You mean... Running i386 Linux on i386 hardware? Hooray for innovation!
Er, no. I was actually referring to the badass media players I'd seen done for the platform by third-party developers that totally blow away the cruft that shipped with the system.
XBox Linux is a wank for platform geeks, like many of the other devices that Linux has been ported to just to prove it could be done. OTOH, a free (as in speech, not beer) OS on a powerful and cheap little system like XBox definitely has its practical merits, much to the chagrin of MS and their loss leader business model for system sales.
Perhaps, but it appears that the 'Box is sufficiently intriguing to Sony for them to emulate much of its functionality in this just-announced next gen flavor.
Sony put a hard drive bay in the original PS2. They don't seem to have any trouble holding the lead in the market so far without the drive itself. Quite simply, the game bandwith wasn't there in 1999 to justify the extra expense of including the drive and network adapter.
Maybe I'm out of touch, but isn't using XBox as a PVR w/ networking strictly an after-market mod? I was under the impression the built-in media player was pretty limited.
I just assumed PSX was reclaiming their original, well-known acronym for the PlayStation now that they've effectivey rebranded it PSOne.
a ya ya. Yawn !!! PSX adds 120GB,blah,blah,... PSX looks more like XBox than PSX. Follow the leader.
Give me a break. There is nothing "leading" about a DRMed PC in a fancy case mod. Oh, wait. That is exactly what Microsoft is redefning "innovation" to mean, isn't it?
The only real innovation in Xbox has been done "illegally" by modders.
A beautiful and refreshing series, until they sold out to the Xbox exclu$ive. I heard that Munch's Oddysee sucked, though.
I have to note that selling as an exclusive is not in itself bad, but given Oddworld's philosophical leaning, it was just too much to see them go to the Glukkon...
Thanks for the warning, but lighten up a little. It was a joke, not a troll. Adding paragraphs of serious disclaimer on my real opionion would detract from the humor. Think of it as a Swift to your Paine.
Believe me, I share your concerns and am active trying to be sure a grim future of a corporate-government controlled network doesn't come to pass. Keep up the good fight.
I know this isn't a very popular point of view 'round here, but going after the people "sharing" the works is actually what the copyright industry *should* be doing under their existing legal protections. What they are doing instead is trying to buy/manipulate the law to the point where they've turned our potentially liberating technology into an esophagus from the corporate content industry to the consumer. I for one, would prefer they prosecute offendors under their existing protections rather than turn our PCs and other computing devices into next-generation cable TVs...
I know I'm going way off topic and maybe even violating some kind of etiquette by commenting on your sig, but I have to note that it is probably the single most poignant commentary on the sick state of "Web development" I've ever read...
What?! You're blocking my god-given right to download material owned by the record labels over the network paid for by the company to the computer you gave me to do my work during the time you pay me for doing it! You thought-police system administrator's are going to be second against the wall (after the RIAA lobbyists) when the revolution comes! Information wants to be free, man!
I did a couple terms as a TA (before I got my research assistanceship, whoohoo!) and rather than keeping regular office hours (which I found to be generally pointless from the perspective of making my availability jive with the students) I just had an "open door" policy. That was when I learned what 5 AM looked like as a starting instead of ending point for the day, because shortly after adapting this policy, getting to the office before 6:00 was the only way I'd ever have any guaranteed time to get my own work done before the students rolled out.
Re:considered the father of Linux?
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 1
Given your username I have to ask: are you serious or just yanking my chain?
I didn't mean literally copy and paste, but if you copy and paste, then change some names or make minor porting changes, it is still a derivative work which may have been forbidden by the original source license and therefore open the door to prosecution.
This is why companies have such strict policies about what data a reverse engineering staff can be exposed to. For example, if you can observe an Intel chip and then create a compatible chip by duplicating its behavior's, you are legal, but if anyone on your staff has read confidential Intel specs and then applies that knowledge to your chip design, you risk a lawsuit.
Re:considered the father of Linux?
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 1
As discussed elsewhere in the thread, I am not entitled by my license to Windows XP to copy it, and that makes all the difference. I do, however, trust that I am entitled to copy Linux. What happens when I unknowingly copy the offending work along with it?
Re:considered the father of Linux?
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 1
Your point is certainly valid, but closed source systems typically do not come with a license to copy, derive, and redistribute, which is where I see the real trouble arising.
Re:Can the paranoia and defensiveness
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 1
I hope this makes sense to you because I feel like I'm babbling.;)
It definitely makes sense, but since w/ Linux/OSS the "consumers" are also frequently making copies, could their ability to make copies be undermined?
