Why not? Is n't there a time where we envisage the whole 'net will be IPv6? And thats every machine, not just servers. Eventually IPv4 will die so I dont see how SMTP deing would be a big deal.
Why do n't the big players come together and come up with a better protocol instead of people trying these elaborate schemes?
Have a period where you have a parallel system going and then have a cut off time where SMTP servers die.
All it will take is the top ISP's in each country and large corporations to stop accepting SMTP mail and you'ill be sure that everyone else will then fall inline.
I assume it became the United States of Stallmania after one of the two states namely GNU insisted that the other be called GNU/Linux instead of plain Linux resulting in a long protracted civil war. It is also known that GNU state reserves the right to seperate it's Hurd part should it ever become a popular area in the future..
With regards to upgrading, I've come to the conclusion that even though MS says they want to improve security in their products having flaws is a great way to force people to upgrade.
I'ill give NT4 as an example which is EOL'd. You're a company who has managed to get your NT4 server rock solid. A new security flaw comes out and since NT4 is EOL'd MS says no security patch for you, upgrade to Win2K.
Of course if you was a complete conspiracy theorist you could say even MS would leak holes in their old products.
This was pretty much the case when it came to China for example in the footwear industry. Initially they could only produce cheap undesirable products/knockoffs so no one was worried, but they've now learnt to produce quality footware.
The same happened with electronic goods, so much so that even Taiwanese companies are starting to do their mass production in China.
As a developed country you need to keep one step ahead of the game. For example Japan, they may have lost out to China in electronics assembly, but you'ill find alot of Chinese companies will boast that their equipment and many raw materials come from Japan as a measure of quality. As long as you innovate you will stay ahead.
I think you have number 1 and 2 the wrong way round..
IBM's collaboration was with the Santa Cruz Organisation, and this was quite a long time ago.
"SCO" today is Caldera renamed, Caldera basically bought the Santa Cruz Organisation and renamed itself as SCO, seems now we know why.
This point has been mentioned before, but I'ill repeat it. There was a point where Caldera was contributing to SMP and the Santa Cruz Organisation, so in some ways "SCO" should infact be sueing itself if they're logic holds (which it does n't)
Also note that Caldera/SCO (we should call them that from now on;) was trying to sell per seat Linux licenses a while back too (was covered in/.).
SCO wants companies to sign up not because they want to be nice to PHB's but because they want to shout and scream "Look at all these companies, they agree with us, we own Linux".
Of course a lawyer could always argue that these companies signed up due to threat of litigation and that this could be construed as extortion.
The way I see this is SCO's "stratergy" is to basically scare a bunch of people with litigation by sending a bunch of letters and making a lot of noise..
then to say "hey dont worry, we won't sue you if you accept that we own Linux and are willing to accept this licensing agreement"
they are probably hoping to get thousands of scared companies to sign up and basically create the impression that they do infact own the rights to Linux.
As far as I know legally this does n't change anything (disclaimer, not a lawyer) since SCO dont have the rights to Linux to license out in the first place.
This pretty much confirms what some people here have been saying, SCO wants to own and control Linux. SCO are trying to create a fait accompli here.
A question I have is can IBM argue that SCO does n't own the rights to Linux even though IBM dont own the rights either?
The other being since "Linux" tends to mean not just the Kernel, but the libs, utils etc etc.. Does this mean that per linux distro there is a collective ownership of thousands of contributors?
Well you do come out ahead. Of course by "You" I mean US corporations, the ones who spend alot of money lobbying/paying off/etc political parties.
Biggest distributor of CD's maybe, but..
on
AOL: Amazon Who?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
it does n't mean anything because they're just distributing the same CD.
There's quite a bit of difference between automated labeling of a single pre-packaged product such as the AOL CD and an order fullfilment process. Infact the only common denominator is that just happen to be CD's, there really is n't much overlap here.
There is a PDF to Text convertor (sorry cant remember the exact name of the package) in Debian that allows that works with encrypted/protected files. You'ill have to do a little research but it is there and maybe even ported to Windows.
I think there may have been a problem in the translation:)
By "I guess" in this context I meant "I'm not too sure".
Regardless I was really just talking about the language mechanics and converting sentance for sentance which may not be possible in some languages.
Your points on cultural aspects are of course correct.
Yes I read that part, I guess it depends on the language. English being Germanic should n't be too much of a problem I guess.
The problem I'm thinking of is more subtle in that if you imagine converting the english version into an audio book even a persons voice and their inflections effect the mood.
So if you have different people just reading out the english, although word-for-word accurate would end up not being much fun to listen too.
The person doing the second-pass will probably have to do quite a bit of editing. What might be more useful would be of they had more than one translation of that section, the would choose one which "gelled" the most and required the least editing.
I know this varies greatly between languages but won't the reader notice the 5-page "boundries" where the translator changes.
