I've notice that in my company, the techies have say over a few things that they do. Thus the first level managers listen and supply them a little of what they need. But when a large number of techies are asking for the same thing, the upper management starts to notice.
I was asked by one manager if I heard of "Linux" and he was shocked that I already had it running on my terminal!
Most of the Linux systems are provided by Red Hat, which is part-owned by Compaq.
I didn't know this. Does Compaq own a lot of RedHat or does it own some shares of RedHat, thus I could say that since I own shares of RedHat, I'm a part owner;)
Actually, I lied, I don't (not yet) own any shares of RedHat. I'm a little strapped for cash.
I'm going to buy the book even though I read all the strips that are on the net. I down loaded the ones I liked and printed out the ones that others (non-open-source people) would like, and placed them on my cubical walls.
And its good reading for my "private library". Thats one place on-line documentation is not the place to be. Although I'm sure some of you do so.
I wouldn't post replies to accusations on my web site. Here's his opportunity to do it now. I'm not defending him, I just haven't looked at his web site, until now. My only view of him is what I have read on/. He's just a curiosity to me, and not much more.
If every one didn't use MS, and used Linux the world would be a better place? Maybe, but what makes the world great is that everyone is different and has their own opinions. No, the world may not be a better place if everyone did use Linux, and probably would be a little boring.
Rob, announced this a week ago, so we had lots of time to complain about this interview. If you did, then just let it go.
All the talk of this guy has made me interested in hearing what he has to say. So if you did ignore him in the first place, then I wouldn't care. But because he makes most everyone on/. go into a furry when his name is mentioned. I want to know "why?".
Actually, if you read as much about him, from his sources AND the sources against him, people can determine his character for themselves. I say, lets hear his side, and then if he can't produce anything to give himself credit, then ignore him. Obviously, he has some power to cause this much fuss, and just ignoring him won't make him go away. Listen, and then critise. If he has no basis, then he shall crumble.
I always believed that you can't hide your true self. It always comes out in the end. If you are fake, then it will eventually show. If you are honest and have integrity, then you shall stand strong.
Let him determine his own fate. Let him speak, then let him have it.
Microsoft had its defenders as well: relatively few on Slashdot, somewhat more in other forums, such as America Online's message boards and MSNBC's chat auditorium.
I'm < sarcastic > glad </sarcastic > we were compared to forums on America Online and MSNBC. First, AOL is made up primarily non technical people (I know there are several techies using AOL, but you are not the majority). And I should hope that there would be Microsoft supporters on a forum that has "MS" in its name!!!!
According to quicken as of 11:00am EST MS is only -2 13/16 points down, and slowly rising. This is not surprising to me, since a lot of people believe that MS has the resources to fight/appeal against the ruling. It now goes to the Supreme Court where they are more "business" friendly. MS will survive, the only thing that could really damage them is a break up. I doubt that will happen, and actually don't really want it to. Although I think that MS should separate their OS from their apps, things are changing so drastically, I don't think it will help. I really don't want the government to punish MS too badly. I like the idea of a long fight, because this gives the opportunity for competitors to get back to where they belong. MS will be too scared to attack in full force because of the law suit, and that is where I want them to be. Let MS fight only with quality (hee hee) products, and not with shady deals.
Side note: Another thing that the Net has changed and wasn't mentioned is politics. Just look at Jesse Ventura, who ran his campaign only through the web. And he won!!!
Living in a country that is "sue" happy, this does not surprise me any. Although I do agree with the defense department. It could have been very costly if the bank's software had been corrupted. Remember, who puts up the bill of repair after the war is over. Usually the one that wins!?! I also believe that this was a PR decision as well. We (the US) already have enough bad PR that it probably would not look good if we bankrupt a country as we destroy it physically.
I'm working on one for my masters, and will be out sometime in January. I'm trying to make an Object Relational Database, with full change management control. It's called GOODMIS, I'm doing this with a few others, so it will probably belong to my University (and not the company I work for which is a Good Thing {tm)). I'm working to publish it under the LGPL.
You can still play the FSF game and go for a patent. Sometimes the Open Source / Free Software community needs patents. The differnce is that the patent is under the GPL or like license. So you may own a patent, but you may still license it under GPL. This gives the GPL even more credential. I'm not saying that everyone is doing this, and there are probably only a very few that are. But don't go after people who go for patents as being against the idea of the Open Source communit for just the idea that they are going for a patent. How they license it is how to judge. Patents is just another way of showing off what you have done:)
I personally would go for few patents with the GPL, if it weren't for me working for a company that "owns" my ideas, and any thought I have belongs to them. So I can't patent under anything other than for my company. I colleague of mine was arguing against this to a manager with "If you own my thoughts, then if I think 'I'll go out and kill my family' then you are responsible." The manager didn't like that;) But this is another topic all together.
