Sun had alot of interesting technology that could of kept them on top. Only if they weren't profit minded with certain parts of it. Their management doesn't seem to see things longterm but who could truly blame them. Who would of thought opensource would of been viable.
A while ago I read a paper by Larry McVoy which essentially detailed the current threats to Sun at the time. One of those threats was NT (well no one who actually knew anything about Unix at the time saw it as a threat but those were geeks not business minded people) and the other was Linux and what he termed Sourceware at the time.
I had the good fortune of speaking with LM about what happened to the Spring OS which is mentioned in the paper. His response was that nothing happened, it essentially died. Some of the interesting and functional bits made it into Solaris but thats about it.
From the paper A royalty free operating system. Sun wants this so badly that they are currently spending roughly the same amount as the Unix royalty stream to fund development of a royalty free operating system called Spring.
Obviously Sun didn't want it so badly and instead of seeing Linux as a moving target gaining speed many just shrugged it off. This, again, a mistake. I like Sun, they have extremely good hardware, documentation and support. They need to find a viable business plan and it would start by maybe re-reading this paper and compiling a new one assessing their current and future threats.
If Sun genuinely wanted to they could be a dominant player in the linux market, ahead of Redhat and Novell. No one does support like Sun; period. However, they just let the ball drop way too many times. If you read the paper carefully you'll see that Novell even though they are late to the game are pushing through with what they want. I wish them the best of luck.
Sun still has enough money to make a change but sometimes it's hard to let go of certain things. The reality is that Sun doesn't have to let go of it's main babies such as the Sparc or Solaris. If they truly want to keep them they could recommend them for high end usage in certain critical performance server areas. There's a whole host of different configurations they could keep those things specialized for but they just aren't serious.
Still, I wish Sun the best of luck. If this rumor is true, they are going to fumble the ball one last time.
It initalizes a run level.. which is what init is.. process control initiation.
Init is the parent of all processes. Its primary role is to create processes from a script stored in the file/etc/inittab (see init-tab(5)). This file usually has entries which cause init to spawn gettys on each line that users can log in. It also controls autonomous processes required by any particular system.
6 is a runlevel used to initiate the rebooting of the system.
I don't understand the rationality behind this. The vulnerabilities have been fixed, if people who were affected are upgrading why isn't this a good thing?
Free software, free security patches, plus the added fact that people are upgrading to currently non-affected versions?
Where's the "isn't necessarily a good thing" part?
Wrongo. If it's true that US dollars spent abroad never come back to the US, why would anyone abroad perceive dollars to have any value at all? Don't say, "because you can convert US dollars to local currency!" This is an effect of the fact that foreigners perceive dollars as valuable, not a cause.
This is the most wrong thing I've ever read in one of these discussions. Personally, i've not made up my mind one way or another regarding the situaiton and am playing a wait and see from afar game. However, our trade deficits are astounding and the US dollar has been falling in value for close to 4 years going now. The Euro is currently worth more than our own dollar. I won't say it's in direct correlation with outsourcing or trade deficits or any of that because i'm not versed enough on economics as say an economist would be to actually prove that. The simple fact is though that the trade of currency has nothing to do with the money coming back. By simple observation that's not the case. The foreigners see our currency as viable, not valuable. If people were collecting US currency for value they'd stop and start collecting the Euro or if they were serious they'd just start amassing gold.
For instance in Korea you can buy a pair of Nikes really cheap in US currency. Here in the US you would pay an obscene markup in comparison. Sometimes as much as 100-100 US dollars for something you'd pay 20 US dollars for in Korea. When foreigners or domestics in their own country spend our money it doesn't come back here in most cases. It stays circulated in their own industries and communities holding what they consider the current value + the value of the actual bill. This is also another reason why economist suggest poor communities shop in their own communities if they want to see change.
Bush is respected by almost all the current and former US military personnel I know, in distinct contrast to Bill Clinton. When I was in the service, many officers and enlisted so despised Clinton that they refused to display any certificates, awards, decorations, citations, etc with his signature on them. Despite the prohibition on using "contemptuous words" against the commander-in-chief and elected officials, most guys were (privately) very frank about how they felt... The level of enmity was really remarkable.