Most of the time there is never a 100% "correct" translation from one language to another and relies on the translator to make the judgement. This is not a problem when it's one person doing the translation as they would more likely to be consistent throughout the book, but when you have multple people it's bound to be very tricky.
It's normally Microsoft that is derided (sp?) for bundling apps with their OS.
However I guess with Apple being the manufacture of machine you could argue that the rules are slightly different. I suppose they are trying to sell the Mac as an "Experience", ie buy a Mac no need to buy extra software everything works out of the box.
The reason it matters is because SCO are n't going after just the kernel they are saying the whole Linux "system" infringes including all the tools that range from ls to gcc. Since for example GCC has nothing to do with Linus than it does concern RMS. If SCO have a problem with GNU they should point the finger at them too and not just Linus.
I mean look at it this way, however unlikely it is lets say SCO managed to kill the Linux "system" and get that to encompass GNU stuff. It would n't affect just Linux it would effect anything with GNU stuff in it and that's ALOT of systems and not all of them are OSS.
The problem with SCO is that they keep moving the goal posts. One of their later arguments is that they claim that anyone who developes a "Unix-like" operating system owes them money. Infact they take it further saying that Unix is the basis of all modern OS's and in that respect that can go after anyone including presumably MS.
Well it depends, when you're talking about your average desktop computer the quoted FLOPS or MIPS are usually useless because the supporting architecure does n't have bandwidth to supply the processor the data at that speed, they are normally based on data that is in cache memory.
Supercomputers are designed with high bandwidth in mind and thats why in general their FLOPS are taken with less of a pinch of salt.
Since agents have been the "next big thing" for god knows how long and hyped up how about someone does something like this (please ignore the privacy issues for the timebeing):
Your phone recieves information such as where you are and what you're doing via say something like Bluetooth. For example in the cinema watching movie X at a restraunt of type Y eating food Z.
You let your phone build up a profile, it then scouts for offers near you and makes a pre-emptive booking. The offerer is allowed to be oversubscribed based on a certain percentage of people will take up the offer.
Now heres the funky part, for example if you decide to see that film your phone recommended you just simply go to the cinema and walk in, a reciever detects your phone and issues you your tickets automatically.
Since most of a modern CPU's transistor count is cache memory you'ill probably find that outside the control unit at any one time even less than 10% of the transistors are active. If you include the number of transistors present for main memory in the mix that percentage gets even lower.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not? Is n't there a time where we envisage the whole 'net will be IPv6? And thats every machine, not just servers. Eventually IPv4 will die so I dont see how SMTP deing would be a big deal.
Why do n't the big players come together and come up with a better protocol instead of people trying these elaborate schemes?
Have a period where you have a parallel system going and then have a cut off time where SMTP servers die.
All it will take is the top ISP's in each country and large corporations to stop accepting SMTP mail and you'ill be sure that everyone else will then fall inline.
Or am I just being too radical?
I assume it became the United States of Stallmania after one of the two states namely GNU insisted that the other be called GNU/Linux instead of plain Linux resulting in a long protracted civil war. It is also known that GNU state reserves the right to seperate it's Hurd part should it ever become a popular area in the future..
With regards to upgrading, I've come to the conclusion that even though MS says they want to improve security in their products having flaws is a great way to force people to upgrade.
I'ill give NT4 as an example which is EOL'd. You're a company who has managed to get your NT4 server rock solid. A new security flaw comes out and since NT4 is EOL'd MS says no security patch for you, upgrade to Win2K.
Of course if you was a complete conspiracy theorist you could say even MS would leak holes in their old products.
Nope, these people would have been educated in India.
This was pretty much the case when it came to China for example in the footwear industry. Initially they could only produce cheap undesirable products/knockoffs so no one was worried, but they've now learnt to produce quality footware.
The same happened with electronic goods, so much so that even Taiwanese companies are starting to do their mass production in China.
As a developed country you need to keep one step ahead of the game. For example Japan, they may have lost out to China in electronics assembly, but you'ill find alot of Chinese companies will boast that their equipment and many raw materials come from Japan as a measure of quality. As long as you innovate you will stay ahead.
Like those "Made in Japan" labels stopped people from buying non-american Cars, TV's, VCR's etc etc.
I think you have number 1 and 2 the wrong way round..
;) was trying to sell per seat Linux licenses a while back too (was covered in /.).
IBM's collaboration was with the Santa Cruz Organisation, and this was quite a long time ago.
"SCO" today is Caldera renamed, Caldera basically bought the Santa Cruz Organisation and renamed itself as SCO, seems now we know why.
This point has been mentioned before, but I'ill repeat it. There was a point where Caldera was contributing to SMP and the Santa Cruz Organisation, so in some ways "SCO" should infact be sueing itself if they're logic holds (which it does n't)
Also note that Caldera/SCO (we should call them that from now on
SCO wants companies to sign up not because they want to be nice to PHB's but because they want to shout and scream "Look at all these companies, they agree with us, we own Linux". Of course a lawyer could always argue that these companies signed up due to threat of litigation and that this could be construed as extortion.
