I see you had the same idea I had at the same time.;)
It didn't dawn on me that he can't do this over email. So is he allowed to have a friend or relative do email for him? Geeze, in todays world, no computers is a harsh sentence.
Uh, I don't think they can mention it. It's part of the law of IPOs. No public pushing of their stock, and mentioning it on their web site would violate that.
Frequent mention is made in the filing of Linuxcare's plans to deliver its services via the Internet. They seem to want to automate as much as possible, thus reducing their personnel needs. They count heavily on their information systems development to bring this about. To the extent that they are successful in this regard, they may encounter some criticism from the Linux community - support databases and associated systems are a competitive advantage only if they are kept proprietary.
I'm sorry, but I'm sick of people asking for things for free (as in beer). Those that want the slashdot code, have really no right to it, unless you bought the software or was given it. As RMS has stated, the GPL applies only to distributed software. Now if Linux Care does not distribute the software for these databases and associated systems then they don't have to give it away or give the source away. Same goes for/. If you were not given the software then you don't need the source. It is/. being nice that they give it away.
Yes you can make money with GPL. But you don't have to give everything away! You only give the rights and the source of those products that you distribute. And it has been made clear that companies are an entity that can protect its software that is used internally, and externally as an interface and not a product (Like slashdots web page generation utilities that are internal and used externally).
So if you complain that LinuxCare doesn't give away its internal software, then tough. They don't have to.
Agree completely, it's really amazing how the Slashdot community bands together against trademarks and then all of the sudden they backpeddle since this is Linux it gets to play by different rules....
I don't ever recall a post against Trademarks. Well, that's not entirely true, I do remember the aolsearch thingy. But there were several that were on both sides of the issue.
We mostly band against patents which is entirely different. A trademark doesn't stop me from doing the things I do. Where as patents (stupid ones) do. Mainly the Amizon one-click and that guy with the Y2K windowing. Both simple ideas that were patented.
Now if Linux/Linus were to patent something, I don't think you would see us agreeing with him. But if you do, then we definitely are hypocrites.
Speak for yourself. No trademark is beloved as far as I'm concerned, and I think this says something about the community. People are starting to care a whole lot more about names and labels, and I think it is a shame.
As Linux goes from a hobby to Business (which it already has) you do need to be concerned about names and labels. If corporations were able to start abusing the Linux trademark then those that do Linux as a hobby may have more trouble. Say if you are serious about a hobby and want to do your own web site, but it was squatted!
Do you think the Gnu people would be doing the same thing?
Well I can't speek for the FSF, but I do think they would if you started abusing the GNU label. RMS still thinks it should be called GNU/Linux. Talk about being concerned about labels. I did like the mention of calling it Linux/GNU so it doesn't sound like Linux is part of GNU. As for Mr. Wall, well, he's a nut anyway (in a good way!;^) so I don't know what he thinks!
Most people who make free software what it is can't do that and never have been able to. That hasn't really hurt free software much.
Like I said above, as free software becomes more business like, it will hurt!
But if he starts claiming that he's doing it for the good of the community*, I'm not going to be happy, because I'm part of that community and it does me no good. And if other people start claiming that he's doing it for the good of the communtiy, I'll get really pissed off. Especially if those people own shares in Linux companies.
Well, maybe not the good of the community, but for the good of Linux itself. Linux was started by Linus, and he still wants control of it, in all aspects. I don't blame him. Disclaimer: I don't really own Linux stock, but I do own Andover (So I guess I own Slashdot!).
I've got more hobbies and interests than programming and computers. If people want to make it all about trademarks and IPO's and what have you I'll spend more time sailing and cooking, and less time writing free software. No big deal. Either that or I'll go back to the world of Windows shareware, which is a whole lot less bitchy and is starting to produce better software.
Well don't pay attention to what others do. I write code because I like to. It's not just a hobby to me, I like to get more involved. I also have several other hobbies, but this is one that challenges me intellectually. I don't think the "slash dot mob" will leave out someone that is doing something that they believe in.
I'll agree with the AC about your style. But I also agree with you about the misquote that Katz made.
