No, the porn search engine returns a set of default listings if you don't search for something it knows about (try searching for asdfhsadhfasdhfashf and note that your results are identical to the Xfree86 search). It's not a search engine/spider in the sense that Google is, or even that MSN is. It's a paid listing directory service, nothing more. Also note that it's only a search for _exactly_ XFree86 and _only_ XFree86 ("XFree86 sex" provides good results, for example). I doubt it's a conspiracy theory, but it's certainly not an accident of the algorithm. Most likely, it's either a debugging codeword added by one of the algorithm programmers, or some bored programmed playing a prank.
Despite the implication, nightsurf is not actually a search engine. It returns exactly the same results for any search term.
Ah ha, upon further checking this is not true. It returns the exact same search results for anything thats not porn related, so this is probably a listing of the sites that paid for "any results" postings (Nightsurf doesn't even pretend to be anything other than pay-for-placement). A search for the sexual fetish of your choice does return results related to that fetish, however.
XFree86 is certainly blocked specifically. XFree86+any other term is not. It's _not_ that the porn site results are hits for XFree86, nightsearch returns the exact same first page results for _any_ search, including random garbage.
As other people have said, I doubt theres any gain for MS from doing this, so it's probably a term that was tossed in by programmers for debugging purposes or just for the hell of it, rather than some sort of official policy decision.
It's especially amusing that that (R) after UNIX, because while they may or may not own the source code for unix, the UNIX name and trademark is something they certainly, 100% do NOT own.
I haven't noticed any memory leaks (although, to be fair, I haven't spent alot of time looking). I keep firefox open pretty much constantly and create/delete tabs on a regular basis.
Some things I've noticed: Resizing speed gets worse the more tabs you have open. It seems like Firefox is re-laying out every tab when you resize rather than just the visibile one. Plugins perform very poorly, especially the Flash one, and slow down operation of the whole browser while they do so. I don't know know if this is a plugin problem or a Firefox problem.
And thats about it. No crashes. Especially no OS crashes.
BTW, the linked "bug report" is the worst piece of nonsense I've had the misfortune to read this week. If you really want issues like the memory leaks (which I'll grant may very well exist) to be corrected, you're going to need more specific information, not page long talks about hardware firewalls and rants. The observed behavior when yo u open an assload of instances is consistent with any app consuming too much memory. Note that OS instability in this case has nothing to do with Firefox (assuming it's even accurate - I've abused the hell out of WinXPs VM with no loss of stability). It's possible that theres places where Firefox could respond more gracefully to out of memory conditions.
The AutoZone case, at least from what we've seen so far, doesn't have anything to do with the IBM case. They aren't claiming the use of Linux infringes, they're claiming that AutoZone (with the help of IBM) ported it's inventory/kiosk applications from OpenServer (or was it UnixWare?) to Linux, and that they did so in part by using SCO shared libraries that AutoZone didn't have the rights to move off of the OpenServer systems.
This is clearly a harrasment suit - whether or not the new system uses SCO shared libraries is trivially provable - just get a shell prompt on any of the workstations. On the other hand, proving it in court is likely to be a massive cost involving all sorts of documentation and chain of evidence and technical briefings.
I'm assuming here that AutoZone is in fact not using SCOs shared libraries, based on the Groklaw post referenced in several other places. If they ARE, then thats also trivially provable, and AutoZone will either settle or claim that they're entitled to use the libraries this way. Either way, this case will not be about what SCO is pretending it's about.
When you, or a paid third party, adjust your site or linkfarm or whatever in an attempt to raise your search rating, then you (or that third party) are gaming the system. A search engine that cares about accurate results will penalize you for such behavior (as Google does). On the other hand, when the owners and creators of the system will help you raise your rating, this is essentially paying for placement. Nobody will pay them without a guarantee that it will result in better placement (you'd be stupid to do so), and if it's purely in the arrangment of the site, then it'll me mimiced by everyone else within weeks. Therefore, the only way this service can be of any use is if being a paying customer directly affects your ranking, which is paying for placement. It's not interesting, all sorts of search engines did that, and Google NOT doing that is one of the reasons people use it.
