They might be non profit company making free software but they are threatening other companies' buisness model.
There are plenty of non-profits out there that threaten business models. Nobody is guaranteed a profit. And business models are not the guide to behavior.
I have called them on three different times and have been told the same answer.
I suspect there's some sort of shenanigans going on with RedHat's sales staff. Which wouldn't suprise me. Sales is sales; the only difference is company policy.
In any case, I looked at the license and don't see anything that would hint at what you've described.
1 year ago. RedHat ES 3.x for X86-64 was $2,500 minimum a year per server. If you did not renew your license, you were NOT allowed to run the server.
Today - RedHat ES 3.x for X86-64 is $350 a year per server. Again, you must pay per server EVERY year.
Do you happen to have a reference to their license that states an expired license requires immediate removal of the software?
It was my impression that the yearly license was a maintenance license allowing access to RedHat's binary packages. If one wishes, one can continue to run the system unpatched. Or one can find another source for updates (either a different package repository or build one's own packages).
My general principle with ads is the following: If the ad is not intrusive, and is not flash, (I.e. it doesn't have lots of motion, doesn't eat up cpu cycles, and doesn't flash horrendous colors at me), I will not block it. Otherwise, I will.
I used to run privoxy for all my browsing (even available for Win32). And I tended to adopt the agressive all-ad blocking rules since it was just easier that way. Then I discovered AdBlock. Now, I block selectively. For the most part, that involves lots of "*.swf*".
Now I tend to see a lot more advertising. And I'm happy with that - I'm not against advertising itself. In fact, I've gone out of my way to allow it. But ultimately, I decide what content to accept.
I'm curious as to if this kind of behavior is showing up in advertiser's data. Of course, it will likely be misinterpreted.
After reading the submission's tittle, I can't help but think:
Google can change beta environments anytime they want! Google changes their interfaces ALL the time and don't even think twice about it. These guys are so crazy and awesome that they flip betas ALL the time. I heard that there was this Google developer who was eating at a diner. And when some dude entered a Groups search the developer changed the whole Groups interface. My friend Orkut said that he saw a developer totally undercut some interface just because people were used to it.
And that's what I call REAL Ultimate Power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PJ's work at debunking SCO's claims have little or nothing to do with her involvement with OSRM.
If I put on my tinfoil hat, I'd had to disagree -- SCO and OSRM seem to be two forks of the same "Linux IP FUD" strategy -- SCO focusing on the Unix roots, and OSRM focusing on patents.
Just to clarify my point - SCO seems to imply that PJ's work to debunk SCO's claims are suspect due to her involvement with OSRM. However, nobody yet (to include SCO) has been able to provide much of any substance to SCO's claims. That includes the statements from OSRM. In that sense, Groklaw and OSRM have little to do with each other.
Now - you raise a fair point. But as you seem to imply, this is the worse interpretation of the situation. I'll suggest a different view.
It all starts with Microsoft. Their strategy has always been "cutting off the oxygen." But as we all know, Linux presents a very alien target. The normal "oxygen" does not apply. So where to attack?
Microsoft's first attempt was support. If you use Linux, who can you blame for something going wrong? Companies came forward to fill that niche market. Linux now has numerous sources for commercial support services.
Microsoft's next, much more aggressive attempt has been on patents. If you use Linux, who will idemnify you? After all, claims Microsoft, Linux is just a time bomb ticking away.
Caldera had already been working on a strategy to differentiate their Linux business using their "ownership" of Unix (according to Ransom Love - it also might be noted that this "owenership" is disputed by Novell). However, there was a change at Caldera / SCO Group. Either investors wanted to cash in on a play they saw advertised in Microsoft's playbook. Or Microsoft was directly involved in setting SCO on it's path. In any case, SCO gave Microsoft's dire warnings substance. Or at least appeared to. At the very least, they've helped drum a niche market for idemnification for Linux customers.
OSRM is one company that was created to service that need. They have produced material to explain their position and their perceived risk. And they sell idemnification.
