"The main goal for tabs in our beta release is to make sure our implementation delivers on compatibility and security."
This is just BS. IE and security : oh please...
"Initially, we had some concerns around complexity and consistency"
This is classic Microsoft. Just admit it, you didn't get it the 1st place. They can't even give the pint of credit on this neat feature from Mozilla/Firefox.
well, atleast SGI had/has a product to stand up for themselves.
If Solaris is open-sourced, what Sun would be left with is a (very few)bunch of Sun engineer's browing the web for the kernel updates and plugging them into sparc, which no one buys anyway.
Its like a warehouse of hardware company, waiting to pluggin their os and put their hardware on sale.
Sun is really in a dilemma. If they don't open it, the company will go down as it is now - if they open it, what would they really own then...
Also keep in mind that they're talking about open-sourcing java. But they never showed revenue out of java 'alone', besides they're light years away to compete with BEA and IBM on web-services, the 2 companies which're making more than in Java, than Sun( you go Sun ).
Very tricky... best option is to wait for SCO's suit to take shape and rollback, if SCO is successful, tell the whole world that they're upholding (SCO's) ip laws by accepting their restriction and not open solaris.
That's why there is a 'may' in that statement.
Sun is not only late to the party, but also dubious...
SCO will exist as long as MS wants to maintain this FUD. Its good for them, bad for the companies, who'll live in fear of getting sued by SCO.
On the other hand, Sun has a very good reason to delay solaris to open-source domains, claiming to be working with SCO and at the same time, using the time to see how the SCO suit takes shape.
Let's also not forget that Sun and Microsoft has become buddies and have to stay so, for the next 10 years( under the agreement ).
Well, I'm not sure about them picking this name. Searching 'gmail' in Google shows up one project from 'sourforge', 'debian' and one from 'gnome' too.
So is it going to be gooMail ?
God forbid, if on Sep 11, if there could've been an blast in the radio-station, the signal would've still been lost.
Being in CA, surely I was scanning thro' different websites, which were getting updated - almost instantly.Visually I was able to feel as what was going on...
IMO, these are 2 different medium but serving a common purpose - "communication". Remember, radio transmits only voice. Tomorrow, while you drive you might want to see how bad the traffic is, along with the traffic report on your radio, well you can receive a video-trasmission along with the voice, while you're reserving for a movie... You can call it as a TV, but if the same 'device' has an 'browing' capability ( ofcourse ) along with zillion other features, it surely is useful and can be called "Internet".
If you think about it, they follow many common methods to feed "information".
You change the band to listen to another station - you browse thro' different web-pages
Medium remains the same in both the cases, with the user - PC or a Radio-device
Having said that, "internet" has the option to show video and/or restrict only to audio( streaming audio ), while "radio" doesn't offer video. After all why is TV able to flourish till this day ?
I'm sure that there was someone, who was able to get a "visual feeling" on Sep 11th, from a palm or any such device, ofcourse "along with the voice of a human narrator"
Ok, outside of the press-release war, I've some
fundemental questions.
1. What if SCO is correct ? What if the IP violation points to some developer, in some part of the world, who had copied a piece of code from System V.
This raises the question : how're open source codes checked/enforced for IP violations... while the proprietary software/codes are 'expected' to not violate IP, atleast you've a contact, but taking the case of IBM/Red Hat, they take the kernel from somewhere, which has a piece of code, copied from S V, by some tom, dick or harry, reviewed by some tom, dick or harry and now IBM is sued.
2. Assuming IBM/Red Hat crushed this lawsuit and come out victorius, how liable can SCO be made for all the FUD, millions( if not billions ) of $ that all those CTO's are either not investing or diverting away or holding from Linux ?
By that time, all those big rats of SCO would be dumped their stock at what so ever price and move on...
Even if the SCO morons are arrested, will they be able to compensate the money that being put on hold due to this FUD ?
I expect that both IBM and SCO should come out with evidence/claims or what ever it is and play with 'open' cards...
Even if that lawsuit runs for decades, atleast CTO's will get some direction...
This is the most cheapest way to try to earn money. SCO can't stand up to themselves to come up with good product, so they found the most ugliest route to get money. Kudos SCO !
Ok - so you've unix' IP, so what ? What have you done with it. Hybernate and wait for unix to hatch by itself and pour money on you. Come on...
SCO's real purpose is not prove Linux' authenticity, its just a cheap trick to earn money( if they're going to get a dime ). Besides, I hope folks in M$ should be very happy tonight, laughing and feel as if they've got something for their bait...
Time will tell as who is the real beneficiary is...
FUD over Linux at this point - I won't say is bad, because we don't know as how it spins out but it certainly will be a bump in this superfast drive.
Everybody hates MS, but supports their OS. MS screws up Java by giving a useless VM. They needed Java when they want to've lead over Netscape. They don't need it, when they had the lead( that's fine. Sun has to find its own way, not "hitch-hiking". They found a way.) Then MS shouldn't have signed the contract. But they did. MS breaks the contract, well, pay the penalty. MS comes back, saying the 'great' OS XP won't include Java. MS reverses the decision. WHY ?????
