Windows is built on a 25 year legacy of poorly secured code and Gates reckons it's all OK? Obviously he's talking out of the same arse as Darl McBride.
Soviet Russia never resembled anything from Marx's communist ideal and to date, no "communist" country in the world has. Marx, like all political theorists was a dreamer who ignored the one wildcard i.e. human nature.
At the end of the day, open source serves it's users and developers equally and I think this is what Uncle Darl and his type can't deal with. Like Stalin, Mao and all they are just power junkies who can't deal with not being in total control.
I confess to being an enemy of the proprietry state. I confess to using Linux and Open Source software. I confess to having subversive thoughts that contradict the ideals of Chairman Gates. Now the show trials over can I go now pleae?
At a more general level (and surprisingly for a Linux distributor), he (McBride) found the entire free-software trend "communistic", he says: "We don't get the whole free-lunch thing."
I still don't get the constant references from Gates, McBride et al about Linux being communist.
In Soviet Russia which was communist in name if not nature, the provision of all goods an services was centralised in the hands of a few, huge agencies. These agencies excercised a vast amount of power over those it "served" and generally with property being theft and all that no-one could truly be said to own their their property, e.g. house, car etc. This basically constitutes the large organisations licencing the use of "their" property to the members of the society and as many dissedents found, these licences could be revoked along with the issue of a new one way licence to Siberia.
The free enterprise west on the other hand, benefitted from competition between many decentralised comapanies, organisations and individuals that in some cases formed alliances and co-operated when it would benefit.
If anything, the behaviour of the vast corporations bears more resemblance to the overpowering Soviet interpretation of communism than Open Source. On the other hand, open source follows the free market evolutionary pattern with projects popping into existence all the time with the weaker pointless ones falling by the wayside and the stronger useful ones maturing.
The open source system negates the need for money as developers receive the kudos of a job well done,a notch on their CV for them to earn bread with and the support of users who pay their way by submitting feedback, bug reports etc.
In the meantime, please stop giving us this shit about open source and communism. The one thing it offers is freedom of choice and action. I don't remember the Russian people having much of that before the wall came down and I don't see that in any EULA from Microsoft, SCO or any other proprietry software company for that matter.
The moment at which I realise the reason for SCO's recent behaviour, that one blinding flash of inspiration that reveals quite clearly that.... THE FUCKERS HAVE GONE NUTS!!
That's it! No other reason, no conspiracy they've just gone stark staring ape shit mental!
I'm just waiting for the headline SCO declare black to be white to prove it
MOT test is a compulsory annual safety inspection for vehicles.
When you sell a vehicle you pass on the vehicle registration documents to the new owner and inform the Driver Vehicle Licencing Agency of the new owners details. Failure to do so leaves the seller open to prosecution.
Personally I'd prefer to see MPs chipped so we can make sure they're not doing anything as dodgy as this bollocks.
I'd have dropped them an invoice for all the work I've been doing telling people SCO are shit over the last few months.
If they are paying people there must be a paper trail somewhere and if there ain't, surely all involved can sue SCO for the accusation which is libelous at best. An open source advocate's reputation surely includes their openness and independence. To suggest otherwise counts as an attack on there character. Maybe they add this to the IP infringements SCO are guilty of running their GPL'd software.
When a friend of mine who's been buying SuSE since v6.3 put SuSE8.2 update on his laptop whick killed it. He contacted SuSE support who told him RTFM. Trouble his that the update version of SuSE has nothing in the manual that covers the problem he had and he had stated it was the updtae version so presumably they hadn't bothered checking. On every other problem he's mailed their support on the service he's received has been equally unhelpful and now he's just stopped bothering to contact them.
So I'd guess that the piss poor support that he, as an individual, has received shows where all SuSE's efforts are going and people who at get crap support as a home user aren't going to be wildly excited about having it in their office.
