I've been around the industry for more than twenty years. There is NO sexism where I have worked.
That's pretty remarkable. Actually, that's totally unbelievable. Who are these enlightened employers that have had zero sexism between 1990 and today? We should do a story on them... here are some of the topics I'd like to see covered:
Recruiting policies
Job training and enforcement of non-sexist behavior
Review procedures to ensure no sexism in compensation and promotion
Dealings with suppliers, etc. to ensure that they don't expose your employees to sexism.
You can't even figure out ONE way to remotely detect the use of a hosts file - you're just retarded. Go fling your monkey poo elsewhere. Or keep on - nobody else cares.
Or I'll tell you what - how much are you willing to PAY to learn how? Put your money where your mouth is. The price is $6k.
Do like I did - work for the Russians for a few years. Impossible is just another word for "okay, your job is to find 3 different ways to do it," because when something is "impossible", there's an economic and technological advantage ripe for the plucking.
Problem is, you wouldn't get past the first interview.
The forceps thing wasn't so much wrong as "strange."
It's also a pretty clear indicator that the author is seriously out-of-date with their troll technique.
Natural childbirth, with both parents (or a friend or relative) assisting, has been the standard for decades. The partner has to attend the classes, has to monitor the labor, has to learn how to stick their fingers inside and estimate the number of centimeters of dilation, keep an eye on the fetal heart rate to make sure the baby isn't under too much stress, has to stand there and take being called every name in the book during labor, etc. It's been like that for more than 3 decades.
Forceps? Obstetricians will do everything they can to avoid them. They're an added risk. A lawsuit waiting to happen.
Here midwives are integrated into the health-care system, licensed, regulated, they do house calls (obviously:-) and they have admitting privileges at hospitals.
The rest is more an indictment of the bar scene than anything else. Don't complain that people you meet in a bar can't make a commitment - they're not there for commitment. duh!
It's easy to blame the "working mother" and say it was better in the 1950s - but history says "BS" on that as well. The 1940s had plenty of working mothers - there was a war on, and women often found themselves working and raising their families alone. The generation before that, same thing with WW1.
The only real story here is that relationships are hard. Don't get into one as a way to fulfill yourself - it doesn't work that way. Learn to be happy alone. THEN you might be able to contribute to making someone else happy. And this applies to both sexes, all genders, and all types of relationships.
This is why divorce is so hard to get in civilized countries; women, by nature, will drop people when they're no longer amusing or useful.
Divorce is hard to get? It's the ease with which you can get a divorce that has led to women being able to say "You hit me again, you're going to jail!" No more "you're stuck with him for life so don't file a complaint." No more of this paternalistic Jimmy Stewart-style crap of "No no, you're hysterical, you're going to stay in the car until you calm down and come to your senses." Guys trying that have to worry about Lorena Bobbitt clones.
If the poster is sincere, I'm sorry for them... but I seriously doubt the post is authentic.
Your hosts file crap has been thoroughly debunked elsewhere. Honestly, nobody gives a sh*t any more - the Internet has evolved since 1995. Your "solution" is more of a problem than it's worth. Really, the world has changed. Get over it. Learn something new for a change.
Besides, those of us who don't use Windows don't give a crap. We use our hosts file to configure our local networks if we're too lazy to do it via assignments at our router, and a few hard-coded external entries for when there's a dns failure. For the rest, dns works fine - and if we don't trust it, we can always run our own.
Who the hell accepted a post from Florian Mueller? (Looks) Oh...
Look at the bright side - Mueller went all tinfoil-hat and made a fool of himself, and we got a chance to discredit his BS.
Being slashdot, this is one fail that is going to be hard for him to hide or explain away. It's like being judged by a jury of your peers.
Look through the comments - only 2 users support him, and one of those is Jay Maynard, (the maintainer of Hercules).
Mueller has permanently damaged any political pull he had.
Every IBM-sponsored initiative gets glorified by Groklaw, even some that are schemes to mislead the community, to lull it into a false sense of security concerning software patents and to discourage it from taking real action against them.
"I bet if you block APK spam, your speed would double."
1.) HOSTS files eat A LOT LESS CPU cycles than browser addons do no less (since browser addons have to parse each HTML page & tag content in them)!
Wow - Browsers don't parse HTML?
HOSTS files don't let me replace content with a tab to click on to view (eg: videos).
3.) HOSTS files allow you to bypass DNS Server requests logs (via hardcoding your favorite sites into them to avoid not only the TIME taken roundtrip to an external DNS server, but also for avoiding those logs OR a DNS server that has been compromised (see Dan Kaminsky online, on that note)).
My browser caches DNS requests, you insensitive clod!
Hard-coded HOSTS files also crap out maintenance interval and fail-over schemes, as well as client-IP-based server redirection to the fastest server for that location.
