RIAA: "This is the RIAA.... " Me: "May I please have the full details of your name, company and address." RIAA: "Wha.." Me: "I need to inform you that you have violated the Do Not Call Registry. I am not interested in your services". RIAA: Click.
...although she refuses to recite certain 4-letter words. 'We don't say those kind of words,' she shrills, refusing to even spell obscenities. 'That's a bad word.'
Forget hacking xbox for Linux, cracking this sounds much more useful...
I suspect that wouldn't have any effect in my lifetime.
a) The laws would not be retrospective, ie anything in force today would have grandfather provisions for existing stuff. b) Start the clock again. The nasty dude's have 50 years to get it extended again.
Maybe our children's, children's, children will look back at us with fond memories...
I'm sorry, but I disagree. I suspect it is the way you phrased this rather than necessarily the concepts behind it.
Corporations and people that work in corporations don't act with continuity. There is no continuity of people, they certainly are more mobile in choosing employers than years ago. I would also dispute that there is continuity with people within corporations. Even those within a corporation rarely stay at the same job longer than 3 years. YMMV with different cultures, but given the above corporations *can't* act in a continuous fashion.
They act short term. Focus on Profits this year, sales this quarter, share price tomorrow. IMHO (yes, opinion this time), this is mutually exclusive with multi-year strategies.
Why do they worry about copyright expiration? Because the cash cows that make their profits this year, revenue this quarter and share price tomorrow are about to disappear.
Just as a late follow up to my own post here, I noticed that some replies didn't get what I meant by supported. I meant supported *by the vendor*.
Mom, dad, pop (and I guess to some extent me) don't look for and don't care if it says the thing works on some funky website. If it doesn't say it is supported on the box/on the net page I buy it from, it doesn't exist! That's what Linux needs for success.
I don't think so. You can distribute any GPL product with your OS without making it open.
That's a grossly incorrect statement. Linking to anything GPL causes you to open it up, besides the other requirements of the GPL itself. Repeat after me: Distributing a GPL product, mods or not, does not absolve you from the other requirements of the GPL!
Without knowing how x86 Solaris is architected, I wouldn't be game to bet on such a thing. And I guess someone as big (and conservative) as Sun does some pretty detailed cost and risk analysis "OK, we could rearchitect the way we load drivers, but that's going to break everything and cost more than licensing it from SCO".
The lack of support by vendors makes it real difficult for people to really have confidence in Linux, and makes them keep that partition with that other OS on it.
Just over the past month, I've got a digital camera that isn't supported. Actually, I think I nearly fried it trying to get it to work, but that's another story. Then I went looking for a 6 in 1 adapter for it. As I was browsing through the store and on the net, I was thinking to myself "If just *one* of these dang things said it supported Linux, I'd buy it!".
There's a market for vendors for people who don't want to compile major parts of an operating system like the kernel, X etc.
Hey vendors, this is a growing market! Come on in, the water's fine!
This is a really great strategy. While the rest of the industry consolidates, we Linux'ers will start forking and flood the market with too much choice!
Seriously though, this is my greatest concern about Linux. Are we just recreating unix wars? Already, there is *significant* variance amongst different linux distros, even ignoring forking those. Argue against this all you want. The fact of the matter is that anyone writing to Linux needs to do a lot of testing/QA to have any confidence that their software will work on distro X version Y. Unless like 99.9% of our community, you want to just throw some source up and hope that an *end user* can 'make' it.
Major distros have a competitive reason for having other distros fork. Divide and conquer is a sound principle. The more distros there are, the more it forces you to pick the top X.
Not to mention that Microsoft must love this kind of behaviour: "Man, here we were worrying about them, and they fscked themselves!".
Personally, I think there may be some funky logic behind using some of the principles behind JCP. You specify a version of Linux* like J2EE that's made up of a particular version of common component technologies. 'Scuse my ignorance if United linux is doing/trying to do the same.
