It's cause distributing thier own Linux distro, with, theoretically, the offending code in it would massively undermine thier case (due in part to the GPL which requires that you provide royalty-free licenses for any patents or otherwise protected code you release under the GPL)
I've installed at least a half dozen copies of XP, and on every single one it's the last of the dekstop icons (usually at the bottom or the middle of the left hand side, depending on how many icons there are). User probably moved it and didn't notice, or it was some (wierd) OEM choice, or he got the machine used/as a display model, etc, etc.
Thats funny, I thought Linux was written as a grounds-up reimplementation of well-known UNIX concepts because Linus didn't like any of the existing liceneses. That's hardly "innovation", at least in the technical sense. You'd have an easier sell if you were talking about BeOS.
And when they say "successful", they are invevitable talking about "on the desktop", where Linux most certainly is NOT a success by any meaningful metric. Nor will it, unless and until it not only apes many MacOS and Windows features and concepts (because thats what people like and are used to - let UI "experts" bitch all they want about broken metaphors, they WORK).
XP uses the GPU to accelerate it's eye candy, via GDI+. OS X didn't do this till 10.1 (with Quartz Extreme). On top of that, as you said, it's an obvious idea (stupid to have all that dedicated rendering power there being ignored) and the development cycle for adding acceleration like that is probably quite a bit longer than the delay between the product releases.
Because they provided it YEARS after every other OS in any signifigant use provided it? In fact, not only after MS added it, but after MS made it work effectively (which, following long standing tradition, took 3 versions)? Sounds like a decent criticism to me. Same argument for preemption as well, they didn't add this until long after the arguments against it ceased to be compelling - the criticism is that Apple did not (and, to a large degree, still does not) innovate in OS design - in fact, they're consistently behind the curve in that area.
They get special deals on the real estate for the phone booth (and the right of way for the lines and such) because of the public service the booths represent.
Woo! I do the same thing - Intranet based web app stuff, and IE is the standardized platform. This means I can use Mozillas vastly superior JavaScript and DOM debugging! Although it won't work with the IE only javascript. Sigh.
How many people actually USE the "platform independence" of Java? Seriously, I'm curious. I know theres some uses - for example, all of Oracles admin/installation tools are in Java. On the other hand, they also suck really, really badly, so I'm not sure it's the best example.
I know whenever I see an app that advertises itself as cross-platform, but turns out to be written in Java, I tend to kind of dismiss it.
I learned how to program on an Atari 800 - wrote my first games in Atari basic with embedded machine code. Crazy stuff. It was nifty because you could easily access all the graphics and sound modes for the games.
It's when they get all pissy that you aren't teaching them enough (see earlier post about thinking they know computers when they really know 20 year old apples), but STILL buy the SUV instead of passing a property tax bill or whatever that people get bitter.
Server 2003 is supposedly the first product that benefited from the new processes and reviews that are part of the whole trustworthy computing. In it's favor, it's a vast improvement over past servers (ships locked down by default, rather than wide open). So I'll hold off judging thier new commitment to security until I see what 2003 looks like. In the meantime, I'll still bitch and complain about thier old, crappy commitment to security.
You're fundamentally misunderstanding what a patent is, what copyright is, and what IP is.
Here's why you have no (innate) monopoly over your IP, and why it's not a natural right:
If you own a house, you can keep people off it in any number of ways, resorting to violence if neccesary. Your ownership and use of the house implicitly excludes other ownership and use of it. If you write a nifty algorithm, the only way you can prevent me from learning and using that algorithm is by never showing it to me - your usage of it does not implicitly prevent me from usiong it. It's the difference between knowledge and physical devices.
Patents were created to protect physical inventions - where you've created something new. You're trading (theoretically) the plans for the creation of your device (which will, when your patent expires, allow for the benefit of society by allowing anyone to create your invention) for a limited monopoly to allow you to profit from it.
Copyright is a (currently much longer) protection on creative works. The difference is that the work itself is the product, the plan for it's creation. Copyright is more than enough protection for software - just as a good example, I'd like you to present a reasonable case where a software patent is neccesary for a software company to profit.
"Process" patents are a violation of the system - they cover the concept of doing something (look at the shitloads of patents out there that cover doing something old "on the web" or "on a computer") rather than inventing something. You can't patent "a device that mows lawns". You patent "this thing right here that is intended for mowing lawns".
Artifically creating value through legislation is a dead end road - it's got all the drawbacks of capitalism and none of the benefits.
You're welcome to your copyrights. You're welcome to your inventions. I support your right to your own works - but software patents are NOT the guarantee of that.
You would probably hate the world we'd live in if all of your ideas were truly implemented - there'd be no personal computers. There'd be no slashdot. There would certainly be no internet. Casual access to information would be eliminated - all because the concepts that allow these things to exist would be the exclusive right of one or more large companies - and you wouldn't be able to play.
Patented technologies don't make it into the linux kernel for practical reasons, not political ones. There's no money to pay licensing fees, and on top of that there's no single body to do the licensing. It's pretty straightforward.
