(1) Who got the grant (2) Who has the most tenure (3) Who went to the meetings (4) Who wrote the paper (5) Whoever is politically in and most needs a paper credit to keep on tenure track (6) etc.
Actually doing work tends to come dead last. Sometimes (as some recent scandals have shown), it doesn't come at all.
Also, realize that to a scientist, it's not about the credit for getting something done, it's about the fact that it needed to be done, and someone did it.
For every scientist popularized by the media, there are thousands of them of whom almost nobody has ever heard, but who were critically important for fundamental things we take for granted every day.
For example, some of the first posts in this thread were going on about retrying the Scopes "Monkey Trial" vs. Darwinian evolution, when most biologists today know that the currently accepted evolutionary theory is Jerry Pounelle's "Punctuated Equilibria", and Darwin is generally only taught for having come up with, and written about, the idea of change in species over time.
The BBC program "Science and Nature" had an episode on BBC Two, which was called "Homeopathy: The Test" which first aired last year on Tuesday 26 November, 9pm.
The results of a controlled, random, double-blind study were that the effect did not actually exist.
I think what we are seeing here is a six month editorial lead time on articles in New Scientist (giving their research department the benefit of the doubt).
I personally worked on the FreeBSD port with Alfred Perlstein; I did the initial port of the code, and Alfred did the install. It not only compiles on FreeBSD/NetBSD/OpenBSD, it runs, and it runs correctly enough to advertise printers successfully.
What isn't done is the lpr utilitity code for printer iteration integration (I started that for FreeBSD, but couldn't finish it because I have zero free time right now). It's not a task that takes a lot of thinking, it's mostly typing. Without that, you can still issue a command line command and run it through an awk script to generate printcap entries.
If Bonjour doesn't compile on Linux, then send patches; they'd be trivial to write, IMO (the FreeBSD patches were mostly about shell scripts, and default installation locations). I sit across the hall from the owner, and can easily get them integrated.
It was only a matter of time before a patent holding company case came to the attention of Slashdot.
Patent holding companies are a relatively new phenomenon. The main complaint about them by traditional companies is that they are immune to cross-license agreements. This tends to make "defensive portfolios" useless for negotiation, since there's nothing that the holding company wants, except to extort money.
The only good news is that *usually* a patent holding company - one that exists solely to hold patents, and does not produce products of its own - will not actually try to charge more for their patent royalties than some amount smaller than what it would cost to litigate the patent. That prevents them from having to defend and potentially lose a shaky or questionable patent.
The bad news is that they can't be scared off by claims that the patents are invalid, either through obviousness, prior art, or that their patent is, in fact, not being infringed. Admitting that would be admitting that their business model is fundamentally unsound.
The other bad news is that if a patent is valid, they can "camp" on an idea, and prevent anyone else from bringing a product to market, at least for the term of the patent.
You could argue that they permit small inventors to band together, and allow them to press suits against giant corporations that they would otherwise have no hope of winning. This is true, but this is not the way these companies are typically being used, at least in the software industry.
If used correctly, a patent holding compnay would permit a small inventor to not be squeezed out of markets by large companies who cross-license defensive portfolios amount themselves, effectively stifiling their competition.
IMO, the one good thing that will come out of cases like this, particularly when their opening royalty request is unrealistically high - enough that surely it'll be worth litigating, rather than simply rolling over - is that there will likely be enough cause here for companies like IBM, Apple, Sun, Microsoft, and others who depend on their defensive portfolios to encourage real reform of the patent system.
"Please! Buy our phone and make memory sticks relevent!"
"Pretty please?"
Looks like another attempt to try and get another non-standard storage format with a patent attached (anyone remember the "minidisc"?) accepted by a generally unimpressed consumer public.
Everyone wants to know how to mass produce Open Source Software projects, but they all want it in an "Starting Open Source Software Projects For Dummies" book.
No one's writing one of those, because understanding social organizations is something that's not best left to "social scientists. There's no mention in the article of mathematical modelling, or anything else that would mark him as a serious student, it's just an opinion puff-piece that happens to mention KDE.
There's a lot of work out there that's applicable to formal study, which can be leveraged for understanding how to create a maintainable Open Source Project, but it requires a formal understanding of constraint-based systems and games theory.
