This kind of response is what I want: a blanket scheme where you can choose to pay (to a trusted government entity (1)) a blanket fee, in exchange for the right to download any works for personal noncommercial use during a specific time period. Needless to say, the fee needs to be reasonable. I believe $100-$200 per year is in the appropriate range.
Never, ever happen, my friend. The media companies want P2P and unlimited downloading to go away forever, since it is the antithesis of paying for media on a "pay-per-use" basis (their utopian goal).
They are looking for this fee not as implied consent for downloading media, but as punishment for presumed guilt for downloading media.
I'm beginning to suspect that SCO knows it will lose, and has no intention of this getting to a courtroom.
If the SCO/Microsoft conspiracy is correct, MS sics SCO to create a lot of hullabollu against Free software. Keep it up as long as possible. Then, when called to be accountable, go out of business without having anything resolved. Microsoft finds another sacrificial lamb, sues over another IP issue, another two years of FUD!
The only way this cycle is to be broken is to prove that MS is pulling the strings of the puppet. Somehow, I doubt that anything incriminating is on paper. Maybe a SCO executive (after the bankrupcy) can be investigated and threatened with a nice prison sentence unless be testifies?
Darl refuses to help the Linux developers remove the alleged copied code. Darl seems content to allow the alleged infringements to continue in perpetuity so as to line his own pockets. Linux will be destroyed by that act alone.
Obviously, this is the intent. If, as others (myself included) have surmised, Darl is acting on behalf of Microsoft, they want Free software to go away and never come back! Free software just keeps getting better, getting inexorably closer to its proprietary competition all the time. It is making software a less precious commodity for everyone, to the detriment of proprietary software vendors and to the benefit of everyone else. Since they can't effectively compete against it in an open market, the industry will fight back with the legal system.
I hope to God that the legal system is not snowed by this. I really don't think it will be (I'm really thankful that SCO was so stupid as to attack IBM, of all targets), but it is a critical time in the history of Free software.
I only hope that this comes to a definite, precident-setting conclusion, such that the issues of the legality of Free software can be addressed, instead of this limbo where asshat CEOs can spout ludirous platitudes and be given legitmacy by mainstream media. Alas, I doubt this will happen. SCO will continue this path, drag it out until they are just about forced into a courtroom to be accountable for their FUD, then quietly go out of business with no resolution to the issue. Just two years of angst perpetuated on Free software. Microsoft's mission accomplished. Then, another player with a legitimate-looking case for IP infringment will step forward and start the cycle all over again.
The only thing that could stop this is if a SCO sacrificial lamb executive is actually taken to task for Microsoft's alleged role in this drama. If threatened with PMITA prison, he may provide evidence of the conspiracy. Unfortunately, this will likely require the election of a new administration next year to be even remotely feasible.
by serving subpoenas to Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman, I'd say SCOs' PR strategy (via legal recourse) is aiming to discredit them as leftist/socialist/communist subversives (don't laugh) to the American pro-capitalist mainstream.
Hmmm, a VERY intriguing thought! This falls in well with the theory that Microsoft is pulling the strings at SCO. SCO goes down in flames after losing the legal battle, but GPL'd software (and all open-source software by association) loses a lot of luster in the publicity battle. If they can't kill free software with the legal system (yet), then they slow it down as much as possible until they CAN kill it with the legal system!
Sorry to have misread your position, but really, you never did make any point (that made sense) as to WHY you seem to feel that more conversion of PC users to Linux is a bad thing. Especially if you develop software for Linux! Far from bringing "competition", veteren Linux developers will be even more sought after if more people and companies adopt it. You should be the biggest cheerleader for more OSS adoption!
You've agreed with my positive consequences, and not disagreed with my points arguing your position. Have you changed your mind?
And I don't understand this why you need this l33t mentality of yours. Because by the content of your post, the desire to somehow hold your use of Linux over the "normal" crowd as being something to be proud of is the only valid reason you have for not wanting to see more widespread use.
i like the fact that because i run linux, i have more capability than the average windows joe. Fine, I accept that. I suggest you move on to the BSDs if you want to preserve your feelings of superiority. Or, even better, make some contributions to projects.
i like the fact that i am part of a technical movement that helps each other in times of need (newsgroups, forums). As long as the code is open, and people are free to invent and contribute, that will always be there. If the existing newbies haven't killed this, nothing will.
i like the fact that when my rights are threatened or otherwise, that it's this same group of folks that stand together (SCO?). Quite the opposite, there will only be more of the group that will stand together. Isn't this a good thing?
Look, there will always be "fringe" and bleeding edge things to do on Linux, even if it were to ever dominate the PC world. It's the nature of OSS: you can't tell anyone not to do what they want to do, regardless of what everyone else is doing. So you will always have new and cool things to play with in Linux. You just won't be able to laud it over your friends by saying "I use Linux! You use Windoze? LUSER!"
Compare this to the real advantages of a mass conversion of users away from Microsoft:
- less effective virus epidemics (due to more OS diversity) - fewer locked-in file formats (if vendors don't assume you use Windows, they can't ignore you) - reduced cost for software apps (if viable, legal alternatives are commonly used by a great many users, existing apps become cheaper to compete) - less spending on software by business, leading to more profit and/or cheaper product prices for companies. Sure, it's bad for one industry (proprietary software developers), but good for everyone else.
they might think that their linux case is a waste of time.. they MAY have stipulated that they don't use the 50 mil for that case...