The way I see this is SCO's "stratergy" is to basically scare a bunch of people with litigation by sending a bunch of letters and making a lot of noise..
then to say "hey dont worry, we won't sue you if you accept that we own Linux and are willing to accept this licensing agreement"
they are probably hoping to get thousands of scared companies to sign up and basically create the impression that they do infact own the rights to Linux.
As far as I know legally this does n't change anything (disclaimer, not a lawyer) since SCO dont have the rights to Linux to license out in the first place.
This pretty much confirms what some people here have been saying, SCO wants to own and control Linux. SCO are trying to create a fait accompli here.
A question I have is can IBM argue that SCO does n't own the rights to Linux even though IBM dont own the rights either?
The other being since "Linux" tends to mean not just the Kernel, but the libs, utils etc etc.. Does this mean that per linux distro there is a collective ownership of thousands of contributors?
Well you do come out ahead. Of course by "You" I mean US corporations, the ones who spend alot of money lobbying/paying off/etc political parties.
it does n't mean anything because they're just distributing the same CD.
There's quite a bit of difference between automated labeling of a single pre-packaged product such as the AOL CD and an order fullfilment process. Infact the only common denominator is that just happen to be CD's, there really is n't much overlap here.
There is a PDF to Text convertor (sorry cant remember the exact name of the package) in Debian that allows that works with encrypted/protected files. You'ill have to do a little research but it is there and maybe even ported to Windows.
I think there may have been a problem in the translation :)
By "I guess" in this context I meant "I'm not too sure".
Regardless I was really just talking about the language mechanics and converting sentance for sentance which may not be possible in some languages.
Your points on cultural aspects are of course correct.
Yes I read that part, I guess it depends on the language. English being Germanic should n't be too much of a problem I guess.
The problem I'm thinking of is more subtle in that if you imagine converting the english version into an audio book even a persons voice and their inflections effect the mood.
So if you have different people just reading out the english, although word-for-word accurate would end up not being much fun to listen too.
The person doing the second-pass will probably have to do quite a bit of editing. What might be more useful would be of they had more than one translation of that section, the would choose one which "gelled" the most and required the least editing.
I know this varies greatly between languages but won't the reader notice the 5-page "boundries" where the translator changes.
Most of the time there is never a 100% "correct" translation from one language to another and relies on the translator to make the judgement. This is not a problem when it's one person doing the translation as they would more likely to be consistent throughout the book, but when you have multple people it's bound to be very tricky.
Well as far as I'm aware, OEM AMD processors come with no end user warrenty.
I mis-read the summary, please be gentle.
It's normally Microsoft that is derided (sp?) for bundling apps with their OS.
However I guess with Apple being the manufacture of machine you could argue that the rules are slightly different. I suppose they are trying to sell the Mac as an "Experience", ie buy a Mac no need to buy extra software everything works out of the box.
The reason it matters is because SCO are n't going after just the kernel they are saying the whole Linux "system" infringes including all the tools that range from ls to gcc. Since for example GCC has nothing to do with Linus than it does concern RMS. If SCO have a problem with GNU they should point the finger at them too and not just Linus.
I mean look at it this way, however unlikely it is lets say SCO managed to kill the Linux "system" and get that to encompass GNU stuff. It would n't affect just Linux it would effect anything with GNU stuff in it and that's ALOT of systems and not all of them are OSS.
The problem with SCO is that they keep moving the goal posts. One of their later arguments is that they claim that anyone who developes a "Unix-like" operating system owes them money. Infact they take it further saying that Unix is the basis of all modern OS's and in that respect that can go after anyone including presumably MS.
Well it depends, when you're talking about your average desktop computer the quoted FLOPS or MIPS are usually useless because the supporting architecure does n't have bandwidth to supply the processor the data at that speed, they are normally based on data that is in cache memory.
Supercomputers are designed with high bandwidth in mind and thats why in general their FLOPS are taken with less of a pinch of salt.
Since agents have been the "next big thing" for god knows how long and hyped up how about someone does something like this (please ignore the privacy issues for the timebeing):
.
Your phone recieves information such as where you are and what you're doing via say something like Bluetooth. For example in the cinema watching movie X at a restraunt of type Y eating food Z
You let your phone build up a profile, it then scouts for offers near you and makes a pre-emptive booking. The offerer is allowed to be oversubscribed based on a certain percentage of people will take up the offer.
Now heres the funky part, for example if you decide to see that film your phone recommended you just simply go to the cinema and walk in, a reciever detects your phone and issues you your tickets automatically.
Probably sounds like a plane too with all those Case/CPU fans :)
Thats for his own safety, just incase all those monitors come crashing down on him :)
Since most of a modern CPU's transistor count is cache memory you'ill probably find that outside the control unit at any one time even less than 10% of the transistors are active. If you include the number of transistors present for main memory in the mix that percentage gets even lower.