I turned on my monitor this morning, and in front of me was a graphical screen with a box that had a label saying "Username:"
I typed in my username and pressed enter. Then it asked me for a password, which I also complied with.
Then I got a splash screen for approximately 5 seconds, and then I had a little footprint on a panel at the bottom left corner of my screen. I also had a bunch of little icons immediately to the right of it. The footprint opened up a menu of a whole bunch of different programs I could choose to run. When I opened up an application, a window popped up with a little small rectangle representing the window on the panel, immediately right to the little application launchers. To the far bottom right corner on the panel was the time, date, and a couple of little applets like an ICQ interface for me to quickly be able to use programs at my own customized leisure.
Then on the desktop There were other program launchers, as well as one for "Home Directory" which would let me browse and manipulate files. I could run Mozilla, OpenOffice, GnomeICU and xmms.
If I press alt-f4 the screen closes. If I press alt-tab I switch between windows. There's three boxes at the top right of each window: An underscore (for minimizing), a window (for maximizing) and an x (for closing). Furthermore, if I left-click the top left corner of the window, I get a menu with similar options.
For the record I use Red Hat 9.0.
Trust me. If you can run windows, you can run Linux. Installing might be a bit more difficult, but a skilled admin can just do a net-install of it, and then set up a default user setting for Gnome or KDE or whatever and make it seriously operate _EXACTLY_ the same as Windows, with a few esthetic differences that change none of the functionality. If you really want.
The more people use SCO-licensed software, the more companies look to SCO-licensed software as necessary for their own business model. As such, they continue to keep their SCO license. The longer they keep the SCO license, the more money SCO makes. If theoretically nobody wanted to use HP-UX anymore, then Hewlett-Packard would think well to stop using SCO code, and as such SCO would no longer get their licensing fee as HP wouldn't want SCO.
It's logic like yours that seems to think things like "Movie Theatres only make money in the concession stand anyways, so theatre-sneaking isn't that bad".
Money is being channelled, albeit indirectly, to SCO through these products. Continued use of the products continues funding to SCO. Therefore, SCO makes money off of HP-UX, Solaris, AIX, etc.
If you're denying that they do, then you must really be daft, as I really highly doubt that OpenLinux makes nearly enough money for SCO to keep them afloat.
That's nice, but you're deviating from what you said:
Also, I hope that companies in the market for Unix remember that their is HP-UX, Solaris, AIX and others as well as Linux...no need for SCO (some crappy old) Unix
You listed a bunch of SCO UNIX licensees as alternatives to SCO. Which isn't an alternative to SCO at all, since it's, well, SCO.
All those Unices you mentioned are based on System V code and as such are licensed... get this... BY SCO!!!!! Concept. So when you buy them, you're technically buying SCO code.
Linux and *BSD are honestly the only non-SCO Unix-like systems that are on the mass market at the moment.
This is an old debate, and really off-topic if you ask me. But whatever.
Red Hat releases the source code. Red Hat is freely distributable. If you own Red Hat, and if you paid for it and everything, you have every right to turn around and redistribute it to whomever you want. THAT is what makes the GPL so useful.
Yes, there are commercial interests in Linux. This is great, because it promotes exposure of the operating system. But still, you can go to kernel.org and download the latest kernel, you can go to sourceforge and download all the latest projects running for linux, and if you want to pull what people were doing way back in the day, you can compile linux from scratch, or even use Slackware or Debian, and still use Linux to the same effect of using Red Hat, Mandrake, Xandros or some other more commercial Linux distro.
It's still free, and the GPL makes it so that it will always be free. Remember that part of the freedom is that a commercial venture can go around and sell it, but who would want to buy when you can go download it for free? So this is why Red Hat et al offer different things: Pre-compiled binaries, RPM system, a lot of user-friendly configuration stuff.
If you want to pull the old hacker-deal, by all means go compile linux up from scratch or use Debian or Slackware or whatever you want to. Linux and all of its components to make it work are still Free for the use of all people, be they corporate or home users.
You're uh... not paying attention to this with much detail are you?
HP-UX, Solaris, and AIX are all licensed by SCO. They're each companies individual modifications to the original AT&T/Bell Labs UNIX code, compiled and distributed to the users. They do not provide the source code with these operating systems, as the license of the source code is non-transferable.
Linux and *BSD are unique in that they are open source and not based on System V source code at all.
I use it as a desktop box for my every day needs. The only servers I use is apache for easy symlinking-so-others-can-get-to-my-stuff, and an ssh server so I can get into my computer easily remotely. Doing this combined with all my apps I use (Openoffice, Mozilla, Xine, XChat, GnomeICU, ed2k and tons of others I can't think of right now) is easiest on linux. It also costs $150 cheaper. Plus I outright despise Microsoft's CLI, as it doesn't have anywhere near the versatility of bash. So within the context of this argument, crash occurrences is the least of my worries.