Ummm, what else is SCO good for? Why would anyone invest 50 mil into a company with virtually no real sales to speak of? The only thing that SCO has going for it is a huge payoff (short and long term) if they happen to win these lawsuits.
Of course, the other main reason to suspect that this money will go straight to the lawsuit warchest is that Microsoft is quietly behind the investment with the express purpose of prolonging the FUD against Linux.
"My uncle has had the same axe for 30 years. He's changed the head twice, the handle six times, but dammit, it's the same axe!"
That's the way I feel about my original computer. Purchased in Sept. 1992, it was a 486-33, 4MB ram, 120MB HD, 5.25 & 3.5 floppies. It's still running. Well, sort of. Over the years I bought a sound card, modem, SCSI card, scanner, CD-ROM, then proceeded to replace everything original out of the box with newer replacements. Even the case is gone (power supply gone, couldn't find a replacement the right size).
There is ONE part left from the original: the 3.5 floppy. It's really yellow now, but the thing refuses to die.
Only then, I guess, will I be able to say that I have my own axe.
Like everyone here, I don't believe that there is a case. I could care less if IBM breached a contract with SCO: it won't affect free software once the infringments (if they exist) are released to be fixed. In any decision, I cannot fathom a scenario where SCO will be allowed to "win" in their battle against Linux.
Likewise, I also agree that the SCO execs are "pumping and dumping". Whether they will get away with it or not, time will tell.
But I think that the main source who is pulling the strings has GOT to be Microsoft. They have figured out that throwing FUD at Linux has not, and likely will never, help. Plus their lawyers have examined the GPL and likely come to the conclusion that it is completely unassailable.
Linux has been making steady progress and slowly taking market share from Microsoft. This comes at a time when MS has to start charging more for their products in order to grow revenues (since they have essentially no room to grow in terms of customers) and when they have virtually no new products of note ready for release in the next couple of years! This is a prime time for customers to look into Linux adoption.
How can MS stem the tide? They can't start directly hurling the legal scare tactics (probably get even Ashcroft looking at them in disapproval for that), so they quietly get the SCO execs on board, and get them to do their dirty work for them? Anyone think this is plausable?
I'm no fan of Microsoft, but they have proven many times over that they can screw up with a strategic decision, course correct without flinching and keep going forward. Witness their ignoring the Internet in the mid-90's: they (wrongly) guessed that the Internet was just a minor offshoot, and that AOL-style online service was the way to go. When Windows 95 was released, MSN was a proprietary online service, not an ISP. They realized damn quick that this was an error, and threw considerable resourses into fixing this. Now they're more of a juggernaut than ever before.
I see that over the next 10 years, the gap in polish and user-friendliness between open and MS products will continue to shrink, but will never be eliminated. The MS product will continue to be the more "end-user" friendly product (whether the user is home user, office drone, or administrator), simply because you really have to pay programmers to do that polishing job that OSS contributors will never be interested in doing.
That gap (as narrow as it may eventually become), coupled with legacy applications and just plain fear of change, will always be enough be give Microsoft a very comfortable customer base for the foreseable future (certainly longer than 10 years). Hopefully, they will be in a substantially less dominant position, and as such may even be a company that positively contributes to the advancement of open standards (much as IBM does now, after being very closed in their not-so-distant, dominant, past).
So don't go planning the "Microsoft bankruptcy party" anytime soon. They've got smart people: they've been adapting to the unique threat that OSS faces, and they'll continue to adapt as they have to.
Just an aside, I believe that you may be correct about the US being somehow "forced" to use Microsoft software. Since OSS cannot be purchased or bankrupted, the only other way to make OSS "go away" (Microsoft's preferred state) is to litigate it into oblivion. The US seems to be the only country that would concivably be willing to let this happen.
They're not suing because they don't need to sue. Thus far, every notable GPL violation (one which was proven and the author cared) has been settled without filing a lawsuit.
Think about it. Isn't settling things amicably better than instantly suing the bejeezes out of the offending party? I know it doesn't make for as interesting Slashdot reading (like SCO is), but it is a more just, fair, and sensible way to proceed.
This sounds great, in theory. It would be wonderful if our entire society was based on the premise that we don't need to keep secrets, that we can trust everyone with the most basic information of our lives. Unfortunately, we don't. We live in a world of people who will use our information to benefit themselves at the expense of us.
It comes down to choice. I want to be free to choose to reveal what I want about myself. Eventually, we may all choose that we want to have total transparency, as you suggest. I agree, the world will be a wonderful place when that happens: it means that we will, by nature of mankind's maturity, no longer fear others doing harm to us.
But until we are all ready for such a world, I value privacy. What others don't know about me, can't harm me: what others do know about you, can harm you. Let's look at your example:
I don't care if everyone knows what I ate yesterday, or where I went, or who I fucked, or how much money I have.