I never post as AC because I don't usually trust or take seriously what an AC has to say. But in doing so, I also try to comment intelligently. (I did say try, so no flames for my lack of;)
Katz should have deleted your email and done nothing else, otherwise he should have kept it. I don't like those that write about the abuses of email/posts. Its like driving a car... You don't know who the person is that just cut you off, but you hate them anyway. Its really not personal, just emotional.
Again, your "style" is not effective. It only will anger people and wont change their ways. In fact, that method is more likely to have the person do the opposite (reverse psychology may work here!). I try to debate when I disagree with someone and leave the nasty language to the streets. I have had some success in changing ones thoughts (not always, but more than if I had just flamed).
I don't ever remember posting to a Katz article, but I'll start now.
What's the big deal about flamers? I read them, laugh then continue. I never take one seriously. Only a few AC do I take serious and then even with skepticism. If an AC is an AC because they are too lazy to login, then ok, but at least write who you are, of course this can easily be forged. If an AC is an AC because it could get them in trouble, for example, someone posting something about their company. This is ok, but I'm still skeptical.
It's been discussed before that some think it is stupid to post your name. I do all the time, since I believe that it makes you think twice about posting. But at least it shows that you are serious and will stand by you post. I would like it if a potential employer would look at my prior posts. So I post accordingly.
If you are confident about you ideas, then use your real name. Otherwise I can't trust you completely. I don't buy people not posting because they are afraid of the flamers, because they can always post anonymous. Don't get me wrong, I like the fact you can post anonymous, and I even travel at a -1 rating. It's easy to see the true flamers and I just laugh it off;-) It doesn't stop me from expressing my ideas.
From the Bugger off license: The GPL is just begging somebody to take it to court.
I say lets do it and get it over with. I brough up the topic of the GPL and companies recently and now I'm saying lets test it.
A few days ago at lunch, a few of us were discussing how the GPL would do in the US court of law. Then someone suggested testing it out. I asked, "how?" and the rest went like this: Have one of us (I'll call #1) write some small unique code or take some code that they wrote on their own time a while ago, and slap the GPL on it. Sell it to another person (#2). Then have #2 modify it and sell it to a third person (#3), without giving the source nor the license. Thus violating the GPL.
Have person #1 and maybe #3 sue #2 to release the code. Take this to real court and battle it out. Of course this will take some money, but all good experiments do. You also have risk involved, if #2 wins, then the GPL may fall altogether.
Now would something like this be useful if brought to a real court. If #2 looses, then start an appeal to get to another court, to get more clout. This will finally prove that the GPL is legally standing. And the risk is that it could prove the opposite. But is any of this worth it?
Actually you cleared up the point I was trying to make!
*print* == *make* is what I meant. The point you made about business predates money is exactly what I was trying to state. Money is just a means that is used to show a worth of one product/service compared to another. Business should not make/print money, but they should provide a good and worthy product/service. Thus this makes the Business worth more. Money should not be the purpose of a business. But the worthiness of the business is important. Unfortunalely, we forget this and start sacrificing the product/service for the buck. This is what happened to the US car industry.
Money without business, ummm, isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
This is my point. Money, itself is worthless. But a product/service has value. Money is just a tool (that the goverment gives) to measure this value. No the goverment does not give you the value, just the tool.
A famous economist (which I can't remember the name -- but was still famous;) once said "Companies do not make money. Companies make shoes!"
No, companies do not make money, the government does. Companies make products/services and trade these products/services for money. The statement above was stating that the economy is in trouble if we focus on only the profit and not the product!
I submitted this too, but someone beat me to it;^)
A couple of days ago, a friend of mine that works for IBM told me that he is working on a project with Transmeta. He said even Linus Torvalds is working on this project. When I asked him what he was doing, he told me "cool stuff" with a smile. He is also under NDA, so he couldn't give me any more information but it will all be release to the public soon. With the article stating "unspecified partner", putting 2 and 2 together, is this partner IBM?
Wouldn't it be ironic if AOL/Time Warner becomes the new evil empire, and we have both IBM and Microsoft combat them as the forces of good. (and of course Linux will be there too)
It would be like the evil IBM turn good to fight MS. No one would have thought back in 1985 that IBM would be on the "good" side. So don't rule out MS from switching the public view.
