I'd consider myself one of the unwashed hordes...been involved with computers since my first computer, an Apple II....Seen MS do every dirty trick in the book and even invent some new ones....
I pretty much wanna see them finished.....and I think IBM's strategy is pretty good... I'd like to see MS get treated the same way IBM did with OS/2..... Simply, "outmanuvered and under-gunned." The world will not shed any tears for the downfall of MS, don't start playing them as the victim of some "hostile" plot by IBM. All business is "hostile".....
The enemy of MY enemy is my friend.....that's pretty much exactly how I see it right now.... If IBM can destroy MS by contributing to Linux, GOOD!
Here's the issue as best as can be broken down from the whole case Paragraph "IBM's Scheme"...section 91)
IBM, however, was not and is not in a position legally to "open source any part of AIX that the Linux community considers valuable." Rather, IBM is obligated not to open source AIX because it contains SCO's confidential and proprietary UNIX source code, derivative works, modifications and methods.
AIX's confidential and propriatery UNIX source code extends only to the code that IBM got from SCO originally to start development from.
As an author of add-in modules and enhancements, IBM can distribute under MULTIPLE licenses...It can choose dual license if it wishes....OSS and AIX/SCO.
SCO must now show where their original license stipulates "..all your base..." Failing that, IBM can do whatever it wants to do with it's own creations.
Re:It's like Netscape v. Microsoft in that...
on
Google v. Microsoft
·
· Score: 1
now it's time to cut off Microsoft's "oxygen supply"...
With increased competition over their cash cows, i.e. Windows OS's, office suite, SQL databases and other mature applications, MS is loosing the option of simply outspending/loosing money for years at a time. How many countries and large corps will be looking for HEAVY discounts in their licensing?....With the results in Israel, Asia and and India, I'm thinking ALL will start to demand lower prices. This could change their bottom line and prevent this type of domination of the market through what is effectivly "dumping."
With MS's expansion into the gaming area (still loosing money and X-box prices dropping), network portal (MSN loosing or close to it), embedded devices (they'll do anything to sell more), they may simply be spread too thin.
Furthermore, EVERYONE is suspicious of MS now... Everyone in the industry has seen their methods, and new areas to dominate are hard to find. Cable TV and the RIAA, the people who INVENTED the idea of charging for entertainment, are not simply going to let Bill Gates come in and eat their lunch. No way would Rupert Murdock, Ted Turner, and the other cable operators allow their pie to get taken away. Same for the music industry, they will not allow MS to be the ONLY provider, because it limits their ability to make money.
MS cable boxes are doomed to face lifelong competition that the cable operators will demand, and Windows Media will not be the only format for music or movies. They simply have no chance of creating another monopoly anywhere...everyone's on to them.
Google, on the other hand, is expanding, but in related areas. They have a successful product which requires NO download. They have competition, but they are tops in their field. Google doesn't seem to have any ambitions to dominate the world, they look like they just want to do their job well.
I think this is another MS head-fake to try to freeze the competition and get them to make a mistake. I'm sure they'd like to turn the entire internet into an extension of their OS, but that's not going to happen without HUGE investment and years of building back people's trust. I simply don't think that this is going to happen, nobody is going to allow another MS monopoly to grow, at least not where they can see it.
In short, I just don't see MS-Search taking over the internet. As stated above, it's Google's to loose.
I mean the choice is simple... This one CD has almost everything an average $400.00 computer purchaser would want. The 1 disk distro. has it all ready in "start from scratch" wrapper.
Nothing for grandma to get messed up with either. Tech support is dead simple.."hello, Mrs. Smigh? Does the computer boot from the CD?...you're OK"
This wouldn't even require formatting the drive....
FreeDOS is a cop-out...... If it's a "cost" issue on Dell's part...I could burn CD's at my house! I'm in for a stack a week.
Let's put together a special Dell CD distro. and ask Dell to distribute it with their OS-less systems. It could show real "good faith" towards a heartless company. It could also suck them into the SCO fun!
This isn't too far fetched. They could be getting systematicly ripped-off by their suppliers too.
Just a little screw-up at the (prob. offshore) supplier, I'm sure that OCZtech will be checking ALL the future batches...at least for another week or so.
Now would be the best time to get a tube. This weeks batch will prob. be right on the spec.
You can't rely on that as a protection. As a previous article about fed's use of the OnStar system to bug people in their luxury cars shows, there's been an important movement in the point between "tapping was accessable, so we did it" to "you are required to provide the tap." Yes, criminals will use more secure 1024-bit, perhaps even one-time pads, but the burden is now on EVERYONE else to get searched and siezed.
I see this as a HUGE deal. It doesn't matter that the real criminals will be using real encryption. The problem is that the Fed's want all networks to not only provide the tap, but do the collection work and carry the expense too.... Wire tapping has evolved from "the terminals on the phone were exposed, so we attached" to "you've got to build this capability into the system and carry the cost."
This is insane....no patriot would even consider allowing this.... Let's just pretend that we no longer have a "Bill of Rights".... or just that it simply has a dollar figure at the bottom that we're supposed to mail in....