I know of whole Brigades that dislike Bush. Do you have any evidence to support these claims. As you, I'm also prior service. Including a couple of units that were disbanded by Bush, including my own. I'm also a member of the Veterans guild, no one there likes Bush. Any evidence to support these claims would be great.
Put your money where your mouth is. The comment that Microsoft users will be protected from the violating of the EOLAS patent is where? They aren't being protected you're just paying the license fee. What about all the other patent violations in Microsoft software? This specific comment must be followed up. I'm sure it will make Ballmer wish he never said it.
Silly patents are bad, this whole patent game is bad. However, Microsoft shouldn't pretend it's indemnifying users. It will come back to bite them in the ass. Sometimes I wonder if these CEO's and execs are really worth their salaries making statements like these. Microsoft shareholders should be pissed Ballmer is opening them up to future legal problems with this one silly comment.
Ummm the Karma and the people who were complaining had 500-800's and said "Not surprised" etc etc. Problems with the headset jack and the hd and sometimes one unit in specific wouldn't power on.
Rio has consistently had poor hardware and hardware that consistently fails. I bought 5 rio devices for friends/family some time ago. None of them survived over 3 months and all the work to get new equipment wasn't worth the hassle. The mp3 players in specific just consistently continued to fail. After a good three tries everyone just gave up. Just to be sure I didn't get a bad batch a couple of people also said their rio devices died on them.
I don't care what they make, I won't be buying rio ever again. Obviously this is just an observation of my experiences and other third party heresay. However that's a total of a good 10 people. Enough to tell me that it's not just me. Most of them got ipods already and my brother just got one as well.
So i'm gonna just get myself an ipod and see how it fairs. I'd do the whole christmas buy an ipod thing but this time around i'll just think of something else.
There are a host of sites that compare this system, Mac's and the daemons in FreeBSD and Linux. Google them.
By the way, just because someone uses generic language in a Slashdot post doesn't necessarily mean they "don't know" what they're talking about. Even though this is a "news for nerds" site, I generally don't liter my comments with talk about inner joins and such. Anyone with a modicum of an IQ would realize the flatfile structure of the current indexing systems is nowhere near as fast as a SQL database would be on the same machine.
Yet you still continue to talk about something you have no clue about. Heh, please don't reply to this. The thread is enough as an example in and of itself. What do Inner joins have to do with a database filesystem? You are comparing what indexing on macs and the daemons in freebsd and linux? What comparisons?
You don't understand filesystems or how they work at all and then you claim generic language when the simple fact and question remains "How are database filesystems faster". If you've ever worked on a filesystem or simply inquired or spent maybe a couple hours researching the topic you would know, they are not.
Anyone with a modicum of an IQ would realize the flatfile structure of the current indexing systems is nowhere near as fast as a SQL database would be on the same machine.
Of course this coming from someone who knows nothing about what they speak. So again as everyone can see simply more wrong information. As I invite others to read this thread I just want to again show that it's pertinent you realize my original question. Obviously, this person wouldn't know that I've worked on filesystems before. Not only that but as I originally said, instead of him saying "I don't know". He posts with authority on a subject he knows nothing about and then tries to follow it up with more authority. On something he has no idea about, so the layman is simply mislead.
Bolting SQL onto filesystems will not improve filesystem performance. It is not faster and what you are talking about is totally subjective. What indexing systems? What exactly are you talking about? What benchmarks? The rest of your comment has to do with functionality of a search in comparison to searching maybe a database or flatfile. Of course you don't specify. So, how about explaining how a database file system is faster than a standard file system and we can continue from there.
I wish people who didn't know what they were talking about would stop commenting on subjects with authority. How will bolting on SQL into the filesystem improve performance?
Does it actually hurt some people to be objective about what they say. To say; "I don't know" or to look up information and papers on a topic before they speak about it? Isn't that what learning is about?
Current implementations of database filesystems already do exist. They are slower than their counterparts. I'm not arguing whether it's good or bad as the new functionality they can provide would be innovative and great for the user app space. Also considering that hardware in terms of spec (space, speed, etc) it only seems logical. However, please stop spreading grossly wrong conjecture.