It seems to explain a lot. But this means that Ballmer can't fire Gates. Gates still is the head of the company, but doesn't seem to have to answer to anyone! So why does the title of this slashdot article state that Gates has step down as CEO. It seems that he actually has stepped up
If someone starts selling NSA/Linux then they will be required to give away the source,
Now the question is: how did this someone get the source in the first place. Do you mean someone employeed? What does the GPL think of "companies" comparied to people. (this is something I have to discuss with RMS the next time I see him). Is an employee one that gets the distribution or is it the company. I was purposely vague in my previous post, because I really don't know. It seems that an employee is not "given" software, but is told to just use it. That's because the software is "owned" by the company, thus the license is for the company and not the employees.
So if an employee gives out the software, is that employee violating laws? Could they be considered "stealing"? Thus unless one of the companies gives it away, I guess the NSA would have a case against the distribution, since no one of legal authority started the distributing of the software.
the NSA giving the NSA/Linux source to a contractor grants the contractor distribution rights
Another question: If I have GPL code, and need to hire someone to maintain it. Do I have to "give" them the code. Or can they just use it (like the employee above) and not be given it. The contractor (and employee) don't have to pay/buy the software. Is it "distributing" if you just hand the code over for service. Although, the license talks about ditribution even without fee, it is unclear if you need to distribute software if you need to have it serviced.
I really don't see this against the philosophy of GNU, since the one that has the code is still the customer, and not the vendor. This is another point I need to bring up.
Back in March, I talked to RMS himself on this very topic. And the original poster is correct. RMS stated that he is concerned that those that receive software have the same rights to that software (because they bought it or what not) as the one that gave it to them. If I wrote software for you, then you must have the same rights to sell that or give it away as I did. So, my take from this, is that you must give (not restrict) the rights to those that you distribute it to. If you only distribute it to one person, or company, than that person/company doesn't want to give it away, then noone has to.
I mentioned the way I do business with my company, to RMS. We sell software to our customer (usually the government) and we give them the source and the rights to modify that source (just like GPL) but they don't in turn give it to anyone else, although we don't restrict them from doing so. He told me that, that is custom programming and he has nothing against it. The GPL would not affect that at all, except if the government wanted to imposed their own license.
So, in theory, you can have a little club of people that have some modification of the Linux kernel that no one else can see. But all it takes is one person to give it away to anyone to destroy that. The club cannot (under GPL) restrict anyone from doing so.
Actually the thread started about MS being innovative or not. And being first at something proves that you are innovative. So, it does matter on this point. But you are right, in general, the only thing that it means is bragging rights.
Me, personally, don't care about themes. They just seem to distract me from my work. Ok, I'm an old timer in this respect, I like XFCE/XFWM (and I have used E! and Afterstep first) and GNOME (without themes). But this is the nice thing about window managers. You are not locked with someone else's favorite choice. You can choose your own. I don't know about Mac, but I can't stand Windows with its "click to focus"; and not being able to modify what control characters do what with windows; and its single desktop; and when a process is running, you can't do anything with that window (for example: moving it).
The reason that MS has a monopoly in the two(three?) areas is because of each other. With software, the worst thing you can have is one company owning the software and the operating system. Of course this only applies to close sourced systems. The reason is that the makers of an application that also owns the OS has an advantage of: 1. seeing how the OS works, and 2. having the OS optimized for the apps.
Breaking up the OS from the apps helps others to compete. This way the OS won't be playing favorites to the apps that the OS company owns. Also this helps other OS's to compete, since there will no longer be a marriage between apps and a particular OS.
AT&T break up was done the way you say. The goverment turned one big monopoly into several little ones, that eventually became big again. This was because the users didn't have a choice in what company they delt with. I went from only a AT&T choice to an only Bell Atlantic choice. Smaller monopoly but still a monopoly.
This break up IMO will stop the MS monopoly. It will force them to compete fairly. Of course a break up of the Apps might help as well, since an integrated Office can spread too, but that is going a little too extreme. Even for Microsoft.
To recap, If we break up horizontally, then one of the OS/apps can become the dominant one and we will be in trouble again.
