Cox HSI already blocks port 25. The only way to send outbound email, even if you have a legitimate remote server, is through them -- It's really cruddy.
Cox also blocks other ports which are obviously because of windows worms. Port 80, for example, was blocked because of Code Red. Port 25 could have been blocked for the same reason, but spam is definately another major reason for it.
Cox also prohibits, bandwidth usage now, supposably.
Reread what I just said with the tone that the rampant Cox TV advertisements use, and find out a service you really get for progessively HIGHER prices. The only other viable broadband ISP is Qworst, and I've already seen what it is like there.
So thank you Windows worms for ruining my ISP access even when I used Linux on the connection! Those Windows problems every time!
"Since I'm obviously too much of an idiot to find the 'proof' they claim they're showing, maybe someone else could go look and tell me where it is."
This is not SCO proof, I couldn't find any either, but proof that SCO is laying claim to code they did not write: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kern el&m=107 212616605523&w=2
Just something to think about while it's slashdotted. At some point last year, I believe, the blinkenlights people added support into mplayer so that they can play back any video clips on the matrix. It should be interesting what they do this year.
Oh yeah. Sound, IDE, and AGP I believe are all supported and working for the nForce2 in 2.6. There is an alpha ethernet driver patch available. I don't see any reason why nvidia should do closed source drivers for a motherboard chipset. If they truly believe there are trade secrets in it, they are truly sick. But since they are new at at it, time will tell if they will change, and if I will buy any more of their products.
I have been in the "nforce2 stability discussion", and the lockup issue surrounding it has been believed to be solved. There are two kernel patches available for test11. I don't believe there are any other issues.
If you want to know better the status of XFS read up on the lkml. The cnet article doesn't even explain the good reasons not to include it. Even in 2.6, just in the last couple days, some serious issues have cropped up with it. At there has been some indication that XFS is related to the slab corruption.
There is very little reason to include it in the stable 2.4, when there may be unresolved issues. I'm not saying that you shouldn't use XFS, but it needs more work than to be in 2.4 by default. Lets face it, XFS has alot of cruft still. The main development right now is in the unstable branch 2.6, which is basically XFS's status. If XFS wants to prove it's stable enough for 2.4, it should do so in 2.6, and then it will get back ported then.
Generally, when something is not ready for a stable line, it doesn't have enough people using it. Even linus said recently that he knows very few people that use XFS.
If you look and see their help section, it shows that during the sign up process, they require you to agree to a *new license* (SCO IP license) before you can access the code. That's a GPL violation. And if they claim that the GPL is invalid, then they're still infringing on the copyright.
This is completely unreasonable of SCO. And if you look at it, it's their plan all along. Their goal is to brand linux into their own proprietory unix.
If anything I fear a judge that makes decisions without regard to law and the Constitution. And it has happened. I studied Gore vs Bush, for a paper I wrote in Eng 101 during the time it happened. IMO, I found that the Florida Supreme Court grossly ignored Florida law and set their own election rules.
But you see, I'd love to fight SCO anyway I could =)
No judge will do this. Maybe no judge in their right mind will do it. A hearing where I would be present is probably impossible. So the judge would make his decision based on his own reasoning? Hopefully there aren't any other "factors".
If SCO succeeds in getting the GPL voided and all it's code put into public domain (last 3 years??), can I please be the first to sign onto a class action lawsuit, because it affects me. Surely this damages the work of thousands of people, probably in the trillions of dollars, and I would sure enjoy being part of a coalition to bankrupt and crush SCO. SCO execs will never be able to work in business again.
"The General Public License ('GPL') is unenforceable, void and/or voidable, and IBM's claims based thereon, or related thereto, are barred."
Claiming the GPL is void, one can only assume that they could not possibly be using Linux under the GPL anymore. Yet they still do, and they still plan on using GPL software for new products. I think you could take a look at the CREDITS file in the linux source tree to think of the number of people that can be included in a possible lawsuit against SCO. The fact the use _other_ GPL programs means that any GPL program author may be (at least loosely) included as well. And I tell you what SCO, I think that includes me.
For those who experience lockups at boot when ACPI is used for irq assignments and have to use "pci=noacpi" or "acpi=off" then try this patch:
http://www.chez.com/alors/acpi_pci_irq_routing_f ix 2.patch.gz (copy and paste link)
This is an updated version of a patch that was just posted yesterday on the lkml something like "[PATCH] ACPI PCI irq routing". It hasn't made into test6 so I tried the patch and test6 together and seem to have fixed my problem. I don't know if it will fix all yall problems but... worth a try.
The papers have a pretty good prediction: "Our twelve-month stock price target is $18. We believe SCO can close approximately one fourth of its valuation gap with Red Hat in the next twelve months and achieve a P/E multiple of 25X our FYE October 2004 earnings estimate of $0.71, equating to a stock price of $18."
