You are completely missing the point. The OEMs will be allowed to *replace* WMP with the media player they think the customer wants (eg Xine), not just miss it out.
The OEMs will have the right to replace WMP (with Xine for example), if they think it'll make their customers happy.
So, when she boots her new box, it *will* have a media player on it, but not necessarily WMP unless you *chose* it. The choice is then *yours*, not billg's.
However, if I'm buying, I don't want the choice of WMP or WMP. Nor do I want to pay for it. If there's a market for a 'doze box without WMP, WordPad and IE and with Xine, OO, Mozilla, the OEMs should be allowed to offer it, and the OS should support them properly, not generate spurious errors (see the DR-DOS story).
The present situation means that a (barely) legal monopoly is being used to create a second, illegal, one.
It isn't the government's place to tell a company what they can or cannot sell.
Riiiight...
But if you are the only provider of X (a legal monopoly) and you leverage that monopoly to drive out providers of Y and gain a second monopoly, then it becomes the government's place to tell you what you can and can't do.
You're absolutely right that that's what he's referring to on the face of it, but it represents a veiled threat. He's arguing that lawsuits are inevitable for anyone trying to get into the OS market - in other words, we will sue you, if we want you to stop.
What he and everyone else on that side haven't realised, is that they could kill Red Hat et al, and Linux would continue:
We get as much indemnity from a download as MS gives in it's EULA.
We get more support from the community than we get from Microsoft.
We get more life from our hardware, because our OS/apps aren't as bloated.
We get more innovation, no matter what the established people say. I don't know what innovation Microsoft has ever done - everything I can think of, they actually nicked from other people.
Assuming you're the darth23 who posted "SCO claims ownership of Unix"?? on the SCOX message board (which I can't reply to at work), *yes*, they have claimed ownership of all Unixes.
Specifically, points 30 and 31 of their deposition from 27th Feb in SCO vs IBM. All Unixes are declared to be derivatives or licenced works of Sys V, and SCO claims the ownership and rights to licence all Unixes. They implicitly argue that anything that looks and acts sufficiently like Unix (ie POSIX compliance) is theirs.
'Fraid you'll have to wait a few days for Groklaw to have the transcript though.
What does it take to get a job like yours, Mr Marsh? An IQ below 80?
Well, they may have just received a Very Good Deal on their Windows machines from a little company called Microsoft. <wink>
Perhaps this is payback? It certainly isn't 'protecting our customers against lawsuits' as Marsh has lie^H^H^Hsaid, because the customers rent the use of the boxes, rather than purchase them and have them hosted.
Autozone is being sued for copyright stuff: SCO alleges they used SCO stuff without a valid licence. Autozone uses Linux. Ergo, they have sued a Linux end user for copyright violations.
The thing is, every lazy journo out there will assume the copyright violations are in the Linux codebase.
So,/.ers, here's the plan: every clueless tech-journo needs to be put right as soon as - if not before - they report SCO's (and whoever *cough*microsoft*cough is behind them) misleading PR as fact and the whole movement looks like it may be dodgy.
You need to check out the licence conditions SCO is offering. It would appear that they make EV1 (and any other shill / moron who pays up) *more* at risk of being sued than less!
Try reading my (parent) post again, and you'll realise that what you just said no ISP will do is what I already said my ISP already does! I repeat:
For Nildram, all outbound port 25 requests from their net either
originate from a whitelisted machine (like mine, and they check them for open-relay-ness)
are routed to their relay machine
are refused.
So the only way you could get spam out would be to trojan a machine which has requested (or then requests) whitelisting. Not likely as anyone savvy enough to run a mail server is likely to be savvy enough not to get rooted. Even if you trojan a machine the outbound smtp packet will be checked at their server and will require proper details to be allowed out. Then it'll only be seconds before the vast number of bounces tips off the admins!
It's bad enough that most slashers don't RTFA, but you should at least read the post you're replying to!
I did the same thing, and it's still the easiest way to do it. I *already* have a VCR, and it's *already* plugged in to a stereo input, and I spend most of my leisure time *in my house*.
Take a look at the spf faq, section starting "What about the cracked, open-proxy DSL machines that are spam sources today?"
The skinny is: while spf on its own can't do prevent zombies from sending mail, if the upstream host routes port 25 through its own servers it can control this.
