If Ability is looking to take on Microsoft, they are going for a humongous market. If they can't handle a slashdotting, it suggests to me that their PR is getting ahead of the game. If their site is down, someone can't access online documentation, get e-mail support, etc., etc.
They're not on the ball with their website, which means that their management may be lazy in other areas, like customer support.
Any major business undertaking should be on the web nowadays, especially if it is consumer-oriented. If the web-infrastructure isn't up to snuff, it's a foul-up that is indicative of poor management.
The website for Ability is slashdotted already. If a company can't keep a server from getting bogged down, this always makes me wonder if they are ready for the big time.
It sounds like most of the cluster is just refurbished Intel PC's with the Sun gift comprising of " five new Sun Fire 6800 servers and two refurbished Enterprise 10000s". So what do these Sun machines do for the cluster? And are these Sun servers running Linux or Solaris?
Are they restricting access to all source files or only the source files of future updates? If it's the latter they would still seem to be in the clear. Plus, the GPL doesn't require that getting the source files be as easy as anonymous FTPing. It is legitimate to give added convenience to paying customers. Has anyone yet been specifically DENIED source files if they asked for them from SCO.
I'm not talking about being denied access to the FTP site, but has anyone who had previously freely downloaded binaries, without being a customer, been denied the source to said binaries by SCO when they, for instance, emailed them, or better yet, sent a registered letter with a certified check for reasonable costs.
I'm splitting hairs here, but I would imagine that these questions matter.
SCO can make a case that it has different levels of access. Paying customers get FTP, freeloaders must send a money-order. I would think this would satisfy the GPL. And I bet SCO hasn't thought of that but maybe they read slashdot and they'll use my idea. That's OK. One of the beauties of free software (and ideas) is that the creator has no control over how it is used, or by whom.
I can't see any GPL violation. Looking at the sign-up page (http://www.sco.com/support/linux_info.html) quoted in the article, I just see that they ask you for some basic info to prove you actually purchased the product from them.
If the GPL just requires one to make source code available to people who you specifically distribute the binaries to, registration seems a reasonable step to take to make sure only actual customers download it from you. If nothing else, this is reasonable since it cuts down on bandwidth consumption.
Of course, the GPL doesn't let SCO stop their customers from distributing source and binary files, but it should not be held responsible to distribute source and binary files universally.
On its face, this seems a reasonable step by SCO.
Could anyone point out where the actual GPL violation is?
*And please control yourselves. I'm not trying to troll or start a flame war.
Whatever the restrictions are, this is still a very significant release. The release makes the source open, though not completely free. One must credit Activision with going farther than any other game company would. This is a very positive step.
The problem with Blutooth is not the concept, or even the implimentation, but the high cost.
Getting rid of wires is greatly appealing to many people. But a wireless "Bluetooth" solution costs much more than a comparable wired product.
Consider keyboards. A very nice wired keyboard and mouse combo will cost less than $30. Any comparable wireless setup will cost at least twice as much.
The US PATRIOT act can be used to go after journalists going after some goofy hacker pulling pranks, but it can't be used to go after Novak and the leakers in the White House who are putting our nation's security at risk by leaking classified information?
In truth, neither situation warrants intrusion into journalists' records.
In practice, One gets a free pass to endanger lives if one is doing it to hurt the wives of the White House's political enemies.
I'm looking at kahanetzadak.com, to use as an example.
A lot of these sites have banner ads. One prevalent "sponsor" (their word) is some site called affordablehealthcare.com. So would I be supporting terrorism by buying medical supplies from them.
On the links page, the articles of people like Alan Keyes, Rush Limbaugh, Senator James Inhofe, and George Will are linked to. Does this make them sponsors of state terrorism.
Heck, Circuit City has a link on their pages. Are they now supporters of terrorism?
Interestingly, cafepress apparently has pulled their affiliation with these people.
This isn't to say that these websites aren't podiums for some very nasty people, but it seems that the websites themselves are protected forums of expression. Even buying the trinkets or books sold directly seems to be aimed at deseminating ideas.
Is slashdot.org complicit and criminally liable for linking to the story. Am I criminally liable for even reading the sites?
