Yeah, it was a huge blunder for MS to do all the R&D for KDE and Gnome to copy and give away free.
Wait. I thought KDE and GNOME were using Apple's R&D. At least, that's was the impression I got with the ceast and desist over my favorite Aqua theme.
All kidding aside, its getting very hard to tell these days. I've noticed Windows and MacOS like elements in both KDE and GNOME. But at the same time, I've seen some WinXP screenshots that have looked very Linux-like at first blush.
Little wonder Apple gets pissy about Aqua knock-offs.
It would be a disaster if it had been released under the GPL- companies would have used their own inferior implementations, which would probably end up being somewhat incompatible or would break the standard.... As for libpng, same deal. The PNG team simply wanted to replace GIF with something that wouldn't get people sued, so they release libpng under a BSD-like license. If they hadn't, Microsoft simply wouldn't have supported PNG at all.
Sure. The BSD license is very libral. One step from the public domain. Microsoft loves it. Heck - any corporate legal department is going to have a lot less trouble analyzing it than the GPL.
But you imply that anything GPL'ed can't be used by commercial, proprietary interests. Which is simply false. Even Microsoft currently markets products (Unix compatability) that is chock full of GPL'd applications (not even LGPL at that).
The issue is whether the technology involved is important enough to work through the licensing. PNG may not have been. TCP very likely was. And for Microsoft, those GPL'd applications obviously are.
And Redhat developers were caught stealing BSD code, big whoop.
It actually is a "big whoop". The point isn't that RedHat stole code or Microsoft stole code... the point is that this kind of thing is rampant in the industry.
The publicity attack being orchistrated right now goes along the lines of "Open Source software is dangerous to use because they steal code and IP but proprietary software is safe from this." Stories like this one show that this is simply untrue. Proprietary software houses have the same likelyhood of misusing other's IP as Open Source does (OSS might even have less of a risk in this aspect, but that's a different thread).
Cases like this also demonstrate another important point. Even when stolen IP is unearthed, the end users are not getting sued. It is an issue limited to the developers and companies involved.
I disagree. If anything, Linux users don't buy much software because there are not that many linux users compared the Windows users. Linux users are normally a cut above the average user and I'm sure they know the difference between free and commercial software. Its not that we want everything for free, but there are just not that many Linux gamers out there and those that are gamers are booting into their Win2000 partition to game.
Actually, you're agreeing with me. "Linux users want everything for free (no cost)" is a false stereotype. Yet there are plenty of other reasons that a company may not want to enter the Linux gaming market. I make that point later in this thread.
I didn't mention the dual-booting issue. And its a good point. It also falls in line with products from Transgaming and the like. These methods and technologies do provide a way for the Linux user to get access to games. But they also might be an excuse for game studios not to bother with a native Linux port.
It's far from a stereotype. And iso'ing has been going on for 8 years and put less than a dent into pc gaming sales.
Yes it is a stereotype. You can point to a very sizeable group of people who won't pay for games in the Windows market too. That's not the issue.
And yes "piracy" has been going on for awhile. Far longer than 5 years. I could provide examples from personal observation going back 20 years. And there are examples that date far back to the very dawn of personal computing (Gate's letter complaining about people "stealing" BASIC comes to mind).
Obviously, that doesn't mean there hasn't been a market for software. Indeed, over the decades, that market has grown. And with computer games, that market has become one that produces enough revenue to be compared to Hollywood's infamous cash jugernaut.
Why? Because even if there are people who will go to the lengths needed to get software free, there are also those who will buy it. If there are enough willing to buy, there is a suitable market.
Its not about the people who won't buy.
The whole reasoning behind Linux is to be free! Why would they want to start paying now? Duh.
You're making a common mistake. "Free" isn't simply "no cost". I'll spare you the common comparison with price and beer. But the distinction is important one. There are people who pay for software (even when its Free). I know because I've witnessed it and done it.
The viability of a Linux gaming market isn't over whether people will pay for software any more than the Windows market is driven by the fact that people "pirate" it. There ARE people who will buy it (heck - I was laying NWN on Linux just before posting this). Whether there are enough people is an issue (after all, Linux is pretty far down on the list of desktop marketshare). Whether your developers have the expertise to produce a Linux version of your game is another (just ask Bioware). These are just a few of the real issues.
The reason more games don't get produced for linux is because the general population of Linux users want everything free. Until they can prove Linux users want to spend money no one is going to blink an eye.