The best and most common use of a computer is to make existing tasks easier. This naturally precludes , in the general case, "innovation". There's nothing that Excel (or any spreadsheet program) does that people didn't do before with (lots of) pen and ink.
Now, in most cases, OSS projects aren't conciously attempting to re-create an existing product - but they're attempting to solve a certain set of problems, and where theres a particular app or set of apps that dominate that space they will inevitably be compared to that product. Photoshop is successfull because it accurately addresses the needs of graphics professionals. Anything else that accurately addresses those needs will neccesarily be very similiar to Photoshop, and anything that doesn't will be derided as "not suitable for professionals", and rightly so.
There has never in the history of copyright been any legislation, precedent, or case law that would support a judge doing that. The only possible way for this to happen would be for the US government to invoke emminent domain and claim the copyright for itself, thus moving it into the public domain. And I don't really see that happening.
In my reading of copyright law, theres nothing that would allow a copyright holder to retract a license, and the GPL doesn't have anything specifically granting that (most licenses do). Are you aware of any case law that supports the idea that a copyright creator can arbitrarily revoke a license it has already granted?
Fyodor can certainly add a special condition to his latest version, though that would make his license not-free and therefore conflict with the GPL:P
I don't believe, under the GPL, that USENIX has the legal power to do this. Sometimes sticking by your ideals sucks, because it means even shitty people like SCO get to use your code. Linux said something to this effect way back at the beginning.
Divx and Xvid movies will fail with an uninformative error message in WMP. You need another level of knowledge to even know that you need to get those codecs. Thats not to say that you can't play them, or that the installers won't work, but if you're starting from scratch it can be pretty hard to figure out what you need.
DnD not working with filenames with spaces in them is because broken applications don't correctly or fully implement XDnD. You're limiting yourself because of flaws in your software and claiming the moral high ground?
Because you aren't selecting from arbitrary parts or components and having them filled. There are PC manucaturers who will do this - you select the parts from thier inventory, they assemble/test and send it to you. They also have pre-built kits where you make minor modifications (512 megs of ram instead of 256), those aren't customized. Certainly buying the extended warranty is not buying a customized computer.
Falconware will provide you with customized cases (including an airbrushed nude, I suppose) if you pay them enough. You can get your iPod with a peronsalized engraving - those are customizations.
By your same argument, selecting the 40 gig iPod instead of a 30 gig could be consided a "customization", if it was presented as such. Is that reasonable?
The microsoft Platform SDK (free, but huge and annoying download via ActiveX controls) includes a visual diff tool. Not sure if it handles binary very well, though.
Actually, it's hardly cut and dry (for example, a sunroof is a standard option on many models). Requesting a configuration that is not offered as a standard option is cleary customized. A standard configuration (which the options provided on the website clearly are) don't qualify as customized machines, imo. They're vendor-provided upgrades, not customizations. You said it yourself - If the 6-disc CD changer in the car is not part of any package, then adding it makes the car custom. When you order off of the Apple website, you're selecting configuration options, not geting custom work done.
It's a cheap end run around warranty requirements and I'm pretty disappointed in Apple for doing it and for the court to uphold it - whether or not the OP (thats not me, BTW) was doing the correct thing in attempting the return at all is a totally different issue.
OP asked for features that were not copied from photoshop, not features that are not in photoshop. Gimp was scriptable well before Photoshop (at least on the PC). Multimonitor support I'm not sure about but I'm pretty sure the Gimp had that first too.
Okay, genius, whats the difference? I'd be willing to bet that you can't articulate it beyond "someone fucking a child really pisses me off and disgusts me"
I think people fucking children should be illegal. I don't believe that pictures of it neccesarily should be.
