OK, so there is enough software on the market that companies are forced to write less stuff in-house. Sooo, who is writing and supporting that software?
AFAIK MS's games division was making money on PC games like Age of Empires before the creation of the Xbox. Also, when you have a monopoly, if you launch a product that helps to protect it could be considered a success even if it does not bring in a profit.
This is the reason WindowsCE is a success, it places a road block in the way of anyone wanting to assault the desktop by expanding from PDA to Laptop etc.
Nobody is going to write 30 million lines of code over night to compete with Windows, they have to find a niche like Cell phones, PDA's, and game consoles and try to leverage it. Xbox and WindowsCE are about taking the fight to them, if competition means the markets has lower or no profit margins, that could also be a good thing.
I am in the same boat you are, we go over our 500 minutes every few months, but I have not upgraded the plan becasue it is never costs much more than a few dollars. Anything up to 255 minutes over (755 total) is still cheaper on the $15 plan.
When I first signed up for Vonage I bought a $200 multi-cordless phone system (Current model is Uniden TRU9485-3) that is pretty nice, but at the same time I have saved about $1,400 since moving to Vonage.
GPLv3 matters not because it is a license for software that is distributed. Novell distributes Linux but this code is not covered by the agreement. If the customers distribute Linux code, all the standard GPL rules still apply.
The deal would have been against GLPv2 if it applied SuSE Linux in the first place. Because the deal never pertained to SuSE Linux, it matters not what the license is modified to say.
I predict GPLv3 won't matter to the Novell-MS Deal.
People in general tend to judge other humans on their own strengths, this is good for the ego because it allows us to paint ourselves in a more positive light.
People wanted to believe the universe revolved around the earth, because it makes us feel more important.
People want to believe that when humans die they have an after life because it comforts them.
People like to believe that humans are the only mammals that go to heaven and anybody who does not act or believe like them does not get access, because again it makes us feel important. Observe the people around you, and you will notice these things.
I believe there may also be a genetic basis for the "us" and "them" mentality. It brings unity and there is strength in numbers. People tend to group together based on their social clicks, where they are from, their skin color, the school they went to, the sports they played etc.
People bond over the dumbest things but just about all people (and many other animals) have this same trait. This grouping would obviously carry survival advantages.
Gobo installs applications into their own directories, like/programs/xmms, but it matters little which packaging system is used to place the applications there.
I also tend to think something like this is a good idea. Perhaps creating a/programs/xmms/uninstall.xml with a list of files and file locations that were installed with the package would free from dependance on any specific method of installing software.
Maybe/opt could be used for this?/opt/xmms,/opt/firefox etc.?
Novell existed long before they aquired Suse. The agreement not to sue Novell (and for Novell not to sue MS) for past actions is flat out NOT RELATED TO SUSE LINUX. The second part of the deal (the agreement not to sue Novell customers) is exactly as I stated. The actual code being shipped by Novel as SuSE Linux is not covered in either of these 2 scenarios. Do you get it now??
So Novell made a deal with Microsoft that means that Novell can be sued by Microsoft?
There are multiple parts to the deal, if you don't know what they are why even bother trying to argue with me? In one part Microsoft agreed to give Novell $108 million to release each other from past actions (as in before they owned SuSE) source.
The other portion of your post has already been covered.
"The covenant applies to end customers of Novell products."
This does not say it applies to Novell itself, nor does it say it applies to these end users customers. The parent post you disputed said the following.
"Oh FFS, this is the 3rd time in 3 posts I have had to state that the agreement in question covers Novell customers and not Novell directly."
If I were keeping score I'd say that made it JPriest 1, mysticgoat 0.
"If I become a client of Novell, and my team produces a PIM based on Suse that is a real MS Outlook killer, how is it that my customers are immune from the threat of patent claims by Microsoft (even though I have that immunity)?"
You said I keep saying the same thing over and over yet you keep missing it??! Under the agreement you are welcome to deploy said Outlook Killer within your company, at the point you decide to distribute this platform to others downstream of you, you will need to decide on a license and ensure it does not infringe on others property in the exact same way you have always had to.
The short version is that GPLv2 prohibits Novell from distributing licensed code they don't have rights to and MS would be stupid to allow any Novell customer immunity to redristribute in house solutions. What if you had access to the Office source code and rebranded and sold it with your logo? As long as you were a Novell/Suse customer this would be legal. Obviously that would be bad for MS.
You are making a major assumption that no customer of Novell's would ever develop and distribute a derivative of Suse-- and that is absurd.
