You get the stability and polish from a.3 release, but the marketing hype and media attention from a.0 release.
This is definitely a.0 release, then. KDE 2.2.2 was more stable (albeit slower) on my system. In particular, the panel (kicker) has a habit of going belly-up periodically, and Konqui crashes much more often than it did in 2.2.2. Still, this release adds polish, a few features and some speed. I look forward to 3.1.
I don't recall the specifics, but you have to show that there is an imminent risk that you will be sued by the patent holder in order to establish jurisdiction for a Declaratory Judgment action challenging validity under federal law. There is actually a body of law addressing what sort of letter the patent holder's attorney can send to an infringer that will place the infringer on notice for the purpose of accumulating damages under patent law without triggering jurisdiction for a DJA.
GIF: good because it isn't lossy, bad because it's 256 color and proprietary.
Well, obviously if your source image has more than 256 discrete colors, the color reduction is "lossy," even though the compression algorithm isn't. As to "proprietary," who really cares except a bunch of activists? I've never had to pay extra to view GIF images on my computer (versus PNG).
Under MacOS 9 (which has a very simple color scheme) I've had 1024x768 screen shots be only 20K. No JPEG can't come close for that kind of content.
And the key is, as you pointed out, "that kind of content." JPEG is DCT-based, meaning that it thrives on gradual color gradients. A "low color" picture has a lot of high-frequency energy, since it jumps between colors that look very different (mathematically), which gives you a DCT matrix with a lot of coefficients (especially in the evil lower right-hand area). This is often a problem with photos that have been color-reduced and dithered (i.e., converting GIF to JPEG without filtering the image appropriately to blur out the dither artifacts) or with screenshots from a 24-bit color system.
The patent office is obviously on the payroll of Lawyers.
AFAIK, patent examiners are normally not lawyers, but techies in the field of the inventions they examine. However, they are supposed to be fairly generous in granting patents, according to USPTO policy.
The elements of a valid patent are that the invention be new, useful and non-obvious. This one sounds obvious to me - order them based upon how much they paid you? C'mon, this is pathetic.
So, we could theoretically read the document all we like and summarize it for the Samba developers.
No, what this says (as a practical matter) is that you are not licensed to implement the "inventions" disclosed in the listed patents ("Necessary Claims") under the GPL or related licenses. I don't see the problem, if the patents are valid (which is questionable) - a patent by design gives the holder the right to exclude others from implementing the technology it discloses. Overall, MS is more or less licensing the patents freely to the extent that one might wish to develop a full non-Windows implementation of the spec described in the Technical Reference so long as the implementation does not fall under a so-called "IPR" license (and so long as you agree to cross-license back to MS any patents you hold that a MS CIFS implementation would infringe).
MS apparently thinks that you cannot implement the described spec without infringing the patents.
That sounds awefully one-sided. Is the agreement even considered a "contract" when it starts like this?
Yes, it's called an "adhesion contract." All ambiguities are construed in favor of the party that didn't write the contract, but otherwise it's enforceable if you agree to it (consider your insurance policies, for example).
I have a Quadra 660 AV sitting in the closet collecting dust. I was wondering if anyone knew of a linux distro for an 040 mac and could point me in the right direction.
Microsoft's mid 70's products in part made the Personal Computer industry. Without a Microsoft Basic interpreter most people were stuck writing software in machine code for their Altairs.
But you don't remember. You were either in diapers or poking away on a musty PDP-11 back then.
Funny thing, back in 1982 I went to a private school with a PDP-11/70 running RSTS/E. One day (I don't know why) someone had set up an IBM PC 5150 in the computer room, and left it running. A friend of mine and I decided to get an idea how fast the PC was, so we wrote a little benchmarking program in BASIC and ran it on both machines (BASIC-PLUS interpreter on the 11, MS BASIC interpreter on the PC). The 11 finished the task in about 4 seconds; the PC took about a minute. We assumed that the 8088 was just plain slow, but if you look at C benchmarks, you'll see that the 8088 wasn't all that much slower than the CPU in the 11/70. (Also, DEC had a BASIC compiler (BASIC-PLUS-2) that had way faster run-time execution than the BASIC-PLUS interpreter, but that wasn't available to us).
Now note that the 11 probably had 20 (mostly idle) jobs running, and that the BASIC job's memory was no more than the memory in the PC (64K). The MS interpreter was just crap.
