I agree, prolly not a good thing. But I suspect it's because the cores were bandwidth starved... AMD still stomps intel in multicore platforms because of hypertransport.
The GPL ensures that users can use software with absolutely *no* restirctions. The only restrictions it imposes is on developers and distributers. Read term #0 of the GPL if you doubt me. Use of the software is completely free of restrictions.
I'm not addressing your argument, just clearing up your misunderstanding of the GPL.
Alternately, apple put pressure for a chip that they can use to put in a new "core quad" (ie 2 of these) power mac to be announced 1 Apr?
Timing's right... (intel announces this 2 weeks before 1 Apr)... Hmmmmm.
At least this quad monster won't have to be water cooled.
I understand the need to complain about the patents that are issued over software in the US, but let me ask a question. Has anyone thought that articles such as this might later be used as evidence that OSS programmers should have been aware of the existence of the patent, and set them up for the triple damages provision of patent law?
I know you were being funny. It's ok. But see that's the point. By making this complaint she hopes to silences honest criticism, hoping it will be lumped in with the attacks. It worked. My initial comment was mod-bomed, because people can't tell the difference between a personal attack and a debate. What's worse is the fact that this ploy of hers is just a red hearing to distract attention away from the fact that I believe that she's trolled at the same level, or worse, as those she accuses.
On a side note, long ago, I actually refered to her once as DiDo. I didn't realize that wasn't her name, because everyone on the board (this was groklaw - god bless PJ trying to tame the rabble who come to her site) called her that, and I'd just noticed her and didn't catch the spelling difference in the byline - I don't remember names well, anyway. I was corrected by some kind soul, and I've never called her that since.
I fully agree that the name calling is bad, not only for her, but for all of us. It's just childish.
It's not zealous nonesense. By any standard she's a shill.
I'm not defending the people who call her didiot, or call to harass her. They're idiots, no question. But she's far from innocent on the zealot scale, and I thought I'd take the opportunity to point that out.
That's what I'm thinking. Check my history. I'm not a troll. I don't need karma. I call pot-kettle-black on her story, and for experessing my opinion I get mod-nuked.
She's a prime example of how pro microsoft extremism in the course of her job has decimated her credibility. Her. O'Gara ( for SCO). Enderle. No one believes them any more.
Why is this modded up. It's completely wrong. The irc "hack" is not executable code, it's just using a cgi script web page using wipeout pure's web browser.
All the "hacks" released to date ( that I'm aware of... please please tell me if there are others ) depend on the presence of the webbrowser in wipeout pure. Once you hijack the dns, it's yours. Everything else has depended on this. The browser, the IRC, etc. There is no 3rd party dev kit; no one has run a homebrew executable on the psp that I'm aware of.
Even stuff the stuff to sync the iApps to the psp have just made images to be viewed in the builtin picture viewer.
I *wish* very strongly to write for the platform that way you would a pda. It screams for it. Alas, not possible now.
One final thought... the "hacked" web browser can do javascript, according to the rumors. Maybe something there?
How is a company that decides to release a commercial product that obviously just lifts wholesale the work of a GPLed project, then makes dramatically exaggerated claims about the performance of their "product", and finally when confronted with their misdeeds with overwhelming evidence proclaims their innocence and basically says "get lost" to the rightful owners of the code in question... how is any of that good for the users?
I think users ultimatly win if the pearPC people can prevent these unethical hucksters from ever "releasing a product" again.
Not retroactively, the GPL has a provision that says if you violate it, it permanently terminates the license. Since they violated the license, it's terminated. They have no valid license to distribute PearPC at all now. Even if they belatedly decided to comply with the terms of the GPL. It's too late.
Once people are used to apps, it doesn't matter what OS is underneath. Get people hooked on the OSS stack, and sooner or later, they'll realize that they could run the same great software without paying microsoft for the privledge.
