> And where pray tell will your calls go without a PSTN gateway > your Ass-terisk server can register to after Vonage is Gone-age?
One only needs a PSTN gatway if one wants to call to or from a PSTN.
The hardware (this _is_ a hardware topic...) might still be useful for Internet to Internet communication, if the box can be reprogrammed.
> How will you receive calls from the PSTN without a LEC > (or CLEC partner) to take calls to your DID and flip it to SIP or H.323 > to relay to you? > There's a LOT more infrastructure involved than a simple ATA device.
Sounds like the early days of Linux : "Nobody wants your hobby kernel 'cause there is no applications to run on it and there never will be"
There are *-MILLIONS-* of these little RPT300 boxes out there. If/when Vonage goes tits-up, they will be flooding the Goodwoll thrift shops. Without software, they will all mostly end up in the landfill. With software, they might find a good use.
The question is "What CAN we do with a simple ATA".
Yeah, it amazes me how many people have apparently forgotten all but two words of that debate answer. To help them, I'll include it here:
KERRY: The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.
[...]
But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.
Kerry is not, of course, the first American to concern themselves with world opinion. The very preamble to the American Declaration of Independence states:
"... a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them..."
(not that I would expect this Prentender-In-Chief to know, understand, or respect American history or the principles upon which it was founded.)
just down the road from me, an ATM machine was stolen from inside a convenience store. (Johnson Creek Market, Portland Oregon, 2 or 3 years back). the thieves gained entry by backing a truck through the front door. They chained the ATM to the back of the truck and drove off, dragging their prize for two blocks, where they stopped and loaded the machine into the back of the truck.
no suspects, and the carcass has not been recovered. I've heard of other similar ATM heists.
Another one, but i think suspects were eventually arrested: man in uniform with clipboard has clerk sign a form, gives her a receipt, and wheels the ATM out to the waiting truck.
i ran into a similar siutation w/ a 'Sotec' laptop - the XP software came on a 3 cd image set which used Symantec Ghost to copy it to the hard drive as one big NTFS partition.
step 1: use partition magic to shrink the installed NTFS down to managable size.
step 2: install linux.
step 3: use dd to image the NTFS off to cdrom to create new XP recovery set of desired size.
Isn't Microsoft just making more and more people aware of Linux and how good of a Windows replacement it's becoming? Seems sort of counter-productive to give your #2 threat a lot of free publicity. Doesn't seem like the sort of thing a huge company would tell the public.
That is why free software is only #2 on Bill's list.
We'll see what happens, but at the moment all that SCO is paying for is the bandwidth that we make them use every time we visit their site because of this FUD.
speaking of bandwidth, i was amused to see that ftp.sco.com was still offering rsync of mucho GNU/Linux software, up until about oh 06/27 04:20 GMT, then the service went down. but the ftp server is still up.
Even with their recent license, according to sources in SCO, M$ only licensed the API layer. Why would they point that out? And why is M$ so smug about all this, even through all the vailed threats SCO is making against them? It seems to me that if they had any common sense they would be looking out for their long term interests, which ideally would mean crushing the SCO bug before it grows into a monster.
i suspect MS is well watching out for their long term interests. if SCO loses, fine, the fud damage is still done, at very little cost to MS. if SCO wins, even better, a windfall for MS as it's chief competitor is damaged. if SCO becomes a monster it will be as a parasite upon the *ix world, not the MS world.
i suspect that if SCO wins, MS will be ready with a second punch to hit the damaged GNU/Linux/BSD/Unix/etc worlds with.
and is keeping the door open for an eventual 'MS-ix' which would of course be their own not unix but compatible product. and so for this reason, SCO points out the limitations to the API license.
i suspect MS is quite confident that their lawyers can beat SCO,
too.
I guess it's like the old saying goes, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"
Not to be too critical, but did it seem that that "lawyer" basically just wrote a book report from previous slashdot stories? I'm NOT a lawyer, but could have come up with that.
NO you could not have.
there is a difference, a big difference, between
an Anonymous Coward IANAL saying "the SCO suit has no merit", and a law professor saying "the SCO suit has no merit".
sure there are no new facts, no brilliant new insights there, (nor from you). it's an opinion piece. What is significant is not what was said, but who signed their name to it.
I think that MS and SCO want to spread FUD for as long as possible, knowing full well that this case won't get anywhere. Even if they do win in court, they are withholding the offensive code because they know once they present it, the Linux community will up and change it. If they were to present it now, Linux can move merrily along (though IBM may still be liable to damages). They want to hurt the GNU/Linux movement for as long as possible though.
This may work against them.
it may be quite dramatic when code introduced after the start of the trial is replaced before the end of the trial. (if indeed any code is ever submitted as evidence).
it might help the jury understand the pettiness of SCO claims.
it might be an interesting hook for the media to work over, maybe catch a clue about the power of open source.
Re:What SCO is really afraid of.
on
My Visit to SCO
·
· Score: 1
"[SCO] said that until the parties go to court, it doesn't want the Linux community to remove the code in question. SCO thinks it's more than changing a few lines of code."
I'd bet a all the money I have that if that "offending" code was revealed tonight we'd have it all rewritten by Monday morning. The Linux community is more angry about this than anything that has ever touched it. All that anger would be unleached in an orgy of coding the likes of which even God has not seen.
SCO is afraid the reason for thier lawsuit will vanish is they reveal their hand
I think SCO's timing will work against them.
Any legitimately offending code will still vanish before the case goes to the jury. That is when the greatest media attention will be, and the greatest PR value. It will be even more
dramatic that it was replaced during the trial.
It gives the story a nice hook that non-geek minds
can latch on to.
