In all fairness, SCO's value is not in being purchased so that the source code can be freed...
SCO's value is in acting as a totem against future companies who would try this same stunt....Their value is in their smoking carcass with Daryl's chared head mounted promanently on a high pike...
At this point, there can be no comprimise with people who commit fraud to inflate their stock price and to promote FUD.... I believe that Daryl KNOWS that his claims are false...he deserves to fry....
I say, "smoking head on stake" for all the SCO/Canopy group members.... leave all the execs at SCO without a job and discredited like the MCI/ENRON execs....Leave all the investors holding worthless stock certs....Somebody needs to be an example, and SCO volunteered by inflating/changing/hyping/FUDing their claims.
I could have had a little sympathy for them if they had just filed their suit and shut-up until the trial....but at $17/share now, we need to destroy some wallets to remind everyone that it's not over till the gavel falls......
....I mean, SCO is looking for BILLIONS....and their business hasn't been destroyed....Seems like the Be people need to get more than a few 23 million!
The Be people need Uncle McBride on their side....oh wait a second...SCO's attack is being funded by MS....sorry, my bad...
I mean, if they have other tools within the compiler, which are covered by restrictive licenses like SCO's trying to foist, they might be barred from releasing that technology. Some of the optimizations may be covered under patent, which they don't own outright.
Second, the people involved in that compiler are not exactly "clean-room" when it comes to submitting patches to gcc without intimate knowledge of those other methods/IP....
Last thing IBM needs now is a REAL case of leaking information which is covered under patent/IP or whatever protection.....I expect them to release all the details, just expect that they will only provide factual information rather than "how-to".....
This also puts competitive pressure on companies NOT to break with the API's that wine does support.
Given two applications, one which runs under wine and one which doesn't....which would be in the better competitive situation?
This situation makes a comodity out of the windows API's....anyone who can mimic them can play against Microsoft. This is a good thing, as it will apply pressure on MS NOT to break the API's and will level the playing field somewhat. Of course...they will break them if things are getting close, but that will result in backlash from all the independent software vendors/developers who will be forced to recompile for windows and/or deal with high volumes of bug fixes when the API's change.....
All in all, this is a good thing. Adobe also makes Acrobat for Linux too....if there are a lot of calls for support under wine, perhaps they will simply port the entire photoshop suite to run under Linux native....
I used to work in one of these "fish tank" type engineering departments where the customers could tour through with the sales people..."blah, blah..and these are our hardworking employees, creating your stuff as you watch...blah, blah."
I've always had the idea to create a maniquin to double for me.....something that would move the mouse occasionally and make it look like I'm hard at work...even when I'm at lunch!....something like a Disney ride but for computer workers...
Hey man,....I really like where you are coming from, but your site, "Second Life" does not support OSS software.
I'm running RH8.0, fully patched with XD2, Mozilla and the full boat....why can't I play too? Your site did not specify Linux as an acceptable OS to play with. Supporting the "network effect" of Windows only serves to keep MS in power....could you do the same thing with Java, Flash or something generic?
No slam, just a gentle propt that you should really support OSS too by making your site available to your brothers, not just the MS folks.
This sounds like an MS baiter to me.....open source solutions are as good as the users want them to be....if you don't like something, fix it yourself or pay an opensource programmer to fix it for you.....the real question boils down to "how much is that bug really bugging you?"...Even MS products are released with an "acceptable number of bugs"....let's not get hung up on perfection when simply getting the job done is more important.
Here's my take on the "Software Ecosystem" as Bill likes to call it......people will forever onward need to get custom stuff done on computers...it's a fact. Not every project can be mass produced for the world and sold to billions of people for INSANE profit levels. I believe that most computer work is custom stuff, a little glue here, adapter there, specialized GUI for operators....this is where most of the rubber meets the road...it will always be there.
OSS equalizes the playing field for people/companies that want to realize all of the profits themselves. No MS tax, no tax to others, simply your brain and as much as you can produce. OSS is also good for business because they own the software that they've paid to be created...no extra tax in the future for them either, no update charge, no extra fees to keep current on MS Exchange Server, Backoffice server or whatnot....they write spec's for something, it's produced, they pay once and own the source...if they need maintaince, it's easily purchased from a competitive field of qualified professionals.....it's good business.
I've got no problem with people "buying" a solution either, that's part of the capitalist system. Define what you are good at, find a market niche and purchase the rest from people that are good at their respective areas.