I totally disagree with this post. But disagreeing is NOT a reason to mark down. This person obviously has some emotionaly feelings against Mr. Bowie, but It was interesting to read.
Like I stated earlier, I completely disagree with this poster, but it was interesting (and quite amusing) to read. So I say moderate it up to 2, as interesting, if nothing else.
Remember, moderation is not about agreeing with someones statement. But to show interesting, funny, insightful, statements.
He's right, I did an nmap, and came up with the normal 25, 53, 80, 119, 443, then it went from 1024, and several hundreds of other ports, including the X ports. But weather or not they are active, is another question. To keep from taking up too much space, here's a single screen shot:
nmap -sS linuxworld.com
Starting nmap V. 2.12 by Fyodor (fyodor@dhp.com, www.insecure.org/nmap/) Interesting ports on linuxworld.com (209.1.23.223): (Not showing ports in state: filtered) Port State Protocol Service 25 open tcp smtp 53 unfiltered tcp domain 80 open tcp http 119 open tcp nntp 443 unfiltered tcp https 1024 unfiltered tcp unknown 1025 unfiltered tcp listen 1026 unfiltered tcp nterm 1030 unfiltered tcp iad1 1031 unfiltered tcp iad2 1032 unfiltered tcp iad3 1058 unfiltered tcp nim 1059 unfiltered tcp nimreg 1067 unfiltered tcp instl_boots 1068 unfiltered tcp instl_bootc 1080 unfiltered tcp socks 1083 unfiltered tcp ansoft-lm-1 1084 unfiltered tcp ansoft-lm-2
Corel is a company with a product, and a reason to support linux (it's being killed by MS). Mandrake was basically a split from RedHat.
What I don't trust about LinuxOne is the combination of the following. It's new (6 months old), its has produced no other product. It basically came out of nowhere. It's founder's previous company quickly sank, not to mention that it was a company that produced a lot of spam. And the most suspicious part, is the IPO. Mandrake hasn't filed an IPO that I know of. But to come out with an IPO after 6 months and bearly a product, looks bad to me. I know several stock brokers, and they have told me about lots of companies that come out just to get people to buy and then go bankrupt. This looks like one of them.
Being a Linux Advocate and an extrovert as well, I've talked up Linux to several colleagues, and have convinced most of them that Linux is the better OS (compared to Windows). The other day, before Cobalt released their IPO, one of my colleagues saw it and quickly asked me if he should buy. I referred him to the web page with the slashdot comments on that discussion, and he decided to do so.
It does seem that my advocacy has turned others that are not so technical to be blind with their money and Linux. I'm glad some of them are asking me directly before they do so, but I'm afraid that others won't. This is very dangerous, especially with companys like LinuxOne. I strongly feel that this company is only out to follow in RedHats success in the stock market. But the difference between LinuxOne and RedHat, is that RedHat was about a product, and LinuxOne is about the stock. I trust them less than my ability to by the Cobalt IPO now.
Next, one of these colleagues of mine will go out and (stupidly) buy this crap, and when they get taken to the cleaners, they will blame me and the rest of the Linux community. Yes it will be solely their fault, but it's still a smudge in the face of Linux (a Bad Thing (tm)).
Lets warn as many people as possible about this stock. It may be legit, but I wasn't them to prove it fist.
You probably won't read this, since it's late, but I'm resonding anyway.
My original post stated that I was unable to get in at that price, no matter what I did. So my starting point would have been 139. With RedHat I had almost a whole day to get it under 50. Steven Rostedt
According to quicken It opened at $139. It's only around 144 (did I just say "only"?). So you couldn't make the big money like you could have with RHAT. Unless of course you could have bought the IPO. I know I couldn't so this isn't a big buy for me. I'll wait till it comes down to around 80.