That's the beauty of these companies charging outrageous prices!....If this is their "introductory" price, imagine how much T-mobile, AT&T, and whoever will try to charge if they get all the freespace locked-up.... You'll have to "pay to ping"....with DHCP charged directly to your credit card w/ref to your national IT terrorist database number.
They are pushing their customers to also become providers (and possible criminals depending on your Service Agreement)as well!....The higher the price, the quicker areas like you talk about will continue to pop-up....
I say, "keep those prices high boys!"..... You are pushing people to find the low-friction solution, and like P2P, technology will simply be in place before you have your business model shit figured out.... It will be open by default, because you were all too busy arguing about locations, access-rights and profit splits.
Yes, that's true....but that will not be decided tommorrow either...
I'm assuming that the judge will simply get angry at the foot-dragging and set some type of time-table for discovery to move forward. If SCO still doesn't produce anything by the end of the timeline, the judge might set another hearing to accept motions on behalf of dissmissal.
All in all, Darl's right. It's gonna be 18 months till this case gets thrown out (even over failure to produce during discovery)....I think they (SCO) will stretch this out that long before they get caught empty handed.
Check with Groklaw.net... I think that they only have to defend their reluctance to provide IBM with the materials that they have asked for, or defend their "motion to avoid discovery and compel IBM to give them money"....
I don't believe that tommorrow means the close of items which they could possibly bring to trial... The issue is that, IBM has twice demanded information, they have claimed that IBM needs to give them some too (so they're bad too..).
Most interesting is Darl's statement that "this nonsense will continue for 18 more months...we've got a schedule with MS to keep..."
THAT'S INTERESTING!!!!...he's finally put a schedule behind how long they are going to keep this up.
I recently read the additional header that Linus Torvalds put into the kernel at it's origination. In that header, he indicated that simply running an application, using usual system calls, did not automaticly force the code to be GPL'd too. As far as I could understand, his intention was to allow closed-source and open-source code to live together, under the hope that they could play nice, and that modifications that a "closed-source" shop might want to make to the kernel should be made public for all to see and absorbed. I personally view this as a nice balance, you shouldn't be forced to do anything with your code if you are simply using services provided by the kernel as part of it's open API
My understanding of that quote, and the following quote from Linus Torvalds from a Google search of the mailing list:
Note that whenever it's not GPL'd, all the module restrictions kick in.
So it's going to be "legal" the same way any binary only module is
"legal" - assuming all the nasty requirements are met. For something as
simple (from a conceptual standpoint, not necessarily an implementation
standpoint) as a network driver, doing that is not likely to be a big
problem.
It obviously cannot be linked into the kernel, but as a loadable module
it's ok as long as it uses the standard interfaces and nothing more.
leads me to believe that this (distributing embedded systems)might be alright.... Calling a kernel service from closed-source code does not necessarily cause it to be GPL'd too.
How are the manufacturers using the kernel? Are they simply providing the stock embedded 2.4.XX kernel with their application set to run on startup through init?....I don't view that as an automatic violation....especially if they have not modified the kernel in any way, and are simply including a binary to run as an application
The real question, it appears to me, is did they modify the kernel or include their code in such a way that they've linked directly into the kernel.
It seems that there's more homework that needs to be done before painting these companies as crooks. This will be more of a problem as more companies start using Linux too!.... This type of scare tactic is only going to send them running for the cover of MS or Windriver.... Let's keep an open mind, communicate, and use the GPL in a responsible manner. I don't believe that just because it's embedded, it's automaticly all GPL'd.
I just don't see why the voting machine folks can't get the message. Simply include a cash register tape, just like most stores have!
Everywhere across the country, hundreds of millions of people get paper receipts with their purchases at the store. This happens, because Republican (and Democratic) store owners "Don't trust" the electronic tabulations in the machines and demand a verifiable "paper trail" from each of their cash registers. If store owners don't trust a $0.99 purchase to be recorded electronicly, why should we trust voting machines. It's simple, effective, and not expensive either. It happens HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF TIMES PER DAY.
Why can't everyone simply get a printout of their votes?...Why the foot-dragging...other than proving the conspiricy theories!.... To the voting machine folks, just add a paper tape, just like an ATM or cash register!....It's the right thing to do.
Creativity and freedom to innovate...with not just the potential, but the mandate to create disruptive technologies is what keeps Bill, Darl and the other software "toll-booth operators" up at night. Under the GPL, the system will route around their toll-booths. Linus doesn't even need to tell people which direction to move in!...They decide for themselves, that's the power! In this case, the words "innovate" and "freedom" are NOT being used in the typical marketing droid / press-release-spin fashion, they really mean exactly what they say. This threatens people, who's only control over the course of the future is through money.
Tying this back to the SCO mess, Darl's comments about the GPL needing change to be "better towards business" is where the fight is going to come next. Perhaps he's got the idea that he can make the GPL illegal simply because it competes with his business model and the business models of other propriatary software vendors. The funny comment the other day about "GPL hurting business and putting programmers out of work, programmers should only work on projects that don't have a commercial equiv." is only the beginning. The GPL strikes at the heart of who controls innovation, and who can keep it back for the purpose of making money.