Recommended reading for social scientists who actually want the gig of studying OSS, rather than the gig of being trade journal pundits:
Nonlinear Dynamics, Mathematical Biology and Social Science (Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity Lecture Notes) Joshua M. Epstein ISBN: 0201419882
The Evolution of Cooperation Robert Axelrod ISBN: 0465021212
The Economy As an Evolving Complex System (Sante Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, Vol 5) Philip W. Anderson ISBN: 0201156857
Can we maybe see something about a study of OSS projects that isn't just another puff-piece?
Anyone else read the partially dissenting opinion?
Judge Feikens claimed that, because Lexmark admitted that there was a "magic bit" that would turn off the TLP sequence, that SCC should have found it.
This really presumes that they knew that there even was a "magic bit" in the first place.
This is, IMO, insane. Without apriori knowledge of the existance of a bit even existing, how were they supposed to have found it?!?
Other people might look at this as a victory against the DMCA, but I, for one, don't think that the judge who could have written that dissenting opinion still being a seated judge, able to hear future DMCA cases, using the same flawed logic, counts as a victory.
Unfortunately, the position is appointed and not elected, so it's not like we're going to get rid of him as easily as voting someone else into office instead.
I have no patience with people who decided to become software engineers (or doctors or lawyers or golf ball polishers) because they thought/were told/read somewhere/had a divine revelation that "that's where the money is".
People who decide to go after work that they don't enjoy in order to make more money than they think they would at something that they enjoyed, are doomed to be miserable. They will be be miserable IN their job, they will be miserable AT their job, and they will make the people around them miserable, too.
Having a vendor certification/college degree/union card doesn't mean you will be happy at a job, and it doesn't mean you will be successful at one, either.
Find something you really enjoy doing, and then find someone willing to pay you to do it, and you will be happy.
And if you're happy, you won't need to bitch about how terrible the job market is, or how your "investment" in your certification/college degree/union card "is not paying off". A job is not something you can buy from a diploma store, or that you have a right to, having spent some requisite amount of money at one.
I've interviewed a lot of people for a lot of jobs, and I'll tell you right now: I don't hire or recommend hiring people if they don't enjoy doing what it is they are going to be doing on a daily basis as part of their job, and do it well. Other things matter too, but that's the A-number-one gating factor for me giving you a thumbs up.
For a software engineering job, if you weren't one of the people who hung out at the computer lab simply because you enjoyed being around the machines and other people who also enjoyed that, then I don't care that you received straight A's for the Visual C++ work you turned in from your home PC without ever interacting with another human being who was interested in the same type of thing, before you went to the frat party and drank yourself stupid.
Work -- and life -- is not something you skate by on, with the minimum acceptable level of effort, so you can do "something you actually like" after it's over.
You may or may not be a skater -- if you aren't, I'm sorry that you're so bad at selling yourself to prosective employers, or that you love doing something you aren't very good at; either figure out a way to address your shortcomings, or pick something *else* you like to do, and do that instead.
But if you are one of those people who picked their career based on a "top salaries" list, and then skated through college on the minimum possible effort to maintain a nice looking GPA, looking for the high paying job at the end of the rainbow, the world is probably better off if you are stuck asking those of us who didn't "Would you like fries with that?".
As an engineer, what I *do* is write apps, start them, test them, make changes to them, and then... start them again.
Maybe you are right, that startup time doesn't matter when running applications.
But it sure as heck *does* matter when you are developing them.
Maybe Java is cool for people who run applications? As a developer, I have to say, it's not cool for me. I can't drink enough tea/water/whatever or find enough else to waste time on while I'm waiting for the JVM before I can do more work.
-- Terry
I see a lot of complaints about "jumping the list"
on
Todd Need[ed] a Liver
·
· Score: 1
I see a lot of complaints about "jumping the list".
Yes the guy "jumped the list'; the fact is that "more money" almost always equals "more life"; you don't have to look to liver transplants to find extreme examples of this.
The thing that amazes me is how much people are offended by him "jumping the list', when in fact liver transplants are one area where the list isn't really as meaningful as it is for other organs, such as corneas, hearts, pancreas, lungs, and so on.
In actually, the liver, like the kidney, is one where no one ned die for lack of a cadaver donor.
The liver is an organ that can be replaced via a live donor transplant. In a live donor transplant, the right lobe of the donor's liver is transplanted, and the remaining liver in the donor grows back to full size in about 14 days. Although the large blood vessel and bile duct structures are not replaced, there is enough small structure that is replaced that, while not suitable for repeat donation, the regrown right lobe is as efficient for the donor as the original was.