Mr. Wildstrom argues that patents are being violated and that OSRM has found 283 patent violations. A non biased person might then ask the question "How many other operating systems or patent violations are going on in closed source code? Can one even find out?" The answer to that question is that no one knows. Inevitably, your legal risk is the same if not greater. It's highly likely that a large majority of closed source vendors are also violating patents. Which would lead a non-biased person to believe that the problem is patents not Linux or Open-Source. Considering this OSRM and "insurance" is useless. If OSRM wasn't just a money grab and actually wanted to benefit Open Source considering there is the same risk involved they'd rename themselves Patent Risk Management.
Secondly, the author argues in favor for the BSD or the MPL licenses as it would clear up ambiguities and be less restrictive. Obviously, he doesn't say how. If he did then the statement would make no sense. Again a non-biased person would question how exactly they would benefit from switching their software to those licenses. The truth of the matter that the author neglects to mention is that it doesn't. It does benefit business that would like to use the code for free. The aspect/goal being to not submit any changes to the benefit of the community that provided said company with the code in the first place. Seeing as this is Business Week I concede to that view point.
The article in and of itself is a horrible piece of advice for business especially the nimble startups. I love Linux and Open-Source but I love money more. This article advice would do nothing to further your business or protect you at all. Even after all of this I'm not biased. If Microsoft could provide what open-source did even at a small fee I would pay. This isn't the case and for small to medium companies it just doesn't make sense. Also, if I was a software shop and could use some open-source to further my business for more money I would.
I could play into that whole "I'll sue you because you're violating my patent" but then I would of probably paid SCO a $699 license fee and or bought Microsoft software. Still, my risk is the same. So if this is about Business; then Business Week and the author of the article have done a poor job in telling me how exactly to save or make money. There are too many cases of people/companies profiting off of free software than not. Simply, someone who is non-biased and comes across this article has been disserviced.
If someone starts a magazine company that provided useful Business information with NO bias I'll subscribe.
I call bullsh*t. There's a difference between not knowing that the car is stolen and not knowing that it is illegal to be in a stolen car.
You calling bullshit doesn't change the law. Get caught in a stolen car that you didn't know was stolen and you can tell it to the officer arresting you.
You are wrong, I'd love to have a legal discussion about this but first you'd have to fix your spelling. I'm not one to harp on such things but your spelling is atrocious. Two, we'd have to talk about interstate trade laws, property laws, theft etc etc in every single state. Simply because it's different in which ever state you happen to be. For instance, if you buy a stolen car or even happen to just be in a stolen car (clueless to the fact that it is stolen) you get a free goto jail card. If you buy stolen property in some states you can be held legally liable for said stolen property.
Usually there is no fine line, you might like to think that there is one. There isn't, you might be able to try and say your client had no idea but then as everyone knows being ignorant of the law doesn't make it ok.
With Microsoft Windows the users can always say they can't be responsible for the code by Microsoft, and in a reasonable court this can hold water.
No they can't. The interpretation of the law is clear, unless they are in your court of where ever land. You shouldn't reply to something with authority if you don't know what you're talking about.
Patents are out of the scope of the GPL but you neglect to make it clear. That patents themselves are a problem in software open or closed. Reading this one might get the impression that it's simply just a problem with FOSS when it's clearly a problem; period. So buying closed software with patent violations opens you up to the same legal aspects as getting free software with the same patent violations. Also while this is a discussion people also seem to be under the impression that they are protected from legal action if it's in closed software or that they can "give" their case to the offending closed software manufacturer. This is also wrong. If for instance Microsoft violates a patent in X software; you are also violating the patent and are liable.
Your ticket money (expensive enough to begin with) goes to the theatre and to the movie makers. For them, showing ads to a captive audience is just an additional cash grab.
Your bandwidth money (expensive enough to begin with) goes to the ISP and to the backbone vendors. For them, showing ads to a captive audience is just an additional cash grab.
Web browsing is different because the only thing you're paying for is your bandwidth. Even your browser is free, and it runs on a computer you're likely using for other stuff.
