One nit-pick... you're not talking about the "PC". You're talking about commodity computing hardware. The Personal Computer was the breeding ground for commodity hardware. But this commoditization is no longer limited to this part of the industry.
The real question is how "derivative" is defined, and how that applies to the license Sun had with AT&T and more recently, SCO.
As a side note - who exactly is Sun's license with? Novell has raised the question over exactly who owns what and what SCO's role is. The gist of it seems to be that Novell still holds the license for all previous licensees. SCO was to act as an agent collecting fees for such licensees while had full control over any new licenses they were able to sell. Sun is old business - having got their license from AT&T.
If it turns out that Novell is correct, SCO may find that they can not dictate the terms of the license. And they may have written themselves entirely out of the picture by collecting the one-time, life-time fee. Novell may be able to release Sun from any restrictions that would prevent Sun from acting in a manner that also bennefits Novell. And, you'll notice, Novell has recently become very Linux-friendly.
Agree 100% with him there. For some reason US corporations take it for granted that all countries/entities everywhere exist merely to pander to their interests.
I think the venerable Tanenbaum may have veered a bit off-course here. The mentioning of U.S. interests is done in the context that the "book" is intended for U.S. Leaders. I agree that patriotism is a cheap ploy. But that's the game Brown is playing. And thus it's entirely appropriate.
Now - what that has to do with crediting Linus or anyone else for Linux is beyond me.
I really don't understand why he bothered to interview experts. If we assume for one second that Brown isn't a complete idiot, he should have realized that the experts would tell him the truth and then might get a bit uppity when he twisted their words to fit his own agenda. He might also have guessed that they would know how to use that 'inner-net thingy'.
Brown explains the reason right at the beginning:
AdTI did not publish Samizdat with the expectation that rabidly pro-Linux developers would embrace it. Its purpose is to provide U.S. leadership with a researched presentation on attribution and intellectual property problems with the hybrid source code model, particularly Linux. It is our hope that leadership would find this document helpful with public policy decisions regarding its future investment in Linux and other hybrid source products.
If I may be so bold as offer a translation...
I didn't write this for those of you who know about Unix, it's history, and the foundation and history of Open Source. I wrote this to convince U.S. Legislatures and Industry to either shun or actively hound Linux and the GPL license.
Ken Brown isn't interested in truth. He's interested in crafting credability. If he manipulates the facts and his interviews properly, he can have it appear that he has wide-ranging support from definitive experts.
The fact that these experts strongly discount Brown's claims isn't important. Ken's readership won't see these counter-claims. These readers don't know how to use the "inner-net thingy." Or, at the least, where to look.
Microsoft's domination (a much better term than "monopoly") is coming to an end.
It depends on what you're talking about. If you're describing Microsoft's behavior and resulting legal action, then "domination" is a poor choice of words. After all, Cisco dominates many of its markets and you don't see them facing legal action (or near the criticism).
And the courts had absolutely no part in ending it...
Sure - the courts have been mostly ineffective. But it would be inaccurate to say that they have had nothing to do with getting to where we are today. There have been some minor, but important, changes caused by court involvement in Microsoft's affairs.
OEM licensing has changed. The court proceeding uncovered OEM licensing terms that, among other things, limited OEM offerings to Windows. These restrictions no longer exist. OEMs can now offer additional OS configurations without endangering their OEM Windows license.
Microsoft endorsed Linux. Microsoft's lawyers needed to show a marketplace full of competition. Linux was held up as an example of that competition. Linux was a curious choice - why not BSD or BeOS? At the time, Linux was little more than a fledgling option to business. However, it did one thing - introduced Linux to business. After all, if Microsoft says Linux is competition, maybe it is something worth looking at.
These are just two minor examples; nothing major in themselves. Again - the courts may not have done much. But they certainly had an effect. And sometimes a little nudge is all that's needed.
Along those lines, I would also suggest Privoxy. I have it set up on my home network for the family (on the family Linux-based file server) and run a local copy on my Windows workstation at work (when not disabling it and playing with the Adblock extension for Mozilla). Works like a charm.