I, for one, see this as a huge opportunity. I have benifited directly from the GPL. I would LOVE to see the big-business anaconda get slain by a million flea bites, it's poetic justice.
The anti-GPL attitude, the notion that "it's bad for propriatary business models therefore it should be illegal" needs to be assulted before it starts to gain strength under law. SCO and crew are making that claim now, looking for a way to rewrite the GPL in such a way that they can enforce artificial scarcity. Like real property, the value of intellectual property lays in it's scarcity. Unlike real property, software can be copied infinitely without cost.
The idea that the GPL will hurt programmers is bogus and needs to be denounced every time it pops up. The GPL only hurts the "land owners" who keep hundreds of "software surfs" on their estate. There will ALWAYS be work for talented programmers, the question at hand is whether those programmers will be working as "free agents" or as "indentured servants." Should the servant care about the fortunes of their master? I don't see why, I have not been treated all that well under the feudal software system.
...In that instant, knowing that his card sharking days, perhaps even his life was at risk, cardshark Darl McBride strikes with the venom of a wounded viper....
As IBM reaches for the pot, Darl plants his hidden blade into the unsuspecting IBM's outstreached hand.
Like the coward he is, Darl slinks out of the saloon, looking for other marks........he's survived this day, tomorrow will have to wait.
Other than the obvious anti-SCO move by taking Novell, I don't see that much for IBM. To me, it seems that IBM is in a better position by having Novell as a "friend" in this dispute rather than a subsidiary. I've seen the bit about Novell's contract with SCO regarding the sale, and it does put them in a great position. They could still exercise that right to the benifit of IBM without being purchased.
Sun is also an interesting bit-player in this drama too. Didn't they ink some deal with SCO regarding rights/licensing?...they could strengthen their hand by purchasing Novell.
Any move by MS to take Novell might be blocked on antitrust grounds. HP would be the best bet for action as an MS proxy, another wierd longshot proxy for MS might be someone like DELL. That's just speculation though, but the alignment is right and a deal like that couldn't be blocked outright on antitrust grounds.
How about SCO?...laugh...yeah, the've got LOTS of new money from MS, that might get the noose from around their necks. Do they have enough money to really buy their way out?
All this movement makes me really glad that the kernel is GPL. I've seen TOO many companies bought by MS just to put them out of business. I believe that this is what scares MS the most about Linux, they can't simply buy the company and shut it down.....
Whatever happens, it should be interesting for all of us to watch. We can be somewhat relieved that nobody can take our kernel's (and the rest of the work too) away from us.
As Strauss so aptly puts it, "Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Scott McNeilly shouldn't determine what appears on your screen; you should."
I think I could take that as a qualified endorsement of OSS. I mean, who's in more control of what shows up on my screen when I use OSS?...I control the horizontal, I control the vertical, I control the applications, right down to the nuts and bolts if I want....
...Hypocrit....I think he's bucking for a job at MS as a backup for when Princeton "lets him go."
That's a good question. Why would MS purchase any company since they have the horsepower to build anything that they want?
I belive the answer lays more in "Who would MS be removing from the existing market?" MS seems more interested in elbowing their way to the table, whatever table that be, than they do in really creating something new. When they do this, they remove the competition and become the defacto leader. Where have we seen this behavior before?
That seems to be their strategy overall. Simply wait until a new technology starts to catch on, and after the first movers have failed, then swoop in and purchase up everything that's left, forcing their way to "innovator" status....who's gonna say that they are not?...all those companies have been assimilated.
I'm pleased that google rebuffed them.... I can't imagine MS doing better than Google. They can't under-cut Google on price either!....I think that the only avenue they have open is to force their own site as the default for IE. That would be another anti-trust violation, and easy for even dumb judges to spot as obvious.
Their options seem pretty limited now, purchase a second rate search engine or develop on their own. Either way, "it's going to be a long hard slog" as Donald Rumsfield would say.
Of course, the standard disclaimer IANAL applies, but this whole new mess that SCO has stirred up seems to have a purpose. A nefarious purpose, but a purpose none the less.
The more lawsuits now, the better their plan works. Remember, they are pursuing a plan of FUD, stock price manipulation and legal mudwrestling. They are not interested in really getting ANYTHING settled. I'm sure that Daryl is sitting in Utah right now, laughing while these headline come out. Their position as MS shill (licensing to MS and some bulls*%#t cross licensing of MS communication protocols under the settlement agreement to make it look as if MS is really sharing) and their disregard for the future viability of Linux (SCO not interested if it survives or not) has already been documented. They are not really interested in creating anything other than a sharkfest feeding frenzy over the code within Linux...trying to create an atmosphere around Linux that rivals their own sorded and utterly confusing legal past.
SCO's only purpose is to somehow stay in business and continue to dump these types of infuriating legal turd tidbits for the community to find. This serves as the legal equivilent to "..hey, look over there!..." While they trumpet to the entire world that "we're still alive, so we must be winning our case" That's a tactic used by MS in court too....
Do not allow them to change the subject. Their initial claim is "IBM put SCO's code in Linux"...make them prove that first!...Anything else is changing the subject. I do not beleve that there should be additional suits UNTIL the original suit is settled. There will be plenty of time to file after the IBM/SCO cage-match gets started.