You're making it out like MS created an industry, but clearly their seminal product (BASIC interpreter) was garbage, and the industry would certainly have been better off if someone competent had "pioneered" BASIC on the '70s micros.
According to the law in most states...or maybe it's federal law, I don't remember...people who are under 18 can disavow contracts they have entered into. What this essentially means is that if someone enters into a contract with an IU18 (individual under 18, I refuse to use the term 'minor'), it still becomes legally binding, but not on the IU18. The other party, though, is still bound by the terms of the contract. What this means for IU18s buying copy-protected CDs is that as long as they are permitted to purchase them, which they will be, they can pretty much ignore whatever licensing restrictions Universal throws at them.
Ah, yes, contract law. The thing about contracts is that the damages are usually enforceable as "expectancy" (meaning that the prevailing plaintiff receives the "benefit of the bargain" as damages) and, since a contract made by a minor is "voidable," the minor can disaffirm the contract and avoid those damages. "Restitution" is a different matter: "restitution" means you have to give back what you got (or its fair value) so as to avoid unjust enrichment (to you) and unfair deprivation (to the other party). So if a minor enters a contract to make X number of payments at $Y per month for a car, and doesn't make the payments, he does have to give the car back, even though the contract is not binding upon him.
What this probably means in this context is that a minor who buys a CD, makes a zillion copies and sells them, and then tries to disaffirm the contact will still have to make restitution, even if he is not bound by the contract terms. (IOW, a exception to contract law is a shield, not a sword, and the law is not always an ass).
You are assuming that the salesdrones at Frys, CompUSA, etc won't say whatever's necessary to move those boxes out - "Sure, you can run Windows programs on it; it comes with this special software called 'wine' and it runs everything! Don't worry!" You can guess how this scenario plays out.
Why would the salespeople have any incentive to push the Linux boxes over the Windows boxes they also sell? A sale is a sale. They would probably have an incentive to push Windows, since the customer could then be sold a bunch of shrinkwrapped software with the computer, increasing the commissions (if they get commissions).
Verizon didn't build its monopoly by building a unique business model or providing unique service. Its monopoly was granted to it by the government.
Verizon is one of the "baby Bells" that resulted from the AT&T breakup, and AT&T built up its monopoly by virtue of the fact that its founder invented the telephone. I'd call you an idiot, but that is self-evident.
Everyone is better off with a standard OS ABI (be it a de facto standard, like DOS/Windows, or a de jure standard like POSIX).
You mean API, not ABI. You don't need (or want) a standard Application Binary Interface so long as you have a standard Application Programming Interface, because if the API is standard, you can just recompile for various architectures. Microsoft sticks you with an ABI (i.e., x86-only binaries using Windows API). Unix/X11 gives you a (more or less) standard API to work with, so you can compile for x86, PowerPC, SPARC, MIPS, etc. You are not better off with just one ABI, because it severely limits your hardware choice.
You are assuming that Joe is so stupid that he has no idea that he is buying something that isn't running an MS operating system. How many people buy a Mac and then badmouth Apple because they only realize after the fact that it won't run Windows software? Not many, I'd expect. In any event, I bet that the churchgoers and Lions Club members would tell Joe that he was an idiot for not doing even minimal research before sinking money into a computer, rather than taking his ranting seriously.
I think that the bigger problem is that the CompUSA drones (et al) would push Joe away from the Linux machine (just as they steer people away from the Macs) and to Windows, spewing fountains of FUD as they go. Nonetheless, it would be nice if more people got a chance to see Linux in action and play with it themselves.
These companies are bitching because they basically don't get a $10 discount on Windows if they offer other OS solutions. So, basically, MS is giving these companies a discount if they 'partner' with them to promote Windows. Don't *all* companies do something like this??? Does this differ from the 'bulk discount' manufacturer deals we see everywhere by *that* much? Instead of discounting in quantities bought, they're discounting in percentages installed - that's the only difference.
It's a fundamental difference. Bulk discounts are not necessarily exclusionary, percentage discounts are. The bulk discount says "sell a lot of units, creating an economy of scale, and we'll cut you a break," while a percentage discount says "create a market barrier to our competition or we'll wreck your margins compared to your competitors who play ball with us."
Do you *really* want a manufacturer's installation of Linux on your box??? Is there ONE SINGLE Linux user that wouldn't much prefer to FDISK and install it clean? Do you *want* your Linux to come with an AOL icon integrated into the desktop???