"XP runs faster than RH!" "Doing what?" "Computer stuff!" "Like...?" "Everything!" "IP Routing?" "Well, not really that..." "Running in console?" "Well, not quite..." "Resetting the window manager?" "I suppose you could..." "But we handle NTFS read-writes a lot better than Linux! And Samba is way worse than neighborhood network! And it's faster!"
Weren't you paying attention when they said "It's not a bug, it's a feature"?
Sheesh. With all the MS-bashing, my computer doesn't run long enough, It's not stable, whine whine whine, you'd think someone would have figured out that they WANTED stuff like that in there.
Um... sorry.... what? Never truly be a desktop system?
Unreal Tournament 2003 is available for Linux. Is it such a stretch to believe that others might take a cue and do the same? I don't know how many people have said "I'd definately use Linux if I could play all my games on it". WineX also is advancing by leaps and bounds.
Gnome can fairly easily be configured to work exactly like Windows does interface-wise.
The help documents ("man pages") whilst still need refinement, are a lot more helpful in _real_ problems than Microsoft help ever has been, mostly because "Contact your vendor" isn't much of an option.
In the last year alone I've seen the attitude on some of the geekier forums towards giving help (IE the Debian mailing list) severely decline in the "STFW" and "RTFM" consistencies, meaning it's now easier than ever to get help with linux.
Red Hat was in the green for the last quarter. Meaning they can now pump more money into making Linux more user friendly.
Openoffice handles Word files better than some versions of Office. GnomeICU works the same as ICQ without all the annoying "spam". Mozilla is now running faster than ever and is fully w3c compliant. Not to mention now they're pointing towards Firebird so that they can have a full release candidate ready as soon as possible, giving us an exceptionally fast and light web browser, and Internet Explorer is most likely going to go down in usership.
So tell me why is Linux forever going to never be a desktop system? The only thing I have problems with at the moment is running Windows programs, which as I said, is a complication being consistently made less complicated, between Wine, WineX and Crossover.
So I'll ask you again: What do you mean it'll never be ready for the desktop? It seems to work wonders for mine.
Nah, I'd consider IBM a friend. They're making good quality PPC processors (good business move, a happy side-effect these days), They've been helping a lot with Open Source lately (Although they _are_ under scrutiny and will lose a lot of that respect if it turns out they did actually put SCO code in the Linux kernel, because it would mean a lot of necessary cleanup on the part of linux distributers... but SCO has been doing relatively stupid things like violating the GPL since then so I'm willing to go on the side of IBM for now).
A while ago I took a software engineering class by someone who works for IBM and he actually brought up the term FUD and started talking about how you want to avoid it. That amused me to no end.
Do you know the number of times I've heard the phrase "Yeah, but the next Windows is gonna be so much better"? I remember when there was a crapload of hype around Windows 96 (Which eventually became Windows 98) just to find out it was exactly the same as Win95 except it had multiple monitor support and USB support. How nice. Two things Macs had for years.
What next... encrypted telnet server capabilities? Oooooooooooo. Never seen that before.
I go by the only benchmarks that matter to me at the moment: My meandering experience. I have an uptime of 40 days on my linux box and that's because 40 days ago I plugged it in. I'm a linux fan because it's the most versatile for my needs. Not to mention it doesn't cost me an arm and a leg to get ahold of legally.
If my business model is to sell stuff below cost, I think I have a problem with my business model.
Theoretically, what they're saying is that they're selling shoes in hopes that it'll grow their sock sales, and anybody who buys socks from elsewhere or makes their own is undermining their business model.
If Microsoft, the Great Technilogical Way Of The Future that it is, cannot make a profit on selling XBoxes, then they shouldn't be selling XBoxes. Seems pretty simple to me.
Well, Red Hat has GCC, Red Hat has GLibC, Red Hat has seemingly all the other GNU tools... so, uh... yeah... Red Hat is Red Hat GNU/Linux. Regardless as to whether or not they oft refer to it as Linux... it is put together using the GNU tools.
(Why must Mods automatically assume that something is offtopic. If anything bad it's flamebait, but I hardly see that it is)
This seems to be central behind this debate. What is SCO claiming is infringing? Some seem to say that it's claiming that the Linux kernel has IP source code in it. If this is the case, then no, it's Linux that's infringing and NOT GNU/Linux. If it's GNU/Linux that's infringing, then I think they also have to accuse Berkeley of the same thing, as the GNU operating system is designed on the same general theory as BSD (A UNIX-like operating system). As I recall, all BSD ever got in trouble for was naming their OS UNIX. GNU's already got that area covered pretty easily, wouldn't you say?