Now - is that idemnification needed? I personally find it questionable. But then, I question a certain amount of the perceieved need for "support" too. None the less, some seem to want it and are willing to pay. Furthermore, the fact that companies are there to sell support and idemnification further removes perceived gaping holes in Linux as a worthy platform.
The downside is that OSRM has provided fodder for FUD. And while they've done a bit to try and control that, the damage is being done despite it.
Having said that, if there IS an issue with Linux... it needs to be addressed. It doesn't help to wish it away. If OSRM has identified an issue, it should be known and addressed. Even if the issue is questionable. And even if FUDsters will, like they always do, twist it in to near (if not outright) falsehoods.
Born in France in 1943, Pépin is known for his fantastic, grand-scale productions. Head of the Paris-based production company eca2, he has successfully executed numerous multimedia and large-scale programs at various global events, expositions and theme parks.
Pépin's representative works include the opening and closing ceremonies of the 1998 World Cup in France and the 1999-2000 Millennium Celebration spectacle at the Eiffel Tower.
I don't necessarily want EA destroyed, because I really value the work of some of the assimilated companies. (Maxis, Origin)
What I *do* want however is for them to get a clue in a very big way, particularly as far as MMORPGs are concerned. UO is still headed for the gurgler and gaining speed, and The Sims Online has become an online sex pests' paradise, when the game was not originally intended for anything even remotely like that.
What makes you thing that anything of these aquired companies continues to exist in any meaningful way? What you've described are shells of former glory. With an EA logo slapped on it.
That said, I would gladly work 70 hours a week to be in the credits of a video game.
Get in touch with EA's HR department. You're just the kind of suck... err... motivated artist they like to exploi... umm, that is... add to their highly valued team. But before you get any funny ideas, remember that "value" in this case doesn't imply "worth paying."
Noted Anti-Linux FUD site slashdot.org had a very similar headline: Linux Violates 283 Patents, says Insurance Company
Sometimes one would wish Slashdot's "principles" would exercise a bit more editorial control over the content that shows under their banner. That content tends to include material that is erroneously attributed to Slashdot itself. Incorrect or misleading story headlines included. None the less, the article itself quotes ZDNet who actually notes that these are potential violations. Ms. O'Gara (and many other dubious "journalists") do not.
Ultimately it's very odd that PJ or her allies feel that the OSRM thing is a "systematic SCO smear" or a conspiracy among tech journalists. Many well-meaning people on Groklaw and Slashdot warned that OSRM would end up serving as a FUD machine.
Whether it was seen a mile away or not, it is still what it is.
I wouldn't call it a "conspiracy among tech journalists." But how this is presented does tend to show when a certain bias exists.
There is a SCO smear campaign. PJ's work at debunking SCO's claims have little or nothing to do with her involvement with OSRM. Yet SCO attempts to use this involvement to marginalize one of their most vocal and successful public critics.
No hard feelings between her and SCO could have crept into any of her announcements about that fine purveyor of THE Unix OS.
There area couple interesting things to note here. First, from the article:
...the speaker figured that she believes there are substantial IP risks in Linux because of her relationship with OSRM - a logical enough conclusion considering OSRM has claimed that the Linux kernel infringes 283 unidentified patents and wants to sell users insurance covering the cost of defending themselves against an infringement suit.
But PJ claims the speaker "twisted" her involvement in OSRM and says it's being used it for FUD. So, to deny anyone the possibly of the FUD, and at the sacrifice of the "income stream," she quit.
So Ms. Jones quit a job because that position was being used as an attack on her previous work - Groklaw and her criticism of SCO.
This brings to mind a few questions. First, to answer your question... I wouldn't be suprised if there are hard feelings. But does it matter? Has Ms. Jones' actions changed since before this event took place?
Secondly, it's interesting to note the source that you quoted. Both "Linux Business Week", and the particular article itself, is the work of Ms O'Gara. Ms. O'Gara has, herself, come under the gaze of Ms. Jones and Groklaw's critical eye - and has been greatly questioned under that scrutiny. One of these reasons is a very obvious bias on the part of Ms. O'Gara. An example of this can be seen in the above quote and the claim that "OSRM has claimed that the Linux kernel infringes 283 unidentified patents" despite the fact that OSRM has been very public in stressing that this is a POTENTIAL number, especially in light of considerable coverage of Microsoft CEO Steve Baller's misuse of this statistic.
