Their article is interesting, but a bit misguided IMNSHO. First they harp on the three sets of ledgers. Well what's the big diff. They say that this somehow allows more leeway to fudge, well actually it doesn't. The fact is that you have to know that there are three sets and exactly which sets of reports get their data from which sets (a very lame attempt at security thru obscurity?). Having a single ledger means that you only have to go to a single place to mess with things.
But the biggest problem with there report is that they spend a lot of time talking about essentiallly one issue, that the tables are available for anyone with the password to edit and manipulate. There doesn't seem to be any type of tiered access and because they use access, a TRUE audit trail can not be created.
I would think that a voting system would be important enough to warrant the extra time to create a custom DB that audits absolutely everything to a file/table that can't be touched by anyone but the app (e.g. only the app can add rows and rows can never be deleted). I assume that Diebold was able to use Access because it made their bid lower and the company that actually had a decently secure system was underbid.
I don't see what the big deal with this is. It's not like Apple hasen't released other security patches to OSX. Or are we "forgiving" them for stuff that is found in the non Apple specific parts (e.g. sendmail), if so, why should we, they ship it, they charge for it, right? Anyone out there honestly believe that there aren't a whole host of other issues just waiting to be found?
By the way, the bell tolls. It tolls ominously for Sun Microsystems.
But how is this different than the way it's been for years? Sun has always been pretty much at the low end when it comes to cpu ooomph. They've always depended on multi-processor systems to achieve reasonable performance, and they've always positioned themselves as the best overalll solution, even if others offer faster machines.
If there budget is such that dualie 2Ghz G5's are a possibility, then it's somewhat surprising that they A) used such low powered P4's B) that they didn't include Itanic2 systems. Seems that their report really just pointed out stuff that we already knew, the PPC is typcially faster per mhz than the P4 (hell, just about anything is better per mhz than the P4). Interesting to note that on the vector test, the G5 outperformed the G4 is a fashion that is almost purely based on the increase in Mhz (i.e. other system improvements didn't really seem to help much). Compiler perhaps, though some of the architectural improvements would seem to be not dependant on that?
The submitter mentions that they charge for FRS radios. Who are they charging? If someone purchases two radios for $40 do they then have to pay $1200 to actually use them? What about 2.4ghz phones and video transmitters? Does this only apply to businesses?
These OSS vs CSS comparsions are just the dumbest things ever. How can you take a couple of OSS programs and compare them to a couple of CSS and come to ANY conclusions? I've worked in places that have had GREAT code, the developers had a clue, and they had reasonable process (given the usual capitalist based time constraints). Then again I've been in places where the code is crap, the process is broken, and mgmt doesn't have the first clue. Now which view of CSS is this co. going to take, well I'd assume they'd use whichever one will make the outcome the way they want it to be.
Fact is that they are looking at nothing but process and demographics. When you look at "bigger" OSS projects, then you'll notice a couple of things. They have a tendency to have their act together, because the project has been around and therefore has had time to get it's process together. Imagine an OSS project that had no clear "leader" or "leaders". One where anyone was allowed to check in code with review. What would you end up with, CRAP. Now imagine a CSS that had regular code reviews, where developers actually unit tested their code, and where QA depts had their act together and had good test plans. Assuming a decent level of developer skill, you'd probably have a decent product. The the quality of the product is based purely on the process's put in place to ensure that quality.
BTW, if I see one more post about "many eyes", I'm going to puke (oops, too late). Those who write that pie in the sky crap don't really seem to have a clue about any real development. Sure it CAN be true, but I highly doubt it typically is. If that was the case, if the "magic" of OSS were so clear cut, then damn, OSS should be as close to bug free as is attainable, which OBVIOUSLY is not the case. You work on some code, you get it to work, you move on, period. OSS, CSS same thing. Someone else probably isn't going to bother with it unless it is A) broken B) too slow C) needs a new feature.
It's a JOKE people, sheesh
on
The Bug
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I'm amazed at the responses I've been getting. My post was a JOKE (of course since I'm responding to myself, those individuals won't even get a chance to see this). Didn't you all notice how it plays on all the stereotypes of the average uber-nerd? Didn't you notice that it plays on the EXACT same themes as the story itself (defining ones own worth via ones work, how nerds view themselves and their co-nerds, etc).
Note to self, subtlety is not the best approach on/.
Re:Obviously fiction/fantasy
on
The Bug
·
· Score: 1
So you're saying that our entire value as human beings is how well we can debug code? I can understand how someone with your attitude would have trouble with seeing how someone could get a girlfreind....
