I'll probably read the final thingy in more dtail later, but it doesn't seem to go far enough. It splits MS into OS and Apps companies, and restricts the OS company from doing IE development. But, I would have rather it made the OS company fully document OS APIs. I guess it's something, though.
Remind me that if I ever get threatened with legal action because of something to do with Free Software to call this guy. He's raking 'em over the coals.
Again, what about vendors that use a Sys V or BSD kernel and wish to support Linux via a Linux compatibility layer? As long as they can provide a layer that conforms to the ABI and provides the described functions, there is no problem. So why is SCO a 2nd class citizen in this? Why is the concept of Linux Compatibility layers buried at the end? Such should be at the top of the press release, because the LSB is the 1st *REAL* chance of a unified-shrink-wrapped-unix binaries in the history of Unix. First of all, SCO is not a second class citizen. At the meetings I have attended thus far (both in person and conference calls), SCO has always had a representative. SCO is very interested in being able to provide an LSB compatibility layer on top of their UNIX offerings (via lxrun), and have been involved for quite some time. However, the primary focus of the Linux Standard Base is to provide a standard for Linux based operating systems. Making sure an app compiled on Red Hat runs on Debian is more important (right now) than making sure that same app runs on SCO.
The FSF could certainly use the money, but that is not the way to do it. It is far preferable to settle things this way, in a nice manner, without having to resort to a lawsuit. Talk it over with the violator first, and if they don't relent, a lawsuit is the absolute last choice. However, once they (hopefully) fix the violation, encouraging a donation to the FSF isn't a bad idea.
Wow, sorry for not being a troll. Emmett's been talking about the story for a while in #slashdot on OPN. I already knew most of the story, it only took a glance to get the missing details. Sorry if I felt like congratulationg emmett on good journalism and for taking away a trolls chance to first post.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll probably read the final thingy in more dtail later, but it doesn't seem to go far enough. It splits MS into OS and Apps companies, and restricts the OS company from doing IE development. But, I would have rather it made the OS company fully document OS APIs. I guess it's something, though.
Lawyers suck. Except this one. Wow.
Again I say: Wow.
Remind me that if I ever get threatened with legal action because of something to do with Free Software to call this guy. He's raking 'em over the coals.
No offense to Katz, but this editorial is right on with the Slashdot crowd. Also, very well written. We need more Emmett editorials.
Again, what about vendors that use a Sys V or BSD kernel and wish to support Linux via a Linux compatibility layer? As long as they can provide a layer that conforms to the ABI and provides the described functions, there is no problem. So why is SCO a 2nd class citizen in this? Why is the concept of Linux Compatibility layers buried at the end? Such should be at the top of the press release, because the LSB is the 1st *REAL* chance of a unified-shrink-wrapped-unix binaries in the history of Unix. First of all, SCO is not a second class citizen. At the meetings I have attended thus far (both in person and conference calls), SCO has always had a representative. SCO is very interested in being able to provide an LSB compatibility layer on top of their UNIX offerings (via lxrun), and have been involved for quite some time. However, the primary focus of the Linux Standard Base is to provide a standard for Linux based operating systems. Making sure an app compiled on Red Hat runs on Debian is more important (right now) than making sure that same app runs on SCO.
The FSF could certainly use the money, but that is not the way to do it. It is far preferable to settle things this way, in a nice manner, without having to resort to a lawsuit. Talk it over with the violator first, and if they don't relent, a lawsuit is the absolute last choice. However, once they (hopefully) fix the violation, encouraging a donation to the FSF isn't a bad idea.
Crap! And here I thought I had a decent sense of humor. Sometimes it just doesn't pay to be a bot. :)
Wow, sorry for not being a troll. Emmett's been talking about the story for a while in #slashdot on OPN. I already knew most of the story, it only took a glance to get the missing details. Sorry if I felt like congratulationg emmett on good journalism and for taking away a trolls chance to first post.
Way to handle the story. And, both sides of the story. That's two more than Wired. ;)
= 53 states. The 50 states + who? DC(?), Puerto Rico(?), who are the other three states?
--
From my mirror ( ftp://ftp1.us.kernel.org/pub/linux/: := $(shell uname -m | sed -e s/i.86/i386/ -e s/sun4u/sparc64/ -e s/arm.*/arm/ -e s/sa110/arm/)
v2.3$ zcat patch-2.2.8-to-2.3.0.gz
diff -u --recursive --new-file v2.2.8/linux/Makefile linux/Makefile
--- v2.2.8/linux/Makefile Tue May 11 13:10:27 1999
+++ linux/Makefile Tue May 11 13:03:06 1999
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
VERSION = 2
-PATCHLEVEL = 2
-SUBLEVEL = 8
+PATCHLEVEL = 3
+SUBLEVEL = 0
EXTRAVERSION =
ARCH
--