It looks like we are shifting from the dot.com companies to the free/open source companies.;)
I would probably agree. Although I use GNU/Linux for my personal web page, OpenBSD has been know for its security. A homogeneous solution is usually a bad one. This is my main argument against Microsoft. My experience with Unix is that, although not completely compatible, they all work well together. At work I use Solaris, AIX and Linux. Each with a separate duty. I'll probably start using *BSD OS soon too. Linux I feel is probably the best for interface and General setup. I'm looking at BSD for firewalls and some servers. Unix works because all of them try to follow standards. Again, Microsoft tries to implement their own "better" standards. I've been to two microsoft presentations, and both times they touted their proprietry solutions as the best thing out their. Unfortunately, their presentations are good, and they easily convince the higher ups. I wouldn't mind MS so much if they try to get along with other OS's instead of dominating them.
He had some pretty good responses. And I hope, those of you that are script kiddies take heed of his request. Discovering a security hole and reporting it is respectable, but taking a reported security hole and exploiting it is despicable.
Then in the traditionaly sense, I have the freedom to swing my fists through you nose!
That truely is the ultimate in freedom. Another word for that is Chaos. Total freedom is total chaos. You are free to murder, rape, and steal. That is true freedom. Of course it gets confusing when freedom limits freedom. The one killing the other is free, while the one being killed is not.
The problem, IMO, with BSD is that it is too free. Isn't this the reason that Unix forked in the first place. Not because it was open source, but because the source could then be hidden. Every one made their Unix better in someway that could not be shared by others.
At least with GPL, you are forced (so in a way, not free) to keep your code open if you use anothers code. You really are not forced, because you have the option not to use someone else's code. But if you make an advantage to that code, it won't fork because others will take that from you too. So you could argue that you just lost your invention. But I usually see that the creator of the invention is the strongest to benefit since they were the one to create it. Take RPM, for example, I see that most (if not all) distributions use rpms in some way. I even installed rpms on Slackware. But the ones with the most (and probably the best) utilities is RedHat. I don't think that RedHat has lost anything by it either. Infact they benefited from it. It became almost the "defacto" installation product out there. Please, no flames, I know rpms are not perfect, and something else will probably replace them soon. But it did well.
Don't get me wrong. I have the utmost respect for the guy. I've even talked face to face with him a few times, and I believe that people get his ideas totally screwed. But he is very very opinionated.
He states in the article about the compromised LGPL. Originally the Library GPL then renamed to the Lesser GPL. This is why I called him a little extreme, is the reason for it. He was upset that people were using the LGPL more than the GPL, so he renamed the LGPL. He wants those that develop GPL code to have an "advantage" from a GPL library. But to me, I don't care if you use GPL with my LGPL library or have a proprietary app.
All I care about for my code is that one, if you use it, you must always supply the source and freedom with it. And two, if you make changes or add code that makes the library dependant on it, then that code too must be under the LGPL. If your code is dependant on my code, then I say, do what you want with it. If you make my code dependant on your code, then I want that code freely available too.
Check out the words to the link in my sig. And no, I didn't just do it. I had it like that for a week or two now. Different words are links to different places. Steven Rostedt
When Star Wars was released in 1977 it did not have the "episode 4" label stuck to it.
I saw it the second day it came out, and I could have sworn that it did. Ok, I was nine, so my memory of it my be scewed by later seeing that movie. (I was one of those that saw it like 25 times in the theater. A birth of a Geek was I).
But I did read that the movie was based off of stories of sequals (could have been books, but I don't remember (brain dead today)).
Still the story line of SW moved together quite nicely with the others. Although countering Zulfiya's statement "The Matrix was designed as a stand-alone" , SW was also a stand alone movie. Everyone wanted sequals, but it was a full story and didn't leave you hanging, like the ESB did.
Remember that Neo is human in real life. Although he will probably be invincible in the Matrix, he can be killed outside of it. There probably will be more of the inside/outside of the Matrix than the first. Maybe the Matrix will deploy a "Terminator" like being in the real world that could match Neo's power in the Matrix. They left a lot of flexibility into the story line. I'm anxious to see it;)
Slashdot Mirror
I've notice that in my company, the techies have say over a few things that they do. Thus the first level managers listen and supply them a little of what they need. But when a large number of techies are asking for the same thing, the upper management starts to notice.
I was asked by one manager if I heard of "Linux" and he was shocked that I already had it running on my terminal!
Steven Rostedt
Most of the Linux systems are provided by Red Hat, which is part-owned by Compaq.
;)
I didn't know this. Does Compaq own a lot of RedHat or does it own some shares of RedHat, thus I could say that since I own shares of RedHat, I'm a part owner
Actually, I lied, I don't (not yet) own any shares of RedHat. I'm a little strapped for cash.