Take a chill pill dude. My post was a joke (thank god at least one moderator got it). It plays on all the stereotypes of an uber-geek. When I first typed it, I placed a winky at the end, but then I thought, "nah, why make it sooo obvious". Judging by yours and others posts though, I guess I subtlety is not the best approach on/. (I know, I know, duh!).
Obviously fiction/fantasy
on
The Bug
·
· Score: 5, Funny
A person as nerdy as he is and he has a girlfriend. How is that even remotely possible? And this girlfriend is apparently attractive enough to get someone to cheat on his wife with her, pure fantasy I tell you. This book loses all credibility on this one point alone. Plus, anyone who's THAT much of a geek and takes THAT long to find a bug, isn't someone I have a lot of respect for and would really care about anyway.
I assume it touches on copying
on
Altered Carbon
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
If you can digitize and store, you can therefore copy. I wonder if the book goes into this possibility (or does it rule it out in some fashion, technical or otherwise). Also, it can also theoretically be "tweaked", and it would start to sound much like Blade Runner and fall into the, how do you know you are what you think you are category.
For my tastes though, such abilities are a bit too open ended (kinda like time travel), and its fine if it is just a portion (e.g. TT as a mode of transportation) vs central to the story.
No, you missed the point. The Treo uses an ARM cpu running at like 133Mhz, NOT a 970. The guys post was a complete troll. The 970 would leave a mini keyboard brand on your hand it'd get so hot. Not to mention that the chip itself would be half the size of the unit.
Excellent troll. You actually conned someone into giving you an "informative". I esp. like the PPC being a decendent (sic) of the 68000 series and decoding MPEG4 on the fly. Keep up the good work.
I think that what you are failing to see is how this argument is legally relevant. This suit is about a contract, not copyright or patents.
Where in my post did I say that this was a copyright issue? I said that one of the big issues was license agreements between IBM and SCO (through acquistions of the actual parties).
WRONG.
SCO clams that all code enhancements that IBM made to AIX, which is a "UNIX". Is code enhancements to made to UNIX witch is the Property of SCO.
My goodness. Go back and read the myriad articles about this whole business. One of the SPECIFIC issues deals with the LICENSING of Unix to IBM (really Sequent) and what that license does and does not allow Sequent now IBM to do. SCO is NOT claiming that ALL of AIX and everything IBM has ever done to AIX is SCO property, this is completely and absolutely false.
Oh please. Just because M$ likes to embed what was once application level functionality into the "OS" says nothing about the point being spoken about here. If what you're claiming was true, then ANY application written for Windoze would be a derivative and they could potentially own it.
Yeah I read it before and now I read it again. Care to show me specifically where SCO is making a claim that Linux is in and of itself a derivitive of Unix? They do say the following:
"SCO said the letter was to make Linux users aware that it believes Linux is tainted and contains unauthorized intellectual property."
Note that it doesn't say that SCO believes that it Linux is a derived work of Unix.
That would be like saying since McAfee wrote Virus Scan on top of Windows and using the information from Windows then they can't reuse any of that code in writing a Virus Scanner for any other OS.
Ummmm no. There is a huge difference between writing an application FOR an OS and writing code that is a PART of the OS. SCO is claiming that any code that becomes a PART of the OS becomes their property (rightly or wrongly). To clarify your analogy, it would be like McAfee being granted a license to make VirusScan a PART of Windows, but in return, M$ now makes claim to that code. If their license says that McAfee then can't use that code in other apps, then they'd get sued if they tried.
What SCO is claiming is that even though the code was developed by IBM (during AIX and OS/2 development) that SCO has exclusive rights over it because it constitutes a derivative of Unix.
The specific instance I'm referring to is the RCU code done by Sequent. Sequent (now IBM) licensed the Unix code and made modifications. SCO is claiming that the conditions of the original license agreement makes these modifications their property. This code they claim has now found it's way into Linux, therefore is a violation of the original license. So my statement is absolutely correct, in a nutshell. SCO is NOT claiming that Linux is a derivative of Unix, only that it contains code THAT IS.
SCO had made their bed in deciding to take advantage of the open source movement. Now they want to retroactively change the decision.
The guy in the article made a similar comment and I fail to see how it's relevant at all. The issue here is that IBM licensed some code and SCO is claiming that IBM then used this licensed code in Linux. That SCO also participated in Linux development is utterly irrelevant unless they themselves also put proprietary Unix code into Linux.
