In continental Europe, they tend to protect where the newer mark attempts to capitalise on the goodwill of the earlier mark, even though there may be no prospect of confusion.
Aah. But in this case I don't think it's really the "goodwill" of Windows that they were trying to cash in on.
Windows crashes are so bad that it's one of the few aspects of computer stuff that I don't have to explain to non-techs.
OK, I guess that maybe they were making it sound identifiably like it was a graphical interface - as to most non-Techs "Windows" is the graphical part of a computer.
But that's the problem. If you called a Linux distro LinGUI or WIMP Linux, then the most of the people who would recognise it as meaning it's graphical will already be technically minded. The only way to try and market something at the "Average User" is to make it "A Linux that looks and Feels Like Windows"
Maybe it wasn't the best name to use. But I still think that MS's reaction is a little bit petty. Not many people are honestly going to be fooled by it.
Nobody wants to actually work or pay for anything. JFC people! It just doesn't appear out of thin air!
Errrrm, it looks pretty much like he wants to pay for the equipment and "work" to get the software working.
Yes, Tivo can do the job. Yes, they use Linux - a major plus-point in their favour and worthy of support.
But if you're a geek-type, what's wrong with wanting to go homebrew?
If you've got the knowledge, the time, and the will, then I don't see a problem with wanting to "build your own" DVR. In fact, with those it makes it easier to deal if stuff goes wrong. When there's a failure, you can tweak it yourself.
There's nothing worse than having the technical knowhow to fix a relatively simple error, only to have your hands tied by "service agreements" and the like.
Oh man. That would be classic! Actually, mods and karma-rating on job advertisements would be so useful.
Maybe places would actually start getting a clue.
After all, if they want to get their positions noticed, they'd probably sit up pay attention if their ads kept sinking below people's search thresholds.
Is he saying that Darl is right (in a sense), that copyright does require profit motive, but the GPL has it because people are exchanging copyrights? On one level, that seems to agree with Darl, doesn't it?
It looks to me like he's shooting down Darl's argument not on the basis that Darl doesn't have a opint, but mroe that Darl raises good points but uses them to get to the wrong conclusions.
In other words, Darl raised a good point when he said about Copyrights requiring Financial Gain. (Not necessarily a correct point, but a good one)
But what Linus is saying is that it doesn't matter whether Copyright requires such gain or not. The Open Source model does have gain, albeit in a different (but still valid) way.
Meaning that Valid Point or Not, Darl's argument falls down.
his does nothing to address the traffic/bandwidth usage. I've seen spammers continue to hit mail servers for several years (yes YEARS) after they were locked out, they just don't care. The bandwidth costs become seriously problematic.
Well, wouldnt merely locking them out cause mail to bounce?
But this Spamhole thing will at least make the Spam disappear at the first relay. Not bounce back. Not propagate on. It'll reduce some of the overall bandwidth usage.
Plus, from a purely users' PoV, whether it saves bandwidth is irrelevant. but if it manages to reduce the crap that hits their Inbox, then it's a good thing.
The database idea is great in theory, but it does sound similar to Blacklists. In so much as they have the same three potential problems.
(1) Point-of-origin isn't always clear. And that means that either faked domains or open/cracked mailservers may get added. And once on, sometimes it's hard to get off.
(2) Slightly less major, but there's always the chance that people get erroneously added purposefully - albeit through ignorance/laziness rather than malicious intent.
Especially if it's automatable, people have been known in the past to just flag up certain senders as Spam. When it's actually legitimate bulk-mail that they just can't be bothered from unsubscribing from.
(3) As problems with the RBLs have shown in recent times, all such a list/database does is provide a central "target" for Spammers to cripple. Unless there was a way of doing the database distributed, then they'd just get DDoS'd, and targetted by the latest worm payloads.
It's not that I think the idea itself is bad. Just that current implementations do tend to include rather serious flaws.
Well you'd better bloody well hope that Longhorn plays well with other systems (whether old-Windows, VAX, or whatever else is used). Otherwise eventually all of the current machines are gonna break down and if the only MS OS (Longhorn) at the time doesn't play with other stuff, then you're rather screwed, really.