They are doing this because they don't want you to notice how weak their hand is, and to drag everyone else into the mud also....don't fall for it, we'll pull SCO's body apart piece by piece in due time........don't kill them yet, we need them alive so that we can torture them later!
That's how I've heard this system operates (at least in Seattle)...strobe light gives "all-stop" at the signal. From where I heard this, it was done deliberately to avoid this type of stunt with the strobe light on civilian vehicles. This is also the safest option too, as emergency vehicles are trained to run red lights (after slowing and checking) and go around stopped vehicles. "All Red" also gives the emergency vehicles the clearance to use the opposing lanes and any other clear space in the intersection etc, coupled with the fact that at any intersection, you ONLY want the emergency vehicles moving...no others.
Any system that creates "green" for the person with the strobe is, in my opinion, an inherently dangerous system. It encourages people to try this kind of stuff and makes people think that the ambulance or fire-engine behind them "won't mind if I go through too". The more moving vehicles there are, even if they're with the flow of the emergency traffic, the more dangerous.
I can't imagine this system staying like it is for too long.
How about tracking the emergency vehicles through GPS, then having the central traffic computers switch the lights around the emergency vehicle (far ahead) in such a way as to clear the path 2 blocks away and keep all opposing traffic off the intended path. For instance, lanes turning away from the path would be allowed to turn green so the vehicles could clear the area, lanes crossing would be halted 1 or 2 blocks away, and lights behind the emergency vehicle would stay red for some reasonable period of time to keep the lawyers a reasonable distance from the ambulances...most people wouldn't even see the emergency vehicles, as they would be sitting at a red light 1 or 2 blocks away, or simply shunted away from the path, and the ambulance/fire-truck driver would not even have to contend with stopped or moving traffic.
This isn't too much to put on one of those little PLC traffic computers, and it would be a lot better than "strobe light gets the green" solution that these people thought up.
That's exactly the point of what I previously wrote. I'm thinking that you didn't get my point, so here it is...
"It would prevent health plans from deciding enrollment based on genetic information and from using such information in underwriting."
There is no statement there about them "having" the information, owning and/or trading the information with other companies. How about if Aetna and StateFarm got together to "review" each-other's policy holders?...how about if it WASN'T Aetna, you health care insurer, but it was State-Farm that looked at your information and decided that you were too high risk. That would be legal under the wording above.....YOUR policy holder didn't evaluate your risk or decide you premiums based upon it, State-Farm did. They are seperate and simply issued a "we would/would-not carry" statement on each policy holder. Aetna could then drop the client or up the premium based upon what the "other" carrier would do, not any actual information on genes.
I hope that you see where I'm going here, I believe that the insurance companies would use any means at their disposal to eliminate the 99.999999% genetic inferiors that make up the human race (you know, nobody's perfect) from the insurance pool, or at least make almost everyone a "high risk."
Nowhere in any of the article is there a statement that they (the insurance companies) should not even have that information!..It's all about "what or what not they can decide" based upon it...why not simply say "you cannot collect or possess personal genetic information about any human" Possession of personal genetic information about another individual is illegal unless specifically authorized by the "copyright holder," i.e. the person to whom it belongs.
This fix would bring genetic information into line with all other IP based information. It would also make everyone the owner of their personal information. Something I think is important.
I dont get the posting...here's where the issue gets murky for me...
Basically, this would make it illegal for employers and insurers to deny employment or benefits based on genetic analysis of your DNA.
Does this sentence mean that they (employers & insurers) can look but not act?...Or does it mean that they have no legal right to the information and it is legally equiv. to stolen goods(kinda like illegal mp3's)?
This is truly "Orwellian" in it's scope. I'm willing to bet that your log watching IT department would deny changing it too....
There have been incidents posted here (on Slashdot) before about content/news stories on the big outlets being "updated" without notice. That story you read last week might be "remembered differently" now...
This is simply the next logical step in the erasing history as it happens. Modify content, delete facts or quotes, change facts too....I for one, welcome our new IT overloards!.....
Since when do we start advocating that ISP's start pre-emptively blocking ports for all customers?
I pay for ALL of those ports on my cable modem...I run services on quite a few of them. Why should my service be blocked because of others who cannot be troubled to keep their machines updated and secure?
To assume that Comcast (my provider) or any other provider will open port 443 (or any other port other than the "shopping channel") for me on my request is frankly silly. Submitting such a request would just be an invitation to start doing port sweeps! Putting services on "off ports" is the only reason that I'm still able to keep everything going!
No, blocking of MY ports in a "pre-emptive" manner is not the answer....and since this issue keeps popping up from time to time, I'll pass on the best answer I saw last time (which I didn't think of, but it convinced me it's the best)....Simply pull the plug for any user who is determined to be infected with a trojan/worm/spam-generator/whatever. Direct any/all page requests from that customer to a "customer service page" letting them know why their service has been blocked and what they can do to remedy the situation. Since these customers are most likely running MS stuff, allow a connection to their "update" site too, so that they have a way to patch their systems.
The fact that someone could propose such an answer and have it so highly ranked is irresonsible on this list.