Now the issue of what took SCO so long to figure this all out might be more relevant. But it would appear that SCO and IBM have been in talks about this for a while, so it's hard to say how long the "offending" code has been there.
The old Intellivisions didn't need a fan right? Just take the guts and stick it into a l33t case. It already has video out right, as well as audio. This could be a sweeet part of your home entertainment system or in your car. If you had a big enough cluster of them in your trunk, you might even be able to play a 8kbps mp3! I bet VIA is shaking in their boots, expect a lawsuit from them on these guys any minute now!
You won't "make copies" of your own tags, you'll copy other peoples tags.
Well it depends on what you're trying to do. Let's say you're a fugitive on the run. You could clone someone else to hide from the scanners (assuming that the various systems aren't linked and can somehow throw up a red flag when the same "person" shows up in geographically different areas). However, if you're Osama (or some other terrorist), wouldn't it be much more "interesting" to clone yourself and apply it to as many people as possible (while also stealing someone elses). The amount of chaos and work it would create for any investigating agencies would definitely put you at an advantage. Plus if you did it to people going to the airport, you could effectively shut down an entire airport because of the 50 Osamas that are being detected.
This is tooo funny. All these people paranoid about RFID. OK, two categories of folks to worry about with RFID, PITA marketing and the MIB. Whatever about the marketing, just use a seperate unlisted phone# and a po box and you eliminate huge amounts of unsolicted phone calls/junk mail.
OK, now on to Big Bros. MIB knows that corps want RFID to save bucks (and maybe marketing, see above). Cool, MIB can maybe utilize it too (hey Joe bought a sixpack, how interesting, glad we have all these scanners everywhere). Best thing is, while everyone hoots and hollers about RFID, they fail to notice those "security" cams that can see your face + see what you bought + see the license plate of your car, all of which can be done TODAY, IF anyone really gave a crap that you bought some weiners and diet coke. We won't even talk about the instance when you use your CC. OK, so if Osama buys some slacks from Banana Republic using cash, we'll be able to tell if he tries to hop a Greyhound to Walla Walla because his RFID will set off the scanner. Assuming he's stupid enough to not be aware of the fact that RFID's are EVERYWHERE now, what are the odds that he can either disable, or better yet, make copies and distribute them EVERYWHERE, totally making the system worthless?
Like others have said, privacy, forget it. All us cell phone toting, internet using, CC charging, electricity using folks aint got no privacy at all. If RFID makes Walmart more efficient so it can hire more people, drop more prices, fatten their wallets, I say more power to'em. We techno elitest getting all scared and up in arms about tech, we have to take the good with the bad, once you open the box, you can't filter what escapes.
n't mean you have less bugs. The amount of time it takes to code a quality program, takes the same amount of time with more power. That is, unless you're opinion of less-buggy software is just using an obnoxious level of try-catch statements:)
Not too far off. Just better coding techniques as well as better tools. Back in the days we'd say that checking parameters and return codes was just too expensive performance wise. Yet today we have such massive horsepower, but yet we do the same things. We still have things like buffer overflows that haunt us ad nauseum. We still piece meal unit tests (when they get done at all), automated testing tools still suck, debuggers are smarter but still not nearly smart enough, etc, etc. Not saying that more processing ponies equals better code, I'm just saying that from the development point of view, just like the user point of view, much of todays horsepower goes into fluff and not into substance.
Software has been following this general trend for years now (except the too expensive part). I know this is like the "when I was your age I had to walk 50 miles in the snow up hill to school at 4am" kinda whining, but I'm going to do it anyway.
Fact is, other than watching video files and ripping cd's, why is it that you need an OS that requires more RAM than you had HD space years ago for. If you map computing oomph (mips, ram, hd, video speed/resolutions) and software functionality (say on the y axis), you'd end up with an incredibly dissapointingly near flat line. With as much horse power that we have today, we should be able to create nearly bug free software because of all the majorly powerful development tools that put all this power to good use. Instead, we have majorly bloated development tools (Rational Rose et al) and environments that focus on letting people make pretty but ill conceived ui's and make a half hearted stab at helping to improve code.
Otherwise, why is it that IBM can still make money selling AIX? If the infringement were really the reason why a proprietar Linux can't be sold, how is it that AIX (and Solaris, too, for that matter) aren't affected by it but SCO's is?
Simple, SCO does not sell hardware. IBM wouldn't sell 10 copies of AIX a year if it wasn't for the RS/6000's they run on. Similar situation for Solaris. After all, WHO has a successful Unix that doesn't sell it as part of an integral system?