I would say I can't wait until the system starts to fall down around our ears, but my personal opinion (and I hope I'm dead wrong) is that it already has been for a while.
Hell, my Linux box at home is mainly a fileserver and internet gateway/firewall. It uses the "standard" Mandrake 7.2 setup, and still uses the 2.2 series Kernel. (It's an old p200mmx)
I've never seen the reason to upgrade - especially seeing that my firewall-tool of choice works with ipchains rather than iptables.
Heck, the most "experimental" thing I'm likely to do is actually compile a Kernel (latest from 2.2 series, of course) for it myself.
Well, right up until the point I can get my hands on more old hardware - then the HDD (and fileserver) goes to otehr machine, and the p200 gets a CD-based firewall-only distro.
You'd have a point iff the Linux Community actually believed any of SCO's IP was actually in there.
In fact, even if it is there, then most of the Linux community wants to know what and where, so it can be removed and replaced.
Now if we were going "Yeah, SCO's IP is in here, so what!" Then that'd be double-standards.
However, seeing that most of us as saying "Darl's talking out of his ass", then you can be pretty sure that no-one believes that any of SCO's IP is in Linux. At least, not intentionally. So I can't see any double-standard here.
Plus even if it is just something to try and pressure microsoft into offering a discount, there's still a very positive side to this.
It means that people genuinely think that something built on Linux is a suitable alternative to thraten to walk away to. OK, having Sun's backing as well just adds to the pressure. But it can't help but show Linux in a good light if it can be used as a serious bargaining tool against MS.
Even if they don't end up switching, people may start looking into this "Java Desktop" (and, by extension, Linux) to see what all the fuss was about.
What with the NHS still uses some severaly outtated kit in some places, upgrading is becoming far mor necessary. Support for Win98 is, if not stopped, not likely to be around for too much longer. WinME as a workplace-OS is a joke. And the NT-based systems cost a scary amount of money.
Then, when you factor in the near-imminent introduction of Longhorn, looking into alternatives before that time is probably a good idea. Especially seeing that I'd pretty much bet that Longhorn won't play well with others - not even other Windows versions. So that means at some point they're gonna have to do a pretty big round of upgrading - even if they wish to stick with Windows. Either all now to something prior to Longhorn - making sure that everything's done before the older OSs are unsupported. Or wait until Longhorn, and probably have to change the whole lot to ensure interoperability.
Checking into alternatives can only be a good thing. Either they'll find an alternative, or MS will offer them a discount. Either way, financial win.
Plus something Linux-based will operate fairly well with Windows - via Samba. Meaning they can probably squeeze every last driop of life from their older kit - definitely a win for the NHS.
100% Free Distros are all well and good, but for something as large as the NHS it'd be useful to have a commercial support contract running.
Plus, as someone else mentioned, hardware would probably come as part fo the package. So any software and hardware support would all go through one central place. Plus, more importantly, you could be pretty damn sure that all hardware will be supported by the software.
Meaning an easier life for the on-site admins.
...but installation of hardware or software is just too difficult under linux for your average NHS worker (not that they're stupid, they just know about other things)
Surely stuff like that needs to be handled by IT Support anyway.
I know for a fact that it is handled that way under Windows. My mum (NHS Medical Secretary) is always telling me how long it takes them to get around to fixing things. So it's already obvious that the "average NHS worker" doesn't usually do any installation stuff.
If anything, a potential switch to Linux would make things harder to break.
For "average user" home use, yes things need to be easier to install. But for an office environment, I'd have to say it's probably low priority.
It could be interesting seeing if the NHS switches to Star/Open-Office and/or Linux. I've know various people who've worked for the NHS - either as temps or as long-term staff. And financial issues are always a major gripe.
I have to admit to a bit of personal concern about this move though. My mum's a medical secretary for the NHS. This means that there's a chance she might end up learning how to use Linux. I'm still not sure as to whether this'd be a good or a bad thing.:)
We use it here where I work, and I have a love/hate relationship with it.
It's great. It stops people pissing with the settings. It means that should Win98 hang (as it frequently does...)n you can just hit the power switch and DF brings the box back up in it's original state.
