Why, exactly, should we care what RMS thinks? The world, aside from the ranks of the rabid Stallmanites, only cares whether it's open, not whether it meets Stallman's ethical standards.
You've discovered the fundamental flaw in higher education: it's full of academics, and fundamentally exists to produce more academics, not people who actually get things done. There's more and more thought that the degree is simply not worth the paper it's printed on, much less the crushing debt of student loans.
Give it long, hard, careful thought - and then ask yourself if you need the degree at all. I'm not going to kid you: there will opportunities forever closed to you because the hiring authorities can't see past the piece of paper - but you'll have a fine career nonetheless, especially if you build a demonstrated history of learning things quickly and hitting the ground running.
I don't have a degree. Looking back, I think I made the right choice not to put up with the railcar loads of bullshit that go with academia.
I noticed the split as well, but had put it down to movie critics vs. the folks who actually go to see movies because they want to enjoy them. You might have put your finger on the real cause of the split, though.
This is a film people either love or hate. Personally, I think that just about everyone involved is really just now getting their feet under them is also a factor. It wouldn't surprise me to see an even/odd factor similar to the one in the Star Trek movies take form.
At most. Polarizing filters you put on camera lenses cost 2-1/2 F-stops of light, or somewhere in the neighborhood of 18% transmission. 3D glasses aren't nearly that bad.
Re:Daft Punk
on
Tron: Legacy
·
· Score: 3, Informative
The movie flattens well. Do yourself a favor, though, and make sure you're going to a theater with a top-drawer sound system. Seeing it in IMAX 3d the first time, with a killer sound system, spoiled me.
I sure hope RubyGems isn't the utter DLL hell that CPAN is. The only time I tried shipping a product based on CPAN stuff, I wound up shipping the entire bundle as one, because there's just no way to download it from CPAN and depend on having the exact versions of the modules you developed with available - and when they're not, you're stuck in a messy cycle of upgrade dependencies and API incompatibilities that are almost impossible to resolve.
But IBM's reply to the complaint strikes squarely at the open source project, because TurboHercules uses the Hercules open source project's code with no modifications. If TurboHercules violates IBM's intellectual property (specifically its patents), then so must the open source project.
And no, Microsoft's not paying me, either directly or indirectly. Not even Steve Ballmer's third cousin.
You're repeating PJ's insanity now. She was utterly convinced I was a shill for Microsoft. You're convinced I'm somehow associated with NEON Software. Tell me: if I was associated with such powerful, well-to-do benefactors, would I be driving a crappy 1995 Blazer as an upgrade from an even crappier 1989 Bronco II? Hint: I'm not doing that because I want to.
The license doesn't say "run on IBM hardware only". It says "run on the machine you licensed it to run on".
As for performance-based licensing, IBM already has the technology to measure actual performance and bill based on it. There's a started task (z/OSese for "daemon") that must run at all times when you're using such a license, and it reports actual processor power used to IBM.
The license just says "thou shalt not copy nor run it on a machine that we didn't license it to run on". All that's required is selling a license to run on a Hercules host instead of a z/Series. There is no change in the license required, just IBM's sales practices - which they change regularly anyway, and have sold in the past to run on non-IBM hardware.
I didn't threaten a thing. I'm not associated with TurboHercules SAS. All I did was defend myself from a patent-based attack on the open source project I manage.
When IBM's lawyers say that something you're working on infringes their patents (and make no mistake, those letters were thoroughly vetted by IBM's legal team before they ever left the premises), you'd be a fool not to take that as a threat. Only an IBM shill would think it's merely a love note.
Yup. IBM claims to be a great friend of open source...but their actions in this case clearly show that they're only a friend of open source as long as they don't have to compete with it.
The license itself would not need to change one bit. The only difference is that IBM would sell that license to users of Hercules. Nobody's demanding that IBM open source z/OS, as PJ and her fanboys have claimed. Nobody's demanding that IBM change their license at all. It's purely a matter of who they will sell their licenses to. That is not copyright, or patent law. It's squarely within the realm of antitrust law.
