There are currently tons of articles flying around the net from the BSA and one of them actual comes out and says the BSA statistics came from a BSA survey.
So how accurate is a survey going to be that asks people if they have committed a crime.
I will not disagree with the BSA on their arguement that software piracy is rampant, especially in geographical areas where software piracy may be more acceptable due to economics or cultural mores.
However, I would like to see how they actually determine the quanitity of pirated software.
I have a sneaking suspicion that one of their key methods of determining the quantity of pirated software is related to the amount of hardware sold. If this is in any way true then I call BS on the BSA stats.
I purchase and use a significant amount of hardware even for a western computer geek, I think(3 epia based systems, 4 white boxes, and a 6 node cluster), and not one of these pieces of hardware uses software from the BSA affiliates. They all run FOSS software downloaded legally off the internet.
If they are counting my 14 systems that were purchased without any software licenses from a BSA affiliate as potential piracy candidates they are bunch of morons.
And besides, it seems there is a conflict of interest here when you have the enforcers of licensing giving you statistics on the revenue lost due to piracy. That alone is good cause to call BS on their report.
I'm sure I'm wasting my time responding to an AC post, but here goes.
My point is that Windows and its associated applications, such as Internet Explorer, are turds.
I agree that system administration plays an important role in securing any system, however, that does not change the fact that Microsoft software is delivered to the administrator with vastly more flaws than comparable software from the competition. And while a good sys admin can secure their Microsoft install base it is going to be a hell of a lot more work than it would have been with competing software. There is also a higher probability they might miss something because there are so damned many holes to plug.
So what is your point? Are you trying to say that there is some type of relationship between the number of users and the exploitability of some software application or OS?
I hope not because that's a lame arguement, but just in case I'd like to make a proposal. There is no way to prove a theory like that either way unless we get a comparable install of open source software so we can get a good measure of which has better security. So lets start with current high level recommendations of everyone switching to a Mozilla based browser and dumping Internet Explorer. If we get enough people to switch then perhaps we can get some good data from which to assess that arguement. Until then its a bogus arguement that can't be proven either way.
There is truth in your statement, however, it does not change the fact that Windows and its associated applications have a significantly larger number of flaws when compared to the competition.
If you look at the secunia statistics for IE you find that by itself it has nearly as many exploits as competing operating systems and all their associated applications combined.
In the XP stats they show one advisory for IE. But looking at the exploits statistics on the same website you find that the one Microsoft application by itself has about as many exploits as other competing operating systems and all their applications combined:
Sorry Windows lovers, its time to face the facts, your OS of choice and associated applications are a haven for worms and viruses not because there are so many of you, its because the software is crap.
Agreed, and your point can be proven even with the secunia statistics. They show XP with only one advisory for Internet Exploerer and yet Internet Explorer by itself had about 40 exploits by itself during the same period of time this MS shill is reporting on.
And simply reading the article is exactly what this Microsoft shill is expecting everyone to do.
This may be asking alot, but I'd like everyone to dig a little deeper and actual go to the secunia.com website and poke around at the statistics yourself. What you will find is that the guy who wrote this article is either too damned lazy to fully research his topic or he is intentionally using these statistics inaccurately in order to prove a false point.
For those who don't have the time to find out for themselves what the statistics REALLY say, here is what I found:
In the secunia.com statistics for Windows XP there is only a single exploit related to Internet Explorer. That sounds pretty good but its also blatantly false.
In fact, if you dig a little deeper into the statistics on their web site you discover that Internet Explorer 6 from 2003 to 2004 had 40 advisories by itself with 98% allowing remote attack and 31% enabling system access.
So taking into account all the IE vulnerabilities instead of grouping them into one advisory we suddenly discover that Microsoft Windows XP Proffessional had 86 advisories from 2003 to 2004 with 71% allowing remote attacks and 38% enabling system access!
Now some will say "not fair" because IE is a seperate application. All I can tell you is that if you actually looked at the statistics you would already know that the OSX and linux statistics include security advisories for ALL applications included in with the OS. So it is only fair to also include ALL Windows applications that come with Windows.
So in conclusion, when I include the vulnerabilities of just one single Windows application the number of exploits in Windows is around double what you have with the likes of OSX or linux. I suspect that including other Windows applications that were excluded from the Windows statistics everyone will begin to understand why Windows is a haven for worms and viruses.
I don't think I will be migrating from my Mac OSX and linux installs any time soon.
I disagree. If anything needs to be changed in the cost structure of the patent system it is the fees required to question a patent.
If we are going to have a patent system then we need a fee system that doesn't show preference to corporations with deep pockets, the little guy needs access as well.