It's a bugger for trying to roll-out official minor updates though. (Like anitivirus signatures).
Automated updates get automatically undone.
I find it's greatest irritation is also it's greatest strength.
It's all-but-unhackable. It can be done - but only by hacking the password. There is no known way (and I believe people have tried) to create a crack to just "double-clock stock file to thaw on next reboot".
The only hacks I could find were to get hold of the master file to generate one-off passwords.
No use to me, as I'm a admin with access to the config files. i was just looking for a quick-shutdown hack. I found nada. But at least I was able to increase my trust in DF.
I still hate it come the next anti-virus patch though.:-/
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.
Actually, it makes a certain kind of sense.
By mentioning (and only mentioning) the US constitution, then SCO runs the very real risk of alienating foreign companies - say, ones from Europe - that they actually want to keep on side.
But by insinuating that not only is the GPL unconstitutional but it goes against "European copyright sensibilities" too, then it brings a greater chance of not pissing off the non-American companies.
Of course, it also makes Darl come across looking like an ass.
But I said that the move made sense, not that it worked.;)
Doesn't mean that I (or anyone else) has to necessarily agree with it though.
I've not read any other comments yet, so I apologise if I repeat what's already been said.
But I have read though the Article, and want to present my first opinions on parts of it.
At SCO we take the opposite position. SCO believes that copyright and patent laws adopted by the United States Congress and the European Union are critical to the further growth and development of the $186 billion global software industry, and to the technology business in general.
I think his use of the terms "$186 billion global software industry" and "technology business" certainly show SCO's position on technological advancement.
Mainly that they think it's primary purpose is to generate a profit.
Darl has a point though. Such laws are critical in the survival of what could be called "The current model".
It's just that GPL, FSF, Linux, etc, are operating on another model. Yeah, they pose a threat. But to say that such a threat is illegal/unconstitutional/whatever is just plain arrogant.
Oh, and speaking as a Brit, there is one other thing that has to be taken into account.
What has the US Constitution got to do with companies/organisations outside of the US? Should European/Asian/etc software houses be stifled/restricted by what's good for the American economy?
Despite the raw emotions, however, the issue is clear: do you support copyrights and ownership of intellectual property as envisioned by our elected officials in Congress and the European Union, or do you support "free" - as in free from ownership - intellectual property envisioned by the Free Software Foundation, Red Hat and others? There really is no middle ground. The future of the global economy hangs in the balance.
"Oh, the drama!"
OK, so it's one side against the other. But, personally, I'm firmly on the side of "you can't own an idea".
You can be responsible for the specific application of a though or idea, but to own abstract concepts that one person happened to think of before another? I just find that a bit wrong really.
Most recently, Congress has adopted the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") to protect the intellectual property rights embodied in digital products and software.
Doesn't the GPL predate the DMCA?
Though I'm not sure what - if any - effect that would have on the legal nature of things.
One thing, though. Is the DMCA US-only?
If so, that means that the GPL - being an itnernational license, as far as I know - is certainly legitimate in non-US companies irrespective of whether it's legan int he US. But certainly that would mean that US companies can't complain about it, wouldn't it? After all, surely it's outside of US jurusdiction that way?
if I'm wrong, let me know. I can rebuild a PC with no worries, but legal-matters lose me in no time flat!
SCO argues that the authority of Congress under the U.S. Constitution to "promote the Progress of Science and the useful arts..." inherently includes a profit motive, and that protection for this profit motive includes a Constitutional dimension. We believe that the "progress of science" is best advanced by vigorously protecting the right of authors and inventors to earn a profit from their work.
Again with the "Profit Motive"
Actually, I kind of agree with the profit motive. What I don't agree with is the way that some companies (including SCO) want to use it.
Yeah, come up with an idea then you have the right to make money from it - well, as long as the idea isn't "ransom Darl McBride for ca$h" or something blatantly illegal and reckless like that.
But I think such a profit motive has to be time-limited. If fact, if it's really to "promot
Legally, it's in their rights to do so. Realistically, many commercial companies would do just the same. And, if we're honest, people wouldn't be complaining quite as loudly if it wasn't Microsoft pulling this.