Steven Rostedt
I'm going to buy the book even though I read all the strips that are on the net. I down loaded the ones I liked and printed out the ones that others (non-open-source people) would like, and placed them on my cubical walls.
And its good reading for my "private library". Thats one place on-line documentation is not the place to be. Although I'm sure some of you do so.
Steven Rostedt
I wouldn't post replies to accusations on my web site. Here's his opportunity to do it now. I'm not defending him, I just haven't looked at his web site, until now. My only view of him is what I have read on /. He's just a curiosity to me, and not much more.
/. go into a furry when his name is mentioned. I want to know "why?".
If every one didn't use MS, and used Linux the world would be a better place? Maybe, but what makes the world great is that everyone is different and has their own opinions. No, the world may not be a better place if everyone did use Linux, and probably would be a little boring.
Rob, announced this a week ago, so we had lots of time to complain about this interview. If you did, then just let it go.
All the talk of this guy has made me interested in hearing what he has to say. So if you did ignore him in the first place, then I wouldn't care. But because he makes most everyone on
Steven Rostedt
Actually, if you read as much about him, from his sources AND the sources against him, people can determine his character for themselves. I say, lets hear his side, and then if he can't produce anything to give himself credit, then ignore him. Obviously, he has some power to cause this much fuss, and just ignoring him won't make him go away. Listen, and then critise. If he has no basis, then he shall crumble.
I always believed that you can't hide your true self. It always comes out in the end. If you are fake, then it will eventually show. If you are honest and have integrity, then you shall stand strong.
Let him determine his own fate. Let him speak, then let him have it.
Steven Rostedt
Microsoft had its defenders as well: relatively few on Slashdot, somewhat more in other forums, such as America Online's message boards and MSNBC's chat auditorium.
/sarcastic > we were compared to forums on America Online and MSNBC. First, AOL is made up primarily non technical people (I know there are several techies using AOL, but you are not the majority). And I should hope that there would be Microsoft supporters on a forum that has "MS" in its name!!!!
I'm < sarcastic > glad <
Steven Rostedt
According to quicken as of 11:00am EST MS is only -2 13/16 points down, and slowly rising. This is not surprising to me, since a lot of people believe that MS has the resources to fight/appeal against the ruling. It now goes to the Supreme Court where they are more "business" friendly. MS will survive, the only thing that could really damage them is a break up. I doubt that will happen, and actually don't really want it to. Although I think that MS should separate their OS from their apps, things are changing so drastically, I don't think it will help. I really don't want the government to punish MS too badly. I like the idea of a long fight, because this gives the opportunity for competitors to get back to where they belong. MS will be too scared to attack in full force because of the law suit, and that is where I want them to be. Let MS fight only with quality (hee hee) products, and not with shady deals.
Side note: Another thing that the Net has changed and wasn't mentioned is politics. Just look at Jesse Ventura, who ran his campaign only through the web. And he won!!!
Steven Rostedt
Living in a country that is "sue" happy, this does not surprise me any. Although I do agree with the defense department. It could have been very costly if the bank's software had been corrupted. Remember, who puts up the bill of repair after the war is over. Usually the one that wins!?! I also believe that this was a PR decision as well. We (the US) already have enough bad PR that it probably would not look good if we bankrupt a country as we destroy it physically.
Steven Rostedt
I'm working on one for my masters, and will be out sometime in January. I'm trying to make an Object Relational Database, with full change management control. It's called GOODMIS, I'm doing this with a few others, so it will probably belong to my University (and not the company I work for which is a Good Thing {tm)). I'm working to publish it under the LGPL.
Steven Rostedt
You can still play the FSF game and go for a patent. Sometimes the Open Source / Free Software community needs patents. The differnce is that the patent is under the GPL or like license. So you may own a patent, but you may still license it under GPL. This gives the GPL even more credential. I'm not saying that everyone is doing this, and there are probably only a very few that are. But don't go after people who go for patents as being against the idea of the Open Source communit for just the idea that they are going for a patent. How they license it is how to judge. Patents is just another way of showing off what you have done :)
;) But this is another topic all together.