I'm paying for a service, the browser is free, and I use my computer for many other things. Yes; and? Would it be different if I paid for a browser like Opera? Does Opera have the right to forward me ads because I bought their product? There is a point where ad's become intrusive and they are usually so intrusive that the usage of other things become problematic. The browser has been made a commodity and with quality http clients such as Mozilla. It means I no longer have to put up with popups etcetera. If a webpage has an ad that's fine, web browsers are filled with content you are seeking whether it be educational, entertainment or other. People offering this content are free to package it with whatever they want. It goes only as far as the webpage and the browser though, and not my desktop. Using my resources at my expense is unacceptable, especially considering that I did not ask for it. Being that this plugin is optional, thats great.
Somebody earlier made a much better comparison to leafing through a trade magazine, looking at ads that you want to know about, because those ads are for stuff you're interested in.
I never debated the programs uses by people who choose to "opt-in", as stated earlier if you're comfortable with it then fine. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with morals. Even if the author of the program intended for its uses to be nothing but altruistic it will be exploited by ad agencies everywhere. The parent suggested support based on morality which simply isn't present in the industry he or she is speaking of.
There's alot to be said for being able to do research primarily in the betterment of different structures and environments. This plugin is simply not one of those cases. The most fractional gain it will provide is nothing in comparison to the major setbacks forthcoming. You try to avoid pandoras in your own research.
This is the most retarded thinking ever. This is like saying, I'll support the clips they play in the beginning of movies because they are taking the moral high road. What?
You pay to go see a movie, not to go see a 15 to 30 minutes of ads. It doesn't offset the cost of the movie. The samething for everything else. Advertising, unless it's specific product placement on high traffic sites is useless. Voluntarily subjecting yourself to a barrage of ads is like giving your address to a "direct marketing" unit. Ad's make sense in TV in sports arenas, newspapers, slashdot, google. They simply don't make sense on my desktop, that I pay for, that I pay bandwidth for, that I foot the bill for.
Of course if you're comfortable with the fact that you are footing someone elses bill while having to pay for your own; at detriment to yourself. Then more power to you.
Unlike you, no one is thinking about morals and high roads in the ad industry. This is just another way they can stick a piece of paper, image, video, link in your face. It's business.
Clubs are a waste. I'd advise you lock your car however, a saw and a minute and a ford focus becomes a joy ride. You don't need any special equipment. The Club is based on the fact that it's clamped to the steering wheel and 95% of the time people such as your self think that will deter a criminal; even a casual one. You are wrong. So far you've only been lucky. Professionals won't steal a Ford Focus, however, some teenage kid cutting class will and your ripe for the picking if it's unlocked.
What we did was build an on demand contextual data mapper...it performs fuzzy searches on the fields of these databases, and "clumps" them together based on the percentage of matching fields and the exactness of the match. Nothing new, nothing somebody else couldn't think up if they were good with regular expressions, Tries and SQL -- but nobody did.
I can think of maybe 4 things off the top of my head as prior art. So if this is what your company has as patentable or a fresh new idea that only you implemented in your product. You're wrong. Not only are you wrong, but to think you're the only people who have implemented this.. You might need to get a deeper R&D budget.
At least with MS software, you can hand the defence over to them and their fancy lawyers, whereas with Linux you'd be pretty much alone. I think this is the biggest obstacle to FOSS takeup.
WRONG, who is given you people this idea that you can hand your case over to Microsoft? Where did Microsoft say they will indemnify their users? What EULA? Point it out to me.
The fact is this, you are not indemnified by patent suits against stuff in Microsoft Software. The plantiff in the situation might decide to go after Microsoft. Nothing is stopping them from coming after you though.
Wrong, Microsoft DOES NOT indemnify it's users. Read your EULA's. Infact, not only do they not indemnify their users but they state many a time in many EULA's that when worst comes to worst; it's your problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Sun had alot of interesting technology that could of kept them on top. Only if they weren't profit minded with certain parts of it. Their management doesn't seem to see things longterm but who could truly blame them. Who would of thought opensource would of been viable.
A while ago I read a paper by Larry McVoy which essentially detailed the current threats to Sun at the time. One of those threats was NT (well no one who actually knew anything about Unix at the time saw it as a threat but those were geeks not business minded people) and the other was Linux and what he termed Sourceware at the time.
The paper is still available http://www.bitmover.com/lm/papers/srcos.html to read.