As I understand the GPL, if the company in question wishes to pay any individual to work on code...code which they will be using "in-house," they CAN insist that those changes not be made public.
Admittedly, this does not benifit everyone in the OSS community, but my understanding is that this is legal...so long as they don't try to resell it anywhere....
Slashdot Mirror
I'd consider myself one of the unwashed hordes...been involved with computers since my first computer, an Apple II....Seen MS do every dirty trick in the book and even invent some new ones....
I pretty much wanna see them finished.....and I think IBM's strategy is pretty good... I'd like to see MS get treated the same way IBM did with OS/2..... Simply, "outmanuvered and under-gunned." The world will not shed any tears for the downfall of MS, don't start playing them as the victim of some "hostile" plot by IBM. All business is "hostile".....
The enemy of MY enemy is my friend.....that's pretty much exactly how I see it right now.... If IBM can destroy MS by contributing to Linux, GOOD!
Here's the issue as best as can be broken down from the whole case Paragraph "IBM's Scheme"...section 91)
AIX's confidential and propriatery UNIX source code extends only to the code that IBM got from SCO originally to start development from.As an author of add-in modules and enhancements, IBM can distribute under MULTIPLE licenses...It can choose dual license if it wishes....OSS and AIX/SCO.
SCO must now show where their original license stipulates "..all your base..." Failing that, IBM can do whatever it wants to do with it's own creations.
now it's time to cut off Microsoft's "oxygen supply"...
With increased competition over their cash cows, i.e. Windows OS's, office suite, SQL databases and other mature applications, MS is loosing the option of simply outspending/loosing money for years at a time. How many countries and large corps will be looking for HEAVY discounts in their licensing?....With the results in Israel, Asia and and India, I'm thinking ALL will start to demand lower prices. This could change their bottom line and prevent this type of domination of the market through what is effectivly "dumping."
With MS's expansion into the gaming area (still loosing money and X-box prices dropping), network portal (MSN loosing or close to it), embedded devices (they'll do anything to sell more), they may simply be spread too thin.
Furthermore, EVERYONE is suspicious of MS now... Everyone in the industry has seen their methods, and new areas to dominate are hard to find. Cable TV and the RIAA, the people who INVENTED the idea of charging for entertainment, are not simply going to let Bill Gates come in and eat their lunch. No way would Rupert Murdock, Ted Turner, and the other cable operators allow their pie to get taken away. Same for the music industry, they will not allow MS to be the ONLY provider, because it limits their ability to make money.
MS cable boxes are doomed to face lifelong competition that the cable operators will demand, and Windows Media will not be the only format for music or movies. They simply have no chance of creating another monopoly anywhere...everyone's on to them.
Google, on the other hand, is expanding, but in related areas. They have a successful product which requires NO download. They have competition, but they are tops in their field. Google doesn't seem to have any ambitions to dominate the world, they look like they just want to do their job well.
I think this is another MS head-fake to try to freeze the competition and get them to make a mistake. I'm sure they'd like to turn the entire internet into an extension of their OS, but that's not going to happen without HUGE investment and years of building back people's trust. I simply don't think that this is going to happen, nobody is going to allow another MS monopoly to grow, at least not where they can see it.
In short, I just don't see MS-Search taking over the internet. As stated above, it's Google's to loose.
I mean the choice is simple... This one CD has almost everything an average $400.00 computer purchaser would want. The 1 disk distro. has it all ready in "start from scratch" wrapper.
Nothing for grandma to get messed up with either. Tech support is dead simple.."hello, Mrs. Smigh? Does the computer boot from the CD?...you're OK"
This wouldn't even require formatting the drive....
FreeDOS is a cop-out...... If it's a "cost" issue on Dell's part...I could burn CD's at my house! I'm in for a stack a week.
Let's put together a special Dell CD distro. and ask Dell to distribute it with their OS-less systems. It could show real "good faith" towards a heartless company. It could also suck them into the SCO fun!
This isn't too far fetched. They could be getting systematicly ripped-off by their suppliers too.
Just a little screw-up at the (prob. offshore) supplier, I'm sure that OCZtech will be checking ALL the future batches...at least for another week or so.
Now would be the best time to get a tube. This weeks batch will prob. be right on the spec.
You can't rely on that as a protection. As a previous article about fed's use of the OnStar system to bug people in their luxury cars shows, there's been an important movement in the point between "tapping was accessable, so we did it" to "you are required to provide the tap." Yes, criminals will use more secure 1024-bit, perhaps even one-time pads, but the burden is now on EVERYONE else to get searched and siezed.
I see this as a HUGE deal. It doesn't matter that the real criminals will be using real encryption. The problem is that the Fed's want all networks to not only provide the tap, but do the collection work and carry the expense too.... Wire tapping has evolved from "the terminals on the phone were exposed, so we attached" to "you've got to build this capability into the system and carry the cost."
This is insane....no patriot would even consider allowing this.... Let's just pretend that we no longer have a "Bill of Rights".... or just that it simply has a dollar figure at the bottom that we're supposed to mail in....