Really? You don't think you will ever come into contact with someone who has power over you (boss, landlord, banker, cop, etc.) and is swayed by their personal biases? - Someone who is a zealous vegetarian (assuming you ate a steak)? - Someone who hates Asians (assuming you went to Chinatown)? - Someone who is a prude (assuming you fucked someone who is not your wife)? - Someone who thinks you spend too much money (assuming your savings are not in line with your income)? You *really* don't care if these people know everything about you? You trust in your fellow citizens that much?
I agree with your comment of secret organizations holding your information, and how this is a bad thing. It is also a bad thing for commercial and personal interests to have the same access. For now, I prefer to do what is required to maintain my privacy from *all* of these sources!
I'll fight for privacy until we no longer require it!
IBM/Lexmark quit making them a while ago, so they are a little hard to find.
I'm sure there are similar stores where you live. Here in Toronto, there's Goodwill (charity run) and Value Village (for profit, but supports charities), as well as ton of other chains and independants. These places resell other people's used stuff. Mostly clothes, but there's always a wall of random technology at these places (phones, stereos, computers, etc.)
There's always a pile of keyboards there, and invariably theres one or two Model M keyboards to be found. I've built a stockpile of over a dozen of them. A few have keycaps missing, but that's why you buy extras! I've never paid more than $2.99 CDN for one, and as you'd expect they're as solid and bulletproof as ever.
Someday I'll put them on eBay. By the way, you can always find them there, too. Just cost you a lot more, though.
Hope the fellow in Australia doesn't mind a mild Slashdotting, but I found this very thorough HOWTO on a possible setup for you. It consists of RedHat9, Postfix for SMTP, Maildrop (not procmail) for delivery, and Courier-IMAP for the server.
Can't attest to its accuracy (haven't followed it), but it might be a good guide.
As always, Linus rocks!
on
Back To SCO
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
...but we wait with bated breath for when you will actually care to inform us about what you are blathering about.
Once again, a quip from Linus that is wickedly funny. The perfect combination of politeness and dry sarcasm that never fails to make me chuckle.
I really ought to read his autobiography. I bet I'd find it hysterical, especially if he was a bit pissed off while writing it.
I've been struggling with the same issue as I prepare my resume.
Sadly, at least in most of my experience, Word documents are becoming a requirement for submitting resumes. A large proportion state right in the application that only a.doc will do.
Why? I asked a headhunter this, thinking that it was simple laziness on employers' parts. He told me, though, that there are some tools that large employers use that parse through a directory full of Word documents looking for keywords: these tools are used to reduce the submissions without a human even reading them all. Of course, these tools only work if all documents are in the same readable format, so a PDF would be rejected.
I'm not sure why you're so upset with KDE projects in particular. Free software is full of "cute" names: to make the whole bunch of them sound "professional" would affect a lot more than KDE.
Given this situation, I rather like KDE's project names. It makes it easier to tell that they are, in fact, KDE applications.
If the names are so bothersome, I'm sure you could just fork all the projects so you can rename them!
As you pointed out, this will not theoretically get to court for a long time. It won't EVER get to court for the following reasons:
a) SCO goes bankrupt following collapse of sales and goodwill, and no one buying into their extorsion scheme, not to mention legal bills, or b) SCO implodes following SEC investigations of criminal activity of its executives, or c) SCO loses their lawsuit against IBM (the contract dispute), which essentially nullifies the need for IBM's coutersuit (the GPL and patent dispute).
SCO won't last into the new year, that's my personal feeling. They sure as hell won't last to 2005 (the court date for their suit).
So, in short, NO this is not going to be the long-awaited test of the GPL in court. That will only come when two deep-pocketed goliaths lock horns: one whose business bocomes dependant on OSS (IBM) and one whose business becomes obsolete because of OSS (Microsoft). Mark my words, if it happens, it'll be between these two.
Kids nowadays grown up with computers all around, so it's going to be easier to solve stuff later on as the general population slowly becomes more tech-savvy.
Are they really more savvy, or just accostomed to executing a different set of tasks than the previous generation? As computers get more complex over time, is your average computer user today really equipped to handle learning the new tech?
I might actually propose that the opposite may be the case. As computers become more "appliance-like" for average users, all the scary configuration stuff will be even more mysterious to an average user than they are today.
Look at the history. It used to be that computers were very difficult to use: you had to be a qualified expert to use one. Typically, if you were dedicated enough to learn to use the thing, you also learned enough along the way to be able to fix it as well, or at least be helpful to someone supporting him/her. Today, the average user uses Windows, which is somewhat easy enough for non-savvy people to use, but the expectation is there that things will break and they will have to change some stuff around to "make it work" again. In the future, I would wager that the average user will be completely incapable of (or not permitted to) making any changes to a computer's workings.
The analogy is, once again, the automobile. Early on, old timers refused to have anything to do with cars, and if they tried they'd fail, while the early adopters had a steep learing curve on how to drive and maintain the car. Later (30's-40's), anyone who owned a car had a neighbour who was an expert on maintaining it, while the rest relied on just learning to drive. Now, it is very rare indeed that you can find anyone outside of the "customer service" ranks (a garage) who has any inkling on what to do if something breaks, or for that matter on what some of the technology under the hood is doing in the first place!
To the companies, the choice is simple: Either throw away this game that nobody (they think) cares about, or let a bunch of geeks buy it off them for some money.