In reading the publications from the USPTO I discovered that while the fees required to submit a patent are rather low the fees required to question a patent are significantly higher, something like 4 to 10 times if I recall.
It seems that the current system has incentive for people to file patents but not for people to question them.
Now to tell you the truth I don't really believe that changing the fee structure is actually the solution. What I think needs to be changed is what can be patented and who can patent.
An idea of how you COULD do something should not be patentable. It used to be that you had to bring a copy of what you intended to patent down to the patent office. Of course that is not a reasonable practice today, however, the idea behind this practice should still be enforced. The mouse trap itself should be patented, not the idea that you could build a device to catch a small mammal.
And patents should only be given to individuals who are in business to produce the patented device, whether that be a real human individual or a company. If an individual wants to be in the business of generating patents or holding patents then they need to make their money off selling off their patents to someone who INTENDS to actually produce something. This idea of hording large numbers of patents with the hope that someday one of them will become a windfall should be outlawed for the same reason that extortion is considered a crime.
I disagree on the average Joe part. You see, average Joe doesn't really care much about EULAs, "Intellectual Property Rights", etc.
The legality of pirating software is pretty cut and dry for average Joe yet he's had no problem in the past casually pirating games and operating systems so I don't see how he'll be worried about some questionable IP ownership of some questionable podunk company in Lindon Utah. And if some bigger bully comes along? Well, Microsoft is a rather large bully and casual pirating of their products is quite common.
burnin
MS preparing for the offensive...
on
Mono Beta 2 Released
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Do not presume that MS's past use of patents for defensive purposes only means there is a low probability of threat to the Mono project...
"Marshall Phelps has long been a vocal advocate of the need for companies to take IP licensing seriously."
"...he inspired at his previous company, IBM, which is now reaping almost $2 billion a year from licensing its patents."
"At IBM we did a lot of it. We had lots of lawyers doing preparation and prosecution around the world. At Microsoft, we don't have anyone doing that, but we are going to start."
"According to Phelps, managers too often fall into the trap of seeing patents as a purely defensive measure, a tool with which to stop the competition in their tracks.
Phelps says he is pleasantly surprised by just how understanding Microsoft's executives have been. "On these IP issues I don't have much of a problem getting anyone's attention at Microsoft. It starts at the top, and if you've got a guy like Bill Gates who's really concerned about IP and really likes it then you don't have much of a management problem."
Make no mistake about it, Microsoft has learned to do business by using its capital to get what it wants. Microsoft cannot buy out FOSS but they sure as hell can litigate FOSS directly or indirectly to "stop the competition in their tracks."
As most everyone here knows, FOSS has been on the Microsoft radar for several years now and they have been very active and very unsuccessful in halting the progress of FOSS.
This is the last ditch effort on Microsoft's part to stop what is becoming an unstoppable force. It will not matter if the FOSS community produces a better and more technologically advanced product because Microsoft will not be competing based on the merit of their products.
Whether or not the patents that are filed are frivilous and ridiculous, they will be used offensively to diminish the threat of FOSS to the Microsoft revenue stream.
Be prepared, there is more of the SCO syndrome to come.
"I'd use Mozilla if I could shift+click and get a new browser window. But every time that I install it, I end up removing it because of little annoyances..."
Are you serious?
Your comment makes me envision all kinds of bizarre situations...
Supervisor: Your engineering report is already behind schedule, why are you using that slide rule?
Engineer: I'd use that elctronic calculator gadget to do my math if they could just make it so I can operate it like mike slide rule.
Supervisor: Why didn't you use the CAD software on the computer? Its taking you too long to complete the change orders!
Draftsman: I'll use the CAD software as soon as they give me an ANSI D sized computer display that I can draw on with my pencil.
Service Manager: Sir, We will consider repairing your dashboard in your car under warranty, but can you first explain how it was damaged?
New Car Owner: Well, I always used this whip when I was driving my horse drawn buggy, so I figure the only way I'll drive a car is if I can continue to use the whip.
I've used many browsers on many platforms over the years and there was a time that IE was the best and most advanced browser available. That day is long gone. IE belongs in the trash heap along with its inefficient and outdated interface. I click on a link with my middle button in Mozilla and the page pops up in a new tab, light years ahead of the multiple key strokes and windows all over the place you end up with in IE.
I read the press release and this is what I get out of it:
MS gives Sun some cash
Sun helps MS fix.NET and user authentication problems in Windows
Sun sells Windows on Sun Xeon and Opteron boxes
Sun hands over any good ideas they have left
Sun never sues MS ever again for their illegal business practices.
I can only hope that this news will run SUNW up high enough so I can finally get out.
