Both of your conclusions result in IBM's Linux initiatives being stopped. There is nothing mentioned that support this.
There's a lot of uncertainty and doubt already. But that hasn't slowed down Linux adoption. Here's the real win/lose scenario:
Win: Linux takes a big hit, SCO gets rich, IBM has big problems.
Lose: Linux is reaffirmed, SCO goes bankrupt, IBM becomes viewed as the protector of Linux and gets rich on Linux initiatives.
Obviously MS has nothing to lose (except the continued slide of their market share to Linux), because they're not involved in the case - regardless of the Slashdot conventional "wisdom", a licensing fee paid to SCO does not make them party to the lawsuit and its consequences. But for IBM and SCO, the risks are not one-sided at all - both sides have lots to gain, or lots to lose. The fact that one side is acting in desperation on its way to bankruptcy does not change that fact.
Super. Instead of worrying about terrorists hijacking airplanes or bombing nuclear plants, now people can freak out about terrorists hijacking and bombing a nuclear aircraft.
After reading the article, it looks like it does affect someone trying to sell their software to government agencies - even if they provide the source. The article reads "free software", not simply open source.
Open source != free. There are plenty of vendors who provide their source code freely, but require licenses to actually use it in production (i.e. Caucho Resin). Under this decision, Brazil could not use this software even though it is open source.
It looks to me like the decision was more based on cost-cutting, and consequently promoting faster adoption of technology, rather than a conscious affirmation of open source. What it really comes down to is economics, not ideals.
It may be a business shift for Cargill, but I don't think they would lose money overall. After all, if they control the process - even though overall demand for fertilizers may decreease - they're manufacturing OIL. That's gotta be pretty profitable in itself.
Let's assume all of this corn-based stuff actually gains mass acceptance (ethanol, this plastic, etc.) - and REALLY takes off. Do we have the capacity to renewably produce the amount of corn we would need to support it, or do you think we would end with farmers giving up renewable farming techniques by economic necessity, just planting corn every year, and depleting our soil of nutrients within a few years?
I don't have the answer. Seems like it could be a catch-22 though.
SCO VP cacheing out? I'm starting to change my mind about their motives... I used to think it was to get bought out to benefit their sharedholders. Now I'm beginning to think it was to artificially inflate their stock price so the insiders can cash out, before they reveal their non-existent legal case and the company crashes permanently. Good 'ol fashioned screw-the-shareholders maneuver... and after all their talk about "doing what's right for the shareholders"?
I seriously considered rolling out our new web apps on Solaris/x86 last year. Two things in particular made me choose Linux instead:
1. Sun was not vocal in its continued support of an x86 platform. Rumors abounded that no more Solaris releases would be made for the x86 architecture.
2. This memo. We do everything in Java.
Bluetooth hardware is very cheap (and all the needed R&D and testing tools have already been built by Ericsson). If the price is inflated, it's a marketing choice by the device manufacturer, and does not reflect the cost of the technology itself.
This is why it may die. Not because of a lack of usefulness or the actual cost of it - but because of the PERCEIVED cost of it. Manufacturers cannot break the habit of overpricing new devices, even when they have little to no R&D costs to recoup.
Actually, when bought in bulk, Bluetooth antennas are already available for less than $5 apiece, and will soon be under $2 according to analysts. Considering that just about any device that would make good use of Bluetooth is probably over $100 anyways, the additional hardware cost really doesn't seem that prohibitive.
It wasn't - long distance in general is the barrier. The previous record was 87km. AFAIK, there's nothing special about 100km specifically - it's just the next step in the evolution of the science.
This whole concept is basically just a way to generate secure keys while guaranteeing nobody can spy on them without you knowing; how you use those keys to encrypt data is no different than current encryption methods.
So, the only messages that would be changed by outside listeners are the keys themselves. At that point, the important part isn't being able to REPORT that a transmission has been intercepted or modified; it's being able to have the transmission hardware/software detect it immediately, throw out the keys before any damage has been done, and not send any more transmissions (which could be potentially compromised) until they can securely establish and exchange another set of keys. Almost all of this will likely be removed from the view of human operators (network or data link layer, probably?).
If this is the case, adding repeaters could easily be feasible to achieve any distance. Each repeater would just generate a new quantum key to connect to the next repeater in line, and they would have to be monitor any interception attempts. It wouldn't matter that the key changes, bceause you're still ensuring that each segment is secure.