To work your analogy, as a purchaser of "My Sweet Lord", I would not be liable for the original infringement, but if I copied my disc, I would be liable for infringement of its license (assuming its license wasn't somehow invalidated by virtue of the earlier infringement). If I bought a "free music" CD w/ no liability for copying, yet one of the tracks on it was found to be in violation of an earlier copyright, would I lose my right to copy that track as part of the work?
Damn it. I enjoyed my work much more when everything didn't come down to some stupid lawyer game...
Re:Can the paranoia and defensiveness
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 1
Sorry for overreacting in my last post, but I feel very frustrated and sad that SCO is so successful with this pure FUD campaign.
You and me both, friend. Thanks for the apology and I do appreciate the input. SCO is doing a tremendous disservice to us by undermining OSS in the eyes of business people by representing it as a risky liability, and they deserve the ire they receive. I hope the suits will eventually reject this crap with the same vigor that we have...
Can the paranoia and defensiveness
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 1
Don't assume because I asked a question that I want it to be true. In fact I was very bothered by the suggestion because if it was it would threaten the hoarde of Linux systems in my office and home. Jeez...
My question wasn't meant to be whether users would be criminally liable, but whether the product they were using would be considered illegal and subject to any kind of claim by the copyright owner. In property law, one who purchases a stolen item isn't entitled to keep it once it is found to be hot, even if they bought it unaware.
Re:considered the father of Linux?
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
No, I mean in general, not just in this SCO case. Anyone contributing code could theoretically copy and paste unattributed commercial code into the system. Since it's proprietary, noone (say, on the kernel group) reviewing it would recognize it and it might get approved and passed into the kernel. The person who did the paste would certainly be guilty of copyright infringement, but is that liability passed on to every user of the infringing derivative work?
Rotten commercial troll. This site is an ad for Dumb and Dumberer.
Re:considered the father of Linux?
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
This SCO guy raises one really disturbing question. What if someone has, in the past or future, malicously or accidentally, injected proprietary code w/ copyright or patent entanglements, into core Linux systems? What are the implications for users who have no way of recognizing the code in violation? Is this really a serious flaw in the open source model?
I made a similar choice. While I was finishing up an undergrad degree in Physics/Astronomy, I got involved heavily in programming and, later, the Internet. I recognized that while I loved hard sciences and academia, the idea of a fat check for a job I could love was more compelling than several more years to the PhD, years of grading apathetic junior's 100 level science requirement, followed by failing to get tenure because the political winds favored someone else that semester.
So, I took a Masters in CS, hit the industry, bled the.coms dry, and now have a steady job with a small consulting company struggling to make it over the dry spell. I love programming as much as ever, but all my energy for it is now sapped on the corporate grind. Like you observed, were this not my day job, I'd probably also be making more of a contribution to the open source community. Frankly, I'm starting to look forward to a third career in another field so I can do this for fun again...
I wonder whether this will make getting software patents easier or harder, and whether people who failed to get a royalty patent go for one of these instead?
It will make no difference. W3C does not issue patents, governments do. The issue here is that patented work with non-free licenses will not be accepted as W3C standards.
OK, I'm content to be called a moron, but you've stepped over the line with this sheep business.
I do not wholeheartedly support the system, in fact I find many features of it completely repellent, and I take my action against those parts I don't support by being vocal against them and refusing to participate in them. I could just as easily say that criminals are important to the system because they provide justification for further crackdown by the corporate-government cabals that are currently running it, not to mention prison labor. So go ahead and be a criminal, it will help strengthen those you oppose.
It most definitely is tough shit when a creator sells out their copyright to corporate masters in exchange for short-term cash and glory. It is possible to work outside the corporate music system if you have the nuts to do it and are willing to give up the American Idol(TM) dream. To whit, consider Crass and Fugazi, or even more mainstream examples like the Grateful Dead who promoted tape trading. Oh, or do you want to listen to the corporate tripe and then rage against the machine that produced it?
The ironic thing is that I get the impression we agree on most of the principles, if not on the tactics. I just can't justify handing the corporate content monsters and their congressional hos power over our liberating technology, which is exactly what is happening when you strengthen the arguments of the **AAs by violating their copyrights.
I concede the copyright to the creators of the works, as is designed by our law. If those creators were foolish enough to hand their rights over to an unfeeling corporate monster in exchange for their fifteen minutes of fame, then tough shit for them when their work is mishandled. I own copyrights. I give my music away, but I as the creator deserve the right to make that decision, not you or any other pseudo anarchist.
The cop and the bus driver you describe are not doing their job. If they don't believe in the system, then their act of civil disobedience should be to not work for it. Then you equate vaporizing carcinogens in the presence of my children as an act of civil disobedience? Yeah, you and Union Carbide are such good citizens.
May you keep riding high on the technology and culture built by the protections you despise.
That's not entirely true. You can't go to the Try-n-Save and buy a bottle of cat poison.