With your first post, I though you were funny, with the second, I thought OK enough, with the third, you deserve troll, but now I have to say, anyone that puts in this much effort should be a feature;p
If I have to read (Score -1: Troll) remarks, I wish they all could be like this.
Actually, I feel that certifications are usually like up front money before you can go and invest in a career. What I mean is, it atleast shows that you are serious about something. If you have two equal candidates for a position, but one is certified, then you can probably say that that certified person is a little more serious than the other. This too may not be totally true, but someone that is certified, has shown that they have taken the time/money/effort to atleast get certified.
I first had AOL, then they called my home when I wasn't there, and convinced my wife that I needed a "service book" for $20 with a "return if not satisfied" statement. Since my wife didn't realize that they had my credit card number, she agreed. Well, when I got home and she told me, I called AOL up and was told by them again and again (I kept asking to see supervisors) that they can't stop the transaction, and to just place "return to sender" when I receive it.
When I received the book, I did just that. But when my statement came I was billed. So I called them up and they told me they never received it! Well, then I asked to cancel my account. And they had the nerve to ask me why! I said "because you send me stuff I don't ask for and then bill me for it!".
Don't worry, I wrote my Credit Card company, and since AOL never received my agreement to send this (remember they talked to my wife, who was NOT a member). My CC company resolved the problem for me.
After that I when to Road Runner on Time Warner, saying that I never want to do business with AOL again. Now it looks like I can't avoid them. God I hate this!
Slashdot Mirror
I see you had the same idea I had at the same time.
It didn't dawn on me that he can't do this over email. So is he allowed to have a friend or relative do email for him? Geeze, in todays world, no computers is a harsh sentence.
Steven Rostedt
... See subject.
60 minutes may not get the questions that we want to hear. Ok, so we'll find out on Sunday.
Steven Rostedt
Uh, I don't think they can mention it. It's part of the law of IPOs. No public pushing of their stock, and mentioning it on their web site would violate that.
Steven Rostedt
Frequent mention is made in the filing of Linuxcare's plans to deliver its services via the Internet. They seem to want to automate as much as possible, thus reducing their personnel needs. They count heavily on their information systems development to bring this about. To the extent that they are successful in this regard, they may encounter some criticism from the Linux community - support databases and associated systems are a competitive advantage only if they are kept proprietary.
/. If you were not given the software then you don't need the source. It is /. being nice that they give it away.
I'm sorry, but I'm sick of people asking for things for free (as in beer). Those that want the slashdot code, have really no right to it, unless you bought the software or was given it. As RMS has stated, the GPL applies only to distributed software. Now if Linux Care does not distribute the software for these databases and associated systems then they don't have to give it away or give the source away. Same goes for
Yes you can make money with GPL. But you don't have to give everything away! You only give the rights and the source of those products that you distribute. And it has been made clear that companies are an entity that can protect its software that is used internally, and externally as an interface and not a product (Like slashdots web page generation utilities that are internal and used externally).
So if you complain that LinuxCare doesn't give away its internal software, then tough. They don't have to.
Steven Rostedt
Agree completely, it's really amazing how the Slashdot community bands together against trademarks and then all of the sudden they backpeddle since this is Linux it gets to play by different rules....
I don't ever recall a post against Trademarks. Well, that's not entirely true, I do remember the aolsearch thingy. But there were several that were on both sides of the issue.
We mostly band against patents which is entirely different. A trademark doesn't stop me from doing the things I do. Where as patents (stupid ones) do. Mainly the Amizon one-click and that guy with the Y2K windowing. Both simple ideas that were patented.
Now if Linux/Linus were to patent something, I don't think you would see us agreeing with him. But if you do, then we definitely are hypocrites.
Steven Rostedt
Speak for yourself. No trademark is beloved as far as I'm concerned, and I think this says something about the community. People are starting to care a whole lot more about names and labels, and I think it is a shame.
;^) so I don't know what he thinks!
As Linux goes from a hobby to Business (which it already has) you do need to be concerned about names and labels. If corporations were able to start abusing the Linux trademark then those that do Linux as a hobby may have more trouble. Say if you are serious about a hobby and want to do your own web site, but it was squatted!