Actually, as a person following this case, the thing that is sealed, and that O'Gara is filing to have unsealed (digression: I've not read the motion, so I can't say exactly what she's asking to have unsealed. But given her past writings on the subject I pretty sure I know what she's after), is an internal IBM memo that SCO contends shows evidence of IBM fraud in their dealings with oldSCO's project to port unixware to itanium. IBM claims to have provided the memo on accident, and that it is a privledged document that should not have been given to SCO. SCO basically agrees that it's not admisible evidence, but touts it as evidence that they need more discovery before IBM's summary judgement motions should be heard.
I'm all for open records, but in this case I don't want the seal to be lifted, and here's why.
SCO has been chomping at the bit to release this letter. They have made many references to it in their filings. They even read bits of the letter *aloud* in open court - the judge has
since ordered that the transcript be sealed.
But there were journalists there, and O'Gara
(even though she was not there) has basically
reported what was said --- despite the fact that
SCO basically violated a court order when they
read it.
This whole sorry business seems like a SCO orchestrated attempt to try and make IBM look bad, and I'm wholeheartedly against it. SCO's misconduct should not be rewarded; the seal should not be lifted.
I think you're about right. But you neglect
blogs like groklaw and lawrance lessig, etc.
In these blogs, there's opinion, but there's
also links to court filings, and arcana
that are never mentioned in the traditional
media. Groklaw in particular has become a true
primary source that even the media use for
facts.
Blogs can serve niche areas perhaps better
than the niche print/"professional" media
can.
But tell me. At what point does "err on the side of caution" become fraud? Billing fairly does not include billing customers for services they didn't ask for and don't use, even to "err on the side of caution." You may be ethical, but perhaps the standards of your industry have blinded you...
Slashdot Mirror
I agree, prolly not a good thing. But I suspect it's because the cores were bandwidth starved ... AMD still stomps intel in multicore platforms because of hypertransport.
The GPL ensures that users can use software with absolutely *no* restirctions. The only restrictions it imposes is on developers and distributers. Read term #0 of the GPL if you doubt me. Use of the software is completely free of restrictions.
I'm not addressing your argument, just clearing up your misunderstanding of the GPL.
I think you misunderstand. He fixed a flaw in the kernel that kept the virus from *working*. The patched systems should be vulnerable.
Alternately, apple put pressure for a chip that they can use to put in a new "core quad" (ie 2 of these) power mac to be announced 1 Apr? Timing's right ... (intel announces this 2 weeks before 1 Apr) ... Hmmmmm.
At least this quad monster won't have to be water cooled.
Here. You win.
...you're next.
What cool toys (like a Microsoft Office build for linux) do you get to see that will never be released to the public?
I posted it. Just didn't want to karma whore ;)
Reality, it turns out, is even funnier. The machine they gave them runs AIX.
I understand the need to complain about the patents that are issued over software in the US, but let me ask a question. Has anyone thought that articles such as this might later be used as evidence that OSS programmers should have been aware of the existence of the patent, and set them up for the triple damages provision of patent law?
Just a thought.
I know you were being funny. It's ok. But see that's the point. By making this complaint she hopes to silences honest criticism, hoping it will be lumped in with the attacks. It worked. My initial comment was mod-bomed, because people can't tell the difference between a personal attack and a debate. What's worse is the fact that this ploy of hers is just a red hearing to distract attention away from the fact that I believe that she's trolled at the same level, or worse, as those she accuses.
Google some of DiDio's comments about Val Norda Kriedel, realize that Val killed herself over some of these words, and truly understand how words can hurt.
On a side note, long ago, I actually refered to her once as DiDo. I didn't realize that wasn't her name, because everyone on the board (this was groklaw - god bless PJ trying to tame the rabble who come to her site) called her that, and I'd just noticed her and didn't catch the spelling difference in the byline - I don't remember names well, anyway. I was corrected by some kind soul, and I've never called her that since.
I fully agree that the name calling is bad, not only for her, but for all of us. It's just childish.
It's not zealous nonesense. By any standard she's a shill.
I'm not defending the people who call her didiot, or call to harass her. They're idiots, no question. But she's far from innocent on the zealot scale, and I thought I'd take the opportunity to point that out.
