But isn't there any legal recourse available to a group in the situation we are currently in? SCO is a company that is basically using this *potential* lawsuit to extort money from linux users. This will likely damage Linux's reputation and make people act out of fear and dump the Linux platform.
Aren't there any damages the authors of Linux could claim? A class action suit that the copyright holders of linux code could file?
It seems to me that there is something fundamentally wrong (morally, that is) with using the *possibility* of a damaging lawsuit to get people to buy your product. Is there any law that they could be violating? I am envisioning a sort of "gag order" handed down to SCO. "You aren't allowed to contact linux customers or announce settlement offers until the merits of your case have been shown."
If it takes years for this to get to trial, the effects on the linux platform could potentially be huge. Their statements will simply keep the fear growing among Linux customers and eventually at least some of them willl cave to that fear. Is there any way to shut down the FUD machine???
Again, IANAL, but I'd love to hear the opinion of some lawyers on the feasibility of legal action against SCO by members of the Linux community.
So you've completely dismissed Chimera Navigator by lumping it together with Mozilla, eh? You've just lost credibility there, bub. There are really very few similarities between the two when talking about usability.
I think that most people who have used Chimera would agree that it is much faster than Mozilla (mostly in UI operations) and it beats IE's rendering speed any day. And, though this might be more highly contested, its about equally as buggy as IE. And the Gecko engine is completely standards compliant and renders correctly almost all of the time. And Chimera's Flash support (and plugins in general) are getting better every day (try it with version 0.6 and the newest Flash betas; works great).
And finally, you missed probably the biggest advantage that Chimera (and Mozilla for that matter) have...THEY ARE OPEN SOURCE! Bugs are fixed quickly (and you can easily report them and participate in their squashing). Nightly builds are available. And you aren't owned by MS.
You're dismissal of browsers other than IE--and ESPECIALLY Chimera--is shortsighted and ignorant. Someone mod the parent down as Troll. I would have, but I just used all of my mod points. Dang!
If this is telling us anything, its that there is a huge, untapped market of "customers" out there just begging to pay royalty fees.
Cabbies, dentists, barbers, corner stores, businesses with waiting rooms or elevators, the guy with the boombox on the subway, the guy at work in the adjacent cubicle...take no prisoners!!!
Any volunteers for the neighborhood RIAA "enforcers"?
Japan: Yeah, we're giving up Windows. All Linux from here on out.
Bill: Wait! Would one...hundred...billion...dollars change you mind.
Japan: Ehhhhhh-xcellent.
Taft
A reasonable article...but author "quote happy."
on
Is Linux Dead?
·
· Score: 1
The article is actually pretty balanced, though all of the info it dishes out is at this point pretty well established. Nothing new.
What I can't figure out is why "the author" thinks that open source isn't a real term. Apparently he thinks "open source" is still some grassroots movement not accepted by the "general public". What a "dumb a**".
I was pretty sure LotR wasn't going to win best picture and even though I though Jackson deserved Director, I knew the Academy in all its wisdom would snub him. But not giving LotR best screenplay adaption is just a travesty. The books are so massive and detailed that its a wonder that this film did such a magnificant job bringing them to the screen.
The only thing I can say is that most of the Academy knows nothing of the original books, their scope and the difficulty involved in adapting them to the screen. How many of the Academy do you think actually read the books?
For that matter, how many in the Academy do you think can actually read?
This whole situation is totally embarrassing. For Mr. Shifman. For Mr. Schwartzman. For slashdot...I even find myself embarrassed as an onlooker.
To Mr. Schwartzman, I would say that giving people the benifit of the doubt is in order sometimes. Asumming that every unsolicited e-mail received is spam is a little extreme. And by replying to further contacts, you only fan the flames. And posting Mr. Shifman's personal information is as irresponsible an action as any. Shameful.
Accept it or not, you instigated this terrible situation with your purist pusuit of a world without spam. I hate spam too. I do what I can to avoid it and to stop those who are sending it. But your solution will not end spam, and if your actions with Mr Shifman are indicative, you may only be making the problem worse.
To Mr. Shifman I would say that I have rarely seen a more childish and innapropriate response to a situation. By attempting to bully Mr. Schwartzman you caused a small miscommunication to blow up into a hugely damaging and embarrassing spectacle. One way or the other you were wrong. Even if you weren't spamming, you sent an unsolicited e-mail.