It's the tax created by MS's "network effect" that has lots of people chafing...the idea that somehow I MUST send a good percentage of my profits elsewhere....it's MS's "Toll Booth" philosophy that's gonna cause them trouble....people don't like paying tolls, and they usualy find ways to either "slug" the meters or sneak around....In this case, they build their own seperate "Information superhighway"....OSS
OSS simply levels the playing field for programmers and buyers....we've all (people who use OSS) come to the conclusion that sharing a free OS, even with it's bugs (open to interpretation, I have not found any) is better than paying the increasingly draconian "Windows Tax" EVERY time you turn around. Pay for this, pay for that, pay to get inspected, pay when the inspectors kick in your door, coming to check your licenses. MS has turned their OS into a shakedown at every level.
Most disingenous was Bill G's comment about OSS keeping countries poor and being fine if you want your country to stay backward and agricultural....bullsh*%....it gives them a "leg up" on the competition, not a deficit. This put's the competition strictly on brain power rather than lawyer power.
Time's gonna come when everyone is gonna have to pick which side of the revolution they want to be on....I've already done that because I see that MS can't win this fight...there's no company to buy, there's nobody to really sue (yeah, SCO fud, but they are going home in a wheelbarrow)...This can't be stopped primarily because it's really good for business and programmers alike.....it's only bad for the "Toll-booth operators" like MS.....
..cause it's gonna be here all during the battle for market share. As Linux starts pushing MS off the desktop and out of the office/point-of-sale/terminal, that's our secret code word...."mixed use environment"....
"Mixed use"....I like it, it puts an emphasis on working together and should make obvious to everyone the OS that doesn't want to get along with customers/standards/openness....that's the first step...
Plain and simple. If you are a "subscriber" to the telco's cell plan, you are governed by their rules of service and you become one of the herded consumers.
I view this move as a means of wresting control for content distribution and access out of the hands of individuals (access point owners) and into the hands of the mega-telcos. This move also makes it easier for General Ashcroft and the 245th lawyer brigade to monitor traffic and intercept whatever they want. It makes it easier for the phone providers to track your usage, thereby creating yet another product for them to sell to marketers. It delivers to them, the means to target advertising to your mobile device. In short, it puts the consumer back into the "cattle shute" of the big ISP's, where everything becomes an adult playpen, sanitized and appropriatly marketed.
Wi-Fi now, is by definition, run by the person who sets up the access point. This person controls whether it is open or encrypted. This person controls who may access it. This person is responsible for what content may or maynot be distributed through their access point. Having this power in the hands of the individual allows for cool things like "wireless communities" and free hotspots. Whatever the individual chooses. If you don't like it, you can set up your own for less than $150.
On the other hand, if the Cell providers can convince enough people to move to their networks, they can become the standard and can dictate terms of "acceptable use" which, without an viable alternative, become a means of "toll booth" and "restriction."
Ask yourself whether the telcos would allow you to set up a wireless server using their network. This can be done now with an access point and some simple gear...I've seen the handheld wireless webserver here on Slashdot before! Do you think the telco's would allow you to set one up for others to access with their phones?....Think again, we've also seen this week how MS and the phone providers are attempting to create new standards for data transmission between wireless devices...why would that be, when MP3's seem to work fine?...It's the same old practice of creating something propriatary to wrest control out of the hands of the consumer, and put it back into it's rightfull hands...the mega-corps.
It's not that I don't like alternatives, I like them a lot, we just need to keep technology open for people to use in any way they deem appropriate. Wi-FI has grown precisely because it put all the power in the hands of the user. We've seen some pretty weird stuff coming out of many of the users too, stuff that the manufacturers never dreamed of. Don't let the Telco's put that back in the bottle.
Don't ya think SCO should have'ta PROVE that there was copying taking place first?...I mean, why bother with the merits of the GPL and if it's enforceable here. The relevant issue is about illegal copying and supposed "obfuscation" of code to make it look "not copied." We have not even gotten to trial yet!....until the judge rules guilty, or I see the evidence myself, it's all a bunch of accusations to me. We are entitled to our innocence right up to the verdict, or even after the verdict if we can get a good PR firm.
Slashdot should be helping to shape the language of this media hype event, we shouldn't even be debating this crap until the evidence is presented....we should be encouraging the press to do likewise....all press comments should be "we are within our rights, we obey the law, we are unconcerned, we'll see the bastards in court, business as usual..." That's precisely how IBM's handled the case so far..."we are right, we know it, we'll be seeing ya' in court."
Even answering their charges only serves to shift the debate and allow them control over the media "language" of the case. With their weak case, they will attempt to shift the spotlight to anything BUT proving that copying took place, who did it, and the chain of custody along the way.
The best answer is to deny, deny, deny....then claim that you can't recall, but you are sure that you didn't do it, 'cause you never break the law. That's how Bill G. does it...it seems to work pretty good....
At this stage, ANY coverage that SCO gets directly benifits them. This is precisely why they have chosen to "dribble" out little bits of information, escalate their rhetoric and claims and generally try this case in the media BEFORE getting to court.