This article is calling for a boycott to kill Microsoft's freedom of speech (in its advertising) and Linux Today's choice to display what it wishes. Yet, Linux clearly represents choice and freedom.
You guys are hilarious. I can't wait to laugh about this one at the office on Monday. What a joke.
Note the numerous opinions that seem less than enthusiastic about taking up the cry of boycott.
Incidently... what do you suppose would happen if the roles were reversed? "Windows Developers! Developers! Developers! Magazine" runs an ad campaign for IBM that reads "Begin developing for Linux today - free!" You don't suppose the magazine advertising accounts lead would get a friendly call from their contact at Microsoft's advertising deparment, do you?
I'm sure Microsoft is crying over losing you and that you "enjoy" seeing their ads in order to laugh at them. Meanwhile, Linux is 10 fucking years behind in GUI development while Microsoft moves forward with.NET and Longhorn.
Yes. It is, isn't it? I see the exact same ads on Slashdot all the time. OSDN takes money from "evil" Microsoft all damn day, and the frothing posters seem to be none the wiser, or look the other way to bash Microsoft some more.
Maybe they don't get the ads? Until recently, I've had my ad blocking software behaving at an aggressive level - mostly out of laziness. But I recently tweaked it a bit to start letting through ads that I don't mind. If these offending ads are served thorugh Doubleclick, I'll never see them.
Not that I think I'm a "frothing poster".
If a website is going to bash Microsoft yet take money and display their ads, I will declare that they have lost all integrity.
So what you're saying is by accepting advertising revenue, the publication should stay bought.
BTW, Slashdot (or Linux Today for that matter) preach more propaganda and hardly any true journalism work goes into them. That is, and has been, their raison d'etre.
You're forgetting to include, for the most part, the entire technical trade publications industry.
What I find interesting is the Ad itself. I don't know much about the web ad biz - so perhaps someone can help me with the details. However, looking over Linux Today with Adblock, it appears they get their ads from Bluestreak and Real Media.
This is where ignorance gets dangerous. Save me from myself if I'm completely off-base here.
If these ad streams come from external sources without (much) editorial control by the sites that serve them, I would expect that the ads themselves are selected based on key elements of the site subject or text being viewed. That could suggest that Microsoft has decided that whenever Linux is mentioned in the online press, it feels compelled to throw out some anti-Linux marketing.
This suggests a few interesting points. First, Linux is appearing enough in trade press to warrant a strategy based entirely on its appearance. Secondly, Linux presents enough of a threat to warrant spending resources on addressing it rather than some other message that would benefit Microsoft.
This should come as no surprise to anyone. But its interesting to watch none-the-less.
Again, excellent GUI, but there's definitely a feeling (misguided, I think) that Windows "has" to be bad because it's used everywhere. This doesn't translate to some other consumer products (PS2, anyone) so I'm not sure why geeks hate Windows in particular. Do we hate it because we perceive everyone else hates it (the same way people who use MacOS love it more because everyone else who uses it loves it)?
My interest in IT is getting things to talk to each other. It may involve different programs, different servers, clients, or whatever. When something is unable to exchange data, it is a problem. The challenge is designing systems that avoid these problems today and will likely avoid them in the future. What I don't need is someone artificially creating problems. Microsoft creates problems. Windows is often the manifestation of this.
Yeah - I wouldn't expect the OS to make much of a difference. If Linux was running out of memory, I wouldn't be shocked if Firefox got axed. I'm running Firefox 0.8 in both environments.
Linux looked like Windows 95 in 1998, and it looks like Windows 95 now in 2004. WTF is so innovative about that?
So let's talk appearance. I suppose it's a matter of perspective. However, from the late 90's until today it looks like people have been trying to make Windows look like Linux. Or, more accurately, some of the favored window managers commonly found on Linux. There are window decorations, virtual pagers, window-blinds, etc. Now Windows XP comes out with the decorations bit built in. And prettier icons. As you put it... "WTF is so innovative about that?"
