How did the Linux users evolve? I assume they've already moved out to colonize other planets...
Linux user can't evolve, since evolution requires actual sexual reproduction, involving two people of complementary genders, to pass on genes to another generation.
There are graveyards of companies that have signed "memos of understanding" with Microsoft.
Whenever Microsoft gets whatever it signed this agreement to get, probably to stop something potentially competitive, then *something* will go awry that will allow Microsoft to get out of the deal without having giving anything in return.
Just ask Stac, Burst, Pointcast, Intuit, Apple.....
Well, the domain has been registered since 1999, by the folks that run sewing.org, which has been registered since 1995, so if it's a hoax, it's a bit more elaborate than normal.
The trouble with that, of course, is that the device shows the date of July 17, and the calendar on the wall is for 1973, while Ford didn't become Vice President until December 6, 1973.
It's a good thing they lost the lawsuit on the Lindows name...
The case was settled out of court, with Microsoft paying Lindows $20,000,000 to buy their out of their own lawsuit, because Lindows was about to destroy the "Windows" trademark.
The biggest flaw in the FreePC plan was that the people that would go for a free computer typically did so because they either didn't have money, or did but were were major tightwads - which wasn't a very interesting demographic group for advertising.
I recently did a Staples "Easy Rebate" on an HP printer, filling out all the information correctly and even getting a confirmation that everything had been verified by Staples, only to get a rejection from HP due to "insufficient information".
Staples subsequently disavowed the rebate ("we don't process them") and it finally took a couple of emails back and forth to HP to get the matter "resolved". However, I just got *another* rejection from HP in the mail. So now I have an email from HP saying the rebate has finally been accepted and a physical letter that saying it hasn't. Meanwhile, the deadline is looming.
About two-thirds of the rebates I've done have been "rejected" only to be "resolved" after contacting the fulfillment company pointing out that they already have all the information they claim they don't. I've even received rejection letters claiming that they haven't received a serial number - with the serial number printed on the letter. It seems like it's just one more barrier they erect to avoid or delay paying, hoping you'll drop the matter.
So, um, why was SCO unable to produce *any* of this alleged identical source code in discovery?
I guess I don't understand the strategy of not actually using the "mountains of evidence" in the *only* circumstance that would matter, as opposed to disclosing it to random clueless Anonymous Cowards.
"Clearly, we're intent on preventing anyone from actually buying or using this product" he said, "but, just in case, we've also added a small amount of plastic explosive to the power supply and dipped the game controller in anthrax."
So the answer to extortion is extortion? Oh wait, because it is something you like, it is an explanation, not extortion.
If the ISPs insist that they need the right to be able to provide lower quality of service, I see no reason why Google shouldn't accomodate them by providing it.
I don't think so - that would be hijacking the domain, and no ISP would take the chance. Google would have a restraining order on them within minutes. It would also threaten their status as a common carrier.
Plus, neither MSN nor Yahoo would want to be party to such a scheme lest it later be applied to them.
I think the market can probably handle this- here's the scenario:
1) Some ISP attempts to extort Google 2) Google responds to all searches from that ISP with simple page explaining what's going on with appropriate contact information 3) ISP wishes they had a time machine so they could undo the damage 4) ISP stops extorting Google
The problem with these ISPs is that they really don't understand where they live in the food chain as far as customers are concerned - Google is an increasingly important tool, and the ISP is someone that sends increasing bills with diminishing quality of service. The music industry is in the same boat with Apple - a label that threatens Apple with removal of their catalog would be playing with fire.
If Google were not available from my ISP for even 24 hours, I would go to a *lot* of trouble to find another ISP.
They got preliminary injunctions in some countries (in some case without Lindows even being notified in advance of the hearing), but did not prevail in any actual trial in any country. It is quite likely they would have won the cases in at least some of them, but they would have been hollow victories if they lost in the US and other English-speaking countries. It was clearly worth $20 million to them to not find out.
Actually, Microsoft didn't win - when it was clear from some of the judge's rulings that they were about to lose the "Windows" trademark in the United States on the basis of genericness, they decided to buy themselves out of the litigation they initiated by paying Lindows/Linspire $20 million.
Technically it was a settlement, but it's rare that the plaintiff pays off the defendant in order to get out of a case.
So why aren't they funding authoring of good content filters?
Because it's not in their economic interest to actually eliminate the problem. The continued existence of "evil" is a critical component of the business.
It's more than just the kernel - Qt is under a GPL2-only license, which means that KDE, and all the apps and libraries that link to them are effectively GPL2-only as well. If you create a GPL3 library, it cannot be linked with any KDE application.
It appears to me that Qt is licensed under the GPLv2-only (as opposed to GPLv2-or-later). KDE is licensed under the LGPLv2-or-later, but since it links to Qt, it cannot be changed to LGPLv3 and still link against it. It follows then that all KDE applications are in reality LGPLv2-only. This means that any library that any KDE application links against cannot be GPLv3.