4.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server & back to you).
My browser caches DNS requests, you insensitive clod!
6.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, obtained (for reliable ones -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Download [hosts-file.net] ) & edited too, via texteditors like Windows notepad.exe or Linux nano (etc.)
HOSTS files are easily altered on unsuspecting users. Been there, done that, works like a charm when one of your friends complains about her husband spending too much time on porn sites.
8.) HOSTS files are also EASILY secured well, via write-protection "read-only" attributes set on them, or more radically, via ACL's even.
HOSTS files also allow an easy way to compromise machines on a per-domain-request basis.
10.) HOSTS files are NOT BLOCKABLE by websites, as was tried on users by ARSTECHNICA (and it worked, proving HOSTS files are a better solution for this because they cannot be blocked & detected for, in that manner), to that websites' users' dismay:
FALSE.
11.) AND, LASTLY? SINCE MALWARE GENERALLY HAS TO OPERATE ON WHAT YOU YOURSELF CAN DO (running as limited class/least privlege user, hopefully, OR even as ADMIN/ROOT/SUPERUSER)? HOSTS "LOCK IN" malware too, vs. communicating "back to mama" for orders (provided they have name servers + C&C botnet servers listed in them, blocked off in your HOSTS that is) - you might think they use a hardcoded IP, which IS possible, but generally they do not & RECYCLE domain/host names they own, & this? This stops that cold, too! Bonus...
Been false for more than a decade. The Russians aren't that stupid.
P.S.=> NOW - The ONLY part of this I don't like when I post this, is the "attack of the fanbois" I am about to experience (which ALWAYS happens on this topic when I post this)... "oh well"!
Gawd, you're such a lame troll - quoting yourself as an "authority" of the legal definition of the concept of "asserting a claim."
As others have said, show us a C & D letter. Show us a court filing.
IBM has not asserted their legal rights wrt patents in this case. Turbo Hercules asked them a question, IBM sent a response, identifying potential issues, as requested. That is far from asserting any legal patent rights.
You're a typical troll - plays word games, lies, mis-directs, tries to confuse the issues, lots of "preemptive" hand-waving...
... oh, almost forgot - we can add paranoid conspiracy theorist ("the groklaw gang is out to get me"). Riiiight, it's all Pamela Jones fault. She also "betrays" open source by saying that all software licenses should be equally respected, and she's organized a gang to down-mod everything you post. And anyone who disagrees with the crap you've pulled over the last year is an enemy of open source.
Where's the:rollseyes: emoticon when I need it. &_&
The one sad thing about all this is that Jay Maynard has gotten his head bitten off because people continue to confuse Hercules and Turbo Hercules - something that you are guilty of encouraging by not drawing a bright line between Hercules the open source project and Turbo Hercules.
From what I can see, Jay does not deserve any of this crap. Moreover, if it hadn't been for attempts to monetize Hercules by violating the zOS license, Jay might have been able to actually get himself a gig with IBM or one of their partners - this has probably poisoned that well, but I would certainly encourage both Jay and IBM to consider it - unless there are other considerations that I am unaware of.
are you saying patents are needed to defend copyright?
You really need to stop with the straw-man argument bs. It doesn't work here - everyone will call you on it. There is NOTHING I have ever written in my entire life that says that. Maybe I should patent "method and device to use patents to defend copyrights." Oops - Amazon, etc., have prior art:-)
If you're going to troll, at least be a bit more original.
Software should be protected by copyright, not patent - but the copyright should be limited to the same timeline as a patent - 21 years. None of this lifetime + 70 years Eisner-Disney-world silliness.
The trademarks can enjoy their traditional protection, since that "doesn't prevent the advancement of the art by granting limited protection for a limited time."
IBM has not asserted the patents in question. They were asked about possible patents, they gave a reply as to which ones they thought might be in play. They didn't say that on that basis they were going to "attack" Turbo Hercules.
IBM has said that they will not change the terms of z/OS licensing. That is their right. Same as Linus has the right to refuse to change the license of linux. It cuts both ways.
I don't "troll" slashdot. Before there were calls on Groklaw to come over and use mod points, several of my comments here (related to the same article) had a 4-5 and Insightful/Interesting rating. That shows independent, unbiased people considered them useful contributions to the discussion (whether or not they agreed with my views is another question, but they recognized the fact that I made civilized, facts-based, on-topic comments.
You must be new here.
I've had comments go to +5 then -1 then +5 then -1 then back up to +5 in the space of a few hours. It happens. It's normal. The reason should be obvious if you think a bit... your comment will start near the bottom (+1). Since it's not all that visible, most of the time it has only one way to go at that point - up. Multiple people will see it and figure "it deserves more than a +1". So they moderate it up, not knowing that others are simultaneously doing the same thing.