Do you think photographs of bank robberies should be illegal? How about crime scene photos of rape/murder victims? What about simulated ones, like on CSI or Law & Order?
I'm not retarded just consistent in the application of my beliefs. I believe in freedom of expression even when it's something I don't like or find abhorrent.
I don't believe that showing a snuff film is inherently illegal (although of course its evidence of a crime, and the person filming it would be an accessory). Child porn _is_ inherently illegal, although I think it's questionable if it should be.
As a rule, I frown on laws that restrict pure expression. Films like Faces of Death are offensive yet clearly protected. Like wise, a film of necrophilia or cannibalism (is it still illegal if the dead person and/or dead persons survivorsagree to it?) should not be inherently illegal. Such a film may of course be used as evidence of the act, assuming the act itself is illegal. We film, and, in some states, broadcast executions. Is this any different than a snuff film? Why the double standard?
Slashdot Mirror
No, the porn search engine returns a set of default listings if you don't search for something it knows about (try searching for asdfhsadhfasdhfashf and note that your results are identical to the Xfree86 search). It's not a search engine/spider in the sense that Google is, or even that MSN is. It's a paid listing directory service, nothing more. Also note that it's only a search for _exactly_ XFree86 and _only_ XFree86 ("XFree86 sex" provides good results, for example). I doubt it's a conspiracy theory, but it's certainly not an accident of the algorithm. Most likely, it's either a debugging codeword added by one of the algorithm programmers, or some bored programmed playing a prank.
Ah ha, upon further checking this is not true. It returns the exact same search results for anything thats not porn related, so this is probably a listing of the sites that paid for "any results" postings (Nightsurf doesn't even pretend to be anything other than pay-for-placement). A search for the sexual fetish of your choice does return results related to that fetish, however.
As other people have said, I doubt theres any gain for MS from doing this, so it's probably a term that was tossed in by programmers for debugging purposes or just for the hell of it, rather than some sort of official policy decision.
It's especially amusing that that (R) after UNIX, because while they may or may not own the source code for unix, the UNIX name and trademark is something they certainly, 100% do NOT own.
Some things I've noticed: Resizing speed gets worse the more tabs you have open. It seems like Firefox is re-laying out every tab when you resize rather than just the visibile one. Plugins perform very poorly, especially the Flash one, and slow down operation of the whole browser while they do so. I don't know know if this is a plugin problem or a Firefox problem.
And thats about it. No crashes. Especially no OS crashes.
BTW, the linked "bug report" is the worst piece of nonsense I've had the misfortune to read this week. If you really want issues like the memory leaks (which I'll grant may very well exist) to be corrected, you're going to need more specific information, not page long talks about hardware firewalls and rants. The observed behavior when yo u open an assload of instances is consistent with any app consuming too much memory. Note that OS instability in this case has nothing to do with Firefox (assuming it's even accurate - I've abused the hell out of WinXPs VM with no loss of stability). It's possible that theres places where Firefox could respond more gracefully to out of memory conditions.
The AutoZone case, at least from what we've seen so far, doesn't have anything to do with the IBM case. They aren't claiming the use of Linux infringes, they're claiming that AutoZone (with the help of IBM) ported it's inventory/kiosk applications from OpenServer (or was it UnixWare?) to Linux, and that they did so in part by using SCO shared libraries that AutoZone didn't have the rights to move off of the OpenServer systems.
I'm assuming here that AutoZone is in fact not using SCOs shared libraries, based on the Groklaw post referenced in several other places. If they ARE, then thats also trivially provable, and AutoZone will either settle or claim that they're entitled to use the libraries this way. Either way, this case will not be about what SCO is pretending it's about.
When you, or a paid third party, adjust your site or linkfarm or whatever in an attempt to raise your search rating, then you (or that third party) are gaming the system. A search engine that cares about accurate results will penalize you for such behavior (as Google does). On the other hand, when the owners and creators of the system will help you raise your rating, this is essentially paying for placement. Nobody will pay them without a guarantee that it will result in better placement (you'd be stupid to do so), and if it's purely in the arrangment of the site, then it'll me mimiced by everyone else within weeks. Therefore, the only way this service can be of any use is if being a paying customer directly affects your ranking, which is paying for placement. It's not interesting, all sorts of search engines did that, and Google NOT doing that is one of the reasons people use it.
