EMC runs in enterprise space. Microsoft would like to. MS may have a foot in the door in that space, occasionally, but it's still relatively minor.
I'd venture to guess that there is a LOT more EMC storage running under enterprise class OSes than there are running under Microsoft. EMC may have an eye on growing their market share with MS shops, but I doubt vey much they're interested in backing off their involvement with heavy iron.
Nope. FAT32 supports fairly large filesystems. Win2k (and probably XP) will refuse to create a FAT32 filesystem larger than some threshhold (128G I think, but don't hold me to that) but they will use a larger one if presented with it. Interestingly enough, Win98SE or WinME can create the larger filesystem.
The maximum filesystem size for FAT could be (theoretically) set to any value you like, as long as you're willing to pay the price in cluster size. FAT16 nominally maxed out at 2G, yet NT4 supported a 4G FAT16 partition, with a large cluster size (128k IIRC). You could probably create a FAT16 filesystem in the terabyte range if you were willing to use approriately HUGE file allocation units (32M?) You wouldn't want to, and there is no implementation that would support it, but you could conceivably write your own.
Can't say much about engineer and scinetist *students*. I've been out of school for some time.
But it has been my experience that people employed in the scientific and engineering fields tend to have a lot more interest and knowlege of the liberal arts than liberal arts people have in science or engineering.
Then again if you're using SCO you're an enterprise anyway.
I guess that depends on what you call "enterprise". A lot of doctor's offices use a SCO system as a base for their accounting/practice management software.
I interviewed with a company that wrote software used for a sales management system used by car dealerships -- which ran on SCO. Their new version was going to be non-SCO -- they were planning on moving to Linux. Even a year ago they were having trouble stomaching SCO.
I think SCO is primarily used in vertical markets populated by small to medium sized businesses rather than anything I would characterize as "enterprise". Enterprise customers usually have IT departments with people who are familiar with good Unix behavior and can recognize a poor quality Unix. Smaller businesses don't know any better -- they have heard that Unix is clunky and aren't surprised when SCO proves to be.
I'm not a big fan of Mr. Lyons, but the first thing that jumped out at me about this article is he didn't make a single snide "linux crunchies" or "peace and love crowd" comment in the whole piece.
This is the most even handed article I've ever seen from him.
You wouldn't do it directly from the Moon to the Earth - you'd probably go Moon->LSO (lunar synchronous - I have NO idea what the equivalent of "geo" is for the moon) -> GEO -> Earth.
There is one body which is naturally at a "lunar-synchronous" orbit. That body is the Earth. Other than that, you have Lagrangian Points L4 and L5, which aren't, strictly speaking, orbits, but they'll serve the purpose. IIRC, the other Lagrangian Points aren't stable.
I'm putting my centavos on MS. They would get to come in, be a hero to the Linux community and then have a player on the inside.
Umm... Hero?
If MS bought SCO, they wouldn't be trying to be a hero to the Linux community. Continue the attack, now that I'd believe.
And that might be a lot more dangerous -- instead of a opponent with 50 million to burn on a lawsuit, we'd have a opponent with resources on the same order of magnitude as IBM. No, not as big, but in practical terms for the sake of something like this we're talking unlimited resources. And it would be a *motivated* opponent, with a lot more at stake than pumping up the stock price.
I don't think this is likely -- if MS were to pursue this strategy they'd have done it when they could have picked up SCO (and its IP) for a song.
At least here in California, I can go to any polling place as long as I can confirm my identity
Not in my part of California. I have to go to the precinct that contains the address at which I'm registered. They have my name and address on a list, and they check it off.
If I go to the wrong precinct (last election my polling place handled three precincts) they tell me I'm not listed there and to go to the correct one.
I suppose if you were registered multiple times at different addresses you might be able to scam them, but you don't just have your choice of polling places. Not in Bakersfield, anyway.
With IDE RAID, every drive needs to be on its own controller.
Well, "needs" may be too strong a word. It only needs to be on its own controller if it's not ok to lose all your data if one drive goes bad. you can put as many drives on as few controllers as you can fit. Just don't complain if you lose it all.
There was never any question as to whether there was common source in SysV and Linux.
The question as to *where that source came from* has not been answered, nor has SCO made any attempt to even address it.
SCO asserts that it is all proprietary code, and it all "belongs" to SCO. However a great deal of "free" code (BSD license) is known to have made its way back into SysV. Nothing wrong with that, the BSD license makes that perfectly acceptable. But it's still not SCO's code -- they can use it all they want, but they can't restrict its use elsewhere.
SCO/Caldera released a great deal of the legacy Unix code under a BSD type license. Not SysV, but I'd bet that a lot of that earlier code is still in SysV. Anything that made use of that earlier code did so perfectly legally, yet it may very likely match existing code still within SysV.
