Do we see any way to access NFS mounts from Windows, using Microsoft tools? No. Because M$ doesn't care about interoperating with other systems.
First of all -- Microsoft sells a NFS client/server. There's also a bunch of third party ones, if no open source clients.
Second -- Samba is a great product, but massively overused in the Linux community. If you don't want Microsoft to dominate the network, don't use their protocols! Whining about SMB changes when there's perfectly good, open, acceptable alternatives is laughable. More laughable are the recommendations I've seen that you use SMB for Linux-to-Unix communication! You don't see an Novell shops staking their future on reverse-engineering foreign protocols.
Nobody else has mentioned it, and it's my pet peeve, so I'll throw it in there -- I would love to have nice clean XHTML or XML that could be formatted with stylesheets (CSS or XSLT) on the client-side. Now that Mozilla is out there, this should be politically acceptable.
This could potentially reduce serverload quite a bit -- not only would you be spitting out far less bandwidth per page, but things like score filtering could be done on the clientside instead of requiring another roundtrip to the server.
You could even invent your own killfile, highlighting, light-mode, and score biasing schemes. Slashdot could use a default stylesheet, and then host user-submitted ones. Removing all the presentation goop would probably make NNTP/Gopher/whatever gateways easier to implement too. This would also have the positive aspect of pushing off most of the minor bitches back onto the userbase.
For example a GPL'd peice of software can't use a shared XML library shipped seperatly from the OS, or use the excel automation libraries. This is pretty much a limitation of the GPL and Free Software caused indirectly by microsoft licening, however I think it completly unreasonable to make microsoft GPL every library because the GPL's lameness.
Microsoft and every other vendor's licencing. The current wording of the GPL seems to exclude it from use for Java 2 programs (except on Solaris), Borland OWL programs, CDE programs on Linux, QuattroPro macros, etc. The FSF's FAQ tells you otherwise, though.
What's needed is a minor revision to expand the "the major components of the operating system" exception to include infrastructure libraries ("components of the runtime environment"?). But that would make it difficult for the FSF to do things like bash KDE in the head over the Qt libs, so it goes.
OK -- we all know that MS Office file formats are a pain in the ass for non-MSO users.
But that has nothing to do with this case! No evidence was presented that Microsoft has a monopoly in the office suite market, and none of the judges have found that to be the case. Sure, we all 'know' that MS has a monopoly in this market, but it just doesn't matter -- that's a different trial -- this one is about OEM deals and that niggling concept of 'middleware'.
So when writing your letters, please stay on target and keep the remedies within the context of what the courts have found (no MS Office, no XBox, no VisualStudio...)
[Yes, I know that MS probably has nefarious plans to link Office to the.NET communication protocols, but as of now it hasn't happened and it's all vapor. It seems that while the tech community knows what MS is up to by seeing the betas and reading the rags, the Courts never address what's going on until Microsoft actually has a product on the shelves (see 98 or XP).]
Oh please -- I'd bet IE has essentially been (re)developed from scratch.
Just not in the stupid 'complete rewrite in only 3 years' way that Mozilla did it, but instead progressively with stable releases along the way. It's just not worth it for them to audit out the last 20 lines of Spyglass code just to remove the About Box message.
In fact, buying/stealing Mosaic was a stupid move to begin with. It got MS in the market, but the web was soon netscaped with frames and tables, and IE was a laughing stock. And they ended up getting sued and had to pay $20M for that piece of crap. If they would have started from scratch, they probably would have ended up at the same point (IE 4.0) at the same time (1998).
About this "big fat big tobacco check" rhetoric in comparison to Microsoft --
1) Have fines been seriously discussed as a settlement option? I've never heard anything about this.
2) Tobacco opponents supported fines because they would be built into the price of a pack of smokes. This would presumably discourage smoking among price sensitive markets (teenagers).
Microsoft opponents (AKA Silicon Valley) know that fines would be built into the price of Windows/Office, but because it's a monopoly market, it's not very price sensitive. This would have the upshot of reducing the total IT Spending pool for non-Microsoft companies. Fines are actually BAD for Sun and Oracle, and they are probably smart enough to realize it.
Sun bases their business model on "Open Systems" -- software that follows publically available protocols and specifications, the central example being UNIX.
The upshot is that Sun products can often be very cheaply replaced by Linux or other Unix solutions.