Now, if there's a specific COMPONENT of GNU/Linux that infringes (which would be a bit difficult to pinpoint... X11? Bash? What?) Then they should stop mentioning Linux in its entirety and shouldn't come after it so much as they should go after the project developers or the FSF. Not to mention the GNU/HURD developers.
The most plausible case that SCO seems to have is over the Linux kernel, honestly. In which case it has nothing to do with GNU except that the GNU/Linux system is distributed with the infringing kernel. However, that's something that SCO should take up with Linus et al instead of the distros themselves.
Seriously, all software produces exploits of some kind, even the beloved Linux and its considerably more stable cousin OpenBSD. The difference between an open source project like Linux or OpenBSD and more proprietary software like Cocoa and Windows is that more often than not if there's an exploit, the sooner it's discovered the sooner someone patches it, and as a result the sooner it gets fixed. I remember/. reported a samba security hole about three months ago that I had patched about an hour before the article was even posted, thanks mainly to Mandrake's Security Update.
SCO: Long time Linux distribution, primary force behind UnitedLinux, a lot of Open Source support.
IBM: A bit of open source support amidst a long history of FUD and lord knows how many controversies over PPC chips.
SCO would be the popular side by supposed "slashdot" standards, which is what the reply was facing...
All a level of causality. The person posted saying "Come on, pick a side, either you're for or against IBM" in a style reminiscent of Dubya himself.
IBM has done many bad things. Slashdot has been quick to berate them. However, in this case, it seems pretty blatant that IBM is most definately doing the Right Thing in this whole debacle, so slashdotters will praise them.
Popular opinion seems to think that the world is round, don't expect me to go around saying that everybody is a bloody Chris Columbus Bandwagoner.
Just because it's popular opinion doesn't mean that everybody who believes it is a thoughtless sheep.
Has the world gotten so jaded that now you're to be berated unless you go against the grain? "Stop conforming or else!"
Right.
Once again, I'll reiterate my point:
The reason everybody is scolding SCO and praising IBM is NOT because of loyalties. It's because SCO is being stupid and IBM is being smart. It has nothing to do with agreeing with the masses and everything to do with thinking for yourself and make your opinions not to spite the norm but regardless of it.
Nonconformity is just another form of conformity no matter how you look at it. The only true way to be a nonconformist is to not care about conformity or nonconformity and just do what you think is right because you think it's right.
OpenOffice? Don't you mean StarOffice? Yeah, you know... the one Sun develops that you need to pay to use?
Sun is looked down upon by Linux zealots because they keep changing their story as to whether or not they're pro or anti open source.
It's funny, because people keep trying to make it look like slashdotters/Linux users or whatever have some fucked up political agenda and as such therefore must hate Microsoft/Intel/IBM no matter what they do. In fact, some would say that the only thing slashdotters enjoy doing more than said bashing is bashing the bashers. So in turn, here I am to bash you, the basher bashing the bashers.
I'm going to put this in plain and simple terms.
SCO is doing something stupid. IBM is calling them on their stupidity.
And you expect us to all sit around and go "But wait, IBM = big company = bad... Uh... GO SCO!" or something like that? Right.
Maybe, just _MAYBE_ slashdotters base their opinions not so much on who they think is the popular choice but rather on what makes the most sense... because through this whole debacle, there is extremely little that doesn't make you want to cheer on IBM in this matter, regardless of your opinion towards them in others.
Another Anonymous Coward loses his job due to Chronic Foot In Mouth syndrome.
Right. You have a job. You got job security? You got the code to prove it? Doesn't mean a licking difference, because a faltering economy means just that: FALTERING. Your job exists now, but will it in a year, month, week or will you get a pink slip tomorrow?
How do you know you won't be knocking on IBM's doors praying to be let in or accepting some shit job like Game Testing for EA or something like that? Because, frankly, there is zero job security in the tech world today.
3 - I've seen no evidence that desktop Linux distros are more secure than Windows. Check the sites that cover Linux security, bugs, and updates a little more often. Sure, they don't get hit by viruses as much but I believe that's mainly due to the fact that the viruses are written for Windows. When Linux gets a 30% market share and people start writing viruses for them, then we'll talk. I think Linux developers are discovering that the more any OS can do, the larger the chance for security holes.
You know, if you feel threatened, just put your head in the sand and it's not there.