And Windows users like to get all their games from their favorite warez iso source. Any other stereotypes you would like to bandy about?
Now, when you drag a volume to the trash, the trash icon changes to an Eject symbol. Get it?
I might not be in the Mac mindset... but that doesn't sound too intuitive to me either. I don't expect a trash can to morph in to something else. I'd be inclined to think "don't go anywhere NEAR this thing with anything you want to keep."
Granted. Its probably a bit of a catch-22. If you made an eject icon then what happens when you wave a directory or HD over it? Maybe the icon changes or runs away or it pops up a dialog saying you can't do that. Not much better.
Sure. That's a nice one. Another that caught my eye was:
"When you get to the site, it is going to be painfully obvious that we have a partnership with Microsoft in regards to the way we built the site and run the site," said Blum.
"Painfully obvious"? Painfull? Does one usually talk up one's brand new offering and major technology partner in such glowing terms?
Yes, if it contains proprietary code, you will, THE PROGRAMMER, will be liable, not THE COMPANY.
Right. So if I infringe on someone else's IP, I am liable no matter what license the infringing property was released under.
Most programmers can't restitute, so this GPL creates an environment that is condusive or likely to result in infringement that can't be compensated.
There are hundreds of small companies (let alone individuals) out there publishing software under any number of various proprietary licenses. They also have shallow pockets and little ability to restitute. How are they different?
Again. It isn't about the GPL. Its about the size of the company involved and whether you are acting as an agent of that company.
I already did, on another post in this thread, and I should be getting paid for enlightening some of you on here.
Yea. I saw that other post. It didn't seem too enlightening.
When Apple comes beating down your door with the next Linux lawsuit, that cost them $20 million in damages because kernel.org already gave your code to 20 million people maybe you'll see what I'm saying.
How is GPL licensed code any different than a proprietary license in this case? Or public domain?
If I manage to infringe on Apple's license it won't matter under what licence I've released that infringing IP. I can release it to the public domain. I can license it under the GPL. I can give it a proprietary license.
Lets say I created a library out of this infringing IP. A large software company then licensed this library from me under a proprietary license. They used it in an application that was widely distributed - lets say it was widely popular and released at no cost. When our hypothetical software company gets caught up in legal wrangling with Apple and track the infringing IP back to my library and its proprietary license... am I off scott free? Am I free from this "restitution" you keep talking about?
How about if I released my library cost-free, as postcard-ware, or share-ware? Or I release my code to the public domain? Has my liability changed? Will I face any less the cost of restitution since I didn't use the GPL?
How about if my library was released under the GPL as a part of the work I was doing as an employee to a large corporation? Perhapse this is different. Because now, instead of just me alone, I have my employer to take some of the brunt of this legal liability and possibly to even absorb this restitution. If they decide to protect me and if I did this work as their agent.
What you're talking about really has nothing to do with the license and everything to do with who you work for.
No it wouldn't, as the GPL alone has a contradictory nature all to itself, namely that the licensor doesn't have to check for IP infringement (because they can't without tainting themself) before changing the license to a freely copyable one. There's also completely lacking liability to the thing as a whole, something that courts aren't going to be prone to allowing.
Perhapse you could explain how the GPL differs from proprietary licenses in both checking for infringement or liability.
Surely when I'm coding for a project under a proprietary license, I'm just as suceptible to infringement and "tainting" as when I code for a GPL licensed project.
And the license I work under doesn't do much to protect me from liability. Sure - working as an agent to a large corporation might shield me personally from damages. But that works the same whether I'm working under the GPL or proprietary license. If I'm working for a small company, I have less protection. If that small company happens to be me and I haven't taken legal steps to limit my liability... I'm at even more risk.
And, of course, it doesn't matter if I'm working for a mega-corp if my actions were not performed as an agent of that company but rather on my own accord. For example, I leaked that company's proprietary code, trade secrets, etc.
While I think Mozilla should face its criticism, I would expect that criticism to be fair. The Register makes a few good points. But it also lumps in some rather skewed views. One bit that stood out to me:
When AOL bought Netscape, the browser that created the revolution had market share parity with Microsoft's Internet Explorer. When AOL pulled the plug, it was being counted in fractions of a percentage point.
