They instead create a new window with API or a language construct and then assign a new instance of the IE activex object to that handle. It's a much more reliable way of opening new HTML windows in applications.
Which part of the API is that on Konqueror / Mozilla etc... The 'enhancement' of standards which are theirs to enhance is somewhat the cause of their previous legal troubles.
All it takes is one script kiddie or spammer getting the idea to check out a CD, take it home, replace it with their own kernel/binaries/whatever, and voila!
Just a technicality but...script kiddies do not have their "own binaries and libraries" if they do, they are not script kiddies.
If you think this is fun, maybe SCO will go after Apple/Jobs. I'm sure Steve would hold his tongue?
Or Microsoft....
A letter from Bill Gates:
Darl,
You make some interesting points and so I would like to make my rebuttal: I have purchased full rights to a) your heritage b) your nationality and c)Your home state (just in case a and b don't pan out)
My lawyers have informed me that your existence is infringing on my rights at this point so I am issuing you a cease and desist order. If you need help complying, help should be arriving soon. I look forward to further correspondence with you.
In a bizarre bit of twenty first century irony, Congress has begun using zomby computers all over the internet to flood the white house with copies of the anti spam bill.
"The president said I am tired of people e-mailing me about penis enlargement etc.... I want to receive something substantial about reducing spam. I guess we misunderstood him to mean that was what he wanted in his inbox" said Tom Daschle.
"The worst thing about this e-mail is that the last line says 'The president of the United States hopes that you will send this to 75 of your closest friends' That guarantees we will see this for a long while" states Dick Cheney.
Given a choice of Windows 95 and the latest and greatest GNU/LuniX distribution I would take Windows 95 anyday.
Good point all these./configure and make and make install. They are far too complicated for people like you. Windows computers can even receive code from a stranger (in email)and compile it for you! As though that isn't friendly enough it can then make a copy of it's newfound code and e-mail that to all your friends. This is what people like you need (well, in addition to sterilization). Good luck with your Win 95 box. BTW, myself and most other Unix people I know get paid a wee bit better than free;-)
However, there is a group of software developers in the United States, and other parts of the world, that do not believe in the approach to copyright protection mandated by Congress.
Granting copy protection is mandated. Accepting that as what the author wishes is not mandated. As an author if I write my own software I can choose to GPL or not to GPL, that is my choice. If I GPL I give up the old system by choice, if the GPL breaks I STILL have the old system. If I use another authors I am bound to the terms of his license be it GPL or Proprietary. I am not enslaved by the GPL.
In the past 20 years, the Free Software Foundation and others in the Open Source software movement have set out to actively and intentionally undermine the U.S. and European systems of copyrights and patents. Leaders of the FSF have spent great efforts, written numerous articles and sometimes enforced the provisions of the GPL as part of a deeply held belief in the need to undermine or eliminate software patent and copyright laws.
the GPL is exactly opposite in its effect from the "copy right " laws adopted by the US Congress and the European Union.
Why would you use the European Union to argue the constitutionality of a point? Barring the fact that the EU is only a couple years old, they have NADA to do with the US constitution. Maybe you should write a seperate letter about how the GPL subjugates the EU, but your point here is lost.
This stance against intellectual property laws has been adopted by several companies in the software industry, most notably Red Hat. Red Hat's position is that current U.S. intellectual property law "impedes innovation in software development" and that "software patents are inconsistent with open source/free software." Red Hat has aggressively lobbied Congress to eliminate software patents and copyrights.
How dare they lobby congress for something so self serving. They should follow the generous example of the RIAA and MPAA and lobby for the betterment of man kind. Oh wait, GPL puts software development in reach of non billionaires and thus it is for the better.
Oh, Ow. I have to prove that....to someone savvy enough to type slashdot.org in the address bar? Ok, my point was not to make Windows look good or bad. I am a math major my point was that if A is greater than B, A is greater period. There is no desperation, I have an MCSE and I maintain a heterogenous network consisting of Win 2K and RedHat ES 3.
