SCO was a division of Microsoft. Microsoft's Santa Cruz Operation produced Microsoft Xenix, a System 3 variant based on licensed AT&T code. It was the first UNIX Operating System to run on the Intel 8086.
'Bill Gates' did not "use SCO as a hedge in case windows failed." Windows itself didn't exist until after Microsoft had divested themselves of SCO and Xenix. The word is (**) that Gates wanted to be rid of Xenix because all they were doing was reselling something and paying substancial royalties for each sale to AT&T.
(** I belive the place I read it may have been from a post by Linux Zealot 'Rex Ballard' on the linux.advocacy newsgroup, so take it with a grain of salt!)
Linux doesn't follow Minix in any way implying there's Minix code in the Linux kernal. Linus was part of the Minix hacking community for a time and he decided to stop messing around with Minix (the 'ensigns training ship' of OSes- truly a pedagogical work for students to learn from) and create something new.
The early Linux system used the Minix filesystem structure. That's about it.
If the code they are claiming infringes on their rights is new code that isn't in any of their distributions, they're not sucked into a GPL vortex retroactively. If that were the case, and in fact if it proves to be the case, I can see all sorts of businesses taking another look at the risks of releasing GPL'd code.
Lots of people do cheat when they play euchre as a team. At least that's the case online at gaming sites like pogo.com, where all four players are at seperate locations playing the java-based euchre pogo offers. In a real physical euchre game the teammates can't have an Instant Message client going between each other that the other team doesn't see.
We're all too busy slagging SCO to answer that. It does bring to mind the question of wether IBM is at fault for corrupting the Linux source by bringing in dubious code. Could it be IBM hasn't been as good for Linux as many have been implying?
The grandparent post kind of implied that he only installs.deb files. That's a real advantage to sticking with party-line GNU/Debian, after all. I apologize if I misinterpreted what he said.
I primarily use the NetBSD pkgsrc method, compiling from source, on my Unix boxes. The only binaries are the core distribution, which is under 80 Mb of really essential stuff. It's about the same thing as going all Debian. But when I run into something cool I want that isn't mainstream enough, sure, I'll pull in a source tarball from outside and build and install it.
My point is, that doesn't allow one to drag in all kinds of binary code, i.e. games and what-not. Hell, it means that it can take forever to build Mozilla if you choose to build from source.
The well-designed system that Free Software represents actually opposes binary software distribution by design. Maybe in a few years that tactic will bring us everything that could be wanted on a computer system. Not yet, though.
Re:It is not called...
on
An IMDb for Books
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Every time I visit the Amazon website (to read reviews, I would never purchase a book from them) I worry about all that information people are submitting to one of the great sinking ships of the Internet. If and when Amazon.com goes belly up, or becomes even more just another buy.com site spamming our eyeballs with whatever consumer crap is bringing in sales, what is going to happen to all the reviews and content people are voluntarily contributing? I'd surely rather it were going to a non-profit site ('profit' is not bad, it's just that part of the profit-loss system necessitates that companies and their websites die on occasion).
It looks like the site has a good start. One problem, though. The list of 'most popular' books reads like a reading list from the comic-bookstore-guy fan association. All that genre fiction: the Neil Gaiman, Douglas Adams, Tolkein. Ayn Rand! One worries how soon Elron the Hubbard will appear. That's all subcult stuff. Hopefully as the site grows a more mainstream focus will take hold.
Furthermore, on Debian GNU/Linux I never have "DLL misery" because my operating system is not brain-dead.
And, because you only install software version-controlled and inspected by Debian. That's like only installing software on your Macintosh that you download from the Apple website. It's probably much more stable than buying software you want to use at stores and downloading useful stuff off third party websites, but it's very limiting.
The Internet is not an organic whole. It is a big collection of Networks, with a vast array of kinds of information available on it. Some of it is valueable, some of it is a crock.
It is not a large seamless single book. It's scary as hell that people want to pretend that is the case.