Differentiation and innovation is cool, but it is happening at the very core of Linux* itself, forcing people who write software to make choices that are as good as proprietary (I write to distro X). Man, flame me and pick this apart all you want, but I'm *really* trying here.
*Correct, I incorrectly use teminology to talk about not 'Linux the kernel' but 'Linux the kernel + other things'.
I noticed right clicking in Win Explorer in Win2K allowed you to apply attributes to files. Not sure if they were limited to MS Office files.(Sorry, I can't check this anymore;-)
The metadata in database, files on disk is used frequently in any number of applications. Some search engines do it (at their heart, search engines are databases - just not usually relational). I've also seen email servers, document management systems that do the same.
Even good ole rpm does the same thing, doesn't it? I thought the rpm info was stored in Berkeley database, and has pointers to the real files on the disk.
Applying RPM in a more generic way to user data files would get you the same result if you tack on a search engine.Let's see, even without it:
rpm -qa|grep tax
But the thing that freaks me? Do I really want a MS database product to use my filesystem?
I'm a bit slow, but I just worked out what had been freaking me out.
Usually, if someone is breaching a license, you would go to them, point it out and ask for a chunk of money. It's not just to help them protect their good name. It's also to protect your own good name as a trusted partner to do business with.
If SCO's business is really about trying to license Unix, then they should pay attention to this. Imagine what their other customers are thinking. "These guys are feral. We should look for a way out of this". And prospective customers would be thinking "Err, no. That's not the type of supplier I want to do business with".Well, unless you are Microsoft. I will leave you to draw your own conclusions on that.
That's interesting. If AOL is caught on an older version of the standalone browser, then doesn't MSN have a big advantage ? Start building in lots of new features and AOL's browser would start to look jaded.
Would probably be tough to call it anti-competitive too. "Look, we went to AOL and they did this contract with us!"
I'm wondering if Sun is trying to change who they market to. They are pushing N1 as a means to reallocate resources based on business requirements (see also post further down), and Project Orion to provide regular delivery and simplify software integration as well as new pricing models. (my take, anyways)
I think this might give their marketers some ammunition. They still need to deliver on these, though...
a) If it's an OSS project, then if they're using a source control system, can't you see who wrote it? Or maybe there would be mailing list where someone could ask who wrote this cool code?
b) I just have this horrible vision of millions of lines of credits buzzing past the screen as Linux boots...
Give them credit, sure. Congrats to all the authors of the software on my box. But perhaps we are confusing who will see it, and whether they care. Having credits != giving credit.
a) above is for those that really want to give credit. b) is merely gratuitous self praise. (Yes I did read the linked discussion)
If you know a little about Lotus Notes, you don't actually need print screen.
At least in V4 (and I think V5), any developer worth their salt new that there was a particular field, let's say $NoCopy that held a flag on whether you could copy data or not or print data or not.
But in certain circumstances (yes, I am being a little vague here on purpose), you could manipulate that particular field. The words "replicate", "local copy" and "macro/agent to delete field" seem to vaguely come to mind.
And then..... well, you know the rest.
Certainly, I think Lotus Notes security is superb. And I know I could stop someone from doing this if required. It's just that I can imagine situations where the uninformed may leave certain loopholes open.
Finally, if you must know, this had nothing to do with a business environment. I just happened to screw some things up in a dev environment that I figured I had better fix.
Slashdot Mirror
RIAA: "This is the RIAA.... "
Me: "May I please have the full details of your name, company and address."
RIAA: "Wha.."
Me: "I need to inform you that you have violated the Do Not Call Registry. I am not interested in your services".
RIAA: Click.
Forget hacking xbox for Linux, cracking this sounds much more useful...
You have 5 months support life for RH 7.3.
The bias in many of these comments is very sad. They seem to suggest that we should ONLY buy music from amazon? Competition is bad now?
The more people that sell music etc online, the more likely it is that we will be able to get music the way we want to.