I'm not a big Dell fan or anything, but I have noticed in their product offerings that they seem to do more than just assemble boxes. That being the case I suspected that in order for them to provide more advanced products than a simple assembled box they must be doing some R&D.
So I checked their last 10Q statement they filed with the SEC and discovered that Dell spends around $118 million each quarter on "Research, development and engineering".
I can't speak for the other two areas, but the Salt Lake City area was chosen because it already has extensive HDTV broadcast capability that was installed for the 2002 winter olympics.
I just checked their channel listings for the SLC area(where I live) and a quick perusing with the remote reveals that I already pick up the local channels for free with my rabbit ears on my Mitsubishi HDTV with a built in HDTV tuner.
The pay channels are not the HDTV versions, they are old 480i signals.
So 75% of what they offer for $19.95/month is already free so you are paying for only 11 pay channels that are non-HDTV format. That's about $1.81/channel each month.
A comparable Dish Network package comes with 60 channels at $24.99/month. Which comes to about $0.42/channel each month.
Now if I were to recalculate those numbers considering which pay channels are complete crap then they would get a little closer but I'm sure the satellitte will still be a much better deal. For now I think I'll stick with my rabbit ears and Dish Network subscription. But I am currently looking into switching to Voom satellitte TV which is ALL HDTV.
I think we need to be very ecologically conscious with everything we do, however, your use of wateraid.org to counter BeCre8iv's remark is a mistake.
Driving into work each day has become very routine, but I'm pretty sure I don't drive into ethiopia to go to work at the semiconductor plant I work in. I don't recall reading about any of the hardware manufacturers I purchase from being from Ethiopia. And I don't recall ever reading or seeing any reports on Ethiopia as one of the worlds centers for high tech industrial manufacturing.
But what I think most people don't realize, or choose to ignore because these wild environmental statements sound much better to them than the truth, is that the water UTILIZED to manufacture computer components is recycled many times over. And the bulk of the water that is not recycled in the process is treated, tested, and returned to the environment. I'm not speaking from the outside as some techie, I see it everyday I go to work.
And aside from the lack of truth in these statements, they simply don't make any economical sense. When you start to run the numbers on what it would cost to manufacture components based on the resources these environmental groups suggest are consumed you will find that all these high tech manufacturers would not be in business very long for what they charge for their end products.
We can always improve and we can never let down our guard. You will find some bad apples in the industry and they must be dealt with. However, wording statements so they will intentionally be misunderstood by the uninformed just to further one's own agenda only takes away from the credibility of the individuals and organizations making the statements. And without credibility it is not likely that anyone, except those who have already made up their mind, will believe anything that comes from these individuals and organizations.
Actually its the lawyers that are suing everyone, so I suppose SCO really isn't that bad its the lawyers who are causing all the grief.
Or perhaps the correct way to look at this is to get to the root of the problem. The lawyers are causing grief because they are paid to cause grief by SCO, and in turn SCO is paying the lawyers because they are paid by Microsoft to pay the lawyers to cause grief.
So realistically speaking if Microsoft is giving millions of dollars to SCO with the intention of SCO using this capital to harrass anyone who supports or implements open source software by filing law suits then the actions of Microsoft ARE resulting in law suits, they ARE responsible.
And while companies may not act honorably their actions may be considered illegal in a court of law. Now considering that Microsft has already been found guilty of legal misconduct in the anti-trust case this simply looks like more of the same.
So Microsoft should be held to the fire for these actions because they go beyond simply beating out the competition. And I'd also like to see the prosecutors from the anti-trust case held to the fire as well since it is quite obvious that criminal behaviour that goes unpunished only results in a continuation of that same criminal behaviour.
In the written statement the EV1 CEO, if that is who wrote the letter, does make the arguement that a license agreement appeared to be the better business case compared to fighting a legal battle.
However, I suspect there are some closed door dealings going on because this business case arguement doesn't hold water.
1) A lawsuit will result in short term expenses where as licensing has both short and long term expenses. There is the risk of losing the lawsuit and then paying both but....
2) With a little reading of the media coverage on both sides of the SCO issue it should be rather obvious to anyone but the densest dolt that SCO now has a snowball's chance in hell of winning this case. Basically SCO's arguement is that anyone who has purchased a license from AT&T for SYSV have relinquished some of their rights to their OWN source code and cannot make their OWN source code available to anyone. Not only is the arguement ludicrous, but this is only a SCO interpretation of the license which has been debunked by recent discovery of an AT&T explanation in 1985 of the license which clearly states that the licensing intention was NOT to take away such rights from licensees.