Some Windows hackers actually write exploits, but when they do, they post them everywhere. MS Blast was a good example of this. That writer may have been original. Then some kids downloaded the code and it's various variants have owned LARGE chunks of the web. "But that's not an exploit" you cry. A worm is a remote intrusion 'device'. You can load any payload (a trojan etc...) so in the last six months my "thousand boxen" claim is GENEROUS.
Uh....Ok. I'll bite. Top three theories about why all the Linux bad news.
Number 3: Some companies that got in early on are outgrowing their business models and thus adapting.
Number 2: Some companies with REALLY flaky software and business models are trying to figure out how to use other peoples superior software to increase their own revenue.
The number 1 reason....: How much fun can it possibly be to say "I did a google search on Windows Exploits and owned 1000 boxen in just under an hour" as opposed to " I heard about an SSH2 compromise and searched for 2 weeks and found an affected system, gained access. Found another program with an exploit kit, eventually gained root. All in all it took a week."
If companies want citizens = maximum possible revenue streams, its probably not in their best interest to flaunt the equation in front of us.
I fully expected to be flamed over that post by someone, but instead people just want to make rational discussion. Cool! Nice post by the way, far better than my cynical rant.
Before long we'd have a patch for every non-conformant site on the Internet.
If it makes the browser handle a non-standard idea that is site specific, the correct name might be a 'PLUGIN'. Eww... the ramifications. I think somebody already patented the idea of fixing a specific problem.
Stream, you are countless numbers of revenue streams....think you're not. Think it at the gas station on your way to work, think in line at the grocer. Think it at Tax time...LOL 'citizen'...nope not today, citizen = revenue stream.
Surely it is illegal to copy the ntfs.sys driver and distribute it in another operating system, seeing as how it is a part of Windows.
While some past issues in the lawsuit may be spurious at best, this one is da bomb. Without a doubt Sco can show that stealing things from other systems is there own special trade secret. Therefore, stealing the NTFS driver is directly stealing from Scos own IP.
"Your honor, you look confused"
It *was* good business. And cheaper than hell for them, even if they paid bandwidth for every leech user themselves
First, I will wonder aloud (and offtopic)why your comment got scored 0. That is a very good response. My point is that as you say it *was* good business. Boards and CEOs must always move beyond things that were good business and into greener pastures. I disagree with the cheaper than hell comment as I run an IT shop and know what kind of costs I have (much less than RHs). Remember, putting together a distro is a LOT of work (try doing an LFS once if you haven't). They pay for the developers who organize the distro as well as the bandwidth. Then sales of the boxed product are balanced against cost of development.
You are right though, you and your 8 boxes contributed to their growth in many intangible ways and some probably tangible as well.
Why? RHEL3, as a collective work, is released under the GPL with the exception of their registered trademarks. So you find it a 'shame' that I am redistributing GPL software under the terms and conditions of it's license?
I don't find it a shame that the license works. However, the Enterprise packages have a LOT of development and testing done to them. To have whitebox available dilutes the ability of Red Hat to use the Enterprise package profitably, that is where I take issue. I am glad that people Debian etc....put out Distros. I am glad that I could make an LFS box if I wanted to. I am glad that you can download RH9 (though marginally I object to that). Definitely I am for the Fedora project. But enterprise is a major work and support should be shown by those who have need of such a package. Making it was not free despite the use of free components. I probably have more understanding of free software than you assume that I do. I disagree with how some people utilise the fact that it is free but basically applaud the liberty to do so.
After reading more about it though, I do agree that their should be a different licensing scenario for you and I hope that this get's addressed soon because the more I think it about it, the more that your 'distribution' (which I consider to be near theft under the premise that "the license" allows it regardless of conscienability) is really the fault of Red Hat. Were they more thorough in addressing various licensing needs then they would be selling their distro to people like yourself.
If you need an enterprise OS, then you can afford an enterprise OS. I find it a shame that someone would simply go through and remove the trademarks (which RedHat allows and even gives instructions in their license for it). To those companies using it I hope you get to see why people say, you get what you pay for.