The best thing the Linux community could do is to start shaping the "language" of the case in the court of public opinion, making sure that the language is centered on "where's the evidence?"....
The burden is on them to show where copying took place...do NOT allow them to start making this a case about "Linux helps terrorists" or "Linux is for criminals"....they will attempt to shift the argument to this, baiting us to defend our "non-criminal" status....if it gets that far, they've won...
The best answer is to follow IBM's lead..."we've done nothing wrong, so there's no need for comment"....followed by media blackout. This would hurt SCO more than a few signs and protesters.....keep them out of the spotlight, and every time they announce another increase in damages or whatnot, they will appear more shrill....
Shun them completely!....and DONT BUY THEIR PRODUCTS!...but most importantly, stay away from this rabid dog....stay far away....
Why can't I get Java working on my RH8 box?
on
Sun's Last Stand
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
...here's the crux of Sun's problem!...I've never been able to really get Java working with Mozilla on my box. I don't want to rebuild half of my system to do it either!...Why can't I just simply get an RPM that WORKS!....
Since I built my first Linux box (3 years ago), Java has been a TOTAL hassle in every release. I read little snippets about "licensing" type problems here, lib compatability problems there, etc, all while they are still whining about MS.
The article is right. They seem preoccupied with MS and this wrongheaded idea that somehow they will right the wrongs in court or through the media...get your products working, make them easy to install and put them EVERYWHERE and the problem will solve itself.
Yeah, MS thwarted them illegally, keep whining about that and you will be bankrupt like all the others that MS wronged. Now just get over it, pick yourself up and make it as easy for EVERYONE to install JRE and JDK on ANY platform...be damned with the "licensing" bullsh*t. Like any war, you must win "on the ground" in order to be effective. Give MS a little taste of thir own medicine, give your new Java development studio away for cheap. Who cares if you were wronged if nobody can even install your stuff?
Just my two cents.....
p.s. I'm still without any Java on my Mozilla 1.0.1 install.....
If you belive the merits of this claim....If you belive them, now's your chance to cash out from the pot those greedy bastards at SCO have on the table...it's something like $9.50 / share now!....grab it........SELL SHORT.....first thing when the market opens....
Take all of that money before the greedy bastards grab it off the table!!!!....Monetary damages are the only thing the SCO mgmt. and the speculators funding this operation respect. Take their money before they figure out that the knife cuts both ways...
NO BUYOUT.....MUST BANKRUPT THEM!
on
Darl & SCO Overview
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
To quote many over the top political leaders..."we cannot support this type of terrorism, we cannot agree to their demands"....
By purchasing SCO, no matter how easy it might make the end of this problem, it encourages others to try the same stunt.
SCO MUST be bankrupted as a result of this, no matter how much money it takes to do that in court!....Anything less encourages others to try the same style attack.
Unless of course, you take good care of them and allow each of them to have a little room to grow and a little bit of sun.....
You see, most people would put up with a job that's demanding and requires long hours IF it was rewarding in some way (money helps, but it's not the whole picture)....the sheer venom that I read in that article means they were mad....they wanted to hurt JBoss group as much as they felt they were wronged....
I suspect that the pressure has been building for some time, this isn't just a "..hey, lets form our own business!" daydream.
I like where you are going with that....first off, it seems like the TV/MPAA/RIAA alliance should be an ally in this fight.....
Sucker them into having their paid whores in congress change the laws, then act with massive lawsuits against all transmitting equipment.....
As mentioned in the article, you can't have it both ways, either it's public for everyone or it's private with the right for me to sue any transmitter for tresspass on my property.....
"..if it hadn't been for you pesky kids!"....I think that's how it always ends on Scooby-Doo.....
The war's got my fever up on this....I say rob, rape, pillage and destroy SCO....burn everything down, leave nothing standing....
This is a really important milepost for OSS...we need to start leaving "heads on stakes" to warn others like SCO. Trivial/unfounded/money-grubbing lawsuits will result in your own death....every single time, no exceptions.
Sure I would....I'll address it company by company...
In Apple's case, they make money off both hardware and software. By opening their platform to all comers, they might end up with some shaggy stuff, but they would be further along for it. They could have the benifit of outside testing and also collect the additions to their stuff. Who's to say exactly what other developers might turn the core iApps into?...I suspect that they would only be good for Apple. What's the problem if MS appropriated some of Apple's functionality?...How are you directly taking food out of Apple's mouth?
