I used to go the the SCO Forums they held every year. The I heard customers saying it both ways, but "Sko" seemed to be more prevalent.
However, the SCO people always pronounced their company "Ess See Oh." During a meeting with our account representative, she flinched every time we said "Sko."
IANAPL, but from my reading, here's what this means:
Before the Festo case, the Doctrine of Equivalents meant that your patent covered minor variations on the patented item, and if you claimed infringement, it was up to the accused to prove they weren't infringing.
The Federal Circuit Court found in the Festo case that if you ammended your patent to narrow its scope during the patent process (and most patent are ammended), you were giving up all claims of "equivalence" and couldn't claim infringement on anything not specifically claimed on the patent.
The Supreme Court has restored the original doctrine, with 2 changes. One is that, since any ammendment to your patent potentially changes its scope, in an infringement claim you must prove the amendment didn't narrow your claims. Second, if your ammendment did narrow the scope of your claims, you lose all equivalency claims by default (like in the Festo ruling), and the burden now falls on you to prove the ammended patent still covers the claimed infringement.
So, its back to business as usual, except that infringers are now "innocent until proven guilty" - the burden falls on the patent holder to prove infringement, rather than on the accused to prove non-infringment.
If you look carefully at some of the original poster art for the movie "2001: A Space Odyssey", you'll see that one of the astronauts working on the moon is consulting what appears to be an oversized Palm Pilot (about the size of A4 paper). It has a large screen with a row of buttons along the bottom, in the exact same proportions as current Palms.
I haven't been able to find any graphics on the web that show it, but you can see it clearly on the back cover of the soundtrack album.
Its not really fair to compare the G4 and the P4, since the G4 was aimed at competing with the P3.
A more interesting comparison will be to pit the P4 against the comming G5.
According to the Register, Apple has begun seeding early G5's at up to 1.6GHz to key devlopers. Other sources are claiming limited yeilds in the 2.4GHz range already.
There's still bugs to be worked out before production ramps up for release early next year, and supposedly AltiVec will not be as strong on the G5 as it is in the G4. But at 2.4GHz on an already-superior FPU, who needs it?
Limiting the use of nanotech won't help. We can restrict legal uses of nanotech all we want ("only works in inert gasses", "only works under certain light", etc). It won't stop a single well-funded lunatic from ignoring those restrictions and setting loose self-replicating nanobots that work in open air and run amok, eating everything.
What we need to do is always know the state-of-the-art in nanotechnology, always consider the worst-possible-case, and build a failsafe against it.
The best safeguard, IMO, would be some kind of device that destroys all nanotech within its operating range. What kind of device? I don't know. Maybe an EM-pulse bomb tuned to a specific frequency known to destroy nanotech. Or anti-goo nanobots that seek out and destroy all other nanobots they contact, then self-destruct after a limited time.
The Cold War stayed cold because all powers had the ability to destroy all life on the planet with the press of a button. In the end, we need the similar ability with respect to nanotech - the ability to, at the press of a button, destroy all nanotech on the planet.
A far fetched, over-bearing, ominous weapon straight out of science-fiction, yes. But so is nanotech - for now. The only way to protect against nanotech being used as a weapon will be to posess the ability to destroy that weapon, utterly and completly.
if you could get the BeOS GUI to run on top of the linux kernel. What a product it could be!
It would a dog.
The things that made BeOS so great were its database-oriented filesystem, its pervasive multithreading, and the tight integration of multimedia into the OS. The BeOS GUI was clean and efficient, but no more or less so than most *nix window managers. What made it so desirable was the massive multimedia performance that was built into the core of the OS.
BeOS running over the Linux kernel would perform about as well as BeOS running under a virtual machine; you'd lose all that great low-level performance that stemmed from the tight hardware integration and optimization.
If you want the BeOS GUI, download one of the many BeOS themes available for $FAVORITE_WM. The end-user experience will be about the same as the "real" BeOS GUI on top of the Linux Kernel would be.
I'm sure the GNU zealots will start crying foul, but here's my take on it. Hear me out.
First of all, this is well within Caldera's right. Sure, they can't limit the distribution of the Free code in their distro, but they can charge for the value-added "total package" just as RedHat does. Only difference is, with RedHat you pay for the box, manuals, and support, but with Caldera you pay for the right to run the installer once:) I'll leave that to the GPL-nitpickers to figure out.
Secondly, I'll avoid making comments on the quality of Caldera's distros. I'm sure pleanty of other posters will do that for me.:)
But on to my point: Caldera's distros are aimed squarely at the business market. Businesses think in terms of business relationships. Businesses, in general, make their money by providing some value to customers in exchange for money. Therefore, it is extremely difficult for a businesses to comprehend that something can have value and yet and be free (as in beer).