This is where the problem lies. True, the old game is earning them nothing, and it might earn them a tiny amount one last time by selling off the rights. But long term, releasing this IP could end up costing them money, because the more "competition" there is out there for their current product, the less profitable the current product may be.
Not that I necessarily agree that this is the case. But that's what the rights holders to these games (if they are still in the video game industry) will probably be thinking.
This is similar to the thinking of early movie producers when the copyrights on their archived movies was about to expire (you know, the good old days when copyright actually DID expire). The producers would destroy their originals and all copies in their posession, so that it would not go public domain and become competition to their new movies.
If the GPL isn't a viable license (...) , ownership of the code reverts to the original copyright holders. This means SCO would still have no legal right to charge money for the Linux kernel since most (all?) of the code isn't theirs to sell.
Exactly what SCO's silent partner (Microsoft) would love to see happen! Legally distributing Linux is not the point: the point is to make Linux illegal to distribute. Destroying the GPL would do exactly that.
I do agree with you that this point is likely moot: the GPL cannot be made illegal, there is no reason for it to be found so. Still, in Microsoft's dreams, it would certainly solve a lot of their problems.
Where, precisely, in the laws of the USA does it state that end users are liable for copyright infringement?
You're absolutely right: it isn't in there anywhere. That's why they can't sue any end users for copyright infringment, and never will.
What they are doing is making loud noises about taking end users to task, but making no indication about how they plan to do so. Why? Because they can't and won't! They only want everyone to think they can.
As endless others have pointed out, SCO's (probable) reasons for their current actions are:
pumping up the stock for the shareholders,
making themselves so annoying that someone (IBM) will buy them,
someone (Microsoft) is quietly pulling the strings, since litigation and FUD are the only weapons that have any effect on OSS's rate of growth.
Bottom line, end users have no risk of getting sued by SCO. Adoption of Linux may be hurt by all of this for a while, but even if it goes all the way to a 2005 court date, Linux will be vindicated.
And just for the record, since I seem to be talking to some one so much wiser than I, why can I run KDE and Knoppix on this system, and why can the Red Hat installer run in GUI mode, if as you say I can't install XFree86 on the same hardware???
Smarmy attitude aside...
I never said that you couldn't install Linux (any distro) on your older machine. Linux can be made to run on most any piece of hardware you can imagine, if you or your distro hacks it well enough. Obviously, the installer included with Knoppix happens to do a better job of identifying your hardware than any other distro you've tried. Bully for Knoppix. It's a great package for doing exactly that: booting quickly and easily on any number of machines.
And yes, I have installed many versions of Windows
Ever install Windows on a PC 7-8 years older than the publication date? If you did, bet it didn't turn out very well, either.
And again, I'm not the only one wanting to do this or not expecting to have to buy new hardware just to start running Linux.
Then dual-boot on one of your other newer systems! Please don't base your entire exposure to Linux, and how it compares so poorly to Windows, when you are handicapping it so much!
As far as various Linux installers not telling you ahead of time that your hardware may not be up to snuff, I'll grant you that point. But it's a very small point. Look at it another way: when Windows installer stops your installation because your hardware doesn't meet its minimums, you can be darned sure that the real minumum is way lower than the installer's cutoff. Windows simply won't let you install on a platform that is going to likely cause operational problems. Linux installers, on the other hand, assume that you can (and want to) tinker with the system if you can't boot, rather than simply refuse to let you continue.
I won't argue that installing Linux is painless, even on newer hardware. But you won't know until you try, and from what I've seen you haven't really given it a fair shot.
Besides, we're comparing Linux to Windows on ease of installation, for crying out loud! Exactly how important is this comparison to an average user, to the users you have installed Windows for? They've never seen an OS get installed, and likely don't care how easy it is to do. What matters is (what the linked story was doing), how good are the OSs after they are configured and running. Period.
Okay, you're being very unfair by trying to install a modern installation of Linux on an ancient PC. It's quite obvious that if you wanted to fairly compare, you'd also try to install XP on this old machine.
Seriously, try to install one of the current distros on a halfway newish PC. Mine's a K6-2 450MHz, 256Mb RAM (certainly no spring chicken), and all three major newbie distros (RedHat, Mandrake, and SuSE) and all installed like a charm.
None of this matters as long as the average user can't install Linux and KDE.
You do realize, of course, that Windows is not exactly simple to install. Or is it that you've never installed it (because it was preinstalled on your computer when you bought it)? On a similarly modern PC, I think you'll find that a Linux install is actually easier than XP's.
I consider myself far from an average user, but I'm still having problems getting Linux/XFree86/KDE installed on a system.
Yet you're surprised that installing a new OS on a 7-8 year old PC is troublesome? I would say that an "average" user would come to this conclusion quite easily.
start suing thousands upon thousands of music listeners
The point is that they *won't* start suing thousands of listeners. The only ones that will be sued (and made examples of) will be the really hard-core geek that will easy to publicly spin as an "antisocial" "hacker" (in other words, the class of citizenry that ordinary people think they would rather not have around anyways). Extra bonus points to the RIAA if they find an RMS-like dweeb who is proud to try to explain his actions while sounding like a lunatic in the process.
All the ordinary people will be left alone.