No I am not. Any software you plan to distribute will be handled the same as it always has. You can rebrand and distribute Suse if you see fit. If you contributed code you are welcome to release it under GPL as well so long as it does not infringe on someone elses legal rights. The only thing that changes is that you CAN develop and use portions of MS code in house. If you have access to Windows source code, this may permit you to "steal" portions of that code to make you applications work on Linux.
You can not expect to release _that_ code under the GPL, but that is a change from what exactly?
Because there would be no way for us to determine whether Novell had introduced any patent-tainted code into some component that we were retaining.
And you are throwing around the word FUD? Please go and actually read section 7. I stated earlier this agreement was not about what Novell was releasing but what the customers were contributing. If Novell DID release something "patent-tainted" under the GPL then guess what? They are allowing any recipient, and recipients recipient full use of any patent pertaining to that code AS PER THE GPL (sections 7). Java for instance has several patents, but when Sun GPL'd it, they in effect were releasing any GPL users from any litigations as a result of using or distributing this software as GPL.
If you do not understand the GPL, then maybe you should refrain from burning Novell at the stake in the name of violating it.
"Therefor, Novell can now (continue to?) develop software that violates Microsoft's "Intellectual Property".
You mean, therefor Novell CUSTOMERS can now develop software that violates Microsoft's "Intellectual Property.
Quite Honestly it makes little difference what these customers develop in the first place because their are not redistributing this software.
Now when a customer using Windows and Linux needs to copy a feature used by MS to get proprietary application X to run on Linux they have an agreement that MS will not sue them for it.
All code being distributed by Novell was and still is bound by the terms of the GPL.
You do understand that this proposition covers not just creating the TLD, but banning adult content from the rest of the Internet right? You don't think everyone on an entire TLD requiring CC # from people surfing there would open the door to fraud, or at least some unethical billing practices?
I would expect a community like Slashdot to strongly oppose this measure, but this does not seem to be the case because few people bothered to realize that this proposition covers more than just a creation of another generic TLD.
From here. It says that the domains would be required to move.
Here is the direct quote: "Any commercial Internet site or online service that "has as its principal or primary business the making available of material that is harmful to minors" would be required to move its site to that domain. Failure to comply with those requirements would result in civil penalties as determined by the Commerce Department."
Please do not blindly support the bill without first understanding just what exactly it proposes. I had another post covering why I think this is bad here and proposed an alternate solution here
Direct quote "Any commercial Internet site or online service that "has as its principal or primary business the making available of material that is harmful to minors" would be required to move its site to that domain. Failure to comply with those requirements would result in civil penalties as determined by the Commerce Department."
It isn't the porn industry that wants the change. Creating a red light district would arguably make porn easier to find for children, and at the same time if you don't force them all off the.coms's you have not really solved the problem of filtering. Who has the right to say porn is not welcome on the rest of the Internet anyway? The United States? George Bush?
In some countries it is considered wrong for women to lift their veils so other men can see their faces, and in some women walk around with no shits on like men. Sure there are obvious cases, but who has the final word on what is and isn't sexually explicit content? Who is going to pay to enforce these new morals and who's morals?
Do the American tax payers launch a multi billion dollar crusade to purge the internet of porn and bring our Christian morals to the internationally based Internet?
Early proposals for.xx were to mandate that all porn sites use some form of age verification (ie credit card). With all the fraud on the internet do you honestly believe entering your credit card number and personal into on every porn site you see is a good idea? What age constitutes a "minor" anyway? 18 y/o like in the US? How many people here have never seen any porn before the age of 18? How did you turn out?
To me this only sounds like a pathway for rampant fraud. I don't want to complain without offering up my own solution, so I think if anything is to be done then appending robots.txt to include a line for "Adult:/" where the webmaster of the site sees fit is a much better idea. I posted more on this suggestion here
The reality of the matter is that even if a.xxx domain is created it
A) makes porn easier to find
B) Does not solve the problem of being able to filter it with parental control software because nobody is going to shut down the porn.com's.
The porn sites have a right to exist, who are we to force them over to.xxx domains? Forcing them all to register with some central DB so they can be black listed would also be impossible becasue there is no realistic way to keep the DB updated.
My solution for addressing the filtering software problem is very simple. We amend robots.txt to include a section for Adult content.
A simple addition on porn sites of a line like this would solve the problem.
