can you explain that? how can windows boot without disk (and which version of windows are you reffering to ? i imagined that diskless booting of XP must be impossible)
>various GPL licensed tools from Microsoft servers
knowing their position on gpl, i imagine that the only reason they licensed anything under it, is that it was already a gpl product they tinkled with. So they were forced to do it.
and "MS has proven very willing to deal with opensource, and indeed the GPL," ??? As they were very willing to deal with internet and indeed netscape, with operating systems and indeed IBM, with wordprocessors and indeed wordperfect etc...
Funny, in all those cases, i don't recall them having an open discussion on "why isn't our message coming through". Apparently something is going wrong now.
None of those "frustrating points" is actually a "unix" problem, they are "computer operating systems" problems. IEEE and POSIX are not UNIX-only standards, i fail to see how a microkernel is more difficult to implement if you intend to built a unix OS etc..
>Progress and innovation tends to occur within the >context of aquisitions (i.e. UnixWare)
How did "Progress and innovation" occur from the aquisition of Unixware ????
It can be that simple in linux. To install mozilla for example you simply untar it.
However, the unix scheme makes much more sense in a multiuser environment. All binaries go to the "bin" dirs, all libs to the "lib" dirs, all images in "share"s etc... The users never have to know where to find some new app you just installed.
Interesting. What propably would happen though is that most *new* computers would have linux installed, Apple would see its markeshare explode, microsoft would lose the monopoly status and a huge part of their income, and meanwhile people would use their existing windows installation for the next 3-5 years...
See the "general masses" wouldn't need to switch, they already bought windows didn't they? they will just keep using them.
The only problem with microsoft is that they are a monopoly. There would be no problem if they weren't, as there is no problem with apple bundling safari.
MS has all the benefits a monopoly has, and they take full advantage of it (like having >80% profit from their software business). Nobody accused them of *THAT*. they are allowed to do it. They are not allowed to improperly use their monopoly however.
You would think that someone with so many things to lose would play by the rules but apparently it 's not the case...
as i understand it, they are counting hardware that was not *purchased* with linux installed:
In many cases, a linux server will be purchased without an OS, as each administrator will simply install his favorite distro from a cd or the net.
It is however, correct to count this hardware as linux hardware.
>he is naive enough to believe that he can clean >machine using the very same machine
well, he apparently managed to "clean machine using the very same machine" so that would make him a bit less "naive" and a bit more "capable".
>he lets his wife run as admin
some people buy their own computers,and they believe that they can do anything they want with them. Many people don't ask permission from their family members before they open their brand new computer - which by they way happens to automagically log you in as admin.
nobody wants to see "AMD overcome Intel". what we want to see is companies competing on the market. It's not that intel is bad or anything but competition is always good for the end user.
Do you think that you could buy a 4 Ghz machine today if amd hadn't released the K6 family some years ago ?
>Linux probably violates some patents... >If MS claims 228 patent violations, they get 228 tries
No, that is not accurate, a few of these 228 patents are owned by MS, maybe 20 , i don't remember the actuall number.
However, even if 2 or 3 or even 10 of them actually qualify as valid patents in the court *and* linux actually *does* violate them, the relevant code/functionality will simply be removed from the kernel ( or some linux distributions might pay a reasonable fee -decided by the court- to MS, and maybe still use them as external modules or something.).
This is no "real problem" for linux, linux will always be here.
BTW, linux developers and companies can also start patenting things anytime they want. If things ever get really ugly that is.
oh, come on now, don't you feel the threat, by just reading the article? I mean, the guy seems desperate, much like a guy who is about to lose his job...
Actually it's the other way around. US has more to lose from an embargo than a developing nation. In fact, in the unlikely event of an embargo, the only winners would be a few other developing nations (that would supply US with the goods it needs) and the rest of the developed world (who would supply that country with the technology).
There is a way for US to stay a leader in the IT industry, and that's by focusing to things other countries *cannot* produce or easily copy. And that's hardware, not software, which is easily copied, even when it's not OSS.