I'm not saying that they are saints, just that their core business model is very different than Microsoft's or parts of IBM.
These type of posts bother me because they are completely irrelevant to what is going on. Maybe a year or two ago when Microsoft was losing badly and the sky was the limit, but now it's just a crack pipe dream.
It's 11th hour right now, and the anti-MS forces have been backed in the corner by the DOJ*. The final outcome will be along the lines of what's currently on the table, maybe with less trickly loopholes. There will be no open DOC format (never on the table to begin with), no breakup or divestment, and no fine.
And, yes, that sucks, but pretending that a fair settlement is possible now is a community delusion. It's just not going to happen.
* Note that the Clinton DOJ would have settled this, but Microsoft absolutely refused. We got this point because they are stubbern bastards, not because the government was shooting for the fair deal.
Open the QT control panel and go to Plug-in settings (or right-click on a movie).
Then click MIME Settings and unselect anything you don't want QuickTime to take over. (I think more recent QuickTime versions don't intercept PNG by default.)
Lucas sits on a farm up in Marin county and has surround himself with yes-man nerds that do nothing but kiss his ass all day so that they can play with the latest Avid and ProTools or whatever.
He's got no Irving Kirshner Hollywood Battleaxe around to tell him that his ideas are cornball (and borderline racist) and that his plots make no sense. So, he does whatever he wants to, his nerd henchmen think his ideas are great because they involve lots of computers. The result is big suckbomb movies that appeal to neither kids, nor the Comic Book Guys who still idolize the movies they saw as childern, nor the broader audience as a whole.
That being said, JarJar wasn't the worst idea dramatically. He played the role of C3P0 in the originals -- to communicate what was going on to the kids in the audience in simple terms. The problem was that he was massively overplayed and, worse, 3CP0 was still in the movie, and even worse (from Lucas' wallet's perspective), Darth Maul got about 30 seconds of screen time.
It looks like Linux developers are taking a page from the Mac game development playbook (porting PC games after they have proven their worth [and become passe]
You mean after proving that they are profitable?
Face it -- most games are Windows only and die a quick, unprofitable death. The games that are really popular (UT, Sims, HalfLife, Railroad Tycoon) have a shelflife of a year or more.
Maybe the hardcore gamer types run out and buy/warez a game the day it ships, but the vast majority of the market doesn't operate that way. If Linux is indeed a big enough desktop platform to support the game market, they can do it with 6 month old games.
Intel has seen to it that Joe Blow pays attention to the *clock speed* of the CPU
Remember a couple years back when AMD hit 1 Ghz and was marketing clockspeed like a sonnavabitch? Nobody was trying to educate consumers back then.
Don't put this all on Intel -- AMD caught them at a transition point and stuck Mhz in their eye. It's only natural that the empire will strike back.
Anyway, I find all of the discussion about how Joe Blow needs to be protected (aka fooled) quite insulting. I don't think he's buying either Intel or AMD because his AOL runs too slow, and any modern computer with decent video will be fine for casual home gaming and so on. The fact that AMD or Intel is 10-20% faster at any point in time is ultimately irrelevant.
In fact, the #1 consumer complaint is probably stability, non speed, and Intel still has the lead in that department.
Depends -- I have an IBM BX-based system, and IBM wouldn't ship BIOS support for coppermine chips. Similar stories for Dell and other big OEMs. So, I'm stuck at 2 600(not E, not B) chips. On the otherhand, my APIC seems to work.
(The worst thing about this is that after the i820 bomb, Intel phased out SMP chipset support for non-Xeon CPUs. I don't need more speed now, so I'm sitting back and waiting for either Intel to change it's mind about workstation SMP, or for the AMD boards to get nice and stable like the BX is.)
1) Heatsinks removing themselves has been widely reported by *users*, so there's obviously some design issue with the retainers, even if it's just harder than it looks.
2) The point of Tom's verus AMDZone's test is that only the newest mobos can handle a catastrophic heatsink failure. Older kits are only designed for dying fans. Intel has the thermal protection onboard the CPU, so you don't have to second guess your BIOS or which brand diode your motherboard has.
3) So, it's not stupid, but it's probably not as big of a problem as made out. There's lots of people on lots of boards (including this one) who are crowing "Build Your Own AMD computer for $600!", and amateur hobbiests + tweaky parts = some disasters.