Next time swallow your pride--or at least respond in a more constructive and mature manner. Learn something from this and move on.
To slashdot, I would say that this should never have been an article. Such material doesn't belong anywhere in this world. Publishing it could only have lead to the insane threats and statements posted in the forums. People calling his home number, threatening him in the forums...all of that is despicable behavior. Those perpetrating these acts should be very ashamed.
This kind of mindless bulls#%@ really gets me angry. Stop the insanity!!
agnostic \Ag*nos"tic\, a. [Gr. 'a priv. + ? knowing, ? to know.] Professing ignorance; involving no dogmatic; pertaining to or involving agnosticism. -- Ag*nos"tic*al*ly, adv.
'Agnostic' is completely acceptable in this context--though it doesn't follow the ORIGINAL definition of the word, the definition has become more general over time. This happens with many words in the English laguage. As time goes by, words are used to describe things in new settings and contexts. In short, agnostic no longer applies only to one denying the existance of a higher power.
"Professing ignorance". If a piece of software were ignorant of the platform or hardware it ran on. It would be agnostic.
I currently program with a firm using Java as a primary language for development. I like it. It does the job and then some for the tasks we are doing.
Having said that, I also think that Java makes the lives of CS students far too easy. No memory management worries, very strict typing, lots of gui items to distract you...the list goes on. The idea is that Java allows you to take for granted many issues central to computer science. If you don't learn to worry about memory allocation or deallocation, or to be careful when casting things to void and back, or even how to create an event based program in C, what happens when you go into the real world (or another class)where C (or another less forgiving language) is quite possibly a viable option? I'll tell you what: you program in a care-free, sloppy fashion, exactly how you were taught.
We should be teaching our CS grads the FUNDAMENTAL SKILLS OF COMPUTER PROGRAMMING. Tight, efficient, well-commented code. Algorithm efficiency. Memory management. Reading other people's criptic code. Debugging (Java programmers never even get to try to find a seg fault, for crying out loud!). At least a taste of assembly language. These are the skills that I would look for in hiring a CS grad. And I would not find those skills in a graduate who had primarily used Java in his/her education.
Teach the fundamentals. Let employers teach the specifics they will need on the job. They are going to do it anyway.
Have a great day.
Matthew
Slashdot Mirror
But isn't there any legal recourse available to a group in the situation we are currently in? SCO is a company that is basically using this *potential* lawsuit to extort money from linux users. This will likely damage Linux's reputation and make people act out of fear and dump the Linux platform.
Aren't there any damages the authors of Linux could claim? A class action suit that the copyright holders of linux code could file?
It seems to me that there is something fundamentally wrong (morally, that is) with using the *possibility* of a damaging lawsuit to get people to buy your product. Is there any law that they could be violating? I am envisioning a sort of "gag order" handed down to SCO. "You aren't allowed to contact linux customers or announce settlement offers until the merits of your case have been shown."
If it takes years for this to get to trial, the effects on the linux platform could potentially be huge. Their statements will simply keep the fear growing among Linux customers and eventually at least some of them willl cave to that fear. Is there any way to shut down the FUD machine???
Again, IANAL, but I'd love to hear the opinion of some lawyers on the feasibility of legal action against SCO by members of the Linux community.
Taft
I think that most people who have used Chimera would agree that it is much faster than Mozilla (mostly in UI operations) and it beats IE's rendering speed any day. And, though this might be more highly contested, its about equally as buggy as IE. And the Gecko engine is completely standards compliant and renders correctly almost all of the time. And Chimera's Flash support (and plugins in general) are getting better every day (try it with version 0.6 and the newest Flash betas; works great).
And finally, you missed probably the biggest advantage that Chimera (and Mozilla for that matter) have...THEY ARE OPEN SOURCE! Bugs are fixed quickly (and you can easily report them and participate in their squashing). Nightly builds are available. And you aren't owned by MS.
You're dismissal of browsers other than IE--and ESPECIALLY Chimera--is shortsighted and ignorant. Someone mod the parent down as Troll. I would have, but I just used all of my mod points. Dang!
Taft
Cabbies, dentists, barbers, corner stores, businesses with waiting rooms or elevators, the guy with the boombox on the subway, the guy at work in the adjacent cubicle...take no prisoners!!!