What I meant to say was that I didn't expect the law would specifically differentiate genus and/or species, but tend instead to lump animals more coarsely.
Although a few states do not define the term "animal" in their anti-cruelty statutes, most states define it as every living creature except a human being. Some states, however, may exempt certain classes of animals from coverage under the statute. For example, Alaska's definition of animal does not include fish. Likewise, Delaware's statute does not include crustacea or molluska, and New Mexico's definition does not include insects or reptiles.
I note also that Georgia exempts pests, consistent with your observation of animals we dispose of w/ common traps/poisons.
Slashdot Mirror
Er, no. I was actually referring to the badass media players I'd seen done for the platform by third-party developers that totally blow away the cruft that shipped with the system.
XBox Linux is a wank for platform geeks, like many of the other devices that Linux has been ported to just to prove it could be done. OTOH, a free (as in speech, not beer) OS on a powerful and cheap little system like XBox definitely has its practical merits, much to the chagrin of MS and their loss leader business model for system sales.
Sony put a hard drive bay in the original PS2. They don't seem to have any trouble holding the lead in the market so far without the drive itself. Quite simply, the game bandwith wasn't there in 1999 to justify the extra expense of including the drive and network adapter.
Maybe I'm out of touch, but isn't using XBox as a PVR w/ networking strictly an after-market mod? I was under the impression the built-in media player was pretty limited.
I just assumed PSX was reclaiming their original, well-known acronym for the PlayStation now that they've effectivey rebranded it PSOne.
You're absolutely right. The media is controlled by a right-wing + corporate conspiracy.
Seriously, out of curiosity: how much reporting have you heard on Fox News about the pending rule changes at the FCC?
Give me a break. There is nothing "leading" about a DRMed PC in a fancy case mod. Oh, wait. That is exactly what Microsoft is redefning "innovation" to mean, isn't it?
The only real innovation in Xbox has been done "illegally" by modders.
A beautiful and refreshing series, until they sold out to the Xbox exclu$ive. I heard that Munch's Oddysee sucked, though.
I have to note that selling as an exclusive is not in itself bad, but given Oddworld's philosophical leaning, it was just too much to see them go to the Glukkon...
Thanks for the warning, but lighten up a little. It was a joke, not a troll. Adding paragraphs of serious disclaimer on my real opionion would detract from the humor. Think of it as a Swift to your Paine.
Believe me, I share your concerns and am active trying to be sure a grim future of a corporate-government controlled network doesn't come to pass. Keep up the good fight.
I know this isn't a very popular point of view 'round here, but going after the people "sharing" the works is actually what the copyright industry *should* be doing under their existing legal protections. What they are doing instead is trying to buy/manipulate the law to the point where they've turned our potentially liberating technology into an esophagus from the corporate content industry to the consumer. I for one, would prefer they prosecute offendors under their existing protections rather than turn our PCs and other computing devices into next-generation cable TVs...
I know I'm going way off topic and maybe even violating some kind of etiquette by commenting on your sig, but I have to note that it is probably the single most poignant commentary on the sick state of "Web development" I've ever read...
What?! You're blocking my god-given right to download material owned by the record labels over the network paid for by the company to the computer you gave me to do my work during the time you pay me for doing it! You thought-police system administrator's are going to be second against the wall (after the RIAA lobbyists) when the revolution comes! Information wants to be free, man!
I did a couple terms as a TA (before I got my research assistanceship, whoohoo!) and rather than keeping regular office hours (which I found to be generally pointless from the perspective of making my availability jive with the students) I just had an "open door" policy. That was when I learned what 5 AM looked like as a starting instead of ending point for the day, because shortly after adapting this policy, getting to the office before 6:00 was the only way I'd ever have any guaranteed time to get my own work done before the students rolled out.
Given your username I have to ask: are you serious or just yanking my chain?
I didn't mean literally copy and paste, but if you copy and paste, then change some names or make minor porting changes, it is still a derivative work which may have been forbidden by the original source license and therefore open the door to prosecution.
This is why companies have such strict policies about what data a reverse engineering staff can be exposed to. For example, if you can observe an Intel chip and then create a compatible chip by duplicating its behavior's, you are legal, but if anyone on your staff has read confidential Intel specs and then applies that knowledge to your chip design, you risk a lawsuit.
As discussed elsewhere in the thread, I am not entitled by my license to Windows XP to copy it, and that makes all the difference. I do, however, trust that I am entitled to copy Linux. What happens when I unknowingly copy the offending work along with it?
Your point is certainly valid, but closed source systems typically do not come with a license to copy, derive, and redistribute, which is where I see the real trouble arising.
It definitely makes sense, but since w/ Linux/OSS the "consumers" are also frequently making copies, could their ability to make copies be undermined?