I'm not saying people wouldn't complain - or be right to do so - if another company pulled this stunt. I'm just saying that we're probably shouting all the louder 'cos it's MS.
But they are well in their rights to start charging for a service/product they've provided for effectively free for so long. We don't have to like it. but they are in the right here.
Ethically, it's a bit dodgy. And it's gonna tick [people off big-time. And waiting until it's a de-facto standard is just plain infuriating. But it's not wrong[*].
TIGGS
[*] Now whether it SHOULD be wrong is a whole 'nother matter.;)
A distribution - especially a basic-User-oriented distro - only needs one of any type of package.
Most of us only use one specific version of any given package type. OK, we install/use our preferred one out of choice. But someone who doesn't (yet) know about Linux doesn't need to make that choice.
Only putting one in a default install isn't a bad thing. Especially not if you [a] state that others are available, and [b] make them easily available on a extras directory/CD.
True, the "Windows Method" of only having once choice given as being the only viable option is to be avoided.
But equally the "Geek Method" of offering 10 or more ways of doing the same thing is just plain scary.
Choose one of each app. Put it in the default install.
But make it clear that this is just the "chosen" application and not the only one. If a User wishes to exlore the other options then let them. But if they just want a standard installation that gives them what they want, then give them that.
Just make sure that it's a good, stable, and useable.
After skimming through the parent, I found my brain immediately throwing up the "But that defeats the point of Linux..." arguments.
Then I read it again, and thought that maybe that's the point.
Kind of.
So far, the majority of Linux distros do things "The Geek Way". This is going to intimidate the average user.
But just because something is meant to offer a choice doesn't mean it has to offer every choice.
Remember, this doesn't have to be the future of Linux itself. Just a distro that'd be able to attract "Joe Average" to considering an alternative to Windows.
Maybe he'd learn more and go more in-depth. maybe he'd just sit with whatever was on the default install and never change back. Maybe he'd give up, and go back to Windows. But it's all about choice, anyway.
A basic install would just have what's needed. One audio player. One office package. One text editor. One WM/Desktop-environment.
It would also need to have well-presented GUIs to the configuration files. So that the User never needed to fire up a command line unless they needed to.
Oh, and an easy way of setting up firewalling.
OK, maybe it wouldn't look like a "traditional Linux setup", but that's not the point. Under the hood it'd still be the same.
However, there would be ways to seperate it from "just copying Windows".
Like I said, the User should have to ever fire up a command line. But that doesn't mean ditching it entirely. If a User want to find out a bit more about how linux works, they should be able to find the command-line. But if they find stuff like that scary, they should be able to do all of the necessary admin tasks from the GUI.
Building it on an existing distro as a base (doesn't matter which one) would help keep it consistent. It would also mean that should a user decide to experiment with "This Linux Thing", then they could get stuff from the distro it's based on without hosing their system.
Extras and alternatives (more media player, GUIs, plus some servers) could be available as a seperate CD (or download, whatever).
Remember "making it looks like Windows" isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Copying the good ideas from Windows, whilst avoiding all the garbage that evolved alongside it, isn't necessarily a bad thing.
We aren't going to convert the whole world to "The Way of Geek". Simple fact. There will probably always be a need for a User-targetted OS and a geek-targetted OS. But if a slimmed-down (not "dumbed down") version of Linux (or any "free" OS) is available as a user-OS then it can only be a good thing.
To sum it all up: "Make it work the way the User wants it to, but behave the way the techies want it to".
Maybe not easy. but I'm sure it's doable.
Well, for one thing you were able to look at the source and see whether it was viable to port to Windows or not.
OK, in this case it wasn't possible. But you were able to find out at (I assume) no more financial cost that the overheads on downloading the source code.
Besides, OSS not being used isn't necessarily indiative of whether it's being looked at. 'Cos the thing about Open Source is that you don't necessarily have to pay/register/whatever for the "privelege" of seeing whether it fits your corproate setup.
I believe that complexity is the number one reason why OSS isn't used more often.