For example, my upstream hosts, Nildram, block all port 25 traffic outbound and inbound unless and until they have checked your (static) ip for open-relay-ness and then put you on a whitelist.
If all ISPs were like that, and spf were to become widely adopted, spam would be toast.
Sadly, being a full-time contractor, with a g/f and a bad GrokLaw habit to feed, I don't have much time to spend on my that box. It's getting a rebuild soon anyhow - I need more speed on the sites and services it, err, serves.
The purpose of Linus et al is not to beat Microsoft. That's statedly incidental. The ultimate purpose is to make a free (as in both) OS which 'just works'.
To that end, sometimes things will have to be broken to improve. The alternative is to support legacy code till the end of days and end up with MS-like bloatware.
Jo(e) average user doesn't want, need, or expect to upgrade their running kernel. So who cares how hard it is?
Justin. Built my 2.6 kernel, won't run (kpanic), don't care, waiting for Red Hat or whoever to do it for me.
Mate, I've been reading the whole of GL (not just one article) for months now. Although it sounds self-aggrandizing, I'll point out that I've contributed to it, and been thanked by name (in an early article). I have IMO, a pretty solid understanding, all thanks to PJ and others excellently clear style.
Anyway, the point you spectacularly failed to get was that I wasn't commenting on just one article, I was talking about that article in the context of the long list of public claims by newSCO, which are currently of great importance due to IBM's Lanham act claims.
SCO has repeatedly and publicly claimed that System V code is in Linux.
They then indicated that methods and knowledge transferred to IBM by their Sys V license were in Linux.
Now they are claiming that methods and knowledge created and owned by IBM are in Linux, but that they are derivative works of Sys V.
This requires them to use the 'ultra-viral' definition of derivative, which is that any code which has shared a code-base with Sys V original or derivative code is sys V derivative.
Would anyone with an ounce of sense write a contract which was truly intended to treat additions as derivative, but not write in a right to audit/view the added code?!
This clearly shows the intent of the contract, and demostrates that newSCO's ultra-viral interpretation is, how can I put it, big dog's cock.
As far as I can see, no-one is making MS install loads of different things. All they want is to allow the OEMs to install what their customers want, and remove (remove) things they don't.
Slashdot Mirror
A big part of the EU's position is that MS *didn't* let OEMs do that. What makes you think that they do?
You are completely missing the point. The OEMs will be allowed to *replace* WMP with the media player they think the customer wants (eg Xine), not just miss it out.
Justin.
The OEMs will have the right to replace WMP (with Xine for example), if they think it'll make their customers happy.
So, when she boots her new box, it *will* have a media player on it, but not necessarily WMP unless you *chose* it. The choice is then *yours*, not billg's.
However, if I'm buying, I don't want the choice of WMP or WMP. Nor do I want to pay for it. If there's a market for a 'doze box without WMP, WordPad and IE and with Xine, OO, Mozilla, the OEMs should be allowed to offer it, and the OS should support them properly, not generate spurious errors (see the DR-DOS story).
The present situation means that a (barely) legal monopoly is being used to create a second, illegal, one.
Justin.
Whereas yours is typical of (a) people who don't understand monopoly abuse and so should shut up, or (b) monopoly abusers.
Which are you?
J.
Riiiight...
But if you are the only provider of X (a legal monopoly) and you leverage that monopoly to drive out providers of Y and gain a second monopoly, then it becomes the government's place to tell you what you can and can't do.
Twat.
Justin.
Justin.
[Hey, this could be modded insightful, funny, or troll!]
What he and everyone else on that side haven't realised, is that they could kill Red Hat et al, and Linux would continue:
-
We get as much indemnity from a download as MS gives in it's EULA.
-
We get more support from the community than we get from Microsoft.
-
We get more life from our hardware, because our OS/apps aren't as bloated.
-
We get more innovation, no matter what the established people say. I don't know what innovation Microsoft has ever done - everything I can think of, they actually nicked from other people.
Justin.Assuming you're the darth23 who posted "SCO claims ownership of Unix"?? on the SCOX message board (which I can't reply to at work), *yes*, they have claimed ownership of all Unixes.
Specifically, points 30 and 31 of their deposition from 27th Feb in SCO vs IBM. All Unixes are declared to be derivatives or licenced works of Sys V, and SCO claims the ownership and rights to licence all Unixes. They implicitly argue that anything that looks and acts sufficiently like Unix (ie POSIX compliance) is theirs.