Second example: NVidia.....their propriatary stuff should be on silicon...yeah, I know that putting stuff in drivers allows you to do last minute changes, but it's really in NVidia's best interest to publish a spec. (or stick to an open spec/api). Yes, this might lead to other hardware knockoffs using the same api's, but if that's not where your functionality is, who cares?....You see, by pushing the propriatary stuff to the card, it will force all card manufacturers to support the open spec....no hiding behind drivers. The open drivers should only be wrappers for handing all the graphics info to the card....let the co-processor take care of the mess. This has two benefits that I see right away for NVidia, first is reduced support costs...MS would be forced (by the marketplace) to finish drivers to the open spec. level. If there's a problem with the drivers, it's MS's problem, let them handle it. Second is almost instant troubleshooting / testing of new products...they either live up to the spec., or fail...no two ways about it..
Third example: Pro Tools Free.....yes, opening the source would make it trivial to hack past the limitation.....perhaps Pro Tools should consider operating as a "Service" company. They could act as moderator/maintainer/developer much like the folks at Codeweavers. While they would make less money off "licenses" they could make that back in customization and modification. Who would be in a better postition to provide support other than the original developers?...Again, other people do get to see their "homework", but as written, will prob. spend more time trying to decipher it than it helps....it doesn't pay to follow somebody else's tail-lights. Service is really where it's at.
I'll say that one again, because it all boils down to this...."Service is really where it's at"...perhaps lower profit margin, but with good service, customers will come back. Treat them like criminals and they will turn on you. Take away their rights and they will plot against you.
I've seen WAY too many "lock-in" type licenses now...and it's left me feeling VERY hostile. As far as Linux rabble goes...I'm ready to burn the cathedral down....
After I read ESR's C&B, this seemed totally obvious to me...not on a philisophical basis, but on a business basis.
The fact that companies are finding it in their "mutual best interest" to contribute code changes and whatnot to OSS should come as no suprise to anyone, they all stand to gain without having to invest huge sums against the "barrier to entry" that MS has created.
MS and closed source companies are the ONLY one's who benefit by NOT to distributing changes/making public.....for all others, it follows the rules set out in "Magic Cauldron" chapter....do a few hours work to fix a bug for yourself and pass that on to all others!......In the end, you can have everything you want for just a few hours of work. Unlike typical "products", sharing software has NO cost to the giver and does not remove ANY functionality from the giver....AND increases the value of the product through widespread adoption.
OSS is a superior business model, UNLESS you are MS.
This is where Mozilla's "Tabbed browsing" kicks ass.....just quickly flip between the two photos and you can easily see the differences.....
How here's the tough part, which detail on the front of the tank is correct?....it looks like the reactive armor packets (if that's what they are)are smaller in the the shot without the kid (and there's an extra too).
Same as the ground/far wall as seen through/under the tank.
There doesn't seem to be any shadow effects on the ground from the boy, while the tank (and other objects too)is casting a shadow.
Unfortunately, requisitions are always written so that only the program they want will work
That would hold true except that there is a difference with PUBLIC bidding procedures.
The problem stated above could change of course, if an enterprising soul said "I can make exactly what you want for $1.00 less than MS!! You gotta choose me!", either by customizing something already free or rolling a new product And with state contracts, you mostly gotta take the lowest bidder. Also, the criteria is open. That's precisely where the beauty of OSS and GPL are born.
There's no need to be a poor programmer while suporting OSS/GPL. Make it work for you and take down the empire!....you just gotta put your money where your mouth is.
In the world of biology, they call that "genetic diversity"....it helps to prevent the spread of disease and creates new and interesting patterns when combined with other genes or ideas...it also promotes evolution...which is cool.
It's also one of the many reasons my desktop doesn't get those evil bugs that seem to plague the "feedlot" computers that run Windows.
This also brings up the interesting point that, should they refuse, they might loose their copyright on the X-box system.
The law is pretty explicit about this, and the refusal to license is at the heart of Sharman Networks/Kaaza legal battle with the RIAA. In the Sharman case, if they can show that the RIAA colluded to block competition in distribution through use of copyright, they (the RIAA) could lose all government protection of that copyright (and of course, Sharman wins).
Copyright is a "temporary" monopoly on what you have created. If it's mis-used to block competition, i.e. leveraging one monopoly (your works) into another area (like distribution), you may loose your copyright protection. This would have been an even better angle than breaking MS into smaller companies, strip them of copyright on Windows....but that's another story.....
This is a really great legal cudgel to force MS's hand.....If they refuse, their refusal could be used against them in the future as a defense for those who attempt at breaking the key on X-box (think no DMCA on X-box because no copyright)....If they do go along with the approval, they can keep their copyright on X-box and loose money on every unit sold. If they admit that they are loosing money on the console and profit from the games, which they alone can cert., and use that feature to keep others away, they undermine their own legal position and demonstrate mis-use of copyright
I love watching MS between the two horns of a dilema...
Slashdot Mirror
In all fairness, SCO's value is not in being purchased so that the source code can be freed...
SCO's value is in acting as a totem against future companies who would try this same stunt....Their value is in their smoking carcass with Daryl's chared head mounted promanently on a high pike...