I personally would go for few patents with the GPL, if it weren't for me working for a company that "owns" my ideas, and any thought I have belongs to them. So I can't patent under anything other than for my company. I colleague of mine was arguing against this to a manager with "If you own my thoughts, then if I think 'I'll go out and kill my family' then you are responsible." The manager didn't like that
Steven Rostedt
Ok, you got me ;)
;)
But it still was interesting. That's a pretty good script. I could use that to send about some of my upper management
It's late, my project just crashed, I don't know what I'm saying, so please moderate me down...
Steven Rostedt
I totally disagree with this post. But disagreeing is NOT a reason to mark down. This person obviously has some emotionaly feelings against Mr. Bowie, but It was interesting to read.
Like I stated earlier, I completely disagree with this poster, but it was interesting (and quite amusing) to read. So I say moderate it up to 2, as interesting, if nothing else.
Remember, moderation is not about agreeing with someones statement. But to show interesting, funny, insightful, statements.
Steven Rostedt
I'll trade in my Martha Stewarts for some David Bowies!!!
;)
Just kidding, I don't (and won't) own either
Steven Rostedt
He's right, I did an nmap, and came up with the normal 25, 53, 80, 119, 443, then it went from 1024, and several hundreds of other ports, including the X ports. But weather or not they are active, is another question.
To keep from taking up too much space, here's a single screen shot:
nmap -sS linuxworld.com
Starting nmap V. 2.12 by Fyodor (fyodor@dhp.com, www.insecure.org/nmap/)
Interesting ports on linuxworld.com (209.1.23.223):
(Not showing ports in state: filtered)
Port State Protocol Service
25 open tcp smtp
53 unfiltered tcp domain
80 open tcp http
119 open tcp nntp
443 unfiltered tcp https
1024 unfiltered tcp unknown
1025 unfiltered tcp listen
1026 unfiltered tcp nterm
1030 unfiltered tcp iad1
1031 unfiltered tcp iad2
1032 unfiltered tcp iad3
1058 unfiltered tcp nim
1059 unfiltered tcp nimreg
1067 unfiltered tcp instl_boots
1068 unfiltered tcp instl_bootc
1080 unfiltered tcp socks
1083 unfiltered tcp ansoft-lm-1
1084 unfiltered tcp ansoft-lm-2
Steven Rostedt
Corel is a company with a product, and a reason to support linux (it's being killed by MS). Mandrake was basically a split from RedHat.
What I don't trust about LinuxOne is the combination of the following. It's new (6 months old), its has produced no other product. It basically came out of nowhere. It's founder's previous company quickly sank, not to mention that it was a company that produced a lot of spam. And the most suspicious part, is the IPO. Mandrake hasn't filed an IPO that I know of. But to come out with an IPO after 6 months and bearly a product, looks bad to me. I know several stock brokers, and they have told me about lots of companies that come out just to get people to buy and then go bankrupt. This looks like one of them.
Steven Rostedt
Being a Linux Advocate and an extrovert as well, I've talked up Linux to several colleagues, and have convinced most of them that Linux is the better OS (compared to Windows). The other day, before Cobalt released their IPO, one of my colleagues saw it and quickly asked me if he should buy. I referred him to the web page with the slashdot comments on that discussion, and he decided to do so.
It does seem that my advocacy has turned others that are not so technical to be blind with their money and Linux. I'm glad some of them are asking me directly before they do so, but I'm afraid that others won't. This is very dangerous, especially with companys like LinuxOne. I strongly feel that this company is only out to follow in RedHats success in the stock market. But the difference between LinuxOne and RedHat, is that RedHat was about a product, and LinuxOne is about the stock. I trust them less than my ability to by the Cobalt IPO now.
Next, one of these colleagues of mine will go out and (stupidly) buy this crap, and when they get taken to the cleaners, they will blame me and the rest of the Linux community. Yes it will be solely their fault, but it's still a smudge in the face of Linux (a Bad Thing (tm)).
Lets warn as many people as possible about this stock. It may be legit, but I wasn't them to prove it fist.
Steven Rostedt
You probably won't read this, since it's late, but I'm resonding anyway.
My original post stated that I was unable to get in at that price, no matter what I did. So my starting point would have been 139. With RedHat I had almost a whole day to get it under 50.
Steven Rostedt
I have to laugh because doonesbury has had a story line on this very topic. This whole thing is just like a comic strip!
The strip in todays paper was even better!
Steven Rostedt
According to quicken It opened at $139. It's only around 144 (did I just say "only"?). So you couldn't make the big money like you could have with RHAT. Unless of course you could have bought the IPO. I know I couldn't so this isn't a big buy for me. I'll wait till it comes down to around 80.