You may be right. but I think that a major aspect may be that many companies (like yours) are usually looking for a solution where they "need the software now".
In cases like this, OSS may not be a suitable solution as there may not be a product that's "polished" enough. But that's where commercial/proprietary software comes in. yes, it's often costly. But you're paying for the convinence of "getting the software now" as well as the extra support.
Slashdot Mirror
Aah. But in this case I don't think it's really the "goodwill" of Windows that they were trying to cash in on.
Windows crashes are so bad that it's one of the few aspects of computer stuff that I don't have to explain to non-techs.
OK, I guess that maybe they were making it sound identifiably like it was a graphical interface - as to most non-Techs "Windows" is the graphical part of a computer.
But that's the problem. If you called a Linux distro LinGUI or WIMP Linux, then the most of the people who would recognise it as meaning it's graphical will already be technically minded. The only way to try and market something at the "Average User" is to make it "A Linux that looks and Feels Like Windows"
Maybe it wasn't the best name to use. But I still think that MS's reaction is a little bit petty. Not many people are honestly going to be fooled by it.
TiggsIt's funny you should ask that, but apparently it has.
Errrrm, it looks pretty much like he wants to pay for the equipment and "work" to get the software working.
Yes, Tivo can do the job. Yes, they use Linux - a major plus-point in their favour and worthy of support.
But if you're a geek-type, what's wrong with wanting to go homebrew?
If you've got the knowledge, the time, and the will, then I don't see a problem with wanting to "build your own" DVR. In fact, with those it makes it easier to deal if stuff goes wrong. When there's a failure, you can tweak it yourself.
There's nothing worse than having the technical knowhow to fix a relatively simple error, only to have your hands tied by "service agreements" and the like.
Tiggs"Spot the Brit?"
What is the American equivalent to "getting your P45[*]"?
Tiggs
[*]
Bit of paper you get when leaving a job.
In this case, sommat to do with your tax record.
Oh man. That would be classic! Actually, mods and karma-rating on job advertisements would be so useful.
Maybe places would actually start getting a clue.After all, if they want to get their positions noticed, they'd probably sit up pay attention if their ads kept sinking below people's search thresholds.
TiggsIt looks to me like he's shooting down Darl's argument not on the basis that Darl doesn't have a opint, but mroe that Darl raises good points but uses them to get to the wrong conclusions.
In other words, Darl raised a good point when he said about Copyrights requiring Financial Gain. (Not necessarily a correct point, but a good one)
But what Linus is saying is that it doesn't matter whether Copyright requires such gain or not. The Open Source model does have gain, albeit in a different (but still valid) way.
Meaning that Valid Point or Not, Darl's argument falls down.
I also find (or did a while back) that a lot of Spam originated in Taiwan.
.tw (or, at least from @yahoo.tw).
I just started auto-killing anthing from
Well, wouldnt merely locking them out cause mail to bounce?
But this Spamhole thing will at least make the Spam disappear at the first relay. Not bounce back. Not propagate on. It'll reduce some of the overall bandwidth usage.
Plus, from a purely users' PoV, whether it saves bandwidth is irrelevant. but if it manages to reduce the crap that hits their Inbox, then it's a good thing.
The database idea is great in theory, but it does sound similar to Blacklists. In so much as they have the same three potential problems.
(1) Point-of-origin isn't always clear. And that means that either faked domains or open/cracked mailservers may get added. And once on, sometimes it's hard to get off.
(2) Slightly less major, but there's always the chance that people get erroneously added purposefully - albeit through ignorance/laziness rather than malicious intent.
Especially if it's automatable, people have been known in the past to just flag up certain senders as Spam. When it's actually legitimate bulk-mail that they just can't be bothered from unsubscribing from.
(3) As problems with the RBLs have shown in recent times, all such a list/database does is provide a central "target" for Spammers to cripple. Unless there was a way of doing the database distributed, then they'd just get DDoS'd, and targetted by the latest worm payloads.
It's not that I think the idea itself is bad. Just that current implementations do tend to include rather serious flaws.