I'm actually really surprised that, if he were that desperate, that a member of his family (or his wife, if they were from compatable blood groups), didn't simply volunteer as a live donor.
That's a handy reference document for SCO, the version 1.2 of the specification. Too bad it wasn't the first published version:
Google for "pfmt11.pdf"; here is the most interesting and damning excerpt: - "Some of the major reasons for selecting this format are the public nature of the specification and the fact that the PLSIG and ABICC standardization committees can enhance its formats." -
This version came out of USL and UNIX International, who are jointly credited with the creation of the ELF 1.1 standard. Even if USL could argue rights, the current SCO can't. This standard, along with the DWARF standard, TET, ETET, and the last draft of Specification 1170 (the original Single UNIX Specification) were published on the UNIX International FTP server. UNIX International was a legal agent for USL at the time of publication.
If you want to check into anything, check into the contractual agreements between USL and UI with regard to what rights UI did or did not have. You will find that they had full rights to publish the standard on behalf of their member USL.
In the interests of full disclosure, I was a Novell/USG ("UNIX Systems Group") employee at the time. Novell/USG was comprised of the NWU ("NetWare for UNIX"), NUC ("NetWare UNIX Client"), and the former USL. I'm one of the people who rescued the public content of the UNIX International FTP server and found it a new home at various other corporate sites when UNIX International effectively disolved in 1994. One of the documents rescued was this very document.
In DCE RPC, the receiver does the byte swapping, if necessary. One of the main reasons Windows network services are built on DCE RPC is that between homogenous systems, there's no swapping taking place: all that data goes out in host byte order, and there's no such thing as network bte order.
One of the big arguments about this had to do with Windows machines on Intel not "playing fair" with systems that natively implement network byte order as their host byte order. When talking to Intel boxes, these machine have to gain additional overhead.
This also gives a big disadvantage to servers whose byte order doesn't match that of their predominant clients.
Actually, from a computational overhead point of view, a more correct approach would have been to have "client swaps to seerver byte order", to put the computational overhead on the most efficient side of the link for it (by offloading the most computationally loaded component, the server).
As far as I recollect, this lost out in committee to people who were arguing against it in order to have leverage to enforce vendor lock-in for both clients and servers. 8-(.
A fundamental weakness in the blog paradigm is that there is CGI software between you and your raw data, in order to impose a style on it. This is particularly true of third party hosting, which provides cookie-cuter blogs through common software, where the only thing that differes from user to user is a few settings and their URL.
Backups usually only make sense if (1) you can get at the raw, preformatted data, and (2) that getting at that data will do you any good -- e.g. you will be able to externalize it the same way somewhere else.
At this point, blog-hosting service providers really don't have standards for their variable data, so even if you had a backup, it really wouldn't get your blog back up on the net, without a lot of work.
Sun paid Novell for a non-exclusive, non-revokable license to the SVR4 sources prior to the sale to SCO, in the early 1990's, and far prior to the sale of SCO to Caldera. I believe the figure for this was ~$81M.
If they open-source it, this would be an arrow in the back of SCO, since it provides a route for all of the SVR4 source code to find its way into other code, eithout going through SCO as a gatekeeper.
Slashdot Mirror
The Article title is incorrect.
The correct title should be:
"Internet-enabled mobile devices have poor resolution displays"
Anyone else remember when the highest resolution laptop computers available had 640x480 displays?
-- Terry
System Preferences ...then just zoom the images:
-> Universal Access
-> Zoom: ON
command option = zoom in
command option - zoom out
-- Terry
Why it so unacceptable to introduce the idea of "Intelligent Design" when everything about life is so structured and orderly?
No after market support from the manufacturer?
-- Terry
Credit order generally boils down to:
(1) Who got the grant
(2) Who has the most tenure
(3) Who went to the meetings
(4) Who wrote the paper
(5) Whoever is politically in and most needs a paper credit to keep on tenure track
(6) etc.
Actually doing work tends to come dead last. Sometimes (as some recent scandals have shown), it doesn't come at all.
Also, realize that to a scientist, it's not about the credit for getting something done, it's about the fact that it needed to be done, and someone did it.
For every scientist popularized by the media, there are thousands of them of whom almost nobody has ever heard, but who were critically important for fundamental things we take for granted every day.