If they're paying $50 a seat, however, they feel like they're entering into a business relationship with Caldera. Once money changes hands, there is the comforting feeling of mutual support. They are paying for the value that Caldera (presumably) provides. This is something that a business can comprehend.
IT departments are so accustomed to paying licencing fees that the concept that software can be had without them is utterly alien. Placing a per-seat licence paradoxically lends credibilty to Caldera in the IT manager's eyes.
Or maybe I'm wrong, and Caldera just shot themselves in the foot with both barrels.
(Consider also that Caldera has inherited SCO's user base, who are already painfully accustomed to paying per-user licences for OpenServer and UnixWare. Priced reasonably, this is still a major bargain and good incentive for SCO users to migrate to Linux.)
You shouldn't be asking which PDA to get withough stating why you need it, and more importantly, why you need a Linux PDA.
Personally, I can only see a few reasons why you as a student would need one:
To keep track of classes, assignements, etc. A PalmOS gadget will do this for you better and cheaper.
To support Linux. But remember, you're still buying WinCE with the iPaq.
To develop Linux apps for palmtops. This would be a valid reason to own a Linux PDA, if you're that serious about development. But if you were that serious, you wouldn't be asking/., would you?
To be l33t. If the price of an iPaq or Yopy is worth the l33tness you will feel, go for it.
Personally, I own a Visor. After spending 3 weeks playing with it, going "This is so cool!", I put it on the shelf and haven't touched it since. I discovered that I didn't really need it, I just taken in by its coolness.
If you truly need a PDA, then you probably already know what your specific needs in a PDA are, and you should act accordingly. If you're like I was, and just want it for the geek factor, you'll be wasting your money no matter what you buy.
Suppose you came up with a novel product/service for Linux. It turns out to be so good that Linux users are actually buying it. It runs on most distros. You're making making good money and a name for yourself in the community. People like you.
Now, you decide that you're going to branch off and do a Windows port. Hey, its a big market, right? So you hire on some Windows programmers and start up a Windows version...
... and it turns out to be a nightmare. You're struggling with the complete difference in the APIs, you're struggling with the differences among the versions of Windows, and as a result, your product is crappy on Windows. Furthermore, Windows users simply aren't buying it. You're spending more money on development than you're bringing in. You're losing money.
What would you do? Simple - ditch the Windows product, and tell your existing Windows customers that if they want to keep using your product/service, you recommend they switch to Linux.
ZeroKnowledge is simply focusing on profits, and they'd be remiss as a company if they didn't. There is no conspiracy. They simply had the intelligence to realize that, "Hey - our Linux product sucks and we're losing money on it," and act accordingly.
Slashdot Mirror
Once while visiting the crappy (now defunct) driving range, I found in the "pro shop" (full of used and no-name clubs), I kid you not:
A "UNIX System V" driver.
I am NOT making this up! I would have bought the club if it hadn't been terribly overpriced.
I used to go the the SCO Forums they held every year. The I heard customers saying it both ways, but "Sko" seemed to be more prevalent. However, the SCO people always pronounced their company "Ess See Oh." During a meeting with our account representative, she flinched every time we said "Sko."
Before the Festo case, the Doctrine of Equivalents meant that your patent covered minor variations on the patented item, and if you claimed infringement, it was up to the accused to prove they weren't infringing.
The Federal Circuit Court found in the Festo case that if you ammended your patent to narrow its scope during the patent process (and most patent are ammended), you were giving up all claims of "equivalence" and couldn't claim infringement on anything not specifically claimed on the patent.
The Supreme Court has restored the original doctrine, with 2 changes. One is that, since any ammendment to your patent potentially changes its scope, in an infringement claim you must prove the amendment didn't narrow your claims. Second, if your ammendment did narrow the scope of your claims, you lose all equivalency claims by default (like in the Festo ruling), and the burden now falls on you to prove the ammended patent still covers the claimed infringement.
So, its back to business as usual, except that infringers are now "innocent until proven guilty" - the burden falls on the patent holder to prove infringement, rather than on the accused to prove non-infringment.
What hasss it gotsss in itsss packetsss?
If you look carefully at some of the original poster art for the movie "2001: A Space Odyssey", you'll see that one of the astronauts working on the moon is consulting what appears to be an oversized Palm Pilot (about the size of A4 paper). It has a large screen with a row of buttons along the bottom, in the exact same proportions as current Palms.
I haven't been able to find any graphics on the web that show it, but you can see it clearly on the back cover of the soundtrack album.
A more interesting comparison will be to pit the P4 against the comming G5. According to the Register, Apple has begun seeding early G5's at up to 1.6GHz to key devlopers. Other sources are claiming limited yeilds in the 2.4GHz range already.
There's still bugs to be worked out before production ramps up for release early next year, and supposedly AltiVec will not be as strong on the G5 as it is in the G4. But at 2.4GHz on an already-superior FPU, who needs it?