Before we get carried away in the minutia of the modern Windows interface... back to the point. Your complaint is that Linux looks like Win95. If it does for you - it's your choice. My desktop looks entirely unlike Win9x. And its been able to do that for years without any additional hacks.
What is innovative about VI?
Yea. I mean... it's not like its Emacs or anything. Wait. I'm not sure I'm following your point. You're taking one of the oldest Unix editors in existence and comparing it to... what?
Having said that, I use Vim daily. On a Windows box. I'm no Vi guru. But the few things I do know make it very efficient to use. I miss it when I don't have it available.
I'm curious as to what you're running. I've been running firefox with Tabbrowser Extensions, Google toolbar, and spellcheck. No crashing. I have had it (and several other apps) go away before when Windows was very low on memory. No problems under Linux.
These are really subjective situations. "Works for me" and all that. However, a stable environment is apprently possible. YMMV.
The patch in question, a boolean operations patch, is said to be PD in the article. But this attitude is a major landmine for GPL (or any other free license) projects.
Perhapse you missed in the paragraph above the one you quoted:
We quickly double-checked that the licensing was clean, that the code was the author's original work, and that it indeed implemented the feature as promised...
So things can seem obvious in restrospect sometimes which previously did not!
I would suggest that's the subtle point. If you came from a society that didn't have these utensils, you might find them novel. To someone who's a part of a culture that's been using them for the last couple hundred years, they are anything but.
And that's the problem. The USPO tends to behave as if they have no familiarity (or willingness to research) the fields in which they grant patents.
We have no idea what they are going to do with this patent. If they don't enforce it, maybe they submitted it to protect themselves against a competitor doing the same thing and then trying to enforce it?
If they were trying to establish a defensive position, they could simply release their patent. This would restrict anyone else from attempting to attack them using that particular idea without being threatening.
Of course, going through the trouble of establishing a patent is pretty expensive and time consuming. A much easier approach is publishing papers on the subject. You manage to publicly document your idea, provide a defense against someone using that idea against you, and avoid creating a threat to the industry.
We will be able to say that McAfee is "bad" when, and only when, they try to enforce their newly awarded patent against anyone, because only then will we know that their intent was not legitimate protection of their business but rather destruction of other ones, be they for-profit or not.
So what you're saying is that everything is honky-dory until McAfee sues. Thanks. I'm sure the first one under notice from McAfee's legal team will appreciate that. Furthermore, I'm sure none of this will have a chilling affect as individuals question whether its worth encroaching on McAfee's patent - legitimate or not.
For example, McAfee would surely like to patent farting *in public* if they thought it would be enforceable.. And good luck on finding a prior art on that one..
Don't be absurd. That would never go over.
Now... farting while using a public network access device... now THAT has legs! Let's run this by Legal. Get them working on this one. Better get marketing started on this too; figure out what color the box should be. See what styles Apple is using today and have the nerd-herd make a mockup based on that. Yes sir. I think this will work out nicely....
It doesn't matter whether that HTML form uses SMTP or whatever, it's the same form to the user. So for those, E-Mail can be easily replaced with something else.
Of course, you're going to want to consolidate all these messages in to one environment. With a nice interface that allows you to sort them, respond the the user, or forward the message on to the appropriate internal contact. And when you respond to the user, it's going to be asking a lot to ask the user to come back to check for messages from you on your site. So you'll probably want to arrange with others to provide a simular, centralized message delivery method so the customer has the same conveniences.
Sounds like email. The back-end is, in fact, important. Even if the end user doesn't realize it.
Slashdot Mirror
One nit-pick... you're not talking about the "PC". You're talking about commodity computing hardware. The Personal Computer was the breeding ground for commodity hardware. But this commoditization is no longer limited to this part of the industry.
Note that Sun is now working with AMD.
Which is kind of amusing since SCO (McBride) has claimed that the GPL is both viral and public domain at different times.