Sites not interested in adding the field to robots.txt are not required to by law, but many websites would be willing to accommodate something like this to assist Net Nanny etc., but would fight having to leave porn.net behind for pornforyou12341.xxx tooth and nail. On the internet your company name and your domain name are often the same. Moving them to another TLD would equate to making them shut down and start over under a new name.
This would also greatly assist Google etc. in blocking some of these sites where "safe search" is turned on thus prevent people form going to a jenny.com by mistake and finding porn.
I have made this suggestion a number of time in the past. Maybe I should look into what it would take to get it drafted into an RFC?
I noticed these on Dells site several months ago. They call them Open Source becasue they ship with FreeDos and are intended for people to install which ever flavor of Linux they prefer.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, so there is enough software on the market that companies are forced to write less stuff in-house. Sooo, who is writing and supporting that software?
This is the reason WindowsCE is a success, it places a road block in the way of anyone wanting to assault the desktop by expanding from PDA to Laptop etc.
Nobody is going to write 30 million lines of code over night to compete with Windows, they have to find a niche like Cell phones, PDA's, and game consoles and try to leverage it. Xbox and WindowsCE are about taking the fight to them, if competition means the markets has lower or no profit margins, that could also be a good thing.
When I first signed up for Vonage I bought a $200 multi-cordless phone system (Current model is Uniden TRU9485-3) that is pretty nice, but at the same time I have saved about $1,400 since moving to Vonage.
The deal would have been against GLPv2 if it applied SuSE Linux in the first place. Because the deal never pertained to SuSE Linux, it matters not what the license is modified to say.
I predict GPLv3 won't matter to the Novell-MS Deal.
I have looked up a several professions on salary.com and the numbers even for my area don't even seem to be in the ball park.
People wanted to believe the universe revolved around the earth, because it makes us feel more important.
People want to believe that when humans die they have an after life because it comforts them.
People like to believe that humans are the only mammals that go to heaven and anybody who does not act or believe like them does not get access, because again it makes us feel important. Observe the people around you, and you will notice these things.
I believe there may also be a genetic basis for the "us" and "them" mentality. It brings unity and there is strength in numbers. People tend to group together based on their social clicks, where they are from, their skin color, the school they went to, the sports they played etc.
People bond over the dumbest things but just about all people (and many other animals) have this same trait. This grouping would obviously carry survival advantages.
Gobo installs applications into their own directories, like
I also tend to think something like this is a good idea. Perhaps creating a /programs/xmms/uninstall.xml with a list of files and file locations that were installed with the package would free from dependance on any specific method of installing software.
Maybe /opt could be used for this? /opt/xmms, /opt/firefox etc.?
Novell existed long before they aquired Suse. The agreement not to sue Novell (and for Novell not to sue MS) for past actions is flat out NOT RELATED TO SUSE LINUX. The second part of the deal (the agreement not to sue Novell customers) is exactly as I stated. The actual code being shipped by Novel as SuSE Linux is not covered in either of these 2 scenarios. Do you get it now??
There are multiple parts to the deal, if you don't know what they are why even bother trying to argue with me? In one part Microsoft agreed to give Novell $108 million to release each other from past actions (as in before they owned SuSE) source.
The other portion of your post has already been covered.
"The covenant applies to end customers of Novell products."
This does not say it applies to Novell itself, nor does it say it applies to these end users customers. The parent post you disputed said the following.
"Oh FFS, this is the 3rd time in 3 posts I have had to state that the agreement in question covers Novell customers and not Novell directly."
If I were keeping score I'd say that made it JPriest 1, mysticgoat 0.
You said I keep saying the same thing over and over yet you keep missing it??! Under the agreement you are welcome to deploy said Outlook Killer within your company, at the point you decide to distribute this platform to others downstream of you, you will need to decide on a license and ensure it does not infringe on others property in the exact same way you have always had to.
The short version is that GPLv2 prohibits Novell from distributing licensed code they don't have rights to and MS would be stupid to allow any Novell customer immunity to redristribute in house solutions. What if you had access to the Office source code and rebranded and sold it with your logo? As long as you were a Novell/Suse customer this would be legal. Obviously that would be bad for MS.
Oh FFS, this is the 3rd time in 3 posts I have had to state that the agreement in question covers Novell customers and not Novell directly.
No I am not. Any software you plan to distribute will be handled the same as it always has. You can rebrand and distribute Suse if you see fit. If you contributed code you are welcome to release it under GPL as well so long as it does not infringe on someone elses legal rights. The only thing that changes is that you CAN develop and use portions of MS code in house. If you have access to Windows source code, this may permit you to "steal" portions of that code to make you applications work on Linux.