'Fraid you'll have to wait a few days for Groklaw to have the transcript though.
Justin (aug24, @work).
J.
Well, they may have just received a Very Good Deal on their Windows machines from a little company called Microsoft. <wink>
Perhaps this is payback? It certainly isn't 'protecting our customers against lawsuits' as Marsh has lie^H^H^Hsaid, because the customers rent the use of the boxes, rather than purchase them and have them hosted.
Justin.
The thing is, every lazy journo out there will assume the copyright violations are in the Linux codebase .
So, /.ers, here's the plan: every clueless tech-journo needs to be put right as soon as - if not before - they report SCO's (and whoever *cough*microsoft*cough is behind them) misleading PR as fact and the whole movement looks like it may be dodgy.
Justin.
You need to check out the licence conditions SCO is offering. It would appear that they make EV1 (and any other shill / moron who pays up) *more* at risk of being sued than less!
Justin.
For Nildram, all outbound port 25 requests from their net either
- originate from a whitelisted machine (like mine, and they check them for open-relay-ness)
- are routed to their relay machine
- are refused.
So the only way you could get spam out would be to trojan a machine which has requested (or then requests) whitelisting. Not likely as anyone savvy enough to run a mail server is likely to be savvy enough not to get rooted. Even if you trojan a machine the outbound smtp packet will be checked at their server and will require proper details to be allowed out. Then it'll only be seconds before the vast number of bounces tips off the admins!It's bad enough that most slashers don't RTFA, but you should at least read the post you're replying to!
J.
I did the same thing, and it's still the easiest way to do it. I *already* have a VCR, and it's *already* plugged in to a stereo input, and I spend most of my leisure time *in my house*.
J.
The skinny is: while spf on its own can't do prevent zombies from sending mail, if the upstream host routes port 25 through its own servers it can control this.
For example, my upstream hosts, Nildram, block all port 25 traffic outbound and inbound unless and until they have checked your (static) ip for open-relay-ness and then put you on a whitelist.
If all ISPs were like that, and spf were to become widely adopted, spam would be toast.
J.
Sadly, being a full-time contractor, with a g/f and a bad GrokLaw habit to feed, I don't have much time to spend on my that box. It's getting a rebuild soon anyhow - I need more speed on the sites and services it, err, serves.
J.
The purpose of Linus et al is not to beat Microsoft. That's statedly incidental. The ultimate purpose is to make a free (as in both) OS which 'just works'.
To that end, sometimes things will have to be broken to improve. The alternative is to support legacy code till the end of days and end up with MS-like bloatware.
Jo(e) average user doesn't want, need, or expect to upgrade their running kernel. So who cares how hard it is?
Justin.
Built my 2.6 kernel, won't run (kpanic), don't care, waiting for Red Hat or whoever to do it for me.
So that's three then, right Darl?!
Two we know, MS and Sun, the other I dunno.
J.
If you couldn't explain how your .com business leveraged that 'paradigm shift'[1], then your .com business was going to be titsup.com real soon.
Justin.
[1] First time in ages that phrase has been used correctly.
Anyway, the point you spectacularly failed to get was that I wasn't commenting on just one article, I was talking about that article in the context of the long list of public claims by newSCO, which are currently of great importance due to IBM's Lanham act claims.
Does that answer your question?
J.
J.
-
SCO has repeatedly and publicly claimed that System V code is in Linux.
-
They then indicated that methods and knowledge transferred to IBM by their Sys V license were in Linux.
-
Now they are claiming that methods and knowledge created and owned by IBM are in Linux, but that they are derivative works of Sys V.
This requires them to use the 'ultra-viral' definition of derivative, which is that any code which has shared a code-base with Sys V original or derivative code is sys V derivative.Are you laughing at the fools yet?!
J.
Although one of them will embarrassingly bang his head on the door on the way in... ;-)
J.
This clearly shows the intent of the contract, and demostrates that newSCO's ultra-viral interpretation is, how can I put it, big dog's cock.
J.
As far as I can see, no-one is making MS install loads of different things. All they want is to allow the OEMs to install what their customers want, and remove (remove) things they don't.
Is that so unfair?
J.