That's the beauty of these companies charging outrageous prices!....If this is their "introductory" price, imagine how much T-mobile, AT&T, and whoever will try to charge if they get all the freespace locked-up.... You'll have to "pay to ping"....with DHCP charged directly to your credit card w/ref to your national IT terrorist database number.
They are pushing their customers to also become providers (and possible criminals depending on your Service Agreement)as well!....The higher the price, the quicker areas like you talk about will continue to pop-up....
I say, "keep those prices high boys!"..... You are pushing people to find the low-friction solution, and like P2P, technology will simply be in place before you have your business model shit figured out.... It will be open by default, because you were all too busy arguing about locations, access-rights and profit splits.
Ehxxxcelent..he he he...
Yes, that's true....but that will not be decided tommorrow either...
I'm assuming that the judge will simply get angry at the foot-dragging and set some type of time-table for discovery to move forward. If SCO still doesn't produce anything by the end of the timeline, the judge might set another hearing to accept motions on behalf of dissmissal.
All in all, Darl's right. It's gonna be 18 months till this case gets thrown out (even over failure to produce during discovery)....I think they (SCO) will stretch this out that long before they get caught empty handed.
Check with Groklaw.net... I think that they only have to defend their reluctance to provide IBM with the materials that they have asked for, or defend their "motion to avoid discovery and compel IBM to give them money"....
I don't believe that tommorrow means the close of items which they could possibly bring to trial... The issue is that, IBM has twice demanded information, they have claimed that IBM needs to give them some too (so they're bad too..).
Most interesting is Darl's statement that "this nonsense will continue for 18 more months...we've got a schedule with MS to keep..."
THAT'S INTERESTING!!!!...he's finally put a schedule behind how long they are going to keep this up.
I recently read the additional header that Linus Torvalds put into the kernel at it's origination. In that header, he indicated that simply running an application, using usual system calls, did not automaticly force the code to be GPL'd too. As far as I could understand, his intention was to allow closed-source and open-source code to live together, under the hope that they could play nice, and that modifications that a "closed-source" shop might want to make to the kernel should be made public for all to see and absorbed. I personally view this as a nice balance, you shouldn't be forced to do anything with your code if you are simply using services provided by the kernel as part of it's open API
My understanding of that quote, and the following quote from Linus Torvalds from a Google search of the mailing list:
leads me to believe that this (distributing embedded systems)might be alright.... Calling a kernel service from closed-source code does not necessarily cause it to be GPL'd too.How are the manufacturers using the kernel? Are they simply providing the stock embedded 2.4.XX kernel with their application set to run on startup through init?....I don't view that as an automatic violation....especially if they have not modified the kernel in any way, and are simply including a binary to run as an application
The real question, it appears to me, is did they modify the kernel or include their code in such a way that they've linked directly into the kernel.
It seems that there's more homework that needs to be done before painting these companies as crooks. This will be more of a problem as more companies start using Linux too!.... This type of scare tactic is only going to send them running for the cover of MS or Windriver.... Let's keep an open mind, communicate, and use the GPL in a responsible manner. I don't believe that just because it's embedded, it's automaticly all GPL'd.
I just don't see why the voting machine folks can't get the message. Simply include a cash register tape, just like most stores have!
Everywhere across the country, hundreds of millions of people get paper receipts with their purchases at the store. This happens, because Republican (and Democratic) store owners "Don't trust" the electronic tabulations in the machines and demand a verifiable "paper trail" from each of their cash registers. If store owners don't trust a $0.99 purchase to be recorded electronicly, why should we trust voting machines. It's simple, effective, and not expensive either. It happens HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF TIMES PER DAY.
Why can't everyone simply get a printout of their votes?...Why the foot-dragging...other than proving the conspiricy theories!.... To the voting machine folks, just add a paper tape, just like an ATM or cash register!....It's the right thing to do.
Creativity and freedom to innovate...with not just the potential, but the mandate to create disruptive technologies is what keeps Bill, Darl and the other software "toll-booth operators" up at night. Under the GPL, the system will route around their toll-booths. Linus doesn't even need to tell people which direction to move in!...They decide for themselves, that's the power! In this case, the words "innovate" and "freedom" are NOT being used in the typical marketing droid / press-release-spin fashion, they really mean exactly what they say. This threatens people, who's only control over the course of the future is through money.
Tying this back to the SCO mess, Darl's comments about the GPL needing change to be "better towards business" is where the fight is going to come next. Perhaps he's got the idea that he can make the GPL illegal simply because it competes with his business model and the business models of other propriatary software vendors. The funny comment the other day about "GPL hurting business and putting programmers out of work, programmers should only work on projects that don't have a commercial equiv." is only the beginning. The GPL strikes at the heart of who controls innovation, and who can keep it back for the purpose of making money.
I, for one, see this as a huge opportunity. I have benifited directly from the GPL. I would LOVE to see the big-business anaconda get slain by a million flea bites, it's poetic justice.
The anti-GPL attitude, the notion that "it's bad for propriatary business models therefore it should be illegal" needs to be assulted before it starts to gain strength under law. SCO and crew are making that claim now, looking for a way to rewrite the GPL in such a way that they can enforce artificial scarcity. Like real property, the value of intellectual property lays in it's scarcity. Unlike real property, software can be copied infinitely without cost.