As a side note - who exactly is Sun's license with? Novell has raised the question over exactly who owns what and what SCO's role is. The gist of it seems to be that Novell still holds the license for all previous licensees. SCO was to act as an agent collecting fees for such licensees while had full control over any new licenses they were able to sell. Sun is old business - having got their license from AT&T.
If it turns out that Novell is correct, SCO may find that they can not dictate the terms of the license. And they may have written themselves entirely out of the picture by collecting the one-time, life-time fee. Novell may be able to release Sun from any restrictions that would prevent Sun from acting in a manner that also bennefits Novell. And, you'll notice, Novell has recently become very Linux-friendly.
...and here I was thinking the first person who breaks in to song should be shot.
I think the venerable Tanenbaum may have veered a bit off-course here. The mentioning of U.S. interests is done in the context that the "book" is intended for U.S. Leaders. I agree that patriotism is a cheap ploy. But that's the game Brown is playing. And thus it's entirely appropriate.
Now - what that has to do with crediting Linus or anyone else for Linux is beyond me.
Brown explains the reason right at the beginning:
If I may be so bold as offer a translation...
Ken Brown isn't interested in truth. He's interested in crafting credability. If he manipulates the facts and his interviews properly, he can have it appear that he has wide-ranging support from definitive experts.
The fact that these experts strongly discount Brown's claims isn't important. Ken's readership won't see these counter-claims. These readers don't know how to use the "inner-net thingy." Or, at the least, where to look.
It depends on what you're talking about. If you're describing Microsoft's behavior and resulting legal action, then "domination" is a poor choice of words. After all, Cisco dominates many of its markets and you don't see them facing legal action (or near the criticism).
Sure - the courts have been mostly ineffective. But it would be inaccurate to say that they have had nothing to do with getting to where we are today. There have been some minor, but important, changes caused by court involvement in Microsoft's affairs.
OEM licensing has changed. The court proceeding uncovered OEM licensing terms that, among other things, limited OEM offerings to Windows. These restrictions no longer exist. OEMs can now offer additional OS configurations without endangering their OEM Windows license.
Microsoft endorsed Linux. Microsoft's lawyers needed to show a marketplace full of competition. Linux was held up as an example of that competition. Linux was a curious choice - why not BSD or BeOS? At the time, Linux was little more than a fledgling option to business. However, it did one thing - introduced Linux to business. After all, if Microsoft says Linux is competition, maybe it is something worth looking at.
These are just two minor examples; nothing major in themselves. Again - the courts may not have done much. But they certainly had an effect. And sometimes a little nudge is all that's needed.
Along those lines, I would also suggest Privoxy. I have it set up on my home network for the family (on the family Linux-based file server) and run a local copy on my Windows workstation at work (when not disabling it and playing with the Adblock extension for Mozilla). Works like a charm.
Note the numerous opinions that seem less than enthusiastic about taking up the cry of boycott.
Incidently... what do you suppose would happen if the roles were reversed? "Windows Developers! Developers! Developers! Magazine" runs an ad campaign for IBM that reads "Begin developing for Linux today - free!" You don't suppose the magazine advertising accounts lead would get a friendly call from their contact at Microsoft's advertising deparment, do you?
What? MORE Microsoft ads?
Maybe they don't get the ads? Until recently, I've had my ad blocking software behaving at an aggressive level - mostly out of laziness. But I recently tweaked it a bit to start letting through ads that I don't mind. If these offending ads are served thorugh Doubleclick, I'll never see them.
Not that I think I'm a "frothing poster".
So what you're saying is by accepting advertising revenue, the publication should stay bought.
You're forgetting to include, for the most part, the entire technical trade publications industry.
What I find interesting is the Ad itself. I don't know much about the web ad biz - so perhaps someone can help me with the details. However, looking over Linux Today with Adblock, it appears they get their ads from Bluestreak and Real Media.
This is where ignorance gets dangerous. Save me from myself if I'm completely off-base here.
If these ad streams come from external sources without (much) editorial control by the sites that serve them, I would expect that the ads themselves are selected based on key elements of the site subject or text being viewed. That could suggest that Microsoft has decided that whenever Linux is mentioned in the online press, it feels compelled to throw out some anti-Linux marketing.