So then your comment is suddenly at +5 and VERY visible. And it has only one way to go - down. So of course it's going to go down. The same people who thought it was worth a +3 and modded it up when it was +1 are going to mod it down when they see it at +5.
As for Sun/Oracle, that deserves a MUCH longer discussion.
In my opinion that's unrelated to IBM's wrongdoings anyway, but since you see a connection, could you please explain?
Where did I say that there was a connection between IBM and Sun/Oracle? What I said was that your actions wrt Sun/Oracle made you into a joke. Your actions wrt TurboHercules are just more of the same.
In both cases, we have someone who wants something they don't have a right to, or they'll settle for a buy-out to STFU. And you're one of the shills enabling it. That is your reputation here, and why people down-mod you.
It has nothing to do with groklaw, and everything to do with "we've seen this movie before". You came here trolling for positive feedback, and instead you're being hit with a reality brick in the face, because you can't get away with mis-quoting "facts" here like you do elsewhere.
As someone who believes in and uses open source software daily, I absolutely believe that proprietary software licenses MUST be respected. It's only on that basis that open source licenses can demand the same treatment.
If IBM wants to keep z/OS closed, that is their absolute right. Same as anyone who writes GPL software has the right to demand that users respect all the conditions. You can't pick and choose.
When someone hires me to write closed code - that is their right. I'll make the argument for opening it - or as much of it as possible - but in the end, it's their decision.
As for Microsoft,
I was one of those who was against splitting up Microsoft, because 3 or 4 Mini-Microsofts would have pretty much killed open source in several markets. example: how far would OpenOffice have come if Word were available for linux dirt cheap?
I would love Microsoft find a way to prevent any piracy of their products - and require that they enforce it. That would create more demand for alternatives;
SAMBA was a mistake. It just further entrenches Microsoft standards and "the Microsoft way";
Compulsory licensing does the same thing - siphons off creativity for alternatives, and prevents the "pain level" from rising high enough to compel people to try other solutions, so it limits the market. It also prevents people from making a case to allocate capital and other resources to meet that market, since it it artificially capped. Compulsory FRND licenses to competitors are the enemy of open source.
The browser ballot was stupid. Really stupid. It didn't "solve" anything. Alternate browsers were already making good inroads. Trying to unnaturally accelerate the pace just results in unhappy users who then vow "Never again!".
Want to open up the market for open source? Then disallow discriminatory licensing at the consumer level. No more "educational discounts" for Windows or MS-Office. Why should one person pay $5 for Office because of their social status (student) while someone else the same age pays $500? FRND licenses to consumers, as opposed to competitors, makes sense.
If IBM is gouging, then eventually this will create a market of customers looking for alternatives. That will allow opportunists to say "here's a potential market that we can make $X off - let's invest in developing products for it." Compulsory competitor licenses prevent that from happening. They KILL innovation.
On software patents: Software should only be covered by copyright, not patent. Software, ultimately, is not a device, but instructions and data, same as a recipe book.
You claim that TurboHercules can be attacked with patents that Hercules (the open source project, and TurboHercules uses nothing else in terms of emulation software) allegedly infringes.
Another lie. What I am claiming is that IBM has NOT attacked the Hercules open source project - that they have simply denied a license to Turbo Hercules to run zOS on unlicensed hardware.
You should respect the open source principle of free distribution. Both the Open Source Definition and the Free Software Definition perfectly allow what TurboHercules does.
Another lie. Neither the Open Source Definition nor the Free Software Definition allow for the breaking of licenses - and that includes the GPL as well as proprietary licenses. It's not going to work - those of us who have been around for a few decades see this for the BS it is.
FACT: IBM has not asserted the patents in question, so stop with the FUD.
FACT: IBM has said they will not allow zOS to be run under conditions contrary to the license.
If you don't like it, migrate the work loads to a different operating system instead. What's the big deal? Oh, right - it's harder to make money quickly that way, or get bought out.
The Open Source Initiative even encourages commercialization of the very kind that TurboHercules does.
No, the OSI does NOT encourage breaking software license agreements or violating copyrights.
Actually, both of you are making distinctions that are meaningless. The true goal was to get bought out by IBM, same as Platform Solutions Inc
IBM Corp. and plug-compatible mainframe startup Platform Solutions Inc. (PSI) moved their battle from the courtroom to the negotiating table, and now Big Blue plans on buying its onetime adversary.
Since late 2006, the two have been engaged in a lawsuit in which IBM sued PSI for patent infringement on its z/OS operating system. In early 2007, PSI countersued, alleging that IBM had shut out competition by coupling z/OS with its own hardware.