>the only two cases brought against end users that >have anything to do with IP violations
Indeed, and i would also like to point out that the microsoft idemnification would *NOT* apply to these cases.
MS is not offering "idemnification" they are simply saying you will not get sued for what they did. Yes, i know, it's really hard to see how you would get sued over what MS did, but nevermind...
However, they are not providing any insurance that you will be able to use the product you bought from them. Instead they hold the right to revoke your license (so that *they* don't have to pay for each and every copy they sold? ).
Re:Def. of Open Source Community
on
Netscape Reborn?
·
· Score: 1
>Netscape supplied almost ALL the programmers
Can you define "almost ALL" ? I was under the impression that netscape supplied "most" of the programmers, but definetely not "almost ALL" of them. If i recall correctly it was something like 60% netscape - 40% others. And that's for mozilla. For firefox, it is safe to say that "almost ALL" of the developers are NOT netscape/AOL employees.
Besides, what about all the people that went through all the 0.x versions, testing and bugtracking? Aren't they "community" ? Don't they get credit? Or do you think that testing is an easy and cheap procedure ?
it is not a claim, it was proven a long long time ago. This proof is about infinite number of "prime twins" , primes that are next to each other (like 11-13)
Slashdot Mirror
>Diskless booting of Windows is possible today.
can you explain that? how can windows boot without disk (and which version of windows are you reffering to ? i imagined that diskless booting of XP must be impossible)
>various GPL licensed tools from Microsoft servers
knowing their position on gpl, i imagine that the only reason they licensed anything under it, is that it was already a gpl product they tinkled with. So they were forced to do it.
and "MS has proven very willing to deal with opensource, and indeed the GPL," ???
As they were very willing to deal with internet and indeed netscape, with operating systems and indeed IBM, with wordprocessors and indeed wordperfect etc...
Funny, in all those cases, i don't recall them having an open discussion on "why isn't our message coming through". Apparently something is going wrong now.
None of those "frustrating points" is actually a "unix" problem, they are "computer operating systems" problems. IEEE and POSIX are not UNIX-only standards, i fail to see how a microkernel is more difficult to implement if you intend to built a unix OS etc..
>Progress and innovation tends to occur within the
>context of aquisitions (i.e. UnixWare)
How did "Progress and innovation" occur from the aquisition of Unixware ????
>Actually, there is a difference between /bin (or /sbin./sbin stands for stand alone binaries
/sbin, my guess would be that it's the "system" binaries --if anyone knows please enlighten me.
>/usr/bin) and
Although i'm not sure what the extra "s" means in
It is not stand alone anyway, even fsck is not statically linked.
It can be that simple in linux. To install mozilla for example you simply untar it.
However, the unix scheme makes much more sense in a multiuser environment. All binaries go to the "bin" dirs, all libs to the "lib" dirs, all images in "share"s etc...
The users never have to know where to find some new app you just installed.
just chmod -w the parent directory.
Interesting.
What propably would happen though is that most *new* computers would have linux installed, Apple would see its markeshare explode, microsoft would lose the monopoly status and a huge part of their income, and meanwhile people would use their existing windows installation for the next 3-5 years...
See the "general masses" wouldn't need to switch, they already bought windows didn't they? they will just keep using them.
The only problem with microsoft is that they are a monopoly. There would be no problem if they weren't, as there is no problem with apple bundling safari.
MS has all the benefits a monopoly has, and they take full advantage of it (like having >80% profit from their software business). Nobody accused them of *THAT*. they are allowed to do it. They are not allowed to improperly use their monopoly however.
You would think that someone with so many things to lose would play by the rules but apparently it 's not the case...
as i understand it, they are counting hardware that was not *purchased* with linux installed:
In many cases, a linux server will be purchased without an OS, as each administrator will simply install his favorite distro from a cd or the net.
It is however, correct to count this hardware as linux hardware.