This suggests a few interesting points. First, Linux is appearing enough in trade press to warrant a strategy based entirely on its appearance. Secondly, Linux presents enough of a threat to warrant spending resources on addressing it rather than some other message that would benefit Microsoft.
This should come as no surprise to anyone. But its interesting to watch none-the-less.
My interest in IT is getting things to talk to each other. It may involve different programs, different servers, clients, or whatever. When something is unable to exchange data, it is a problem. The challenge is designing systems that avoid these problems today and will likely avoid them in the future. What I don't need is someone artificially creating problems. Microsoft creates problems. Windows is often the manifestation of this.
Yeah - I wouldn't expect the OS to make much of a difference. If Linux was running out of memory, I wouldn't be shocked if Firefox got axed. I'm running Firefox 0.8 in both environments.
So let's talk appearance. I suppose it's a matter of perspective. However, from the late 90's until today it looks like people have been trying to make Windows look like Linux. Or, more accurately, some of the favored window managers commonly found on Linux. There are window decorations, virtual pagers, window-blinds, etc. Now Windows XP comes out with the decorations bit built in. And prettier icons. As you put it... "WTF is so innovative about that?"
Before we get carried away in the minutia of the modern Windows interface... back to the point. Your complaint is that Linux looks like Win95. If it does for you - it's your choice. My desktop looks entirely unlike Win9x. And its been able to do that for years without any additional hacks.
Yea. I mean... it's not like its Emacs or anything. Wait. I'm not sure I'm following your point. You're taking one of the oldest Unix editors in existence and comparing it to... what?
Having said that, I use Vim daily. On a Windows box. I'm no Vi guru. But the few things I do know make it very efficient to use. I miss it when I don't have it available.
I'm curious as to what you're running. I've been running firefox with Tabbrowser Extensions, Google toolbar, and spellcheck. No crashing. I have had it (and several other apps) go away before when Windows was very low on memory. No problems under Linux.
These are really subjective situations. "Works for me" and all that. However, a stable environment is apprently possible. YMMV.
Perhapse you missed in the paragraph above the one you quoted:
I would suggest that's the subtle point. If you came from a society that didn't have these utensils, you might find them novel. To someone who's a part of a culture that's been using them for the last couple hundred years, they are anything but.
And that's the problem. The USPO tends to behave as if they have no familiarity (or willingness to research) the fields in which they grant patents.
If they were trying to establish a defensive position, they could simply release their patent. This would restrict anyone else from attempting to attack them using that particular idea without being threatening.
Of course, going through the trouble of establishing a patent is pretty expensive and time consuming. A much easier approach is publishing papers on the subject. You manage to publicly document your idea, provide a defense against someone using that idea against you, and avoid creating a threat to the industry.
So what you're saying is that everything is honky-dory until McAfee sues. Thanks. I'm sure the first one under notice from McAfee's legal team will appreciate that. Furthermore, I'm sure none of this will have a chilling affect as individuals question whether its worth encroaching on McAfee's patent - legitimate or not.
Don't be absurd. That would never go over.
Now... farting while using a public network access device... now THAT has legs! Let's run this by Legal. Get them working on this one. Better get marketing started on this too; figure out what color the box should be. See what styles Apple is using today and have the nerd-herd make a mockup based on that. Yes sir. I think this will work out nicely....
Of course, you're going to want to consolidate all these messages in to one environment. With a nice interface that allows you to sort them, respond the the user, or forward the message on to the appropriate internal contact. And when you respond to the user, it's going to be asking a lot to ask the user to come back to check for messages from you on your site. So you'll probably want to arrange with others to provide a simular, centralized message delivery method so the customer has the same conveniences.
Sounds like email. The back-end is, in fact, important. Even if the end user doesn't realize it.
"Those thar calfs ya gots over there... they look like our cattle over here. They must be derivitives. That means we own all them cattle...."
I suppose we won't be seeing any Baystar 3 step plans to profit jokes with this story.