For example, some of the first posts in this thread were going on about retrying the Scopes "Monkey Trial" vs. Darwinian evolution, when most biologists today know that the currently accepted evolutionary theory is Jerry Pounelle's "Punctuated Equilibria", and Darwin is generally only taught for having come up with, and written about, the idea of change in species over time.
-- Terry
The BBC program "Science and Nature" had an episode on BBC Two, which was called "Homeopathy: The Test" which first aired last year on Tuesday 26 November, 9pm.
t hytrans.shtml
The results of a controlled, random, double-blind study were that the effect did not actually exist.
Here's the link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopa
I think what we are seeing here is a six month editorial lead time on articles in New Scientist (giving their research department the benefit of the doubt).
-- Terry
The technique you are looking for is called "cache coloring". If you search for those two terms in Citeseer, you'll get about 60 papers back.
Effectively, multicore architectures are morally very similar to ccNUMA. In both cases you're talking a hierarchy of execution units.
I personally worked on the FreeBSD port with Alfred Perlstein; I did the initial port of the code, and Alfred did the install. It not only compiles on FreeBSD/NetBSD/OpenBSD, it runs, and it runs correctly enough to advertise printers successfully.
What isn't done is the lpr utilitity code for printer iteration integration (I started that for FreeBSD, but couldn't finish it because I have zero free time right now). It's not a task that takes a lot of thinking, it's mostly typing. Without that, you can still issue a command line command and run it through an awk script to generate printcap entries.
If Bonjour doesn't compile on Linux, then send patches; they'd be trivial to write, IMO (the FreeBSD patches were mostly about shell scripts, and default installation locations). I sit across the hall from the owner, and can easily get them integrated.
-- Terry
It was only a matter of time before a patent holding company case came to the attention of Slashdot.
Patent holding companies are a relatively new phenomenon. The main complaint about them by traditional companies is that they are immune to cross-license agreements. This tends to make "defensive portfolios" useless for negotiation, since there's nothing that the holding company wants, except to extort money.
The only good news is that *usually* a patent holding company - one that exists solely to hold patents, and does not produce products of its own - will not actually try to charge more for their patent royalties than some amount smaller than what it would cost to litigate the patent. That prevents them from having to defend and potentially lose a shaky or questionable patent.
The bad news is that they can't be scared off by claims that the patents are invalid, either through obviousness, prior art, or that their patent is, in fact, not being infringed. Admitting that would be admitting that their business model is fundamentally unsound.
The other bad news is that if a patent is valid, they can "camp" on an idea, and prevent anyone else from bringing a product to market, at least for the term of the patent.
You could argue that they permit small inventors to band together, and allow them to press suits against giant corporations that they would otherwise have no hope of winning. This is true, but this is not the way these companies are typically being used, at least in the software industry.
If used correctly, a patent holding compnay would permit a small inventor to not be squeezed out of markets by large companies who cross-license defensive portfolios amount themselves, effectively stifiling their competition.
IMO, the one good thing that will come out of cases like this, particularly when their opening royalty request is unrealistically high - enough that surely it'll be worth litigating, rather than simply rolling over - is that there will likely be enough cause here for companies like IBM, Apple, Sun, Microsoft, and others who depend on their defensive portfolios to encourage real reform of the patent system.
-- Terry
I always preferred Anthony Chambers to Voltaire...
"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to die in a fire of suspicious origin" - Anthony Chambers
-- Terry
"Please! Buy our phone and make memory sticks relevent!"
"Pretty please?"
Looks like another attempt to try and get another non-standard storage format with a patent attached (anyone remember the "minidisc"?) accepted by a generally unimpressed consumer public.
-- Terry
Everyone wants to know how to mass produce Open Source Software projects, but they all want it in an "Starting Open Source Software Projects For Dummies" book.
No one's writing one of those, because understanding social organizations is something that's not best left to "social scientists. There's no mention in the article of mathematical modelling, or anything else that would mark him as a serious student, it's just an opinion puff-piece that happens to mention KDE.
There's a lot of work out there that's applicable to formal study, which can be leveraged for understanding how to create a maintainable Open Source Project, but it requires a formal understanding of constraint-based systems and games theory.