>he is naive enough to believe that he can clean
>machine using the very same machine
well, he apparently managed to "clean machine using the very same machine" so that would make him a bit less "naive" and a bit more "capable".
>he lets his wife run as admin
some people buy their own computers,and they believe that they can do anything they want with them. Many people don't ask permission from their family members before they open their brand new computer - which by they way happens to automagically log you in as admin.
i'm confused, so what you are saying is that IE is responsible for all windows problems ?
and if linux hits critical mass it will have the same problems ???
(because MS will roll out a linux version of IE perhaps ?? )
oh, come on now, it totally sympathize with the guy.. people buy computers, windows are not always properly installed, shit happens.
His only mistake was that he agreed to help his wife with her problem. How do you figure he was -somehow- responsible for the problem ???
hey, i agree, web browsers and multimedia applications shouldn't have anything to do with the kernel at all...
but it's not the communitys' fault, nor the communitys problem.
nobody wants to see "AMD overcome Intel". what we want to see is companies competing on the market. It's not that intel is bad or anything but competition is always good for the end user.
Do you think that you could buy a 4 Ghz machine today if amd hadn't released the K6 family some years ago ?
They cannot do that of course, they are a convicted monopoly, under close surveilance. A statement like that would open the gates of hell.
actually they threatened, that WTO might someday come after countries about IP issues. Pretty much admitting that they cannot do anything about it.
however, only a small portion of them are actually owned by MS. Actually, the biggest part of those 228+ patents belong to (who would guess?) ... IBM.
>Linux probably violates some patents ...
>If MS claims 228 patent violations, they get 228 tries
No, that is not accurate, a few of these 228 patents are owned by MS, maybe 20 , i don't remember the actuall number.
However, even if 2 or 3 or even 10 of them actually qualify as valid patents in the court *and* linux actually *does* violate them, the relevant code/functionality will simply be removed from the kernel ( or some linux distributions might pay a reasonable fee -decided by the court- to MS, and maybe still use them as external modules or something.).
This is no "real problem" for linux, linux will always be here.
BTW, linux developers and companies can also start patenting things anytime they want. If things ever get really ugly that is.
oh, come on now, don't you feel the threat, by just reading the article?
I mean, the guy seems desperate, much like a guy who is about to lose his job...
Actually it's the other way around. US has more to lose from an embargo than a developing nation. In fact, in the unlikely event of an embargo, the only winners would be a few other developing nations (that would supply US with the goods it needs) and the rest of the developed world (who would supply that country with the technology).
There is a way for US to stay a leader in the IT industry, and that's by focusing to things other countries *cannot* produce or easily copy.
And that's hardware, not software, which is easily copied, even when it's not OSS.
>the only two cases brought against end users that
>have anything to do with IP violations
Indeed, and i would also like to point out that the microsoft idemnification would *NOT* apply to these cases.
MS is not offering "idemnification" they are simply saying you will not get sued for what they did. Yes, i know, it's really hard to see how you would get sued over what MS did, but nevermind...
However, they are not providing any insurance that you will be able to use the product you bought from them. Instead they hold the right to revoke your license (so that *they* don't have to pay for each and every copy they sold? ).
>Netscape supplied almost ALL the programmers
Can you define "almost ALL" ? I was under the impression that netscape supplied "most" of the programmers, but definetely not "almost ALL" of them. If i recall correctly it was something like 60% netscape - 40% others. And that's for mozilla. For firefox, it is safe to say that "almost ALL" of the developers are NOT netscape/AOL employees.
Besides, what about all the people that went through all the 0.x versions, testing and bugtracking? Aren't they "community" ? Don't they get credit? Or do you think that testing is an easy and cheap procedure ?
>your site should stick to the Standards and be
>equally accessable to Any Browser
Any browser that confronts to those standards that is.
>claim of infinite primes to be troubling
it is not a claim, it was proven a long long time ago.
This proof is about infinite number of "prime twins" , primes that are next to each other (like 11-13)
I understand that there are still votes to be counted, no? this 53,692,218 is not the final number is it?