Microsoft knows better than to offer a foothold to any kind of competition.
Since the whole point of their bundling was to prevent competitors access to markets, walking away from the market isn't exactly an effective counter is it?
I get the impression that Google is a competitor simply because Gates thinks they are.
Google is competition because Microsoft can't stand the idea that somehow, somewhere, there is someone in IT who doesn't bow down to Redmond five times a day.
It's "of course" because you can't just install the industry supported Red Hat Linux without a purchased license.
If you mean that Red Hat won't support you unless you purchase a Red Hat support contract, then I guess my response is, "well, DUH!"
If you mean that you can't install the bits that Cadence guarantees will work, you're flat wrong. Read the Red Hat LICENSES file.
Sure, you can compile it yourself or go with all the other precompiled RH options out there. But for that you don't really have a contract with RH do you? In that sense it's technically "open" but that's not what companies are doing. They are going with the proprietary version that asks for licensing info when you install it.
Tautologically true -- if you don't have an RH support contract, you don't have RH support.
On the other hand, take the CDs for RHEL and they have instructions for doing an unsupported installation. Same RPMs, no need to compile your own, install from their CDs (but replace a couple of trademark files) and you're up and running.
RHEL is a proprietary, purchased license to use. You can't say "I'm going to run critical application X on Red Hat" unless you're going to purchase a Red Hat license.
Male Bovine Excrement. I've installed any number of applications that even check for Red Hat revision level -- they run just fine on systems prepared precisely to Red Hat's specifications. Unless, of course, you're referring to the fact that "Red Hat" is a trademark and only applies if you have a contractual relationship with Red Hat -- which isn't a comment on Red Hat, it's a comment on trademark law.
Of course this is a proprietary (and often reviled) Linux. But that's not important.
How, "of course?"
I'm by no way a Red Hat fan, but every byte of software that Red Hat produces is under the GPL, and they not only tell you that in their LICENSES file but give precise instructions for how to remove the Red Hat trademark files from their distribution so that it can be redistributed.
If that's "proprietary" then we're well on our way to becoming what the anti-OSS crowd call us: religious fanatics, more interested in internal inquisitions for insufficient piety than in the real world.
This is apparently the new version of the "Red Hat is becoming Microsoft."
Novell, in case the Greens didn't notice, has been releasing more and more of the Ximian and SuSE code under the GPL and making their distribution much easier to acquire gratis as well as libre. So what's their complaint? Reading TFA it's hard to tell.
Transition implies that something is changing. On the contrary, the US telecoms businesses are continuing with business as usual: use the lack of a desired service to justify increased (monopoly) rates, pocketing the revenues, then going back for another round.
$FORMER_EMPLOYER has several Class B address spaces but keeps the entire internal network behind proxies and doesn't even support internet DNS lookups for machines in the intranet. Net result is that the entire company could present less than a Class C to the internet at large.
In general, corporate networks today are so completely firewalled that they might as well be behind NAT, and some (bless 'em) are -- Intel for one uses nonroutable addresses internally.
But I don't like the reasoning you seem to be heading towards: "last time we increased education funding we didn't see any measurable results, so lets not bother trying anymore."
I'm not too fond of it, either. However, the way the political distribution of "increased education funding" goes that money is like the Colorado River: it disappears into the sand before it reaches its destination.
A better phrasing would be that there's no point in just increasing education funding. At the very least, we need to stop congratulating ourselves purely on how much we spend.
I'm old enough to have been in school when Sputnik went up.
We had lots of blather from Washington, the school systems got some additional money, the universities went on a building binge, and the actual levels of education and real scientific research didn't move so you'd notice [1].
Basically, this is just too good a pork-barrel issue to let actual results get in the way.
[1] University politics being what it is, every department got its share of the take. The only stuff that went to "hard sciences" specifically was military and industrial research grants, and those were (of course) very heavily weighted towards near-term results.
Hardly surprising -- the record labels are, basically, distributors. They're staring at the fact that their distribution role is going away and so they're grabbing at every conceivable revenue source.
Soft of like the definition of a fanatic: they're redoubling their efforts as they lose sight of their purpose.
I made the assumption that you were posting another "not made in America, ergo I don't understand it, ergo it's crap" comment
No, I actually meant it. Face it -- some films have crappy dialog but are entertaining regardless. Bollywood seems to produce a slew of flicks that are fun to watch when you don't understand the lines (as was also true of many Japanese films "back in the day"). I take it from those who do understand them that the dialog doesn't always contribute positively...
SAMBA doesn't have anything to do with FAT, for one.
In addition, the US (the only place these patents could apply) doesn't have statutory licensing fees for patents. At most Microsoft could enjoin US users from using the vfat modules, so Red Hat and Novell would stop building them into their kernels.
Microsoft isn't stupid. They expect to own the entire music-distribution business before it's all over, and when that happens you'll think fondly of the old Content Cartel.
The basic questions have all been answered, now they're just arguing over price.
How much more can the music labels demand when even Microsoft won't go to market?
They're starting to catch on. I suspect that they demanded a share of MSWindows revenue (same as iPod with Apple). Which, IMHO, was the only thing they could do.
Remember, the RIAA is basically just a bunch of distributors. Apple and now Microsoft are taking that role away; with them holding the DRM key to the store the RIAA has little choice but to do business with (and through) them.
Just like the artists have little choice but to do business with (and through) the RIAA. Indentured servitude. "Work for hire." In other words, the Man owns you, suckah, and unless you give good head you're not singing anywhere for the rest of your life.