Do you think the Gnu people would be doing the same thing?
Well I can't speek for the FSF, but I do think they would if you started abusing the GNU label. RMS still thinks it should be called GNU/Linux. Talk about being concerned about labels. I did like the mention of calling it Linux/GNU so it doesn't sound like Linux is part of GNU.
As for Mr. Wall, well, he's a nut anyway (in a good way!
Most people who make free software what it is can't do that and never have been able to. That hasn't really hurt free software much.
Like I said above, as free software becomes more business like, it will hurt!
But if he starts claiming that he's doing it for the good of the community*, I'm not going to be happy, because I'm part of that community and it does me no good. And if other people start claiming that he's doing it for the good of the communtiy, I'll get really pissed off. Especially if those people own shares in Linux companies.
Well, maybe not the good of the community, but for the good of Linux itself. Linux was started by Linus, and he still wants control of it, in all aspects. I don't blame him. Disclaimer: I don't really own Linux stock, but I do own Andover (So I guess I own Slashdot!).
I've got more hobbies and interests than programming and computers. If people want to make it all about trademarks and IPO's and what have you I'll spend more time sailing and cooking, and less time writing free software. No big deal. Either that or I'll go back to the world of Windows shareware, which is a whole lot less bitchy and is starting to produce better software.
Well don't pay attention to what others do. I write code because I like to. It's not just a hobby to me, I like to get more involved. I also have several other hobbies, but this is one that challenges me intellectually. I don't think the "slash dot mob" will leave out someone that is doing something that they believe in.
Steven Rostedt
Disclaimer: I am not that AC.
;)
I'll agree with the AC about your style. But I also agree with you about the misquote that Katz made.
I never post as AC because I don't usually trust or take seriously what an AC has to say. But in doing so, I also try to comment intelligently. (I did say try, so no flames for my lack of
Katz should have deleted your email and done nothing else, otherwise he should have kept it. I don't like those that write about the abuses of email/posts. Its like driving a car... You don't know who the person is that just cut you off, but you hate them anyway. Its really not personal, just emotional.
Again, your "style" is not effective. It only will anger people and wont change their ways. In fact, that method is more likely to have the person do the opposite (reverse psychology may work here!). I try to debate when I disagree with someone and leave the nasty language to the streets. I have had some success in changing ones thoughts (not always, but more than if I had just flamed).
Long live free speech
Steven Rostedt
I don't ever remember posting to a Katz article, but I'll start now.
;-) It doesn't stop me from expressing my ideas.
What's the big deal about flamers? I read them, laugh then continue. I never take one seriously. Only a few AC do I take serious and then even with skepticism. If an AC is an AC because they are too lazy to login, then ok, but at least write who you are, of course this can easily be forged. If an AC is an AC because it could get them in trouble, for example, someone posting something about their company. This is ok, but I'm still skeptical.
It's been discussed before that some think it is stupid to post your name. I do all the time, since I believe that it makes you think twice about posting. But at least it shows that you are serious and will stand by you post. I would like it if a potential employer would look at my prior posts. So I post accordingly.
If you are confident about you ideas, then use your real name. Otherwise I can't trust you completely. I don't buy people not posting because they are afraid of the flamers, because they can always post anonymous. Don't get me wrong, I like the fact you can post anonymous, and I even travel at a -1 rating. It's easy to see the true flamers and I just laugh it off
So go ahead, flame away >:*}
Steven Rostedt
From the Bugger off license:
The GPL is just begging somebody to take it to court.
I say lets do it and get it over with. I brough up the topic of the GPL and companies recently and now I'm saying lets test it.
A few days ago at lunch, a few of us were discussing how the GPL would do in the US court of law. Then someone suggested testing it out. I asked, "how?" and the rest went like this: Have one of us (I'll call #1) write some
small unique code or take some code that they wrote on their own time a while ago, and slap the GPL on it. Sell it to another person (#2). Then have #2 modify it and sell it to a third person (#3), without giving the source nor the license. Thus violating the GPL.
Have person #1 and maybe #3 sue #2 to release the code. Take this to real court and battle it out. Of course this will take some money, but all good experiments do. You also have risk involved, if #2 wins, then the GPL may fall altogether.