It doesn't matter that there is matching code. What SCO is alleging is that code that *they own* has been incorporated into Linux, and that is a completely different issue. They have still not shown *anyone* any evidence of *that*.
They cite $3M for Q3 03 for R&D. Don't know if they consider lawyer fees to be R&D, but they must have *some* coders left for the costs to be that high.
That number is down from 2002, but they are predicting that R&D costs will go up, going forward, working on UnixWare.
Partly it depends very much on the type of driving you do.
The figures I've seen here on slashdot for the Honda are 42 city, 53 highway. If I recall correctly, this is backwards from what the hybrid makers are claiming. I haven't looked at the Civic, but I think the number on the Prius I looked at were more on the order of 53 city, 42 highway. Don't hold me to precise numbers, but it was something close. The point being that these cars are *more* efficient around town than on the road.
Most people probably drive more 'around town' miles than they do highway miles. If your highway driving is in LA at rush hour that counts as 'around town'.
So your savings will be higher than you might expect from a straight comparison of the numbers, depending on the actual mix of driving environment.
Also, if you live in California, the cost per gallon is currently in the $2/gal region (or more.)
That's a Netcraft thing. You can look at a given server and mysteriously it has no stats. Check it a few days later and it has stats running back to the dawn of time. Dunno why, but it seems to work that way.
This is the first I've heard that they claim any sort of patents at all. I was under the impression that while Novell might have let them have copyrights, they held on to any applicable patents. Has there been new information that I missed?
Even before SCO started selling distributions, the alleged code existed in the codebase. If this is true, than that code is not legitimately GPL'd.
Huh?
When I bought my first copy of Caldera OpenLinux, I think it included a 2.0 kernel. C\a\l\d\e\r\a\SCO isn't even alleging any infringment prior to the 2.4 kernel.
Caldera has been selling (and contributing) to Linux since long before even they allege there was any infringing code.
Caldera is not a Johnny-come-lately to the Linux distribution biz. This didn't sneak up on them.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you figure EMC for Microsoft's partner?
EMC runs in enterprise space. Microsoft would like to. MS may have a foot in the door in that space, occasionally, but it's still relatively minor.
I'd venture to guess that there is a LOT more EMC storage running under enterprise class OSes than there are running under Microsoft. EMC may have an eye on growing their market share with MS shops, but I doubt vey much they're interested in backing off their involvement with heavy iron.
Hmm. You must have a real high voter turnout where you live.
I think the last election I voted in (against the governator) took me all of 5 minutes in and out of the door. And it was fairly busy.
Must be standing room only in your precinct.
Nope. FAT32 supports fairly large filesystems. Win2k (and probably XP) will refuse to create a FAT32 filesystem larger than some threshhold (128G I think, but don't hold me to that) but they will use a larger one if presented with it. Interestingly enough, Win98SE or WinME can create the larger filesystem.
The maximum filesystem size for FAT could be (theoretically) set to any value you like, as long as you're willing to pay the price in cluster size. FAT16 nominally maxed out at 2G, yet NT4 supported a 4G FAT16 partition, with a large cluster size (128k IIRC). You could probably create a FAT16 filesystem in the terabyte range if you were willing to use approriately HUGE file allocation units (32M?) You wouldn't want to, and there is no implementation that would support it, but you could conceivably write your own.
The correct ones are quite well known.
Using the improper word in this case is just pretentiousness, because some people think it sounds c0013r.
Morons.
Can't say much about engineer and scinetist *students*. I've been out of school for some time.
But it has been my experience that people employed in the scientific and engineering fields tend to have a lot more interest and knowlege of the liberal arts than liberal arts people have in science or engineering.
Then again if you're using SCO you're an enterprise anyway.
I guess that depends on what you call "enterprise". A lot of doctor's offices use a SCO system as a base for their accounting/practice management software.
I interviewed with a company that wrote software used for a sales management system used by car dealerships -- which ran on SCO. Their new version was going to be non-SCO -- they were planning on moving to Linux. Even a year ago they were having trouble stomaching SCO.
I think SCO is primarily used in vertical markets populated by small to medium sized businesses rather than anything I would characterize as "enterprise". Enterprise customers usually have IT departments with people who are familiar with good Unix behavior and can recognize a poor quality Unix. Smaller businesses don't know any better -- they have heard that Unix is clunky and aren't surprised when SCO proves to be.
I'm not a big fan of Mr. Lyons, but the first thing that jumped out at me about this article is he didn't make a single snide "linux crunchies" or "peace and love crowd" comment in the whole piece.
This is the most even handed article I've ever seen from him.
You wouldn't do it directly from the Moon to the Earth - you'd probably go Moon->LSO (lunar synchronous - I have NO idea what the equivalent of "geo" is for the moon) -> GEO -> Earth.
There is one body which is naturally at a "lunar-synchronous" orbit. That body is the Earth. Other than that, you have Lagrangian Points L4 and L5, which aren't, strictly speaking, orbits, but they'll serve the purpose. IIRC, the other Lagrangian Points aren't stable.