You can not expect to release _that_ code under the GPL, but that is a change from what exactly?
Because there would be no way for us to determine whether Novell had introduced any patent-tainted code into some component that we were retaining.
And you are throwing around the word FUD? Please go and actually read section 7. I stated earlier this agreement was not about what Novell was releasing but what the customers were contributing. If Novell DID release something "patent-tainted" under the GPL then guess what? They are allowing any recipient, and recipients recipient full use of any patent pertaining to that code AS PER THE GPL (sections 7). Java for instance has several patents, but when Sun GPL'd it, they in effect were releasing any GPL users from any litigations as a result of using or distributing this software as GPL.
If you do not understand the GPL, then maybe you should refrain from burning Novell at the stake in the name of violating it.
Anyone?
You mean, therefor Novell CUSTOMERS can now develop software that violates Microsoft's "Intellectual Property.
Quite Honestly it makes little difference what these customers develop in the first place because their are not redistributing this software.
Now when a customer using Windows and Linux needs to copy a feature used by MS to get proprietary application X to run on Linux they have an agreement that MS will not sue them for it.
All code being distributed by Novell was and still is bound by the terms of the GPL.
It looks like Dell is not the only company that will need to answer for these actions.
Or maybe because the technology in 1996 was not available to launch a WiFi/VoIP based Internet Phone??
I would expect a community like Slashdot to strongly oppose this measure, but this does not seem to be the case because few people bothered to realize that this proposition covers more than just a creation of another generic TLD.
Here is the direct quote:
"Any commercial Internet site or online service that "has as its principal or primary business the making available of material that is harmful to minors" would be required to move its site to that domain. Failure to comply with those requirements would result in civil penalties as determined by the Commerce Department."
Please do not blindly support the bill without first understanding just what exactly it proposes.
I had another post covering why I think this is bad here and proposed an alternate solution here
Direct quote
"Any commercial Internet site or online service that "has as its principal or primary business the making available of material that is harmful to minors" would be required to move its site to that domain. Failure to comply with those requirements would result in civil penalties as determined by the Commerce Department."
In some countries it is considered wrong for women to lift their veils so other men can see their faces, and in some women walk around with no shits on like men. Sure there are obvious cases, but who has the final word on what is and isn't sexually explicit content? Who is going to pay to enforce these new morals and who's morals?
Do the American tax payers launch a multi billion dollar crusade to purge the internet of porn and bring our Christian morals to the internationally based Internet?
Early proposals for .xx were to mandate that all porn sites use some form of age verification (ie credit card). With all the fraud on the internet do you honestly believe entering your credit card number and personal into on every porn site you see is a good idea? What age constitutes a "minor" anyway? 18 y/o like in the US? How many people here have never seen any porn before the age of 18? How did you turn out?
To me this only sounds like a pathway for rampant fraud. I don't want to complain without offering up my own solution, so I think if anything is to be done then appending robots.txt to include a line for "Adult: /" where the webmaster of the site sees fit is a much better idea. I posted more on this suggestion here
A) makes porn easier to find
B) Does not solve the problem of being able to filter it with parental control software because nobody is going to shut down the porn.com's.
The porn sites have a right to exist, who are we to force them over to .xxx domains? Forcing them all to register with some central DB so they can be black listed would also be impossible becasue there is no realistic way to keep the DB updated.
My solution for addressing the filtering software problem is very simple. We amend robots.txt to include a section for Adult content.
A simple addition on porn sites of a line like this would solve the problem.
User-agent: * Disallow: /forums/ /members/ /downloads/ /
Disallow:
Disallow:
Adult:
Sites not interested in adding the field to robots.txt are not required to by law, but many websites would be willing to accommodate something like this to assist Net Nanny etc., but would fight having to leave porn.net behind for pornforyou12341.xxx tooth and nail. On the internet your company name and your domain name are often the same. Moving them to another TLD would equate to making them shut down and start over under a new name.
This would also greatly assist Google etc. in blocking some of these sites where "safe search" is turned on thus prevent people form going to a jenny.com by mistake and finding porn.
I have made this suggestion a number of time in the past. Maybe I should look into what it would take to get it drafted into an RFC?
Please explain.
I noticed these on Dells site several months ago. They call them Open Source becasue they ship with FreeDos and are intended for people to install which ever flavor of Linux they prefer.
That still sounds like a problem that could be solved with a shell script.