That's what I'm thinking. Check my history. I'm not a troll. I don't need karma. I call pot-kettle-black on her story, and for experessing my opinion I get mod-nuked.
Sensitive people, apparently.
She's a prime example of how pro microsoft extremism in the course of her job has decimated her credibility. Her. O'Gara ( for SCO). Enderle. No one believes them any more.
Learn your lessons well.
Why is this modded up. It's completely wrong. The irc "hack" is not executable code, it's just using a cgi script web page using wipeout pure's web browser.
All the "hacks" released to date ( that I'm aware of ... please please tell me if there are others ) depend on the presence of the webbrowser in wipeout pure. Once you hijack the dns, it's yours. Everything else has depended on this. The browser, the IRC, etc. There is no 3rd party dev kit; no one has run a homebrew executable on the psp that I'm aware of.
Even stuff the stuff to sync the iApps to the psp have just made images to be viewed in the builtin picture viewer.
I *wish* very strongly to write for the platform that way you would a pda. It screams for it. Alas, not possible now.
One final thought ... the "hacked" web browser can do javascript, according to the rumors. Maybe something there?
Trolling? Can't tell.
How is a company that decides to release a commercial product that obviously just lifts wholesale the work of a GPLed project, then makes dramatically exaggerated claims about the performance of their "product", and finally when confronted with their misdeeds with overwhelming evidence proclaims their innocence and basically says "get lost" to the rightful owners of the code in question ... how is any of that good for the users?
I think users ultimatly win if the pearPC people can prevent these unethical hucksters from ever "releasing a product" again.
But that's just me.
Not retroactively, the GPL has a provision that says if you violate it, it permanently terminates the license. Since they violated the license, it's terminated. They have no valid license to distribute PearPC at all now. Even if they belatedly decided to comply with the terms of the GPL. It's too late.
The obnoxious advertising clause" is not a requirement of "most" open source licenses, because it is explicitly incompatible with the GPL.
That said, I'm not entirely certain that the MIT license requirements are really the same as the "obnoxious advertising clause."
Once people are used to apps, it doesn't matter what OS is underneath. Get people hooked on the OSS stack, and sooner or later, they'll realize that they could run the same great software without paying microsoft for the privledge.
Actually, as a person following this case, the thing that is sealed, and that O'Gara is filing to have unsealed (digression: I've not read the motion, so I can't say exactly what she's asking to have unsealed. But given her past writings on the subject I pretty sure I know what she's after), is an internal IBM memo that SCO contends shows evidence of IBM fraud in their dealings with oldSCO's project to port unixware to itanium. IBM claims to have provided the memo on accident, and that it is a privledged document that should not have been given to SCO. SCO basically agrees that it's not admisible evidence, but touts it as evidence that they need more discovery before IBM's summary judgement motions should be heard.
I'm all for open records, but in this case I don't want the seal to be lifted, and here's why.
SCO has been chomping at the bit to release this letter. They have made many references to it in their filings. They even read bits of the letter *aloud* in open court - the judge has since ordered that the transcript be sealed. But there were journalists there, and O'Gara (even though she was not there) has basically reported what was said --- despite the fact that SCO basically violated a court order when they read it.
This whole sorry business seems like a SCO orchestrated attempt to try and make IBM look bad, and I'm wholeheartedly against it. SCO's misconduct should not be rewarded; the seal should not be lifted.
I think you're about right. But you neglect blogs like groklaw and lawrance lessig, etc. In these blogs, there's opinion, but there's also links to court filings, and arcana that are never mentioned in the traditional media. Groklaw in particular has become a true primary source that even the media use for facts. Blogs can serve niche areas perhaps better than the niche print/"professional" media can.
Good to know there is still business ethics.
But tell me. At what point does "err on the side of caution" become fraud? Billing fairly does not include billing customers for services they didn't ask for and don't use, even to "err on the side of caution." You may be ethical, but perhaps the standards of your industry have blinded you ...
If it's consumed in the reaction it's not a catalyst it's a reactant.