Now, as for reduction of your rights - it's reduction of your rights like file sharing reduces RIAA profits. You have no rights to your "IP" - you have privledges which are granted by law. In the absence of law, there's no innate protection against someone using and copying your ideas, except never sharing them.
The EU is considering expanding the privledges it grants you - it's not treading on your rights because you don't have them. If we're going to draw analagies, it's people trying to stop you from growing your trees over a public road.
Lack of software patents has nothing to do with communism - you're either misguided or intentionally clouding the issue if you think it does. Your software is protected by copyright, as abstract works should be.
The problem is that the protections afforded by a patent are inherently unsuited to abstract concepts like algorithms and buisness methods - thus, software patents are unreasonable. They do FAR more to prevent innovation than to encourage it. Patents were never intended to apply to abstract concepts, and they shouldn't be.
If you're somewhere with lots of antennas that are set up with the equipment to do a triangualtion, sure it's easy. Not so much in the other 80% of the US.
I think you'd be suprised, actually. Certainly people who hold the few titles that were both written 30 years ago AND still widely read are valuable (although it's worth noting that public-domain novels still make publishers money) make money, I doubt it's anyones sole source of income. And if it is, then they need to move on.
Your entire argument is based on the idea that an author has natural rights to his work - I'd disagree with you, for a number of reasons, and, in fact, if you read some of the Jefferson papers about copyright, so did the people who created our system.
Basically, it works like this: knowledge, in nature has no intrinsic value. You can't take it away from someone, and giving it to someone else doesn't deprive you of it. In this way, it's fundamentally different that physical property, and therefore there is no "natural property right" to it.
Copyright is a recognition that within society, IP does have value, and that the creator deserves some reward. It's also recognition that allowing people to make a living by creating works is of value to society, and therefore creates an artifical value for creative works, by granting a legal monopoly.
The entire structure of copyright is a legal fiction - and that's why we have things like fair use exemptions and and (supposedly) limited durations. It's because the artificial right that we grant to creators has a specific goal, and that goal is to increase the creative commons (read the Constitution, it states this specifically). The usefullness of copyright exists ONLY in so far as it enhances the public domain, by causing more works to be created. Unlimited copyright is the exact opposite of this.
Your depiction of society is also so totally wrong as to be laughable - the entire POINT of a society is that sometimes the good of the whole outweighs the good of the individual. That's why we have things like voting. The idea that the individual is important is actually a very new concept, socially speaking, and is hardly the foundation for society.
You're accuratly stating SCOs position, although they go farther and say it's not just trade secrets or expertise, but actual lines of code that're in the linux kernel.
There's also been a number of excellent rebuttals - for example, SCO's ownership of UNIX is quite limited, and the UNIX that they own actually doesn't have many of the features they're claiming are unique.
The lawsuit boils down to the fact that Linux got to good too fast, and that means IBM used AIX code in it.
Slashdot Mirror
It's cause distributing thier own Linux distro, with, theoretically, the offending code in it would massively undermine thier case (due in part to the GPL which requires that you provide royalty-free licenses for any patents or otherwise protected code you release under the GPL)
I find your .sig very amusing and I wonder if you have a source for the quote?
I've installed at least a half dozen copies of XP, and on every single one it's the last of the dekstop icons (usually at the bottom or the middle of the left hand side, depending on how many icons there are). User probably moved it and didn't notice, or it was some (wierd) OEM choice, or he got the machine used/as a display model, etc, etc.
And when they say "successful", they are invevitable talking about "on the desktop", where Linux most certainly is NOT a success by any meaningful metric. Nor will it, unless and until it not only apes many MacOS and Windows features and concepts (because thats what people like and are used to - let UI "experts" bitch all they want about broken metaphors, they WORK).
They moved the recycle bin? It's at the bottom of the list of desktop icons, the same place it's always been in both MacOS and Windows.
XP uses the GPU to accelerate it's eye candy, via GDI+. OS X didn't do this till 10.1 (with Quartz Extreme). On top of that, as you said, it's an obvious idea (stupid to have all that dedicated rendering power there being ignored) and the development cycle for adding acceleration like that is probably quite a bit longer than the delay between the product releases.
Because they provided it YEARS after every other OS in any signifigant use provided it? In fact, not only after MS added it, but after MS made it work effectively (which, following long standing tradition, took 3 versions)? Sounds like a decent criticism to me. Same argument for preemption as well, they didn't add this until long after the arguments against it ceased to be compelling - the criticism is that Apple did not (and, to a large degree, still does not) innovate in OS design - in fact, they're consistently behind the curve in that area.
They get special deals on the real estate for the phone booth (and the right of way for the lines and such) because of the public service the booths represent.
Woo! I do the same thing - Intranet based web app stuff, and IE is the standardized platform. This means I can use Mozillas vastly superior JavaScript and DOM debugging! Although it won't work with the IE only javascript. Sigh.
Is there any meaningful measure of "success" for an an information medium other than how many people view it?
I agree - properties are a cool idea, but the more I use them the more I find that I prefer the explicitness of a function call.
I know whenever I see an app that advertises itself as cross-platform, but turns out to be written in Java, I tend to kind of dismiss it.