So If I were making a library, why would I ever choose to use GPLv3 or LGPLv3, when it completely removes the possiblity of being used in any Qt/KDE application?
Any takers on whether or not they'll attempt to patent these extensions, and make sure that they cannot be licensed in a manner compatible with the GPL?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I'd hate to be a chair in Richard Stallman's office right about now - assuming he actually uses a chair and doesn't just levitate.
Whenever Microsoft gets whatever it signed this agreement to get, probably to stop something potentially competitive, then *something* will go awry that will allow Microsoft to get out of the deal without having giving anything in return.
Just ask Stac, Burst, Pointcast, Intuit, Apple.....
Well, the domain has been registered since 1999, by the folks that run sewing.org, which has been registered since 1995, so if it's a hoax, it's a bit more elaborate than normal.
The trouble with that, of course, is that the device shows the date of July 17, and the calendar on the wall is for 1973, while Ford didn't become Vice President until December 6, 1973.
Freespire doesn't handle accounts the same as Linspire.
It's more like Ubuntu in that regard - a user account with sudo privileges with the account's password.
It's quite easy to create user accounts in Linspire, and it's even recommmended during the installation.
The biggest flaw in the FreePC plan was that the people that would go for a free computer typically did so because they either didn't have money, or did but were were major tightwads - which wasn't a very interesting demographic group for advertising.
Staples subsequently disavowed the rebate ("we don't process them") and it finally took a couple of emails back and forth to HP to get the matter "resolved". However, I just got *another* rejection from HP in the mail. So now I have an email from HP saying the rebate has finally been accepted and a physical letter that saying it hasn't. Meanwhile, the deadline is looming.
About two-thirds of the rebates I've done have been "rejected" only to be "resolved" after contacting the fulfillment company pointing out that they already have all the information they claim they don't. I've even received rejection letters claiming that they haven't received a serial number - with the serial number printed on the letter. It seems like it's just one more barrier they erect to avoid or delay paying, hoping you'll drop the matter.
I guess I don't understand the strategy of not actually using the "mountains of evidence" in the *only* circumstance that would matter, as opposed to disclosing it to random clueless Anonymous Cowards.
"Clearly, we're intent on preventing anyone from actually buying or using this product" he said, "but, just in case, we've also added a small amount of plastic explosive to the power supply and dipped the game controller in anthrax."
You're reading the wrong parent. (I should have quoted the parent post).
I don't think so - that would be hijacking the domain, and no ISP would take the chance. Google would have a restraining order on them within minutes. It would also threaten their status as a common carrier. Plus, neither MSN nor Yahoo would want to be party to such a scheme lest it later be applied to them.
I think the market can probably handle this- here's the scenario:
1) Some ISP attempts to extort Google
2) Google responds to all searches from that ISP with simple page explaining what's going on with appropriate contact information
3) ISP wishes they had a time machine so they could undo the damage
4) ISP stops extorting Google
The problem with these ISPs is that they really don't understand where they live in the food chain as far as customers are concerned - Google is an increasingly important tool, and the ISP is someone that sends increasing bills with diminishing quality of service. The music industry is in the same boat with Apple - a label that threatens Apple with removal of their catalog would be playing with fire.
If Google were not available from my ISP for even 24 hours, I would go to a *lot* of trouble to find another ISP.
They got preliminary injunctions in some countries (in some case without Lindows even being notified in advance of the hearing), but did not prevail in any actual trial in any country. It is quite likely they would have won the cases in at least some of them, but they would have been hollow victories if they lost in the US and other English-speaking countries. It was clearly worth $20 million to them to not find out.
Technically it was a settlement, but it's rare that the plaintiff pays off the defendant in order to get out of a case.
Won't somebody at IBM please think of the chairs?
It's also non-DRM music from independent artists.
It's more than just the kernel - Qt is under a GPL2-only license, which means that KDE, and all the apps and libraries that link to them are effectively GPL2-only as well. If you create a GPL3 library, it cannot be linked with any KDE application.
It's a real shame that somebody didn't take out a business patent on this - this is an area where stifling of innovation might have been a good thing!
It appears to me that Qt is licensed under the GPLv2-only (as opposed to GPLv2-or-later). KDE is licensed under the LGPLv2-or-later, but since it links to Qt, it cannot be changed to LGPLv3 and still link against it. It follows then that all KDE applications are in reality LGPLv2-only. This means that any library that any KDE application links against cannot be GPLv3.
So If I were making a library, why would I ever choose to use GPLv3 or LGPLv3, when it completely removes the possiblity of being used in any Qt/KDE application?
Any takers on whether or not they'll attempt to patent these extensions, and make sure that they cannot be licensed in a manner compatible with the GPL?