Since then, motions have been filed back and forth, but nothing has been settled. Until Wednesday, July 2, that is, when IBM announced it would acquire privately owned PSI. Financial details of the deal have not been disclosed
Sound familiar?
The difference is that PSI had some proprietary stuff that IBM could use. Turbo Hercules doesn't so no buy-out. from the USPO
United States Patent Application 20060085599
Kind Code A1
Woffinden; Gary A. ; et al. April 20, 2006
Processing of self-modifying code in multi-address-space and multi-processor systems
Abstract
A method and system of storing to an instruction stream with a multiprocessor or multiple-address-space system is disclosed. A central processing unit may cache instructions in a cache from a page of primary code stored in a memory storage unit. The central processing unit may execute cached instructions from the cache until a serialization operation is executed. The central processing unit may check in a message queue for a notification message indicating potential storing to the page. If the notification message is present in the message queue, cached instructions from the page are invalidated.
ARMONK, NY - 02 Jul 2008: IBM (NYSE: IBM) today announced it has acquired Platform Solutions, Inc. (PSI), a privately held technology company headquartered in Sunnyvale, California. PSI's technologies and employees will become part of the IBM System z business unit of the IBM Systems and Technology Group. Financial terms were not disclosed.
PSI's technologies and skills, along with its intellectual capital, will become part of IBM's long-term mainframe product engineering cycles and part of IBM's future product plans.
"IBM's strategy is to continually evolve our mainframe technology to help our clients tackle the most demanding business issues," said Anne Altman, General Manager, IBM System z. "We will continue to move the mainframe forward through both IBM innovation and by acquiring new technologies. We welcome Platform Solutions, Inc. and look forward to collaborating with them."
"We are pleased to become part of IBM, knowing IBM has the industry's most comprehensive vision for the future direction of enterprise computing, and has the requisite technologies to realize that vision," said Michael Maulick, President and CEO, Platform Solutions, Inc. "This acquisition makes the most sense for our companies -- to collaborate on future technology offerings and maximize our combined knowledge and skills for the benefit of IBM clients globally."
As part of this acquisition, both IBM and PSI dropped their respective claims against each other.
It's 100% the open source software. They sell you services in addition, and if you want, you can buy a server from them.
No, it's about software licenses. You can't run z/OS on that server. No zOS license. Same as you can't run OSX on it. No OSX license. You can't take your OS, whether it's zOS or OSX, and "migrate" it to the other machine - the license says no dice. So it's not about open source - it's about software licenses.
This is not a commodity one-size-fits-all OS like Windows or DOS. It is licensed by work load and work type and underlying hardware capability. Like a cafeteria, the more you eat, the more you pay.
IBM isn't going after individuals playing around - but if you're going to try to get someone to do commercial copyright infringement - which is what running your zOS server software on unlicensed hardware is - IBM has a right to say they have a problem with that Same as if someone tries to sell a device running a proprietary fork of linux w/o an offer of the source code. Both are license violations that have their roots in copyright.
BTW - compulsory licensing is a trap. It prevents the marketplace from coming up with better alternatives, both by sucking some of the revenue that could have gone into financing alternatives, as well as institutionalizing the quasi-monopoly. It is the worst solution.
All monopolies are price-sensitive. Compulsory (or "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory") licensing reinforces the monopoly practices. It prevents the monopoly holder from gouging to the point where customers say "to hell with this - what do I have to do to dump this crap". It kills competition. It encourages a monoculture. It stifles research and innovation. It prevents price-sensitive product substitution.
An efficient market would respond by developing tools to make it easy to migrate the legacy workloads that zOS supports to different operating systems - not by emulation, but by automated one-time binary translation tools. Work was done on this in the 1960s but abandoned when operating systems became more flexible. In comparison FRND licensing is garbage - and unimaginative garbage at that.
Florian Mueller is past his best-before date. He can't admit that with the Oracle/Sun crapfest he hA made himself into another Darl McBride, and has less F/LOSS credibility than either of the Two Steves.
He thought he could troll here on slashdot. Then he complains when he gets mod-bombed for trolling. Like his "reputation" should protect him from such "unjustified insults".
Problem is, his reputation with many here is less than zero - we consider him a liability.
He continually tries to confuse Hercules (the project) with Turbo Hercules (the attempt to monetize Hercules), tries to claim that IBM has attacked Hercules, and that IBM should be forced to grant Turbo Hercules a "Fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory license".
What next, someone else using the same argument to demand that they have the right to a "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory license" to use the linux kernel in a proprietary work? Oops - already been tried. But that's where this will lead to, as well as more "the GPL is anti-trust" FUD.
The guy simply can't accept that people on slashdot aren't as willing to accept his trolling as others have been in the past. That's why he's attacking groklaw - he needs to be able to show a "reason", a "conspiracy" against him to explain why almost everyone here thinks he's a liability.