As another poster pointed out, the intent is not to actually sue all the users of P2P, but rather to ramp up another attempt to regulate/control P2P. That way, they fix the problem without going after users individually.
Slashdot Mirror
This kind of response is what I want: a blanket scheme where you can choose to pay (to a trusted government entity (1)) a blanket fee, in exchange for the right to download any works for personal noncommercial use during a specific time period. Needless to say, the fee needs to be reasonable. I believe $100-$200 per year is in the appropriate range.
Never, ever happen, my friend. The media companies want P2P and unlimited downloading to go away forever, since it is the antithesis of paying for media on a "pay-per-use" basis (their utopian goal).
They are looking for this fee not as implied consent for downloading media, but as punishment for presumed guilt for downloading media.
I'm beginning to suspect that SCO knows it will lose, and has no intention of this getting to a courtroom.
If the SCO/Microsoft conspiracy is correct, MS sics SCO to create a lot of hullabollu against Free software. Keep it up as long as possible. Then, when called to be accountable, go out of business without having anything resolved. Microsoft finds another sacrificial lamb, sues over another IP issue, another two years of FUD!
The only way this cycle is to be broken is to prove that MS is pulling the strings of the puppet. Somehow, I doubt that anything incriminating is on paper. Maybe a SCO executive (after the bankrupcy) can be investigated and threatened with a nice prison sentence unless be testifies?
Darl refuses to help the Linux developers remove the alleged copied code. Darl seems content to allow the alleged infringements to continue in perpetuity so as to line his own pockets. Linux will be destroyed by that act alone.
Obviously, this is the intent. If, as others (myself included) have surmised, Darl is acting on behalf of Microsoft, they want Free software to go away and never come back! Free software just keeps getting better, getting inexorably closer to its proprietary competition all the time. It is making software a less precious commodity for everyone, to the detriment of proprietary software vendors and to the benefit of everyone else. Since they can't effectively compete against it in an open market, the industry will fight back with the legal system.
I hope to God that the legal system is not snowed by this. I really don't think it will be (I'm really thankful that SCO was so stupid as to attack IBM, of all targets), but it is a critical time in the history of Free software.
I only hope that this comes to a definite, precident-setting conclusion, such that the issues of the legality of Free software can be addressed, instead of this limbo where asshat CEOs can spout ludirous platitudes and be given legitmacy by mainstream media. Alas, I doubt this will happen. SCO will continue this path, drag it out until they are just about forced into a courtroom to be accountable for their FUD, then quietly go out of business with no resolution to the issue. Just two years of angst perpetuated on Free software. Microsoft's mission accomplished. Then, another player with a legitimate-looking case for IP infringment will step forward and start the cycle all over again.
The only thing that could stop this is if a SCO sacrificial lamb executive is actually taken to task for Microsoft's alleged role in this drama. If threatened with PMITA prison, he may provide evidence of the conspiracy. Unfortunately, this will likely require the election of a new administration next year to be even remotely feasible.
by serving subpoenas to Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman, I'd say SCOs' PR strategy (via legal recourse) is aiming to discredit them as leftist/socialist/communist subversives (don't laugh) to the American pro-capitalist mainstream.
Hmmm, a VERY intriguing thought! This falls in well with the theory that Microsoft is pulling the strings at SCO. SCO goes down in flames after losing the legal battle, but GPL'd software (and all open-source software by association) loses a lot of luster in the publicity battle. If they can't kill free software with the legal system (yet), then they slow it down as much as possible until they CAN kill it with the legal system!
Sorry to have misread your position, but really, you never did make any point (that made sense) as to WHY you seem to feel that more conversion of PC users to Linux is a bad thing. Especially if you develop software for Linux! Far from bringing "competition", veteren Linux developers will be even more sought after if more people and companies adopt it. You should be the biggest cheerleader for more OSS adoption!
You've agreed with my positive consequences, and not disagreed with my points arguing your position. Have you changed your mind?
And I don't understand this why you need this l33t mentality of yours. Because by the content of your post, the desire to somehow hold your use of Linux over the "normal" crowd as being something to be proud of is the only valid reason you have for not wanting to see more widespread use.
i like the fact that because i run linux, i have more capability than the average windows joe.
Fine, I accept that. I suggest you move on to the BSDs if you want to preserve your feelings of superiority. Or, even better, make some contributions to projects.
i like the fact that i am part of a technical movement that helps each other in times of need (newsgroups, forums).
As long as the code is open, and people are free to invent and contribute, that will always be there. If the existing newbies haven't killed this, nothing will.
i like the fact that when my rights are threatened or otherwise, that it's this same group of folks that stand together (SCO?).
Quite the opposite, there will only be more of the group that will stand together. Isn't this a good thing?
Look, there will always be "fringe" and bleeding edge things to do on Linux, even if it were to ever dominate the PC world. It's the nature of OSS: you can't tell anyone not to do what they want to do, regardless of what everyone else is doing. So you will always have new and cool things to play with in Linux. You just won't be able to laud it over your friends by saying "I use Linux! You use Windoze? LUSER!"
