I think they're blithering about the mechanics of getting two axes to move simultaneously to cut smooth shapes precisely without jitter or stepping.
e.g. would you move your tool bed to cut a 30 degree angle, or would you tell your machine to cut a 30 degree angle? What if it were a curve? Would the result be smooth, or stepped?
Yeah, that's a pet peeve. TCP/IP has nothing to do with OSI, but Cisco and other stupid certification mills would have you believe otherwise. There are many similarities, but there are just enough differences to cause serious confusion over the technical details.
Drop a line to Linus and ask him if it is real. There's some kind of stipulation regarding fair use of a trademark, e.g. to reference the product's name in your documentation.
The trademark, as I understand it, should only cover conducting trade under the mark "Linux"
This is very close to what Redhat is doing. You can't use "Redhat" unless you've paid. Then you use "Fedora"... and then to confuse things a bit, they add some copyrighted materials to Redhat which are not Open Source so, I suppose for legitimate reasons, you can't start describing "Fedora" as "Redhat"
I'd be surprised and disturbed if this were true. O.k., I'm already disturbed, but I'd be more disturbed.
$5k to use a trademark is peanuts for the people who have the money to abuse it, and has nothing to do with protecting the Linux name. Cease and Desist letters to companies using Linux in unblessed or dangerous products seems more and appropriate (e.g. maybe revoking the trademark for kernel forks or kernels with unacknowledged and unblessed patches)
Now if other countries started detaining U.S. citizens without trial maybe the U.S. would consider a convention regarding rights of non-citizens before ports of entry.
Hey!
Does this mean it is legal for joe public to slash tires, rob people, beat them (to the limits of "gross" physical abuse) and commit other such activities before ports of entry?
If they cared about it happening only to them, I'm sure they'd restrict searches on themselves or block all the Cnet machines. Instead they simply said that they will not speak to Cnet.
In the same vein as "...capabilities of his search engine AND the probable reaction of most folks...", you could extend that to include the reprecussions of using Google to victimize important contacts.
It's a reasonable response to a publication discrediting themselves by writing a stupid article.
I do agree with you that describing CNet's actions as "unconsionable" is overkill. "Lowbrow" might be a better term.
...and after the precedent is set, everyone with an emergency vehicle in their rear-view mirrors will argue that they had the right to floor it.
Most people slow down and pull over, it shouldn't take more than a few seconds at normal highway speeds to find a space to pull out. The rest of the examples are ridiculous.
The speed limits bug me because they're set so low that people don't treat them as maximums, they treat them as minimums. People get very irritated if you drive "at the speed limit". You're not moving with the flow of traffic.
It's so bizzare now that our local driving examiners expect you to drive "with the flow of traffic"... if the traffic is going 10 over, then you're going 10 over or you're ding'ed for not keeping up. Of course you can be failed for speeding too.
It would be nice if two people patenting the same thing at roughly the same time could be used as a test to indicate that neither patent is valid and both are obvious.
If the market were empty and no software existed for any platform, developers would swarm to Windows because of the good developer documentation and long-term support for APIs.
If the market were empty and software existed for all the platforms, users would flock to Windows because of the low price and good software interoperability.
If the market were empty and software existed in equal parts for all OSes, Linux, while cheapest, would have the worst interoperation between the software packages, Windows would probably still do best because hardware manufacturers would be locked out of the Mac market and make lots of cheap Windows and Linux compatible hardware.
Something like BeOS would have kicked butt in such a fantasy, or 10 years ago, OS/2.
Microsoft's Windows product is not an OS, it's the API for software and drivers, along with their support, documentation, marketing and userbase. Nobody cares about the OS, they even changed OSes and aside from some boost in stability and better PnP, most of their userbase didn't notice.
Linux is a great OS, but it has a lousy fluctuating API for software and drivers, great support mind you, poor documentation, nearly zero marketing and an insignificant userbase. Where it does have a good API, POSIX-ish stuff, it does great... which limits it to the server arena.
If Microsoft were to port Windows to Linux in a similar way as Macintosh kinda ported MacOS to BSD, now that would be a very cool "OS"
Slashdot Mirror
I think they're blithering about the mechanics of getting two axes to move simultaneously to cut smooth shapes precisely without jitter or stepping.
e.g. would you move your tool bed to cut a 30 degree angle, or would you tell your machine to cut a 30 degree angle? What if it were a curve? Would the result be smooth, or stepped?
That's good news. When I studied for the CCNA, I had to study the Cisco interpretation of OSI and how Cisco wanted me to answer the questions.
The annoying part will be the legacy of this bizzare model... things like "Layer 4 switching" devices which aren't compatible with any OSI protocol.
Yeah, that's a pet peeve. TCP/IP has nothing to do with OSI, but Cisco and other stupid certification mills would have you believe otherwise. There are many similarities, but there are just enough differences to cause serious confusion over the technical details.
That's a much better explanation :-)
It sucks that the nature of Trademark law forces a person to be a jerk.