If I'm understanding this correctly, it sounds like it could be very useful already today for the network or data link layer in secure networks, but not really feasible for direct use by client software.
This whole thing will be nearly impossible to sort out in court. It will literally take years unless something happens to kill SCO before that time.
Consider the following possibilities:
SCO stole code from BSD. So did Linux.
SCO "stole" their own code during their Linux initiatives and put it in Linux.
IBM stole code from SCO and put it in Linux.
Anybody, such as the non-programmer who did this review, can identify that blocks of code are identical. But, that does nothing to show the original source of the code. That fact that the code matches does nothing to prove one of the above scenarios over the other two. Only an analysis of each project's source control system will provide something remotely resembling proof, althought that may very well provide legally ambiguous results as well. Not to mention that given SCO's track record of openness on the issues, it will probably take 6 months just to access check-in logs.
Re:Possible Fatal Blow to SCO from Lindows
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 1
The response was to your comment that this could be a "fatal blow" to SCO. I was merely pointing out that while, yes, it is good for Linux in general (which I mentioned), it has little to no bearing on SCO's furthered pathetic existence - hence, not a fatal blow by any stretch of the imagination.
Read the response fully before taking offense, please.
-j
Re:Possible Fatal Blow to SCO from Lindows
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 1
Come on people - how many times has SCO said this now - they didn't file the lawsuit about patents or copyrights - they filed it about contract violations. So while this may clear Linux users from any future legal action, it does not rule out the validity of the IBM lawsuit, which, if won, would keep these bottom-feeding IP weasels around for quite some time.
Regardless of whether the code is now GPL'ed or not, if it is proven that IBM put it in (in violation of their individual contract with SCO), SCO could still get their billion. This is also why Novell's claim, while good for us, is irrelevant for the lawsuit.
Slashdot Mirror
Both of your conclusions result in IBM's Linux initiatives being stopped. There is nothing mentioned that support this.
There's a lot of uncertainty and doubt already. But that hasn't slowed down Linux adoption. Here's the real win/lose scenario:
Win: Linux takes a big hit, SCO gets rich, IBM has big problems.
Lose: Linux is reaffirmed, SCO goes bankrupt, IBM becomes viewed as the protector of Linux and gets rich on Linux initiatives.
Obviously MS has nothing to lose (except the continued slide of their market share to Linux), because they're not involved in the case - regardless of the Slashdot conventional "wisdom", a licensing fee paid to SCO does not make them party to the lawsuit and its consequences. But for IBM and SCO, the risks are not one-sided at all - both sides have lots to gain, or lots to lose. The fact that one side is acting in desperation on its way to bankruptcy does not change that fact.
-j
I'd hate to be the maintenance guy when the batteries start needing replacement...
Or do the inventors presume that the cost of wiring every brick into the electrical system will be worth the potential benefits?
-j
So what are they going to do when they suspect DVT in a passenger? Bump them to first class?
Guess who's gonna be fidgeting nonstop on my next flight...
-j
"Excuse me sir, the computer is telling me you might need a hemorrhoid cushion?"
-j
Super. Instead of worrying about terrorists hijacking airplanes or bombing nuclear plants, now people can freak out about terrorists hijacking and bombing a nuclear aircraft.
-j
After reading the article, it looks like it does affect someone trying to sell their software to government agencies - even if they provide the source. The article reads "free software", not simply open source.
Open source != free. There are plenty of vendors who provide their source code freely, but require licenses to actually use it in production (i.e. Caucho Resin). Under this decision, Brazil could not use this software even though it is open source.
It looks to me like the decision was more based on cost-cutting, and consequently promoting faster adoption of technology, rather than a conscious affirmation of open source. What it really comes down to is economics, not ideals.
-j
It may be a business shift for Cargill, but I don't think they would lose money overall. After all, if they control the process - even though overall demand for fertilizers may decreease - they're manufacturing OIL. That's gotta be pretty profitable in itself.
-j
Umm. Organic != Flammable.
-j
Let's assume all of this corn-based stuff actually gains mass acceptance (ethanol, this plastic, etc.) - and REALLY takes off. Do we have the capacity to renewably produce the amount of corn we would need to support it, or do you think we would end with farmers giving up renewable farming techniques by economic necessity, just planting corn every year, and depleting our soil of nutrients within a few years?
I don't have the answer. Seems like it could be a catch-22 though.