4) There are incompatibilty issues with AMD systems. (Name a hardware vidcap board that's certified for VIA or SiS chipsets.) So that's not crap either.
The only difference between Sun Microsystems and Microsoft is that Microsoft has a monopoly, and Sun wants one.
Nice try but wrong.
Sun's products are based on "Open Standards" UNIX-based systems. That means that anyone can replicate their product with some hardware engineering and by paying a fee an industry group, or by using PC-compatible stuff and reverse engineering (Linux).
It also means that it's impossible for Sun to have a monopoly. And lo and behold, there's been hundreds of companies over the years that have sold fundamentally the exact same thing that Sun sells.
Well, back in the 1980s, the big bad guy was AT+T, not Microsoft, and the GNU project was formed specifically to commodify UNIX(r)(tm). Microsoft (etc) smelled the same blood in the water as Stallman did.
But, that wasn't a difficult plan -- UNIX has always been *almost* a commodity business -- the whole sell of "Open Systems" (POSIX, SUS) is that it's cheap for the customer to switch vendors. So, it's no shock that GNU's Not Unix has been moderatly successful over the last 15+ years.
Now, Microsoft has never played that game -- they're job is to get entrenched and become irreplacable. They only become irrelevant when they fail to provide the services that people need. Much like IBM mainframes, they won't be so much replaced but bypassed.
Re:netscape cares about the details...
on
Netscape 6.2
·
· Score: 1
Unfortunately, I don't see anything but standard slashdot banter. But, I'm ready to stop the insults and go off and enjoy the weekend. Later.
Absolutely -- Read the Wired article -- Silicon Valley movers spent years getting this thing put together.
Note also that Gates left several proposed settlements on the table -- If Microsoft hadn't been up their ass over "the freedom to innovate" and had been putting their tricky lawyers to work, this would have been over years ago under the *Clinton* DOJ.
(And 64-bit Unixes still have to worry about 32-bit binary closed source apps, so my guess is that the 32-bit libs are necessary. Even 64-bit Linux still runs 32-bit code like Quake.)
Re:netscape cares about the details...
on
Netscape 6.2
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, actually reading the propaganda up at mozilla.org has been highly mind-altering. You should try it.
Like I said, enjoy the funny looks people give you when you try to push Mozilla on them. Of course, that's assuming you ever leave your mom's basement -- I have a feeling that you're the sort who fights for the cause with little messageboard trolls and don't have any infuluence over web dev test plans, desktop rollouts, or any other effective way to improve non-IE browser support.
Microsoft, as usual, is stupid. They should have just kept their yaps shut and then BeOS could have died on it's own merits. Now they'll have Gasse running around SV telling everyone how mean they were until the end of time.
(BeOS was cool, Be Inc. was retarded. Ignore high dollar 'media' verticals and go for a "co-exist with Microsoft on the desktop" strategy?!? They don't even sell crack that cheap in my ghetto.)
There might be a very small market for preinstalled dualboot machines, but 99% of the customer don't want it, and it WILL increase support costs. Nothing comes for 'free'.
but the government has gotten a bad rap for the dot-bomb crash which occurred shortly after they sued MS
It actually happend shortly after Microsoft refused to settle. But this is the stockmarket gaga public we are talking about - the same people that drove LNUX up to $200/share.
Since I'm posting -- Everyone should read the Wired article on the MS lawsuit. Microsoft could have settled this thing at any time with terms similar to what's being reported. That's one reason the original judge was so pissed at them -- they had a good deal and they left it on the table. So, it's not really a Bush versus Clinton thing -- it's a change of heart over at MS.
Re:netscape cares about the details...
on
Netscape 6.2
·
· Score: 1
I think you completely missed my argument -- I agree that Mozilla is technically a fine browser, just that it's not supposed to be an end-user browser, so don't push it as such. It doesn't do mozilla.org any good if they aren't getting QA back from the user. (If people ask me what browser I'm using, I just tell them that it's the latest "Netscape 6 beta", because the development arrangements are really irrelevant to them.)
Considering that LNUX was nothing more than a stupid scam to convince stupid daytraders that they were "Linux", let's hope they drop they symbol and quick
The scary thing is that the scam nearly succeeded before backfiring.
The even scarier thing is that Linus Torvalds licenced his trademark to these guys so that they could pull this thing. Wonder if he was able to sell his shares in time?