I want to see that, even though I might not buy it. If KDE/Linux systems were for sale at CompUSA, more people would see Linux, try Linux, and buy Linux. As a Linux user, I benefit because developers would have increased interest in Linux, due to a larger user base.
Is it really accurate for someone to represent himself as a "voter" if he has to look up the names of his senators and congressman on the Internet to find out their names?;)
According to Google, my email address (+.NOSPAM, as if that makes a difference) appears over 3400 times in their Usenet archive, most of which is in the last five years. I use SpamAssassin, and have all spam dropped into a separate mailbox. Just checked - I got 30 spams in the last month, total. (SpamAssassin does a terrific job in filtering - there's nothing in the spam box that shouldn't be, and maybe two spams a month slip by it).
Legally, sure. There are relatively few types of contracts that even have to be in writing to be enforceable (check your local Statute of Frauds for details as to contracts that do need to be in writing, and compare UCC s. 2-204). Signing, initialing and dating go to the evidence to prove the existence of a valid contract, not to the validity of the contract itself.
Slashdot Mirror
This is definitely a .0 release, then. KDE 2.2.2 was more stable (albeit slower) on my system. In particular, the panel (kicker) has a habit of going belly-up periodically, and Konqui crashes much more often than it did in 2.2.2. Still, this release adds polish, a few features and some speed. I look forward to 3.1.
I don't recall the specifics, but you have to show that there is an imminent risk that you will be sued by the patent holder in order to establish jurisdiction for a Declaratory Judgment action challenging validity under federal law. There is actually a body of law addressing what sort of letter the patent holder's attorney can send to an infringer that will place the infringer on notice for the purpose of accumulating damages under patent law without triggering jurisdiction for a DJA.
Well, obviously if your source image has more than 256 discrete colors, the color reduction is "lossy," even though the compression algorithm isn't. As to "proprietary," who really cares except a bunch of activists? I've never had to pay extra to view GIF images on my computer (versus PNG).
Should have been "less than 24-bit color system." Damn HTML. (Damn "Slow down cowboy, too"!)
And the key is, as you pointed out, "that kind of content." JPEG is DCT-based, meaning that it thrives on gradual color gradients. A "low color" picture has a lot of high-frequency energy, since it jumps between colors that look very different (mathematically), which gives you a DCT matrix with a lot of coefficients (especially in the evil lower right-hand area). This is often a problem with photos that have been color-reduced and dithered (i.e., converting GIF to JPEG without filtering the image appropriately to blur out the dither artifacts) or with screenshots from a 24-bit color system.
AFAIK, patent examiners are normally not lawyers, but techies in the field of the inventions they examine. However, they are supposed to be fairly generous in granting patents, according to USPTO policy.
The elements of a valid patent are that the invention be new, useful and non-obvious. This one sounds obvious to me - order them based upon how much they paid you? C'mon, this is pathetic.
And you thought you were joking.
No, what this says (as a practical matter) is that you are not licensed to implement the "inventions" disclosed in the listed patents ("Necessary Claims") under the GPL or related licenses. I don't see the problem, if the patents are valid (which is questionable) - a patent by design gives the holder the right to exclude others from implementing the technology it discloses. Overall, MS is more or less licensing the patents freely to the extent that one might wish to develop a full non-Windows implementation of the spec described in the Technical Reference so long as the implementation does not fall under a so-called "IPR" license (and so long as you agree to cross-license back to MS any patents you hold that a MS CIFS implementation would infringe).
MS apparently thinks that you cannot implement the described spec without infringing the patents.
Yes, it's called an "adhesion contract." All ambiguities are construed in favor of the party that didn't write the contract, but otherwise it's enforceable if you agree to it (consider your insurance policies, for example).
http://www.mac.linux-m68k.org/
But you don't remember. You were either in diapers or poking away on a musty PDP-11 back then.
Funny thing, back in 1982 I went to a private school with a PDP-11/70 running RSTS/E. One day (I don't know why) someone had set up an IBM PC 5150 in the computer room, and left it running. A friend of mine and I decided to get an idea how fast the PC was, so we wrote a little benchmarking program in BASIC and ran it on both machines (BASIC-PLUS interpreter on the 11, MS BASIC interpreter on the PC). The 11 finished the task in about 4 seconds; the PC took about a minute. We assumed that the 8088 was just plain slow, but if you look at C benchmarks, you'll see that the 8088 wasn't all that much slower than the CPU in the 11/70. (Also, DEC had a BASIC compiler (BASIC-PLUS-2) that had way faster run-time execution than the BASIC-PLUS interpreter, but that wasn't available to us).