Slashdot Mirror
Their article is interesting, but a bit misguided IMNSHO. First they harp on the three sets of ledgers. Well what's the big diff. They say that this somehow allows more leeway to fudge, well actually it doesn't. The fact is that you have to know that there are three sets and exactly which sets of reports get their data from which sets (a very lame attempt at security thru obscurity?). Having a single ledger means that you only have to go to a single place to mess with things.
But the biggest problem with there report is that they spend a lot of time talking about essentiallly one issue, that the tables are available for anyone with the password to edit and manipulate. There doesn't seem to be any type of tiered access and because they use access, a TRUE audit trail can not be created.
I would think that a voting system would be important enough to warrant the extra time to create a custom DB that audits absolutely everything to a file/table that can't be touched by anyone but the app (e.g. only the app can add rows and rows can never be deleted). I assume that Diebold was able to use Access because it made their bid lower and the company that actually had a decently secure system was underbid.
I smell a voter's lawsuit, oh to be a lawyer.
I don't see what the big deal with this is. It's not like Apple hasen't released other security patches to OSX. Or are we "forgiving" them for stuff that is found in the non Apple specific parts (e.g. sendmail), if so, why should we, they ship it, they charge for it, right? Anyone out there honestly believe that there aren't a whole host of other issues just waiting to be found?
By the way, the bell tolls. It tolls ominously for Sun Microsystems.
But how is this different than the way it's been for years? Sun has always been pretty much at the low end when it comes to cpu ooomph. They've always depended on multi-processor systems to achieve reasonable performance, and they've always positioned themselves as the best overalll solution, even if others offer faster machines.
If there budget is such that dualie 2Ghz G5's are a possibility, then it's somewhat surprising that they A) used such low powered P4's B) that they didn't include Itanic2 systems. Seems that their report really just pointed out stuff that we already knew, the PPC is typcially faster per mhz than the P4 (hell, just about anything is better per mhz than the P4). Interesting to note that on the vector test, the G5 outperformed the G4 is a fashion that is almost purely based on the increase in Mhz (i.e. other system improvements didn't really seem to help much). Compiler perhaps, though some of the architectural improvements would seem to be not dependant on that?
The submitter mentions that they charge for FRS radios. Who are they charging? If someone purchases two radios for $40 do they then have to pay $1200 to actually use them? What about 2.4ghz phones and video transmitters? Does this only apply to businesses?
These OSS vs CSS comparsions are just the dumbest things ever. How can you take a couple of OSS programs and compare them to a couple of CSS and come to ANY conclusions? I've worked in places that have had GREAT code, the developers had a clue, and they had reasonable process (given the usual capitalist based time constraints). Then again I've been in places where the code is crap, the process is broken, and mgmt doesn't have the first clue. Now which view of CSS is this co. going to take, well I'd assume they'd use whichever one will make the outcome the way they want it to be.
Fact is that they are looking at nothing but process and demographics. When you look at "bigger" OSS projects, then you'll notice a couple of things. They have a tendency to have their act together, because the project has been around and therefore has had time to get it's process together. Imagine an OSS project that had no clear "leader" or "leaders". One where anyone was allowed to check in code with review. What would you end up with, CRAP. Now imagine a CSS that had regular code reviews, where developers actually unit tested their code, and where QA depts had their act together and had good test plans. Assuming a decent level of developer skill, you'd probably have a decent product. The the quality of the product is based purely on the process's put in place to ensure that quality.
BTW, if I see one more post about "many eyes", I'm going to puke (oops, too late). Those who write that pie in the sky crap don't really seem to have a clue about any real development. Sure it CAN be true, but I highly doubt it typically is. If that was the case, if the "magic" of OSS were so clear cut, then damn, OSS should be as close to bug free as is attainable, which OBVIOUSLY is not the case. You work on some code, you get it to work, you move on, period. OSS, CSS same thing. Someone else probably isn't going to bother with it unless it is A) broken B) too slow C) needs a new feature.
I'm amazed at the responses I've been getting. My post was a JOKE (of course since I'm responding to myself, those individuals won't even get a chance to see this). Didn't you all notice how it plays on all the stereotypes of the average uber-nerd? Didn't you notice that it plays on the EXACT same themes as the story itself (defining ones own worth via ones work, how nerds view themselves and their co-nerds, etc).
/.
Note to self, subtlety is not the best approach on
So you're saying that our entire value as human beings is how well we can debug code? I can understand how someone with your attitude would have trouble with seeing how someone could get a girlfreind....