3) And the risks associated with the licensing business case are very high. You may lose current and potential customers due to negative publicity and your increased operational costs due to licensing will force an increase in customer pricing which may give competetors an edge.
Of course I am biased, I use linux extensively and I believe the benefits of open source far out weigh any purported benefits of closed source. But I still try to look at these issues with an open mind and to me something seems fishy in this EV1 SCO IP licensing business case.
And another way to look at it is....you love coding, you push open source, and sooner or later there is so much demand for the open source software you've worked on that:
1) You sign on more install, setup, advisory, and support contracts than you can handle so you start your own business and hire on other people who love open source. Jobs are created for some of those fresh graduates and life becomes even better for more people because the wonder of software becomes cheaper for everyone.
2) Recognized for your talent to not only code, but to actually design, develop, implement, and support a large project several corporations offer lucrative positions within their organizations.
3) Your open source code becomes a small part in a larger solution that makes the use of software to run businesses around the world even more ubiquitous than it is now because it is relatively inexpensive and as a result you have played a part in creating jobs for computer science graduates around the world, including yourself to support all the new implementations.
4)...
5)...
6)
or...another possibility may be to turn into a greedy smug coder who thought he was going to conquer the world and subjugate the masses with his closed source and restrictive licensing but in the end became just another cube dweller in a multi-national corporation that already has dibs on the subjugation license for the masses.
or not.
I believe that open source software has the greatest potential to create jobs for more computer science graduates over time than closed source simply because the reduced cost of acquiring the software will make it possible for more businesses to take advantage of the innumerable benefits of using software.
I can tell from experience in looking at how small businesses in the US are using software, there is massive potential to work easier for these people and make their businesses run more efficiently and effectively through the use of software.
And from what I've seen the there are two things stopping small business from taking advantage of these software benefits; the cost of closed source software licensing is effectively out of reach for most small businesses (and I'm not talking about Windows 98 and Quick Books, think MS-SQL, Oracle, etc.); and the lack of marketing and wide spread inexpensive support for open source software.
There is great potential in open source software to create a boom in the software industry, the most popular example of what I believe will happen is the story of the Ford Model T, a car for the masses.
burnin
Inexpensive but perhaps not the best choice
on
Mini-ITX Clustering
·
· Score: 1
Not to take away from what this guy has done because it is quite interesting, but I wanted to play around with clustering and was considering the mini-ITX platform as I have a few of them in use now and they are great little machines.
However, when calculating the cost to performance ratio you are better off with a cheap all in one motherboard and AMD processors.
I went with $65 shuttle all in one motherboards and $80 AMD XP2200+ CPUs. The final total was more like $1400 but it is close to your $1000 mark with much greater processing power.
I think you are correct that everyone is missing the trick, but you are wrong if you think SCO is holding out to pull some magic trump card for a climactic finish.
I think what everyone is missing is that SCO is trying to say that SCO owns UNIX, UNIX=AIX, AIX=LINUX, therefore UNIX=LINUX and SCO owns LINUX.
And the way they are trying to state this is by saying that IBM signed a contract with SCO that says "we will let you look at our SCO code and in return any code you develop from then on belongs to us as a derivitive work".
They have stated this over and over in many different ways, however, I suspect that they haven't come right out and stated it in a simple way because anyone who saw the simple truth of their arguement would be astonished at the absurdity.
So you see, the reason SCO wants all the AIX code is not because there is SCO code in linux but because they believe that IBM copied IBM AIX code into linux. That is the copyright violation. And SCO is hopeful that everyone will ignore the fact that its IBM code developed and paid for by IBM and somehow fall for their asinine logic of "all your code belong to us".
Anyhow, its sure fun to watch IBM trash SCO's lawyers in court and show no sign of giving quarter.
No there are not any pictures of a 3d fab on the website as this company is not a semiconductor manufacturer, they are a tool vendor that is working on a new concept. If you read the press releases you we learn a little about what they have acheived to date.
Besides, I was merely pointing out that thinking up new ways of doing things is a good thing and there are others who are actively doing it. So considering that I posted a link to a company that is working on different methods of producing semiconductors it is quite informative. 3D Doritos, while very tasty, are a bit off topic.
Slashdot Mirror
There are currently tons of articles flying around the net from the BSA and one of them actual comes out and says the BSA statistics came from a BSA survey.
So how accurate is a survey going to be that asks people if they have committed a crime.
This is just BS.
burnin
I forgot about America's Army. Its another nice violent linux game. :)
burnin
pfft, who cares.
:P
I'm a geek so that means I don't run Windows. And I'm a real geek so that means I dont rely on Wine either.