Recommended reading for social scientists who actually want the gig of studying OSS, rather than the gig of being trade journal pundits:
Nonlinear Dynamics, Mathematical Biology and Social Science (Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity Lecture Notes)
Joshua M. Epstein
ISBN: 0201419882
The Evolution of Cooperation
Robert Axelrod
ISBN: 0465021212
The Economy As an Evolving Complex System (Sante Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, Vol 5)
Philip W. Anderson
ISBN: 0201156857
Can we maybe see something about a study of OSS projects that isn't just another puff-piece?
-- Terry
Anyone else read this as "Denying rumors that they had asked several stores to pull the game from elves..."?
I was wondering of gnomes would be next...
-- Terry
Finally!
Something that will decoy the tornados away from mobile homes!
-- Terry
Anyone else read the partially dissenting opinion?
Judge Feikens claimed that, because Lexmark admitted that there was a "magic bit" that would turn off the TLP sequence, that SCC should have found it.
This really presumes that they knew that there even was a "magic bit" in the first place.
This is, IMO, insane. Without apriori knowledge of the existance of a bit even existing, how were they supposed to have found it?!?
Other people might look at this as a victory against the DMCA, but I, for one, don't think that the judge who could have written that dissenting opinion still being a seated judge, able to hear future DMCA cases, using the same flawed logic, counts as a victory.
Unfortunately, the position is appointed and not elected, so it's not like we're going to get rid of him as easily as voting someone else into office instead.
-- Terry
There is prior art in the forced proxy authentication in the Whistle InterJet, circa 1997/1998, prior to the purchase of the company by IBM.
-- Terry (former Whistle Communications and IBM employee)
Quit trying to follow the money, and be happy.
I have no patience with people who decided to become software engineers (or doctors or lawyers or golf ball polishers) because they thought/were told/read somewhere/had a divine revelation that "that's where the money is".
People who decide to go after work that they don't enjoy in order to make more money than they think they would at something that they enjoyed, are doomed to be miserable. They will be be miserable IN their job, they will be miserable AT their job, and they will make the people around them miserable, too.
Having a vendor certification/college degree/union card doesn't mean you will be happy at a job, and it doesn't mean you will be successful at one, either.
Find something you really enjoy doing, and then find someone willing to pay you to do it, and you will be happy.
And if you're happy, you won't need to bitch about how terrible the job market is, or how your "investment" in your certification/college degree/union card "is not paying off". A job is not something you can buy from a diploma store, or that you have a right to, having spent some requisite amount of money at one.
I've interviewed a lot of people for a lot of jobs, and I'll tell you right now: I don't hire or recommend hiring people if they don't enjoy doing what it is they are going to be doing on a daily basis as part of their job, and do it well. Other things matter too, but that's the A-number-one gating factor for me giving you a thumbs up.
For a software engineering job, if you weren't one of the people who hung out at the computer lab simply because you enjoyed being around the machines and other people who also enjoyed that, then I don't care that you received straight A's for the Visual C++ work you turned in from your home PC without ever interacting with another human being who was interested in the same type of thing, before you went to the frat party and drank yourself stupid.
Work -- and life -- is not something you skate by on, with the minimum acceptable level of effort, so you can do "something you actually like" after it's over.
You may or may not be a skater -- if you aren't, I'm sorry that you're so bad at selling yourself to prosective employers, or that you love doing something you aren't very good at; either figure out a way to address your shortcomings, or pick something *else* you like to do, and do that instead.
But if you are one of those people who picked their career based on a "top salaries" list, and then skated through college on the minimum possible effort to maintain a nice looking GPA, looking for the high paying job at the end of the rainbow, the world is probably better off if you are stuck asking those of us who didn't "Would you like fries with that?".
-- Terry
YES, My apps are restarting.
... start them again.
Of course they are restarting.
As an engineer, what I *do* is write apps, start them, test them, make changes to them, and then
Maybe you are right, that startup time doesn't matter when running applications.
But it sure as heck *does* matter when you are developing them.
Maybe Java is cool for people who run applications? As a developer, I have to say, it's not cool for me. I can't drink enough tea/water/whatever or find enough else to waste time on while I'm waiting for the JVM before I can do more work.
-- Terry
I see a lot of complaints about "jumping the list".
Yes the guy "jumped the list'; the fact is that "more money" almost always equals "more life"; you don't have to look to liver transplants to find extreme examples of this.
The thing that amazes me is how much people are offended by him "jumping the list', when in fact liver transplants are one area where the list isn't really as meaningful as it is for other organs, such as corneas, hearts, pancreas, lungs, and so on.