Problem is, people who were on slashdot before groklaw ever existed (see my UID) are more than willing to call him out on his FUD, and his outright lies.
You've claimed that IBM has attacked Hercules. They have not.
You've continually tried to confabulate "Hercules the project" with "Turbo Hercules the attempt to monetize Hercules".
PJ has consistently argued in favour of people being required to respect legal licenses, whether it;s from IBM, Apple (Apple vs Pystar), or the GPL. YOU are the one arguing otherwise - and you lie when you say that PJ has "suddenly" shown a different agenda.
Your call for IBM to be required to issue a license on a "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory basis" is an indirect attack on the restrictions of the GPL. Compulsory licensing of GPL code for closed-source software can be supported using the same flawed "logic". We don't want to go down that road again!
You attack PJ for being consistent. Maybe you should try it yourself for a change. Read up on what she wrote about the Pystar litigation. It's the same argument she (and everyone else) uses to support the GPL - a license is a license, and if you don't want to abide by the license, don't use the code.
Don't want to abide by the z/OS license? Don't use the code. Same as Pystar - don't want to abide by Apple's license? Don't use OSX. Same as the GPL. Don't want to abide by the GPL? No linux for you!
Your "work" is undermining both F/LOSS and the GPL. Why should you be surprised when people, forced to pick sides, call you the troll you've become?
You still don't get it, do you? It has nothing to do with groklaw. Your actions wrt the Sun/Oracle deal made you into a joke. If you want to blame anyone for your current troll status, look in the mirror.
For most of us, you've joined the ranks of Darl McBride, Reb "Pretenderle" Enderle, Maureen O'Gara, and the other fakes. At this point, if there's ONE thing that you could do to benefit open source, it's to STFU! Right now you have less credibility wrt open source than Steve Balmer or Steve Jobs!
But let's look at just one of your statements to show how out-of-touch with the facts you really are:
shocked that PJ would rush to IBM's defense with an encouragement to sue the pants off an open source company
You obviously didn't follow the Pystar debate. The principle there is the same - you can't go around violating licenses. PJ treated it the same way, so you're lying when you claim to be shocked. Or you're just willfully ignorant. 6 of one, half a dozen of the other...
F/LOSS depends on that same rule, just as proprietary software does - you cannot violate the license. Otherwise, there's nothing to prevent a company from saying that the GPL is anti-trust, and that they should be able to force the authors of GPL software to issue licenses for proprietary purposes under a "Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory" basis.
Because that's where your whole argument will lead. It's been tried before - or weren't you paying attention in class when a certain peyote-head tried to argue that?
Look, your time has passed. Get over it and stop making such a big stink over the fact that people here think you stink. Otherwise, you'll become just another object of ridicule. (oops, my bad - too late).
Seriously - thinking you could troll slashdot? Home of the trolls? Not. Going. To. Happen. Especially not when most users think you owe everyone an apology for the crap you pulled wrt Sun/Oracle.
Slashdot Mirror
So pay up or shut up, because there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. But now the price is $8k, not $6k - and it will only go up, not down.
That's pretty remarkable. Actually, that's totally unbelievable. Who are these enlightened employers that have had zero sexism between 1990 and today? We should do a story on them ... here are some of the topics I'd like to see covered:
You can't even figure out ONE way to remotely detect the use of a hosts file - you're just retarded. Go fling your monkey poo elsewhere. Or keep on - nobody else cares.
Or I'll tell you what - how much are you willing to PAY to learn how? Put your money where your mouth is. The price is $6k.
Do like I did - work for the Russians for a few years. Impossible is just another word for "okay, your job is to find 3 different ways to do it," because when something is "impossible", there's an economic and technological advantage ripe for the plucking.
Problem is, you wouldn't get past the first interview.
The forceps thing wasn't so much wrong as "strange."
It's also a pretty clear indicator that the author is seriously out-of-date with their troll technique.
Natural childbirth, with both parents (or a friend or relative) assisting, has been the standard for decades. The partner has to attend the classes, has to monitor the labor, has to learn how to stick their fingers inside and estimate the number of centimeters of dilation, keep an eye on the fetal heart rate to make sure the baby isn't under too much stress, has to stand there and take being called every name in the book during labor, etc. It's been like that for more than 3 decades.
Forceps? Obstetricians will do everything they can to avoid them. They're an added risk. A lawsuit waiting to happen.
Here midwives are integrated into the health-care system, licensed, regulated, they do house calls (obviously :-) and they have admitting privileges at hospitals.
The rest is more an indictment of the bar scene than anything else. Don't complain that people you meet in a bar can't make a commitment - they're not there for commitment. duh!