There's a reason AOL bought Netscape at, and I quote from earlier in the article, "fire sale" prices. Netscape was losing. AOL didn't buy a grand ship. They bought salvage rights. Sure, the Netscape vessel had a keel above water at the time of purchase. But we all know it had already been skuttled and was taking on water fast. The Register makes it sound like AOL managed to sink Netscape all on their own.
Now, it would have been nice if AOL managed to bail out the floundering organization. Making Gecko the engine driving all AOL user web experiences would have been a great boon to Mozilla... and arguably the entire industry the world over. But again, AOL was interested in salvaging the pieces they understood. Not bailing out the company. Its the Netscape brand they liked. That... and something to use as leverage against a long-time foe.
AOL struck their deal with their nemessis. The leverage is no longer needed. They'll keep the brand and shed the code. After all, others have pointed out they are there to make money. Not plan ahead.
Is that a death knell for Netscape? Maybe. But then - it was doomed well before it became an AOL brand. Even if it was surely sunk after.
Re:Decent book review
on
All The Rave
·
· Score: 3, Funny
If we did steal the book, would Crown Publishing Group start printing up versions of the book with the lone phrase "What the fuck do you think you're doing?" printed repeatedly in it?
I downloaded "All_The_Rave_-_Joseph Menn(OCR,PR.V.1.0).pdf" and all it was just 863K of the phrase "What the fuck do you think you're doing?" repeated again and again. Maybe someone OCR'd the wrong book.
Or it might have been Madonna's little known SEX2 book.
That is a fault of KOffice, not OpenOffice. The file format for OO is well documented so adding support should be easy.
Isn't that missing the point?
Why haven't those involved with the various office application projects (diversity is good) hashed out a standard office document file format? While I don't wish to imply that this would be trivial, it does seem like it would be better than generating additional incompatible file formats. All of which are incompatible and less widely used than MS Office formats.
An email address is not currency. It has no value. It is worth NOTHING.
If its worth nothing, then why do they require it before allowing access to the content? Why do they go through the expense of recording and storing this information? Obviously there is SOME value to the information.
Whether the value is a fair trade for the service / content provided is a different issue entirely.
The problem is that almost all work on OSS is free labour. No payment is done for software, no payment is done for service, no payment is done for ANYTHING.
True enough. Much of the work done in OS projects is without payment. Some people enjoy working their favorite projects and will do it for free.
But then, some people are also working OS projects while picking up a paycheck from their respective employers. RedHat fosters this. IBM fosters this. Sure. But then, there's also the US Government. Cisco Systems. And other commercial entities.
Working a project doesn't mean you're prepping it as a shrink-wrapped product.
In my own environment, I scuttled a push to license MS Project for our branch. We didn't need it, but it was all the management knew about. I found a web-based, GPL'd project management application that met our needs. The manaagement has been thrilled with it and are pushing to put it in to production.
Our pilot of the application has been fairly successful. However, there are some changes and tweaks we'd like to see done. I don't have time to work it myself. So my management is looking at putting some of our web developers on it. That code will be returned to the project.
That's right. My employer wants to pay for OS development. Not because we're going to sell it. Because we're going to scratch an itch.
There's also a problem with saying web==open. A lot of web applications use proprietary extensions, like Flash. Actually, one of the coolest web apps I've seen recently is a Flash video game on a Harry Potter web site.
Is this game a "web application" or a "flash application"? I've come to realize that a lot of what people refer to as "web applications" are really Java apps, Internet Explorer apps, Flash apps, etc. They're not web apps.
For example, it's not always obvious even to sophisticated users when it's possible to hit the back button and when it's not -- people are always afraid they're going to buy a second airplane ticket by accident if they back up to the page where they bought one.
Perhapse the interface should provide a way for the user to go back to a previous point without the use of the back-button. The last time I used an online ticket service, it did.
Like many high profile OSS ranters, he's ignoring the fact that if most workers try to challenge their company's existing model (the sharecropping model) they are likely to be firebranded in their jobs or worse. Fine if you work for yourself or whatever, not fine if you have bills to pay and a status quo to keep.
Shifts in the IT industry don't happen overnight. Even "the Internet" took years to become widely adopted. That is, years after it managed to hit the mainstream. And this is a sector of technology whose association with radical and fast adoption coined its own "Internet time" phrase. Open Source, and its poster child Linux, are very similar.
