What part of the US are you in where people say they're relatively happy with the healthcare system? I can't think of anyone in the US that has said unequivocally, "We have the best damn healthcare system in the world!"
Sorry to change the subject, but what sort of oil reserves does Canada have? Not that we'd ever use that as a reason to invade, of course not, you're our friend! But seeing as how Alaska has a lot of oil, I bet you guys have all sorts of juicy oil fields just ripe for the taking^H^H^H^H^H^H, uh never mind.
I've always wondered about that bit in Dr. Strangelove. Why do an survival equipment check after you're airborne? If something is missing from your kit, you're not going to replace it until you return to base.
On the other hand, I guess it gives you something to do on a long boring flight and takes your mind of the the terrifying aspects of the mission.
Any slashdotters that are old SAC flyers care to shed light on this? Was this SOP or just for the movie?
Yes, yes, mod me off topic. I got karma to spare, but I must have an answer.
If you don't have $425 to invest, how can you even consider yourself an investor?
I think the story has another explanation: Institutional investors stayed out of the auction, hoping that the IPO would fail for "ideological" reasons* and betting that the price would drop drastically when trading opened. Seeing that the price wasn't dropping, they began to pick up shares here and there, further boosting the price on the first day.
*Google's dutch auction IPO is a slap in the face of the investment banks and the institutional players, since neither is able to get their usual unfair advantage.
I'd argue it's more a case of, "Dude, instead of each of us buying our own sixpack (developing our own proprietary OS), let's all chip in on a keg (Linux), save a lot of money, and get totally wasted. =)
People are still buying beer, they've just found a more cost effective way to procure it. So maybe we should change the saying to "Free as in Speech, cheap as in kegger party!! Dude, you're so pissed!"
Sure, MS were part of IBM's downfall, but that was business.
The same can be said of the situation today, it's business. The big difference, near as I can tell, is that because Linux is FOSS, it cannot be monopolized. IBM might be positioning itself to be the leading linux player, but they will never be the only linux player.
Very good point, that amorality does not equal evil. However, by it's very amoral nature, capitalism lacks any sort of internal regulation to prevent evil acts. Thus, external regulation of some form is necessary.
As a tangent, I've always found it interesting that there are two emotions that motivate Wall Street, namely Greed and Fear. And of the two, Greed is considered the positive emotion. =)
Don't get me wrong. I believe that capitalism and free markets are the best long term bet for the people of this planet. I believe that regulation has it's place in restraining the excesses of the free market, but that this apparent contradiction can be solved with even handed world wide application of these regulations. They're doing it for copyrights and patents, why can't they do it for clean air and water?
I think you must have one of those steel ball bearing minds, i.e., totally impenetrable. Try this press release on for size.
During the past seven months, our company, along with Boies, Schiller & Flexner, has uncovered a number of substantial software code issues as they pertain to our UNIX intellectual property and Linux," said Darl McBride, President and CEO, The SCO Group, Inc. "By far the most important asset of this company is our ownership of the UNIX operating system and today we are investing in the protection and future of UNIX. Boies, Schiller & Flexner is now moving beyond the contract issues we have with IBM. The firm will be enforcing and defending SCO's intellectual property rights, including the protection of our UNIX System V source code and our copyrights that were reaffirmed as a result of the BSDI settlement agreement."
"As part of the expanded scope, the firm has been engaged to support SCO regarding issues relating to copyrighted Unix code incorporated into Linux without authorization or appropriate copyright notices," the company said in Tuesday's release. "Code that has been identified includes Unix System V code as well as copyrighted code included in the 1994 settlement between Unix Systems Laboratories Inc. and Berkeley Software Design Inc. SCO acquired this code and associated copyrights in 1995 from Novell."
You're being overly literal minded and arguing semantics. How charmingly sophmoric! Even more charming that your argument is wrong. However, unfamiliarity with the English language might be the least of your problems. Your big problem is that you stated that SCO never claimed to own copyrights to code in the Linux kernel. That has made my job easy; I have only to find a single instance where SCO has made such claims. So far, I've given you three.