Its a nice little side note that you've brought up. But was there a point?
Dude. This doesn't work like a real "Ask Slashdot" if you're coming in here and answering the questions . Get the hell back on your side of the fence and wait for the selected questions to hit your inbox - and for gawd's sake... try to act surprised.
Sheesh.
You'd think we were doing the William Shatner interview again. And no - you can't ask yourself questions.
I never murdered anybody. Therefore I have no moral or logical basis for claiming that murder is wrong and should be illegal.
And I don't have to have any medical experience to authoritavely assure you that you have an ailment that can only be cured by the snakeoil that I am selling.
I remember websites by AOL users where you could sign up for another floppy. The AOL user would get his bounty (in the form of free hours) for turning over a "friend" and you got a free floppy to toss in to your scratch floppies box.
What the heck are you on about? I run Windows, and I've had no problems with spyware ruining my PC or crashing it.
Years ago, I ran nothing but Win9x. My own home systems were fairly stable and usable. I had no interest in anything but a Windows world. Then I became a "professional".
As a payed IT cog, I had to deal with OTHER people's Windows machines. I got a full sample of Murphy's Law and Microsoft. And then I began to understand some of Microsoft's detractors.
It's not that Windows is absolutely unusable. But each iteration has had, and continues to have, serious issues (bad user decissions aside). And those issues DO, in fact, affect people - sometimes with considerable impact.
No system is perfect. But there are, in fact, very viable alternatives to Windows. For all your talk of objectivity and profesionalism, it is generally rather rare to give fair consideration to a Windows alternate. Even in an environment where it makes very good sense.
I'm not entirely sure it's a Linus cathedral at all. The cathedral metaphor has to do with being a sole source and authority over something.
It's more like Linus has a stall in the same bazaar as everyone else. Linus' stall may be very popular, but it is far from the only stall that offers Linux in the bazaar.
Conversely, just because you have a different version of Linux, doesn't mean all other stalls in the bazaar must now carry your version. You compete with all the other stalls. If what you offer is well recieved, other stalls may begin to adopt it. And even if other stalls do not pick up your changes, you may find that your stall is still very popular with a niche that others can not or will not support.
I think in order to survive the onslaught, it will be necessary to garner support elsewhere.
If only some other IT industry giant with a massive patent portfolio, legendary legal team, and dedication to Linux as a business solution would take the time to stand up to this kind of FUD in court. Wouldn't it be interesting if there was more than one?
Re:Stuff on the ground
on
A New Elena Story
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I was always rather amazed with the amount of history available in Europe. A few of the things I saw while stationed just inside the Western border of Germany...
There was Trier - Northern gate to the Roman Empire. Colusium, bath houses (complete with underground tunnels for slaves to burn fires and heat the in-ground baths).
Trier also had some base housing for US military personnel. It was located on the side of a rather steep hill. Ironically, all housing units had notices warning residents not to climb down the hill in the woods. The hill overlooks a major railway nexus. During WWII, it was a prime target for allied bombers who, faced with constantly bad weather conditions, had to dump a huge amount of ordinance. Much of it ended up embeded in the hill and remains there today as Unexploded Ordinance.
These are just two examples of the random bits of history that was everyday life in Germany. One just doesn't see that kind of depth of history Stateside.
Slashdot Mirror
There are plenty of non-profits out there that threaten business models. Nobody is guaranteed a profit. And business models are not the guide to behavior.
That would be the "mainstream" trade press.
I suspect there's some sort of shenanigans going on with RedHat's sales staff. Which wouldn't suprise me. Sales is sales; the only difference is company policy.
In any case, I looked at the license and don't see anything that would hint at what you've described.
Do you happen to have a reference to their license that states an expired license requires immediate removal of the software?