This sort of article isn't a call to arms and demand for radical change. It doesn't expect you to mass in to your work's datacenter and reformat everything to *BSD, Linux, or whatever is your favorite OS platform. It doesn't expect you to stomp in to your boss' office and demand "give me OS projects, or give me a pink slip."
But it is a call for change.
If you code on your own, look at OS alternatives. If you have any chance to comment on choices of technology or new trends, mention OS alternatives. If a new project comes up and you have a chance to work with OS technology, jump at the chance.
The environment I'm working now used to be a very conservative Windows shop. Sure there was Unix and Open Source architecture hiding out in the wings. But whenever management's gaze hit on some aspect of the IT infrastructure, it was inevitable that a Windows solution was to follow. Not anymore.
We are currently replacing key pieces of architecture with a mix of OS infrastructure and proprietary applications that run on that infrastructure. We are critical of solutions that are based on Windows. And even in situations where Windows is the safer bet, we are also deploying Linux systems to compare and provide perspective.
Our infrastructure is still involves a lot of Windows. It probably will for years. And there are still a good number of Windows bigots and zealots around pushing for that status quo. But over the years, our environment has changed. Management's outlook has changed. And the scope of available projects have changed.
Motion bugs are one of those things that tend to enhance games, and lend to the illusion that there is always more to learn. They don't destroy the game.
But what about the bugs that DO destroy the game?
One of the interesting things about Team Fortress is the different strengths and weaknesses of the various classes. The classes differ in speed, armor, firepower... and a few specialized weapons. And generally speaking, as a class increases in firepower and armor, it decreases in speed and vis versa.
Understanding the classes and how to play the strenghts of one class against another is a large part of Team Fortress. Or... at least.. it was. Until the exploit known as bunnyhopping.
Bunnyhopping upsets the balance found in Team Fortress. It begins to negate classes as previously slow classes now can gain all the speed of the faster, light-weight classes... but with much more firepower and armor.
The otherwise excellent balance of the game is ruined. The game is destroyed.
I believe the point was just because one official from SCO makes a statement, doesn't mean another official is going to "remember" those promises. Of course, that does miss the point. If SCO does something, it still remains an action with legal repercussions no matter what the current leadership believes or remembers.
I've read many comments here and in other forums complaining about clients and bosses citing the SCO mess as a reason to put off Linux implementations/rollouts/development. All one needs to do is look through all the SCO articles posted in the past month or so.
Sure - some will be affected by this issue. But are these cases a true indication of the impact to the IT environment?
I've seen the same posts complaining about forced migration and interupted plans based on fear. But it wasn't until yesterday that I posted my own experience of not only being unaffected, but actually increasing Linux deployment.
Are these posts themselves reflective of the situation or just a vocal minority?
Keep in mind that this forum has always been rife for complaints about stupid IT management decissions. Heck - most of them used to be about how one couldn't even MENTION Linux at the workplace. Did this indicate that Linux was doomed to remain in the realm of the hobbiest? Certainly not.
Legal is looking at IBM as a lawsuit target of their own if SCO turns out to be right and AIX can't be used. Legal will expect IBM to indemnify them, and sue if not so.
So what you're saying is buy IBM Linux solutions.
Who would this scenario apply to for Linux? Which distro were you going to use? Did they have a large enough [I assume] U.S. presence to be sueable if needed?
Now this presents an interesting problem. You're going to want someone big enough to sue. But you don't want them too big or they'll have better lawyers. Of course, you don't want them to be too small or there will be nothing left to sue if you don't act fast enough.
Maybe there's a better business strategy than "who can we sue".
My linux servers (which were soon going into production) are being formated with W2K as we speak.
Sucks to be you. MY boss, already impressed with the existing production Linux servers and our development environments, has asked me how we can go about getting MORE linux in to our production environment. And I am currently hashing out an IT plan for a new system that is based on Linux (although its more like a network appliance).
It is expected that SCO's publicity stunt is going to affect some IT managers. Especially with the implied backing of Microsoft. But I question just how much "damage" is really being done.
To be honest, I expected my situation to be simular as the parent poster's. I am currently in a very conservative environment that has not always embraced Open Source (or more accurately, like many other organizations, it wasn't fully aware of Open Source in its midst). Seeing this conservative (and very Windows-centric) environment embracing Linux and MacOS X is rather interesting. Watching it continue this trend despite the FUD is facinating.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait. I thought KDE and GNOME were using Apple's R&D. At least, that's was the impression I got with the ceast and desist over my favorite Aqua theme.