To work your analogy, as a purchaser of "My Sweet Lord", I would not be liable for the original infringement, but if I copied my disc, I would be liable for infringement of its license (assuming its license wasn't somehow invalidated by virtue of the earlier infringement). If I bought a "free music" CD w/ no liability for copying, yet one of the tracks on it was found to be in violation of an earlier copyright, would I lose my right to copy that track as part of the work?
Damn it. I enjoyed my work much more when everything didn't come down to some stupid lawyer game...
You and me both, friend. Thanks for the apology and I do appreciate the input. SCO is doing a tremendous disservice to us by undermining OSS in the eyes of business people by representing it as a risky liability, and they deserve the ire they receive. I hope the suits will eventually reject this crap with the same vigor that we have...
Don't assume because I asked a question that I want it to be true. In fact I was very bothered by the suggestion because if it was it would threaten the hoarde of Linux systems in my office and home. Jeez...
My question wasn't meant to be whether users would be criminally liable, but whether the product they were using would be considered illegal and subject to any kind of claim by the copyright owner. In property law, one who purchases a stolen item isn't entitled to keep it once it is found to be hot, even if they bought it unaware.
No, I mean in general, not just in this SCO case. Anyone contributing code could theoretically copy and paste unattributed commercial code into the system. Since it's proprietary, noone (say, on the kernel group) reviewing it would recognize it and it might get approved and passed into the kernel. The person who did the paste would certainly be guilty of copyright infringement, but is that liability passed on to every user of the infringing derivative work?
Rotten commercial troll. This site is an ad for Dumb and Dumberer.
This SCO guy raises one really disturbing question. What if someone has, in the past or future, malicously or accidentally, injected proprietary code w/ copyright or patent entanglements, into core Linux systems? What are the implications for users who have no way of recognizing the code in violation? Is this really a serious flaw in the open source model?
I made a similar choice. While I was finishing up an undergrad degree in Physics/Astronomy, I got involved heavily in programming and, later, the Internet. I recognized that while I loved hard sciences and academia, the idea of a fat check for a job I could love was more compelling than several more years to the PhD, years of grading apathetic junior's 100 level science requirement, followed by failing to get tenure because the political winds favored someone else that semester.
.coms dry, and now have a steady job with a small consulting company struggling to make it over the dry spell. I love programming as much as ever, but all my energy for it is now sapped on the corporate grind. Like you observed, were this not my day job, I'd probably also be making more of a contribution to the open source community. Frankly, I'm starting to look forward to a third career in another field so I can do this for fun again...
So, I took a Masters in CS, hit the industry, bled the
Yeah, if Americans really knew anything about France and wanted to piss them off, we'd name more of our lousy food after them. ;-)
It will make no difference. W3C does not issue patents, governments do. The issue here is that patented work with non-free licenses will not be accepted as W3C standards.
OK, I'm content to be called a moron, but you've stepped over the line with this sheep business.
I do not wholeheartedly support the system, in fact I find many features of it completely repellent, and I take my action against those parts I don't support by being vocal against them and refusing to participate in them. I could just as easily say that criminals are important to the system because they provide justification for further crackdown by the corporate-government cabals that are currently running it, not to mention prison labor. So go ahead and be a criminal, it will help strengthen those you oppose.
It most definitely is tough shit when a creator sells out their copyright to corporate masters in exchange for short-term cash and glory. It is possible to work outside the corporate music system if you have the nuts to do it and are willing to give up the American Idol(TM) dream. To whit, consider Crass and Fugazi, or even more mainstream examples like the Grateful Dead who promoted tape trading. Oh, or do you want to listen to the corporate tripe and then rage against the machine that produced it?
The ironic thing is that I get the impression we agree on most of the principles, if not on the tactics. I just can't justify handing the corporate content monsters and their congressional hos power over our liberating technology, which is exactly what is happening when you strengthen the arguments of the **AAs by violating their copyrights.
I concede the copyright to the creators of the works, as is designed by our law. If those creators were foolish enough to hand their rights over to an unfeeling corporate monster in exchange for their fifteen minutes of fame, then tough shit for them when their work is mishandled. I own copyrights. I give my music away, but I as the creator deserve the right to make that decision, not you or any other pseudo anarchist.
The cop and the bus driver you describe are not doing their job. If they don't believe in the system, then their act of civil disobedience should be to not work for it. Then you equate vaporizing carcinogens in the presence of my children as an act of civil disobedience? Yeah, you and Union Carbide are such good citizens.
May you keep riding high on the technology and culture built by the protections you despise.
What I meant to say was that I didn't expect the law would specifically differentiate genus and/or species, but tend instead to lump animals more coarsely.
A little googling led me to this site that summarizes animal cruelty laws. A quote from the site:
I note also that Georgia exempts pests, consistent with your observation of animals we dispose of w/ common traps/poisons.