Personally, I have no qualms about Mandrake and run it, server and desktop, in several offices with no probs. Paid for support is low cost, fast and generally friendly and the community gets you out of a sticky position within 24 hours 5/10 times for free
I suspect that the user support is the key. If you have people phoning up because they clicked a button that moves the window resize, max and min buttons and changes the symbols, yet they're too computer illiterate to think it through and try clicking the slightly different ones that appeared at the same time, MS's support services are going to be flooded.
May I suggest David Beckham as the Linux representative as he's got a good and accurate swing best delivered via a set of German military police "Steifel" boots of the type favoured by motorcycle couriers and motocrossers because of the 1/16" thick steel plate riveted around the front edge of the sole.
In the 1940's the UK Air Ministry set up a working group to discover the cause of crashes in the Battle of Britain where spitfires in full power dives trying to escape following fighters lost control before hitting the ground.
Several very experienced test pilots were lost in experiments trying to dicover what was, basically, the sound barrier.
Miles Aircraft Co. designed a bullet shaped, jet propelled sound barrier breaker which would have been ready to fly in 1946 and shared technology with Bell which led to the design of the 99% identical Bell X-1 and it's manufacture using Miles M42 jigs. Luckily, Bell had more balls than the UK government who by then had lost the desire to risk any more pilots and wouldn't allow Miles to fly it. Not an uncommon event, British R&D being shot down by it's own politicians who had forgotten that there is an element of risk in all cutting edge stuff and so long as there are people willing to take the risk they should be left to get on with it.
There's nothing wrong with Office unless they use their monopoly position and their habit of changing their closed file formats in order to prevent any competing office suite from being adopted by mainstream business.
At which point it becomes a more efficient way of protecting their 95% of the desktop than media player ever will
This is true. But I'm think that SCO are suing for loss of income or whatever from their IP being included in Linux. If they knew that their IP was in kernel 2.4 and allowed it to spread without telling anybody then any damage to SCO's business was self inflicted and any losses made on there own products were down to poor marketing or design on their part.
If this is the case and it is open and shut against them then their attempts to charge licence fees are tantamount to obtaining funds by deception, or to put it more bluntly, FRAUD.
Microsofts desktop monopoly lies in MS Office not Media Player. If you try flogging Linux to businesses the first question isn't "can I play my Windows Media Player files it's can I open my MS Office docs on it with 100% accuracy.
Several questions formed in my head reading this lot.
1) Could the features provided by SCO's alleged code have been included without using SCO's claimed code i.e. was there any way of implementing them with different lines of code that would not have have infringed ?
2) Did any Linux users users implement Linux because SCO's alleged code was included?
3) At which point did SCO become aware that their alleged IP was in the Linux kernel?
Well the answer to 1 is definitely yes, the answer to 2 is not unless they had diffed SCO's source and the Linux kernel source or were magically made aware of the fact by divine intervention and the answer to 3 is apparently 2001 by SCO's own admission.
looking at the lists at kernel.org shows that kernel 2.4 was released in 2001 so SCO were therefore aware of the alleged breach at the time of it's release and chose to take no action. To me it seems fairly logical that any damage caused by the widespread use of the alleged code that exists today is self inflicted and could easily have been cured at the time of release by SCO informing the kernel developers of the breach allowing them to remedy it immeadiately.
The implications of question 2 is that no one chose to use Linux over SCO UNIX because of their code. Had the disputed features been included using different code from SCO's, people would still have chosen Linux over SCO Unix because at the end of the day SCO UNIX is an outdated and more or less dead product that been on the decline anyway whereas Linux is an up to date rapidly advancing OS with a large application base and expanding, base of users.
The sum total of this is "how much has SCO been damaged by the alleged breach of code"? Well bugger all really if the disputed code that no-one other than SCO knew about could have been implemented by another mechanism while they failed to complain of its presence regardless of the fact they knew about it from the day it was released.
So - Up yours McBride. All I can say is that there's a special layer of hell for greedy bastards who try to profit from the free work of others and there's a demon with a toasting fork the size of the Empire State building waiting an arse to insert it in.
USSR = The wielding of oppressive, draconian power from a centralised authority run by a figurehead who wants everyone to look, act, and do the same thing while simultaneously claiming to set people free.