ID Software has a Quake3 port available for Windows, linux, and Mac OSX. And Urban Terror works with them all.
If your really a geek and want to engage in some violent first person combat look no further than Quake3 and Urban Terror.
Yeah, I know, shameless plug for one of my favorite games in somebody elses game thread, sue me.
burnin
I will not disagree with the BSA on their arguement that software piracy is rampant, especially in geographical areas where software piracy may be more acceptable due to economics or cultural mores.
However, I would like to see how they actually determine the quanitity of pirated software.
I have a sneaking suspicion that one of their key methods of determining the quantity of pirated software is related to the amount of hardware sold. If this is in any way true then I call BS on the BSA stats.
I purchase and use a significant amount of hardware even for a western computer geek, I think(3 epia based systems, 4 white boxes, and a 6 node cluster), and not one of these pieces of hardware uses software from the BSA affiliates. They all run FOSS software downloaded legally off the internet.
If they are counting my 14 systems that were purchased without any software licenses from a BSA affiliate as potential piracy candidates they are bunch of morons.
And besides, it seems there is a conflict of interest here when you have the enforcers of licensing giving you statistics on the revenue lost due to piracy. That alone is good cause to call BS on their report.
burnin
I'm sure I'm wasting my time responding to an AC post, but here goes.
My point is that Windows and its associated applications, such as Internet Explorer, are turds.
I agree that system administration plays an important role in securing any system, however, that does not change the fact that Microsoft software is delivered to the administrator with vastly more flaws than comparable software from the competition. And while a good sys admin can secure their Microsoft install base it is going to be a hell of a lot more work than it would have been with competing software. There is also a higher probability they might miss something because there are so damned many holes to plug.
So what is your point? Are you trying to say that there is some type of relationship between the number of users and the exploitability of some software application or OS?
I hope not because that's a lame arguement, but just in case I'd like to make a proposal. There is no way to prove a theory like that either way unless we get a comparable install of open source software so we can get a good measure of which has better security. So lets start with current high level recommendations of everyone switching to a Mozilla based browser and dumping Internet Explorer. If we get enough people to switch then perhaps we can get some good data from which to assess that arguement. Until then its a bogus arguement that can't be proven either way.
burnin
There is truth in your statement, however, it does not change the fact that Windows and its associated applications have a significantly larger number of flaws when compared to the competition.
If you look at the secunia statistics for IE you find that by itself it has nearly as many exploits as competing operating systems and all their associated applications combined.
secunia.com/product/11/
burnin
In the XP stats they show one advisory for IE. But looking at the exploits statistics on the same website you find that the one Microsoft application by itself has about as many exploits as other competing operating systems and all their applications combined:
secunia.com/product/11/
Sorry Windows lovers, its time to face the facts, your OS of choice and associated applications are a haven for worms and viruses not because there are so many of you, its because the software is crap.
burnin
Agreed, and your point can be proven even with the secunia statistics. They show XP with only one advisory for Internet Exploerer and yet Internet Explorer by itself had about 40 exploits by itself during the same period of time this MS shill is reporting on.
secunia.com/product/11
burnin
And simply reading the article is exactly what this Microsoft shill is expecting everyone to do.
This may be asking alot, but I'd like everyone to dig a little deeper and actual go to the secunia.com website and poke around at the statistics yourself. What you will find is that the guy who wrote this article is either too damned lazy to fully research his topic or he is intentionally using these statistics inaccurately in order to prove a false point.
For those who don't have the time to find out for themselves what the statistics REALLY say, here is what I found:
In the secunia.com statistics for Windows XP there is only a single exploit related to Internet Explorer. That sounds pretty good but its also blatantly false.
In fact, if you dig a little deeper into the statistics on their web site you discover that Internet Explorer 6 from 2003 to 2004 had 40 advisories by itself with 98% allowing remote attack and 31% enabling system access.
secunia.com/product/11/
So taking into account all the IE vulnerabilities instead of grouping them into one advisory we suddenly discover that Microsoft Windows XP Proffessional had 86 advisories from 2003 to 2004 with 71% allowing remote attacks and 38% enabling system access!
Now some will say "not fair" because IE is a seperate application. All I can tell you is that if you actually looked at the statistics you would already know that the OSX and linux statistics include security advisories for ALL applications included in with the OS. So it is only fair to also include ALL Windows applications that come with Windows.
So in conclusion, when I include the vulnerabilities of just one single Windows application the number of exploits in Windows is around double what you have with the likes of OSX or linux. I suspect that including other Windows applications that were excluded from the Windows statistics everyone will begin to understand why Windows is a haven for worms and viruses.