All kidding aside, its getting very hard to tell these days. I've noticed Windows and MacOS like elements in both KDE and GNOME. But at the same time, I've seen some WinXP screenshots that have looked very Linux-like at first blush.
Little wonder Apple gets pissy about Aqua knock-offs.
Sure. The BSD license is very libral. One step from the public domain. Microsoft loves it. Heck - any corporate legal department is going to have a lot less trouble analyzing it than the GPL.
But you imply that anything GPL'ed can't be used by commercial, proprietary interests. Which is simply false. Even Microsoft currently markets products (Unix compatability) that is chock full of GPL'd applications (not even LGPL at that).
The issue is whether the technology involved is important enough to work through the licensing. PNG may not have been. TCP very likely was. And for Microsoft, those GPL'd applications obviously are.
It actually is a "big whoop". The point isn't that RedHat stole code or Microsoft stole code... the point is that this kind of thing is rampant in the industry.
The publicity attack being orchistrated right now goes along the lines of "Open Source software is dangerous to use because they steal code and IP but proprietary software is safe from this." Stories like this one show that this is simply untrue. Proprietary software houses have the same likelyhood of misusing other's IP as Open Source does (OSS might even have less of a risk in this aspect, but that's a different thread).
Cases like this also demonstrate another important point. Even when stolen IP is unearthed, the end users are not getting sued. It is an issue limited to the developers and companies involved.
Actually, you're agreeing with me. "Linux users want everything for free (no cost)" is a false stereotype. Yet there are plenty of other reasons that a company may not want to enter the Linux gaming market. I make that point later in this thread.
I didn't mention the dual-booting issue. And its a good point. It also falls in line with products from Transgaming and the like. These methods and technologies do provide a way for the Linux user to get access to games. But they also might be an excuse for game studios not to bother with a native Linux port.
Yes it is a stereotype. You can point to a very sizeable group of people who won't pay for games in the Windows market too. That's not the issue.
And yes "piracy" has been going on for awhile. Far longer than 5 years. I could provide examples from personal observation going back 20 years. And there are examples that date far back to the very dawn of personal computing (Gate's letter complaining about people "stealing" BASIC comes to mind).
Obviously, that doesn't mean there hasn't been a market for software. Indeed, over the decades, that market has grown. And with computer games, that market has become one that produces enough revenue to be compared to Hollywood's infamous cash jugernaut.
Why? Because even if there are people who will go to the lengths needed to get software free, there are also those who will buy it. If there are enough willing to buy, there is a suitable market.
Its not about the people who won't buy.
You're making a common mistake. "Free" isn't simply "no cost". I'll spare you the common comparison with price and beer. But the distinction is important one. There are people who pay for software (even when its Free). I know because I've witnessed it and done it.
The viability of a Linux gaming market isn't over whether people will pay for software any more than the Windows market is driven by the fact that people "pirate" it. There ARE people who will buy it (heck - I was laying NWN on Linux just before posting this). Whether there are enough people is an issue (after all, Linux is pretty far down on the list of desktop marketshare). Whether your developers have the expertise to produce a Linux version of your game is another (just ask Bioware). These are just a few of the real issues.
And Windows users like to get all their games from their favorite warez iso source. Any other stereotypes you would like to bandy about?
I might not be in the Mac mindset... but that doesn't sound too intuitive to me either. I don't expect a trash can to morph in to something else. I'd be inclined to think "don't go anywhere NEAR this thing with anything you want to keep."
Granted. Its probably a bit of a catch-22. If you made an eject icon then what happens when you wave a directory or HD over it? Maybe the icon changes or runs away or it pops up a dialog saying you can't do that. Not much better.
"Painfully obvious"? Painfull? Does one usually talk up one's brand new offering and major technology partner in such glowing terms?
Let me restate that.
If I manage to infringe on Apple's IP, it won't matter under what license I've released that infringing IP.
Better?
Right. So if I infringe on someone else's IP, I am liable no matter what license the infringing property was released under.
There are hundreds of small companies (let alone individuals) out there publishing software under any number of various proprietary licenses. They also have shallow pockets and little ability to restitute. How are they different?
Again. It isn't about the GPL. Its about the size of the company involved and whether you are acting as an agent of that company.
Yea. I saw that other post. It didn't seem too enlightening.
How is GPL licensed code any different than a proprietary license in this case? Or public domain?