Slashdot Mirror
Do we see any way to access NFS mounts from Windows, using Microsoft tools? No. Because M$ doesn't care about interoperating with other systems.
First of all -- Microsoft sells a NFS client/server. There's also a bunch of third party ones, if no open source clients.
Second -- Samba is a great product, but massively overused in the Linux community. If you don't want Microsoft to dominate the network, don't use their protocols! Whining about SMB changes when there's perfectly good, open, acceptable alternatives is laughable. More laughable are the recommendations I've seen that you use SMB for Linux-to-Unix communication! You don't see an Novell shops staking their future on reverse-engineering foreign protocols.
Nobody else has mentioned it, and it's my pet peeve, so I'll throw it in there -- I would love to have nice clean XHTML or XML that could be formatted with stylesheets (CSS or XSLT) on the client-side. Now that Mozilla is out there, this should be politically acceptable.
This could potentially reduce serverload quite a bit -- not only would you be spitting out far less bandwidth per page, but things like score filtering could be done on the clientside instead of requiring another roundtrip to the server.
You could even invent your own killfile, highlighting, light-mode, and score biasing schemes. Slashdot could use a default stylesheet, and then host user-submitted ones. Removing all the presentation goop would probably make NNTP/Gopher/whatever gateways easier to implement too. This would also have the positive aspect of pushing off most of the minor bitches back onto the userbase.
For example a GPL'd peice of software can't use a shared XML library shipped seperatly from the OS, or use the excel automation libraries. This is pretty much a limitation of the GPL and Free Software caused indirectly by microsoft licening, however I think it completly unreasonable to make microsoft GPL every library because the GPL's lameness.
Microsoft and every other vendor's licencing. The current wording of the GPL seems to exclude it from use for Java 2 programs (except on Solaris), Borland OWL programs, CDE programs on Linux, QuattroPro macros, etc. The FSF's FAQ tells you otherwise, though.
What's needed is a minor revision to expand the "the major components of the operating system" exception to include infrastructure libraries ("components of the runtime environment"?). But that would make it difficult for the FSF to do things like bash KDE in the head over the Qt libs, so it goes.
OK -- we all know that MS Office file formats are a pain in the ass for non-MSO users.
.NET communication protocols, but as of now it hasn't happened and it's all vapor. It seems that while the tech community knows what MS is up to by seeing the betas and reading the rags, the Courts never address what's going on until Microsoft actually has a product on the shelves (see 98 or XP).]
But that has nothing to do with this case! No evidence was presented that Microsoft has a monopoly in the office suite market, and none of the judges have found that to be the case. Sure, we all 'know' that MS has a monopoly in this market, but it just doesn't matter -- that's a different trial -- this one is about OEM deals and that niggling concept of 'middleware'.
So when writing your letters, please stay on target and keep the remedies within the context of what the courts have found (no MS Office, no XBox, no VisualStudio...)
[Yes, I know that MS probably has nefarious plans to link Office to the
Are you new to slashdot? 99% of it is speculation, and at least my post was marked as such (as was the parent).
Oh please -- I'd bet IE has essentially been (re)developed from scratch.
Just not in the stupid 'complete rewrite in only 3 years' way that Mozilla did it, but instead progressively with stable releases along the way. It's just not worth it for them to audit out the last 20 lines of Spyglass code just to remove the About Box message.
In fact, buying/stealing Mosaic was a stupid move to begin with. It got MS in the market, but the web was soon netscaped with frames and tables, and IE was a laughing stock. And they ended up getting sued and had to pay $20M for that piece of crap. If they would have started from scratch, they probably would have ended up at the same point (IE 4.0) at the same time (1998).
About this "big fat big tobacco check" rhetoric in comparison to Microsoft --
1) Have fines been seriously discussed as a settlement option? I've never heard anything about this.
2) Tobacco opponents supported fines because they would be built into the price of a pack of smokes. This would presumably discourage smoking among price sensitive markets (teenagers).
Microsoft opponents (AKA Silicon Valley) know that fines would be built into the price of Windows/Office, but because it's a monopoly market, it's not very price sensitive. This would have the upshot of reducing the total IT Spending pool for non-Microsoft companies. Fines are actually BAD for Sun and Oracle, and they are probably smart enough to realize it.
Sun bases their business model on "Open Systems" -- software that follows publically available protocols and specifications, the central example being UNIX.