The idea that the GPL will hurt programmers is bogus and needs to be denounced every time it pops up. The GPL only hurts the "land owners" who keep hundreds of "software surfs" on their estate. There will ALWAYS be work for talented programmers, the question at hand is whether those programmers will be working as "free agents" or as "indentured servants." Should the servant care about the fortunes of their master? I don't see why, I have not been treated all that well under the feudal software system.
...In that instant, knowing that his card sharking days, perhaps even his life was at risk, cardshark Darl McBride strikes with the venom of a wounded viper....
As IBM reaches for the pot, Darl plants his hidden blade into the unsuspecting IBM's outstreached hand.
Like the coward he is, Darl slinks out of the saloon, looking for other marks........he's survived this day, tomorrow will have to wait.
Other than the obvious anti-SCO move by taking Novell, I don't see that much for IBM. To me, it seems that IBM is in a better position by having Novell as a "friend" in this dispute rather than a subsidiary. I've seen the bit about Novell's contract with SCO regarding the sale, and it does put them in a great position. They could still exercise that right to the benifit of IBM without being purchased.
Sun is also an interesting bit-player in this drama too. Didn't they ink some deal with SCO regarding rights/licensing?...they could strengthen their hand by purchasing Novell.
Any move by MS to take Novell might be blocked on antitrust grounds. HP would be the best bet for action as an MS proxy, another wierd longshot proxy for MS might be someone like DELL. That's just speculation though, but the alignment is right and a deal like that couldn't be blocked outright on antitrust grounds.
How about SCO?...laugh...yeah, the've got LOTS of new money from MS, that might get the noose from around their necks. Do they have enough money to really buy their way out?
All this movement makes me really glad that the kernel is GPL. I've seen TOO many companies bought by MS just to put them out of business. I believe that this is what scares MS the most about Linux, they can't simply buy the company and shut it down.....
Whatever happens, it should be interesting for all of us to watch. We can be somewhat relieved that nobody can take our kernel's (and the rest of the work too) away from us.
I'm "stress testing" PLONE in the other tab right now!....oops, sorry, I just got a "502-Proxy Error"....
Nothing would have said "ready for business" like surviving a full-on slashdotting!....
Good luck people.
I especially liked this quote
I think I could take that as a qualified endorsement of OSS. I mean, who's in more control of what shows up on my screen when I use OSS?...I control the horizontal, I control the vertical, I control the applications, right down to the nuts and bolts if I want....
...Hypocrit....I think he's bucking for a job at MS as a backup for when Princeton "lets him go."
That's a good question. Why would MS purchase any company since they have the horsepower to build anything that they want?
I belive the answer lays more in "Who would MS be removing from the existing market?" MS seems more interested in elbowing their way to the table, whatever table that be, than they do in really creating something new. When they do this, they remove the competition and become the defacto leader. Where have we seen this behavior before?
That seems to be their strategy overall. Simply wait until a new technology starts to catch on, and after the first movers have failed, then swoop in and purchase up everything that's left, forcing their way to "innovator" status....who's gonna say that they are not?...all those companies have been assimilated.
I'm pleased that google rebuffed them.... I can't imagine MS doing better than Google. They can't under-cut Google on price either!....I think that the only avenue they have open is to force their own site as the default for IE. That would be another anti-trust violation, and easy for even dumb judges to spot as obvious.
Their options seem pretty limited now, purchase a second rate search engine or develop on their own. Either way, "it's going to be a long hard slog" as Donald Rumsfield would say.
Of course, the standard disclaimer IANAL applies, but this whole new mess that SCO has stirred up seems to have a purpose. A nefarious purpose, but a purpose none the less.
....don't kill them yet, we need them alive so that we can torture them later!
The more lawsuits now, the better their plan works. Remember, they are pursuing a plan of FUD, stock price manipulation and legal mudwrestling. They are not interested in really getting ANYTHING settled. I'm sure that Daryl is sitting in Utah right now, laughing while these headline come out. Their position as MS shill (licensing to MS and some bulls*%#t cross licensing of MS communication protocols under the settlement agreement to make it look as if MS is really sharing) and their disregard for the future viability of Linux (SCO not interested if it survives or not) has already been documented. They are not really interested in creating anything other than a sharkfest feeding frenzy over the code within Linux...trying to create an atmosphere around Linux that rivals their own sorded and utterly confusing legal past.
SCO's only purpose is to somehow stay in business and continue to dump these types of infuriating legal turd tidbits for the community to find. This serves as the legal equivilent to "..hey, look over there!..." While they trumpet to the entire world that "we're still alive, so we must be winning our case" That's a tactic used by MS in court too....
Do not allow them to change the subject. Their initial claim is "IBM put SCO's code in Linux"...make them prove that first!...Anything else is changing the subject. I do not beleve that there should be additional suits UNTIL the original suit is settled. There will be plenty of time to file after the IBM/SCO cage-match gets started.
They are doing this because they don't want you to notice how weak their hand is, and to drag everyone else into the mud also....don't fall for it, we'll pull SCO's body apart piece by piece in due time....