I'm putting my centavos on MS. They would get to come in, be a hero to the Linux community and then have a player on the inside.
Umm... Hero?
If MS bought SCO, they wouldn't be trying to be a hero to the Linux community. Continue the attack, now that I'd believe.
And that might be a lot more dangerous -- instead of a opponent with 50 million to burn on a lawsuit, we'd have a opponent with resources on the same order of magnitude as IBM. No, not as big, but in practical terms for the sake of something like this we're talking unlimited resources. And it would be a *motivated* opponent, with a lot more at stake than pumping up the stock price.
I don't think this is likely -- if MS were to pursue this strategy they'd have done it when they could have picked up SCO (and its IP) for a song.
But if MS were to buy SCO I'd start to worry.
At least here in California, I can go to any polling place as long as I can confirm my identity
Not in my part of California. I have to go to the precinct that contains the address at which I'm registered. They have my name and address on a list, and they check it off.
If I go to the wrong precinct (last election my polling place handled three precincts) they tell me I'm not listed there and to go to the correct one.
I suppose if you were registered multiple times at different addresses you might be able to scam them, but you don't just have your choice of polling places. Not in Bakersfield, anyway.
With IDE RAID, every drive needs to be on its own controller.
Well, "needs" may be too strong a word. It only needs to be on its own controller if it's not ok to lose all your data if one drive goes bad. you can put as many drives on as few controllers as you can fit. Just don't complain if you lose it all.
Not if you're not using RAID.
But if you are, then, yes, you need more than one controller.
Or representative either.
You mean, in case Slashdot gets slashdotted?
According to the LinxBIOS website, they are working on booting FreeBSD. OpenBSD works now, as does Win2k.
There was never any question as to whether there was common source in SysV and Linux.
The question as to *where that source came from* has not been answered, nor has SCO made any attempt to even address it.
SCO asserts that it is all proprietary code, and it all "belongs" to SCO. However a great deal of "free" code (BSD license) is known to have made its way back into SysV. Nothing wrong with that, the BSD license makes that perfectly acceptable. But it's still not SCO's code -- they can use it all they want, but they can't restrict its use elsewhere.
SCO/Caldera released a great deal of the legacy Unix code under a BSD type license. Not SysV, but I'd bet that a lot of that earlier code is still in SysV. Anything that made use of that earlier code did so perfectly legally, yet it may very likely match existing code still within SysV.
It doesn't matter that there is matching code. What SCO is alleging is that code that *they own* has been incorporated into Linux, and that is a completely different issue. They have still not shown *anyone* any evidence of *that*.
They cite $3M for Q3 03 for R&D. Don't know if they consider lawyer fees to be R&D, but they must have *some* coders left for the costs to be that high.
That number is down from 2002, but they are predicting that R&D costs will go up, going forward, working on UnixWare.
"I don't wait with baited breath about a hardware..."
:)
Didn't we just go over this... it's bated breath.
Are you sure?
Maybe he *likes* raw herring....
Partly it depends very much on the type of driving you do.
The figures I've seen here on slashdot for the Honda are 42 city, 53 highway. If I recall correctly, this is backwards from what the hybrid makers are claiming. I haven't looked at the Civic, but I think the number on the Prius I looked at were more on the order of 53 city, 42 highway. Don't hold me to precise numbers, but it was something close. The point being that these cars are *more* efficient around town than on the road.
Most people probably drive more 'around town' miles than they do highway miles. If your highway driving is in LA at rush hour that counts as 'around town'.
So your savings will be higher than you might expect from a straight comparison of the numbers, depending on the actual mix of driving environment.
Also, if you live in California, the cost per gallon is currently in the $2/gal region (or more.)
Ahem.
Microsoft Certified System Engineer
So it's MCSE, not MSCE. Which was what OP was getting at.
Still not a very high status moniker around these parts, nor most others really.
But if you're going to sneer at them, at least sneer at the right people.
That's a Netcraft thing. You can look at a given server and mysteriously it has no stats. Check it a few days later and it has stats running back to the dawn of time. Dunno why, but it seems to work that way.
Yuck.
And the difference is?
Process patents?
This is the first I've heard that they claim any sort of patents at all. I was under the impression that while Novell might have let them have copyrights, they held on to any applicable patents. Has there been new information that I missed?
Even before SCO started selling distributions, the alleged code existed in the codebase. If this is true, than that code is not legitimately GPL'd.
Huh?
When I bought my first copy of Caldera OpenLinux, I think it included a 2.0 kernel. C\a\l\d\e\r\a\SCO isn't even alleging any infringment prior to the 2.4 kernel.
Caldera has been selling (and contributing) to Linux since long before even they allege there was any infringing code.
Caldera is not a Johnny-come-lately to the Linux distribution biz. This didn't sneak up on them.