Red Hat??? Well anyways they've already reached $18 stock price. So one may think that all of this has been carefully planned out, and there is more to come.
No, here's the original chart (they have "lines"): http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.htm l
The tree just doesn't distinguish between taking code or "basing ideas".
If you look past SCO's deceptive tree, the more telling part of the tree is the frequency of other trees taking "something" from linux. This includes UnixWare, Monterey and Solaris. If you understand the SCOvIBM lawsuit, it's over SCO's viral contract claims. Since Monterey is based on AIX and UnixWare, SCO owns that. Also included is Dynix, so they own that too. Guess what? Something from linux was included, so they claim they own linux too. They must have copied code for them to have claimed similarities. Maybe thats why, at least a couple times code was probably taken from linux and put into UnixWare hmm..., or it was probably already there in the first place because they were working on Monterey.
Nothing has really changed as Swaret is not required, or installed by default, or even in the standard package set. It's in extra. So have all the fun you want with 9.1.
Basing a program on a set of standards and programming it are two different situations. Even if they followed the standards perfectly doesn't mean its not gonna be buggy. And it doesn't matter their varient standards; Microsoft just didn't write good enough code.
Funny thing is, I have wrote a program, starting four years ago, called narfbot (hence my name) for online messenging and just three weeks ago, I made a new version that supports peer-to-peer, UDP, and works partially with NAT. No centralized servers are required. No screen name registration. However, you will be able to run your own private "meta-nodes" to achieve your additional purposes. My program has been fairly popular among my friends over the last couple years. The new version is currently being tested, and currently functional. I'm considering to do a world wide release now, because of this discussion. The reason why its funny is because I already made what your considering.
I knew it would be leaked very soon, after the SCOforum or whatever it was called. I remember reading last night that when they were showing the code during the conference, a bunch of reporters took pictures. So that means pictures were not like restricted or anything.
No, the game runs perfectly with wine. It worked when the beta came out (on battle.net of course!) when I patched opengl. To play WC3 in wine: 1. Install any recent wine. Anything later than Jul 2003 works almost perfectly. 2. Switch the wine windows version to win2k. 3. Run the War3 install 4. Don't start the game, and move/delete the "Movies" folder. You won't see the movies in game, but you don't have to watch the movies in the game so it doesn't matter. 5. Start the game using the "-opengl" switch. Multiplayer lan/battle.net works as does single player custom. To play single player, copy in a real msvcrt.dll. That's about it. Of course this assumes you got a good opengl set up. Also note that the game may not run if you are running it off of "ide-scsi". Unload ide-scsi and if it hangs while loading, killall wine and wineserver and try it again. Then it will work.
SCO is still distributing the Linux kernel sources under the GPL.
Not only that, they already said they won't hold their own linux users accountable. So if everyone pretends they run OpenLinux, doesn't that mean that they got a SCO blessed, GPLed OS, and don't need a UnixWare license? Yet another loop-hole in SCO's bullhockey. Unless that is, they retract their statement, and hold their own customers accountable.
I don't know why your questioning who was first, but hyperthreading has been in 2.4.x since at least Linux 2.4.17-pre5 on 2001-12-06. Release kernels later than this clearly had it. (This obviously includes 2.4!) Though work may have begun in early pre-2.4.14 or "SMT P4" is what Linus called it. So this means when he forked 2.5, it already had it, and this supports why I couldn't find any mention of hyperthreading as a major addition by someone who has kept a record of 2.5.x release additions.
Quote from FSF Statement: "Moreover, there are straightforward legal reasons why SCO's assertions concerning claims against the kernel or other free software are likely to fail. As to its trade secret claims, which are the only claims actually made in the lawsuit against IBM, there remains the simple fact that SCO has for years distributed copies of the kernel, Linux, as part of GNU/Linux free software systems. Those systems were distributed by SCO in full compliance with GPL, and therefore included complete source code. So SCO itself has continuously published, as part of its regular business, the material which it claims includes its trade secrets. There is simply no legal basis on which SCO can claim trade secret liability in others for material it widely and commercially published itself under a license that specifically permitted unrestricted copying and distribution."
So instead of claiming they inadvertantly GPLed it, we should rather say, they only made it worse by distributing it themselves, and cannot claim any liability from other people doing the same.
I know what you saying, but I guess "bloat" isn't what I mean. Right now java looks like a mess, like a broken window, and it needs better standards to put it back together. Thus, somehow it came out "bloaty" because of the crap there is right now.
Mozilla may be bloated, but it works pretty good especially with open source. Java right now don't work that great in the open source world.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have a video of it?
Cox HSI already blocks port 25. The only way to send outbound email, even if you have a legitimate remote server, is through them -- It's really cruddy.