I had the good fortune of speaking with LM about what happened to the Spring OS which is mentioned in the paper. His response was that nothing happened, it essentially died. Some of the interesting and functional bits made it into Solaris but thats about it.
From the paper A royalty free operating system. Sun wants this so badly that they are currently spending roughly the same amount as the Unix royalty stream to fund development of a royalty free operating system called Spring.
Obviously Sun didn't want it so badly and instead of seeing Linux as a moving target gaining speed many just shrugged it off. This, again, a mistake. I like Sun, they have extremely good hardware, documentation and support. They need to find a viable business plan and it would start by maybe re-reading this paper and compiling a new one assessing their current and future threats.
If Sun genuinely wanted to they could be a dominant player in the linux market, ahead of Redhat and Novell. No one does support like Sun; period. However, they just let the ball drop way too many times. If you read the paper carefully you'll see that Novell even though they are late to the game are pushing through with what they want. I wish them the best of luck.
Sun still has enough money to make a change but sometimes it's hard to let go of certain things. The reality is that Sun doesn't have to let go of it's main babies such as the Sparc or Solaris. If they truly want to keep them they could recommend them for high end usage in certain critical performance server areas. There's a whole host of different configurations they could keep those things specialized for but they just aren't serious.
Still, I wish Sun the best of luck. If this rumor is true, they are going to fumble the ball one last time.
It initalizes a run level.. which is what init is.. process control initiation.
/etc/inittab (see init-tab(5)). This file usually has entries which cause init to spawn gettys on each line that users can log in. It also controls autonomous processes required by any particular system.
Init is the parent of all processes. Its primary role is to create processes from a script stored in the file
6 is a runlevel used to initiate the rebooting of the system.
I don't understand the rationality behind this. The vulnerabilities have been fixed, if people who were affected are upgrading why isn't this a good thing?
Free software, free security patches, plus the added fact that people are upgrading to currently non-affected versions?
Where's the "isn't necessarily a good thing" part?
Wrongo. If it's true that US dollars spent abroad never come back to the US, why would anyone abroad perceive dollars to have any value at all? Don't say, "because you can convert US dollars to local currency!" This is an effect of the fact that foreigners perceive dollars as valuable, not a cause.
This is the most wrong thing I've ever read in one of these discussions. Personally, i've not made up my mind one way or another regarding the situaiton and am playing a wait and see from afar game. However, our trade deficits are astounding and the US dollar has been falling in value for close to 4 years going now. The Euro is currently worth more than our own dollar. I won't say it's in direct correlation with outsourcing or trade deficits or any of that because i'm not versed enough on economics as say an economist would be to actually prove that. The simple fact is though that the trade of currency has nothing to do with the money coming back. By simple observation that's not the case. The foreigners see our currency as viable, not valuable. If people were collecting US currency for value they'd stop and start collecting the Euro or if they were serious they'd just start amassing gold.
For instance in Korea you can buy a pair of Nikes really cheap in US currency. Here in the US you would pay an obscene markup in comparison. Sometimes as much as 100-100 US dollars for something you'd pay 20 US dollars for in Korea. When foreigners or domestics in their own country spend our money it doesn't come back here in most cases. It stays circulated in their own industries and communities holding what they consider the current value + the value of the actual bill. This is also another reason why economist suggest poor communities shop in their own communities if they want to see change.
Bush is respected by almost all the current and former US military personnel I know, in distinct contrast to Bill Clinton. When I was in the service, many officers and enlisted so despised Clinton that they refused to display any certificates, awards, decorations, citations, etc with his signature on them. Despite the prohibition on using "contemptuous words" against the commander-in-chief and elected officials, most guys were (privately) very frank about how they felt... The level of enmity was really remarkable.
I know of whole Brigades that dislike Bush. Do you have any evidence to support these claims. As you, I'm also prior service. Including a couple of units that were disbanded by Bush, including my own. I'm also a member of the Veterans guild, no one there likes Bush. Any evidence to support these claims would be great.
Put your money where your mouth is. The comment that Microsoft users will be protected from the violating of the EOLAS patent is where? They aren't being protected you're just paying the license fee. What about all the other patent violations in Microsoft software? This specific comment must be followed up. I'm sure it will make Ballmer wish he never said it.