Florian's not attacking the GPL. Neither am I (even though I oppose it on principle, I'm not attacking it).
Nobody's asking IBM to change their license. This is a PJ fabrication from whole cloth.
As for causing IBM a whole lot of stress, all they have to do is say that they will not assert their patents against Hercules. Any of them. That would solve my problem. Why isn't IBM doing that, especially in light of the (deserved, IMAO) bad PR they've gotten? There's just one reason: they are keeping the option open for a later attack. Would you be comfortable with that sword of Damocles hanging over your head? I'm sure not, and nobody who works on open source software should be, either.
TurboHercules SAS has not asked IBM to change its licensing terms one bit. They've only asked the IBM sell its very same license to run on the Hercules platform.
If you have a bunch of legacy software - stuff from 1965 written in COBOL with the source code lost in the early 80s - you have no choice but to buy your computing power from IBM. Nothing else will do the job. Period. That's a monopoly. It's not a hypothetical, either: application software written in the late 60s for OS/360 will run on today's z/OS without even needing a recompile, in nearly all cases.
Your argument was that IBM didn't abandon the low end. I was answering that. That's not a low end machine, especially when you consider that its performance is artificially hobbled to protect IBM's lockin. You can buy the same processor - in fact, it's in the original box, just turned off - as an IFL (dedicated Linux processor) for a tenth that price.
Amdahl and Hitachi exited the mainframe business in 2001. IBM has 100% of the market, because they've either driven the competition out of business (Fundamental Software) or bought it up to make antitrust complaints go away (PSI). There is no competition in the market for systems that can run legacy mainframe workloads. That's what makes IBM a monopolist.
Slashdot Mirror
My beloved company? I cary an iPhone. I don't give a fuzzy rat's ass about ideological purity when it comes to software. I just want it to work.
Why, exactly, should we care what RMS thinks? The world, aside from the ranks of the rabid Stallmanites, only cares whether it's open, not whether it meets Stallman's ethical standards.
There's nothing wrong with a zombie that a Remington 870 can't fix...be it computer or ex-human.
...no shit?
I made that judgment 30 years ago, and see no particular need to revisit it now.
I've done time in US universities. I simply didn't come out of the experience with anything to show for it but lousy memories.
You've discovered the fundamental flaw in higher education: it's full of academics, and fundamentally exists to produce more academics, not people who actually get things done. There's more and more thought that the degree is simply not worth the paper it's printed on, much less the crushing debt of student loans.
Give it long, hard, careful thought - and then ask yourself if you need the degree at all. I'm not going to kid you: there will opportunities forever closed to you because the hiring authorities can't see past the piece of paper - but you'll have a fine career nonetheless, especially if you build a demonstrated history of learning things quickly and hitting the ground running.
I don't have a degree. Looking back, I think I made the right choice not to put up with the railcar loads of bullshit that go with academia.
What's the over/under on how long till there's an exploit in the wild? A day?
I noticed the split as well, but had put it down to movie critics vs. the folks who actually go to see movies because they want to enjoy them. You might have put your finger on the real cause of the split, though.
This is a film people either love or hate. Personally, I think that just about everyone involved is really just now getting their feet under them is also a factor. It wouldn't surprise me to see an even/odd factor similar to the one in the Star Trek movies take form.
Looks like both Moore's Law and the improvement in algorithms together don't beat out Gates's Law: Software bloat doubles every 18 months.
At most. Polarizing filters you put on camera lenses cost 2-1/2 F-stops of light, or somewhere in the neighborhood of 18% transmission. 3D glasses aren't nearly that bad.
The movie flattens well. Do yourself a favor, though, and make sure you're going to a theater with a top-drawer sound system. Seeing it in IMAX 3d the first time, with a killer sound system, spoiled me.
I sure hope RubyGems isn't the utter DLL hell that CPAN is. The only time I tried shipping a product based on CPAN stuff, I wound up shipping the entire bundle as one, because there's just no way to download it from CPAN and depend on having the exact versions of the modules you developed with available - and when they're not, you're stuck in a messy cycle of upgrade dependencies and API incompatibilities that are almost impossible to resolve.