/. (I know, I know, duh!).
Take a chill pill dude. My post was a joke (thank god at least one moderator got it). It plays on all the stereotypes of an uber-geek. When I first typed it, I placed a winky at the end, but then I thought, "nah, why make it sooo obvious". Judging by yours and others posts though, I guess I subtlety is not the best approach on
A person as nerdy as he is and he has a girlfriend. How is that even remotely possible? And this girlfriend is apparently attractive enough to get someone to cheat on his wife with her, pure fantasy I tell you. This book loses all credibility on this one point alone. Plus, anyone who's THAT much of a geek and takes THAT long to find a bug, isn't someone I have a lot of respect for and would really care about anyway.
If you can digitize and store, you can therefore copy. I wonder if the book goes into this possibility (or does it rule it out in some fashion, technical or otherwise). Also, it can also theoretically be "tweaked", and it would start to sound much like Blade Runner and fall into the, how do you know you are what you think you are category.
For my tastes though, such abilities are a bit too open ended (kinda like time travel), and its fine if it is just a portion (e.g. TT as a mode of transportation) vs central to the story.
No, you missed the point. The Treo uses an ARM cpu running at like 133Mhz, NOT a 970. The guys post was a complete troll. The 970 would leave a mini keyboard brand on your hand it'd get so hot. Not to mention that the chip itself would be half the size of the unit.
Excellent troll. You actually conned someone into giving you an "informative". I esp. like the PPC being a decendent (sic) of the 68000 series and decoding MPEG4 on the fly. Keep up the good work.
I think that what you are failing to see is how this argument is legally relevant. This suit is about a contract, not copyright or patents.
Where in my post did I say that this was a copyright issue? I said that one of the big issues was license agreements between IBM and SCO (through acquistions of the actual parties).
WRONG. SCO clams that all code enhancements that IBM made to AIX, which is a "UNIX". Is code enhancements to made to UNIX witch is the Property of SCO.
My goodness. Go back and read the myriad articles about this whole business. One of the SPECIFIC issues deals with the LICENSING of Unix to IBM (really Sequent) and what that license does and does not allow Sequent now IBM to do. SCO is NOT claiming that ALL of AIX and everything IBM has ever done to AIX is SCO property, this is completely and absolutely false.
Microsoft sees no difference between the two.
Oh please. Just because M$ likes to embed what was once application level functionality into the "OS" says nothing about the point being spoken about here. If what you're claiming was true, then ANY application written for Windoze would be a derivative and they could potentially own it.
Yeah I read it before and now I read it again. Care to show me specifically where SCO is making a claim that Linux is in and of itself a derivitive of Unix? They do say the following:
"SCO said the letter was to make Linux users aware that it believes Linux is tainted and contains unauthorized intellectual property."
Note that it doesn't say that SCO believes that it Linux is a derived work of Unix.
That would be like saying since McAfee wrote Virus Scan on top of Windows and using the information from Windows then they can't reuse any of that code in writing a Virus Scanner for any other OS.
Ummmm no. There is a huge difference between writing an application FOR an OS and writing code that is a PART of the OS. SCO is claiming that any code that becomes a PART of the OS becomes their property (rightly or wrongly). To clarify your analogy, it would be like McAfee being granted a license to make VirusScan a PART of Windows, but in return, M$ now makes claim to that code. If their license says that McAfee then can't use that code in other apps, then they'd get sued if they tried.
What SCO is claiming is that even though the code was developed by IBM (during AIX and OS/2 development) that SCO has exclusive rights over it because it constitutes a derivative of Unix.
The specific instance I'm referring to is the RCU code done by Sequent. Sequent (now IBM) licensed the Unix code and made modifications. SCO is claiming that the conditions of the original license agreement makes these modifications their property. This code they claim has now found it's way into Linux, therefore is a violation of the original license. So my statement is absolutely correct, in a nutshell. SCO is NOT claiming that Linux is a derivative of Unix, only that it contains code THAT IS.
SCO had made their bed in deciding to take advantage of the open source movement. Now they want to retroactively change the decision.
The guy in the article made a similar comment and I fail to see how it's relevant at all. The issue here is that IBM licensed some code and SCO is claiming that IBM then used this licensed code in Linux. That SCO also participated in Linux development is utterly irrelevant unless they themselves also put proprietary Unix code into Linux.
Now the issue of what took SCO so long to figure this all out might be more relevant. But it would appear that SCO and IBM have been in talks about this for a while, so it's hard to say how long the "offending" code has been there.