1 in 10 redhat customers is so dissatisfied with their product that they are not maintaining their subscriptions.
Probably, you could say that 8 out of ten people do not know / or understand that it is a subscription service and thus don't pay. 1 out of ten were not prepared to migrate and unable to perform technical tasks related to...well, anything. Finally, 1 out of ten may actually be so upset about the product that they left. Those are all hypothetical numbers but so are statistics in general.
No it's not a great job, the reasonably priced support option is gone, and there's nothing they offer between outlandishly expensive enterprise support and free no support.
What a bad company, they dropped a line with no profit return and simply committed a handful of 70-110K $ developers to a free project. Damn them. Why won't they support my 8 PCs with Red Hat 6.2 that I burned (not bought). Linux is free (like speech) you want free like money go play with Minix or something.
Does anyone have any experience with RedHat support? Is it worth the money?
I have just migrated from $c0 to RedHat ES 3. The initial disks were corrupt on shipment:-( that left a bad taste in my mouth. However, I called Red Hat support and the guy said "What do you want me to do for you?" I said I would be satisfied (their FTP server was not working either that day) if they got me new disks RIGHT AWAY. He actually said "OK" The next day I got a package from Red Hats Distribution people containing BURNED COPIES of the master disks...the very next day. That pulled me out of a tight spot. The following day the newly repressed boxed set arrived. Red Hats support was polite and thorough. (note I complained on Slashdot that day as I was waiting on the phone...this post cancels that:-)
Slashdot Mirror
They instead create a new window with API or a language construct and then assign a new instance of the IE activex object to that handle. It's a much more reliable way of opening new HTML windows in applications.
Which part of the API is that on Konqueror / Mozilla etc... The 'enhancement' of standards which are theirs to enhance is somewhat the cause of their previous legal troubles.
All it takes is one script kiddie or spammer getting the idea to check out a CD, take it home, replace it with their own kernel/binaries/whatever, and voila!
Just a technicality but...script kiddies do not have their "own binaries and libraries" if they do, they are not script kiddies.
If you think this is fun, maybe SCO will go after Apple/Jobs. I'm sure Steve would hold his tongue?
;-)
Or Microsoft....
A letter from Bill Gates:
Darl,
You make some interesting points and so I would like to make my rebuttal: I have purchased full rights to
a) your heritage
b) your nationality and
c)Your home state (just in case a and b don't pan out)
My lawyers have informed me that your existence is infringing on my rights at this point so I am issuing you a cease and desist order. If you need help complying, help should be arriving soon. I look forward to further correspondence with you.
Billy G
Everyone blasted Darl last week for his challenging use of the english language.
But I am sure that Linus' Finn is better than Darls.
In a bizarre bit of twenty first century irony, Congress has begun using zomby computers all over the internet to flood the white house with copies of the anti spam bill.
"The president said I am tired of people e-mailing me about penis enlargement etc.... I want to receive something substantial about reducing spam. I guess we misunderstood him to mean that was what he wanted in his inbox" said Tom Daschle.
"The worst thing about this e-mail is that the last line says 'The president of the United States hopes that you will send this to 75 of your closest friends' That guarantees we will see this for a long while" states Dick Cheney.
Given a choice of Windows 95 and the latest and greatest GNU/LuniX distribution I would take Windows 95 anyday.
./configure and make and make install. They are far too complicated for people like you. Windows computers can even receive code from a stranger (in email)and compile it for you! As though that isn't friendly enough it can then make a copy of it's newfound code and e-mail that to all your friends. This is what people like you need (well, in addition to sterilization). Good luck with your Win 95 box. BTW, myself and most other Unix people I know get paid a wee bit better than free ;-)
Good point all these
However, there is a group of software developers in the United States, and other parts of the world, that do not believe in the approach to copyright protection mandated by Congress.