If I manage to infringe on Apple's license it won't matter under what licence I've released that infringing IP. I can release it to the public domain. I can license it under the GPL. I can give it a proprietary license.
Lets say I created a library out of this infringing IP. A large software company then licensed this library from me under a proprietary license. They used it in an application that was widely distributed - lets say it was widely popular and released at no cost. When our hypothetical software company gets caught up in legal wrangling with Apple and track the infringing IP back to my library and its proprietary license... am I off scott free? Am I free from this "restitution" you keep talking about?
How about if I released my library cost-free, as postcard-ware, or share-ware? Or I release my code to the public domain? Has my liability changed? Will I face any less the cost of restitution since I didn't use the GPL?
How about if my library was released under the GPL as a part of the work I was doing as an employee to a large corporation? Perhapse this is different. Because now, instead of just me alone, I have my employer to take some of the brunt of this legal liability and possibly to even absorb this restitution. If they decide to protect me and if I did this work as their agent.
What you're talking about really has nothing to do with the license and everything to do with who you work for.
Perhapse you could explain how the GPL differs from proprietary licenses in both checking for infringement or liability.
Surely when I'm coding for a project under a proprietary license, I'm just as suceptible to infringement and "tainting" as when I code for a GPL licensed project.
And the license I work under doesn't do much to protect me from liability. Sure - working as an agent to a large corporation might shield me personally from damages. But that works the same whether I'm working under the GPL or proprietary license. If I'm working for a small company, I have less protection. If that small company happens to be me and I haven't taken legal steps to limit my liability... I'm at even more risk.
And, of course, it doesn't matter if I'm working for a mega-corp if my actions were not performed as an agent of that company but rather on my own accord. For example, I leaked that company's proprietary code, trade secrets, etc.
There's a reason AOL bought Netscape at, and I quote from earlier in the article, "fire sale" prices. Netscape was losing. AOL didn't buy a grand ship. They bought salvage rights. Sure, the Netscape vessel had a keel above water at the time of purchase. But we all know it had already been skuttled and was taking on water fast. The Register makes it sound like AOL managed to sink Netscape all on their own.
Now, it would have been nice if AOL managed to bail out the floundering organization. Making Gecko the engine driving all AOL user web experiences would have been a great boon to Mozilla... and arguably the entire industry the world over. But again, AOL was interested in salvaging the pieces they understood. Not bailing out the company. Its the Netscape brand they liked. That... and something to use as leverage against a long-time foe.
AOL struck their deal with their nemessis. The leverage is no longer needed. They'll keep the brand and shed the code. After all, others have pointed out they are there to make money. Not plan ahead.
Is that a death knell for Netscape? Maybe. But then - it was doomed well before it became an AOL brand. Even if it was surely sunk after.
I downloaded "All_The_Rave_-_Joseph Menn(OCR,PR.V.1.0).pdf" and all it was just 863K of the phrase "What the fuck do you think you're doing?" repeated again and again. Maybe someone OCR'd the wrong book.
Or it might have been Madonna's little known SEX2 book.
Isn't that missing the point?
Why haven't those involved with the various office application projects (diversity is good) hashed out a standard office document file format? While I don't wish to imply that this would be trivial, it does seem like it would be better than generating additional incompatible file formats. All of which are incompatible and less widely used than MS Office formats.
If its worth nothing, then why do they require it before allowing access to the content? Why do they go through the expense of recording and storing this information? Obviously there is SOME value to the information.
Whether the value is a fair trade for the service / content provided is a different issue entirely.
True enough. Much of the work done in OS projects is without payment. Some people enjoy working their favorite projects and will do it for free.
But then, some people are also working OS projects while picking up a paycheck from their respective employers. RedHat fosters this. IBM fosters this. Sure. But then, there's also the US Government. Cisco Systems. And other commercial entities.
Working a project doesn't mean you're prepping it as a shrink-wrapped product.
In my own environment, I scuttled a push to license MS Project for our branch. We didn't need it, but it was all the management knew about. I found a web-based, GPL'd project management application that met our needs. The manaagement has been thrilled with it and are pushing to put it in to production.
Our pilot of the application has been fairly successful. However, there are some changes and tweaks we'd like to see done. I don't have time to work it myself. So my management is looking at putting some of our web developers on it. That code will be returned to the project.
That's right. My employer wants to pay for OS development. Not because we're going to sell it. Because we're going to scratch an itch.