I don't think I will be migrating from my Mac OSX and linux installs any time soon.
burnin
I disagree. If anything needs to be changed in the cost structure of the patent system it is the fees required to question a patent.
If we are going to have a patent system then we need a fee system that doesn't show preference to corporations with deep pockets, the little guy needs access as well.
In reading the publications from the USPTO I discovered that while the fees required to submit a patent are rather low the fees required to question a patent are significantly higher, something like 4 to 10 times if I recall.
It seems that the current system has incentive for people to file patents but not for people to question them.
Now to tell you the truth I don't really believe that changing the fee structure is actually the solution. What I think needs to be changed is what can be patented and who can patent.
An idea of how you COULD do something should not be patentable. It used to be that you had to bring a copy of what you intended to patent down to the patent office. Of course that is not a reasonable practice today, however, the idea behind this practice should still be enforced. The mouse trap itself should be patented, not the idea that you could build a device to catch a small mammal.
And patents should only be given to individuals who are in business to produce the patented device, whether that be a real human individual or a company. If an individual wants to be in the business of generating patents or holding patents then they need to make their money off selling off their patents to someone who INTENDS to actually produce something. This idea of hording large numbers of patents with the hope that someday one of them will become a windfall should be outlawed for the same reason that extortion is considered a crime.
burnin
I disagree on the average Joe part. You see, average Joe doesn't really care much about EULAs, "Intellectual Property Rights", etc.
The legality of pirating software is pretty cut and dry for average Joe yet he's had no problem in the past casually pirating games and operating systems so I don't see how he'll be worried about some questionable IP ownership of some questionable podunk company in Lindon Utah. And if some bigger bully comes along? Well, Microsoft is a rather large bully and casual pirating of their products is quite common.
burnin
Do not presume that MS's past use of patents for defensive purposes only means there is a low probability of threat to the Mono project...
MS has hired an IP manager who not only believes in but has spearheaded IP rampages.
"Marshall Phelps has long been a vocal advocate of the need for companies to take IP licensing seriously."
"...he inspired at his previous company, IBM, which is now reaping almost $2 billion a year from licensing its patents."
"At IBM we did a lot of it. We had lots of lawyers doing preparation and prosecution around the world. At Microsoft, we don't have anyone doing that, but we are going to start."
"According to Phelps, managers too often fall into the trap of seeing patents as a purely defensive measure, a tool with which to stop the competition in their tracks.
Phelps says he is pleasantly surprised by just how understanding Microsoft's executives have been. "On these IP issues I don't have much of a problem getting anyone's attention at Microsoft. It starts at the top, and if you've got a guy like Bill Gates who's really concerned about IP and really likes it then you don't have much of a management problem."
Make no mistake about it, Microsoft has learned to do business by using its capital to get what it wants. Microsoft cannot buy out FOSS but they sure as hell can litigate FOSS directly or indirectly to "stop the competition in their tracks."
As most everyone here knows, FOSS has been on the Microsoft radar for several years now and they have been very active and very unsuccessful in halting the progress of FOSS.
This is the last ditch effort on Microsoft's part to stop what is becoming an unstoppable force. It will not matter if the FOSS community produces a better and more technologically advanced product because Microsoft will not be competing based on the merit of their products.
Whether or not the patents that are filed are frivilous and ridiculous, they will be used offensively to diminish the threat of FOSS to the Microsoft revenue stream.
Be prepared, there is more of the SCO syndrome to come.
burnin
"I'd use Mozilla if I could shift+click and get a new browser window. But every time that I install it, I end up removing it because of little annoyances ..."
Are you serious?
Your comment makes me envision all kinds of bizarre situations...
Supervisor: Your engineering report is already behind schedule, why are you using that slide rule?
Engineer: I'd use that elctronic calculator gadget to do my math if they could just make it so I can operate it like mike slide rule.
Supervisor: Why didn't you use the CAD software on the computer? Its taking you too long to complete the change orders!
Draftsman: I'll use the CAD software as soon as they give me an ANSI D sized computer display that I can draw on with my pencil.
Service Manager: Sir, We will consider repairing your dashboard in your car under warranty, but can you first explain how it was damaged?
New Car Owner: Well, I always used this whip when I was driving my horse drawn buggy, so I figure the only way I'll drive a car is if I can continue to use the whip.
I've used many browsers on many platforms over the years and there was a time that IE was the best and most advanced browser available. That day is long gone. IE belongs in the trash heap along with its inefficient and outdated interface. I click on a link with my middle button in Mozilla and the page pops up in a new tab, light years ahead of the multiple key strokes and windows all over the place you end up with in IE.