My advice: In the future, avoid making hard to defend generalizations, especially when you are basing them on the utterances of a company famous for it's double-talk. Learn to read between the lines and to understand implications. SCO might have thought they were safe making implications, that if they tap danced hard enough they couldn't be pinned down, but their words are coming back to haunt them, and IBM is nailing them down with those very words. This might be too subtle a point for you to catch, however.
Woah! I followed most of your argument, but you lost me on "with Dubya in charge, the US is shifting more toward pure capitalism (ie, far less government intervention into the private sector)"
Seems to me that the government is intervening just as much as ever, the difference under Bush is that the government is making "positive" interventions that favor powerful corporations that are friendly with the administration. The trend here is toward corporate welfare, not towards pure free market capitalism.
The Bush administration talks a goof game of capitalism, but the type they actually practice is "crony capitalism", which is far from pure capitalism.
the GPL is becoming omnipresent, and thus there is no choice in many case.
Maybe you can provide us with an example where there is an absence of all of these alternatives to using GPL code.
1) Buy a license for a proprietary product.
2) Use code released under a different OSS license.
3) Create your own.
Further, it bears repeating that the GPL applies to distribution. Nothing in the GPL prevents you from using it in any way you see fit, so long as it's for internal use. It's only when you build and modify on GPL code and then try to distribute and/or capitalize on those modifications that the GPL kicks in.
Maybe I'm not understanding your argument and I'm not telling you anything new. I'm just not clear on how the prevalence of GPL code could limit my choices as either an end user or as a developer (hypothetically. I'm not a developer)
OTOH when I download and use Linux for free without contributing, can you then stop anyone else from doing what they like with that free thing haviong attached no value.
I might be missing your argument here, but the GPL doesn't cover use, it covers distribution. The moment you begin distributing it, the GPL kicks in, but if you are only using it internally, the source sharing provision of the GPL doesn't apply.
Not going to happen. SCOX is thinly traded, meaning one or more big investors control the stock and therefore control the company. The largest block is owned by Canopy.
When this whole thing started, the prevailing thought was that SCO was attempting to induce IBM into buying them. It also seemed pretty clear that unless SCO had a slam dunk case, IBM would instead rely on it's fearsome legal department.
SCO hasn't come any where near a slam dunk. In fact, they haven't been able to get into the paint. And that's as far as my tired brain is going to work the basketball analogy for now.
You must be new here. =) I always wanted to say that.
Forbes is well known for spinning in favor of SCO. True, this article is not by Dan Lyons, but we should all be quite aware of Forbes' deep anti-Linux bias by now. When you see that Forbes is reporting on anything relating to SCO, think "cheerleader".
If Forbes considers SCO's response robust, Forbes conveniently ignores the fact that ATT clarified that it held no claim on derivative works, only on software developed by ATT. See echo.
Secondly, a robust defense is what happens in court, not in press releases, at least when the offense is occurring in court. To say that they have a robust response would be less misleading, but, in this context, a defense implies that they have defended themselves in court on this matter.
To activate the firewall in OS X, you have to do this:
1)Open system preferences
2)Click sharing
3)Click the Firewall tab
4) click the start button to start the firewall.
Yeah. Pretty difficult. =)
The one non-intuitive part is that it's in the sharing prefs, not in the security prefs, at least as of 10.3.4. I heard that this would change, but I'm not sure if that will happen with Tiger or before.
If you need more control, you can use a shareware app like brickhouse or you can tweak ipfw yourself.
If the letter has nothing to do with the IBM case (not yet at trial by the way), then why has IBM included it in it's exhibits?
If SCO has never claimed to own copyright to any code in the Linux Kernel, then why would IBM make a motion for summary judgement to the effect that no SCO copyrighted code has been improperly placed into the Linux kernel?
It's funny that you won't grant for the sake of argument that SCO might have code in the kernel, yet you accept SCO's statements at face value, even when they conflict with other SCO statements.