The USSR also had an amazing talent for putting the best light on their own society through the copious amount of FUD released about how dismal things were in the decadent pigsty that was the capatalist west, how miserable people in the west were, and how there was no option to the USSRs solution.
Ultimately, the poor starved and trampled population of the USSR saw though the FUD and freedom was victorious.
People don't call Microsoft they call a techie friend of a friend who lives round the corner to come and sort problems out for them. One of the few times I find myself facing a monitor without KDE on it.
A spokesman today announced that a forty five trillion, billion, gazillion dollar lawsuit was being taken out against SCO group, an insignificant vendor of outdated software by Microsoft Inc.
He continued "we are suing for damages due to SCO's unlicenced implementation of a ripped off version of our (to date) successful Microsft FUD Machine technology".
Microsoft FUD machine is a highly developed engine for generating spurious claims related to intellectual property and is particularly adept at linking the word innovation to software that was made years ago by other companies.
Early versions of FUD machine contained another level of service called the "claimed reliabilty engine" but it's use was discontined due to the fact that even non-techies (FUD machines main targets) all know what BSOD stands for.
The spokesman continued "we're totally pissed at the fact that SCO have stolen our FUD technology and are even more pissed off that they're version works better than ours ever did".
Slashdot Mirror
Windows is built on a 25 year legacy of poorly secured code and Gates reckons it's all OK? Obviously he's talking out of the same arse as Darl McBride.
Absolutely.
Soviet Russia never resembled anything from Marx's communist ideal and to date, no "communist" country in the world has. Marx, like all political theorists was a dreamer who ignored the one wildcard i.e. human nature.
At the end of the day, open source serves it's users and developers equally and I think this is what Uncle Darl and his type can't deal with. Like Stalin, Mao and all they are just power junkies who can't deal with not being in total control.
I confess to being an enemy of the proprietry state. I confess to using Linux and Open Source software. I confess to having subversive thoughts that contradict the ideals of Chairman Gates. Now the show trials over can I go now pleae?
At a more general level (and surprisingly for a Linux distributor), he (McBride) found the entire free-software trend "communistic", he says: "We don't get the whole free-lunch thing."
,a notch on their CV for them to earn bread with and the support of users who pay their way by submitting feedback, bug reports etc.
I still don't get the constant references from Gates, McBride et al about Linux being communist.
In Soviet Russia which was communist in name if not nature, the provision of all goods an services was centralised in the hands of a few, huge agencies. These agencies excercised a vast amount of power over those it "served" and generally with property being theft and all that no-one could truly be said to own their their property, e.g. house, car etc. This basically constitutes the large organisations licencing the use of "their" property to the members of the society and as many dissedents found, these licences could be revoked along with the issue of a new one way licence to Siberia.
The free enterprise west on the other hand, benefitted from competition between many decentralised comapanies, organisations and individuals that in some cases formed alliances and co-operated when it would benefit.
If anything, the behaviour of the vast corporations bears more resemblance to the overpowering Soviet interpretation of communism than Open Source. On the other hand, open source follows the free market evolutionary pattern with projects popping into existence all the time with the weaker pointless ones falling by the wayside and the stronger useful ones maturing.
The open source system negates the need for money as developers receive the kudos of a job well done
In the meantime, please stop giving us this shit about open source and communism. The one thing it offers is freedom of choice and action. I don't remember the Russian people having much of that before the wall came down and I don't see that in any EULA from Microsoft, SCO or any other proprietry software company for that matter.
The moment at which I realise the reason for SCO's recent behaviour, that one blinding flash of inspiration that reveals quite clearly that.... THE FUCKERS HAVE GONE NUTS!!
That's it! No other reason, no conspiracy they've just gone stark staring ape shit mental!
I'm just waiting for the headline SCO declare black to be white to prove it
Sounds like good old fashioned bribery to me or at least contrary to the behaviour you'd expect of a convicted monopoly.
What amazes me is that MIT are stupid enough to accept. Who said having letters after your name = intelligence
MOT = Ministry Of Transport
MOT test is a compulsory annual safety inspection for vehicles.