Now would something like this be useful if brought to a real court. If #2 looses, then start an appeal to get to another court, to get more clout. This will finally prove that the GPL is legally standing. And the risk is that it could prove the opposite. But is any of this worth it?
Steven Rostedt
Actually you cleared up the point I was trying to make!
*print* == *make* is what I meant. The point you made about business predates money is exactly what I was trying to state. Money is just a means that is used to show a worth of one product/service compared to another. Business should not make/print money, but they should provide a good and worthy product/service. Thus this makes the Business worth more. Money should not be the purpose of a business. But the worthiness of the business is important. Unfortunalely, we forget this and start sacrificing the product/service for the buck. This is what happened to the US car industry.
Money without business, ummm, isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
This is my point. Money, itself is worthless. But a product/service has value. Money is just a tool (that the goverment gives) to measure this value. No the goverment does not give you the value, just the tool.
Steven Rostedt
Bumblebees can't fly, they just don't know that they can't, so they do
Steven Rostedt
A famous economist (which I can't remember the name -- but was still famous ;) once said
"Companies do not make money. Companies make shoes!"
No, companies do not make money, the government does. Companies make products/services and trade these products/services for money. The statement above was stating that the economy is in trouble if we focus on only the profit and not the product!
Steven Rostedt
Continuing this statement.
If you don't, then why?
Steven Rostedt
I submitted this too, but someone beat me to it
A couple of days ago, a friend of mine that works for IBM told me that he is working on a project with Transmeta. He said even Linus Torvalds is working on this project. When I asked him what he was doing, he told me "cool stuff" with a smile. He is also under NDA, so he couldn't give me any more information but it will all be release to the public soon. With the article stating "unspecified partner", putting 2 and 2 together, is this partner IBM?
Steven Rostedt
Wouldn't it be ironic if AOL/Time Warner becomes the new evil empire, and we have both IBM and Microsoft combat them as the forces of good. (and of course Linux will be there too)
It would be like the evil IBM turn good to fight MS. No one would have thought back in 1985 that IBM would be on the "good" side. So don't rule out MS from switching the public view.
Steven Rostedt
It seems to explain a lot. But this means that Ballmer can't fire Gates. Gates still is the head of the company, but doesn't seem to have to answer to anyone! So why does the title of this slashdot article state that Gates has step down as CEO. It seems that he actually has stepped up
Steven Rostedt
I thought the same thing too.
:)
I doubt it would happen but the thought amuses me
Actually, if Gates gets fired, then he can sell all his stocks without anyone knowing. No insider trading laws would affect him.
Steven Rostedt
If someone starts selling NSA/Linux then they will be required to give away the source,
Now the question is: how did this someone get the source in the first place. Do you mean someone employeed? What does the GPL think of "companies" comparied to people. (this is something I have to discuss with RMS the next time I see him). Is an employee one that gets the distribution or is it the company. I was purposely vague in my previous post, because I really don't know. It seems that an employee is not "given" software, but is told to just use it. That's because the software is "owned" by the company, thus the license is for the company and not the employees.
So if an employee gives out the software, is that employee violating laws? Could they be considered "stealing"? Thus unless one of the companies gives it away, I guess the NSA would have a case against the distribution, since no one of legal authority started the distributing of the software.
the NSA giving the NSA/Linux source to a contractor grants the contractor distribution rights
Another question: If I have GPL code, and need to hire someone to maintain it. Do I have to "give" them the code. Or can they just use it (like the employee above) and not be given it. The contractor (and employee) don't have to pay/buy the software. Is it "distributing" if you just hand the code over for service. Although, the license talks about ditribution even without fee, it is unclear if you need to distribute software if you need to have it serviced.
I really don't see this against the philosophy of GNU, since the one that has the code is still the customer, and not the vendor. This is another point I need to bring up.
Steven Rostedt
Back in March, I talked to RMS himself on this very topic. And the original poster is correct. RMS stated that he is concerned that those that receive software have the same rights to that software (because they bought it or what not) as the one that gave it to them. If I wrote software for you, then you must have the same rights to sell that or give it away as I did. So, my take from this, is that you must give (not restrict) the rights to those that you distribute it to. If you only distribute it to one person, or company, than that person/company doesn't want to give it away, then noone has to.