The old Intellivisions didn't need a fan right? Just take the guts and stick it into a l33t case. It already has video out right, as well as audio. This could be a sweeet part of your home entertainment system or in your car. If you had a big enough cluster of them in your trunk, you might even be able to play a 8kbps mp3! I bet VIA is shaking in their boots, expect a lawsuit from them on these guys any minute now!
You won't "make copies" of your own tags, you'll copy other peoples tags.
Well it depends on what you're trying to do. Let's say you're a fugitive on the run. You could clone someone else to hide from the scanners (assuming that the various systems aren't linked and can somehow throw up a red flag when the same "person" shows up in geographically different areas). However, if you're Osama (or some other terrorist), wouldn't it be much more "interesting" to clone yourself and apply it to as many people as possible (while also stealing someone elses). The amount of chaos and work it would create for any investigating agencies would definitely put you at an advantage. Plus if you did it to people going to the airport, you could effectively shut down an entire airport because of the 50 Osamas that are being detected.
This is tooo funny. All these people paranoid about RFID. OK, two categories of folks to worry about with RFID, PITA marketing and the MIB. Whatever about the marketing, just use a seperate unlisted phone# and a po box and you eliminate huge amounts of unsolicted phone calls/junk mail.
OK, now on to Big Bros. MIB knows that corps want RFID to save bucks (and maybe marketing, see above). Cool, MIB can maybe utilize it too (hey Joe bought a sixpack, how interesting, glad we have all these scanners everywhere). Best thing is, while everyone hoots and hollers about RFID, they fail to notice those "security" cams that can see your face + see what you bought + see the license plate of your car, all of which can be done TODAY, IF anyone really gave a crap that you bought some weiners and diet coke. We won't even talk about the instance when you use your CC. OK, so if Osama buys some slacks from Banana Republic using cash, we'll be able to tell if he tries to hop a Greyhound to Walla Walla because his RFID will set off the scanner. Assuming he's stupid enough to not be aware of the fact that RFID's are EVERYWHERE now, what are the odds that he can either disable, or better yet, make copies and distribute them EVERYWHERE, totally making the system worthless?
Like others have said, privacy, forget it. All us cell phone toting, internet using, CC charging, electricity using folks aint got no privacy at all. If RFID makes Walmart more efficient so it can hire more people, drop more prices, fatten their wallets, I say more power to'em. We techno elitest getting all scared and up in arms about tech, we have to take the good with the bad, once you open the box, you can't filter what escapes.
n't mean you have less bugs. The amount of time it takes to code a quality program, takes the same amount of time with more power. That is, unless you're opinion of less-buggy software is just using an obnoxious level of try-catch statements :)
Not too far off. Just better coding techniques as well as better tools. Back in the days we'd say that checking parameters and return codes was just too expensive performance wise. Yet today we have such massive horsepower, but yet we do the same things. We still have things like buffer overflows that haunt us ad nauseum. We still piece meal unit tests (when they get done at all), automated testing tools still suck, debuggers are smarter but still not nearly smart enough, etc, etc. Not saying that more processing ponies equals better code, I'm just saying that from the development point of view, just like the user point of view, much of todays horsepower goes into fluff and not into substance.
is bloated, buggy, and too expensive
Software has been following this general trend for years now (except the too expensive part). I know this is like the "when I was your age I had to walk 50 miles in the snow up hill to school at 4am" kinda whining, but I'm going to do it anyway.
Fact is, other than watching video files and ripping cd's, why is it that you need an OS that requires more RAM than you had HD space years ago for. If you map computing oomph (mips, ram, hd, video speed/resolutions) and software functionality (say on the y axis), you'd end up with an incredibly dissapointingly near flat line. With as much horse power that we have today, we should be able to create nearly bug free software because of all the majorly powerful development tools that put all this power to good use. Instead, we have majorly bloated development tools (Rational Rose et al) and environments that focus on letting people make pretty but ill conceived ui's and make a half hearted stab at helping to improve code.
Bah, humbug.
Otherwise, why is it that IBM can still make money selling AIX? If the infringement were really the reason why a proprietar Linux can't be sold, how is it that AIX (and Solaris, too, for that matter) aren't affected by it but SCO's is?
Simple, SCO does not sell hardware. IBM wouldn't sell 10 copies of AIX a year if it wasn't for the RS/6000's they run on. Similar situation for Solaris. After all, WHO has a successful Unix that doesn't sell it as part of an integral system?