Compare this to the real advantages of a mass conversion of users away from Microsoft:
- less effective virus epidemics (due to more OS diversity)
- fewer locked-in file formats (if vendors don't assume you use Windows, they can't ignore you)
- reduced cost for software apps (if viable, legal alternatives are commonly used by a great many users, existing apps become cheaper to compete)
- less spending on software by business, leading to more profit and/or cheaper product prices for companies. Sure, it's bad for one industry (proprietary software developers), but good for everyone else.
So, in conclusion, "continue the conversion!"
they might think that their linux case is a waste of time.. they MAY have stipulated that they don't use the 50 mil for that case...
Ummm, what else is SCO good for? Why would anyone invest 50 mil into a company with virtually no real sales to speak of? The only thing that SCO has going for it is a huge payoff (short and long term) if they happen to win these lawsuits.
Of course, the other main reason to suspect that this money will go straight to the lawsuit warchest is that Microsoft is quietly behind the investment with the express purpose of prolonging the FUD against Linux.
"My uncle has had the same axe for 30 years. He's changed the head twice, the handle six times, but dammit, it's the same axe!"
That's the way I feel about my original computer. Purchased in Sept. 1992, it was a 486-33, 4MB ram, 120MB HD, 5.25 & 3.5 floppies. It's still running. Well, sort of. Over the years I bought a sound card, modem, SCSI card, scanner, CD-ROM, then proceeded to replace everything original out of the box with newer replacements. Even the case is gone (power supply gone, couldn't find a replacement the right size).
There is ONE part left from the original: the 3.5 floppy. It's really yellow now, but the thing refuses to die.
Only then, I guess, will I be able to say that I have my own axe.
Like everyone here, I don't believe that there is a case. I could care less if IBM breached a contract with SCO: it won't affect free software once the infringments (if they exist) are released to be fixed. In any decision, I cannot fathom a scenario where SCO will be allowed to "win" in their battle against Linux.
Likewise, I also agree that the SCO execs are "pumping and dumping". Whether they will get away with it or not, time will tell.
But I think that the main source who is pulling the strings has GOT to be Microsoft. They have figured out that throwing FUD at Linux has not, and likely will never, help. Plus their lawyers have examined the GPL and likely come to the conclusion that it is completely unassailable.
Linux has been making steady progress and slowly taking market share from Microsoft. This comes at a time when MS has to start charging more for their products in order to grow revenues (since they have essentially no room to grow in terms of customers) and when they have virtually no new products of note ready for release in the next couple of years! This is a prime time for customers to look into Linux adoption.
How can MS stem the tide? They can't start directly hurling the legal scare tactics (probably get even Ashcroft looking at them in disapproval for that), so they quietly get the SCO execs on board, and get them to do their dirty work for them? Anyone think this is plausable?
I'm no fan of Microsoft, but they have proven many times over that they can screw up with a strategic decision, course correct without flinching and keep going forward. Witness their ignoring the Internet in the mid-90's: they (wrongly) guessed that the Internet was just a minor offshoot, and that AOL-style online service was the way to go. When Windows 95 was released, MSN was a proprietary online service, not an ISP. They realized damn quick that this was an error, and threw considerable resourses into fixing this. Now they're more of a juggernaut than ever before.
I see that over the next 10 years, the gap in polish and user-friendliness between open and MS products will continue to shrink, but will never be eliminated. The MS product will continue to be the more "end-user" friendly product (whether the user is home user, office drone, or administrator), simply because you really have to pay programmers to do that polishing job that OSS contributors will never be interested in doing.
That gap (as narrow as it may eventually become), coupled with legacy applications and just plain fear of change, will always be enough be give Microsoft a very comfortable customer base for the foreseable future (certainly longer than 10 years). Hopefully, they will be in a substantially less dominant position, and as such may even be a company that positively contributes to the advancement of open standards (much as IBM does now, after being very closed in their not-so-distant, dominant, past).
So don't go planning the "Microsoft bankruptcy party" anytime soon. They've got smart people: they've been adapting to the unique threat that OSS faces, and they'll continue to adapt as they have to.
Just an aside, I believe that you may be correct about the US being somehow "forced" to use Microsoft software. Since OSS cannot be purchased or bankrupted, the only other way to make OSS "go away" (Microsoft's preferred state) is to litigate it into oblivion. The US seems to be the only country that would concivably be willing to let this happen.
They're not suing because they don't need to sue. Thus far, every notable GPL violation (one which was proven and the author cared) has been settled without filing a lawsuit.
Think about it. Isn't settling things amicably better than instantly suing the bejeezes out of the offending party? I know it doesn't make for as interesting Slashdot reading (like SCO is), but it is a more just, fair, and sensible way to proceed.
This sounds great, in theory. It would be wonderful if our entire society was based on the premise that we don't need to keep secrets, that we can trust everyone with the most basic information of our lives. Unfortunately, we don't. We live in a world of people who will use our information to benefit themselves at the expense of us.
It comes down to choice. I want to be free to choose to reveal what I want about myself. Eventually, we may all choose that we want to have total transparency, as you suggest. I agree, the world will be a wonderful place when that happens: it means that we will, by nature of mankind's maturity, no longer fear others doing harm to us.
But until we are all ready for such a world, I value privacy. What others don't know about me, can't harm me: what others do know about you, can harm you. Let's look at your example:
I don't care if everyone knows what I ate yesterday, or where I went, or who I fucked, or how much money I have.