Granting copy protection is mandated. Accepting that as what the author wishes is not mandated. As an author if I write my own software I can choose to GPL or not to GPL, that is my choice. If I GPL I give up the old system by choice, if the GPL breaks I STILL have the old system. If I use another authors I am bound to the terms of his license be it GPL or Proprietary. I am not enslaved by the GPL. In the past 20 years, the Free Software Foundation and others in the Open Source software movement have set out to actively and intentionally undermine the U.S. and European systems of copyrights and patents. Leaders of the FSF have spent great efforts, written numerous articles and sometimes enforced the provisions of the GPL as part of a deeply held belief in the need to undermine or eliminate software patent and copyright laws.
the GPL is exactly opposite in its effect from the "copy right " laws adopted by the US Congress and the European Union.
Why would you use the European Union to argue the constitutionality of a point? Barring the fact that the EU is only a couple years old, they have NADA to do with the US constitution. Maybe you should write a seperate letter about how the GPL subjugates the EU, but your point here is lost.
This stance against intellectual property laws has been adopted by several companies in the software industry, most notably Red Hat. Red Hat's position is that current U.S. intellectual property law "impedes innovation in software development" and that "software patents are inconsistent with open source/free software." Red Hat has aggressively lobbied Congress to eliminate software patents and copyrights.
How dare they lobby congress for something so self serving. They should follow the generous example of the RIAA and MPAA and lobby for the betterment of man kind. Oh wait, GPL puts software development in reach of non billionaires and thus it is for the better.
Prove your "1000 boxen" claim
Oh, Ow. I have to prove that....to someone savvy enough to type slashdot.org in the address bar? Ok, my point was not to make Windows look good or bad. I am a math major my point was that if A is greater than B, A is greater period. There is no desperation, I have an MCSE and I maintain a heterogenous network consisting of Win 2K and RedHat ES 3.
Some Windows hackers actually write exploits, but when they do, they post them everywhere. MS Blast was a good example of this. That writer may have been original. Then some kids downloaded the code and it's various variants have owned LARGE chunks of the web. "But that's not an exploit" you cry. A worm is a remote intrusion 'device'. You can load any payload (a trojan etc...) so in the last six months my "thousand boxen" claim is GENEROUS.
A conspiracy theorist could have a field day..
Uh....Ok. I'll bite. Top three theories about why all the Linux bad news.
Number 3: Some companies that got in early on are outgrowing their business models and thus adapting.
Number 2: Some companies with REALLY flaky software and business models are trying to figure out how to use other peoples superior software to increase their own revenue.
The number 1 reason....: How much fun can it possibly be to say "I did a google search on Windows Exploits and owned 1000 boxen in just under an hour" as opposed to " I heard about an SSH2 compromise and searched for 2 weeks and found an affected system, gained access. Found another program with an exploit kit, eventually gained root. All in all it took a week."
If companies want citizens = maximum possible revenue streams, its probably not in their best interest to flaunt the equation in front of us.
I fully expected to be flamed over that post by someone, but instead people just want to make rational discussion. Cool! Nice post by the way, far better than my cynical rant.
Before long we'd have a patch for every non-conformant site on the Internet.
If it makes the browser handle a non-standard idea that is site specific, the correct name might be a 'PLUGIN'. Eww... the ramifications. I think somebody already patented the idea of fixing a specific problem.
I'm a person, not a revenue source!
Stream, you are countless numbers of revenue streams....think you're not. Think it at the gas station on your way to work, think in line at the grocer. Think it at Tax time...LOL 'citizen'...nope not today, citizen = revenue stream.
haven't figured out how to get somebody to pay me for it though
Contact the companys that make the annoying popups (no not those popups...ew). They must need someone to increase their hit count so they can sell.
Surely it is illegal to copy the ntfs.sys driver and distribute it in another operating system, seeing as how it is a part of Windows.
While some past issues in the lawsuit may be spurious at best, this one is da bomb. Without a doubt Sco can show that stealing things from other systems is there own special trade secret. Therefore, stealing the NTFS driver is directly stealing from Scos own IP.
"Your honor, you look confused"
I don't think extensive market research and a serious analysis of product utility has much of a place in the business plans of pirates
Example Pirate Business Plan
Rape
Pillage
Plunder
PROFIT!