-j
http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/21722.html
SCO VP cacheing out? I'm starting to change my mind about their motives... I used to think it was to get bought out to benefit their sharedholders. Now I'm beginning to think it was to artificially inflate their stock price so the insiders can cash out, before they reveal their non-existent legal case and the company crashes permanently. Good 'ol fashioned screw-the-shareholders maneuver... and after all their talk about "doing what's right for the shareholders"?
-j
I seriously considered rolling out our new web apps on Solaris/x86 last year. Two things in particular made me choose Linux instead:
1. Sun was not vocal in its continued support of an x86 platform. Rumors abounded that no more Solaris releases would be made for the x86 architecture.
2. This memo. We do everything in Java.
-j
Oh yeah. Much stronger than the steel condoms I was using previously. What a godsend.
-j
Bluetooth hardware is very cheap (and all the needed R&D and testing tools have already been built by Ericsson). If the price is inflated, it's a marketing choice by the device manufacturer, and does not reflect the cost of the technology itself.
This is why it may die. Not because of a lack of usefulness or the actual cost of it - but because of the PERCEIVED cost of it. Manufacturers cannot break the habit of overpricing new devices, even when they have little to no R&D costs to recoup.
-j
Actually, when bought in bulk, Bluetooth antennas are already available for less than $5 apiece, and will soon be under $2 according to analysts. Considering that just about any device that would make good use of Bluetooth is probably over $100 anyways, the additional hardware cost really doesn't seem that prohibitive.
-j
It wasn't - long distance in general is the barrier. The previous record was 87km. AFAIK, there's nothing special about 100km specifically - it's just the next step in the evolution of the science.
-j
This whole concept is basically just a way to generate secure keys while guaranteeing nobody can spy on them without you knowing; how you use those keys to encrypt data is no different than current encryption methods.
So, the only messages that would be changed by outside listeners are the keys themselves. At that point, the important part isn't being able to REPORT that a transmission has been intercepted or modified; it's being able to have the transmission hardware/software detect it immediately, throw out the keys before any damage has been done, and not send any more transmissions (which could be potentially compromised) until they can securely establish and exchange another set of keys. Almost all of this will likely be removed from the view of human operators (network or data link layer, probably?).
-j
If this is the case, adding repeaters could easily be feasible to achieve any distance. Each repeater would just generate a new quantum key to connect to the next repeater in line, and they would have to be monitor any interception attempts. It wouldn't matter that the key changes, bceause you're still ensuring that each segment is secure.
If I'm understanding this correctly, it sounds like it could be very useful already today for the network or data link layer in secure networks, but not really feasible for direct use by client software.
-j
Consider the following possibilities:
- SCO stole code from BSD. So did Linux.
- SCO "stole" their own code during their Linux initiatives and put it in Linux.
- IBM stole code from SCO and put it in Linux.
Anybody, such as the non-programmer who did this review, can identify that blocks of code are identical. But, that does nothing to show the original source of the code. That fact that the code matches does nothing to prove one of the above scenarios over the other two. Only an analysis of each project's source control system will provide something remotely resembling proof, althought that may very well provide legally ambiguous results as well. Not to mention that given SCO's track record of openness on the issues, it will probably take 6 months just to access check-in logs.-j
Interesting that they choose a distro created by a french company and still need to add better french support...
-j
Someone please mod the parent down... this link has already been karma-whored to death...
Post One
Post Two
-j
Absolutely agree! Giving our government proper funding is bad for the economy! Cutting budgets to all public programs promotes Jobs and Growth(tm)!
-j
It's also how you destroy the Borg.
-j
The response was to your comment that this could be a "fatal blow" to SCO. I was merely pointing out that while, yes, it is good for Linux in general (which I mentioned), it has little to no bearing on SCO's furthered pathetic existence - hence, not a fatal blow by any stretch of the imagination.
Read the response fully before taking offense, please.
-j
Come on people - how many times has SCO said this now - they didn't file the lawsuit about patents or copyrights - they filed it about contract violations. So while this may clear Linux users from any future legal action, it does not rule out the validity of the IBM lawsuit, which, if won, would keep these bottom-feeding IP weasels around for quite some time.
Regardless of whether the code is now GPL'ed or not, if it is proven that IBM put it in (in violation of their individual contract with SCO), SCO could still get their billion. This is also why Novell's claim, while good for us, is irrelevant for the lawsuit.
-j