Karma is such a bitch -- especially on the "comes around" part.
Slashdot Mirror
Since the whole point of their bundling was to prevent competitors access to markets, walking away from the market isn't exactly an effective counter is it?
Google is competition because Microsoft can't stand the idea that somehow, somewhere, there is someone in IT who doesn't bow down to Redmond five times a day.
That wouldn't be so bad if their preferred method of getting there weren't borrowed from Tanya Harding.
If you mean that Red Hat won't support you unless you purchase a Red Hat support contract, then I guess my response is, "well, DUH!"
If you mean that you can't install the bits that Cadence guarantees will work, you're flat wrong. Read the Red Hat LICENSES file. Sure, you can compile it yourself or go with all the other precompiled RH options out there. But for that you don't really have a contract with RH do you? In that sense it's technically "open" but that's not what companies are doing. They are going with the proprietary version that asks for licensing info when you install it.
Tautologically true -- if you don't have an RH support contract, you don't have RH support.
On the other hand, take the CDs for RHEL and they have instructions for doing an unsupported installation. Same RPMs, no need to compile your own, install from their CDs (but replace a couple of trademark files) and you're up and running. RHEL is a proprietary, purchased license to use. You can't say "I'm going to run critical application X on Red Hat" unless you're going to purchase a Red Hat license.
Male Bovine Excrement. I've installed any number of applications that even check for Red Hat revision level -- they run just fine on systems prepared precisely to Red Hat's specifications. Unless, of course, you're referring to the fact that "Red Hat" is a trademark and only applies if you have a contractual relationship with Red Hat -- which isn't a comment on Red Hat, it's a comment on trademark law.
That's the best pun I've seen all week.
How, "of course?"
I'm by no way a Red Hat fan, but every byte of software that Red Hat produces is under the GPL, and they not only tell you that in their LICENSES file but give precise instructions for how to remove the Red Hat trademark files from their distribution so that it can be redistributed.
If that's "proprietary" then we're well on our way to becoming what the anti-OSS crowd call us: religious fanatics, more interested in internal inquisitions for insufficient piety than in the real world.
Novell, in case the Greens didn't notice, has been releasing more and more of the Ximian and SuSE code under the GPL and making their distribution much easier to acquire gratis as well as libre. So what's their complaint? Reading TFA it's hard to tell.
Have you tried building OO.o v2 on Linux?
Damn near impossible.
Transition implies that something is changing. On the contrary, the US telecoms businesses are continuing with business as usual: use the lack of a desired service to justify increased (monopoly) rates, pocketing the revenues, then going back for another round.
In general, corporate networks today are so completely firewalled that they might as well be behind NAT, and some (bless 'em) are -- Intel for one uses nonroutable addresses internally.
I'd love to know the zombienet operators' take on the conversion to IPV6.
I'm not too fond of it, either. However, the way the political distribution of "increased education funding" goes that money is like the Colorado River: it disappears into the sand before it reaches its destination.
A better phrasing would be that there's no point in just increasing education funding. At the very least, we need to stop congratulating ourselves purely on how much we spend.
We had lots of blather from Washington, the school systems got some additional money, the universities went on a building binge, and the actual levels of education and real scientific research didn't move so you'd notice [1].
Basically, this is just too good a pork-barrel issue to let actual results get in the way.
[1] University politics being what it is, every department got its share of the take. The only stuff that went to "hard sciences" specifically was military and industrial research grants, and those were (of course) very heavily weighted towards near-term results.
Soft of like the definition of a fanatic: they're redoubling their efforts as they lose sight of their purpose.
No, I actually meant it. Face it -- some films have crappy dialog but are entertaining regardless. Bollywood seems to produce a slew of flicks that are fun to watch when you don't understand the lines (as was also true of many Japanese films "back in the day"). I take it from those who do understand them that the dialog doesn't always contribute positively ...
The fact that they don't appeal to your tastes?
Do you have the players straight here?
That's your problem. Like some of the early Japanese imports to the USA, they're better if you can't follow the dialog.
Considering the number of high-quality films coming from China and Bollywood lately, I wonder if there'll be subtitles?
That's not a loophole, that's how it's supposed to work.
He also notes that the OSS community has contributed very little to Nessus in the past six years, so they were reaping no benefit from using the GPL.
His code, his rules. As long as he's not including code that others contributed under the GPL, that is.
The question is, has he either cleared the code, acquired copyright, or licensed it from the authors?
n/t
SAMBA doesn't have anything to do with FAT, for one.
In addition, the US (the only place these patents could apply) doesn't have statutory licensing fees for patents. At most Microsoft could enjoin US users from using the vfat modules, so Red Hat and Novell would stop building them into their kernels.
Wow.
IANAL, all that.
The basic questions have all been answered, now they're just arguing over price.
They're starting to catch on. I suspect that they demanded a share of MSWindows revenue (same as iPod with Apple). Which, IMHO, was the only thing they could do.
Remember, the RIAA is basically just a bunch of distributors. Apple and now Microsoft are taking that role away; with them holding the DRM key to the store the RIAA has little choice but to do business with (and through) them.
Just like the artists have little choice but to do business with (and through) the RIAA. Indentured servitude. "Work for hire." In other words, the Man owns you, suckah, and unless you give good head you're not singing anywhere for the rest of your life.
Karma is such a bitch -- especially on the "comes around" part.
is whether MS insisted on Jackson replacing his Linux-based renderfarm with one running the new supercomputing version of MSWindows.
Make of that what you will.