MS foresee's trouble. 1st let them explain as why they decided to NOT include Java and more than that why they DECIDED to include it.
So the point here, as and when they see some legal trouble, they'll change their tune, great.
Then, most among say, MS is a monopoly. But the judgement is wrong.
Come on guys, we accept and hate MS as a monopoly, but don't want Sun's Java to enforced, then what do we expect from MS. Go door-to-door and sing as how great Java is ! That ain't going to happen.
If you don't follow the law, it has to be enforced.
Then the questions here is how can it be done. Well, you screwed up Java, pay for it.
I don't think Judge Motz had a scewed view of the whole battle. This decision takes the whole arena of issues between these 2 technologies.
If they're going to shut down Java, Netscape and enforce IE, tomorrow they'll come and say "well, the next 'greatest' version of XP or YP or ZP, won't support any of the hardware on the market out there, but you can buy anything you want from MS processor, MS mother board, MS sound card etc. etc.( keep in mind they already are there in the market with network hardware )
I think that day is not far, when we start seeing MS machines in Costco, Wal-mart & Amazon.
Judege Koleen had one good observation, in the case of MS against 9 states.
Don't stop short of giving a solution to the problem. When you've the vigour to explain as what harm has been done, explain me the solution, you propose. Same problem in this case too.
Sun accuses MS to be a monopoly. Sun wasn't able to convince Judge Motz that it had incured full harm. So there is one small pocket of oxygen for MS.
Then for Judge Motz, what options are left. Well, he feels and accepts that MS is a monopoly but Sun's claim( even though its not sufficiently substantiaced ) to stop it is to enforce it on their OS. Ok, fine, there you go. That's where we're now.
But as far as other products Netscape or Mozilla, it should be a fight that they've carry themselves. Sun can't be given sweeping powers to fight for others. Afterall, what right do they've to tone others.
The only way you can stop a monopoly is to have a stellar product. I'm not fan of MS either, but what good options you've in the market. Linux - I agree, Mozilla - I agree, Java - 75% I agree. But how many of the end-user components are supported using these, "compared" to MS'. Few if not none. So in a monopolistic market, he who shouts the lie 10 time, makes it truth. The only way to shut his mouth is put a scotch-tape and say, you should've this tape for this time. That's what's happening.
Slashdot Mirror
"The main goal for tabs in our beta release is to make sure our implementation delivers on compatibility and security." This is just BS. IE and security : oh please... "Initially, we had some concerns around complexity and consistency" This is classic Microsoft. Just admit it, you didn't get it the 1st place. They can't even give the pint of credit on this neat feature from Mozilla/Firefox.
Bush : The volcano is flip-flopping inside
well, atleast SGI had/has a product to stand up for themselves.
If Solaris is open-sourced, what Sun would be left with is a (very few)bunch of Sun engineer's browing the web for the kernel updates and plugging them into sparc, which no one buys anyway.
Its like a warehouse of hardware company, waiting to pluggin their os and put their hardware on sale.
Sun is really in a dilemma. If they don't open it, the company will go down as it is now - if they open it, what would they really own then...
Also keep in mind that they're talking about open-sourcing java. But they never showed revenue out of java 'alone', besides they're light years away to compete with BEA and IBM on web-services, the 2 companies which're making more than in Java, than Sun( you go Sun ).
Very tricky... best option is to wait for SCO's suit to take shape and rollback, if SCO is successful, tell the whole world that they're upholding (SCO's) ip laws by accepting their restriction and not open solaris.
That's why there is a 'may' in that statement.
Sun is not only late to the party, but also dubious...
SCO will exist as long as MS wants to maintain this FUD. Its good for them, bad for the companies, who'll live in fear of getting sued by SCO.
On the other hand, Sun has a very good reason to delay solaris to open-source domains, claiming to be working with SCO and at the same time, using the time to see how the SCO suit takes shape.
Let's also not forget that Sun and Microsoft has become buddies and have to stay so, for the next 10 years( under the agreement ).
Three to tango... with Linux in the middle !
Well, I'm not sure about them picking this name. Searching 'gmail' in Google shows up one project from 'sourforge', 'debian' and one from 'gnome' too. So is it going to be gooMail ?
Hmm...
g =n efd_top
This could be an interesting buy, I guess. See this
article in C|Net on AOL's rights in buying Google's
shares...
http://news.com.com/2100-1032_3-5175783.html?ta
May god help net
I beg to differ.
God forbid, if on Sep 11, if there could've been an blast in the radio-station, the signal would've still been lost.
Being in CA, surely I was scanning thro' different websites, which were getting updated - almost instantly.Visually I was able to feel as what was going on...
IMO, these are 2 different medium but serving a common purpose - "communication". Remember, radio transmits only voice. Tomorrow, while you drive you might want to see how bad the traffic is, along with the traffic report on your radio, well you can receive a video-trasmission along with the voice, while you're reserving for a movie... You can call it as a TV, but if the same 'device' has an 'browing' capability ( ofcourse ) along with zillion other features, it surely is useful and can be called "Internet".
