Even so, that doesn't buy them any copyright/ownership rights to the source in question, unless Cox signed a "work for hire" contract as a part of the deal to get the motherboard. Seems a tad unlikely, don't you think?
You're missing the point. SCO is claiming that _IBM_ was involved in adding the SMP code in the Linux kernel. However, the poster's point is that SCO was, in fact, far more instrumental in getting SMP support into the kernel, and contributing to the violation of all those nasty export laws.
Of course, they helped him do it outside of the country, who knows if that matters.
Being that this is slashdot, I feel compelled to mention that that rate is more geometric (i.e. times 4) than exponential (i.e. e to the...)....but I digress.
Good to see things are turning around over there... in Canada government regulation/subsidies have actually done a lot of good for cheapish broadband. We're getting unlimited broadband through a program with the local universties (at our house, not on campus) at $29.16/month!
How do you thing your ISP is charged? How do you think your ISP's ISP is charged?
For that matter, how do you pay for your electricity? Flat rate? I don't think so. And being that you're in the UK, I bet your local calls aren't even flat rate.
This will all only be solved when bits become like tap water, or electricity, where you pay per unit used, but it's low enough that it feels freeish to most people. There's no other long term sustainable model.
I can't wait till I get my plastic fibre to my home, and this can all be settled.
As much as I'd like to believe this, there's a big difference between lying about whether you're MAKING money (which Enron did) and lying about having physical money in physical bank accounts. Hard cash. Not any fuzzy-wuzzy assets. This is one of the reasons people are so pissed off at them, they don't invest it, they don't do anything useful in it. They just have a bank account with a whole crapload of zeroes. Which is rather hard to fake.
Also, they freely admit that they're losing money on every single product except Windows and Office. And (easily verifiable by your own eyes), they're making a CRAPLOAD from those two products. And what expenses do they have? A fake 'security task force'? They probably don't have all that many employees, considering, and don't need to spend that much on raw materials (we're talking CDs and paper here, not oil and cadmium).
So I like your analogy, but it's sadly false. You can lie on your taxes, but the bank doesn't accept empty envelopes in the deposit slot.
Even if every single current microsoft product was to fail horribly, sales go to zero, etc, etc, they still have GIANT PILES OF MONEY on hand. Like ridiculously large.
So even if they 'fail entirely', they have enough cash laying around to start maybe 5-10 new companies, let alone restart themselves.
They may be forced to abondon the dark side, but they will not die.
The real problem you're discussing is one that has been noted many times: the internet kills anything successful.
Basically, the promise of the net is everyone's a publisher, and can make something kewl, and show it to everyone.
The problem is if they do a good job of it, they get popular. Bandwidth bills go up. They can no longer afford the site, because banner ads don't get you shit. Unless you're a lowest common denominator genius like stile (but there's only one stile).
So, they either die, get bailed out by a benevolent donor, or get bought by someone who cares about all the page hits.
So slashdot purely existing as a "great tech news site" was not a long term option. Because being great means being attracting attention, and attraction attention costs YOU money on the net, not your consumers. This inversion is not necessarily the panacea it was thought to be 10 years ago.
Personally, I'm quite content to go on loving to hate slashdot for the forseeable future. Gives us gov't workers something to bitch about at coffee break.
I must admit to not having tried Opera, but any possible advantages it has over Mozilla are certainly not worth $40 to me. What's the point of pop-up blocking if it's ad supported? Doh!
Mozilla may not be TheOneTruePath, but Gecko browsers as a whole are getting pretty damn close. I can't believe how lovely the spam filtering is, and enigmail, and so many other things.
Opera is neither free as in freedom, nor free as in beer. Mozilla is both. Join the revolution, as it will not be televised.
Did you catch the recent posting (that I'm too lazy to dig up) referenced an article showing how net adoption is actually tapering off around 44%, because the other half of people without net connections....*gasp*...DON'T WANT THEM.
Yes, there's still the unwashed that have been here for months/years, but they feel no motivation to hop in the shower.
The only real way to get people off IE is to get them off Windows, which does make sense to many people, as they'll save money. Wheareas all web browsers (except for Opera) are free-beer.
Otherwise these people have no motivation to switch if stuff Just Works. Those who will already have.
There is no new market. The Wild West is over. Sorry.
Isn't the problem here blocking forged headers, not reply addresses? It won't matter what 'account' you're sending from in mozilla, that only affects the reply address. What matters is that the SMTP server you use to send it puts it's real info in the header. This should be transparent to you.
This is the whole point of the growing movement to accredit software engineers. Code is being thrown into increasingly mission critical areas, and as such should be designed, tested, and maintained to proper engineering standards. I for one don't want my car blue screening or my life support system throwing an unchecked exception.