I've just checked in the application database, and it looks like Quickbooks Pro can be made to work under wine.
Give me CAD software (like Solidworks 2003) and I'll throw my Windows away forever.
That's how I've heard this system operates (at least in Seattle)...strobe light gives "all-stop" at the signal. From where I heard this, it was done deliberately to avoid this type of stunt with the strobe light on civilian vehicles. This is also the safest option too, as emergency vehicles are trained to run red lights (after slowing and checking) and go around stopped vehicles. "All Red" also gives the emergency vehicles the clearance to use the opposing lanes and any other clear space in the intersection etc, coupled with the fact that at any intersection, you ONLY want the emergency vehicles moving...no others.
Any system that creates "green" for the person with the strobe is, in my opinion, an inherently dangerous system. It encourages people to try this kind of stuff and makes people think that the ambulance or fire-engine behind them "won't mind if I go through too". The more moving vehicles there are, even if they're with the flow of the emergency traffic, the more dangerous.
I can't imagine this system staying like it is for too long.
How about tracking the emergency vehicles through GPS, then having the central traffic computers switch the lights around the emergency vehicle (far ahead) in such a way as to clear the path 2 blocks away and keep all opposing traffic off the intended path. For instance, lanes turning away from the path would be allowed to turn green so the vehicles could clear the area, lanes crossing would be halted 1 or 2 blocks away, and lights behind the emergency vehicle would stay red for some reasonable period of time to keep the lawyers a reasonable distance from the ambulances...most people wouldn't even see the emergency vehicles, as they would be sitting at a red light 1 or 2 blocks away, or simply shunted away from the path, and the ambulance/fire-truck driver would not even have to contend with stopped or moving traffic.
This isn't too much to put on one of those little PLC traffic computers, and it would be a lot better than "strobe light gets the green" solution that these people thought up.
That's exactly the point of what I previously wrote. I'm thinking that you didn't get my point, so here it is...
There is no statement there about them "having" the information, owning and/or trading the information with other companies. How about if Aetna and StateFarm got together to "review" each-other's policy holders?...how about if it WASN'T Aetna, you health care insurer, but it was State-Farm that looked at your information and decided that you were too high risk. That would be legal under the wording above.....YOUR policy holder didn't evaluate your risk or decide you premiums based upon it, State-Farm did. They are seperate and simply issued a "we would/would-not carry" statement on each policy holder. Aetna could then drop the client or up the premium based upon what the "other" carrier would do, not any actual information on genes.
I hope that you see where I'm going here, I believe that the insurance companies would use any means at their disposal to eliminate the 99.999999% genetic inferiors that make up the human race (you know, nobody's perfect) from the insurance pool, or at least make almost everyone a "high risk."
Nowhere in any of the article is there a statement that they (the insurance companies) should not even have that information!..It's all about "what or what not they can decide" based upon it...why not simply say "you cannot collect or possess personal genetic information about any human" Possession of personal genetic information about another individual is illegal unless specifically authorized by the "copyright holder," i.e. the person to whom it belongs.
This fix would bring genetic information into line with all other IP based information. It would also make everyone the owner of their personal information. Something I think is important.
I dont get the posting...here's where the issue gets murky for me...
Does this sentence mean that they (employers & insurers) can look but not act?...Or does it mean that they have no legal right to the information and it is legally equiv. to stolen goods(kinda like illegal mp3's)?
I still don't trust the bastards
This is truly "Orwellian" in it's scope. I'm willing to bet that your log watching IT department would deny changing it too....
...I for one, welcome our new IT overloards!.....
There have been incidents posted here (on Slashdot) before about content/news stories on the big outlets being "updated" without notice. That story you read last week might be "remembered differently" now...
This is simply the next logical step in the erasing history as it happens. Modify content, delete facts or quotes, change facts too.
Since when do we start advocating that ISP's start pre-emptively blocking ports for all customers?
I pay for ALL of those ports on my cable modem...I run services on quite a few of them. Why should my service be blocked because of others who cannot be troubled to keep their machines updated and secure?
To assume that Comcast (my provider) or any other provider will open port 443 (or any other port other than the "shopping channel") for me on my request is frankly silly. Submitting such a request would just be an invitation to start doing port sweeps! Putting services on "off ports" is the only reason that I'm still able to keep everything going!
No, blocking of MY ports in a "pre-emptive" manner is not the answer....and since this issue keeps popping up from time to time, I'll pass on the best answer I saw last time (which I didn't think of, but it convinced me it's the best)....Simply pull the plug for any user who is determined to be infected with a trojan/worm/spam-generator/whatever. Direct any/all page requests from that customer to a "customer service page" letting them know why their service has been blocked and what they can do to remedy the situation. Since these customers are most likely running MS stuff, allow a connection to their "update" site too, so that they have a way to patch their systems.
The fact that someone could propose such an answer and have it so highly ranked is irresonsible on this list.
As I understand the GPL, if the company in question wishes to pay any individual to work on code...code which they will be using "in-house," they CAN insist that those changes not be made public.
Admittedly, this does not benifit everyone in the OSS community, but my understanding is that this is legal...so long as they don't try to resell it anywhere....