Silly patents are bad, this whole patent game is bad. However, Microsoft shouldn't pretend it's indemnifying users. It will come back to bite them in the ass. Sometimes I wonder if these CEO's and execs are really worth their salaries making statements like these. Microsoft shareholders should be pissed Ballmer is opening them up to future legal problems with this one silly comment.
Ummm the Karma and the people who were complaining had 500-800's and said "Not surprised" etc etc. Problems with the headset jack and the hd and sometimes one unit in specific wouldn't power on.
Yup and the headset jacks would get all static like.
Rio has consistently had poor hardware and hardware that consistently fails. I bought 5 rio devices for friends/family some time ago. None of them survived over 3 months and all the work to get new equipment wasn't worth the hassle. The mp3 players in specific just consistently continued to fail. After a good three tries everyone just gave up. Just to be sure I didn't get a bad batch a couple of people also said their rio devices died on them.
I don't care what they make, I won't be buying rio ever again. Obviously this is just an observation of my experiences and other third party heresay. However that's a total of a good 10 people. Enough to tell me that it's not just me. Most of them got ipods already and my brother just got one as well.
So i'm gonna just get myself an ipod and see how it fairs. I'd do the whole christmas buy an ipod thing but this time around i'll just think of something else.
I don't use windows; and haven't since 1994.
There are a host of sites that compare this system, Mac's and the daemons in FreeBSD and Linux. Google them.
By the way, just because someone uses generic language in a Slashdot post doesn't necessarily mean they "don't know" what they're talking about. Even though this is a "news for nerds" site, I generally don't liter my comments with talk about inner joins and such. Anyone with a modicum of an IQ would realize the flatfile structure of the current indexing systems is nowhere near as fast as a SQL database would be on the same machine.
Yet you still continue to talk about something you have no clue about. Heh, please don't reply to this. The thread is enough as an example in and of itself. What do Inner joins have to do with a database filesystem? You are comparing what indexing on macs and the daemons in freebsd and linux? What comparisons?
You don't understand filesystems or how they work at all and then you claim generic language when the simple fact and question remains "How are database filesystems faster". If you've ever worked on a filesystem or simply inquired or spent maybe a couple hours researching the topic you would know, they are not.
Anyone with a modicum of an IQ would realize the flatfile structure of the current indexing systems is nowhere near as fast as a SQL database would be on the same machine.
Of course this coming from someone who knows nothing about what they speak. So again as everyone can see simply more wrong information. As I invite others to read this thread I just want to again show that it's pertinent you realize my original question. Obviously, this person wouldn't know that I've worked on filesystems before. Not only that but as I originally said, instead of him saying "I don't know". He posts with authority on a subject he knows nothing about and then tries to follow it up with more authority. On something he has no idea about, so the layman is simply mislead.
Maybe I should do an article about this?
Bolting SQL onto filesystems will not improve filesystem performance. It is not faster and what you are talking about is totally subjective. What indexing systems? What exactly are you talking about? What benchmarks? The rest of your comment has to do with functionality of a search in comparison to searching maybe a database or flatfile. Of course you don't specify. So, how about explaining how a database file system is faster than a standard file system and we can continue from there.
That would be true if for except the small fact that open/closed source implementations already exist.
d bfs-proposal.pdf p .pdf
http://www.vitanuova.com/inferno/man/4/dbfs.html
http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~vernal/learn/cs261r/
http://www.thyme.net/imp/dbfs.html
http://www.eamonwalsh.com/projects/masters/writeu
http://www.orafaq.com/faqifs.htm
http://relfs.sourceforge.net/Home.html
One could presumably go on.
Dear God, Allah, Number One,
I wish people who didn't know what they were talking about would stop commenting on subjects with authority. How will bolting on SQL into the filesystem improve performance?
Does it actually hurt some people to be objective about what they say. To say; "I don't know" or to look up information and papers on a topic before they speak about it? Isn't that what learning is about?
Current implementations of database filesystems already do exist. They are slower than their counterparts. I'm not arguing whether it's good or bad as the new functionality they can provide would be innovative and great for the user app space. Also considering that hardware in terms of spec (space, speed, etc) it only seems logical. However, please stop spreading grossly wrong conjecture.
