I am not making a mistake: OS community will never *force* others to cross license, nor will it apply for patents. If this is a common practise, then redhat/suse/ibm etc might go ahead and do it.
You don't have to play a game if you don't like the rules. It's that simple.
>I can only assume that Microsoft cannot be that >sure that such action would succeed in the first >place - though I'm not sure I can see why... >perhaps someone out there has some ideas?
Samba is a protocol, not a good one you might add, that's propably infinging on a zillion of patents itself.
>I'm sure that Linux will face some patent >litigations in the future
>what about a smaller open source project? >The "guy in mom's basement".
forget about it, nobody is going to sue "the guy in mom's basement" there is nothing to gain from it, only a lot of bad press: "Convicted Monopoly sues 16-year-old kde hacker over Klipper"
>Start a "patent fund" to research and file the >patents
There is no need for that as at the moment it's out there it's prior act. You only need patents if you want to sue and make money of them.
>SCO is just a sideshow compared to what is >possible
Indeed, no, SCO had the absolute best chance of doing anything, there is nothing more anyone can do. A patent war against OSS is never going to happen, this is just FUD with great emphasis on the F part. MS would never attack OSS this way: Imagine a counter attack against their patents. Sure some of them are valid, but my guess is that easily 80% would be dropped in a court.
>demands that Linux distribution stop they cannot demand that linux stop, they can demand that their patended technology on let's say "little pets fooling around on your desktop" is not included in linux, which is just fine, you will just have to live without it. It's up to the companies distributing linux to decide what patents they care to sue, license or forget about.
A patent attack by microsoft is not the end of the world, it won't even distract customers thath much. the publicity alone will be a great thing for linux and open software.
However a patent war cannot happen: MS simply cannot attack linux in such a large scale - they have to play it nice as the whole world is already out to get them...
This is not about respect for ip, this is a simple problem with the patenting system. Specifically it does not consider the network effect regarding software usage. A company shouln't be allowed to wait untill the cost of *not using* the patent is more than the cost of paying the same company. This is simply wrong. A close to the "network effect" example would go like this: Imagine i have a patent on space travels, and wait untill after the first spaceship launches for a 100 year trip to Alpha Centauri to claim monthly license fees from US govt This is just too close to blackmailing to be legal...
When he took on sun & novell, he did have (and still has!) a better business model and a great momentum. That's all. The same business model is no good anymore: a better one has emerged... It was good at its' time, and it still makes money, but who wants to keep paying for the same word processor for the rest of his life? it just doesn't make sense.
>There will still be a market for customising this >software. It is likely to be smaller though
There will be a market for making it as well. The only difference is that a company will not make billion of $$ for code written 10 years ago, and that is a good thing for everyone.
>Note this effect is even more greatly enhanced >by the fact that the free software will not be >taxed unlike proprietary software.
everything else people buy with the same money will be taxed the same way. govs will not loose their tax money that's for sure.
>A good parallel to this might be writing.
No a good parallel is engineering. there are no secrets there, yet not everyone can build a house. Today, thousands of years later, people pay to build a house.
Software industry will not be destroyed and programmers will still be well paid. But the payment will be analogous to the actuall work done. A company like microsoft simply will not be able to make that kind of money any more by selling the same thing to millions of users. It's the nature of opensource: If millions of users need something there will be an opensource alternative.
Just imagine those 50 billions, now useless in MS 's pockets, in the market for new computers, new software, new programmers...
>If you consider MS Office, you pop in the cd, put >in a serial number, click next a few times, and >it's installed.
then you disable the clipper, put the cd back in to install the equation editor, call microsoft to register, put the cd back in to install access, put the cd back in to install a few more "install on first use" little programms.
But thank god you don't need to switch to administrator to install it. Or maybe you do ?
p.s. You don't need to be root, you can easily install in you home directory. You don't need to create a link, it's automatically created. You do need to find a server with openoffice. (which is much easier than finding a cd with MS office)
>It's not that easy to just tell someone, >"Well, IE had a security exploit so it's time to > switch to Linux!"
No, you tell him that the design of windows itself is flawed and linux is ready, so it's time to switch.
>the lack of a single binary >installation/uninstallation API
i fail to see where the problem is. Every linux distro has all those api's and they are installed by default. Do you have a problem with disk space or something? You don't need more than a gigabyte of disk space to install all of them. You install all those "backwards compatibility" dll's in windows and a whole "backward compatible" operating system in macs, and you complain that you have to install both gtk and qt?
>Can you still run a Red Hat RPM you got in 1997?
Yes. But even if you couldn't why would anybody run a linux application from 1997? Unlike other systems, in linux the latest versions of the applications are actually faster, better and cost less (if they cost anything). These problems just don't exist in the open software world. Why you think backwards compatibility is such a big issue is beyond me. I *NEVER* needed an old application in linux.
>(the fact we're still using X11 is embarrassing)
why is that? make no mistake, if X11 were not good nobody would be using them. The truth is that despite some drawbacks, there is nothing better out there. X11 functionality is still not matched by either windows or macintosh *or* terminal server solutions.