I usually have to update about 8 rpms per week. It's a lot, and apt-get would be insanely easier, but holy wars aside, this is exactly what makes OSS more secure. The fact that once an exploit is discovered, the sooner it is fixed and rendered obsolete. Windows on the other hand has to wait a good number of months until Windows Update allows for the security flaws to be fixed. I remember a couple weeks ago Slashdot had a story about a Samba security hole. It's funny because all of the Windows zealots hopped on "TOLD YOU LINUX WASN'T SECURE" and ignored the simple fact that I had the hole patched on my computer about an hour before that article was even posted.
Frankly, I like seeing constant updates and bug reports. It means that the developers are doing their job and fixing problems continually. I've often heard (and many on Slashdot would agree) the number one thing to good computer security is good administration. And for very good reasons. So if programs are continually being administrated, then I'm more than happy to use said programs.
Wow. See? THIS is why people get so miffied about illegitimate use of the words "hacker" or "hacking" or even "hack".
1. Hacking involves the intentional but usually casual compromise of computer systems. Recently it also includes general technical activity.
Recently? RECENTLY?????
Christ, I don't know what rock you've been living under for the last 40 years but first of all, "hacking" has never meant general technical activity.
The word comes from the whole "hack and slash" philosophy... a "hack" is a shortened version of said "hack and slash" mechanism, IE it's an innovative solution to a problem using means not readily apparent to your joe-average user. After a long use of this, it became known in the technical world as a person who would spend long hours "hacking", or just plugging away at work trying to make something happen. As such, it became long known that coders would do this quite frequently, and as such a skilled coder in a field would be known as a "hacker". IE a "UNIX Hacker" or a "C Hacker." Steve Wozniak would be known as a "Hardware Hacker". Etc. etc. It wasn't until the media ganged up on the word in the late 80s and early 90s that the term Hacker became in close association with "Computer Criminal".
2. Cracking is the process of removing copy protection from commercial software. IT HAS NO OTHER MEANING.
That's a really REALLY daft statement. Look at the word Cracker. It's someone who cracks things. Be that breaking copywrite protection, encryption, breaking into systems, or whatever. In fact, some of the early uses of the term "cracker" in this sense were towards police detectives who would "crack cases". It's been around longer than computers and Copywrite protection.
When the US government began coming down hard on computer criminals (Mitnick, Mark Abene, etc.) the fact of the matter was these people were in fact hackers. They all owned computers and did most of what they did to learn how something worked, to play around in phone switches and the like. They also happened to crack and phreak a lot to, and this got them in trouble with the phone companies (Well, the MOD people at least). When asked what they were doing, more often than not they'd probably just respond "What? We were just hacking around" and as such the term "hacker" became associated, thanks to political and media spin, to computer criminals.
Cracking into systems is a hell of a lot more complicated than simply breaking copy protection, which, while technically falls under the category of "cracking" is not its exclusive semantical playground.
3. Phreaking is the process of using illegal methods to make long distance calls.
Did you get your degree from the Jeff K Skool of HAx0RING j00!!!1 or what?
Phreaking is basically phone hacking. Problem is that phone systems are very proprietary, and as such Phreaking has since become illegal. You want to phreak, you better work for a phone company. Again, this was stuff that got equated to "illegal" because of some of the things people were doing with phreaking, for instance making long distance phone calls for free from a Payphone at a 2600 meeting in downtown NYC. But there was a shitload more to phreaking than just that. There was cracking into conference call lines, splicing yourself into conversations, and a shitload more stuff.
Even though people have tried for a long time to redefine terms like "hacking", those of us in the know still remember what it means. A decade of redefinitions and wishful thinking will not change this..
I dunno if you're trying to be a troll or what. This isn't a decade of redefinitions and wishful thinking. Hacking is and always has meant the same thing to me. If I went around calling people who pick locks "locksmiths" I'm pretty sure the locksmiths would get pissed off about that. And if the Media picked up the term, and it got bastardized to the point that the word "hacker" did, the locksmiths would be even more pissed
Slashdot Mirror
Note:
January 23, 2002
I knew there was something else going on here.
I turned on my monitor this morning, and in front of me was a graphical screen with a box that had a label saying "Username:"
I typed in my username and pressed enter. Then it asked me for a password, which I also complied with.
Then I got a splash screen for approximately 5 seconds, and then I had a little footprint on a panel at the bottom left corner of my screen. I also had a bunch of little icons immediately to the right of it. The footprint opened up a menu of a whole bunch of different programs I could choose to run. When I opened up an application, a window popped up with a little small rectangle representing the window on the panel, immediately right to the little application launchers. To the far bottom right corner on the panel was the time, date, and a couple of little applets like an ICQ interface for me to quickly be able to use programs at my own customized leisure.
Then on the desktop There were other program launchers, as well as one for "Home Directory" which would let me browse and manipulate files. I could run Mozilla, OpenOffice, GnomeICU and xmms.