If you think about it, they follow many common methods to feed "information".
- You change the band to listen to another station - you browse thro' different web-pages
- Medium remains the same in both the cases, with the user - PC or a Radio-device
Having said that, "internet" has the option to show video and/or restrict only to audio( streaming audio ), while "radio" doesn't offer video. After all why is TV able to flourish till this day ?I'm sure that there was someone, who was able to get a "visual feeling" on Sep 11th, from a palm or any such device, ofcourse "along with the voice of a human narrator"
Ok, outside of the press-release war, I've some fundemental questions. 1. What if SCO is correct ? What if the IP violation points to some developer, in some part of the world, who had copied a piece of code from System V. This raises the question : how're open source codes checked/enforced for IP violations... while the proprietary software/codes are 'expected' to not violate IP, atleast you've a contact, but taking the case of IBM/Red Hat, they take the kernel from somewhere, which has a piece of code, copied from S V, by some tom, dick or harry, reviewed by some tom, dick or harry and now IBM is sued. 2. Assuming IBM/Red Hat crushed this lawsuit and come out victorius, how liable can SCO be made for all the FUD, millions( if not billions ) of $ that all those CTO's are either not investing or diverting away or holding from Linux ? By that time, all those big rats of SCO would be dumped their stock at what so ever price and move on... Even if the SCO morons are arrested, will they be able to compensate the money that being put on hold due to this FUD ? I expect that both IBM and SCO should come out with evidence/claims or what ever it is and play with 'open' cards... Even if that lawsuit runs for decades, atleast CTO's will get some direction...
This is the most cheapest way to try to earn money. SCO can't stand up to themselves to come up with good product, so they found the most ugliest route to get money. Kudos SCO !
Ok - so you've unix' IP, so what ? What have you done with it. Hybernate and wait for unix to hatch by itself and pour money on you. Come on...
SCO's real purpose is not prove Linux' authenticity, its just a cheap trick to earn money( if they're going to get a dime ). Besides, I hope folks in M$ should be very happy tonight, laughing and feel as if they've got something for their bait...
Time will tell as who is the real beneficiary is... FUD over Linux at this point - I won't say is bad, because we don't know as how it spins out but it certainly will be a bump in this superfast drive.
I don't get this.
Everybody hates MS, but supports their OS.
MS screws up Java by giving a useless VM.
They needed Java when they want to've lead over Netscape.
They don't need it, when they had the lead( that's fine. Sun has to find its own way, not "hitch-hiking". They found a way.)
Then MS shouldn't have signed the contract. But they did.
MS breaks the contract, well, pay the penalty.
MS comes back, saying the 'great' OS XP won't include Java.
MS reverses the decision. WHY ?????
MS foresee's trouble. 1st let them explain as why they decided to NOT include Java and more than that why they DECIDED to include it.
So the point here, as and when they see some legal trouble, they'll change their tune, great.
Then, most among say, MS is a monopoly. But the judgement is wrong.
Come on guys, we accept and hate MS as a monopoly, but don't want Sun's Java to enforced, then what do we expect from MS. Go door-to-door and sing as how great Java is ! That ain't going to happen.
If you don't follow the law, it has to be enforced.
Then the questions here is how can it be done. Well, you screwed up Java, pay for it.
I don't think Judge Motz had a scewed view of the whole battle. This decision takes the whole arena of issues between these 2 technologies.
If they're going to shut down Java, Netscape and enforce IE, tomorrow they'll come and say "well, the next 'greatest' version of XP or YP or ZP, won't support any of the hardware on the market out there, but you can buy anything you want from MS processor, MS mother board, MS sound card etc. etc.( keep in mind they already are there in the market with network hardware )
I think that day is not far, when we start seeing MS machines in Costco, Wal-mart & Amazon.
Judege Koleen had one good observation, in the case of MS against 9 states.
Don't stop short of giving a solution to the problem. When you've the vigour to explain as what harm has been done, explain me the solution, you propose. Same problem in this case too.
Sun accuses MS to be a monopoly. Sun wasn't able to convince Judge Motz that it had incured full harm. So there is one small pocket of oxygen for MS.
Then for Judge Motz, what options are left. Well, he feels and accepts that MS is a monopoly but Sun's claim( even though its not sufficiently substantiaced ) to stop it is to enforce it on their OS. Ok, fine, there you go. That's where we're now.
But as far as other products Netscape or Mozilla, it should be a fight that they've carry themselves. Sun can't be given sweeping powers to fight for others. Afterall, what right do they've to tone others.
The only way you can stop a monopoly is to have a stellar product. I'm not fan of MS either, but what good options you've in the market. Linux - I agree, Mozilla - I agree, Java - 75% I agree. But how many of the end-user components are supported using these, "compared" to MS'. Few if not none. So in a monopolistic market, he who shouts the lie 10 time, makes it truth. The only way to shut his mouth is put a scotch-tape and say, you should've this tape for this time. That's what's happening.