Any volunteers for the neighborhood RIAA "enforcers"?
Taft
Bill: Wait! Would one...hundred...billion...dollars change you mind.
Japan: Ehhhhhh-xcellent.
Taft
The article is actually pretty balanced, though all of the info it dishes out is at this point pretty well established. Nothing new.
What I can't figure out is why "the author" thinks that open source isn't a real term. Apparently he thinks "open source" is still some grassroots movement not accepted by the "general public". What a "dumb a**".
I was pretty sure LotR wasn't going to win best picture and even though I though Jackson deserved Director, I knew the Academy in all its wisdom would snub him. But not giving LotR best screenplay adaption is just a travesty. The books are so massive and detailed that its a wonder that this film did such a magnificant job bringing them to the screen.
The only thing I can say is that most of the Academy knows nothing of the original books, their scope and the difficulty involved in adapting them to the screen. How many of the Academy do you think actually read the books?
For that matter, how many in the Academy do you think can actually read?
Matthew
This whole situation is totally embarrassing. For Mr. Shifman. For Mr. Schwartzman. For slashdot...I even find myself embarrassed as an onlooker.
To Mr. Schwartzman, I would say that giving people the benifit of the doubt is in order sometimes. Asumming that every unsolicited e-mail received is spam is a little extreme. And by replying to further contacts, you only fan the flames. And posting Mr. Shifman's personal information is as irresponsible an action as any. Shameful.
Accept it or not, you instigated this terrible situation with your purist pusuit of a world without spam. I hate spam too. I do what I can to avoid it and to stop those who are sending it. But your solution will not end spam, and if your actions with Mr Shifman are indicative, you may only be making the problem worse.
To Mr. Shifman I would say that I have rarely seen a more childish and innapropriate response to a situation. By attempting to bully Mr. Schwartzman you caused a small miscommunication to blow up into a hugely damaging and embarrassing spectacle. One way or the other you were wrong. Even if you weren't spamming, you sent an unsolicited e-mail.
Next time swallow your pride--or at least respond in a more constructive and mature manner. Learn something from this and move on.
To slashdot, I would say that this should never have been an article. Such material doesn't belong anywhere in this world. Publishing it could only have lead to the insane threats and statements posted in the forums. People calling his home number, threatening him in the forums...all of that is despicable behavior. Those perpetrating these acts should be very ashamed.
This kind of mindless bulls#%@ really gets me angry. Stop the insanity!!
agnostic \Ag*nos"tic\, a. [Gr. 'a priv. + ? knowing, ? to know.] Professing ignorance; involving no dogmatic; pertaining to or involving agnosticism. -- Ag*nos"tic*al*ly, adv.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
agnostic adj : uncertain of all claims to knowledge [syn: agnostical] [ant: gnostic] n : a person who doubts truth of religion [syn: doubter]
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
'Agnostic' is completely acceptable in this context--though it doesn't follow the ORIGINAL definition of the word, the definition has become more general over time. This happens with many words in the English laguage. As time goes by, words are used to describe things in new settings and contexts. In short, agnostic no longer applies only to one denying the existance of a higher power.
"Professing ignorance". If a piece of software were ignorant of the platform or hardware it ran on. It would be agnostic.
I currently program with a firm using Java as a primary language for development. I like it. It does the job and then some for the tasks we are doing. Having said that, I also think that Java makes the lives of CS students far too easy. No memory management worries, very strict typing, lots of gui items to distract you...the list goes on. The idea is that Java allows you to take for granted many issues central to computer science. If you don't learn to worry about memory allocation or deallocation, or to be careful when casting things to void and back, or even how to create an event based program in C, what happens when you go into the real world (or another class)where C (or another less forgiving language) is quite possibly a viable option? I'll tell you what: you program in a care-free, sloppy fashion, exactly how you were taught. We should be teaching our CS grads the FUNDAMENTAL SKILLS OF COMPUTER PROGRAMMING. Tight, efficient, well-commented code. Algorithm efficiency. Memory management. Reading other people's criptic code. Debugging (Java programmers never even get to try to find a seg fault, for crying out loud!). At least a taste of assembly language. These are the skills that I would look for in hiring a CS grad. And I would not find those skills in a graduate who had primarily used Java in his/her education. Teach the fundamentals. Let employers teach the specifics they will need on the job. They are going to do it anyway. Have a great day. Matthew