If I press alt-f4 the screen closes. If I press alt-tab I switch between windows. There's three boxes at the top right of each window: An underscore (for minimizing), a window (for maximizing) and an x (for closing). Furthermore, if I left-click the top left corner of the window, I get a menu with similar options.
For the record I use Red Hat 9.0.
Trust me. If you can run windows, you can run Linux. Installing might be a bit more difficult, but a skilled admin can just do a net-install of it, and then set up a default user setting for Gnome or KDE or whatever and make it seriously operate _EXACTLY_ the same as Windows, with a few esthetic differences that change none of the functionality. If you really want.
You uh... seem to miss the entire idea here.
The more people use SCO-licensed software, the more companies look to SCO-licensed software as necessary for their own business model. As such, they continue to keep their SCO license. The longer they keep the SCO license, the more money SCO makes. If theoretically nobody wanted to use HP-UX anymore, then Hewlett-Packard would think well to stop using SCO code, and as such SCO would no longer get their licensing fee as HP wouldn't want SCO.
It's logic like yours that seems to think things like "Movie Theatres only make money in the concession stand anyways, so theatre-sneaking isn't that bad".
Money is being channelled, albeit indirectly, to SCO through these products. Continued use of the products continues funding to SCO. Therefore, SCO makes money off of HP-UX, Solaris, AIX, etc.
If you're denying that they do, then you must really be daft, as I really highly doubt that OpenLinux makes nearly enough money for SCO to keep them afloat.
That's nice, but you're deviating from what you said:
Also, I hope that companies in the market for Unix remember that their is HP-UX, Solaris, AIX and others as well as Linux...no need for SCO (some crappy old) Unix
You listed a bunch of SCO UNIX licensees as alternatives to SCO. Which isn't an alternative to SCO at all, since it's, well, SCO.
All those Unices you mentioned are based on System V code and as such are licensed... get this... BY SCO!!!!! Concept. So when you buy them, you're technically buying SCO code.
Linux and *BSD are honestly the only non-SCO Unix-like systems that are on the mass market at the moment.
This is an old debate, and really off-topic if you ask me. But whatever.
Red Hat releases the source code. Red Hat is freely distributable. If you own Red Hat, and if you paid for it and everything, you have every right to turn around and redistribute it to whomever you want. THAT is what makes the GPL so useful.
Yes, there are commercial interests in Linux. This is great, because it promotes exposure of the operating system. But still, you can go to kernel.org and download the latest kernel, you can go to sourceforge and download all the latest projects running for linux, and if you want to pull what people were doing way back in the day, you can compile linux from scratch, or even use Slackware or Debian, and still use Linux to the same effect of using Red Hat, Mandrake, Xandros or some other more commercial Linux distro.
It's still free, and the GPL makes it so that it will always be free. Remember that part of the freedom is that a commercial venture can go around and sell it, but who would want to buy when you can go download it for free? So this is why Red Hat et al offer different things: Pre-compiled binaries, RPM system, a lot of user-friendly configuration stuff.
If you want to pull the old hacker-deal, by all means go compile linux up from scratch or use Debian or Slackware or whatever you want to. Linux and all of its components to make it work are still Free for the use of all people, be they corporate or home users.
You're uh... not paying attention to this with much detail are you?
HP-UX, Solaris, and AIX are all licensed by SCO. They're each companies individual modifications to the original AT&T/Bell Labs UNIX code, compiled and distributed to the users. They do not provide the source code with these operating systems, as the license of the source code is non-transferable.
Linux and *BSD are unique in that they are open source and not based on System V source code at all.
That's nice but I'm not running a server. =)
I use it as a desktop box for my every day needs. The only servers I use is apache for easy symlinking-so-others-can-get-to-my-stuff, and an ssh server so I can get into my computer easily remotely. Doing this combined with all my apps I use (Openoffice, Mozilla, Xine, XChat, GnomeICU, ed2k and tons of others I can't think of right now) is easiest on linux. It also costs $150 cheaper. Plus I outright despise Microsoft's CLI, as it doesn't have anywhere near the versatility of bash. So within the context of this argument, crash occurrences is the least of my worries.
Fact: XP runs faster than RH9.0
Well, isn't that a wonderous benchmark.
"XP runs faster than RH!"
"Doing what?"
"Computer stuff!"
"Like...?"
"Everything!"
"IP Routing?"
"Well, not really that..."
"Running in console?"
"Well, not quite..."
"Resetting the window manager?"
"I suppose you could..."
"But we handle NTFS read-writes a lot better than Linux! And Samba is way worse than neighborhood network! And it's faster!"