I mentioned the way I do business with my company, to RMS. We sell software to our customer (usually the government) and we give them the source and the rights to modify that source (just like GPL) but they don't in turn give it to anyone else, although we don't restrict them from doing so. He told me that, that is custom programming and he has nothing against it. The GPL would not affect that at all, except if the government wanted to imposed their own license.
So, in theory, you can have a little club of people that have some modification of the Linux kernel that no one else can see. But all it takes is one person to give it away to anyone to destroy that. The club cannot (under GPL) restrict anyone from doing so.
Steven Rostedt
Who cares who had what first.
Actually the thread started about MS being innovative or not. And being first at something proves that you are innovative. So, it does matter on this point. But you are right, in general, the only thing that it means is bragging rights.
Me, personally, don't care about themes. They just seem to distract me from my work. Ok, I'm an old timer in this respect, I like XFCE/XFWM (and I have used E! and Afterstep first) and GNOME (without themes). But this is the nice thing about window managers. You are not locked with someone else's favorite choice. You can choose your own. I don't know about Mac, but I can't stand Windows with its "click to focus"; and not being able to modify what control characters do what with windows; and its single desktop; and when a process is running, you can't do anything with that window (for example: moving it).
Enough ranting!
Steven Rostedt
I have to disagree with you.
The reason that MS has a monopoly in the two(three?) areas is because of each other. With software, the worst thing you can have is one company owning the software and the operating system. Of course this only applies to close sourced systems. The reason is that the makers of an application that also owns the OS has an advantage of: 1. seeing how the OS works, and 2. having the OS optimized for the apps.
Breaking up the OS from the apps helps others to compete. This way the OS won't be playing favorites to the apps that the OS company owns. Also this helps other OS's to compete, since there will no longer be a marriage between apps and a particular OS.
AT&T break up was done the way you say. The goverment turned one big monopoly into several little ones, that eventually became big again. This was because the users didn't have a choice in what company they delt with. I went from only a AT&T choice to an only Bell Atlantic choice. Smaller monopoly but still a monopoly.
This break up IMO will stop the MS monopoly. It will force them to compete fairly. Of course a break up of the Apps might help as well, since an integrated Office can spread too, but that is going a little too extreme. Even for Microsoft.
To recap, If we break up horizontally, then one of the OS/apps can become the dominant one and we will be in trouble again.
Steven Rostedt
With your first post, I though you were funny, with the second, I thought OK enough, with the third, you deserve troll, but now I have to say, anyone that puts in this much effort should be a feature ;p
If I have to read (Score -1: Troll) remarks, I wish they all could be like this.
Steven Rostedt
Actually, I feel that certifications are usually like up front money before you can go and invest in a career. What I mean is, it atleast shows that you are serious about something. If you have two equal candidates for a position, but one is certified, then you can probably say that that certified person is a little more serious than the other. This too may not be totally true, but someone that is certified, has shown that they have taken the time/money/effort to atleast get certified.
Steven Rostedt
I first had AOL, then they called my home when I wasn't there, and convinced my wife that I needed a "service book" for $20 with a "return if not satisfied" statement. Since my wife didn't realize that they had my credit card number, she agreed. Well, when I got home and she told me, I called AOL up and was told by them again and again (I kept asking to see supervisors) that they can't stop the transaction, and to just place "return to sender" when I receive it.
When I received the book, I did just that. But when my statement came I was billed. So I called them up and they told me they never received it! Well, then I asked to cancel my account. And they had the nerve to ask me why! I said "because you send me stuff I don't ask for and then bill me for it!".
Don't worry, I wrote my Credit Card company, and since AOL never received my agreement to send this (remember they talked to my wife, who was NOT a member). My CC company resolved the problem for me.
After that I when to Road Runner on Time Warner, saying that I never want to do business with AOL again. Now it looks like I can't avoid them. God I hate this!
Steven Rostedt
Yes you are right, but I'm stuck with using AIX 4.1 since that is what my customers have :(
And I know better than to tell a customer what to do, even if it is for the better.
Steven Rostedt