It was my impression that the yearly license was a maintenance license allowing access to RedHat's binary packages. If one wishes, one can continue to run the system unpatched. Or one can find another source for updates (either a different package repository or build one's own packages).
One of the legacies of Doubleclick. Just one of the many ways Doubleclick managed to help poison the well of online advertising.
The WWW is not a broadcast medium. There are more options to the consumer than "change channel."
I used to run privoxy for all my browsing (even available for Win32). And I tended to adopt the agressive all-ad blocking rules since it was just easier that way. Then I discovered AdBlock. Now, I block selectively. For the most part, that involves lots of "*.swf*".
Now I tend to see a lot more advertising. And I'm happy with that - I'm not against advertising itself. In fact, I've gone out of my way to allow it. But ultimately, I decide what content to accept.
I'm curious as to if this kind of behavior is showing up in advertiser's data. Of course, it will likely be misinterpreted.
Just to clarify my point - SCO seems to imply that PJ's work to debunk SCO's claims are suspect due to her involvement with OSRM. However, nobody yet (to include SCO) has been able to provide much of any substance to SCO's claims. That includes the statements from OSRM. In that sense, Groklaw and OSRM have little to do with each other.
Now - you raise a fair point. But as you seem to imply, this is the worse interpretation of the situation. I'll suggest a different view.
It all starts with Microsoft. Their strategy has always been "cutting off the oxygen." But as we all know, Linux presents a very alien target. The normal "oxygen" does not apply. So where to attack?
Microsoft's first attempt was support. If you use Linux, who can you blame for something going wrong? Companies came forward to fill that niche market. Linux now has numerous sources for commercial support services.
Microsoft's next, much more aggressive attempt has been on patents. If you use Linux, who will idemnify you? After all, claims Microsoft, Linux is just a time bomb ticking away.
Caldera had already been working on a strategy to differentiate their Linux business using their "ownership" of Unix (according to Ransom Love - it also might be noted that this "owenership" is disputed by Novell). However, there was a change at Caldera / SCO Group. Either investors wanted to cash in on a play they saw advertised in Microsoft's playbook. Or Microsoft was directly involved in setting SCO on it's path. In any case, SCO gave Microsoft's dire warnings substance. Or at least appeared to. At the very least, they've helped drum a niche market for idemnification for Linux customers.
OSRM is one company that was created to service that need. They have produced material to explain their position and their perceived risk. And they sell idemnification.
Now - is that idemnification needed? I personally find it questionable. But then, I question a certain amount of the perceieved need for "support" too. None the less, some seem to want it and are willing to pay. Furthermore, the fact that companies are there to sell support and idemnification further removes perceived gaping holes in Linux as a worthy platform.
The downside is that OSRM has provided fodder for FUD. And while they've done a bit to try and control that, the damage is being done despite it.
Having said that, if there IS an issue with Linux... it needs to be addressed. It doesn't help to wish it away. If OSRM has identified an issue, it should be known and addressed. Even if the issue is questionable. And even if FUDsters will, like they always do, twist it in to near (if not outright) falsehoods.
What makes you thing that anything of these aquired companies continues to exist in any meaningful way? What you've described are shells of former glory. With an EA logo slapped on it.
Get in touch with EA's HR department. You're just the kind of suck... err... motivated artist they like to exploi... umm, that is... add to their highly valued team. But before you get any funny ideas, remember that "value" in this case doesn't imply "worth paying."
Sometimes one would wish Slashdot's "principles" would exercise a bit more editorial control over the content that shows under their banner. That content tends to include material that is erroneously attributed to Slashdot itself. Incorrect or misleading story headlines included. None the less, the article itself quotes ZDNet who actually notes that these are potential violations. Ms. O'Gara (and many other dubious "journalists") do not.
Whether it was seen a mile away or not, it is still what it is.
I wouldn't call it a "conspiracy among tech journalists." But how this is presented does tend to show when a certain bias exists.
There is a SCO smear campaign. PJ's work at debunking SCO's claims have little or nothing to do with her involvement with OSRM. Yet SCO attempts to use this involvement to marginalize one of their most vocal and successful public critics.