It's easy to blame the "working mother" and say it was better in the 1950s - but history says "BS" on that as well. The 1940s had plenty of working mothers - there was a war on, and women often found themselves working and raising their families alone. The generation before that, same thing with WW1.
The only real story here is that relationships are hard. Don't get into one as a way to fulfill yourself - it doesn't work that way. Learn to be happy alone. THEN you might be able to contribute to making someone else happy. And this applies to both sexes, all genders, and all types of relationships.
Divorce is hard to get? It's the ease with which you can get a divorce that has led to women being able to say "You hit me again, you're going to jail!" No more "you're stuck with him for life so don't file a complaint." No more of this paternalistic Jimmy Stewart-style crap of "No no, you're hysterical, you're going to stay in the car until you calm down and come to your senses." Guys trying that have to worry about Lorena Bobbitt clones.
If the poster is sincere, I'm sorry for them ... but I seriously doubt the post is authentic.
Your hosts file crap has been thoroughly debunked elsewhere. Honestly, nobody gives a sh*t any more - the Internet has evolved since 1995. Your "solution" is more of a problem than it's worth. Really, the world has changed. Get over it. Learn something new for a change.
Besides, those of us who don't use Windows don't give a crap. We use our hosts file to configure our local networks if we're too lazy to do it via assignments at our router, and a few hard-coded external entries for when there's a dns failure. For the rest, dns works fine - and if we don't trust it, we can always run our own.
Look at the bright side - Mueller went all tinfoil-hat and made a fool of himself, and we got a chance to discredit his BS. Being slashdot, this is one fail that is going to be hard for him to hide or explain away. It's like being judged by a jury of your peers.
Look through the comments - only 2 users support him, and one of those is Jay Maynard, (the maintainer of Hercules).
Mueller has permanently damaged any political pull he had.
[citation needed]
Wow - Browsers don't parse HTML?
HOSTS files don't let me replace content with a tab to click on to view (eg: videos).
My browser caches DNS requests, you insensitive clod!
Hard-coded HOSTS files also crap out maintenance interval and fail-over schemes, as well as client-IP-based server redirection to the fastest server for that location.
My browser caches DNS requests, you insensitive clod!
HOSTS files are easily altered on unsuspecting users. Been there, done that, works like a charm when one of your friends complains about her husband spending too much time on porn sites.
HOSTS files also allow an easy way to compromise machines on a per-domain-request basis.
FALSE.
Been false for more than a decade. The Russians aren't that stupid.
Simple solution - stop the BS spam :-)
Again? With the "Host file protects my 400hz computer?"
Be right over :-)
Gawd, you're such a lame troll - quoting yourself as an "authority" of the legal definition of the concept of "asserting a claim."
As others have said, show us a C & D letter. Show us a court filing.
IBM has not asserted their legal rights wrt patents in this case. Turbo Hercules asked them a question, IBM sent a response, identifying potential issues, as requested. That is far from asserting any legal patent rights.
You're a typical troll - plays word games, lies, mis-directs, tries to confuse the issues, lots of "preemptive" hand-waving ...
Where's the :rollseyes: emoticon when I need it. &_&
The one sad thing about all this is that Jay Maynard has gotten his head bitten off because people continue to confuse Hercules and Turbo Hercules - something that you are guilty of encouraging by not drawing a bright line between Hercules the open source project and Turbo Hercules.
From what I can see, Jay does not deserve any of this crap. Moreover, if it hadn't been for attempts to monetize Hercules by violating the zOS license, Jay might have been able to actually get himself a gig with IBM or one of their partners - this has probably poisoned that well, but I would certainly encourage both Jay and IBM to consider it - unless there are other considerations that I am unaware of.
You really need to stop with the straw-man argument bs. It doesn't work here - everyone will call you on it. There is NOTHING I have ever written in my entire life that says that. Maybe I should patent "method and device to use patents to defend copyrights." Oops - Amazon, etc., have prior art :-)
If you're going to troll, at least be a bit more original.
Software should be protected by copyright, not patent - but the copyright should be limited to the same timeline as a patent - 21 years. None of this lifetime + 70 years Eisner-Disney-world silliness.
The trademarks can enjoy their traditional protection, since that "doesn't prevent the advancement of the art by granting limited protection for a limited time."
IBM has not asserted the patents in question. They were asked about possible patents, they gave a reply as to which ones they thought might be in play. They didn't say that on that basis they were going to "attack" Turbo Hercules.
IBM has said that they will not change the terms of z/OS licensing. That is their right. Same as Linus has the right to refuse to change the license of linux. It cuts both ways.
You must be new here.
I've had comments go to +5 then -1 then +5 then -1 then back up to +5 in the space of a few hours. It happens. It's normal. The reason should be obvious if you think a bit ... your comment will start near the bottom (+1). Since it's not all that visible, most of the time it has only one way to go at that point - up. Multiple people will see it and figure "it deserves more than a +1". So they moderate it up, not knowing that others are simultaneously doing the same thing.
