Actually that wasn't (just) an attempt at a 'funny' mod.
The second page of the linked article in the parent explains that this might even be technology that Borland did give Microsoft from the Delphi stuff.
In exchange for a desperately needed $125 million cash infusion, Borland gave Microsoft the blueprints for much of its key technology, let Microsoft off the hook by settling long-standing patent disputes, and agreed to tie its own tools even more tightly to the Windows operating system. Inprise agreed to provide full access to more than 100 of its technology patents, including spreadsheet technologies and pending patent applications related to newer products. This transaction signified final victory for Microsoft in an epic battle to control the desktop database and development tool businesses.
What keeps me on Unix is the idea that lots of little tools (dd, sort, cat, cut, perl, awk, etc) all do pretty much one job and do them well; and you can string together lots of them to make much more complicated systems. With windows these would probably be all merged into some monolithic GUI that is far less flexible.
Same for programming environments. My editor (emacs or vi) edits; may syntax checker (lint) checks syntax; and my complier (gcc) compiles. This ends up being a far more flexible environment than any of those GUIs that do one thing well (set a breakpoint) but suck at everything else (editing, etc).
"There will come a day when DRAM will go away and we'll be left with extremely fast and simple NVRAM for main memory and possibly even archival storage."
Then not even rebooting will "fix" a MS-Windows computer, and everyone'll go Linux.:)
The language itself (which is used to write the presentation layer) is lisp based (but with curley braces insted of parens), but the data sent between the client and server is typically XML.
Their "Executive Dashboard" application is a good example, where the same XML data (revenue, profit by division, etc) can be presented as tables, graphs, charts, maps, or even 3D-globes.
Nutritionists, when describing the energy content of food, typically refer to Calories (capitalized and abbreviated as C or kcalcal); one Calorie equals 1000 15 °C calories,
This kind of "us vs them" mentality will make Microsoft and the Alex De Tokingvile guy win.
Simply bashing the system is not going to make the system respect Linux any more. It plays right in the hands of Brown's claim that the open source community has no respect for intellectual property.
It'd be far more constructive to help educate the patent office than to simply make fun of them. I suspect they want to learn, and if all we do is make jokes, and the Alex the Tweakerville guys give them well written policy papers, guess who they'll learn from.
I spend more time on my computer than in my car.
Why not spend a little extra to get a good one.
I think the same philosophy goes to having a comfortable bed, chair, etc. Money's made to be spent, and what better place to spend it than on something I use most every day?
How about saying that it's like listing the ingrediants in food. "All organic" "open source" have similar user-friendly branding aspects. Both let the end users know more about the product.
Why would this matter? Uncompressed and scaled (which happens once) it'll be just as big as your screen in the same way that a diagonal gradient would be. It's not like your monitor decompresses on the fly every time it displays an image.
"This is the only form of unbreakable encryption."
Overgeneralizing, of course.
For example, these is also just as "unbreakable":
A two-time pad: Apply a one-time-pad-algorithm twice.
Compress your data, and apply a one-time-pad to the compressed data. (* note, this gives away some info, but note also that the one-time-pad does as well.
And of course, the one-time-pad (just like my compressed example) does give away some information: the amount of information transfered.
Consider, for example, if you encode "yes" and "no" responses in your one-time-pad. Far from "unbreakable" in that case.
You could argue an encryption algorithm that is even more unbreakable is a one-time-pad plus "padding" your message with a random amount of data or to a fixed length.
Aparanetly not... According to Baystar, they're happy with SCO's cash management, and mangement of the litigation.
Quoth the article:
"...BayStar is extremely satisfied with SCO's current operating and cash management plans, new initiatives, management of the litigation, and plans for improving its business going forward," said Larry Goldfarb, managing general partner, BayStar Capital.
Now if they're so happy, why are they buying their shares back?
I seem to recall a time where you didn't own the telephone in your house either, but the phone company gave you one with your subscription. Anyone know how&why that model changed?
"It's almost blackmail....
That's hardly in the spirit of Free Software."
C'mon guys. It's nothing like blackmail. In fact it demonstrates one of the great strengths of the spirit of free software.
One of the key benefits of open source is that if the originator of the product can't continue the project for any reason (bought by a competitor, switched to a closed-source model, got kicked out of parents basement, got bored) - anyone's free to fork it and continue on.
He's just letting the community know that he's likely to move on and if people depend on it to fork the software now. It's still far more courtious than a commercial company going under _without_ any options for continued support for their customers.
"I could be mistaken, but wouldn't open source code for voting machines make it that much easier for someone to hack the machines if they so desired?"
If it was a serious question... the answer is no. If it's open source, you will have a higher ratio of "good honest skilled people" vs. "bad people" trying to find security problems with the software.
If it's closed source, almost all the people looking for security holes will be "bad people".
(PS: Was this a serious question or a shot at Funny?)
A large corporate sponsor vs. someone broke, in debt, and borrowing money from his family.
I can see it now. "Hey mom, I just got a letter saying if I continue my suit I'm being countersued for $47,000,000, can you loan me $250,000 for a good lawyer?"
Funny that if I'm using debian/stable I can always get up-to-date patches (at least security related patches) even for that often-maligned-as-"old" version of Linux for years after a release.