And so it continues.
Weren't you paying attention when they said "It's not a bug, it's a feature"?
Sheesh. With all the MS-bashing, my computer doesn't run long enough, It's not stable, whine whine whine, you'd think someone would have figured out that they WANTED stuff like that in there.
Um... sorry.... what? Never truly be a desktop system?
Unreal Tournament 2003 is available for Linux. Is it such a stretch to believe that others might take a cue and do the same? I don't know how many people have said "I'd definately use Linux if I could play all my games on it". WineX also is advancing by leaps and bounds.
Gnome can fairly easily be configured to work exactly like Windows does interface-wise.
The help documents ("man pages") whilst still need refinement, are a lot more helpful in _real_ problems than Microsoft help ever has been, mostly because "Contact your vendor" isn't much of an option.
In the last year alone I've seen the attitude on some of the geekier forums towards giving help (IE the Debian mailing list) severely decline in the "STFW" and "RTFM" consistencies, meaning it's now easier than ever to get help with linux.
Red Hat was in the green for the last quarter. Meaning they can now pump more money into making Linux more user friendly.
Openoffice handles Word files better than some versions of Office. GnomeICU works the same as ICQ without all the annoying "spam". Mozilla is now running faster than ever and is fully w3c compliant. Not to mention now they're pointing towards Firebird so that they can have a full release candidate ready as soon as possible, giving us an exceptionally fast and light web browser, and Internet Explorer is most likely going to go down in usership.
So tell me why is Linux forever going to never be a desktop system? The only thing I have problems with at the moment is running Windows programs, which as I said, is a complication being consistently made less complicated, between Wine, WineX and Crossover.
So I'll ask you again: What do you mean it'll never be ready for the desktop? It seems to work wonders for mine.
Nah, I'd consider IBM a friend. They're making good quality PPC processors (good business move, a happy side-effect these days), They've been helping a lot with Open Source lately (Although they _are_ under scrutiny and will lose a lot of that respect if it turns out they did actually put SCO code in the Linux kernel, because it would mean a lot of necessary cleanup on the part of linux distributers... but SCO has been doing relatively stupid things like violating the GPL since then so I'm willing to go on the side of IBM for now).
A while ago I took a software engineering class by someone who works for IBM and he actually brought up the term FUD and started talking about how you want to avoid it. That amused me to no end.
What are you talking about?
MS fans not gobbling up any anti-Linux FUD?
Do you know the number of times I've heard the phrase "Yeah, but the next Windows is gonna be so much better"? I remember when there was a crapload of hype around Windows 96 (Which eventually became Windows 98) just to find out it was exactly the same as Win95 except it had multiple monitor support and USB support. How nice. Two things Macs had for years.
What next... encrypted telnet server capabilities? Oooooooooooo. Never seen that before.
I go by the only benchmarks that matter to me at the moment: My meandering experience. I have an uptime of 40 days on my linux box and that's because 40 days ago I plugged it in. I'm a linux fan because it's the most versatile for my needs. Not to mention it doesn't cost me an arm and a leg to get ahold of legally.
And using their free Security Update notification, I usually get about 4 or 5 package updates every couple of weeks...
Just letting you know. =)
If my business model is to sell stuff below cost, I think I have a problem with my business model.
Theoretically, what they're saying is that they're selling shoes in hopes that it'll grow their sock sales, and anybody who buys socks from elsewhere or makes their own is undermining their business model.
If Microsoft, the Great Technilogical Way Of The Future that it is, cannot make a profit on selling XBoxes, then they shouldn't be selling XBoxes. Seems pretty simple to me.
Rest in Peace Capitalism, our long dead friend.
There was a recent article a while ago where they mentioned that every other line of the "central module" (??) of the Linux kernel was infringing.
If you ask me, it'll come out in court being:
{
and
}
Which, for crying out loud! This is blatant IP infringement.
I still say SCO is being a pissyhead about it. When the hell IS the court case anyways so that we can see all this "evidence" of which they speak?
And since when is IBM responsible for the "Central module" of linux? WHAT THE HELL IS THE CENTRAL MODULE?!?!?!?!?!?!?
FUD FUD FUD FUDDITY FUD FUD FUD FUDDITTY WONDERFUL FUD!
Well, Red Hat has GCC, Red Hat has GLibC, Red Hat has seemingly all the other GNU tools... so, uh... yeah... Red Hat is Red Hat GNU/Linux. Regardless as to whether or not they oft refer to it as Linux... it is put together using the GNU tools.