The upshot is that Sun products can often be very cheaply replaced by Linux or other Unix solutions.
I'm not saying that they are saints, just that their core business model is very different than Microsoft's or parts of IBM.
Some penalties I'd like to see:
These type of posts bother me because they are completely irrelevant to what is going on. Maybe a year or two ago when Microsoft was losing badly and the sky was the limit, but now it's just a crack pipe dream.
It's 11th hour right now, and the anti-MS forces have been backed in the corner by the DOJ*. The final outcome will be along the lines of what's currently on the table, maybe with less trickly loopholes. There will be no open DOC format (never on the table to begin with), no breakup or divestment, and no fine.
And, yes, that sucks, but pretending that a fair settlement is possible now is a community delusion. It's just not going to happen.
* Note that the Clinton DOJ would have settled this, but Microsoft absolutely refused. We got this point because they are stubbern bastards, not because the government was shooting for the fair deal.
Open the QT control panel and go to Plug-in settings (or right-click on a movie).
Then click MIME Settings and unselect anything you don't want QuickTime to take over. (I think more recent QuickTime versions don't intercept PNG by default.)
Lucas sits on a farm up in Marin county and has surround himself with yes-man nerds that do nothing but kiss his ass all day so that they can play with the latest Avid and ProTools or whatever.
He's got no Irving Kirshner Hollywood Battleaxe around to tell him that his ideas are cornball (and borderline racist) and that his plots make no sense. So, he does whatever he wants to, his nerd henchmen think his ideas are great because they involve lots of computers. The result is big suckbomb movies that appeal to neither kids, nor the Comic Book Guys who still idolize the movies they saw as childern, nor the broader audience as a whole.
That being said, JarJar wasn't the worst idea dramatically. He played the role of C3P0 in the originals -- to communicate what was going on to the kids in the audience in simple terms. The problem was that he was massively overplayed and, worse, 3CP0 was still in the movie, and even worse (from Lucas' wallet's perspective), Darth Maul got about 30 seconds of screen time.
It looks like Linux developers are taking a page from the Mac game development playbook (porting PC games after they have proven their worth [and become passe]
You mean after proving that they are profitable?
Face it -- most games are Windows only and die a quick, unprofitable death. The games that are really popular (UT, Sims, HalfLife, Railroad Tycoon) have a shelflife of a year or more.
Maybe the hardcore gamer types run out and buy/warez a game the day it ships, but the vast majority of the market doesn't operate that way. If Linux is indeed a big enough desktop platform to support the game market, they can do it with 6 month old games.
Intel has seen to it that Joe Blow pays attention to the *clock speed* of the CPU
Remember a couple years back when AMD hit 1 Ghz and was marketing clockspeed like a sonnavabitch? Nobody was trying to educate consumers back then.
Don't put this all on Intel -- AMD caught them at a transition point and stuck Mhz in their eye. It's only natural that the empire will strike back.
Anyway, I find all of the discussion about how Joe Blow needs to be protected (aka fooled) quite insulting. I don't think he's buying either Intel or AMD because his AOL runs too slow, and any modern computer with decent video will be fine for casual home gaming and so on. The fact that AMD or Intel is 10-20% faster at any point in time is ultimately irrelevant.
In fact, the #1 consumer complaint is probably stability, non speed, and Intel still has the lead in that department.
Depends -- I have an IBM BX-based system, and IBM wouldn't ship BIOS support for coppermine chips. Similar stories for Dell and other big OEMs. So, I'm stuck at 2 600(not E, not B) chips. On the otherhand, my APIC seems to work.
(The worst thing about this is that after the i820 bomb, Intel phased out SMP chipset support for non-Xeon CPUs. I don't need more speed now, so I'm sitting back and waiting for either Intel to change it's mind about workstation SMP, or for the AMD boards to get nice and stable like the BX is.)
1) Heatsinks removing themselves has been widely reported by *users*, so there's obviously some design issue with the retainers, even if it's just harder than it looks.
2) The point of Tom's verus AMDZone's test is that only the newest mobos can handle a catastrophic heatsink failure. Older kits are only designed for dying fans. Intel has the thermal protection onboard the CPU, so you don't have to second guess your BIOS or which brand diode your motherboard has.