Welcome to the 21st century.
burnin
I read the press release and this is what I get out of it:
.NET and user authentication problems in Windows
MS gives Sun some cash
Sun helps MS fix
Sun sells Windows on Sun Xeon and Opteron boxes
Sun hands over any good ideas they have left
Sun never sues MS ever again for their illegal business practices.
I can only hope that this news will run SUNW up high enough so I can finally get out.
burnin
I'm not a big Dell fan or anything, but I have noticed in their product offerings that they seem to do more than just assemble boxes. That being the case I suspected that in order for them to provide more advanced products than a simple assembled box they must be doing some R&D.
So I checked their last 10Q statement they filed with the SEC and discovered that Dell spends around $118 million each quarter on "Research, development and engineering".
burnin
I can't speak for the other two areas, but the Salt Lake City area was chosen because it already has extensive HDTV broadcast capability that was installed for the 2002 winter olympics.
burnin
I just checked their channel listings for the SLC area(where I live) and a quick perusing with the remote reveals that I already pick up the local channels for free with my rabbit ears on my Mitsubishi HDTV with a built in HDTV tuner.
The pay channels are not the HDTV versions, they are old 480i signals.
So 75% of what they offer for $19.95/month is already free so you are paying for only 11 pay channels that are non-HDTV format. That's about $1.81/channel each month.
A comparable Dish Network package comes with 60 channels at $24.99/month. Which comes to about $0.42/channel each month.
Now if I were to recalculate those numbers considering which pay channels are complete crap then they would get a little closer but I'm sure the satellitte will still be a much better deal. For now I think I'll stick with my rabbit ears and Dish Network subscription. But I am currently looking into switching to Voom satellitte TV which is ALL HDTV.
burnin
I think we need to be very ecologically conscious with everything we do, however, your use of wateraid.org to counter BeCre8iv's remark is a mistake.
Driving into work each day has become very routine, but I'm pretty sure I don't drive into ethiopia to go to work at the semiconductor plant I work in. I don't recall reading about any of the hardware manufacturers I purchase from being from Ethiopia. And I don't recall ever reading or seeing any reports on Ethiopia as one of the worlds centers for high tech industrial manufacturing.
But what I think most people don't realize, or choose to ignore because these wild environmental statements sound much better to them than the truth, is that the water UTILIZED to manufacture computer components is recycled many times over. And the bulk of the water that is not recycled in the process is treated, tested, and returned to the environment. I'm not speaking from the outside as some techie, I see it everyday I go to work.
And aside from the lack of truth in these statements, they simply don't make any economical sense. When you start to run the numbers on what it would cost to manufacture components based on the resources these environmental groups suggest are consumed you will find that all these high tech manufacturers would not be in business very long for what they charge for their end products.
We can always improve and we can never let down our guard. You will find some bad apples in the industry and they must be dealt with. However, wording statements so they will intentionally be misunderstood by the uninformed just to further one's own agenda only takes away from the credibility of the individuals and organizations making the statements. And without credibility it is not likely that anyone, except those who have already made up their mind, will believe anything that comes from these individuals and organizations.
burnin
Actually its the lawyers that are suing everyone, so I suppose SCO really isn't that bad its the lawyers who are causing all the grief.
Or perhaps the correct way to look at this is to get to the root of the problem. The lawyers are causing grief because they are paid to cause grief by SCO, and in turn SCO is paying the lawyers because they are paid by Microsoft to pay the lawyers to cause grief.
So realistically speaking if Microsoft is giving millions of dollars to SCO with the intention of SCO using this capital to harrass anyone who supports or implements open source software by filing law suits then the actions of Microsoft ARE resulting in law suits, they ARE responsible.
And while companies may not act honorably their actions may be considered illegal in a court of law. Now considering that Microsft has already been found guilty of legal misconduct in the anti-trust case this simply looks like more of the same.
So Microsoft should be held to the fire for these actions because they go beyond simply beating out the competition. And I'd also like to see the prosecutors from the anti-trust case held to the fire as well since it is quite obvious that criminal behaviour that goes unpunished only results in a continuation of that same criminal behaviour.
burnin1965
In the written statement the EV1 CEO, if that is who wrote the letter, does make the arguement that a license agreement appeared to be the better business case compared to fighting a legal battle.
However, I suspect there are some closed door dealings going on because this business case arguement doesn't hold water.
1) A lawsuit will result in short term expenses where as licensing has both short and long term expenses. There is the risk of losing the lawsuit and then paying both but....
