockit or J9. This will provide a version of Java that distro vendors and others can bundle with their products on terms compatible with their licenses, business models, or other philosophical beliefs.
He points out that the story was removed, not because it was unethical, intrusive, and mean-spirited, but because SYS-CON was subjected to DOS attacks. Whoever did those DOS attacks, SHAME ON YOU! Most of the world that doesn't read this interview will think the publisher pulled the articles for the right reasons (the reasons mentioned above and the fact that the article has nothing to do with Linux).
In my opinion, until this guy recants the idiocy he spews in this article (or leaves the company), Sys-Con should continue to be boycotted.
First, look at the freaking date before submitting something as "News". The PDF is dated May 5, 2004 (not 2005).
Here are some observations:
- The Windows version tested was 2k3 pre-release. To be fair, VeriTest should have tested RHEL 3 and RHL 9. Otherwise, it should have tested against Windows 2k server.
- The IIS version tested was 6.0. To be fair, VeriTest should have tested with the current Apache releases at the time (1.3.29 and 2.0.48/9) and the current Tux release included in RHEL 3.
Other notes:
- The Linux kernel rev for RHEL 2.1 is 2.4.9-e3. IBM benchmarked web serving performance for 2.6 vs. 2.4 and the results are huge performance gains by using a 2.6 kernel.
- The filesystem used was ext3. ReiserFS is a faster filesystem for filesystem, although it uses more CPU.
- There was minimal performance tuning to Linux or Apache. TUX was performance tuned. The testers attempted to reverse-engineer settings for Apache.
Bottom line: This survey isn't much better than the Mindcraft survey done several years ago. It didn't tune Linux at all, and received tuning help and funding from Microsoft.
Sun's new development approach is to roll out less disruptive changes more quickly. This means it will be easy to stay close to the current technology.
As far as rolling out 6.0 immediately, that may work in the hobbyist world -- it doesn't work in the business world. There would have to be significant performance or developer productivity enhancements to make it worth the investment of revalidating applications on the new VM.
It will not relieve them of Sarbanes-Oxley requirements if they are a government contractor. Private companies that are contractors are bound by SOX requirements.
I suppose it's possible they don't have any government contracts, but I'd be surprised if that were the case.
Slashdot Mirror
"No amount of technology will make a bad story into a good one." I recall reading that this principle was set in stone (literally) at Pixar's headquarters.
Disney (and DreamWorks, for that matter) has forgotten that gee-whiz 3D rendering doesn't automatically translate into a great movie. They like to blame the failure of their 2D features on hand-drawn animation being passe, but they're just kidding themselves. The movies tanked because the stories sucked - due to lack of quality voice acting, direction, or bad writing.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of this move, because Apple loses some cachet as the "Think Different" platform. However, there are a number of pros and cons to such a move:
In favor:
- A couple of years ago, I read a report that Apple engineers maintained a current build of OSX on Intel hardware. I forget if this was as a clandestine endeavor or at Jobs' behest because he likes to keep his options open.
- Steve Jobs likes to make bold moves when it suits his purposes (e.g., switching from Disney to player-to-be-named-later for Pixar films, turning NeXT from a hardware/software company to a pure software company right before they were set to release their M88k-based hardware).
- Apple lost some face with the G5 rollout, when they claimed it would be the fastest PC on the market and then a bunch of bloggers went and proved otherwise.
- Apple needs greater CPU diversity in its product line, from Mac Minis to Mac servers. Diversification wouldn't be in IBM's best intersts as a supplier, because it force them into a producing lower volumes of more different chips. Economies of scale don't favor that.
- OS X on generic PCs??
Not in favor:
- Causes Apple to lose some credibility among the anti-Wintel crowd by embracing one half of that union.
- Resentment among customers that just bought Apple hardware that will likely not be supported by new software in the future, unless Apple has a NeXTSTEP-style fat binaries support planned.
- If Apple moves to Intel, that opens up the possibility of customers dumping OSX for Windows on their Macs.
- Forces Apple to support two CPU architectures until the end-of-support on G4/G5-based Macs.
- Seems to be pushing against direction of industry, with IBM providing the core Cell processor technology for all 3 next-generation console systems. A better move would have been to Cell technology.