For example,
the Dumbarton and Bay bridges (the main bridges across SF Bay) don't seem to connect in the middle in the TIGER data sets.
Same for I-280 behind Stanford.
They're a great starting point, but you have to do a fair amount of cleaning of the data yourself (or pay some company who already did). I'd love to see an open-source project of cleaning the TIGER data spring up, though.
Oh... and if you look at the 2003 TIGER/Line data you'll find that in many cases it's _more_ accurate than the commercial vendors (who all seem to be based on 2000 TIGER data). The commercial guys are just a bit more self-consistant, though - perhaps less accurate, but looks less silly because their bridges actually make it across the bay.
Slashdot Mirror
The second page of the linked article in the parent explains that this might even be technology that Borland did give Microsoft from the Delphi stuff.
I thought .net *IS* delphi
Same for programming environments. My editor (emacs or vi) edits; may syntax checker (lint) checks syntax; and my complier (gcc) compiles. This ends up being a far more flexible environment than any of those GUIs that do one thing well (set a breakpoint) but suck at everything else (editing, etc).
Don't people think he was hired (i.e. paid) to do this political lobbying?
Then not even rebooting will "fix" a MS-Windows computer, and everyone'll go Linux. :)
Their "Executive Dashboard" application is a good example, where the same XML data (revenue, profit by division, etc) can be presented as tables, graphs, charts, maps, or even 3D-globes.
Of course. How else do you write
Calorie vs calorie
Simply bashing the system is not going to make the system respect Linux any more. It plays right in the hands of Brown's claim that the open source community has no respect for intellectual property.
It'd be far more constructive to help educate the patent office than to simply make fun of them. I suspect they want to learn, and if all we do is make jokes, and the Alex the Tweakerville guys give them well written policy papers, guess who they'll learn from.
More importantly he owns the trademark, so in the worse case couldn't he tell people that GNU/Linux is just as bad trademark dilution as Lindows?
I think the same philosophy goes to having a comfortable bed, chair, etc. Money's made to be spent, and what better place to spend it than on something I use most every day?
Not sure if I'm kidding or not.
Why would this matter? Uncompressed and scaled (which happens once) it'll be just as big as your screen in the same way that a diagonal gradient would be. It's not like your monitor decompresses on the fly every time it displays an image.
Overgeneralizing, of course.
For example, these is also just as "unbreakable":
- A two-time pad: Apply a one-time-pad-algorithm twice.
- Compress your data, and apply a one-time-pad to the compressed data. (* note, this gives away some info, but note also that the one-time-pad does as well.
And of course, the one-time-pad (just like my compressed example) does give away some information: the amount of information transfered. Consider, for example, if you encode "yes" and "no" responses in your one-time-pad. Far from "unbreakable" in that case.You could argue an encryption algorithm that is even more unbreakable is a one-time-pad plus "padding" your message with a random amount of data or to a fixed length.
So why does yahoo show
a short ratio of 14.49
shares short of 3.95M and
a Short % of Float of 9.27%?
So it seems strong to say "not possible". But I guess in practice I agree with you - my broker couldn't find any shares to short.
Further proof that they're dying? :-)
Quoth the article:
Now if they're so happy, why are they buying their shares back?
Interesting... In a way this sounds like "dumping" of a product to keep a monopoly, doesn't it?
One more interesting thing about the "HW wants to be free" model is how it'll affect Dell, formerly a great MSFT ally.
I bet Michael Dell's not sleeping well if he's trying to sell commodity hardware that Balmer and McNeeley want to give away.
I seem to recall a time where you didn't own the telephone in your house either, but the phone company gave you one with your subscription. Anyone know how&why that model changed?
C'mon guys. It's nothing like blackmail. In fact it demonstrates one of the great strengths of the spirit of free software.
One of the key benefits of open source is that if the originator of the product can't continue the project for any reason (bought by a competitor, switched to a closed-source model, got kicked out of parents basement, got bored) - anyone's free to fork it and continue on.
He's just letting the community know that he's likely to move on and if people depend on it to fork the software now. It's still far more courtious than a commercial company going under _without_ any options for continued support for their customers.
If it was a serious question... the answer is no. If it's open source, you will have a higher ratio of "good honest skilled people" vs. "bad people" trying to find security problems with the software.
If it's closed source, almost all the people looking for security holes will be "bad people".
(PS: Was this a serious question or a shot at Funny?)
A large corporate sponsor vs. someone broke, in debt, and borrowing money from his family.
I can see it now. "Hey mom, I just got a letter saying if I continue my suit I'm being countersued for $47,000,000, can you loan me $250,000 for a good lawyer?"
Since it's so easy, noone would bother to mess with it, right?
For example, the Dumbarton and Bay bridges (the main bridges across SF Bay) don't seem to connect in the middle in the TIGER data sets.
Same for I-280 behind Stanford.
They're a great starting point, but you have to do a fair amount of cleaning of the data yourself (or pay some company who already did). I'd love to see an open-source project of cleaning the TIGER data spring up, though.
Oh... and if you look at the 2003 TIGER/Line data you'll find that in many cases it's _more_ accurate than the commercial vendors (who all seem to be based on 2000 TIGER data). The commercial guys are just a bit more self-consistant, though - perhaps less accurate, but looks less silly because their bridges actually make it across the bay.