At this point, there can be no comprimise with people who commit fraud to inflate their stock price and to promote FUD.... I believe that Daryl KNOWS that his claims are false...he deserves to fry....
I say, "smoking head on stake" for all the SCO/Canopy group members.... leave all the execs at SCO without a job and discredited like the MCI/ENRON execs....Leave all the investors holding worthless stock certs....Somebody needs to be an example, and SCO volunteered by inflating/changing/hyping/FUDing their claims.
I could have had a little sympathy for them if they had just filed their suit and shut-up until the trial....but at $17/share now, we need to destroy some wallets to remind everyone that it's not over till the gavel falls......
....I mean, SCO is looking for BILLIONS....and their business hasn't been destroyed....Seems like the Be people need to get more than a few 23 million!
The Be people need Uncle McBride on their side....oh wait a second...SCO's attack is being funded by MS....sorry, my bad...
I mean, if they have other tools within the compiler, which are covered by restrictive licenses like SCO's trying to foist, they might be barred from releasing that technology. Some of the optimizations may be covered under patent, which they don't own outright.
Second, the people involved in that compiler are not exactly "clean-room" when it comes to submitting patches to gcc without intimate knowledge of those other methods/IP....
Last thing IBM needs now is a REAL case of leaking information which is covered under patent/IP or whatever protection.....I expect them to release all the details, just expect that they will only provide factual information rather than "how-to".....
....I really DO like being shaken down by scum....
Perhaps they did it themselves? I guess this is kinda like seeding the tip jar with some change in order to generate more income....
I wonder if this will be refundable if SCO's claims are proven worthless?
This also puts competitive pressure on companies NOT to break with the API's that wine does support.
Given two applications, one which runs under wine and one which doesn't....which would be in the better competitive situation?
This situation makes a comodity out of the windows API's....anyone who can mimic them can play against Microsoft. This is a good thing, as it will apply pressure on MS NOT to break the API's and will level the playing field somewhat. Of course...they will break them if things are getting close, but that will result in backlash from all the independent software vendors/developers who will be forced to recompile for windows and/or deal with high volumes of bug fixes when the API's change.....
All in all, this is a good thing. Adobe also makes Acrobat for Linux too....if there are a lot of calls for support under wine, perhaps they will simply port the entire photoshop suite to run under Linux native....
I used to work in one of these "fish tank" type engineering departments where the customers could tour through with the sales people..."blah, blah..and these are our hardworking employees, creating your stuff as you watch...blah, blah."
I've always had the idea to create a maniquin to double for me.....something that would move the mouse occasionally and make it look like I'm hard at work...even when I'm at lunch!....something like a Disney ride but for computer workers...
Now THAT would be useful!....
Hey man,....I really like where you are coming from, but your site, "Second Life" does not support OSS software.
I'm running RH8.0, fully patched with XD2, Mozilla and the full boat....why can't I play too? Your site did not specify Linux as an acceptable OS to play with. Supporting the "network effect" of Windows only serves to keep MS in power....could you do the same thing with Java, Flash or something generic?
No slam, just a gentle propt that you should really support OSS too by making your site available to your brothers, not just the MS folks.
DD
This sounds like an MS baiter to me.....open source solutions are as good as the users want them to be....if you don't like something, fix it yourself or pay an opensource programmer to fix it for you.....the real question boils down to "how much is that bug really bugging you?"...Even MS products are released with an "acceptable number of bugs"....let's not get hung up on perfection when simply getting the job done is more important.
Here's my take on the "Software Ecosystem" as Bill likes to call it......people will forever onward need to get custom stuff done on computers...it's a fact. Not every project can be mass produced for the world and sold to billions of people for INSANE profit levels. I believe that most computer work is custom stuff, a little glue here, adapter there, specialized GUI for operators....this is where most of the rubber meets the road...it will always be there.
OSS equalizes the playing field for people/companies that want to realize all of the profits themselves. No MS tax, no tax to others, simply your brain and as much as you can produce. OSS is also good for business because they own the software that they've paid to be created...no extra tax in the future for them either, no update charge, no extra fees to keep current on MS Exchange Server, Backoffice server or whatnot....they write spec's for something, it's produced, they pay once and own the source...if they need maintaince, it's easily purchased from a competitive field of qualified professionals.....it's good business.
I've got no problem with people "buying" a solution either, that's part of the capitalist system. Define what you are good at, find a market niche and purchase the rest from people that are good at their respective areas.