You state that the letter doesn't mention copyrights. What rights does it mention? "Intellectual property and other rights." Now, exactly what IP rights might SCO lay claim to? Patent rights to Unix Sys V? I don't think so. Trade secrets? No, that can't be it. Trademark? Trademark to the Unix name resides with someone else. So by process of elimination, we arrive at copyrights. They are referring to copyrights, Watson. Unless there is some other form of IP that you are privy to.
I'll let it die when you stop making misleading or erroneous statements. You can tap dance around the copyright issues just as SCO has, but you'll notice that IBM's attorneys have called their bullshit, thus the motion for summary judgment.
Wow, such a powerful argument. Did you formulate that while checking for polyps?
You continue to mischaracterize the situation. MS did not discredit the study. The Unix and Linux communities did that. MS sought to distance themselves when it became apparent that the study was a steaming pile. They said that the study was "unhelpful".
For someone who claims to hate MS, you sure seem to take their statements in the best possible way.
There really is no reason to "trust you". When someone I don't know, who has never given me a reason to trust them says, "Trust me," my universal translator kicks in, and I hear the words, "Fuck you." And backatcha. Trust me, Curtman.
pagan odysseus has suggested that there are bigger players hiding behind SCO and the anti-Linux FUD campaign, a contention that has well documented evidence. (Baystar, AdTI, Halloween memos, etc.) There are fingerprints all over the place. Granted fingerprints are circumstantial evidence, but you seem to be saying that without direct evidence such as an eyewitness, discussion on the topic of who is behind this should be verboten.
We have evidence that portions of UNIX System V software code have been copied into Linux and that additional other portions of UNIX System V software code have been modified and copied into Linux, seemingly for the purposes of obfuscating their original source.
and
We believe that Linux infringes on our UNIX intellectual property and other rights. We intend to aggressively protect and enforce these rights.
Perhaps you should share with us your definitions of "thief" and of "stealing".
Then, maybe you should enumerate in detail which instances stealing you are referring to in your comment. Charges of stealing are pretty serious. The least you can do is back up those charges with some facts; otherwise you're just trolling.
Perhaps you should learn a bit more about Darwin and other OSS initiatives of Apple before condemning them? Then you could see if your original impression was correct or erroneous.
"If SCO is correct in its assertion that it owns the copyright to code which may be in the kernel"
Then you'd be talking out of your ass, because thats not what SCO is saying. Thats what they lead the media to believe. ..
So they led the media to believe it without actually saying it? That's a pretty neat trick. Unless I misunderstood you, which is quite possible, as it's hard to hear your voice through several layers of clothing (your underpants and pants).
From day one, SCO has claimed that Linux contains code to which they own the copyright. Where have you been? Sightseeing in the Sigmoid Flexure?
Slashdot Mirror
What part of the US are you in where people say they're relatively happy with the healthcare system? I can't think of anyone in the US that has said unequivocally, "We have the best damn healthcare system in the world!"
Sorry to change the subject, but what sort of oil reserves does Canada have? Not that we'd ever use that as a reason to invade, of course not, you're our friend! But seeing as how Alaska has a lot of oil, I bet you guys have all sorts of juicy oil fields just ripe for the taking^H^H^H^H^H^H, uh never mind.
I've always wondered about that bit in Dr. Strangelove. Why do an survival equipment check after you're airborne? If something is missing from your kit, you're not going to replace it until you return to base.
On the other hand, I guess it gives you something to do on a long boring flight and takes your mind of the the terrifying aspects of the mission.
Any slashdotters that are old SAC flyers care to shed light on this? Was this SOP or just for the movie?
Yes, yes, mod me off topic. I got karma to spare, but I must have an answer.
If you don't have $425 to invest, how can you even consider yourself an investor?
I think the story has another explanation: Institutional investors stayed out of the auction, hoping that the IPO would fail for "ideological" reasons* and betting that the price would drop drastically when trading opened. Seeing that the price wasn't dropping, they began to pick up shares here and there, further boosting the price on the first day.
*Google's dutch auction IPO is a slap in the face of the investment banks and the institutional players, since neither is able to get their usual unfair advantage.