Only heinous actions, not ideas, should be punishable. This action by the state department is edging awfully close to censorship and thought control.
Microsoft has successfully ridden and exploited the rise of the personal computer, surplanting previous niche champs like Netscape(browsers), Apple(GUIs), Visicalc(spreadsheets)and WordPerfect(word processors).
That doesn't mean that they will reign supreme forever. Microsoft counts on upgrade cycles to make their money. Every upgrade cycle is a chance for them to lose mindshare.
If free/open-source software can just be better than Microsoft's previous product cycle and can compete with their current product cycle, there is room for competition. It won't be easy, since Microsoft has a lot of money to throw at the problem, but the more money they have to throw at the problem, the next they have for the next round.
Even with a $100,000 fine, the interviewee, Sterling Ball, said that he is ahead of the game financially by switching to open source. That is pretty amazing.
His company should consider starting up a subsidiary that switches business over to free software. He's got the expertise, he should leverage it.
Most comments on Slashdot, for example, are worth less than a penny. I like reading them, and I might even pay to read them, and be willing to accept payments to have people read some of mine, but mostly they are worth less than a penny.
Slashdot Mirror
Classic, conventional games have a great advantage in that most people already know how to play them. Also, most are really quite good.
So here's my list:
Dominoes (These also double as a good block type toy for younger kids)
Monopoly
Risk
Any card game
These are all great games, without being too complicated. They also all require substantial strategic thinking to master.
The important thing is to spend most of your time playing rather than reading the rules, unless your family is a bunch of die-hard grognards.
Wow. That's all I can say.
Maybe the local electic utility company should get in on the action, after all, they're supplying the electricity.
If Ability is looking to take on Microsoft, they are going for a humongous market. If they can't handle a slashdotting, it suggests to me that their PR is getting ahead of the game. If their site is down, someone can't access online documentation, get e-mail support, etc., etc.
They're not on the ball with their website, which means that their management may be lazy in other areas, like customer support.
Any major business undertaking should be on the web nowadays, especially if it is consumer-oriented. If the web-infrastructure isn't up to snuff, it's a foul-up that is indicative of poor management.
So I take it, then, that the Linux "scrap metal" cluster would exist with or without the Sun machines.
The article fails to mention Lotus Smartsuite, which, miraculously, is still around.
The website for Ability is slashdotted already. If a company can't keep a server from getting bogged down, this always makes me wonder if they are ready for the big time.
It sounds like most of the cluster is just refurbished Intel PC's with the Sun gift comprising of " five new Sun Fire 6800 servers and two refurbished Enterprise 10000s". So what do these Sun machines do for the cluster? And are these Sun servers running Linux or Solaris?
No you didn't
Are they restricting access to all source files or only the source files of future updates? If it's the latter they would still seem to be in the clear. Plus, the GPL doesn't require that getting the source files be as easy as anonymous FTPing. It is legitimate to give added convenience to paying customers. Has anyone yet been specifically DENIED source files if they asked for them from SCO.
I'm not talking about being denied access to the FTP site, but has anyone who had previously freely downloaded binaries, without being a customer, been denied the source to said binaries by SCO when they, for instance, emailed them, or better yet, sent a registered letter with a certified check for reasonable costs.
I'm splitting hairs here, but I would imagine that these questions matter.
SCO can make a case that it has different levels of access. Paying customers get FTP, freeloaders must send a money-order. I would think this would satisfy the GPL. And I bet SCO hasn't thought of that but maybe they read slashdot and they'll use my idea. That's OK. One of the beauties of free software (and ideas) is that the creator has no control over how it is used, or by whom.
I can't see any GPL violation. Looking at the sign-up page (http://www.sco.com/support/linux_info.html) quoted in the article, I just see that they ask you for some basic info to prove you actually purchased the product from them.
If the GPL just requires one to make source code available to people who you specifically distribute the binaries to, registration seems a reasonable step to take to make sure only actual customers download it from you. If nothing else, this is reasonable since it cuts down on bandwidth consumption.
Of course, the GPL doesn't let SCO stop their customers from distributing source and binary files, but it should not be held responsible to distribute source and binary files universally.
On its face, this seems a reasonable step by SCO.
Could anyone point out where the actual GPL violation is?