Really? You don't think you will ever come into contact with someone who has power over you (boss, landlord, banker, cop, etc.) and is swayed by their personal biases?
- Someone who is a zealous vegetarian (assuming you ate a steak)?
- Someone who hates Asians (assuming you went to Chinatown)?
- Someone who is a prude (assuming you fucked someone who is not your wife)?
- Someone who thinks you spend too much money (assuming your savings are not in line with your income)?
You *really* don't care if these people know everything about you? You trust in your fellow citizens that much?
I agree with your comment of secret organizations holding your information, and how this is a bad thing. It is also a bad thing for commercial and personal interests to have the same access. For now, I prefer to do what is required to maintain my privacy from *all* of these sources!
I'll fight for privacy until we no longer require it!
IBM/Lexmark quit making them a while ago, so they are a little hard to find.
I'm sure there are similar stores where you live. Here in Toronto, there's Goodwill (charity run) and Value Village (for profit, but supports charities), as well as ton of other chains and independants. These places resell other people's used stuff. Mostly clothes, but there's always a wall of random technology at these places (phones, stereos, computers, etc.)
There's always a pile of keyboards there, and invariably theres one or two Model M keyboards to be found. I've built a stockpile of over a dozen of them. A few have keycaps missing, but that's why you buy extras! I've never paid more than $2.99 CDN for one, and as you'd expect they're as solid and bulletproof as ever.
Someday I'll put them on eBay. By the way, you can always find them there, too. Just cost you a lot more, though.
Hope the fellow in Australia doesn't mind a mild Slashdotting, but I found this very thorough HOWTO on a possible setup for you. It consists of RedHat9, Postfix for SMTP, Maildrop (not procmail) for delivery, and Courier-IMAP for the server.
Can't attest to its accuracy (haven't followed it), but it might be a good guide.
Once again, a quip from Linus that is wickedly funny. The perfect combination of politeness and dry sarcasm that never fails to make me chuckle.
I really ought to read his autobiography. I bet I'd find it hysterical, especially if he was a bit pissed off while writing it.
I've been struggling with the same issue as I prepare my resume.
.doc will do.
Sadly, at least in most of my experience, Word documents are becoming a requirement for submitting resumes. A large proportion state right in the application that only a
Why? I asked a headhunter this, thinking that it was simple laziness on employers' parts. He told me, though, that there are some tools that large employers use that parse through a directory full of Word documents looking for keywords: these tools are used to reduce the submissions without a human even reading them all. Of course, these tools only work if all documents are in the same readable format, so a PDF would be rejected.
I'm not sure why you're so upset with KDE projects in particular. Free software is full of "cute" names: to make the whole bunch of them sound "professional" would affect a lot more than KDE.
Given this situation, I rather like KDE's project names. It makes it easier to tell that they are, in fact, KDE applications.
If the names are so bothersome, I'm sure you could just fork all the projects so you can rename them!
As you pointed out, this will not theoretically get to court for a long time. It won't EVER get to court for the following reasons:
a) SCO goes bankrupt following collapse of sales and goodwill, and no one buying into their extorsion scheme, not to mention legal bills, or
b) SCO implodes following SEC investigations of criminal activity of its executives, or
c) SCO loses their lawsuit against IBM (the contract dispute), which essentially nullifies the need for IBM's coutersuit (the GPL and patent dispute).
SCO won't last into the new year, that's my personal feeling. They sure as hell won't last to 2005 (the court date for their suit).
So, in short, NO this is not going to be the long-awaited test of the GPL in court. That will only come when two deep-pocketed goliaths lock horns: one whose business bocomes dependant on OSS (IBM) and one whose business becomes obsolete because of OSS (Microsoft). Mark my words, if it happens, it'll be between these two.
Kids nowadays grown up with computers all around, so it's going to be easier to solve stuff later on as the general population slowly becomes more tech-savvy.
Are they really more savvy, or just accostomed to executing a different set of tasks than the previous generation? As computers get more complex over time, is your average computer user today really equipped to handle learning the new tech?
I might actually propose that the opposite may be the case. As computers become more "appliance-like" for average users, all the scary configuration stuff will be even more mysterious to an average user than they are today.
Look at the history. It used to be that computers were very difficult to use: you had to be a qualified expert to use one. Typically, if you were dedicated enough to learn to use the thing, you also learned enough along the way to be able to fix it as well, or at least be helpful to someone supporting him/her. Today, the average user uses Windows, which is somewhat easy enough for non-savvy people to use, but the expectation is there that things will break and they will have to change some stuff around to "make it work" again. In the future, I would wager that the average user will be completely incapable of (or not permitted to) making any changes to a computer's workings.
The analogy is, once again, the automobile. Early on, old timers refused to have anything to do with cars, and if they tried they'd fail, while the early adopters had a steep learing curve on how to drive and maintain the car. Later (30's-40's), anyone who owned a car had a neighbour who was an expert on maintaining it, while the rest relied on just learning to drive. Now, it is very rare indeed that you can find anyone outside of the "customer service" ranks (a garage) who has any inkling on what to do if something breaks, or for that matter on what some of the technology under the hood is doing in the first place!