Slashdot Mirror
> And where pray tell will your calls go without a PSTN gateway
...)
> your Ass-terisk server can register to after Vonage is Gone-age?
One only needs a PSTN gatway if one
wants to call to or from a PSTN.
The hardware
(this _is_ a hardware topic
might still be useful for Internet to Internet communication,
if the box can be reprogrammed.
> How will you receive calls from the PSTN without a LEC
> (or CLEC partner) to take calls to your DID and flip it to SIP or H.323
> to relay to you?
> There's a LOT more infrastructure involved than a simple ATA device.
Sounds like the early days of Linux : "Nobody wants your hobby
kernel 'cause there is no applications to run on it and there
never will be"
There are *-MILLIONS-* of these little RPT300 boxes out there.
If/when Vonage goes tits-up, they will be flooding the Goodwoll
thrift shops. Without software, they will all mostly end up in
the landfill. With software, they might find a good use.
The question is "What CAN we do with a simple ATA".
-W-
supposing the worst, (Vonage dies or is given to Verizon), can the hardware be salvaged for some other use?
...
I've got the Linksys RTP300 box. If i understand correctly, the firmware has been 'updated' by Vonage to work only with Vonage service
It would be really cool if Vonage could, as a last act, stuff it with a linux kernel and Asterix.
Since I don't expect that to happen, is it possible to do that myself?
Yeah, it amazes me how many people have apparently forgotten all but two words of that debate answer. To help them, I'll include it here:
KERRY: The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.
[...]
But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.
Kerry is not, of course, the first American to concern themselves with world opinion. The very preamble to the American Declaration of Independence states:
"... a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them
(not that I would expect this Prentender-In-Chief to know, understand, or respect American history or the principles upon which it was founded.)
So you think ? In spite of all evidence? Sounds more like simple fear than careful thought.
Portland Oregon USA
just down the road from me, an ATM machine was stolen from inside a convenience store. (Johnson Creek Market, Portland Oregon, 2 or 3 years back). the thieves gained entry by backing a truck through the front door. They chained the ATM to the back of the truck and drove off, dragging their prize for two blocks, where they stopped and loaded the machine into the back of the truck.
no suspects, and the carcass has not been recovered. I've heard of other similar ATM heists.
Another one, but i think suspects were eventually arrested: man in uniform with clipboard has clerk sign a form, gives her a receipt, and wheels the ATM out to the waiting truck.
how much is SCO asking for their Linux license on this little beauty?
The license you bought, you can wipe your arse with, it's all its good for.
well it might have some value to collectors someday. like Confederate money.
The goal of almost any business is to maximes shareholders' value, not provide job security or anything else.
Allright then - go talk to some Enron shareholders then.
Personally, I'd like to see SCO get bought out by the Linux community, who then votes to oust the CEOs without a golden parachute
aw, don't fire them.
transfer them to the housekeeping staff,
give them a toiletbrush,
a very small toiletbrush,
and put them to cleaning the men's room.
i ran into a similar siutation w/ a 'Sotec' laptop - the XP software came on a 3 cd image set which used Symantec Ghost to copy it to the hard drive as one big NTFS partition.
step 1: use partition magic to shrink the installed NTFS down to managable size.
step 2: install linux.
step 3: use dd to image the NTFS off to cdrom
to create new XP recovery set of desired size.
step 4: rock!
That is why free software is only #2 on Bill's list.
speaking of bandwidth, i was amused to see that ftp.sco.com was still offering rsync of mucho GNU/Linux software, up until about oh 06/27 04:20 GMT, then the service went down. but the ftp server is still up.
6 down 20GB to go
i suspect MS is well watching out for their long term interests. if SCO loses, fine, the fud damage is still done, at very little cost to MS. if SCO wins, even better, a windfall for MS as it's chief competitor is damaged. if SCO becomes a monster it will be as a parasite upon the *ix world, not the MS world.
i suspect that if SCO wins, MS will be ready with a second punch to hit the damaged GNU/Linux/BSD/Unix/etc worlds with. and is keeping the door open for an eventual 'MS-ix' which would of course be their own not unix but compatible product. and so for this reason, SCO points out the limitations to the API license.
i suspect MS is quite confident that their lawyers can beat SCO, too.
I guess it's like the old saying goes, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"
that mistake can be very expensive.
NO you could not have.
there is a difference, a big difference, between an Anonymous Coward IANAL saying "the SCO suit has no merit", and a law professor saying "the SCO suit has no merit".
sure there are no new facts, no brilliant new insights there, (nor from you). it's an opinion piece. What is significant is not what was said, but who signed their name to it.
This may work against them.
it may be quite dramatic when code introduced after the start of the trial is replaced before the end of the trial. (if indeed any code is ever submitted as evidence).
it might help the jury understand the pettiness of SCO claims.
it might be an interesting hook for the media to work over, maybe catch a clue about the power of open source.
I'd bet a all the money I have that if that "offending" code was revealed tonight we'd have it all rewritten by Monday morning. The Linux community is more angry about this than anything that has ever touched it. All that anger would be unleached in an orgy of coding the likes of which even God has not seen.
SCO is afraid the reason for thier lawsuit will vanish is they reveal their hand
I think SCO's timing will work against them. Any legitimately offending code will still vanish before the case goes to the jury. That is when the greatest media attention will be, and the greatest PR value. It will be even more dramatic that it was replaced during the trial. It gives the story a nice hook that non-geek minds can latch on to.
imagine a beowulf cluster of plaintiffs...
... film at eleven!
and Oregon has Helen Fry.
you want Justice? goto Helen Fry!
's truth.