Is this game a "web application" or a "flash application"? I've come to realize that a lot of what people refer to as "web applications" are really Java apps, Internet Explorer apps, Flash apps, etc. They're not web apps.
Perhapse the interface should provide a way for the user to go back to a previous point without the use of the back-button. The last time I used an online ticket service, it did.
Shifts in the IT industry don't happen overnight. Even "the Internet" took years to become widely adopted. That is, years after it managed to hit the mainstream. And this is a sector of technology whose association with radical and fast adoption coined its own "Internet time" phrase. Open Source, and its poster child Linux, are very similar.
This sort of article isn't a call to arms and demand for radical change. It doesn't expect you to mass in to your work's datacenter and reformat everything to *BSD, Linux, or whatever is your favorite OS platform. It doesn't expect you to stomp in to your boss' office and demand "give me OS projects, or give me a pink slip."
But it is a call for change.
If you code on your own, look at OS alternatives. If you have any chance to comment on choices of technology or new trends, mention OS alternatives. If a new project comes up and you have a chance to work with OS technology, jump at the chance.
The environment I'm working now used to be a very conservative Windows shop. Sure there was Unix and Open Source architecture hiding out in the wings. But whenever management's gaze hit on some aspect of the IT infrastructure, it was inevitable that a Windows solution was to follow. Not anymore.
We are currently replacing key pieces of architecture with a mix of OS infrastructure and proprietary applications that run on that infrastructure. We are critical of solutions that are based on Windows. And even in situations where Windows is the safer bet, we are also deploying Linux systems to compare and provide perspective.
Our infrastructure is still involves a lot of Windows. It probably will for years. And there are still a good number of Windows bigots and zealots around pushing for that status quo. But over the years, our environment has changed. Management's outlook has changed. And the scope of available projects have changed.
But it took years to happen.
But what about the bugs that DO destroy the game?
One of the interesting things about Team Fortress is the different strengths and weaknesses of the various classes. The classes differ in speed, armor, firepower... and a few specialized weapons. And generally speaking, as a class increases in firepower and armor, it decreases in speed and vis versa.
Understanding the classes and how to play the strenghts of one class against another is a large part of Team Fortress. Or... at least.. it was. Until the exploit known as bunnyhopping.
Bunnyhopping upsets the balance found in Team Fortress. It begins to negate classes as previously slow classes now can gain all the speed of the faster, light-weight classes... but with much more firepower and armor.
The otherwise excellent balance of the game is ruined. The game is destroyed.
I believe the point was just because one official from SCO makes a statement, doesn't mean another official is going to "remember" those promises. Of course, that does miss the point. If SCO does something, it still remains an action with legal repercussions no matter what the current leadership believes or remembers.
Sure - some will be affected by this issue. But are these cases a true indication of the impact to the IT environment?
I've seen the same posts complaining about forced migration and interupted plans based on fear. But it wasn't until yesterday that I posted my own experience of not only being unaffected, but actually increasing Linux deployment.
Are these posts themselves reflective of the situation or just a vocal minority?
Keep in mind that this forum has always been rife for complaints about stupid IT management decissions. Heck - most of them used to be about how one couldn't even MENTION Linux at the workplace. Did this indicate that Linux was doomed to remain in the realm of the hobbiest? Certainly not.
So what you're saying is buy IBM Linux solutions.
Now this presents an interesting problem. You're going to want someone big enough to sue. But you don't want them too big or they'll have better lawyers. Of course, you don't want them to be too small or there will be nothing left to sue if you don't act fast enough.
Maybe there's a better business strategy than "who can we sue".
Sucks to be you. MY boss, already impressed with the existing production Linux servers and our development environments, has asked me how we can go about getting MORE linux in to our production environment. And I am currently hashing out an IT plan for a new system that is based on Linux (although its more like a network appliance).
It is expected that SCO's publicity stunt is going to affect some IT managers. Especially with the implied backing of Microsoft. But I question just how much "damage" is really being done.
To be honest, I expected my situation to be simular as the parent poster's. I am currently in a very conservative environment that has not always embraced Open Source (or more accurately, like many other organizations, it wasn't fully aware of Open Source in its midst). Seeing this conservative (and very Windows-centric) environment embracing Linux and MacOS X is rather interesting. Watching it continue this trend despite the FUD is facinating.
Wish your boss had the same outlook as mine.