Heh. =)
I'd argue it's more a case of, "Dude, instead of each of us buying our own sixpack (developing our own proprietary OS), let's all chip in on a keg (Linux), save a lot of money, and get totally wasted. =)
People are still buying beer, they've just found a more cost effective way to procure it. So maybe we should change the saying to "Free as in Speech, cheap as in kegger party!! Dude, you're so pissed!"
Sure, MS were part of IBM's downfall, but that was business.
The same can be said of the situation today, it's business. The big difference, near as I can tell, is that because Linux is FOSS, it cannot be monopolized. IBM might be positioning itself to be the leading linux player, but they will never be the only linux player.
I was wondering when one of you air breathing, water drinking nutjobs was going to post. =)
Very good point, that amorality does not equal evil. However, by it's very amoral nature, capitalism lacks any sort of internal regulation to prevent evil acts. Thus, external regulation of some form is necessary.
As a tangent, I've always found it interesting that there are two emotions that motivate Wall Street, namely Greed and Fear. And of the two, Greed is considered the positive emotion. =)
Don't get me wrong. I believe that capitalism and free markets are the best long term bet for the people of this planet. I believe that regulation has it's place in restraining the excesses of the free market, but that this apparent contradiction can be solved with even handed world wide application of these regulations. They're doing it for copyrights and patents, why can't they do it for clean air and water?
More:
You're being overly literal minded and arguing semantics. How charmingly sophmoric! Even more charming that your argument is wrong. However, unfamiliarity with the English language might be the least of your problems. Your big problem is that you stated that SCO never claimed to own copyrights to code in the Linux kernel. That has made my job easy; I have only to find a single instance where SCO has made such claims. So far, I've given you three.
My advice: In the future, avoid making hard to defend generalizations, especially when you are basing them on the utterances of a company famous for it's double-talk. Learn to read between the lines and to understand implications. SCO might have thought they were safe making implications, that if they tap danced hard enough they couldn't be pinned down, but their words are coming back to haunt them, and IBM is nailing them down with those very words. This might be too subtle a point for you to catch, however.
Woah! I followed most of your argument, but you lost me on "with Dubya in charge, the US is shifting more toward pure capitalism (ie, far less government intervention into the private sector)"
Seems to me that the government is intervening just as much as ever, the difference under Bush is that the government is making "positive" interventions that favor powerful corporations that are friendly with the administration. The trend here is toward corporate welfare, not towards pure free market capitalism.
The Bush administration talks a goof game of capitalism, but the type they actually practice is "crony capitalism", which is far from pure capitalism.
And hurry up and get to the part about the turnips and the onion on your belt (which was the style at the time).
the GPL is becoming omnipresent, and thus there is no choice in many case.
Maybe you can provide us with an example where there is an absence of all of these alternatives to using GPL code.
1) Buy a license for a proprietary product.
2) Use code released under a different OSS license.
3) Create your own.
Further, it bears repeating that the GPL applies to distribution. Nothing in the GPL prevents you from using it in any way you see fit, so long as it's for internal use. It's only when you build and modify on GPL code and then try to distribute and/or capitalize on those modifications that the GPL kicks in.
Maybe I'm not understanding your argument and I'm not telling you anything new. I'm just not clear on how the prevalence of GPL code could limit my choices as either an end user or as a developer (hypothetically. I'm not a developer)
Germany doesn't have any oil, so it's not really worth it. Good idea, though.
OTOH when I download and use Linux for free without contributing, can you then stop anyone else from doing what they like with that free thing haviong attached no value.
I might be missing your argument here, but the GPL doesn't cover use, it covers distribution. The moment you begin distributing it, the GPL kicks in, but if you are only using it internally, the source sharing provision of the GPL doesn't apply.
Not going to happen. SCOX is thinly traded, meaning one or more big investors control the stock and therefore control the company. The largest block is owned by Canopy.
When this whole thing started, the prevailing thought was that SCO was attempting to induce IBM into buying them. It also seemed pretty clear that unless SCO had a slam dunk case, IBM would instead rely on it's fearsome legal department.