3) So, it's not stupid, but it's probably not as big of a problem as made out. There's lots of people on lots of boards (including this one) who are crowing "Build Your Own AMD computer for $600!", and amateur hobbiests + tweaky parts = some disasters.
4) There are incompatibilty issues with AMD systems. (Name a hardware vidcap board that's certified for VIA or SiS chipsets.) So that's not crap either.
The only difference between Sun Microsystems and Microsoft is that Microsoft has a monopoly, and Sun wants one.
Nice try but wrong.
Sun's products are based on "Open Standards" UNIX-based systems. That means that anyone can replicate their product with some hardware engineering and by paying a fee an industry group, or by using PC-compatible stuff and reverse engineering (Linux).
It also means that it's impossible for Sun to have a monopoly. And lo and behold, there's been hundreds of companies over the years that have sold fundamentally the exact same thing that Sun sells.
Well, back in the 1980s, the big bad guy was AT+T, not Microsoft, and the GNU project was formed specifically to commodify UNIX(r)(tm). Microsoft (etc) smelled the same blood in the water as Stallman did.
But, that wasn't a difficult plan -- UNIX has always been *almost* a commodity business -- the whole sell of "Open Systems" (POSIX, SUS) is that it's cheap for the customer to switch vendors. So, it's no shock that GNU's Not Unix has been moderatly successful over the last 15+ years.
Now, Microsoft has never played that game -- they're job is to get entrenched and become irreplacable. They only become irrelevant when they fail to provide the services that people need. Much like IBM mainframes, they won't be so much replaced but bypassed.
Unfortunately, I don't see anything but standard slashdot banter. But, I'm ready to stop the insults and go off and enjoy the weekend. Later.
Absolutely -- Read the Wired article -- Silicon Valley movers spent years getting this thing put together.
Note also that Gates left several proposed settlements on the table -- If Microsoft hadn't been up their ass over "the freedom to innovate" and had been putting their tricky lawyers to work, this would have been over years ago under the *Clinton* DOJ.
Ow, that's fugly.
(And 64-bit Unixes still have to worry about 32-bit binary closed source apps, so my guess is that the 32-bit libs are necessary. Even 64-bit Linux still runs 32-bit code like Quake.)
Yeah, actually reading the propaganda up at mozilla.org has been highly mind-altering. You should try it.
Like I said, enjoy the funny looks people give you when you try to push Mozilla on them. Of course, that's assuming you ever leave your mom's basement -- I have a feeling that you're the sort who fights for the cause with little messageboard trolls and don't have any infuluence over web dev test plans, desktop rollouts, or any other effective way to improve non-IE browser support.
Microsoft, as usual, is stupid. They should have just kept their yaps shut and then BeOS could have died on it's own merits. Now they'll have Gasse running around SV telling everyone how mean they were until the end of time.
(BeOS was cool, Be Inc. was retarded. Ignore high dollar 'media' verticals and go for a "co-exist with Microsoft on the desktop" strategy?!? They don't even sell crack that cheap in my ghetto.)
There might be a very small market for preinstalled dualboot machines, but 99% of the customer don't want it, and it WILL increase support costs. Nothing comes for 'free'.
but the government has gotten a bad rap for the dot-bomb crash which occurred shortly after they sued MS
It actually happend shortly after Microsoft refused to settle. But this is the stockmarket gaga public we are talking about - the same people that drove LNUX up to $200/share.
Since I'm posting -- Everyone should read the Wired article on the MS lawsuit. Microsoft could have settled this thing at any time with terms similar to what's being reported. That's one reason the original judge was so pissed at them -- they had a good deal and they left it on the table. So, it's not really a Bush versus Clinton thing -- it's a change of heart over at MS.
I think you completely missed my argument -- I agree that Mozilla is technically a fine browser, just that it's not supposed to be an end-user browser, so don't push it as such. It doesn't do mozilla.org any good if they aren't getting QA back from the user. (If people ask me what browser I'm using, I just tell them that it's the latest "Netscape 6 beta", because the development arrangements are really irrelevant to them.)
Considering that LNUX was nothing more than a stupid scam to convince stupid daytraders that they were "Linux", let's hope they drop they symbol and quick
The scary thing is that the scam nearly succeeded before backfiring.
The even scarier thing is that Linus Torvalds licenced his trademark to these guys so that they could pull this thing. Wonder if he was able to sell his shares in time?