Limiting the use of nanotech won't help. We can restrict legal uses of nanotech all we want ("only works in inert gasses", "only works under certain light", etc). It won't stop a single well-funded lunatic from ignoring those restrictions and setting loose self-replicating nanobots that work in open air and run amok, eating everything.
What we need to do is always know the state-of-the-art in nanotechnology, always consider the worst-possible-case, and build a failsafe against it.
The best safeguard, IMO, would be some kind of device that destroys all nanotech within its operating range. What kind of device? I don't know. Maybe an EM-pulse bomb tuned to a specific frequency known to destroy nanotech. Or anti-goo nanobots that seek out and destroy all other nanobots they contact, then self-destruct after a limited time.
The Cold War stayed cold because all powers had the ability to destroy all life on the planet with the press of a button. In the end, we need the similar ability with respect to nanotech - the ability to, at the press of a button, destroy all nanotech on the planet.
A far fetched, over-bearing, ominous weapon straight out of science-fiction, yes. But so is nanotech - for now. The only way to protect against nanotech being used as a weapon will be to posess the ability to destroy that weapon, utterly and completly.
It would be a dog.
It would a dog.
The things that made BeOS so great were its database-oriented filesystem, its pervasive multithreading, and the tight integration of multimedia into the OS. The BeOS GUI was clean and efficient, but no more or less so than most *nix window managers. What made it so desirable was the massive multimedia performance that was built into the core of the OS.
BeOS running over the Linux kernel would perform about as well as BeOS running under a virtual machine; you'd lose all that great low-level performance that stemmed from the tight hardware integration and optimization.
If you want the BeOS GUI, download one of the many BeOS themes available for $FAVORITE_WM. The end-user experience will be about the same as the "real" BeOS GUI on top of the Linux Kernel would be.
They're announcing it, not releasing it. Production won't begin until the second half of 2002.
Or how about their pockets?
Think about that next time you stick that disposable lighter full of compressed butane in your front pocket, inches the family jewels.
Steve Jobs promised "No new hardware at Expo Paris."
Looks like he'll be keeping his promise!
I definitely consider this "stuff that matters."
Total Katz Buzzword Index: +5
First of all, this is well within Caldera's right. Sure, they can't limit the distribution of the Free code in their distro, but they can charge for the value-added "total package" just as RedHat does. Only difference is, with RedHat you pay for the box, manuals, and support, but with Caldera you pay for the right to run the installer once :) I'll leave that to the GPL-nitpickers to figure out.
Secondly, I'll avoid making comments on the quality of Caldera's distros. I'm sure pleanty of other posters will do that for me. :)
But on to my point: Caldera's distros are aimed squarely at the business market. Businesses think in terms of business relationships. Businesses, in general, make their money by providing some value to customers in exchange for money. Therefore, it is extremely difficult for a businesses to comprehend that something can have value and yet and be free (as in beer).
If they're paying $50 a seat, however, they feel like they're entering into a business relationship with Caldera. Once money changes hands, there is the comforting feeling of mutual support. They are paying for the value that Caldera (presumably) provides. This is something that a business can comprehend.
IT departments are so accustomed to paying licencing fees that the concept that software can be had without them is utterly alien. Placing a per-seat licence paradoxically lends credibilty to Caldera in the IT manager's eyes.
Or maybe I'm wrong, and Caldera just shot themselves in the foot with both barrels.
(Consider also that Caldera has inherited SCO's user base, who are already painfully accustomed to paying per-user licences for OpenServer and UnixWare. Priced reasonably, this is still a major bargain and good incentive for SCO users to migrate to Linux.)
Personally, I can only see a few reasons why you as a student would need one:
Personally, I own a Visor. After spending 3 weeks playing with it, going "This is so cool!", I put it on the shelf and haven't touched it since. I discovered that I didn't really need it, I just taken in by its coolness. If you truly need a PDA, then you probably already know what your specific needs in a PDA are, and you should act accordingly. If you're like I was, and just want it for the geek factor, you'll be wasting your money no matter what you buy.
Suppose you came up with a novel product/service for Linux. It turns out to be so good that Linux users are actually buying it. It runs on most distros. You're making making good money and a name for yourself in the community. People like you.
Now, you decide that you're going to branch off and do a Windows port. Hey, its a big market, right? So you hire on some Windows programmers and start up a Windows version...
What would you do? Simple - ditch the Windows product, and tell your existing Windows customers that if they want to keep using your product/service, you recommend they switch to Linux.
ZeroKnowledge is simply focusing on profits, and they'd be remiss as a company if they didn't. There is no conspiracy. They simply had the intelligence to realize that, "Hey - our Linux product sucks and we're losing money on it," and act accordingly.
...save for albums from the largest studios, these systems cost more than the recording equipment used to make the recording you're listening to.