It's the tax created by MS's "network effect" that has lots of people chafing...the idea that somehow I MUST send a good percentage of my profits elsewhere....it's MS's "Toll Booth" philosophy that's gonna cause them trouble....people don't like paying tolls, and they usualy find ways to either "slug" the meters or sneak around....In this case, they build their own seperate "Information superhighway"....OSS
OSS simply levels the playing field for programmers and buyers....we've all (people who use OSS) come to the conclusion that sharing a free OS, even with it's bugs (open to interpretation, I have not found any) is better than paying the increasingly draconian "Windows Tax" EVERY time you turn around. Pay for this, pay for that, pay to get inspected, pay when the inspectors kick in your door, coming to check your licenses. MS has turned their OS into a shakedown at every level.
Most disingenous was Bill G's comment about OSS keeping countries poor and being fine if you want your country to stay backward and agricultural....bullsh*%....it gives them a "leg up" on the competition, not a deficit. This put's the competition strictly on brain power rather than lawyer power.
Time's gonna come when everyone is gonna have to pick which side of the revolution they want to be on....I've already done that because I see that MS can't win this fight...there's no company to buy, there's nobody to really sue (yeah, SCO fud, but they are going home in a wheelbarrow)...This can't be stopped primarily because it's really good for business and programmers alike.....it's only bad for the "Toll-booth operators" like MS.....
..cause it's gonna be here all during the battle for market share. As Linux starts pushing MS off the desktop and out of the office/point-of-sale/terminal, that's our secret code word...."mixed use environment"....
"Mixed use"....I like it, it puts an emphasis on working together and should make obvious to everyone the OS that doesn't want to get along with customers/standards/openness....that's the first step...
I'm following this as close as most people here, but I seem to have missed the start time for this party.
When do the legal festivities kick off? I want to make sure I have PLENTY of refreshments on hand....anyone know?
Plain and simple. If you are a "subscriber" to the telco's cell plan, you are governed by their rules of service and you become one of the herded consumers.
I view this move as a means of wresting control for content distribution and access out of the hands of individuals (access point owners) and into the hands of the mega-telcos. This move also makes it easier for General Ashcroft and the 245th lawyer brigade to monitor traffic and intercept whatever they want. It makes it easier for the phone providers to track your usage, thereby creating yet another product for them to sell to marketers. It delivers to them, the means to target advertising to your mobile device. In short, it puts the consumer back into the "cattle shute" of the big ISP's, where everything becomes an adult playpen, sanitized and appropriatly marketed.
Wi-Fi now, is by definition, run by the person who sets up the access point. This person controls whether it is open or encrypted. This person controls who may access it. This person is responsible for what content may or maynot be distributed through their access point. Having this power in the hands of the individual allows for cool things like "wireless communities" and free hotspots. Whatever the individual chooses. If you don't like it, you can set up your own for less than $150.
On the other hand, if the Cell providers can convince enough people to move to their networks, they can become the standard and can dictate terms of "acceptable use" which, without an viable alternative, become a means of "toll booth" and "restriction."
Ask yourself whether the telcos would allow you to set up a wireless server using their network. This can be done now with an access point and some simple gear...I've seen the handheld wireless webserver here on Slashdot before! Do you think the telco's would allow you to set one up for others to access with their phones?....Think again, we've also seen this week how MS and the phone providers are attempting to create new standards for data transmission between wireless devices...why would that be, when MP3's seem to work fine?...It's the same old practice of creating something propriatary to wrest control out of the hands of the consumer, and put it back into it's rightfull hands...the mega-corps.
It's not that I don't like alternatives, I like them a lot, we just need to keep technology open for people to use in any way they deem appropriate. Wi-FI has grown precisely because it put all the power in the hands of the user. We've seen some pretty weird stuff coming out of many of the users too, stuff that the manufacturers never dreamed of. Don't let the Telco's put that back in the bottle.
Don't ya think SCO should have'ta PROVE that there was copying taking place first?...I mean, why bother with the merits of the GPL and if it's enforceable here. The relevant issue is about illegal copying and supposed "obfuscation" of code to make it look "not copied." We have not even gotten to trial yet!....until the judge rules guilty, or I see the evidence myself, it's all a bunch of accusations to me. We are entitled to our innocence right up to the verdict, or even after the verdict if we can get a good PR firm.
Slashdot should be helping to shape the language of this media hype event, we shouldn't even be debating this crap until the evidence is presented....we should be encouraging the press to do likewise....all press comments should be "we are within our rights, we obey the law, we are unconcerned, we'll see the bastards in court, business as usual..." That's precisely how IBM's handled the case so far..."we are right, we know it, we'll be seeing ya' in court."
Even answering their charges only serves to shift the debate and allow them control over the media "language" of the case. With their weak case, they will attempt to shift the spotlight to anything BUT proving that copying took place, who did it, and the chain of custody along the way.
The best answer is to deny, deny, deny....then claim that you can't recall, but you are sure that you didn't do it, 'cause you never break the law. That's how Bill G. does it...it seems to work pretty good....