2) With a little reading of the media coverage on both sides of the SCO issue it should be rather obvious to anyone but the densest dolt that SCO now has a snowball's chance in hell of winning this case. Basically SCO's arguement is that anyone who has purchased a license from AT&T for SYSV have relinquished some of their rights to their OWN source code and cannot make their OWN source code available to anyone. Not only is the arguement ludicrous, but this is only a SCO interpretation of the license which has been debunked by recent discovery of an AT&T explanation in 1985 of the license which clearly states that the licensing intention was NOT to take away such rights from licensees.
3) And the risks associated with the licensing business case are very high. You may lose current and potential customers due to negative publicity and your increased operational costs due to licensing will force an increase in customer pricing which may give competetors an edge.
Of course I am biased, I use linux extensively and I believe the benefits of open source far out weigh any purported benefits of closed source. But I still try to look at these issues with an open mind and to me something seems fishy in this EV1 SCO IP licensing business case.
burnin
And another way to look at it is....you love coding, you push open source, and sooner or later there is so much demand for the open source software you've worked on that:
... ...
1) You sign on more install, setup, advisory, and support contracts than you can handle so you start your own business and hire on other people who love open source. Jobs are created for some of those fresh graduates and life becomes even better for more people because the wonder of software becomes cheaper for everyone.
2) Recognized for your talent to not only code, but to actually design, develop, implement, and support a large project several corporations offer lucrative positions within their organizations.
3) Your open source code becomes a small part in a larger solution that makes the use of software to run businesses around the world even more ubiquitous than it is now because it is relatively inexpensive and as a result you have played a part in creating jobs for computer science graduates around the world, including yourself to support all the new implementations.
4)
5)
6)
or...another possibility may be to turn into a greedy smug coder who thought he was going to conquer the world and subjugate the masses with his closed source and restrictive licensing but in the end became just another cube dweller in a multi-national corporation that already has dibs on the subjugation license for the masses.
or not.
I believe that open source software has the greatest potential to create jobs for more computer science graduates over time than closed source simply because the reduced cost of acquiring the software will make it possible for more businesses to take advantage of the innumerable benefits of using software.
I can tell from experience in looking at how small businesses in the US are using software, there is massive potential to work easier for these people and make their businesses run more efficiently and effectively through the use of software.
And from what I've seen the there are two things stopping small business from taking advantage of these software benefits; the cost of closed source software licensing is effectively out of reach for most small businesses (and I'm not talking about Windows 98 and Quick Books, think MS-SQL, Oracle, etc.); and the lack of marketing and wide spread inexpensive support for open source software.
There is great potential in open source software to create a boom in the software industry, the most popular example of what I believe will happen is the story of the Ford Model T, a car for the masses.
burnin
Not to take away from what this guy has done because it is quite interesting, but I wanted to play around with clustering and was considering the mini-ITX platform as I have a few of them in use now and they are great little machines.
However, when calculating the cost to performance ratio you are better off with a cheap all in one motherboard and AMD processors.
I went with $65 shuttle all in one motherboards and $80 AMD XP2200+ CPUs. The final total was more like $1400 but it is close to your $1000 mark with much greater processing power.
www.aros.net/~burnin/ironcluster.html
burnin
The way the case is going they will not have a chance to use their trump card because the case could get thrown out of court for lack of merit.
burnin
I think you are correct that everyone is missing the trick, but you are wrong if you think SCO is holding out to pull some magic trump card for a climactic finish.
I think what everyone is missing is that SCO is trying to say that SCO owns UNIX, UNIX=AIX, AIX=LINUX, therefore UNIX=LINUX and SCO owns LINUX.
And the way they are trying to state this is by saying that IBM signed a contract with SCO that says "we will let you look at our SCO code and in return any code you develop from then on belongs to us as a derivitive work".
They have stated this over and over in many different ways, however, I suspect that they haven't come right out and stated it in a simple way because anyone who saw the simple truth of their arguement would be astonished at the absurdity.
So you see, the reason SCO wants all the AIX code is not because there is SCO code in linux but because they believe that IBM copied IBM AIX code into linux. That is the copyright violation. And SCO is hopeful that everyone will ignore the fact that its IBM code developed and paid for by IBM and somehow fall for their asinine logic of "all your code belong to us".
Anyhow, its sure fun to watch IBM trash SCO's lawyers in court and show no sign of giving quarter.
burnin
No there are not any pictures of a 3d fab on the website as this company is not a semiconductor manufacturer, they are a tool vendor that is working on a new concept. If you read the press releases you we learn a little about what they have acheived to date.
Besides, I was merely pointing out that thinking up new ways of doing things is a good thing and there are others who are actively doing it. So considering that I posted a link to a company that is working on different methods of producing semiconductors it is quite informative. 3D Doritos, while very tasty, are a bit off topic.
burnin