(Why must Mods automatically assume that something is offtopic. If anything bad it's flamebait, but I hardly see that it is)
This seems to be central behind this debate. What is SCO claiming is infringing? Some seem to say that it's claiming that the Linux kernel has IP source code in it. If this is the case, then no, it's Linux that's infringing and NOT GNU/Linux. If it's GNU/Linux that's infringing, then I think they also have to accuse Berkeley of the same thing, as the GNU operating system is designed on the same general theory as BSD (A UNIX-like operating system). As I recall, all BSD ever got in trouble for was naming their OS UNIX. GNU's already got that area covered pretty easily, wouldn't you say?
Now, if there's a specific COMPONENT of GNU/Linux that infringes (which would be a bit difficult to pinpoint... X11? Bash? What?) Then they should stop mentioning Linux in its entirety and shouldn't come after it so much as they should go after the project developers or the FSF. Not to mention the GNU/HURD developers.
The most plausible case that SCO seems to have is over the Linux kernel, honestly. In which case it has nothing to do with GNU except that the GNU/Linux system is distributed with the infringing kernel. However, that's something that SCO should take up with Linus et al instead of the distros themselves.
More FUD, more FUD, more FUD.
It's a feature!
/. reported a samba security hole about three months ago that I had patched about an hour before the article was even posted, thanks mainly to Mandrake's Security Update.
Seriously, all software produces exploits of some kind, even the beloved Linux and its considerably more stable cousin OpenBSD. The difference between an open source project like Linux or OpenBSD and more proprietary software like Cocoa and Windows is that more often than not if there's an exploit, the sooner it's discovered the sooner someone patches it, and as a result the sooner it gets fixed. I remember
SCO: Long time Linux distribution, primary force behind UnitedLinux, a lot of Open Source support.
IBM: A bit of open source support amidst a long history of FUD and lord knows how many controversies over PPC chips.
SCO would be the popular side by supposed "slashdot" standards, which is what the reply was facing...
All a level of causality. The person posted saying "Come on, pick a side, either you're for or against IBM" in a style reminiscent of Dubya himself.
IBM has done many bad things. Slashdot has been quick to berate them. However, in this case, it seems pretty blatant that IBM is most definately doing the Right Thing in this whole debacle, so slashdotters will praise them.
Popular opinion seems to think that the world is round, don't expect me to go around saying that everybody is a bloody Chris Columbus Bandwagoner.
Just because it's popular opinion doesn't mean that everybody who believes it is a thoughtless sheep.
Has the world gotten so jaded that now you're to be berated unless you go against the grain? "Stop conforming or else!"
Right.
Once again, I'll reiterate my point:
The reason everybody is scolding SCO and praising IBM is NOT because of loyalties. It's because SCO is being stupid and IBM is being smart. It has nothing to do with agreeing with the masses and everything to do with thinking for yourself and make your opinions not to spite the norm but regardless of it.
Nonconformity is just another form of conformity no matter how you look at it. The only true way to be a nonconformist is to not care about conformity or nonconformity and just do what you think is right because you think it's right.
*deep breath*
Java is cross platform. It's not Linux-specific.
OpenOffice? Don't you mean StarOffice? Yeah, you know... the one Sun develops that you need to pay to use?
Sun is looked down upon by Linux zealots because they keep changing their story as to whether or not they're pro or anti open source.
It's funny, because people keep trying to make it look like slashdotters/Linux users or whatever have some fucked up political agenda and as such therefore must hate Microsoft/Intel/IBM no matter what they do. In fact, some would say that the only thing slashdotters enjoy doing more than said bashing is bashing the bashers. So in turn, here I am to bash you, the basher bashing the bashers.
I'm going to put this in plain and simple terms.
SCO is doing something stupid.
IBM is calling them on their stupidity.
And you expect us to all sit around and go "But wait, IBM = big company = bad... Uh... GO SCO!" or something like that? Right.
Maybe, just _MAYBE_ slashdotters base their opinions not so much on who they think is the popular choice but rather on what makes the most sense... because through this whole debacle, there is extremely little that doesn't make you want to cheer on IBM in this matter, regardless of your opinion towards them in others.
Another Anonymous Coward loses his job due to Chronic Foot In Mouth syndrome.
Right. You have a job. You got job security? You got the code to prove it? Doesn't mean a licking difference, because a faltering economy means just that: FALTERING. Your job exists now, but will it in a year, month, week or will you get a pink slip tomorrow?
How do you know you won't be knocking on IBM's doors praying to be let in or accepting some shit job like Game Testing for EA or something like that? Because, frankly, there is zero job security in the tech world today.
Right after Duke Nukem Forever and Evil Dead 4 come out right?
This is the ultimate in legalese vapourware.