It in fact should be ILLEGAL for anyone other than qualified professionals to okay software for any sort of critical use, just as it's illegal for any idiot to build and sell a car, or a building, or an airplane.
We go out of the way to make sure that our systems do what they need to do, when they need to do it. The other group all have degrees, all are certified and write systems that routinely crash, are slow and bloated and take FOREVOR to be released.
Computer Science is exactly that - the science of computers. Software Engineering is where you write systems that are designed to be stable, have been tested, etc, etc.
Do you let the materials scientist build a bridge? No, you give it to a Civil Engineer. Do you let a physicist design your motherboard? Nope, Electrical Engineer.
People need to give up on expecting CSes to write things that work. That's not what they're trained to do.
I don't even know where to start with this one. The bit length has more to do with the operand length than the instruction length. And absolutely zero, zip, nada to do with how many instructions can be executed at once. The other respondents have pretty much got the rest covered.
It's possible to not follow a protocol exactly without breaking compatibility. Basically all this is doing is returning the same error for two separate error conditions, rather than specifying the specific cause of the error.
This doesn't break compatibility because the cause of the error isn't important to the error recovery logic.
It would be like if there were different '404 not found' error types for no directory and no file errors in the HTTP standard. The protocol could specify returning the specific error, but if the server returned the same error for both, the user wouldn't really care. All they know is that the URL is bad, and they'll have to try another. Unless they're debugging the server they don't really care whether it was a file or a directory.
This SSL thing is similar. It would be important for debugging, but I can't see the user (even if the user is a piece of code) caring where the error was, as long as they know it's a transmission error.
Slashdot Mirror
As long as your IP is static, you can be whitelisted.
Even so, that doesn't buy them any copyright/ownership rights to the source in question, unless Cox signed a "work for hire" contract as a part of the deal to get the motherboard. Seems a tad unlikely, don't you think?
You're missing the point. SCO is claiming that _IBM_ was involved in adding the SMP code in the Linux kernel. However, the poster's point is that SCO was, in fact, far more instrumental in getting SMP support into the kernel, and contributing to the violation of all those nasty export laws.
Of course, they helped him do it outside of the country, who knows if that matters.
Vernacular, *ahem*. But enough of that.
Being that this is slashdot, I feel compelled to mention that that rate is more geometric (i.e. times 4) than exponential (i.e. e to the ...)....but I digress.
Good to see things are turning around over there... in Canada government regulation/subsidies have actually done a lot of good for cheapish broadband. We're getting unlimited broadband through a program with the local universties (at our house, not on campus) at $29.16/month!
but being charged by the mb / gb is just wrong
How do you thing your ISP is charged? How do you think your ISP's ISP is charged?
For that matter, how do you pay for your electricity? Flat rate? I don't think so. And being that you're in the UK, I bet your local calls aren't even flat rate.
This will all only be solved when bits become like tap water, or electricity, where you pay per unit used, but it's low enough that it feels freeish to most people. There's no other long term sustainable model.
I can't wait till I get my plastic fibre to my home, and this can all be settled.
And you're apparently also the reason they have to specify "one question per post" in every damn interview posting.
nVidia produces the reference designs, however, and this is where the big-ass fan came from.
Lucky bastard....Her Majesty the Queen of England of all people holds the copyrights on MY code. :)
They more than likely have signed a contract to use the trademark, and you need a good reason to break a contract.
Good reason as in the other side violated the agreement, not as in "we think they're a bunch of bastards now."
"Win-F1"?? I don't have a windows key on my AT/XT keyboard attached to my P4 2.53 GHz, YOU INSENSITIVE CLOD!!
Go team clicky keys!
As much as I'd like to believe this, there's a big difference between lying about whether you're MAKING money (which Enron did) and lying about having physical money in physical bank accounts. Hard cash. Not any fuzzy-wuzzy assets. This is one of the reasons people are so pissed off at them, they don't invest it, they don't do anything useful in it. They just have a bank account with a whole crapload of zeroes. Which is rather hard to fake.
Also, they freely admit that they're losing money on every single product except Windows and Office. And (easily verifiable by your own eyes), they're making a CRAPLOAD from those two products. And what expenses do they have? A fake 'security task force'? They probably don't have all that many employees, considering, and don't need to spend that much on raw materials (we're talking CDs and paper here, not oil and cadmium).
So I like your analogy, but it's sadly false. You can lie on your taxes, but the bank doesn't accept empty envelopes in the deposit slot.
Even if every single current microsoft product was to fail horribly, sales go to zero, etc, etc, they still have GIANT PILES OF MONEY on hand. Like ridiculously large.