I can't agree more with the poster.
At this stage, ANY coverage that SCO gets directly benifits them. This is precisely why they have chosen to "dribble" out little bits of information, escalate their rhetoric and claims and generally try this case in the media BEFORE getting to court.
The best thing the Linux community could do is to start shaping the "language" of the case in the court of public opinion, making sure that the language is centered on "where's the evidence?"....
The burden is on them to show where copying took place...do NOT allow them to start making this a case about "Linux helps terrorists" or "Linux is for criminals"....they will attempt to shift the argument to this, baiting us to defend our "non-criminal" status....if it gets that far, they've won...
The best answer is to follow IBM's lead..."we've done nothing wrong, so there's no need for comment"....followed by media blackout. This would hurt SCO more than a few signs and protesters.....keep them out of the spotlight, and every time they announce another increase in damages or whatnot, they will appear more shrill....
Shun them completely!....and DONT BUY THEIR PRODUCTS!...but most importantly, stay away from this rabid dog....stay far away....
...here's the crux of Sun's problem!...I've never been able to really get Java working with Mozilla on my box. I don't want to rebuild half of my system to do it either!...Why can't I just simply get an RPM that WORKS!....
Since I built my first Linux box (3 years ago), Java has been a TOTAL hassle in every release. I read little snippets about "licensing" type problems here, lib compatability problems there, etc, all while they are still whining about MS.
The article is right. They seem preoccupied with MS and this wrongheaded idea that somehow they will right the wrongs in court or through the media...get your products working, make them easy to install and put them EVERYWHERE and the problem will solve itself.
Yeah, MS thwarted them illegally, keep whining about that and you will be bankrupt like all the others that MS wronged. Now just get over it, pick yourself up and make it as easy for EVERYONE to install JRE and JDK on ANY platform...be damned with the "licensing" bullsh*t. Like any war, you must win "on the ground" in order to be effective. Give MS a little taste of thir own medicine, give your new Java development studio away for cheap. Who cares if you were wronged if nobody can even install your stuff?
Just my two cents.....
p.s. I'm still without any Java on my Mozilla 1.0.1 install.....
If you belive the merits of this claim....If you belive them, now's your chance to cash out from the pot those greedy bastards at SCO have on the table...it's something like $9.50 / share now! ....grab it... .....SELL SHORT.....first thing when the market opens....
Take all of that money before the greedy bastards grab it off the table!!!!....Monetary damages are the only thing the SCO mgmt. and the speculators funding this operation respect. Take their money before they figure out that the knife cuts both ways...
To quote many over the top political leaders..."we cannot support this type of terrorism, we cannot agree to their demands"....
By purchasing SCO, no matter how easy it might make the end of this problem, it encourages others to try the same stunt.
SCO MUST be bankrupted as a result of this, no matter how much money it takes to do that in court!....Anything less encourages others to try the same style attack.
Destroy SCO, burn everything, leave nothing standing.....
Unless of course, you take good care of them and allow each of them to have a little room to grow and a little bit of sun.....
You see, most people would put up with a job that's demanding and requires long hours IF it was rewarding in some way (money helps, but it's not the whole picture)....the sheer venom that I read in that article means they were mad....they wanted to hurt JBoss group as much as they felt they were wronged....
I suspect that the pressure has been building for some time, this isn't just a "..hey, lets form our own business!" daydream.
I like where you are going with that....first off, it seems like the TV/MPAA/RIAA alliance should be an ally in this fight.....
Sucker them into having their paid whores in congress change the laws, then act with massive lawsuits against all transmitting equipment.....
As mentioned in the article, you can't have it both ways, either it's public for everyone or it's private with the right for me to sue any transmitter for tresspass on my property.....
"..if it hadn't been for you pesky kids!"....I think that's how it always ends on Scooby-Doo.....
The war's got my fever up on this....I say rob, rape, pillage and destroy SCO....burn everything down, leave nothing standing....
This is a really important milepost for OSS...we need to start leaving "heads on stakes" to warn others like SCO. Trivial/unfounded/money-grubbing lawsuits will result in your own death....every single time, no exceptions.
Sure I would....I'll address it company by company...
In Apple's case, they make money off both hardware and software. By opening their platform to all comers, they might end up with some shaggy stuff, but they would be further along for it. They could have the benifit of outside testing and also collect the additions to their stuff. Who's to say exactly what other developers might turn the core iApps into?...I suspect that they would only be good for Apple. What's the problem if MS appropriated some of Apple's functionality?...How are you directly taking food out of Apple's mouth?