When you sell a vehicle you pass on the vehicle registration documents to the new owner and inform the Driver Vehicle Licencing Agency of the new owners details. Failure to do so leaves the seller open to prosecution.
Personally I'd prefer to see MPs chipped so we can make sure they're not doing anything as dodgy as this bollocks.
Can't compete fairly so bribe the politicians.
And we're suprised at what exactly?
What's the difference between a hedgehog and a limo full of SCO execs?
On the hedgehog, the pricks are on the outside
I'd have dropped them an invoice for all the work I've been doing telling people SCO are shit over the last few months.
If they are paying people there must be a paper trail somewhere and if there ain't, surely all involved can sue SCO for the accusation which is libelous at best. An open source advocate's reputation surely includes their openness and independence. To suggest otherwise counts as an attack on there character. Maybe they add this to the IP infringements SCO are guilty of running their GPL'd software.
When a friend of mine who's been buying SuSE since v6.3 put SuSE8.2 update on his laptop whick killed it.
He contacted SuSE support who told him RTFM. Trouble his that the update version of SuSE has nothing in the manual that covers the problem he had and he had stated it was the updtae version so presumably they hadn't bothered checking. On every other problem he's mailed their support on the service he's received has been equally unhelpful and now he's just stopped bothering to contact them.
So I'd guess that the piss poor support that he, as an individual, has received shows where all SuSE's efforts are going and people who at get crap support as a home user aren't going to be wildly excited about having it in their office.
Personally, I have no qualms about Mandrake and run it, server and desktop, in several offices with no probs. Paid for support is low cost, fast and generally friendly and the community gets you out of a sticky position within 24 hours 5/10 times for free
I suspect that the user support is the key. If you have people phoning up because they clicked a button that moves the window resize, max and min buttons and changes the symbols, yet they're too computer illiterate to think it through and try clicking the slightly different ones that appeared at the same time, MS's support services are going to be flooded.
How MS are paying this bloke to carry out all the pseudo-scientific bollocks yet they still can't understand what makes Open Source tick?
This methods quicker, very decisive and would stop all those overpaid, filthy lawyers from getting any richer than they already are:
2 /r oshambo.html
:)
http://www.geocities.com/TelevisionCity/Set/964
May I suggest David Beckham as the Linux representative as he's got a good and accurate swing best delivered via a set of German military police "Steifel" boots of the type favoured by motorcycle couriers and motocrossers because of the 1/16" thick steel plate riveted around the front edge of the sole.
Live webcast'd be nice
Go for it!
In the 1940's the UK Air Ministry set up a working group to discover the cause of crashes in the Battle of Britain where spitfires in full power dives trying to escape following fighters lost control before hitting the ground.
Several very experienced test pilots were lost in experiments trying to dicover what was, basically, the sound barrier.
Miles Aircraft Co. designed a bullet shaped, jet propelled sound barrier breaker which would have been ready to fly in 1946 and shared technology with Bell which led to the design of the 99% identical Bell X-1 and it's manufacture using Miles M42 jigs. Luckily, Bell had more balls than the UK government who by then had lost the desire to risk any more pilots and wouldn't allow Miles to fly it. Not an uncommon event, British R&D being shot down by it's own politicians who had forgotten that there is an element of risk in all cutting edge stuff and so long as there are people willing to take the risk they should be left to get on with it.
Go for it basically, and best of luck!
Ref: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/onthefuture/A882272
The Chewbacca defence made more sense to me than the bollocks that lawyers talking.
Does this stink of absolute desperation or am I imagining things?
The company is employing root cause analysis and event sequence analysis procedures to scrub out the creation of sloppy code.
If this stops the creation of sloppy code what happens about the 20 year legacy of crap programming before they started using it?
Search Google for Edward II and red hot poker for an increasingly attractive alternative
There's nothing wrong with Office unless they use their monopoly position and their habit of changing their closed file formats in order to prevent any competing office suite from being adopted by mainstream business.