Now note that the 11 probably had 20 (mostly idle) jobs running, and that the BASIC job's memory was no more than the memory in the PC (64K). The MS interpreter was just crap.
You're making it out like MS created an industry, but clearly their seminal product (BASIC interpreter) was garbage, and the industry would certainly have been better off if someone competent had "pioneered" BASIC on the '70s micros.
Ah, yes, contract law. The thing about contracts is that the damages are usually enforceable as "expectancy" (meaning that the prevailing plaintiff receives the "benefit of the bargain" as damages) and, since a contract made by a minor is "voidable," the minor can disaffirm the contract and avoid those damages. "Restitution" is a different matter: "restitution" means you have to give back what you got (or its fair value) so as to avoid unjust enrichment (to you) and unfair deprivation (to the other party). So if a minor enters a contract to make X number of payments at $Y per month for a car, and doesn't make the payments, he does have to give the car back, even though the contract is not binding upon him.
What this probably means in this context is that a minor who buys a CD, makes a zillion copies and sells them, and then tries to disaffirm the contact will still have to make restitution, even if he is not bound by the contract terms. (IOW, a exception to contract law is a shield, not a sword, and the law is not always an ass).
You can tow a battleship. You can't tow an airplane. QED, no NT in ATC (acronym alert!)
Why would the salespeople have any incentive to push the Linux boxes over the Windows boxes they also sell? A sale is a sale. They would probably have an incentive to push Windows, since the customer could then be sold a bunch of shrinkwrapped software with the computer, increasing the commissions (if they get commissions).
Verizon is one of the "baby Bells" that resulted from the AT&T breakup, and AT&T built up its monopoly by virtue of the fact that its founder invented the telephone. I'd call you an idiot, but that is self-evident.
You mean API, not ABI. You don't need (or want) a standard Application Binary Interface so long as you have a standard Application Programming Interface, because if the API is standard, you can just recompile for various architectures. Microsoft sticks you with an ABI (i.e., x86-only binaries using Windows API). Unix/X11 gives you a (more or less) standard API to work with, so you can compile for x86, PowerPC, SPARC, MIPS, etc. You are not better off with just one ABI, because it severely limits your hardware choice.
A $799 operating system on a $499 computer? Barnum was right.
I think that the bigger problem is that the CompUSA drones (et al) would push Joe away from the Linux machine (just as they steer people away from the Macs) and to Windows, spewing fountains of FUD as they go. Nonetheless, it would be nice if more people got a chance to see Linux in action and play with it themselves.
It's a fundamental difference. Bulk discounts are not necessarily exclusionary, percentage discounts are. The bulk discount says "sell a lot of units, creating an economy of scale, and we'll cut you a break," while a percentage discount says "create a market barrier to our competition or we'll wreck your margins compared to your competitors who play ball with us."
Do you *really* want a manufacturer's installation of Linux on your box??? Is there ONE SINGLE Linux user that wouldn't much prefer to FDISK and install it clean? Do you *want* your Linux to come with an AOL icon integrated into the desktop???
I want to see that, even though I might not buy it. If KDE/Linux systems were for sale at CompUSA, more people would see Linux, try Linux, and buy Linux. As a Linux user, I benefit because developers would have increased interest in Linux, due to a larger user base.
The minor would still have an obligation to make restitution. See Restatement of Contracts s. 14, comment c. It's the old sword-shield doctrine.
Those were Old Milwaukee ads. (Not that Old Mil tastes any worse than AB's Budweiser. Try Victory Prima Pils for a good pilsener).
Is it really accurate for someone to represent himself as a "voter" if he has to look up the names of his senators and congressman on the Internet to find out their names? ;)
According to Google, my email address (+.NOSPAM, as if that makes a difference) appears over 3400 times in their Usenet archive, most of which is in the last five years. I use SpamAssassin, and have all spam dropped into a separate mailbox. Just checked - I got 30 spams in the last month, total. (SpamAssassin does a terrific job in filtering - there's nothing in the spam box that shouldn't be, and maybe two spams a month slip by it).
Legally, sure. There are relatively few types of contracts that even have to be in writing to be enforceable (check your local Statute of Frauds for details as to contracts that do need to be in writing, and compare UCC s. 2-204). Signing, initialing and dating go to the evidence to prove the existence of a valid contract, not to the validity of the contract itself.