Ray Noorda (who bought DR-DOS solely to sue Microsoft) needed to find a new business model other than suing Microsoft for IP that his company didn't create. But we cheered him on because he was fighting the good fight against evile Microsoft.
How come nobody seems to be discussing the fact that it sounds like IBM might have tainted the Linux code base? That's at least as big a problem as SCO going after them for said act.
Is IBM really as good for Linux as some people seem to insist?
Microsoft had this product called Xenix on the market (the first UNIX port to the Intel 8086 processor) before IBM ever approached them to produce a DOS. They were not a mere piddly BASIC vendor.
Surprise, surprise, when they left the Unix market they split their Xenix group off to become.... the Santa Cruz Operation (SCO).
As early as fifteen years ago there wouldn't have been a single slashdot reader who wouldn't be saying 'yay SCO' because IBM is the evil empire.
IBM hasn't changed that much. Possibly they've now corrupted the Linux source with tainted code. They certainly haven't brought the same philosophy to the Linux community as random kernal hackers have.
Not subscribing to a magazine doesn't mean a little man uses a razor blade to cut that section out of 'Universal Magazine' before it's delivered to the library.
Slashdot Mirror
SCO was a division of Microsoft. Microsoft's Santa Cruz Operation produced Microsoft Xenix, a System 3 variant based on licensed AT&T code. It was the first UNIX Operating System to run on the Intel 8086.
'Bill Gates' did not "use SCO as a hedge in case windows failed." Windows itself didn't exist until after Microsoft had divested themselves of SCO and Xenix. The word is (**) that Gates wanted to be rid of Xenix because all they were doing was reselling something and paying substancial royalties for each sale to AT&T.
(** I belive the place I read it may have been from a post by Linux Zealot 'Rex Ballard' on the linux.advocacy newsgroup, so take it with a grain of salt!)
One point:
Linux doesn't follow Minix in any way implying there's Minix code in the Linux kernal. Linus was part of the Minix hacking community for a time and he decided to stop messing around with Minix (the 'ensigns training ship' of OSes- truly a pedagogical work for students to learn from) and create something new.
The early Linux system used the Minix filesystem structure. That's about it.
Not necessarily.
If the code they are claiming infringes on their rights is new code that isn't in any of their distributions, they're not sucked into a GPL vortex retroactively. If that were the case, and in fact if it proves to be the case, I can see all sorts of businesses taking another look at the risks of releasing GPL'd code.
Lots of people do cheat when they play euchre as a team. At least that's the case online at gaming sites like pogo.com, where all four players are at seperate locations playing the java-based euchre pogo offers. In a real physical euchre game the teammates can't have an Instant Message client going between each other that the other team doesn't see.
SCO the product is a seperate question from SCO the company that holds copyright on all the AT&T Legacy code.
Unless I am mistaken, five years ago SCO didn't own the copyright on the entire AT&T Unix code base.
We're all too busy slagging SCO to answer that. It does bring to mind the question of wether IBM is at fault for corrupting the Linux source by bringing in dubious code. Could it be IBM hasn't been as good for Linux as many have been implying?
Just some thoughts for discussion.
The grandparent post kind of implied that he only installs .deb files. That's a real advantage to sticking with party-line GNU/Debian, after all. I apologize if I misinterpreted what he said.
I primarily use the NetBSD pkgsrc method, compiling from source, on my Unix boxes. The only binaries are the core distribution, which is under 80 Mb of really essential stuff. It's about the same thing as going all Debian. But when I run into something cool I want that isn't mainstream enough, sure, I'll pull in a source tarball from outside and build and install it.
My point is, that doesn't allow one to drag in all kinds of binary code, i.e. games and what-not. Hell, it means that it can take forever to build Mozilla if you choose to build from source.
The well-designed system that Free Software represents actually opposes binary software distribution by design. Maybe in a few years that tactic will bring us everything that could be wanted on a computer system. Not yet, though.