Drop a line to Linus and ask him if it is real. There's some kind of stipulation regarding fair use of a trademark, e.g. to reference the product's name in your documentation.
The trademark, as I understand it, should only cover conducting trade under the mark "Linux"
This is very close to what Redhat is doing. You can't use "Redhat" unless you've paid. Then you use "Fedora"... and then to confuse things a bit, they add some copyrighted materials to Redhat which are not Open Source so, I suppose for legitimate reasons, you can't start describing "Fedora" as "Redhat"
I'd be surprised and disturbed if this were true. O.k., I'm already disturbed, but I'd be more disturbed.
$5k to use a trademark is peanuts for the people who have the money to abuse it, and has nothing to do with protecting the Linux name. Cease and Desist letters to companies using Linux in unblessed or dangerous products seems more and appropriate (e.g. maybe revoking the trademark for kernel forks or kernels with unacknowledged and unblessed patches)
Is Linus running low on cash?
The author needs to close their bottle o' sauce during working hours.
I mean I've lost situational awareness!
Of course all your WinXP machines are screwed if you're using a Win2k domain controller... or whatever it is called now.
The worm has been a serious pain, but yeah, not catastrophic where I sit.
I wonder if you tried the reverse... a neutral image in a field of porn, whether it would have the same effect.
It would be an easy experiment. Put somebody in a small room for 6 months and make them execute similar tasks as an astronaut.
Or... take a sampling of Slashdot readers.
Oh god yes!
Now if other countries started detaining U.S. citizens without trial maybe the U.S. would consider a convention regarding rights of non-citizens before ports of entry.
Hey!
Does this mean it is legal for joe public to slash tires, rob people, beat them (to the limits of "gross" physical abuse) and commit other such activities before ports of entry?
Noooo....
If they cared about it happening only to them, I'm sure they'd restrict searches on themselves or block all the Cnet machines. Instead they simply said that they will not speak to Cnet.
In the same vein as "...capabilities of his search engine AND the probable reaction of most folks...", you could extend that to include the reprecussions of using Google to victimize important contacts.
It's a reasonable response to a publication discrediting themselves by writing a stupid article.
I do agree with you that describing CNet's actions as "unconsionable" is overkill. "Lowbrow" might be a better term.
It's a filesystem: http://richard.jones.name/google-hacks/gmail-files ystem/gmail-filesystem.html
I'm planning to use it to host my imap folders for my squirrelmail server.
...and after the precedent is set, everyone with an emergency vehicle in their rear-view mirrors will argue that they had the right to floor it.
Most people slow down and pull over, it shouldn't take more than a few seconds at normal highway speeds to find a space to pull out. The rest of the examples are ridiculous.
The speed limits bug me because they're set so low that people don't treat them as maximums, they treat them as minimums. People get very irritated if you drive "at the speed limit". You're not moving with the flow of traffic.
It's so bizzare now that our local driving examiners expect you to drive "with the flow of traffic"... if the traffic is going 10 over, then you're going 10 over or you're ding'ed for not keeping up. Of course you can be failed for speeding too.
It would be nice if two people patenting the same thing at roughly the same time could be used as a test to indicate that neither patent is valid and both are obvious.
...but that would make sense.
I was exactly like Beethoven... except I sucked.
It conjures strange visuals of silicone life forms and silicon breast implants.
Silicon, not Silicone!
(Unless you're talking about the Horta costume... but that might be a gooey pile of melted foam latex costumes)
And don't forget they Yahoo's results that aren't for while Google by then.
You sound like my coworkers!
This thread is getting out of control.
I had a monochrome monitor... and I liked it!
It made it tough to design colour web pages though :-)
Win32 is more than a toolkit, and QT exists on Windows too. It's not a Linux selling point.
For the purpose of having authorities banging on your door they are in the same category.
If the market were empty and no software existed for any platform, developers would swarm to Windows because of the good developer documentation and long-term support for APIs.
If the market were empty and software existed for all the platforms, users would flock to Windows because of the low price and good software interoperability.
If the market were empty and software existed in equal parts for all OSes, Linux, while cheapest, would have the worst interoperation between the software packages, Windows would probably still do best because hardware manufacturers would be locked out of the Mac market and make lots of cheap Windows and Linux compatible hardware.
Something like BeOS would have kicked butt in such a fantasy, or 10 years ago, OS/2.
Microsoft's Windows product is not an OS, it's the API for software and drivers, along with their support, documentation, marketing and userbase. Nobody cares about the OS, they even changed OSes and aside from some boost in stability and better PnP, most of their userbase didn't notice.
Linux is a great OS, but it has a lousy fluctuating API for software and drivers, great support mind you, poor documentation, nearly zero marketing and an insignificant userbase. Where it does have a good API, POSIX-ish stuff, it does great... which limits it to the server arena.
If Microsoft were to port Windows to Linux in a similar way as Macintosh kinda ported MacOS to BSD, now that would be a very cool "OS"