Isn't choice what this is all about? Why is everyone whining about it?
Everyone is "whining" about two things:
- Linus slagging Tridge for reverse engineering bitkeeper as being "morally wrong" when he demonstrably has no problem with the Samba project, which did the exact same thing in the same way.
- Linus failing to get that this is exactly what people predicted would happen in the first place. When you rely on McAvoy's charity, you're subject to his whims. It's his right to take it away when he wants, sure, but Linus failed to understand that because of that, the best technical solution, under a bad license that makes people beholden to a hothead's whims, is not the best practical solution. And when the situation (predictably) blew up, Linus responds by blaming Tridge rather than clueing in on the fact that the original choice to put himself at Larry's mercy was the problem.
But the bottom line is: Tridgell did something unnecessary just because he wanted to.
And on his own personal time, too. Can you imagine the gall? People doing whatever they want, whether or not it's necessary or benefits the company they work for, when they're off the clock and free to do whatever they want? The nerve.
He must have been listening to someone's network traffic, and either he was eavesdropping, or that other person allowed it, and this could be construed as a violation of the Bitkeeper license.
And how do you imagine the samba people reverse engineered SMB? Someone must have been running an SMB share with windows, and all Microsoft licenses include a "You may not reverse engineer" clause.
the majority of Canadia's population is settled within 100 miles or so of the US border.
Three quarters of all Americans live within 80kms (49.7 miles) of the coast or great lakes. If having larger parts of the population in a small number of clumps was the over-riding factor here, the US broadband penetration would still be expected to be higher than it currently is.
SCO gains things (like publicity, time to peddle bogus Linux licenses, and funding from truly clueless investors) by dragging an essentially unwinable case out in court. I don't think this woman gains anything by filling an unwinable suit; her only hope is to gain via winning.
Therefore, it's logical to conclude that her lawyers believe there is some legal standing on which the can pin their claim. They haven't a hope in hell of recovering their undoubtedly high fees if she loses.
that if they've gone so far as to file suit, they feel they have at least some leg to stand on, be it some element of the TOS contract or consumer privacy laws applicable to her state.
The article he links to is a background of the case and a discussion of IBM's motion for summary judgement. It has bugger all to do with SCO's Ex Parte motion to adjourn, which isn't even mentioned in that summary.
All of that talks about IBM's motion for summary judgement. I don't see any explanation of what an Ex Parte motion to adjourn is, why SCO filed it, what impact it may have had on the case, and why the judge might have denied it.
I'm well up on the background to the case, it's the legalese surrounding this particular event that needs translating.
The discounts get larger as the hardware gets more expensive (for fairly obvious reasons).
I'm going to assume you're a fellow canuck based on that email address, so if you browse the Candian ADC Select Store, you can compare them with the regular prices at the regular Canadian Apple store. Remember to factor in the $99US student membership fee on top of the prices there.
From what I've seen, unless you're buying quite high end stuff, it's about as cheap to buy from the regular education store than from the ADC store once you factor that cost in.
The Hardware discount is significant if you're getting a high end mac. I suggest the $500 subscription and you'll save that on a high end powerbook or G5 powermac.
Student ADC members get the same discounts as the $500 select members, so if he's a student he could get those same discounts with the $99 membership.
The problem is that Linus is not elligible for bitkeeper licensing anymore.
In addition to dropping the free version, Bitmover is refusing to sell even commercial licenses to the OSDL or it's employees, which includes Linus Torvalds and Andrew Morton.
CVS's centralised repository design is more or less exactly the opposite of what Linus wants when it comes to a version control system. No distributed repositories, no foreign branching, no dependency tracking between changesets, no atomic commits, expensive branching, etc, etc.
CVS may be the solution to some things, but it's not a solution to the problem Linus is trying to solve.
Re:Technology spreaded from CS depts to the public
on
Return of the Mac
·
· Score: 1
PCs, MS Windows, and MS Office aren't technologies; they're products.
And the technology underlying those products (bitmapped displays, MMUs, TCP/IP networks, etc,etc) all became popular in CS departments and research labs long before they moved out into the rest of the world and ended up into consumer products from MS.
Re:Author is on crack
on
Return of the Mac
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
If you mean "they sent an email to a colleague (perhaps talking about tuning R.E.D. values)" then maybe.
Yes- pointless websites existed 10 years ago (did you mean WWW as opposed to the internet?)- but so did printing out stereographic images from the internet (can you see the sailboat? Stare at it longer!). I haven't seen anyone doing that in ages. I also haven't seen too much quicktime VR (although some realestate web sites to have virtual tours like that).
So ten years ago, they were using what was intended to be a research tool to communicate with their friends and download pointless and silly bits of entertainment, and you don't think they were ahead of the game?
Anyway, don't count openstep out. It's not good for much now, except extending openstep, but with the proper development it could provide everything OSX does today and more. The biggest problem openstep faces is the lack of interest in development - it seems to have come a long way, but it's been a long time as well. I was excited about it so long ago I forgot I was excited.