I suspect that wouldn't have any effect in my lifetime.
a) The laws would not be retrospective, ie anything in force today would have grandfather provisions for existing stuff.
b) Start the clock again. The nasty dude's have 50 years to get it extended again.
Maybe our children's, children's, children will look back at us with fond memories...
I'm sorry, but I disagree. I suspect it is the way you phrased this rather than necessarily the concepts behind it.
Corporations and people that work in corporations don't act with continuity. There is no continuity of people, they certainly are more mobile in choosing employers than years ago. I would also dispute that there is continuity with people within corporations. Even those within a corporation rarely stay at the same job longer than 3 years. YMMV with different cultures, but given the above corporations *can't* act in a continuous fashion.
They act short term. Focus on Profits this year, sales this quarter, share price tomorrow. IMHO (yes, opinion this time), this is mutually exclusive with multi-year strategies.
Why do they worry about copyright expiration? Because the cash cows that make their profits this year, revenue this quarter and share price tomorrow are about to disappear.
Just as a late follow up to my own post here, I noticed that some replies didn't get what I meant by supported. I meant supported *by the vendor*.
Mom, dad, pop (and I guess to some extent me) don't look for and don't care if it says the thing works on some funky website. If it doesn't say it is supported on the box/on the net page I buy it from, it doesn't exist! That's what Linux needs for success.
Sorry, but I get pretty passionate about this.
That's a grossly incorrect statement. Linking to anything GPL causes you to open it up, besides the other requirements of the GPL itself. Repeat after me: Distributing a GPL product, mods or not, does not absolve you from the other requirements of the GPL!
Without knowing how x86 Solaris is architected, I wouldn't be game to bet on such a thing. And I guess someone as big (and conservative) as Sun does some pretty detailed cost and risk analysis "OK, we could rearchitect the way we load drivers, but that's going to break everything and cost more than licensing it from SCO".
The lack of support by vendors makes it real difficult for people to really have confidence in Linux, and makes them keep that partition with that other OS on it.
Just over the past month, I've got a digital camera that isn't supported. Actually, I think I nearly fried it trying to get it to work, but that's another story. Then I went looking for a 6 in 1 adapter for it. As I was browsing through the store and on the net, I was thinking to myself "If just *one* of these dang things said it supported Linux, I'd buy it!".
There's a market for vendors for people who don't want to compile major parts of an operating system like the kernel, X etc.
Hey vendors, this is a growing market! Come on in, the water's fine!
Welcome to the new age of slavery!
Step right up and take your ticket.
OK, bye bye karma...
This is a really great strategy. While the rest of the industry consolidates, we Linux'ers will start forking and flood the market with too much choice!
Seriously though, this is my greatest concern about Linux. Are we just recreating unix wars? Already, there is *significant* variance amongst different linux distros, even ignoring forking those. Argue against this all you want. The fact of the matter is that anyone writing to Linux needs to do a lot of testing/QA to have any confidence that their software will work on distro X version Y. Unless like 99.9% of our community, you want to just throw some source up and hope that an *end user* can 'make' it.
Major distros have a competitive reason for having other distros fork. Divide and conquer is a sound principle. The more distros there are, the more it forces you to pick the top X.
Not to mention that Microsoft must love this kind of behaviour: "Man, here we were worrying about them, and they fscked themselves!".
Personally, I think there may be some funky logic behind using some of the principles behind JCP. You specify a version of Linux* like J2EE that's made up of a particular version of common component technologies. 'Scuse my ignorance if United linux is doing/trying to do the same.
Differentiation and innovation is cool, but it is happening at the very core of Linux* itself, forcing people who write software to make choices that are as good as proprietary (I write to distro X). Man, flame me and pick this apart all you want, but I'm *really* trying here.
*Correct, I incorrectly use teminology to talk about not 'Linux the kernel' but 'Linux the kernel + other things'.