Now, in most cases, OSS projects aren't conciously attempting to re-create an existing product - but they're attempting to solve a certain set of problems, and where theres a particular app or set of apps that dominate that space they will inevitably be compared to that product. Photoshop is successfull because it accurately addresses the needs of graphics professionals. Anything else that accurately addresses those needs will neccesarily be very similiar to Photoshop, and anything that doesn't will be derided as "not suitable for professionals", and rightly so.
They couldn't claim the copyright in other countries, but they could revoke/take over the US copyright.
There has never in the history of copyright been any legislation, precedent, or case law that would support a judge doing that. The only possible way for this to happen would be for the US government to invoke emminent domain and claim the copyright for itself, thus moving it into the public domain. And I don't really see that happening.
In my reading of copyright law, theres nothing that would allow a copyright holder to retract a license, and the GPL doesn't have anything specifically granting that (most licenses do). Are you aware of any case law that supports the idea that a copyright creator can arbitrarily revoke a license it has already granted? Fyodor can certainly add a special condition to his latest version, though that would make his license not-free and therefore conflict with the GPL :P
I don't believe, under the GPL, that USENIX has the legal power to do this. Sometimes sticking by your ideals sucks, because it means even shitty people like SCO get to use your code. Linux said something to this effect way back at the beginning.
Divx and Xvid movies will fail with an uninformative error message in WMP. You need another level of knowledge to even know that you need to get those codecs. Thats not to say that you can't play them, or that the installers won't work, but if you're starting from scratch it can be pretty hard to figure out what you need.
DnD not working with filenames with spaces in them is because broken applications don't correctly or fully implement XDnD. You're limiting yourself because of flaws in your software and claiming the moral high ground?
Falconware will provide you with customized cases (including an airbrushed nude, I suppose) if you pay them enough. You can get your iPod with a peronsalized engraving - those are customizations.
By your same argument, selecting the 40 gig iPod instead of a 30 gig could be consided a "customization", if it was presented as such. Is that reasonable?
The microsoft Platform SDK (free, but huge and annoying download via ActiveX controls) includes a visual diff tool. Not sure if it handles binary very well, though.
It's a cheap end run around warranty requirements and I'm pretty disappointed in Apple for doing it and for the court to uphold it - whether or not the OP (thats not me, BTW) was doing the correct thing in attempting the return at all is a totally different issue.
In my mind, selection from a list of pre-configured options does not constitute "custom".
OP asked for features that were not copied from photoshop, not features that are not in photoshop. Gimp was scriptable well before Photoshop (at least on the PC). Multimonitor support I'm not sure about but I'm pretty sure the Gimp had that first too.
Okay, genius, whats the difference? I'd be willing to bet that you can't articulate it beyond "someone fucking a child really pisses me off and disgusts me"
Do you think photographs of bank robberies should be illegal? How about crime scene photos of rape/murder victims? What about simulated ones, like on CSI or Law & Order?
I'm not retarded just consistent in the application of my beliefs. I believe in freedom of expression even when it's something I don't like or find abhorrent.
As a rule, I frown on laws that restrict pure expression. Films like Faces of Death are offensive yet clearly protected. Like wise, a film of necrophilia or cannibalism (is it still illegal if the dead person and/or dead persons survivorsagree to it?) should not be inherently illegal. Such a film may of course be used as evidence of the act, assuming the act itself is illegal. We film, and, in some states, broadcast executions. Is this any different than a snuff film? Why the double standard?
He spells it Eminem precisely to avoid the M&M candy reference.
They frigging performed the song together at some awards show (MTV Video Awards? Grammys? I don't remember).