Damn, thanks for making me respond.... I really wanted to mod this post too... =)
3 - I've seen no evidence that desktop Linux distros are more secure than Windows. Check the sites that cover Linux security, bugs, and updates a little more often. Sure, they don't get hit by viruses as much but I believe that's mainly due to the fact that the viruses are written for Windows. When Linux gets a 30% market share and people start writing viruses for them, then we'll talk. I think Linux developers are discovering that the more any OS can do, the larger the chance for security holes.
You know, if you feel threatened, just put your head in the sand and it's not there.
I usually have to update about 8 rpms per week. It's a lot, and apt-get would be insanely easier, but holy wars aside, this is exactly what makes OSS more secure. The fact that once an exploit is discovered, the sooner it is fixed and rendered obsolete. Windows on the other hand has to wait a good number of months until Windows Update allows for the security flaws to be fixed. I remember a couple weeks ago Slashdot had a story about a Samba security hole. It's funny because all of the Windows zealots hopped on "TOLD YOU LINUX WASN'T SECURE" and ignored the simple fact that I had the hole patched on my computer about an hour before that article was even posted.
Frankly, I like seeing constant updates and bug reports. It means that the developers are doing their job and fixing problems continually. I've often heard (and many on Slashdot would agree) the number one thing to good computer security is good administration. And for very good reasons. So if programs are continually being administrated, then I'm more than happy to use said programs.
Wow. See? THIS is why people get so miffied about illegitimate use of the words "hacker" or "hacking" or even "hack".
1. Hacking involves the intentional but usually casual compromise of computer systems. Recently it also includes general technical activity.
Recently? RECENTLY?????
Christ, I don't know what rock you've been living under for the last 40 years but first of all, "hacking" has never meant general technical activity.
The word comes from the whole "hack and slash" philosophy... a "hack" is a shortened version of said "hack and slash" mechanism, IE it's an innovative solution to a problem using means not readily apparent to your joe-average user. After a long use of this, it became known in the technical world as a person who would spend long hours "hacking", or just plugging away at work trying to make something happen. As such, it became long known that coders would do this quite frequently, and as such a skilled coder in a field would be known as a "hacker". IE a "UNIX Hacker" or a "C Hacker." Steve Wozniak would be known as a "Hardware Hacker". Etc. etc. It wasn't until the media ganged up on the word in the late 80s and early 90s that the term Hacker became in close association with "Computer Criminal".
2. Cracking is the process of removing copy protection from commercial software. IT HAS NO OTHER MEANING.
That's a really REALLY daft statement. Look at the word Cracker. It's someone who cracks things. Be that breaking copywrite protection, encryption, breaking into systems, or whatever. In fact, some of the early uses of the term "cracker" in this sense were towards police detectives who would "crack cases". It's been around longer than computers and Copywrite protection.
When the US government began coming down hard on computer criminals (Mitnick, Mark Abene, etc.) the fact of the matter was these people were in fact hackers. They all owned computers and did most of what they did to learn how something worked, to play around in phone switches and the like. They also happened to crack and phreak a lot to, and this got them in trouble with the phone companies (Well, the MOD people at least). When asked what they were doing, more often than not they'd probably just respond "What? We were just hacking around" and as such the term "hacker" became associated, thanks to political and media spin, to computer criminals.
Cracking into systems is a hell of a lot more complicated than simply breaking copy protection, which, while technically falls under the category of "cracking" is not its exclusive semantical playground.
3. Phreaking is the process of using illegal methods to make long distance calls.
Did you get your degree from the Jeff K Skool of HAx0RING j00!!!1 or what?
Phreaking is basically phone hacking. Problem is that phone systems are very proprietary, and as such Phreaking has since become illegal. You want to phreak, you better work for a phone company. Again, this was stuff that got equated to "illegal" because of some of the things people were doing with phreaking, for instance making long distance phone calls for free from a Payphone at a 2600 meeting in downtown NYC. But there was a shitload more to phreaking than just that. There was cracking into conference call lines, splicing yourself into conversations, and a shitload more stuff.
Even though people have tried for a long time to redefine terms like "hacking", those of us in the know still remember what it means. A decade of redefinitions and wishful thinking will not change this..
I dunno if you're trying to be a troll or what. This isn't a decade of redefinitions and wishful thinking. Hacking is and always has meant the same thing to me. If I went around calling people who pick locks "locksmiths" I'm pretty sure the locksmiths would get pissed off about that. And if the Media picked up the term, and it got bastardized to the point that the word "hacker" did, the locksmiths would be even more pissed
Yes, but on that note, Canadian universities have been teaching hacking for ages. In fact, it's the cornerstone of a Computing Science degree.
I know it's a semantical argument over words, but for crying out loud, "hacking" wasn't even strictly computer-related in the first place.