>Even most Linux distros dont offer the level of >backwards compatibility that windows xp or less >does.
Linux did not have the installed base windows had in 1994, there are very few binaries anyone would like to run from that time, and for most of them the source is available anyway.
>im sure libc and glibc and aout and elf will make >things fun.
..but of course you can run all those binaries in a modern linux system if you feel like it and give it a try.
>And recreating an OS from the 70's isnt?
Automobiles have been *evolving* as they are today (4 wheels etc..) since forever. That's because 4 wheels is the best concept for an automobile. There were i believe some 3-wheel models, in special cases you do have 6- or 8-wheel models and 2-wheel bikes certainly have their place, but there is only *one* good solution for a car.
Unix was right from the beginning, and if MS did follow the UNIX way the world would be a better place today. But even so, they are getting there: With SP2, and for the first time, you won't need administrator rights to actually use your windows computer. You still cannot install a program in userspace in some kind of user-registry but finally you will be able to use what the administrator installs.
and why not drive a 3-10% (?) of their installed base to linux? Or 10-40% of their win32 developers to web? This cannot have been an easy decision, they would never do something like that if 2003 wasn't so bad for win security. However, i think it's a good desicion for both windows (they do get better) *and* the industry.
this is exactly the other way around... imagine you were accused of a murder. And stay accused for a year waiting for evidence to be found against you..
no, they said they would need 4096 time more memory, that would mean a machine with at least 4000 gb of memory, something not that common. Also it would take 4096 more time to encrypt all the combinations, and assuming they did that, there is always a delay searching in a bigger hash... (not counting the delays in the system itself)
Slashdot Mirror
That was tv, this is life.
I am not making a mistake:
OS community will never *force* others to cross license, nor will it apply for patents.
If this is a common practise, then redhat/suse/ibm etc might go ahead and do it.
You don't have to play a game if you don't like the rules. It's that simple.
>I can only assume that Microsoft cannot be that
>sure that such action would succeed in the first
>place - though I'm not sure I can see why...
>perhaps someone out there has some ideas?
Samba is a protocol, not a good one you might add, that's propably infinging on a zillion of patents itself.
>I'm sure that Linux will face some patent
>litigations in the future
I'm pretty sure it will not...
So, does this ingenius strategy reminds anyone else of ibm's MCA?
:) )
(Maybe IBM has a patent on it so everything will be ok
>Would there be a white knight corporation out here
>willing to swoop in and save the small open source
>developer?
Developers have nothing to worry about, MS would never *ever* do anything to annoy *them*.
>what about a smaller open source project?
>The "guy in mom's basement".
forget about it, nobody is going to sue "the guy in mom's basement" there is nothing to gain from it, only a lot of bad press: "Convicted Monopoly sues 16-year-old kde hacker over Klipper"
>Start a "patent fund" to research and file the
>patents
There is no need for that as at the moment it's out there it's prior act. You only need patents if you want to sue and make money of them.
>SCO is just a sideshow compared to what is
>possible
Indeed, no, SCO had the absolute best chance of doing anything, there is nothing more anyone can do. A patent war against OSS is never going to happen, this is just FUD with great emphasis on the F part.
MS would never attack OSS this way: Imagine a counter attack against their patents. Sure some of them are valid, but my guess is that easily 80% would be dropped in a court.
>There's some big names in there, including IBM,
...
>Novell, HP, Sun, etc.
Sun is definetely not in there (any more) but about every other hardware, software and media company in the world is
>demands that Linux distribution stop
...
they cannot demand that linux stop, they can demand that their patended technology on let's say "little pets fooling around on your desktop" is not included in linux, which is just fine, you will just have to live without it. It's up to the companies distributing linux to decide what patents they care to sue, license or forget about.
A patent attack by microsoft is not the end of the world, it won't even distract customers thath much. the publicity alone will be a great thing for linux and open software.
However a patent war cannot happen: MS simply cannot attack linux in such a large scale - they have to play it nice as the whole world is already out to get them
so, simply mark the text and middle click didn't work?
sign over copyright ??? i am sorry , i don't understand you, how is that?
This is not about respect for ip, this is a simple problem with the patenting system. Specifically it does not consider the network effect regarding software usage. A company shouln't be allowed to wait untill the cost of *not using* the patent is more than the cost of paying the same company. This is simply wrong.
A close to the "network effect" example would go like this:
Imagine i have a patent on space travels, and wait untill after the first spaceship launches for a 100 year trip to Alpha Centauri to claim monthly license fees from US govt This is just too close to blackmailing to be legal...
it seems to me that you need more memory. Konqueror is definetely faster than nautilus in my box (P2-350 , 768MB RAM).
Gcome does start faster than KDE, but KDE is noticeably faster.
No, O3 produces code that is faster, 02 produces code that is still fast *but* safe.
The performance gap in mathematical tasks can certainly be over 200%. Propably because O3 does no math error checks.