It *was* good business. And cheaper than hell for them, even if they paid bandwidth for every leech user themselves
First, I will wonder aloud (and offtopic)why your comment got scored 0. That is a very good response. My point is that as you say it *was* good business. Boards and CEOs must always move beyond things that were good business and into greener pastures. I disagree with the cheaper than hell comment as I run an IT shop and know what kind of costs I have (much less than RHs). Remember, putting together a distro is a LOT of work (try doing an LFS once if you haven't). They pay for the developers who organize the distro as well as the bandwidth. Then sales of the boxed product are balanced against cost of development.
You are right though, you and your 8 boxes contributed to their growth in many intangible ways and some probably tangible as well.
Why? RHEL3, as a collective work, is released under the GPL with the exception of their registered trademarks. So you find it a 'shame' that I am redistributing GPL software under the terms and conditions of it's license?
I don't find it a shame that the license works. However, the Enterprise packages have a LOT of development and testing done to them. To have whitebox available dilutes the ability of Red Hat to use the Enterprise package profitably, that is where I take issue. I am glad that people Debian etc....put out Distros. I am glad that I could make an LFS box if I wanted to. I am glad that you can download RH9 (though marginally I object to that). Definitely I am for the Fedora project. But enterprise is a major work and support should be shown by those who have need of such a package. Making it was not free despite the use of free components. I probably have more understanding of free software than you assume that I do. I disagree with how some people utilise the fact that it is free but basically applaud the liberty to do so.
After reading more about it though, I do agree that their should be a different licensing scenario for you and I hope that this get's addressed soon because the more I think it about it, the more that your 'distribution' (which I consider to be near theft under the premise that "the license" allows it regardless of conscienability) is really the fault of Red Hat. Were they more thorough in addressing various licensing needs then they would be selling their distro to people like yourself.
Before I can go to google and type the words "Kiss my ass", click the "I'm feeling lucky" button and arrive at the Sco home page?
If you need an enterprise OS, then you can afford an enterprise OS. I find it a shame that someone would simply go through and remove the trademarks (which RedHat allows and even gives instructions in their license for it). To those companies using it I hope you get to see why people say, you get what you pay for.
1 in 10 redhat customers is so dissatisfied with their product that they are not maintaining their subscriptions.
...well, anything. Finally, 1 out of ten may actually be so upset about the product that they left. Those are all hypothetical numbers but so are statistics in general.
Probably, you could say that 8 out of ten people do not know / or understand that it is a subscription service and thus don't pay. 1 out of ten were not prepared to migrate and unable to perform technical tasks related to
No it's not a great job, the reasonably priced support option is gone, and there's nothing they offer between outlandishly expensive enterprise support and free no support.
What a bad company, they dropped a line with no profit return and simply committed a handful of 70-110K $ developers to a free project. Damn them. Why won't they support my 8 PCs with Red Hat 6.2 that I burned (not bought). Linux is free (like speech) you want free like money go play with Minix or something.
Show me the money!
Does anyone have any experience with RedHat support? Is it worth the money?
:-( that left a bad taste in my mouth. However, I called Red Hat support and the guy said "What do you want me to do for you?" I said I would be satisfied (their FTP server was not working either that day) if they got me new disks RIGHT AWAY. He actually said "OK" The next day I got a package from Red Hats Distribution people containing BURNED COPIES of the master disks...the very next day. That pulled me out of a tight spot. The following day the newly repressed boxed set arrived. Red Hats support was polite and thorough. (note I complained on Slashdot that day as I was waiting on the phone...this post cancels that :-)
I have just migrated from $c0 to RedHat ES 3. The initial disks were corrupt on shipment
It includes a Mach Microkernel, with BSD and OPENSTEP personalities running on it.
Thanks, I think it was a version of openstep that I saw running on a linux box that confused me.
I don't think I would be ABLE to stop myself from buying a laser cannon.
My personal goal is sharks with Lasers on their heads. Is that so fricking hard?