Second example: NVidia.....their propriatary stuff should be on silicon...yeah, I know that putting stuff in drivers allows you to do last minute changes, but it's really in NVidia's best interest to publish a spec. (or stick to an open spec/api). Yes, this might lead to other hardware knockoffs using the same api's, but if that's not where your functionality is, who cares?....You see, by pushing the propriatary stuff to the card, it will force all card manufacturers to support the open spec....no hiding behind drivers. The open drivers should only be wrappers for handing all the graphics info to the card....let the co-processor take care of the mess. This has two benefits that I see right away for NVidia, first is reduced support costs...MS would be forced (by the marketplace) to finish drivers to the open spec. level. If there's a problem with the drivers, it's MS's problem, let them handle it. Second is almost instant troubleshooting / testing of new products...they either live up to the spec., or fail...no two ways about it..
Third example: Pro Tools Free.....yes, opening the source would make it trivial to hack past the limitation.....perhaps Pro Tools should consider operating as a "Service" company. They could act as moderator/maintainer/developer much like the folks at Codeweavers. While they would make less money off "licenses" they could make that back in customization and modification. Who would be in a better postition to provide support other than the original developers?...Again, other people do get to see their "homework", but as written, will prob. spend more time trying to decipher it than it helps....it doesn't pay to follow somebody else's tail-lights. Service is really where it's at.
I'll say that one again, because it all boils down to this...."Service is really where it's at"...perhaps lower profit margin, but with good service, customers will come back. Treat them like criminals and they will turn on you. Take away their rights and they will plot against you.
I've seen WAY too many "lock-in" type licenses now...and it's left me feeling VERY hostile. As far as Linux rabble goes...I'm ready to burn the cathedral down....
After I read ESR's C&B, this seemed totally obvious to me...not on a philisophical basis, but on a business basis.
The fact that companies are finding it in their "mutual best interest" to contribute code changes and whatnot to OSS should come as no suprise to anyone, they all stand to gain without having to invest huge sums against the "barrier to entry" that MS has created.
MS and closed source companies are the ONLY one's who benefit by NOT to distributing changes/making public.....for all others, it follows the rules set out in "Magic Cauldron" chapter....do a few hours work to fix a bug for yourself and pass that on to all others!......In the end, you can have everything you want for just a few hours of work. Unlike typical "products", sharing software has NO cost to the giver and does not remove ANY functionality from the giver....AND increases the value of the product through widespread adoption.
OSS is a superior business model, UNLESS you are MS.
What goes around, comes around.....
This is where Mozilla's "Tabbed browsing" kicks ass.....just quickly flip between the two photos and you can easily see the differences.....
How here's the tough part, which detail on the front of the tank is correct?....it looks like the reactive armor packets (if that's what they are)are smaller in the the shot without the kid (and there's an extra too).
Same as the ground/far wall as seen through/under the tank.
There doesn't seem to be any shadow effects on the ground from the boy, while the tank (and other objects too)is casting a shadow.
That would hold true except that there is a difference with PUBLIC bidding procedures.
The problem stated above could change of course, if an enterprising soul said "I can make exactly what you want for $1.00 less than MS!! You gotta choose me!", either by customizing something already free or rolling a new product And with state contracts, you mostly gotta take the lowest bidder. Also, the criteria is open. That's precisely where the beauty of OSS and GPL are born.
There's no need to be a poor programmer while suporting OSS/GPL. Make it work for you and take down the empire!....you just gotta put your money where your mouth is.
In the world of biology, they call that "genetic diversity"....it helps to prevent the spread of disease and creates new and interesting patterns when combined with other genes or ideas...it also promotes evolution...which is cool.
It's also one of the many reasons my desktop doesn't get those evil bugs that seem to plague the "feedlot" computers that run Windows.
Think of my boxen here as "free range".....
This also brings up the interesting point that, should they refuse, they might loose their copyright on the X-box system.
The law is pretty explicit about this, and the refusal to license is at the heart of Sharman Networks/Kaaza legal battle with the RIAA. In the Sharman case, if they can show that the RIAA colluded to block competition in distribution through use of copyright, they (the RIAA) could lose all government protection of that copyright (and of course, Sharman wins).
Copyright is a "temporary" monopoly on what you have created. If it's mis-used to block competition, i.e. leveraging one monopoly (your works) into another area (like distribution), you may loose your copyright protection. This would have been an even better angle than breaking MS into smaller companies, strip them of copyright on Windows....but that's another story.....
This is a really great legal cudgel to force MS's hand.....If they refuse, their refusal could be used against them in the future as a defense for those who attempt at breaking the key on X-box (think no DMCA on X-box because no copyright)....If they do go along with the approval, they can keep their copyright on X-box and loose money on every unit sold. If they admit that they are loosing money on the console and profit from the games, which they alone can cert., and use that feature to keep others away, they undermine their own legal position and demonstrate mis-use of copyright
I love watching MS between the two horns of a dilema...