Well, my knowledge doesn't include:
- knowledge of tax laws in many countries
- translation to languages from english
- knowledge of government and/or corporations law in many countries
and I don't have the money to protect customer's investments by:- purchasing machines for 7 different OS's
- buying database licenses for leading databases
- testing the above
But, hey, good luck to you...as long as they are
running holding their cellphone/PDA like a gun.
straight under a truck.
Oh, shit.
I'm Unixware.
I noticed right clicking in Win Explorer in Win2K allowed you to apply attributes to files. Not sure if they were limited to MS Office files.(Sorry, I can't check this anymore ;-)
The metadata in database, files on disk is used frequently in any number of applications. Some search engines do it (at their heart, search engines are databases - just not usually relational). I've also seen email servers, document management systems that do the same.
Even good ole rpm does the same thing, doesn't it? I thought the rpm info was stored in Berkeley database, and has pointers to the real files on the disk.
Applying RPM in a more generic way to user data files would get you the same result if you tack on a search engine.Let's see, even without it:
rpm -qa|grep tax
But the thing that freaks me? Do I really want a MS database product to use my filesystem?
I'm a bit slow, but I just worked out what had been freaking me out.
Usually, if someone is breaching a license, you would go to them, point it out and ask for a chunk of money. It's not just to help them protect their good name. It's also to protect your own good name as a trusted partner to do business with.
If SCO's business is really about trying to license Unix, then they should pay attention to this. Imagine what their other customers are thinking. "These guys are feral. We should look for a way out of this". And prospective customers would be thinking "Err, no. That's not the type of supplier I want to do business with".Well, unless you are Microsoft. I will leave you to draw your own conclusions on that.
Clearly this is a sad death spiral.
Didn't you notice? It's very clear in the EULA.
thx to poster above who referred to this interesting controller.
Dude, you should have tried it at least once.
Mmmm. And suppose next week you go to a different store wearing the item you bought!
I hope they do leave them on. I'd hate to miss out on the hours of fun !
That's interesting. If AOL is caught on an older version of the standalone browser, then doesn't MSN have a big advantage ? Start building in lots of new features and AOL's browser would start to look jaded.
Would probably be tough to call it anti-competitive too. "Look, we went to AOL and they did this contract with us!"
Parent is an excellent post.
I'm wondering if Sun is trying to change who they market to. They are pushing N1 as a means to reallocate resources based on business requirements (see also post further down), and Project Orion to provide regular delivery and simplify software integration as well as new pricing models.
(my take, anyways)
I think this might give their marketers some ammunition. They still need to deliver on these, though...
a) If it's an OSS project, then if they're using a source control system, can't you see who wrote it? Or maybe there would be mailing list where someone could ask who wrote this cool code?
b) I just have this horrible vision of millions of lines of credits buzzing past the screen as Linux boots...
Give them credit, sure. Congrats to all the authors of the software on my box. But perhaps we are confusing who will see it, and whether they care. Having credits != giving credit.
a) above is for those that really want to give credit. b) is merely gratuitous self praise.
(Yes I did read the linked discussion)
But seriously, this wireless electricity must p*ss off those projects trying to provide internet connectivity via power lines...
If you know a little about Lotus Notes, you don't actually need print screen.
..... well, you know the rest.
At least in V4 (and I think V5), any developer worth their salt new that there was a particular field, let's say $NoCopy that held a flag on whether you could copy data or not or print data or not.
But in certain circumstances (yes, I am being a little vague here on purpose), you could manipulate that particular field. The words "replicate", "local copy" and "macro/agent to delete field" seem to vaguely come to mind.
And then
Certainly, I think Lotus Notes security is superb. And I know I could stop someone from doing this if required. It's just that I can imagine situations where the uninformed may leave certain loopholes open.
Finally, if you must know, this had nothing to do with a business environment. I just happened to screw some things up in a dev environment that I figured I had better fix.