There area couple interesting things to note here. First, from the article:
So Ms. Jones quit a job because that position was being used as an attack on her previous work - Groklaw and her criticism of SCO.
This brings to mind a few questions. First, to answer your question... I wouldn't be suprised if there are hard feelings. But does it matter? Has Ms. Jones' actions changed since before this event took place?
Secondly, it's interesting to note the source that you quoted. Both "Linux Business Week", and the particular article itself, is the work of Ms O'Gara. Ms. O'Gara has, herself, come under the gaze of Ms. Jones and Groklaw's critical eye - and has been greatly questioned under that scrutiny. One of these reasons is a very obvious bias on the part of Ms. O'Gara. An example of this can be seen in the above quote and the claim that "OSRM has claimed that the Linux kernel infringes 283 unidentified patents" despite the fact that OSRM has been very public in stressing that this is a POTENTIAL number, especially in light of considerable coverage of Microsoft CEO Steve Baller's misuse of this statistic.
Its a nice little side note that you've brought up. But was there a point?
Sheesh.
You'd think we were doing the William Shatner interview again. And no - you can't ask yourself questions.
Actually... 1/4 the way through I was thinking "worse... review... ever." I'm not entirely sure why. But it's spooky none the less.
And I don't have to have any medical experience to authoritavely assure you that you have an ailment that can only be cured by the snakeoil that I am selling.
I remember websites by AOL users where you could sign up for another floppy. The AOL user would get his bounty (in the form of free hours) for turning over a "friend" and you got a free floppy to toss in to your scratch floppies box.
Years ago, I ran nothing but Win9x. My own home systems were fairly stable and usable. I had no interest in anything but a Windows world. Then I became a "professional".
As a payed IT cog, I had to deal with OTHER people's Windows machines. I got a full sample of Murphy's Law and Microsoft. And then I began to understand some of Microsoft's detractors.
It's not that Windows is absolutely unusable. But each iteration has had, and continues to have, serious issues (bad user decissions aside). And those issues DO, in fact, affect people - sometimes with considerable impact.
No system is perfect. But there are, in fact, very viable alternatives to Windows. For all your talk of objectivity and profesionalism, it is generally rather rare to give fair consideration to a Windows alternate. Even in an environment where it makes very good sense.
What you're thinking of is Booble. Of course, they had their own run-in with Google over their origional graphic.
Remarkable site, cmdrtaco.net, id'nt it, ehy? Beutiful fontage!
I'm not entirely sure it's a Linus cathedral at all. The cathedral metaphor has to do with being a sole source and authority over something.
It's more like Linus has a stall in the same bazaar as everyone else. Linus' stall may be very popular, but it is far from the only stall that offers Linux in the bazaar.
Conversely, just because you have a different version of Linux, doesn't mean all other stalls in the bazaar must now carry your version. You compete with all the other stalls. If what you offer is well recieved, other stalls may begin to adopt it. And even if other stalls do not pick up your changes, you may find that your stall is still very popular with a niche that others can not or will not support.
If only some other IT industry giant with a massive patent portfolio, legendary legal team, and dedication to Linux as a business solution would take the time to stand up to this kind of FUD in court. Wouldn't it be interesting if there was more than one?
I was always rather amazed with the amount of history available in Europe. A few of the things I saw while stationed just inside the Western border of Germany...
There was Trier - Northern gate to the Roman Empire. Colusium, bath houses (complete with underground tunnels for slaves to burn fires and heat the in-ground baths).
Trier also had some base housing for US military personnel. It was located on the side of a rather steep hill. Ironically, all housing units had notices warning residents not to climb down the hill in the woods. The hill overlooks a major railway nexus. During WWII, it was a prime target for allied bombers who, faced with constantly bad weather conditions, had to dump a huge amount of ordinance. Much of it ended up embeded in the hill and remains there today as Unexploded Ordinance.
These are just two examples of the random bits of history that was everyday life in Germany. One just doesn't see that kind of depth of history Stateside.
Kinda like the obese guy who wears a foam cheese on his head and wears nothing but shorts and two-tone paint?