But IBM's reply to the complaint strikes squarely at the open source project, because TurboHercules uses the Hercules open source project's code with no modifications. If TurboHercules violates IBM's intellectual property (specifically its patents), then so must the open source project.
And no, Microsoft's not paying me, either directly or indirectly. Not even Steve Ballmer's third cousin.
*snork*
You're repeating PJ's insanity now. She was utterly convinced I was a shill for Microsoft. You're convinced I'm somehow associated with NEON Software. Tell me: if I was associated with such powerful, well-to-do benefactors, would I be driving a crappy 1995 Blazer as an upgrade from an even crappier 1989 Bronco II? Hint: I'm not doing that because I want to.
The license doesn't say "run on IBM hardware only". It says "run on the machine you licensed it to run on".
As for performance-based licensing, IBM already has the technology to measure actual performance and bill based on it. There's a started task (z/OSese for "daemon") that must run at all times when you're using such a license, and it reports actual processor power used to IBM.
The license just says "thou shalt not copy nor run it on a machine that we didn't license it to run on". All that's required is selling a license to run on a Hercules host instead of a z/Series. There is no change in the license required, just IBM's sales practices - which they change regularly anyway, and have sold in the past to run on non-IBM hardware.
I didn't threaten a thing. I'm not associated with TurboHercules SAS. All I did was defend myself from a patent-based attack on the open source project I manage.
When IBM's lawyers say that something you're working on infringes their patents (and make no mistake, those letters were thoroughly vetted by IBM's legal team before they ever left the premises), you'd be a fool not to take that as a threat. Only an IBM shill would think it's merely a love note.
I'm Jay. Jim is my dad.
I wish I had that kind of influence on NEON Software. I'd get them to give me a job.
Yup. IBM claims to be a great friend of open source...but their actions in this case clearly show that they're only a friend of open source as long as they don't have to compete with it.
The license itself would not need to change one bit. The only difference is that IBM would sell that license to users of Hercules. Nobody's demanding that IBM open source z/OS, as PJ and her fanboys have claimed. Nobody's demanding that IBM change their license at all. It's purely a matter of who they will sell their licenses to. That is not copyright, or patent law. It's squarely within the realm of antitrust law.
Florian's not attacking the GPL. Neither am I (even though I oppose it on principle, I'm not attacking it).
Nobody's asking IBM to change their license. This is a PJ fabrication from whole cloth.
As for causing IBM a whole lot of stress, all they have to do is say that they will not assert their patents against Hercules. Any of them. That would solve my problem. Why isn't IBM doing that, especially in light of the (deserved, IMAO) bad PR they've gotten? There's just one reason: they are keeping the option open for a later attack. Would you be comfortable with that sword of Damocles hanging over your head? I'm sure not, and nobody who works on open source software should be, either.
Two words: "chilling effect".
TurboHercules SAS has not asked IBM to change its licensing terms one bit. They've only asked the IBM sell its very same license to run on the Hercules platform.
If you have a bunch of legacy software - stuff from 1965 written in COBOL with the source code lost in the early 80s - you have no choice but to buy your computing power from IBM. Nothing else will do the job. Period. That's a monopoly. It's not a hypothetical, either: application software written in the late 60s for OS/360 will run on today's z/OS without even needing a recompile, in nearly all cases.
Your argument was that IBM didn't abandon the low end. I was answering that. That's not a low end machine, especially when you consider that its performance is artificially hobbled to protect IBM's lockin. You can buy the same processor - in fact, it's in the original box, just turned off - as an IFL (dedicated Linux processor) for a tenth that price.
Amdahl and Hitachi exited the mainframe business in 2001. IBM has 100% of the market, because they've either driven the competition out of business (Fundamental Software) or bought it up to make antitrust complaints go away (PSI). There is no competition in the market for systems that can run legacy mainframe workloads. That's what makes IBM a monopolist.