SCO hasn't come any where near a slam dunk. In fact, they haven't been able to get into the paint. And that's as far as my tired brain is going to work the basketball analogy for now.
You must be new here. =) I always wanted to say that.
Forbes is well known for spinning in favor of SCO. True, this article is not by Dan Lyons, but we should all be quite aware of Forbes' deep anti-Linux bias by now. When you see that Forbes is reporting on anything relating to SCO, think "cheerleader".
If Forbes considers SCO's response robust, Forbes conveniently ignores the fact that ATT clarified that it held no claim on derivative works, only on software developed by ATT. See echo.
Secondly, a robust defense is what happens in court, not in press releases, at least when the offense is occurring in court. To say that they have a robust response would be less misleading, but, in this context, a defense implies that they have defended themselves in court on this matter.
Keep your goddamn radiation out of space, man! For the sake of the children! We don't want them inheriting a solar system full of radiation! =)
In space, no one can see you scream.
To activate the firewall in OS X, you have to do this:
1)Open system preferences
2)Click sharing
3)Click the Firewall tab
4) click the start button to start the firewall.
Yeah. Pretty difficult. =)
The one non-intuitive part is that it's in the sharing prefs, not in the security prefs, at least as of 10.3.4. I heard that this would change, but I'm not sure if that will happen with Tiger or before.
If you need more control, you can use a shareware app like brickhouse or you can tweak ipfw yourself.
If the letter has nothing to do with the IBM case (not yet at trial by the way), then why has IBM included it in it's exhibits?
If SCO has never claimed to own copyright to any code in the Linux Kernel, then why would IBM make a motion for summary judgement to the effect that no SCO copyrighted code has been improperly placed into the Linux kernel?
It's funny that you won't grant for the sake of argument that SCO might have code in the kernel, yet you accept SCO's statements at face value, even when they conflict with other SCO statements.
You state that the letter doesn't mention copyrights. What rights does it mention? "Intellectual property and other rights." Now, exactly what IP rights might SCO lay claim to? Patent rights to Unix Sys V? I don't think so. Trade secrets? No, that can't be it. Trademark? Trademark to the Unix name resides with someone else. So by process of elimination, we arrive at copyrights. They are referring to copyrights, Watson. Unless there is some other form of IP that you are privy to.
I'll let it die when you stop making misleading or erroneous statements. You can tap dance around the copyright issues just as SCO has, but you'll notice that IBM's attorneys have called their bullshit, thus the motion for summary judgment.
Wow, such a powerful argument. Did you formulate that while checking for polyps?
You continue to mischaracterize the situation. MS did not discredit the study. The Unix and Linux communities did that. MS sought to distance themselves when it became apparent that the study was a steaming pile. They said that the study was "unhelpful".
For someone who claims to hate MS, you sure seem to take their statements in the best possible way.
There really is no reason to "trust you". When someone I don't know, who has never given me a reason to trust them says, "Trust me," my universal translator kicks in, and I hear the words, "Fuck you." And backatcha. Trust me, Curtman.
pagan odysseus has suggested that there are bigger players hiding behind SCO and the anti-Linux FUD campaign, a contention that has well documented evidence. (Baystar, AdTI, Halloween memos, etc.) There are fingerprints all over the place. Granted fingerprints are circumstantial evidence, but you seem to be saying that without direct evidence such as an eyewitness, discussion on the topic of who is behind this should be verboten.
and
There are plenty more examples.
Perhaps you should share with us your definitions of "thief" and of "stealing".
Then, maybe you should enumerate in detail which instances stealing you are referring to in your comment. Charges of stealing are pretty serious. The least you can do is back up those charges with some facts; otherwise you're just trolling.
Perhaps you should learn a bit more about Darwin and other OSS initiatives of Apple before condemning them? Then you could see if your original impression was correct or erroneous.
So they led the media to believe it without actually saying it? That's a pretty neat trick. Unless I misunderstood you, which is quite possible, as it's hard to hear your voice through several layers of clothing (your underpants and pants).
From day one, SCO has claimed that Linux contains code to which they own the copyright. Where have you been? Sightseeing in the Sigmoid Flexure?