;)
It looks like we are shifting from the dot.com companies to the free/open source companies.
Steven Rostedt
On the response of
/had/ chosen OpenBSD ;-)
In retrospect, I wish I
I would probably agree. Although I use GNU/Linux for my personal web page, OpenBSD has been know for its security. A homogeneous solution is usually a bad one. This is my main argument against Microsoft. My experience with Unix is that, although not completely compatible, they all work well together. At work I use Solaris, AIX and Linux. Each with a separate duty. I'll probably start using *BSD OS soon too. Linux I feel is probably the best for interface and General setup. I'm looking at BSD for firewalls and some servers. Unix works because all of them try to follow standards. Again, Microsoft tries to implement their own "better" standards. I've been to two microsoft presentations, and both times they touted their proprietry solutions as the best thing out their. Unfortunately, their presentations are good, and they easily convince the higher ups. I wouldn't mind MS so much if they try to get along with other OS's instead of dominating them.
He had some pretty good responses. And I hope, those of you that are script kiddies take heed of his request. Discovering a security hole and reporting it is respectable, but taking a reported security hole and exploiting it is despicable.
Steven Rostedt
Then in the traditionaly sense, I have the freedom to swing my fists through you nose!
That truely is the ultimate in freedom. Another word for that is Chaos. Total freedom is total chaos. You are free to murder, rape, and steal. That is true freedom. Of course it gets confusing when freedom limits freedom. The one killing the other is free, while the one being killed is not.
The problem, IMO, with BSD is that it is too free. Isn't this the reason that Unix forked in the first place. Not because it was open source, but because the source could then be hidden. Every one made their Unix better in someway that could not be shared by others.
At least with GPL, you are forced (so in a way, not free) to keep your code open if you use anothers code. You really are not forced, because you have the option not to use someone else's code. But if you make an advantage to that code, it won't fork because others will take that from you too. So you could argue that you just lost your invention. But I usually see that the creator of the invention is the strongest to benefit since they were the one to create it. Take RPM, for example, I see that most (if not all) distributions use rpms in some way. I even installed rpms on Slackware. But the ones with the most (and probably the best) utilities is RedHat. I don't think that RedHat has lost anything by it either. Infact they benefited from it. It became almost the "defacto" installation product out there. Please, no flames, I know rpms are not perfect, and something else will probably replace them soon. But it did well.
Just my 0.02
Steven Rostedt
Don't get me wrong. I have the utmost respect for the guy. I've even talked face to face with him a few times, and I believe that people get his ideas totally screwed. But he is very very opinionated.
He states in the article about the compromised LGPL. Originally the Library GPL then renamed to the Lesser GPL. This is why I called him a little extreme, is the reason for it. He was upset that people were using the LGPL more than the GPL, so he renamed the LGPL. He wants those that develop GPL code to have an "advantage" from a GPL library. But to me, I don't care if you use GPL with my LGPL library or have a proprietary app.
All I care about for my code is that one, if you use it, you must always supply the source and freedom with it. And two, if you make changes or add code that makes the library dependant on it, then that code too must be under the LGPL. If your code is dependant on my code, then I say, do what you want with it. If you make my code dependant on your code, then I want that code freely available too.
Simple, enough said, that's all, case in point!!
Steven Rostedt
Check out the words to the link in my sig. And no, I didn't just do it. I had it like that for a week or two now.
Different words are links to different places.
Steven Rostedt
When Star Wars was released in 1977 it did not have the "episode 4" label stuck to it.
I saw it the second day it came out, and I could have sworn that it did. Ok, I was nine, so my memory of it my be scewed by later seeing that movie. (I was one of those that saw it like 25 times in the theater. A birth of a Geek was I).
But I did read that the movie was based off of stories of sequals (could have been books, but I don't remember (brain dead today)).
Still the story line of SW moved together quite nicely with the others. Although countering Zulfiya's statement "The Matrix was designed as a stand-alone" , SW was also a stand alone movie. Everyone wanted sequals, but it was a full story and didn't leave you hanging, like the ESB did.
Steven Rostedt
Remember that Neo is human in real life. Although he will probably be invincible in the Matrix, he can be killed outside of it. There probably will be more of the inside/outside of the Matrix than the first. Maybe the Matrix will deploy a "Terminator" like being in the real world that could match Neo's power in the Matrix. They left a lot of flexibility into the story line. I'm anxious to see it ;)
Steven Rostedt