To the companies, the choice is simple: Either throw away this game that nobody (they think) cares about, or let a bunch of geeks buy it off them for some money.
This is where the problem lies. True, the old game is earning them nothing, and it might earn them a tiny amount one last time by selling off the rights. But long term, releasing this IP could end up costing them money, because the more "competition" there is out there for their current product, the less profitable the current product may be.
Not that I necessarily agree that this is the case. But that's what the rights holders to these games (if they are still in the video game industry) will probably be thinking.
This is similar to the thinking of early movie producers when the copyrights on their archived movies was about to expire (you know, the good old days when copyright actually DID expire). The producers would destroy their originals and all copies in their posession, so that it would not go public domain and become competition to their new movies.
If the GPL isn't a viable license (...) , ownership of the code reverts to the original copyright holders. This means SCO would still have no legal right to charge money for the Linux kernel since most (all?) of the code isn't theirs to sell.
Exactly what SCO's silent partner (Microsoft) would love to see happen! Legally distributing Linux is not the point: the point is to make Linux illegal to distribute. Destroying the GPL would do exactly that.
I do agree with you that this point is likely moot: the GPL cannot be made illegal, there is no reason for it to be found so. Still, in Microsoft's dreams, it would certainly solve a lot of their problems.
You're absolutely right: it isn't in there anywhere. That's why they can't sue any end users for copyright infringment, and never will.
What they are doing is making loud noises about taking end users to task, but making no indication about how they plan to do so. Why? Because they can't and won't! They only want everyone to think they can.
As endless others have pointed out, SCO's (probable) reasons for their current actions are:
Bottom line, end users have no risk of getting sued by SCO. Adoption of Linux may be hurt by all of this for a while, but even if it goes all the way to a 2005 court date, Linux will be vindicated.
And just for the record, since I seem to be talking to some one so much wiser than I, why can I run KDE and Knoppix on this system, and why can the Red Hat installer run in GUI mode, if as you say I can't install XFree86 on the same hardware???
Smarmy attitude aside...
I never said that you couldn't install Linux (any distro) on your older machine. Linux can be made to run on most any piece of hardware you can imagine, if you or your distro hacks it well enough. Obviously, the installer included with Knoppix happens to do a better job of identifying your hardware than any other distro you've tried. Bully for Knoppix. It's a great package for doing exactly that: booting quickly and easily on any number of machines.
And yes, I have installed many versions of Windows
Ever install Windows on a PC 7-8 years older than the publication date? If you did, bet it didn't turn out very well, either.
And again, I'm not the only one wanting to do this or not expecting to have to buy new hardware just to start running Linux.
Then dual-boot on one of your other newer systems! Please don't base your entire exposure to Linux, and how it compares so poorly to Windows, when you are handicapping it so much!
As far as various Linux installers not telling you ahead of time that your hardware may not be up to snuff, I'll grant you that point. But it's a very small point. Look at it another way: when Windows installer stops your installation because your hardware doesn't meet its minimums, you can be darned sure that the real minumum is way lower than the installer's cutoff. Windows simply won't let you install on a platform that is going to likely cause operational problems. Linux installers, on the other hand, assume that you can (and want to) tinker with the system if you can't boot, rather than simply refuse to let you continue.
I won't argue that installing Linux is painless, even on newer hardware. But you won't know until you try, and from what I've seen you haven't really given it a fair shot.
Besides, we're comparing Linux to Windows on ease of installation, for crying out loud! Exactly how important is this comparison to an average user, to the users you have installed Windows for? They've never seen an OS get installed, and likely don't care how easy it is to do. What matters is (what the linked story was doing), how good are the OSs after they are configured and running. Period.
Okay, you're being very unfair by trying to install a modern installation of Linux on an ancient PC. It's quite obvious that if you wanted to fairly compare, you'd also try to install XP on this old machine.
Seriously, try to install one of the current distros on a halfway newish PC. Mine's a K6-2 450MHz, 256Mb RAM (certainly no spring chicken), and all three major newbie distros (RedHat, Mandrake, and SuSE) and all installed like a charm.
None of this matters as long as the average user can't install Linux and KDE.
You do realize, of course, that Windows is not exactly simple to install. Or is it that you've never installed it (because it was preinstalled on your computer when you bought it)? On a similarly modern PC, I think you'll find that a Linux install is actually easier than XP's.
I consider myself far from an average user, but I'm still having problems getting Linux/XFree86/KDE installed on a system.
Yet you're surprised that installing a new OS on a 7-8 year old PC is troublesome? I would say that an "average" user would come to this conclusion quite easily.
start suing thousands upon thousands of music listeners
The point is that they *won't* start suing thousands of listeners. The only ones that will be sued (and made examples of) will be the really hard-core geek that will easy to publicly spin as an "antisocial" "hacker" (in other words, the class of citizenry that ordinary people think they would rather not have around anyways). Extra bonus points to the RIAA if they find an RMS-like dweeb who is proud to try to explain his actions while sounding like a lunatic in the process.
All the ordinary people will be left alone.
As another poster pointed out, the intent is not to actually sue all the users of P2P, but rather to ramp up another attempt to regulate/control P2P. That way, they fix the problem without going after users individually.