That's one of the problems the GPL is designed to prevent. By forcing everything into the commons, the license can guarantee the rights of authors of derivative works.
Not at all. Patents protect inventions, are a negative right, granted by Congress under the same power as copyrights, and are relatively limited. Just as copyrights protect works, regardless of the medium in which they're fixed, patents protect inventions, regardless of where they're practiced. They are more similar to one another than either is to anything else.
Copyrights and patent may be similar to each other in the sense that you describe, but they are necessarily dissimilar in what they cover. Further, I'm speaking to how they're practiced. Patents are generally broader in practice. The copyright analog to the patent land grab would be finding all the permutations of notes and copyrighting them so that anyone seeking to use them would need a license.
The small companies of the world are supposed to be protected by patents, ...
The other side of the coin is that the large companies of the world file broad patents and cross-license them with other large companies. The effect is such that a small business is unlikely to be able to produce a product without getting stuck in the patent web. The patent system has ironically created a barrier to the progress it was designed to create - unless that progress is made by large companies.
If you have a good case, then it's not particularly difficult to get a lawyer to work on contingency, if you can't pay his regular fees.
That's only when the infrigement has been found. Most rightsholders don't have the means to investigate infringement. Google may be an aid to finding some infringement, but it's by no means complete.
Patents are an entirely different breed of animal. The only thing they have in common with copyrights is that they are grouped under the "intellectual property" umbrella. A copyright protects a specific work. A patent protects whole classes of works and (improperly) "protects" ideas rather than inventions.
Also, I wouldn't say the patent system has worked fine. Lately it's been counterproductive, even in the world of material goods. The small companies of the world are supposed to be protected by patents, but companies like Wal-Mart have so many lawyers that they look for the loophole in the patent to produce a product that is close enough to the original to subvert it, without having to pay for patent licenses.
The system is generous to rightsholders with the resources to defend themselves. For rightsholders without resources, it's like telling someone on welfare to go buy an ADT security system.
They're giving a clear message here: "if you threaten the linux kernel, you may have to deal with us".
Yes, but unless their pledge is extended to all GPL'd software, it's useless. The GPL doesn't allow a work to be subject to a patent encumberance such that someone seeking to create a derivative work would have to ask Nokia (or other patent holders) for permission to release it.
Because GPL software cannot benefit from the patent pledge unless it covers all GPL software. The license does not allow for software to be subject to separate licenses. If I were to fork Linux, I should not have to ask Nokia if it's okay with them for me to publish my work.
There's no point to a copyright regime without teeth. If the burden of enforcement falls solely on the copyright holder, then there's no point to having copyright in the first place - it is easy to operate under the radar. If there's no point in having copyrights, then we have a problem with the constitutionally-guaranteed monopolies for a limited time for the purpose of advancing the arts.
If we're going to have copyrights, then it needs to be done in an enforceable way. Leaving it to the realm of civil law is not enough...unless you're okay with copyright developing tools to scour the net for infringing content in an ever-more-invasive way. You can't expect copyright holders to investigate infringement themselves and abide by the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure.
Onto the second half of the original point. The FBI already has a charge to police copyrights. It is the FBI that polices software and music/film piracy in the physical world. How do you distinguish the difference in policy between physical production/distribution and virtual production/distribution? You can't create a philosophically clean line between the two. The point to it being in criminal law is to serve as a deterrent - jail time means a lot more to some people than a legal judgement, which in most cases is like trying to squeeze blood from a turnip.
Which goes back to my original point of Congress not protecting business models, but by producing legislation that protects copyrights. Thank you.
Not a big jump at all. Giving copyright holders leave to be the sole means of enforcing copyrights means they'll take it as leave to prevent copyright infringement rather than having to react to it by filing civil suits. It's not a problem that can be solved by saying "let them sue".
You failed to see the difference. One is a case of voluntarily putting a lock on the door. The copyright holders can decide to only offer their content when there's a "lock on the door". That's their right. The other is a case of mandating that a lock be put on the door and that it meet certain specifications.