At which point it becomes a more efficient way of protecting their 95% of the desktop than media player ever will
This is true. But I'm think that SCO are suing for loss of income or whatever from their IP being included in Linux. If they knew that their IP was in kernel 2.4 and allowed it to spread without telling anybody then any damage to SCO's business was self inflicted and any losses made on there own products were down to poor marketing or design on their part.
If this is the case and it is open and shut against them then their attempts to charge licence fees are tantamount to obtaining funds by deception, or to put it more bluntly, FRAUD.
Microsofts desktop monopoly lies in MS Office not Media Player. If you try flogging Linux to businesses the first question isn't "can I play my Windows Media Player files it's can I open my MS Office docs on it with 100% accuracy.
EU missed the point, altogether!
Several questions formed in my head reading this lot.
1) Could the features provided by SCO's alleged code have been included without using SCO's claimed code i.e. was there any way of implementing them with different lines of code that would not have have infringed ?
2) Did any Linux users users implement Linux because SCO's alleged code was included?
3) At which point did SCO become aware that their alleged IP was in the Linux kernel?
Well the answer to 1 is definitely yes, the answer to 2 is not unless they had diffed SCO's source and the Linux kernel source or were magically made aware of the fact by divine intervention and the answer to 3 is apparently 2001 by SCO's own admission.
looking at the lists at kernel.org shows that kernel 2.4 was released in 2001 so SCO were therefore aware of the alleged breach at the time of it's release and chose to take no action. To me it seems fairly logical that any damage caused by the widespread use of the alleged code that exists today is self inflicted and could easily have been cured at the time of release by SCO informing the kernel developers of the breach allowing them to remedy it immeadiately.
The implications of question 2 is that no one chose to use Linux over SCO UNIX because of their code. Had the disputed features been included using different code from SCO's, people would still have chosen Linux over SCO Unix because at the end of the day SCO UNIX is an outdated and more or less dead product that been on the decline anyway whereas Linux is an up to date rapidly advancing OS with a large application base and expanding, base of users.
The sum total of this is "how much has SCO been damaged by the alleged breach of code"? Well bugger all really if the disputed code that no-one other than SCO knew about could have been implemented by another mechanism while they failed to complain of its presence regardless of the fact they knew about it from the day it was released.
So - Up yours McBride. All I can say is that there's a special layer of hell for greedy bastards who try to profit from the free work of others and there's a demon with a toasting fork the size of the Empire State building waiting an arse to insert it in.
Pick the soap up Mc Bride......
May your ear'oles turn to arseoles and the shit run down your shoulders
Nope he got it the right way round first time.
Microsoft = USSR
USSR = The wielding of oppressive, draconian power from a centralised authority run by a figurehead who wants everyone to look, act, and do the same thing while simultaneously claiming to set people free.
The USSR also had an amazing talent for putting the best light on their own society through the copious amount of FUD released about how dismal things were in the decadent pigsty that was the capatalist west, how miserable people in the west were, and how there was no option to the USSRs solution.
Ultimately, the poor starved and trampled population of the USSR saw though the FUD and freedom was victorious.
People don't call Microsoft they call a techie friend of a friend who lives round the corner to come and sort problems out for them. One of the few times I find myself facing a monitor without KDE on it.
M$ sue SCO for IP violations.
A spokesman today announced that a forty five trillion, billion, gazillion dollar lawsuit was being taken out against SCO group, an insignificant vendor of outdated software by Microsoft Inc.
He continued "we are suing for damages due to SCO's unlicenced implementation of a ripped off version of our (to date) successful Microsft FUD Machine technology".
Microsoft FUD machine is a highly developed engine for generating spurious claims related to intellectual property and is particularly adept at linking the word innovation to software that was made years ago by other companies.
Early versions of FUD machine contained another level of service called the "claimed reliabilty engine" but it's use was discontined due to the fact that even non-techies (FUD machines main targets) all know what BSOD stands for.
The spokesman continued "we're totally pissed at the fact that SCO have stolen our FUD technology and are even more pissed off that they're version works better than ours ever did".