TiggsWell you'd better bloody well hope that Longhorn plays well with other systems (whether old-Windows, VAX, or whatever else is used). Otherwise eventually all of the current machines are gonna break down and if the only MS OS (Longhorn) at the time doesn't play with other stuff, then you're rather screwed, really.
I would say I can't wait until the system starts to fall down around our ears, but my personal opinion (and I hope I'm dead wrong) is that it already has been for a while.
TiggsExactly.
Hell, my Linux box at home is mainly a fileserver and internet gateway/firewall. It uses the "standard" Mandrake 7.2 setup, and still uses the 2.2 series Kernel.
(It's an old p200mmx)
I've never seen the reason to upgrade - especially seeing that my firewall-tool of choice works with ipchains rather than iptables.
Heck, the most "experimental" thing I'm likely to do is actually compile a Kernel (latest from 2.2 series, of course) for it myself.
Well, right up until the point I can get my hands on more old hardware - then the HDD (and fileserver) goes to otehr machine, and the p200 gets a CD-based firewall-only distro.
You'd have a point iff the Linux Community actually believed any of SCO's IP was actually in there.
In fact, even if it is there, then most of the Linux community wants to know what and where, so it can be removed and replaced.
Now if we were going "Yeah, SCO's IP is in here, so what!" Then that'd be double-standards.
TiggsHowever, seeing that most of us as saying "Darl's talking out of his ass", then you can be pretty sure that no-one believes that any of SCO's IP is in Linux. At least, not intentionally. So I can't see any double-standard here.
Plus even if it is just something to try and pressure microsoft into offering a discount, there's still a very positive side to this.
It means that people genuinely think that something built on Linux is a suitable alternative to thraten to walk away to. OK, having Sun's backing as well just adds to the pressure. But it can't help but show Linux in a good light if it can be used as a serious bargaining tool against MS.
Even if they don't end up switching, people may start looking into this "Java Desktop" (and, by extension, Linux) to see what all the fuss was about.
TiggsIn a way, the timing kinda makes sense.
What with the NHS still uses some severaly outtated kit in some places, upgrading is becoming far mor necessary. Support for Win98 is, if not stopped, not likely to be around for too much longer. WinME as a workplace-OS is a joke. And the NT-based systems cost a scary amount of money.
Then, when you factor in the near-imminent introduction of Longhorn, looking into alternatives before that time is probably a good idea. Especially seeing that I'd pretty much bet that Longhorn won't play well with others - not even other Windows versions. So that means at some point they're gonna have to do a pretty big round of upgrading - even if they wish to stick with Windows. Either all now to something prior to Longhorn - making sure that everything's done before the older OSs are unsupported. Or wait until Longhorn, and probably have to change the whole lot to ensure interoperability.
Checking into alternatives can only be a good thing. Either they'll find an alternative, or MS will offer them a discount. Either way, financial win.
Plus something Linux-based will operate fairly well with Windows - via Samba. Meaning they can probably squeeze every last driop of life from their older kit - definitely a win for the NHS.
Tiggs
Two words.
"Commercial Support"
100% Free Distros are all well and good, but for something as large as the NHS it'd be useful to have a commercial support contract running.
Plus, as someone else mentioned, hardware would probably come as part fo the package. So any software and hardware support would all go through one central place. Plus, more importantly, you could be pretty damn sure that all hardware will be supported by the software.
TiggsMeaning an easier life for the on-site admins.
Surely stuff like that needs to be handled by IT Support anyway.
I know for a fact that it is handled that way under Windows. My mum (NHS Medical Secretary) is always telling me how long it takes them to get around to fixing things. So it's already obvious that the "average NHS worker" doesn't usually do any installation stuff.
If anything, a potential switch to Linux would make things harder to break.
For "average user" home use, yes things need to be easier to install. But for an office environment, I'd have to say it's probably low priority.
TiggsIt could be interesting seeing if the NHS switches to Star/Open-Office and/or Linux. I've know various people who've worked for the NHS - either as temps or as long-term staff. And financial issues are always a major gripe.