Cox also blocks other ports which are obviously because of windows worms. Port 80, for example, was blocked because of Code Red. Port 25 could have been blocked for the same reason, but spam is definately another major reason for it.
Cox also prohibits, bandwidth usage now, supposably.
Reread what I just said with the tone that the rampant Cox TV advertisements use, and find out a service you really get for progessively HIGHER prices. The only other viable broadband ISP is Qworst, and I've already seen what it is like there.
So thank you Windows worms for ruining my ISP access even when I used Linux on the connection! Those Windows problems every time!
"Since I'm obviously too much of an idiot to find the 'proof' they claim they're showing, maybe someone else could go look and tell me where it is."
n el&m=107 212616605523&w=2
This is not SCO proof, I couldn't find any either, but proof that SCO is laying claim to code they did not write:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-ker
Just something to think about while it's slashdotted. At some point last year, I believe, the blinkenlights people added support into mplayer so that they can play back any video clips on the matrix. It should be interesting what they do this year.
Oh yeah. Sound, IDE, and AGP I believe are all supported and working for the nForce2 in 2.6. There is an alpha ethernet driver patch available. I don't see any reason why nvidia should do closed source drivers for a motherboard chipset. If they truly believe there are trade secrets in it, they are truly sick. But since they are new at at it, time will tell if they will change, and if I will buy any more of their products.
I have been in the "nforce2 stability discussion", and the lockup issue surrounding it has been believed to be solved. There are two kernel patches available for test11. I don't believe there are any other issues.
If you want to know better the status of XFS read up on the lkml. The cnet article doesn't even explain the good reasons not to include it. Even in 2.6, just in the last couple days, some serious issues have cropped up with it. At there has been some indication that XFS is related to the slab corruption.
There is very little reason to include it in the stable 2.4, when there may be unresolved issues. I'm not saying that you shouldn't use XFS, but it needs more work than to be in 2.4 by default. Lets face it, XFS has alot of cruft still. The main development right now is in the unstable branch 2.6, which is basically XFS's status. If XFS wants to prove it's stable enough for 2.4, it should do so in 2.6, and then it will get back ported then.
Generally, when something is not ready for a stable line, it doesn't have enough people using it. Even linus said recently that he knows very few people that use XFS.
If you look and see their help section, it shows that during the sign up process, they require you to agree to a *new license* (SCO IP license) before you can access the code. That's a GPL violation. And if they claim that the GPL is invalid, then they're still infringing on the copyright.
This is completely unreasonable of SCO. And if you look at it, it's their plan all along. Their goal is to brand linux into their own proprietory unix.
Thanks for your sane reasoning.
If anything I fear a judge that makes decisions without regard to law and the Constitution. And it has happened. I studied Gore vs Bush, for a paper I wrote in Eng 101 during the time it happened. IMO, I found that the Florida Supreme Court grossly ignored Florida law and set their own election rules.
But you see, I'd love to fight SCO anyway I could =)
No judge will do this.
Maybe no judge in their right mind will do it. A hearing where I would be present is probably impossible. So the judge would make his decision based on his own reasoning? Hopefully there aren't any other "factors".
If SCO succeeds in getting the GPL voided and all it's code put into public domain (last 3 years??), can I please be the first to sign onto a class action lawsuit, because it affects me. Surely this damages the work of thousands of people, probably in the trillions of dollars, and I would sure enjoy being part of a coalition to bankrupt and crush SCO. SCO execs will never be able to work in business again.
In their Sixth Affirmative Defense, they say:
"The General Public License ('GPL') is unenforceable, void and/or voidable, and IBM's claims based thereon, or related thereto, are barred."
Claiming the GPL is void, one can only assume that they could not possibly be using Linux under the GPL anymore. Yet they still do, and they still plan on using GPL software for new products. I think you could take a look at the CREDITS file in the linux source tree to think of the number of people that can be included in a possible lawsuit against SCO. The fact the use _other_ GPL programs means that any GPL program author may be (at least loosely) included as well. And I tell you what SCO, I think that includes me.
For those who experience lockups at boot when ACPI is used for irq assignments and have to use "pci=noacpi" or "acpi=off" then try this patch:
f ix 2.patch.gz
http://www.chez.com/alors/acpi_pci_irq_routing_
(copy and paste link)
This is an updated version of a patch that was just posted yesterday on the lkml something like "[PATCH] ACPI PCI irq routing". It hasn't made into test6 so I tried the patch and test6 together and seem to have fixed my problem. I don't know if it will fix all yall problems but... worth a try.
The papers have a pretty good prediction:
"Our twelve-month stock price target is $18. We believe SCO can close approximately one fourth of its valuation gap with Red Hat in the next twelve months and achieve a P/E multiple of 25X our FYE October 2004 earnings estimate of $0.71, equating to a stock price of $18."