So even if they 'fail entirely', they have enough cash laying around to start maybe 5-10 new companies, let alone restart themselves.
They may be forced to abondon the dark side, but they will not die.
The real problem you're discussing is one that has been noted many times: the internet kills anything successful.
Basically, the promise of the net is everyone's a publisher, and can make something kewl, and show it to everyone.
The problem is if they do a good job of it, they get popular. Bandwidth bills go up. They can no longer afford the site, because banner ads don't get you shit. Unless you're a lowest common denominator genius like stile (but there's only one stile).
So, they either die, get bailed out by a benevolent donor, or get bought by someone who cares about all the page hits.
So slashdot purely existing as a "great tech news site" was not a long term option. Because being great means being attracting attention, and attraction attention costs YOU money on the net, not your consumers. This inversion is not necessarily the panacea it was thought to be 10 years ago.
Personally, I'm quite content to go on loving to hate slashdot for the forseeable future. Gives us gov't workers something to bitch about at coffee break.
I must admit to not having tried Opera, but any possible advantages it has over Mozilla are certainly not worth $40 to me. What's the point of pop-up blocking if it's ad supported? Doh!
Mozilla may not be TheOneTruePath, but Gecko browsers as a whole are getting pretty damn close. I can't believe how lovely the spam filtering is, and enigmail, and so many other things.
Opera is neither free as in freedom, nor free as in beer. Mozilla is both. Join the revolution, as it will not be televised.
Did you catch the recent posting (that I'm too lazy to dig up) referenced an article showing how net adoption is actually tapering off around 44%, because the other half of people without net connections....*gasp*...DON'T WANT THEM.
Yes, there's still the unwashed that have been here for months/years, but they feel no motivation to hop in the shower.
The only real way to get people off IE is to get them off Windows, which does make sense to many people, as they'll save money. Wheareas all web browsers (except for Opera) are free-beer.
Otherwise these people have no motivation to switch if stuff Just Works. Those who will already have.
There is no new market. The Wild West is over. Sorry.
Isn't the problem here blocking forged headers, not reply addresses? It won't matter what 'account' you're sending from in mozilla, that only affects the reply address. What matters is that the SMTP server you use to send it puts it's real info in the header. This should be transparent to you.
bitch - slapped.
This is the whole point of the growing movement to accredit software engineers. Code is being thrown into increasingly mission critical areas, and as such should be designed, tested, and maintained to proper engineering standards. I for one don't want my car blue screening or my life support system throwing an unchecked exception.
It in fact should be ILLEGAL for anyone other than qualified professionals to okay software for any sort of critical use, just as it's illegal for any idiot to build and sell a car, or a building, or an airplane.
We go out of the way to make sure that our systems do what they need to do, when they need to do it. The other group all have degrees, all are certified and write systems that routinely crash, are slow and bloated and take FOREVOR to be released.
Computer Science is exactly that - the science of computers. Software Engineering is where you write systems that are designed to be stable, have been tested, etc, etc.
Do you let the materials scientist build a bridge? No, you give it to a Civil Engineer. Do you let a physicist design your motherboard? Nope, Electrical Engineer.
People need to give up on expecting CSes to write things that work. That's not what they're trained to do.
I don't even know where to start with this one. The bit length has more to do with the operand length than the instruction length. And absolutely zero, zip, nada to do with how many instructions can be executed at once. The other respondents have pretty much got the rest covered.
Did anyone notice the stock charts at the bottom of the article?? SCO down, with IBM, Red Hat and Microsoft all up.
The market knows which way this is going to go.
Actually, Mandrake 9.1, at least, will recognize your webcam and throw GnomeMeeting right on the desktop for you.
Actually they DID announce it as "Sen to Chihiro no Kamikakushi" when it won.
I for one just hope it comes somewhere other than the AMC way out in the 'burbs here, which was the only Ottawa theatre that had the first run.
> I have always wondered how you say "31337" out loud.
Which kind of makes you the dictionary defintion of a 14m3r.
If you don't know....now you know...
It's possible to not follow a protocol exactly without breaking compatibility. Basically all this is doing is returning the same error for two separate error conditions, rather than specifying the specific cause of the error.
This doesn't break compatibility because the cause of the error isn't important to the error recovery logic.
It would be like if there were different '404 not found' error types for no directory and no file errors in the HTTP standard. The protocol could specify returning the specific error, but if the server returned the same error for both, the user wouldn't really care. All they know is that the URL is bad, and they'll have to try another. Unless they're debugging the server they don't really care whether it was a file or a directory.
This SSL thing is similar. It would be important for debugging, but I can't see the user (even if the user is a piece of code) caring where the error was, as long as they know it's a transmission error.