In actually, the liver, like the kidney, is one where no one ned die for lack of a cadaver donor.
The liver is an organ that can be replaced via a live donor transplant. In a live donor transplant, the right lobe of the donor's liver is transplanted, and the remaining liver in the donor grows back to full size in about 14 days. Although the large blood vessel and bile duct structures are not replaced, there is enough small structure that is replaced that, while not suitable for repeat donation, the regrown right lobe is as efficient for the donor as the original was.
I'm actually really surprised that, if he were that desperate, that a member of his family (or his wife, if they were from compatable blood groups), didn't simply volunteer as a live donor.
-- Terry
"...as well as an eight-track tape..."
Let me guess... Steppenwolf's "Magic Carpet Ride".
Sorry, but "Brian Feeney" just doesn't have the same ring as "Zefram Cochrane"...
-- Terry
John Small Berries?
How far is Summit, NJ from Grover's Mill, again?
-- Terry
TIS, UNIX International, and ELF 1.1
That's a handy reference document for SCO, the version 1.2 of the specification. Too bad it wasn't the first published version:
Google for "pfmt11.pdf"; here is the most interesting and damning excerpt:
-
"Some of the major reasons for selecting this format are the public nature of the specification and the fact that the PLSIG and ABICC standardization committees can enhance its formats."
-
This version came out of USL and UNIX International, who are jointly credited with the creation of the ELF 1.1 standard. Even if USL could argue rights, the current SCO can't. This standard, along with the DWARF standard, TET, ETET, and the last draft of Specification 1170 (the original Single UNIX Specification) were published on the UNIX International FTP server. UNIX International was a legal agent for USL at the time of publication.
If you want to check into anything, check into the contractual agreements between USL and UI with regard to what rights UI did or did not have. You will find that they had full rights to publish the standard on behalf of their member USL.
In the interests of full disclosure, I was a Novell/USG ("UNIX Systems Group") employee at the time. Novell/USG was comprised of the NWU ("NetWare for UNIX"), NUC ("NetWare UNIX Client"), and the former USL. I'm one of the people who rescued the public content of the UNIX International FTP server and found it a new home at various other corporate sites when UNIX International effectively disolved in 1994. One of the documents rescued was this very document.
-- Terry
Receiver swaps.
In DCE RPC, the receiver does the byte swapping, if necessary. One of the main reasons Windows network services are built on DCE RPC is that between homogenous systems, there's no swapping taking place: all that data goes out in host byte order, and there's no such thing as network bte order.
One of the big arguments about this had to do with Windows machines on Intel not "playing fair" with systems that natively implement network byte order as their host byte order. When talking to Intel boxes, these machine have to gain additional overhead.
This also gives a big disadvantage to servers whose byte order doesn't match that of their predominant clients.
Actually, from a computational overhead point of view, a more correct approach would have been to have "client swaps to seerver byte order", to put the computational overhead on the most efficient side of the link for it (by offloading the most computationally loaded component, the server).
As far as I recollect, this lost out in committee to people who were arguing against it in order to have leverage to enforce vendor lock-in for both clients and servers. 8-(.
-- Terry
To all saying users should backup their blogs...
Exactly how are they supposed to do this?
A fundamental weakness in the blog paradigm is that there is CGI software between you and your raw data, in order to impose a style on it. This is particularly true of third party hosting, which provides cookie-cuter blogs through common software, where the only thing that differes from user to user is a few settings and their URL.
Backups usually only make sense if (1) you can get at the raw, preformatted data, and (2) that getting at that data will do you any good -- e.g. you will be able to externalize it the same way somewhere else.
At this point, blog-hosting service providers really don't have standards for their variable data, so even if you had a backup, it really wouldn't get your blog back up on the net, without a lot of work.
-- Terry
Interesting SCO tie-in???
Sun paid Novell for a non-exclusive, non-revokable license to the SVR4 sources prior to the sale to SCO, in the early 1990's, and far prior to the sale of SCO to Caldera. I believe the figure for this was ~$81M.
If they open-source it, this would be an arrow in the back of SCO, since it provides a route for all of the SVR4 source code to find its way into other code, eithout going through SCO as a gatekeeper.
-- Terry
Woody Allen says...
"Some people want to achieve immortality
through their works or their descendants; I
want to achieve immortality through not dying."
-- Woody Allen