*And please control yourselves. I'm not trying to troll or start a flame war.
Whatever the restrictions are, this is still a very significant release. The release makes the source open, though not completely free. One must credit Activision with going farther than any other game company would. This is a very positive step.
I look forward to all of this being integrated into a stable version of Debian. Shall we say, around 2008?
OK. You win. I am unselecting "LOTR" from my list of viewable topics. This is too trivial to justify.
If it's free as in speech, where can I download an ISO? Are updates only available to paying customers? Which parts of it are proprietary?
Have you tried webmin?
It's a browser based control panel and runs on more than just redhat (I'm running it on yellowdog on ppc). It's also free (open source, I think.)
The problem with Blutooth is not the concept, or even the implimentation, but the high cost.
Getting rid of wires is greatly appealing to many people. But a wireless "Bluetooth" solution costs much more than a comparable wired product.
Consider keyboards. A very nice wired keyboard and mouse combo will cost less than $30. Any comparable wireless setup will cost at least twice as much.
When the price goes down, usage will go way up.
The US PATRIOT act can be used to go after journalists going after some goofy hacker pulling pranks, but it can't be used to go after Novak and the leakers in the White House who are putting our nation's security at risk by leaking classified information?
In truth, neither situation warrants intrusion into journalists' records.
In practice, One gets a free pass to endanger lives if one is doing it to hurt the wives of the White House's political enemies.
The US PATRIOT Act is being abused.
I'm looking at kahanetzadak.com, to use as an example.
A lot of these sites have banner ads. One prevalent "sponsor" (their word) is some site called affordablehealthcare.com. So would I be supporting terrorism by buying medical supplies from them.
On the links page, the articles of people like Alan Keyes, Rush Limbaugh, Senator James Inhofe, and George Will are linked to. Does this make them sponsors of state terrorism.
Heck, Circuit City has a link on their pages. Are they now supporters of terrorism?
Interestingly, cafepress apparently has pulled their affiliation with these people.
This isn't to say that these websites aren't podiums for some very nasty people, but it seems that the websites themselves are protected forums of expression. Even buying the trinkets or books sold directly seems to be aimed at deseminating ideas.
Is slashdot.org complicit and criminally liable for linking to the story. Am I criminally liable for even reading the sites?
Only heinous actions, not ideas, should be punishable. This action by the state department is edging awfully close to censorship and thought control.
Here's a link to the Canopy Group. This is hardly an overwhelming collection of companies.
My favorite is Planet Earth Tools. Oops! Make that SaberTooth Tools.
The idea that this collection of dopey companies is capable of mustering the resources for any anti-Linux conspiracy seems laughable.
I was running Mozilla 1.2 on win98 for a while because IE6 had gone into 60-second-hang mode every time a form came up.
.
Tried upgrading to 1.4 but it was constantly crashing, so I went back to 1.2
Then again I'm running win 98 because I'm too stupid/addicted-to-games to switch to Linux.
And one of my wife's hard drive died on her Mac, that's what's really pissing me off.
Microsoft has successfully ridden and exploited the rise of the personal computer, surplanting previous niche champs like Netscape(browsers), Apple(GUIs), Visicalc(spreadsheets)and WordPerfect(word processors).
That doesn't mean that they will reign supreme forever. Microsoft counts on upgrade cycles to make their money. Every upgrade cycle is a chance for them to lose mindshare.
If free/open-source software can just be better than Microsoft's previous product cycle and can compete with their current product cycle, there is room for competition. It won't be easy, since Microsoft has a lot of money to throw at the problem, but the more money they have to throw at the problem, the next they have for the next round.
Even with a $100,000 fine, the interviewee, Sterling Ball, said that he is ahead of the game financially by switching to open source. That is pretty amazing.
His company should consider starting up a subsidiary that switches business over to free software. He's got the expertise, he should leverage it.
Most comments on Slashdot, for example, are worth less than a penny. I like reading them, and I might even pay to read them, and be willing to accept payments to have people read some of mine, but mostly they are worth less than a penny.
Even single penny transactions are too big. What will really matter are fractions-of-a-penny payments. Things will really add up in volume.
what the fuck body part is that tatooed on?