Every time I visit the Amazon website (to read reviews, I would never purchase a book from them) I worry about all that information people are submitting to one of the great sinking ships of the Internet. If and when Amazon.com goes belly up, or becomes even more just another buy.com site spamming our eyeballs with whatever consumer crap is bringing in sales, what is going to happen to all the reviews and content people are voluntarily contributing? I'd surely rather it were going to a non-profit site ('profit' is not bad, it's just that part of the profit-loss system necessitates that companies and their websites die on occasion).
Anyhow...
It looks like the site has a good start. One problem, though. The list of 'most popular' books reads like a reading list from the comic-bookstore-guy fan association. All that genre fiction: the Neil Gaiman, Douglas Adams, Tolkein. Ayn Rand! One worries how soon Elron the Hubbard will appear. That's all subcult stuff. Hopefully as the site grows a more mainstream focus will take hold.
Furthermore, on Debian GNU/Linux I never have "DLL misery" because my operating system is not brain-dead.
And, because you only install software version-controlled and inspected by Debian. That's like only installing software on your Macintosh that you download from the Apple website. It's probably much more stable than buying software you want to use at stores and downloading useful stuff off third party websites, but it's very limiting.
SCO was a business unit of Microsoft.
You can try to split it off before the split occured, if you want to insist Microsoft never was a UNIX vendor.
But that's silly.
Is the introduction to the book written by Ray Noorda, the guy who bought DR-DOS in order to sue Microsoft?
So we're putting on our 'Yay Software Patents' t-shirts now? Do they sell such a shirt at Thinkgeek yet?
Quite possibly IBM poisoned the well by merging tainted code into the Linux code base.
Maybe somone can sue IBM for tainting the Linux code base and bringing this lawsuit onto Linux?
The Internet is not an organic whole. It is a big collection of Networks, with a vast array of kinds of information available on it. Some of it is valueable, some of it is a crock.
It is not a large seamless single book. It's scary as hell that people want to pretend that is the case.
Censorship is when the government says something can not be published. At all.
It's not when a magazine stand, or a library's periodical department, decides not to carry a particular magazine. Websites are like magazines.
The Internet is NOT an organic whole.
And you need your mama to wash out your mouth, pottymouth boy.
Ray Noorda (who bought DR-DOS solely to sue Microsoft) needed to find a new business model other than suing Microsoft for IP that his company didn't create. But we cheered him on because he was fighting the good fight against evile Microsoft.
No contradiction here. Just good solid reasoning.
And IBM is guiltless? The possiblity that they've tainted the Linux codebase isn't relevant too?
Let's see what SCO is claiming before jumping to conclusions. There might be some code for the Debian people to rip out and replace.
How come nobody seems to be discussing the fact that it sounds like IBM might have tainted the Linux code base? That's at least as big a problem as SCO going after them for said act.
Is IBM really as good for Linux as some people seem to insist?
Just some points people should think about.
Microsoft had this product called Xenix on the market (the first UNIX port to the Intel 8086 processor) before IBM ever approached them to produce a DOS. They were not a mere piddly BASIC vendor.
Surprise, surprise, when they left the Unix market they split their Xenix group off to become.... the Santa Cruz Operation (SCO).
As early as fifteen years ago there wouldn't have been a single slashdot reader who wouldn't be saying 'yay SCO' because IBM is the evil empire.
IBM hasn't changed that much. Possibly they've now corrupted the Linux source with tainted code. They certainly haven't brought the same philosophy to the Linux community as random kernal hackers have.
Here's something new for you to learn:
Not all magazines are published in one volume.
Not subscribing to a magazine doesn't mean a little man uses a razor blade to cut that section out of 'Universal Magazine' before it's delivered to the library.
If you believe in censorship shut the f*ck up
Wow. You contradicted yourself right in the title.
So you're saying the equivalent of:
"Provide subscriptions to all the magazines published anywhere, or don't provide any magazines at all in the periodicals section."
So order a Cheapbytes CD, then.
Sheesh. Or pool your money with your friends, or actually attend your local LUG and get CD copies that way.