:)
I have to admit to a bit of personal concern about this move though. My mum's a medical secretary for the NHS. This means that there's a chance she might end up learning how to use Linux. I'm still not sure as to whether this'd be a good or a bad thing.
Tiggs
Holy crap.
You know SCO is thoroughly screwed when even non-Linux-zealots want SCO to fail.
Tiggs
I'll second DeepFreeze.
We use it here where I work, and I have a love/hate relationship with it.
It's great. It stops people pissing with the settings. It means that should Win98 hang (as it frequently does...)n you can just hit the power switch and DF brings the box back up in it's original state.
It's a bugger for trying to roll-out official minor updates though. (Like anitivirus signatures).
Automated updates get automatically undone.
I find it's greatest irritation is also it's greatest strength.
It's all-but-unhackable. It can be done - but only by hacking the password. There is no known way (and I believe people have tried) to create a crack to just "double-clock stock file to thaw on next reboot".
The only hacks I could find were to get hold of the master file to generate one-off passwords.
No use to me, as I'm a admin with access to the config files. i was just looking for a quick-shutdown hack. I found nada. But at least I was able to increase my trust in DF.
I still hate it come the next anti-virus patch though. :-/
TiggsActually, it makes a certain kind of sense.
By mentioning (and only mentioning) the US constitution, then SCO runs the very real risk of alienating foreign companies - say, ones from Europe - that they actually want to keep on side.
But by insinuating that not only is the GPL unconstitutional but it goes against "European copyright sensibilities" too, then it brings a greater chance of not pissing off the non-American companies.
Of course, it also makes Darl come across looking like an ass. ;)
TiggsBut I said that the move made sense, not that it worked.
Damn. That's it!
I'm adding /. to my list of Websites not to Visit with a moutful of Coffee List.
Doesn't mean that I (or anyone else) has to necessarily agree with it though.
I've not read any other comments yet, so I apologise if I repeat what's already been said.
But I have read though the Article, and want to present my first opinions on parts of it.
I think his use of the terms "$186 billion global software industry" and "technology business" certainly show SCO's position on technological advancement.
Mainly that they think it's primary purpose is to generate a profit.
Darl has a point though. Such laws are critical in the survival of what could be called "The current model".
It's just that GPL, FSF, Linux, etc, are operating on another model. Yeah, they pose a threat. But to say that such a threat is illegal/unconstitutional/whatever is just plain arrogant.
Oh, and speaking as a Brit, there is one other thing that has to be taken into account.
What has the US Constitution got to do with companies/organisations outside of the US? Should European/Asian/etc software houses be stifled/restricted by what's good for the American economy?
"Oh, the drama!"
OK, so it's one side against the other. But, personally, I'm firmly on the side of "you can't own an idea".
You can be responsible for the specific application of a though or idea, but to own abstract concepts that one person happened to think of before another? I just find that a bit wrong really.
Doesn't the GPL predate the DMCA?
Though I'm not sure what - if any - effect that would have on the legal nature of things.
One thing, though. Is the DMCA US-only?
If so, that means that the GPL - being an itnernational license, as far as I know - is certainly legitimate in non-US companies irrespective of whether it's legan int he US. But certainly that would mean that US companies can't complain about it, wouldn't it? After all, surely it's outside of US jurusdiction that way?
if I'm wrong, let me know. I can rebuild a PC with no worries, but legal-matters lose me in no time flat!
Again with the "Profit Motive"
Actually, I kind of agree with the profit motive. What I don't agree with is the way that some companies (including SCO) want to use it.
Yeah, come up with an idea then you have the right to make money from it - well, as long as the idea isn't "ransom Darl McBride for ca$h" or something blatantly illegal and reckless like that. But I think such a profit motive has to be time-limited. If fact, if it's really to "promot
The Parent makes a good point here.
;)
Legally, it's in their rights to do so. Realistically, many commercial companies would do just the same.
And, if we're honest, people wouldn't be complaining quite as loudly if it wasn't Microsoft pulling this.
I'm not saying people wouldn't complain - or be right to do so - if another company pulled this stunt. I'm just saying that we're probably shouting all the louder 'cos it's MS.
But they are well in their rights to start charging for a service/product they've provided for effectively free for so long.