Red Hat??? Well anyways they've already reached $18 stock price. So one may think that all of this has been carefully planned out, and there is more to come.
No, here's the original chart (they have "lines"):m l
http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.ht
The tree just doesn't distinguish between taking code or "basing ideas".
If you look past SCO's deceptive tree, the more telling part of the tree is the frequency of other trees taking "something" from linux. This includes UnixWare, Monterey and Solaris. If you understand the SCOvIBM lawsuit, it's over SCO's viral contract claims. Since Monterey is based on AIX and UnixWare, SCO owns that. Also included is Dynix, so they own that too. Guess what? Something from linux was included, so they claim they own linux too. They must have copied code for them to have claimed similarities. Maybe thats why, at least a couple times code was probably taken from linux and put into UnixWare hmm..., or it was probably already there in the first place because they were working on Monterey.
Nothing has really changed as Swaret is not required, or installed by default, or even in the standard package set. It's in extra. So have all the fun you want with 9.1.
Basing a program on a set of standards and programming it are two different situations. Even if they followed the standards perfectly doesn't mean its not gonna be buggy. And it doesn't matter their varient standards; Microsoft just didn't write good enough code.
Funny thing is, I have wrote a program, starting four years ago, called narfbot (hence my name) for online messenging and just three weeks ago, I made a new version that supports peer-to-peer, UDP, and works partially with NAT. No centralized servers are required. No screen name registration. However, you will be able to run your own private "meta-nodes" to achieve your additional purposes. My program has been fairly popular among my friends over the last couple years. The new version is currently being tested, and currently functional. I'm considering to do a world wide release now, because of this discussion. The reason why its funny is because I already made what your considering.
I knew it would be leaked very soon, after the SCOforum or whatever it was called. I remember reading last night that when they were showing the code during the conference, a bunch of reporters took pictures. So that means pictures were not like restricted or anything.
No, the game runs perfectly with wine. It worked when the beta came out (on battle.net of course!) when I patched opengl. To play WC3 in wine:
1. Install any recent wine. Anything later than Jul 2003 works almost perfectly.
2. Switch the wine windows version to win2k.
3. Run the War3 install
4. Don't start the game, and move/delete the "Movies" folder. You won't see the movies in game, but you don't have to watch the movies in the game so it doesn't matter.
5. Start the game using the "-opengl" switch. Multiplayer lan/battle.net works as does single player custom. To play single player, copy in a real msvcrt.dll.
That's about it. Of course this assumes you got a good opengl set up. Also note that the game may not run if you are running it off of "ide-scsi". Unload ide-scsi and if it hangs while loading, killall wine and wineserver and try it again. Then it will work.
SCO is still distributing the Linux kernel sources under the GPL.
Not only that, they already said they won't hold their own linux users accountable. So if everyone pretends they run OpenLinux, doesn't that mean that they got a SCO blessed, GPLed OS, and don't need a UnixWare license? Yet another loop-hole in SCO's bullhockey. Unless that is, they retract their statement, and hold their own customers accountable.
I don't know why your questioning who was first, but hyperthreading has been in 2.4.x since at least Linux 2.4.17-pre5 on 2001-12-06. Release kernels later than this clearly had it. (This obviously includes 2.4!) Though work may have begun in early pre-2.4.14 or "SMT P4" is what Linus called it. So this means when he forked 2.5, it already had it, and this supports why I couldn't find any mention of hyperthreading as a major addition by someone who has kept a record of 2.5.x release additions.
Quote from FSF Statement:
"Moreover, there are straightforward legal reasons why SCO's assertions concerning claims against the kernel or other free software are likely to fail. As to its trade secret claims, which are the only claims actually made in the lawsuit against IBM, there remains the simple fact that SCO has for years distributed copies of the kernel, Linux, as part of GNU/Linux free software systems. Those systems were distributed by SCO in full compliance with GPL, and therefore included complete source code. So SCO itself has continuously published, as part of its regular business, the material which it claims includes its trade secrets. There is simply no legal basis on which SCO can claim trade secret liability in others for material it widely and commercially published itself under a license that specifically permitted unrestricted copying and distribution."
So instead of claiming they inadvertantly GPLed it, we should rather say, they only made it worse by distributing it themselves, and cannot claim any liability from other people doing the same.
I know what you saying, but I guess "bloat" isn't what I mean. Right now java looks like a mess, like a broken window, and it needs better standards to put it back together. Thus, somehow it came out "bloaty" because of the crap there is right now.
Mozilla may be bloated, but it works pretty good especially with open source. Java right now don't work that great in the open source world.
So in another words, even though some java progs have descriptions that interest me, but I just not bother, because it has to do with java.