Mr. Wildstrom argues that patents are being violated and that OSRM has found 283 patent violations. A non biased person might then ask the question "How many other operating systems or patent violations are going on in closed source code? Can one even find out?" The answer to that question is that no one knows. Inevitably, your legal risk is the same if not greater. It's highly likely that a large majority of closed source vendors are also violating patents. Which would lead a non-biased person to believe that the problem is patents not Linux or Open-Source. Considering this OSRM and "insurance" is useless. If OSRM wasn't just a money grab and actually wanted to benefit Open Source considering there is the same risk involved they'd rename themselves Patent Risk Management.
Secondly, the author argues in favor for the BSD or the MPL licenses as it would clear up ambiguities and be less restrictive. Obviously, he doesn't say how. If he did then the statement would make no sense. Again a non-biased person would question how exactly they would benefit from switching their software to those licenses. The truth of the matter that the author neglects to mention is that it doesn't. It does benefit business that would like to use the code for free. The aspect/goal being to not submit any changes to the benefit of the community that provided said company with the code in the first place. Seeing as this is Business Week I concede to that view point.
The article in and of itself is a horrible piece of advice for business especially the nimble startups. I love Linux and Open-Source but I love money more. This article advice would do nothing to further your business or protect you at all. Even after all of this I'm not biased. If Microsoft could provide what open-source did even at a small fee I would pay. This isn't the case and for small to medium companies it just doesn't make sense. Also, if I was a software shop and could use some open-source to further my business for more money I would.
I could play into that whole "I'll sue you because you're violating my patent" but then I would of probably paid SCO a $699 license fee and or bought Microsoft software. Still, my risk is the same. So if this is about Business; then Business Week and the author of the article have done a poor job in telling me how exactly to save or make money. There are too many cases of people/companies profiting off of free software than not. Simply, someone who is non-biased and comes across this article has been disserviced.
If someone starts a magazine company that provided useful Business information with NO bias I'll subscribe.
I call bullsh*t. There's a difference between not knowing that the car is stolen and not knowing that it is illegal to be in a stolen car.
You calling bullshit doesn't change the law. Get caught in a stolen car that you didn't know was stolen and you can tell it to the officer arresting you.
You are wrong, I'd love to have a legal discussion about this but first you'd have to fix your spelling. I'm not one to harp on such things but your spelling is atrocious. Two, we'd have to talk about interstate trade laws, property laws, theft etc etc in every single state. Simply because it's different in which ever state you happen to be. For instance, if you buy a stolen car or even happen to just be in a stolen car (clueless to the fact that it is stolen) you get a free goto jail card. If you buy stolen property in some states you can be held legally liable for said stolen property.
Usually there is no fine line, you might like to think that there is one. There isn't, you might be able to try and say your client had no idea but then as everyone knows being ignorant of the law doesn't make it ok.
With Microsoft Windows the users can always say they can't be responsible for the code by Microsoft, and in a reasonable court this can hold water.
No they can't. The interpretation of the law is clear, unless they are in your court of where ever land. You shouldn't reply to something with authority if you don't know what you're talking about.
Patents are out of the scope of the GPL but you neglect to make it clear. That patents themselves are a problem in software open or closed. Reading this one might get the impression that it's simply just a problem with FOSS when it's clearly a problem; period. So buying closed software with patent violations opens you up to the same legal aspects as getting free software with the same patent violations. Also while this is a discussion people also seem to be under the impression that they are protected from legal action if it's in closed software or that they can "give" their case to the offending closed software manufacturer. This is also wrong. If for instance Microsoft violates a patent in X software; you are also violating the patent and are liable.
Your ticket money (expensive enough to begin with) goes to the theatre and to the movie makers. For them, showing ads to a captive audience is just an additional cash grab.
Your bandwidth money (expensive enough to begin with) goes to the ISP and to the backbone vendors. For them, showing ads to a captive audience is just an additional cash grab.
Web browsing is different because the only thing you're paying for is your bandwidth. Even your browser is free, and it runs on a computer you're likely using for other stuff.