>unless you only want to use the programs, but not
:
>the code
That would be
"unless you want to use the program , but not *SELL* the code"
When he took on sun & novell, he did have (and still has!) a better business model and a great momentum. That's all. The same business model is no good anymore: a better one has emerged...
It was good at its' time, and it still makes money, but who wants to keep paying for the same word processor for the rest of his life?
it just doesn't make sense.
There is no point there. Money that don't go to software go maybe for computer parts, or maybe clothing, or food.
There is tax on these goods too, governments don't loose a dime.
>There will still be a market for customising this
>software. It is likely to be smaller though
There will be a market for making it as well. The only difference is that a company will not make billion of $$ for code written 10 years ago, and that is a good thing for everyone.
>Note this effect is even more greatly enhanced
>by the fact that the free software will not be
>taxed unlike proprietary software.
everything else people buy with the same money will be taxed the same way. govs will not loose their tax money that's for sure.
>A good parallel to this might be writing.
No a good parallel is engineering. there are no secrets there, yet not everyone can build a house.
Today, thousands of years later, people pay to build a house.
Software industry will not be destroyed and programmers will still be well paid. But the payment will be analogous to the actuall work done. A company like microsoft simply will not be able to make that kind of money any more by selling the same thing to millions of users. It's the nature of opensource: If millions of users need something there will be an opensource alternative.
Just imagine those 50 billions, now useless in MS 's pockets, in the market for new computers, new software, new programmers...
> 4.) Run windows update once every six months
six months? you sure you didn't mean "Run windows install once every six months" ????
>If you consider MS Office, you pop in the cd, put
>in a serial number, click next a few times, and
>it's installed.
then you disable the clipper, put the cd back in to install the equation editor, call microsoft to register, put the cd back in to install access, put the cd back in to install a few more "install on first use" little programms.
But thank god you don't need to switch to administrator to install it. Or maybe you do ?
p.s. You don't need to be root, you can easily install in you home directory.
You don't need to create a link, it's automatically created.
You do need to find a server with openoffice. (which is much easier than finding a cd with MS office)
>It's not that easy to just tell someone,
>"Well, IE had a security exploit so it's time to
> switch to Linux!"
No, you tell him that the design of windows itself is flawed and linux is ready, so it's time to switch.
>the lack of a single binary
>installation/uninstallation API
i fail to see where the problem is. Every linux distro has all those api's and they are installed by default. Do you have a problem with disk space or something? You don't need more than a gigabyte of disk space to install all of them. You install all those "backwards compatibility" dll's in windows and a whole "backward compatible" operating system in macs, and you complain that you have to install both gtk and qt?
>Can you still run a Red Hat RPM you got in 1997?
Yes. But even if you couldn't why would anybody run a linux application from 1997? Unlike other systems, in linux the latest versions of the applications are actually faster, better and cost less (if they cost anything).
These problems just don't exist in the open software world. Why you think backwards compatibility is such a big issue is beyond me. I *NEVER* needed an old application in linux.
>(the fact we're still using X11 is embarrassing)
why is that? make no mistake, if X11 were not good nobody would be using them. The truth is that despite some drawbacks, there is nothing better out there. X11 functionality is still not matched by either windows or macintosh *or* terminal server solutions.
>Even most Linux distros dont offer the level of
..but of course you can run all those binaries in a modern linux system if you feel like it and give it a try.
>backwards compatibility that windows xp or less
>does.
Linux did not have the installed base windows had in 1994, there are very few binaries anyone would like to run from that time, and for most of them the source is available anyway.
>im sure libc and glibc and aout and elf will make
>things fun.
>And recreating an OS from the 70's isnt?
Automobiles have been *evolving* as they are today (4 wheels etc..) since forever. That's because 4 wheels is the best concept for an automobile. There were i believe some 3-wheel models, in special cases you do have 6- or 8-wheel models and 2-wheel bikes certainly have their place, but there is only *one* good solution for a car.
Unix was right from the beginning, and if MS did follow the UNIX way the world would be a better place today. But even so, they are getting there: With SP2, and for the first time, you won't need administrator rights to actually use your windows computer.
You still cannot install a program in userspace in some kind of user-registry but finally you will be able to use what the administrator installs.
and why not drive a 3-10% (?) of their installed base to linux? Or 10-40% of their win32 developers to web?
This cannot have been an easy decision, they would never do something like that if 2003 wasn't so bad for win security.
However, i think it's a good desicion for both windows (they do get better) *and* the industry.
>however, it could have just been easier/cheaper for >them to buy opera than to invest in minimo..
No, of course not. Investing something like a $million is nothing, any contract with opera would cost more than a $million in lawyers fees alone..
No, i think it's flash as in www.flash.com
this is exactly the other way around ...
imagine you were accused of a murder. And stay accused for a year waiting for evidence to be found against you..
no, they said they would need 4096 time more memory, that would mean a machine with at least 4000 gb of memory, something not that common. Also it would take 4096 more time to encrypt all the combinations, and assuming they did that, there is always a delay searching in a bigger hash... (not counting the delays in the system itself)