Do you really want the copyright holders deciding how to police infringement? Do you want them having the authority to legally use tools that can disable P2P networks or your PC? I stopped using P2P networks (except for BitTorrent for Linux distro downloads) because the RIAA and MPAA are policing the networks. Although I don't download unauthorized content, I have neither the time nor the money to defend myself from wrongful prosecution by overzealous copyright holders if their tools were to get something wrong.
Don't put words into my mouth. I didn't say "policing copyright infringement". I said "protect[ing] copyrights". There's a difference.
It is not Congress's job to produce legislation with the express aim of protecting the MPAA member companies' business models. It is their job to produce legislation that protects their copyrights.
Personally, I think prevention is not the way to go here, because it presumes that all consumers are thieves. It would be far better from a "YRO" point of view to equip law enforcement with better tools to find those who are violating copyrights. They're choosing the easier way out, because it's easier to try to block distribution than it is to police it.
McVoy just rehashed the same tired argument that has been used against open source all along. Just because the speaker changed doesn't make it any less of a paranoid FUD fantasy.
For Mozilla to wait to release security updates would increase the amount of time it takes to deliver security fixes. Mozilla's advantage is that it doesn't wait to deliver updates, so security holes can be filled quickly, unlike the competition.
BitTorrent doesn't commit "IP" theft. It is a tool. If we ban all tools that can be used for something illegal, then everything must be banned.
On one of those 80s shows (That's Incredible or Real People) they ran a story about a family that made an exer-bike powered TV. The pedals generated the power to keep it running.
The fact of the matter is that there are certain of Sun's terms that don't suit the business model or philosophy of other parties. Harmony will provide a way to provide a version of Java that is compatible with those interests.
I'm a power user that doesn't need support for my operating system, so there's no reason to buy the boxed versions other than to provide financial support to the vendor or to acquire software the distribution is prohibited from providing for free download due to licensing restrictions -- like Java. It doesn't make sense to pay to get something free.
Kaffe and GCJ don't cut it because they are not completely compatible to the spec and their performance is woeful compared to Sun's JVM, let alone JRockit or J9. This will provide a version of Java that distro vendors and others can bundle with their products on terms compatible with their licenses, business models, or other philosophical beliefs.
He points out that the story was removed, not because it was unethical, intrusive, and mean-spirited, but because SYS-CON was subjected to DOS attacks. Whoever did those DOS attacks, SHAME ON YOU! Most of the world that doesn't read this interview will think the publisher pulled the articles for the right reasons (the reasons mentioned above and the fact that the article has nothing to do with Linux).
In my opinion, until this guy recants the idiocy he spews in this article (or leaves the company), Sys-Con should continue to be boycotted.
First, look at the freaking date before submitting something as "News". The PDF is dated May 5, 2004 (not 2005).
Here are some observations:
- The Windows version tested was 2k3 pre-release. To be fair, VeriTest should have tested RHEL 3 and RHL 9. Otherwise, it should have tested against Windows 2k server.
- The IIS version tested was 6.0. To be fair, VeriTest should have tested with the current Apache releases at the time (1.3.29 and 2.0.48/9) and the current Tux release included in RHEL 3.
Other notes:
- The Linux kernel rev for RHEL 2.1 is 2.4.9-e3. IBM benchmarked web serving performance for 2.6 vs. 2.4 and the results are huge performance gains by using a 2.6 kernel.
- The filesystem used was ext3. ReiserFS is a faster filesystem for filesystem, although it uses more CPU.
- There was minimal performance tuning to Linux or Apache. TUX was performance tuned. The testers attempted to reverse-engineer settings for Apache.
Bottom line: This survey isn't much better than the Mindcraft survey done several years ago. It didn't tune Linux at all, and received tuning help and funding from Microsoft.
Sun's new development approach is to roll out less disruptive changes more quickly. This means it will be easy to stay close to the current technology.
As far as rolling out 6.0 immediately, that may work in the hobbyist world -- it doesn't work in the business world. There would have to be significant performance or developer productivity enhancements to make it worth the investment of revalidating applications on the new VM.
they sign them into law. Legislatures pass bills.
It will not relieve them of Sarbanes-Oxley requirements if they are a government contractor. Private companies that are contractors are bound by SOX requirements.
I suppose it's possible they don't have any government contracts, but I'd be surprised if that were the case.