I'm paying for a service, the browser is free, and I use my computer for many other things. Yes; and? Would it be different if I paid for a browser like Opera? Does Opera have the right to forward me ads because I bought their product? There is a point where ad's become intrusive and they are usually so intrusive that the usage of other things become problematic. The browser has been made a commodity and with quality http clients such as Mozilla. It means I no longer have to put up with popups etcetera. If a webpage has an ad that's fine, web browsers are filled with content you are seeking whether it be educational, entertainment or other. People offering this content are free to package it with whatever they want. It goes only as far as the webpage and the browser though, and not my desktop. Using my resources at my expense is unacceptable, especially considering that I did not ask for it. Being that this plugin is optional, thats great.
Somebody earlier made a much better comparison to leafing through a trade magazine, looking at ads that you want to know about, because those ads are for stuff you're interested in.
I never debated the programs uses by people who choose to "opt-in", as stated earlier if you're comfortable with it then fine. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with morals. Even if the author of the program intended for its uses to be nothing but altruistic it will be exploited by ad agencies everywhere. The parent suggested support based on morality which simply isn't present in the industry he or she is speaking of.
There's alot to be said for being able to do research primarily in the betterment of different structures and environments. This plugin is simply not one of those cases. The most fractional gain it will provide is nothing in comparison to the major setbacks forthcoming. You try to avoid pandoras in your own research.
This is the most retarded thinking ever. This is like saying, I'll support the clips they play in the beginning of movies because they are taking the moral high road. What?
You pay to go see a movie, not to go see a 15 to 30 minutes of ads. It doesn't offset the cost of the movie. The samething for everything else. Advertising, unless it's specific product placement on high traffic sites is useless. Voluntarily subjecting yourself to a barrage of ads is like giving your address to a "direct marketing" unit. Ad's make sense in TV in sports arenas, newspapers, slashdot, google. They simply don't make sense on my desktop, that I pay for, that I pay bandwidth for, that I foot the bill for.
Of course if you're comfortable with the fact that you are footing someone elses bill while having to pay for your own; at detriment to yourself. Then more power to you.
Unlike you, no one is thinking about morals and high roads in the ad industry. This is just another way they can stick a piece of paper, image, video, link in your face. It's business.
What are you talking about there are many single authentication method systems that you can employ for Linux/*nix.
1. NIS
2. Kerebos and Ldap
3. A bunch of 3rd party commercial vendors implementations of the above (Vintela, Cisco etc etc etc)
You setup a single authentication server and that's it. Single signon..
Again, another FUD post by you. Moderators take note.
Clubs are a waste. I'd advise you lock your car however, a saw and a minute and a ford focus becomes a joy ride. You don't need any special equipment. The Club is based on the fact that it's clamped to the steering wheel and 95% of the time people such as your self think that will deter a criminal; even a casual one. You are wrong. So far you've only been lucky. Professionals won't steal a Ford Focus, however, some teenage kid cutting class will and your ripe for the picking if it's unlocked.
What we did was build an on demand contextual data mapper...it performs fuzzy searches on the fields of these databases, and "clumps" them together based on the percentage of matching fields and the exactness of the match. Nothing new, nothing somebody else couldn't think up if they were good with regular expressions, Tries and SQL -- but nobody did.
I can think of maybe 4 things off the top of my head as prior art. So if this is what your company has as patentable or a fresh new idea that only you implemented in your product. You're wrong. Not only are you wrong, but to think you're the only people who have implemented this.. You might need to get a deeper R&D budget.
At least with MS software, you can hand the defence over to them and their fancy lawyers, whereas with Linux you'd be pretty much alone. I think this is the biggest obstacle to FOSS takeup.
WRONG, who is given you people this idea that you can hand your case over to Microsoft? Where did Microsoft say they will indemnify their users? What EULA? Point it out to me.
The fact is this, you are not indemnified by patent suits against stuff in Microsoft Software. The plantiff in the situation might decide to go after Microsoft. Nothing is stopping them from coming after you though.
Wrong, Microsoft DOES NOT indemnify it's users. Read your EULA's. Infact, not only do they not indemnify their users but they state many a time in many EULA's that when worst comes to worst; it's your problem.