So then your comment is suddenly at +5 and VERY visible. And it has only one way to go - down. So of course it's going to go down. The same people who thought it was worth a +3 and modded it up when it was +1 are going to mod it down when they see it at +5.
As for Sun/Oracle, that deserves a MUCH longer discussion.
Where did I say that there was a connection between IBM and Sun/Oracle? What I said was that your actions wrt Sun/Oracle made you into a joke. Your actions wrt TurboHercules are just more of the same.
In both cases, we have someone who wants something they don't have a right to, or they'll settle for a buy-out to STFU. And you're one of the shills enabling it. That is your reputation here, and why people down-mod you.
It has nothing to do with groklaw, and everything to do with "we've seen this movie before". You came here trolling for positive feedback, and instead you're being hit with a reality brick in the face, because you can't get away with mis-quoting "facts" here like you do elsewhere.
As someone who believes in and uses open source software daily, I absolutely believe that proprietary software licenses MUST be respected. It's only on that basis that open source licenses can demand the same treatment.
If IBM wants to keep z/OS closed, that is their absolute right. Same as anyone who writes GPL software has the right to demand that users respect all the conditions. You can't pick and choose.
When someone hires me to write closed code - that is their right. I'll make the argument for opening it - or as much of it as possible - but in the end, it's their decision.
As for Microsoft,
If IBM is gouging, then eventually this will create a market of customers looking for alternatives. That will allow opportunists to say "here's a potential market that we can make $X off - let's invest in developing products for it." Compulsory competitor licenses prevent that from happening. They KILL innovation.
On software patents: Software should only be covered by copyright, not patent. Software, ultimately, is not a device, but instructions and data, same as a recipe book.
Another lie. What I am claiming is that IBM has NOT attacked the Hercules open source project - that they have simply denied a license to Turbo Hercules to run zOS on unlicensed hardware.
Another lie. Neither the Open Source Definition nor the Free Software Definition allow for the breaking of licenses - and that includes the GPL as well as proprietary licenses. It's not going to work - those of us who have been around for a few decades see this for the BS it is.
FACT: IBM has not asserted the patents in question, so stop with the FUD.
FACT: IBM has said they will not allow zOS to be run under conditions contrary to the license.
If you don't like it, migrate the work loads to a different operating system instead. What's the big deal? Oh, right - it's harder to make money quickly that way, or get bought out.
No, the OSI does NOT encourage breaking software license agreements or violating copyrights.
Actually, both of you are making distinctions that are meaningless. The true goal was to get bought out by IBM, same as Platform Solutions Inc
Sound familiar?
The difference is that PSI had some proprietary stuff that IBM could use. Turbo Hercules doesn't so no buy-out.
from the USPO
From IBM: http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/24560.wss
No, it's about software licenses. You can't run z/OS on that server. No zOS license. Same as you can't run OSX on it. No OSX license. You can't take your OS, whether it's zOS or OSX, and "migrate" it to the other machine - the license says no dice. So it's not about open source - it's about software licenses.
This is not a commodity one-size-fits-all OS like Windows or DOS. It is licensed by work load and work type and underlying hardware capability. Like a cafeteria, the more you eat, the more you pay.
IBM isn't going after individuals playing around - but if you're going to try to get someone to do commercial copyright infringement - which is what running your zOS server software on unlicensed hardware is - IBM has a right to say they have a problem with that Same as if someone tries to sell a device running a proprietary fork of linux w/o an offer of the source code. Both are license violations that have their roots in copyright.
BTW - compulsory licensing is a trap. It prevents the marketplace from coming up with better alternatives, both by sucking some of the revenue that could have gone into financing alternatives, as well as institutionalizing the quasi-monopoly. It is the worst solution.
All monopolies are price-sensitive. Compulsory (or "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory") licensing reinforces the monopoly practices. It prevents the monopoly holder from gouging to the point where customers say "to hell with this - what do I have to do to dump this crap". It kills competition. It encourages a monoculture. It stifles research and innovation. It prevents price-sensitive product substitution.
An efficient market would respond by developing tools to make it easy to migrate the legacy workloads that zOS supports to different operating systems - not by emulation, but by automated one-time binary translation tools. Work was done on this in the 1960s but abandoned when operating systems became more flexible. In comparison FRND licensing is garbage - and unimaginative garbage at that.
Florian Mueller is past his best-before date. He can't admit that with the Oracle/Sun crapfest he hA made himself into another Darl McBride, and has less F/LOSS credibility than either of the Two Steves.
He thought he could troll here on slashdot. Then he complains when he gets mod-bombed for trolling. Like his "reputation" should protect him from such "unjustified insults".