You know whats REALLY funnny? When you put that into google so you could have a scathing link, you misspelled apostrophe. Note the spell=1 on the url.
I learned how to program on an Atari 800 - wrote my first games in Atari basic with embedded machine code. Crazy stuff. It was nifty because you could easily access all the graphics and sound modes for the games.
It's when they get all pissy that you aren't teaching them enough (see earlier post about thinking they know computers when they really know 20 year old apples), but STILL buy the SUV instead of passing a property tax bill or whatever that people get bitter.
Server 2003 is supposedly the first product that benefited from the new processes and reviews that are part of the whole trustworthy computing. In it's favor, it's a vast improvement over past servers (ships locked down by default, rather than wide open). So I'll hold off judging thier new commitment to security until I see what 2003 looks like. In the meantime, I'll still bitch and complain about thier old, crappy commitment to security.
Here's why you have no (innate) monopoly over your IP, and why it's not a natural right:
If you own a house, you can keep people off it in any number of ways, resorting to violence if neccesary. Your ownership and use of the house implicitly excludes other ownership and use of it. If you write a nifty algorithm, the only way you can prevent me from learning and using that algorithm is by never showing it to me - your usage of it does not implicitly prevent me from usiong it. It's the difference between knowledge and physical devices.
Patents were created to protect physical inventions - where you've created something new. You're trading (theoretically) the plans for the creation of your device (which will, when your patent expires, allow for the benefit of society by allowing anyone to create your invention) for a limited monopoly to allow you to profit from it.
Copyright is a (currently much longer) protection on creative works. The difference is that the work itself is the product, the plan for it's creation. Copyright is more than enough protection for software - just as a good example, I'd like you to present a reasonable case where a software patent is neccesary for a software company to profit.
"Process" patents are a violation of the system - they cover the concept of doing something (look at the shitloads of patents out there that cover doing something old "on the web" or "on a computer") rather than inventing something. You can't patent "a device that mows lawns". You patent "this thing right here that is intended for mowing lawns".
Artifically creating value through legislation is a dead end road - it's got all the drawbacks of capitalism and none of the benefits.
You're welcome to your copyrights. You're welcome to your inventions. I support your right to your own works - but software patents are NOT the guarantee of that.
You would probably hate the world we'd live in if all of your ideas were truly implemented - there'd be no personal computers. There'd be no slashdot. There would certainly be no internet. Casual access to information would be eliminated - all because the concepts that allow these things to exist would be the exclusive right of one or more large companies - and you wouldn't be able to play.
Now, as for reduction of your rights - it's reduction of your rights like file sharing reduces RIAA profits. You have no rights to your "IP" - you have privledges which are granted by law. In the absence of law, there's no innate protection against someone using and copying your ideas, except never sharing them.
The EU is considering expanding the privledges it grants you - it's not treading on your rights because you don't have them. If we're going to draw analagies, it's people trying to stop you from growing your trees over a public road.
Lack of software patents has nothing to do with communism - you're either misguided or intentionally clouding the issue if you think it does. Your software is protected by copyright, as abstract works should be.
The problem is that the protections afforded by a patent are inherently unsuited to abstract concepts like algorithms and buisness methods - thus, software patents are unreasonable. They do FAR more to prevent innovation than to encourage it. Patents were never intended to apply to abstract concepts, and they shouldn't be.
If you're somewhere with lots of antennas that are set up with the equipment to do a triangualtion, sure it's easy. Not so much in the other 80% of the US.
Now they ask for "the decision maker". Stupid PCness.
I think you'd be suprised, actually. Certainly people who hold the few titles that were both written 30 years ago AND still widely read are valuable (although it's worth noting that public-domain novels still make publishers money) make money, I doubt it's anyones sole source of income. And if it is, then they need to move on.
Basically, it works like this: knowledge, in nature has no intrinsic value. You can't take it away from someone, and giving it to someone else doesn't deprive you of it. In this way, it's fundamentally different that physical property, and therefore there is no "natural property right" to it.
Copyright is a recognition that within society, IP does have value, and that the creator deserves some reward. It's also recognition that allowing people to make a living by creating works is of value to society, and therefore creates an artifical value for creative works, by granting a legal monopoly.
The entire structure of copyright is a legal fiction - and that's why we have things like fair use exemptions and and (supposedly) limited durations. It's because the artificial right that we grant to creators has a specific goal, and that goal is to increase the creative commons (read the Constitution, it states this specifically). The usefullness of copyright exists ONLY in so far as it enhances the public domain, by causing more works to be created. Unlimited copyright is the exact opposite of this.
Your depiction of society is also so totally wrong as to be laughable - the entire POINT of a society is that sometimes the good of the whole outweighs the good of the individual. That's why we have things like voting. The idea that the individual is important is actually a very new concept, socially speaking, and is hardly the foundation for society.
Apparently the GCC maintainer is employed by SCO... glibc sounds like a pretty good candidate.
There's also been a number of excellent rebuttals - for example, SCO's ownership of UNIX is quite limited, and the UNIX that they own actually doesn't have many of the features they're claiming are unique.
The lawsuit boils down to the fact that Linux got to good too fast, and that means IBM used AIX code in it.