We don't have to like it. but they are in the right here.
Ethically, it's a bit dodgy. And it's gonna tick [people off big-time. And waiting until it's a de-facto standard is just plain infuriating. But it's not wrong[*].
TIGGS
[*] Now whether it SHOULD be wrong is a whole 'nother matter.
A distribution - especially a basic-User-oriented distro - only needs one of any type of package.
Most of us only use one specific version of any given package type. OK, we install/use our preferred one out of choice. But someone who doesn't (yet) know about Linux doesn't need to make that choice.
Only putting one in a default install isn't a bad thing. Especially not if you [a] state that others are available, and [b] make them easily available on a extras directory/CD.
True, the "Windows Method" of only having once choice given as being the only viable option is to be avoided.
But equally the "Geek Method" of offering 10 or more ways of doing the same thing is just plain scary.
Choose one of each app. Put it in the default install.
But make it clear that this is just the "chosen" application and not the only one. If a User wishes to exlore the other options then let them. But if they just want a standard installation that gives them what they want, then give them that.
Just make sure that it's a good, stable, and useable.
TiggsAfter skimming through the parent, I found my brain immediately throwing up the "But that defeats the point of Linux..." arguments.
Then I read it again, and thought that maybe that's the point.
Kind of.
So far, the majority of Linux distros do things "The Geek Way". This is going to intimidate the average user.
But just because something is meant to offer a choice doesn't mean it has to offer every choice.
Remember, this doesn't have to be the future of Linux itself. Just a distro that'd be able to attract "Joe Average" to considering an alternative to Windows.
Maybe he'd learn more and go more in-depth. maybe he'd just sit with whatever was on the default install and never change back. Maybe he'd give up, and go back to Windows. But it's all about choice, anyway.
A basic install would just have what's needed. One audio player. One office package. One text editor. One WM/Desktop-environment.
It would also need to have well-presented GUIs to the configuration files. So that the User never needed to fire up a command line unless they needed to.
Oh, and an easy way of setting up firewalling.
OK, maybe it wouldn't look like a "traditional Linux setup", but that's not the point. Under the hood it'd still be the same.
However, there would be ways to seperate it from "just copying Windows".
Like I said, the User should have to ever fire up a command line. But that doesn't mean ditching it entirely. If a User want to find out a bit more about how linux works, they should be able to find the command-line. But if they find stuff like that scary, they should be able to do all of the necessary admin tasks from the GUI.
Building it on an existing distro as a base (doesn't matter which one) would help keep it consistent. It would also mean that should a user decide to experiment with "This Linux Thing", then they could get stuff from the distro it's based on without hosing their system.
Extras and alternatives (more media player, GUIs, plus some servers) could be available as a seperate CD (or download, whatever).
Remember "making it looks like Windows" isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Copying the good ideas from Windows, whilst avoiding all the garbage that evolved alongside it, isn't necessarily a bad thing.
We aren't going to convert the whole world to "The Way of Geek". Simple fact. There will probably always be a need for a User-targetted OS and a geek-targetted OS. But if a slimmed-down (not "dumbed down") version of Linux (or any "free" OS) is available as a user-OS then it can only be a good thing.
To sum it all up:
Tiggs"Make it work the way the User wants it to, but behave the way the techies want it to".
Maybe not easy. but I'm sure it's doable.
Well, for one thing you were able to look at the source and see whether it was viable to port to Windows or not.
OK, in this case it wasn't possible. But you were able to find out at (I assume) no more financial cost that the overheads on downloading the source code.
Besides, OSS not being used isn't necessarily indiative of whether it's being looked at. 'Cos the thing about Open Source is that you don't necessarily have to pay/register/whatever for the "privelege" of seeing whether it fits your corproate setup.
You may be right. but I think that a major aspect may be that many companies (like yours) are usually looking for a solution where they "need the software now".
TiggsIn cases like this, OSS may not be a suitable solution as there may not be a product that's "polished" enough. But that's where commercial/proprietary software comes in. yes, it's often costly. But you're paying for the convinence of "getting the software now" as well as the extra support.