Problem is, his reputation with many here is less than zero - we consider him a liability.
He continually tries to confuse Hercules (the project) with Turbo Hercules (the attempt to monetize Hercules), tries to claim that IBM has attacked Hercules, and that IBM should be forced to grant Turbo Hercules a "Fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory license".
What next, someone else using the same argument to demand that they have the right to a "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory license" to use the linux kernel in a proprietary work? Oops - already been tried. But that's where this will lead to, as well as more "the GPL is anti-trust" FUD.
The guy simply can't accept that people on slashdot aren't as willing to accept his trolling as others have been in the past. That's why he's attacking groklaw - he needs to be able to show a "reason", a "conspiracy" against him to explain why almost everyone here thinks he's a liability.
Problem is, people who were on slashdot before groklaw ever existed (see my UID) are more than willing to call him out on his FUD, and his outright lies.
Hahahahahaha. ... hahahaahaha .....
Please, stop - you're killing me!
The whole Oracle/Sun thing was FUD.
You've claimed that IBM has attacked Hercules. They have not.
You've continually tried to confabulate "Hercules the project" with "Turbo Hercules the attempt to monetize Hercules".
PJ has consistently argued in favour of people being required to respect legal licenses, whether it;s from IBM, Apple (Apple vs Pystar), or the GPL. YOU are the one arguing otherwise - and you lie when you say that PJ has "suddenly" shown a different agenda.
Your call for IBM to be required to issue a license on a "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory basis" is an indirect attack on the restrictions of the GPL. Compulsory licensing of GPL code for closed-source software can be supported using the same flawed "logic". We don't want to go down that road again!
You attack PJ for being consistent. Maybe you should try it yourself for a change. Read up on what she wrote about the Pystar litigation. It's the same argument she (and everyone else) uses to support the GPL - a license is a license, and if you don't want to abide by the license, don't use the code.
Don't want to abide by the z/OS license? Don't use the code. Same as Pystar - don't want to abide by Apple's license? Don't use OSX. Same as the GPL. Don't want to abide by the GPL? No linux for you!
Your "work" is undermining both F/LOSS and the GPL. Why should you be surprised when people, forced to pick sides, call you the troll you've become?
You still don't get it, do you? It has nothing to do with groklaw. Your actions wrt the Sun/Oracle deal made you into a joke. If you want to blame anyone for your current troll status, look in the mirror.
For most of us, you've joined the ranks of Darl McBride, Reb "Pretenderle" Enderle, Maureen O'Gara, and the other fakes. At this point, if there's ONE thing that you could do to benefit open source, it's to STFU! Right now you have less credibility wrt open source than Steve Balmer or Steve Jobs!
But let's look at just one of your statements to show how out-of-touch with the facts you really are:
You obviously didn't follow the Pystar debate. The principle there is the same - you can't go around violating licenses. PJ treated it the same way, so you're lying when you claim to be shocked. Or you're just willfully ignorant. 6 of one, half a dozen of the other ...
F/LOSS depends on that same rule, just as proprietary software does - you cannot violate the license. Otherwise, there's nothing to prevent a company from saying that the GPL is anti-trust, and that they should be able to force the authors of GPL software to issue licenses for proprietary purposes under a "Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory" basis.
Because that's where your whole argument will lead. It's been tried before - or weren't you paying attention in class when a certain peyote-head tried to argue that?
Look, your time has passed. Get over it and stop making such a big stink over the fact that people here think you stink. Otherwise, you'll become just another object of ridicule. (oops, my bad - too late).
Seriously - thinking you could troll slashdot? Home of the trolls? Not. Going. To. Happen. Especially not when most users think you owe everyone an apology for the crap you pulled wrt Sun/Oracle.
Fiction: "Concerning IBM, its actions against an 11-year old free and open source software project speak for themselves."
Fact: IBM has not sued Hercules.
Fact: Turbo Hercules - an attempt to monetize the use of Hercules in what appears to be an infringement of IBM's z/OS license, is not Hercules.
You really need to adjust your tin foil hat.
Try some facts for a change:
You're getting as bad with the FUD as O'Gara.
Why?
We now know what was in it for O'Gara. What's in it for you?
For $60, they're not doing any "vetting" beyond "did the check/cc clear?"
Back when a dot-com was $100 (remember those days?) it wasn't any different.
make sandwich
make: *** No rule to make target `sandwich'. Stop.
vi makefile
:wq
i
all:
\t@touch sandwich
Now you can make your own sandwich - and it's zero calories, so make as many as you want ...
They're more likely to serve both from the same machine, just with different virtual host names. No need to redirect.
Besides, at $60 a domain, when a dot.com is $10, that's obscene!