Apple doesn't sell it any more, so I doubt the interest will be going up any time soon.
But I do disagree with the disturbingly prevalent opinion here that because we can't make something perfect, we shouldn't attempt to make it better.
The author has found a legitimate flaw in the program, one which, ideally, should be corrected. No program can be perfect, but they should all strive to be as good as they can be.
"Gates do good marketing job"
We both agree this is incorrect because job is not pluralized, yes?
"The plumbers on South Street do good work" Work can be the plural form, as in "I have a lot of work" (contrast with "I have a lot of book"). That's why this sentence works.
"Bananas make a good snack" This doesn't exhibit the grammatical feature that the original sentence does, so it's not analogous. Consider, instead, "Bananas do make good meal". This can only be made grammatical by either pluralizing "meal" or inserting an "a" after "make".
"The plural objects act on a singular subject" Similarly, this doesn't exhibit the feature we're discussing (the auxiliary and emphatic "do").
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't choice what this is all about? Why is everyone whining about it?
Everyone is "whining" about two things:
- Linus slagging Tridge for reverse engineering bitkeeper as being "morally wrong" when he demonstrably has no problem with the Samba project, which did the exact same thing in the same way.
- Linus failing to get that this is exactly what people predicted would happen in the first place. When you rely on McAvoy's charity, you're subject to his whims. It's his right to take it away when he wants, sure, but Linus failed to understand that because of that, the best technical solution, under a bad license that makes people beholden to a hothead's whims, is not the best practical solution. And when the situation (predictably) blew up, Linus responds by blaming Tridge rather than clueing in on the fact that the original choice to put himself at Larry's mercy was the problem.
Irrelevant. His employer's agreements are not binding to what he chooses to do in his spare time.
But the bottom line is: Tridgell did something unnecessary just because he wanted to.
And on his own personal time, too. Can you imagine the gall? People doing whatever they want, whether or not it's necessary or benefits the company they work for, when they're off the clock and free to do whatever they want? The nerve.
Linus never agreed with Microsoft to not reverse engineer smb. He did agree to not reverse engineer bitkeeper.
Well then it's a good thing he didn't reverse engineer either, huh?
Tridgell didn't agree to not reverse engineer bitkeeper.
He must have been listening to someone's network traffic, and either he was eavesdropping, or that other person allowed it, and this could be construed as a violation of the Bitkeeper license.
And how do you imagine the samba people reverse engineered SMB? Someone must have been running an SMB share with windows, and all Microsoft licenses include a "You may not reverse engineer" clause.
the majority of Canadia's population is settled within 100 miles or so of the US border.
Three quarters of all Americans live within 80kms (49.7 miles) of the coast or great lakes. If having larger parts of the population in a small number of clumps was the over-riding factor here, the US broadband penetration would still be expected to be higher than it currently is.
SCO gains things (like publicity, time to peddle bogus Linux licenses, and funding from truly clueless investors) by dragging an essentially unwinable case out in court. I don't think this woman gains anything by filling an unwinable suit; her only hope is to gain via winning.
Therefore, it's logical to conclude that her lawyers believe there is some legal standing on which the can pin their claim. They haven't a hope in hell of recovering their undoubtedly high fees if she loses.
that if they've gone so far as to file suit, they feel they have at least some leg to stand on, be it some element of the TOS contract or consumer privacy laws applicable to her state.
Anecdotal accounts trump empirical evidence, right? Right??
The article he links to is a background of the case and a discussion of IBM's motion for summary judgement. It has bugger all to do with SCO's Ex Parte motion to adjourn, which isn't even mentioned in that summary.
All of that talks about IBM's motion for summary judgement. I don't see any explanation of what an Ex Parte motion to adjourn is, why SCO filed it, what impact it may have had on the case, and why the judge might have denied it.
I'm well up on the background to the case, it's the legalese surrounding this particular event that needs translating.
The discounts get larger as the hardware gets more expensive (for fairly obvious reasons). I'm going to assume you're a fellow canuck based on that email address, so if you browse the Candian ADC Select Store, you can compare them with the regular prices at the regular Canadian Apple store. Remember to factor in the $99US student membership fee on top of the prices there.
From what I've seen, unless you're buying quite high end stuff, it's about as cheap to buy from the regular education store than from the ADC store once you factor that cost in.
The Hardware discount is significant if you're getting a high end mac. I suggest the $500 subscription and you'll save that on a high end powerbook or G5 powermac.
Student ADC members get the same discounts as the $500 select members, so if he's a student he could get those same discounts with the $99 membership.
Sega sold it's Sports studio (Visual Concepts) to Take Two Interactive in January.
They're not making any more sports games.
After they locked up the NFL, other developers may have been eyeing the NCAA as an alternative.
That's been taken care of now thanks to EA's innovative Let no customer choice go unremoved campaign.
You made the news!
The problem is that Linus is not elligible for bitkeeper licensing anymore.
In addition to dropping the free version, Bitmover is refusing to sell even commercial licenses to the OSDL or it's employees, which includes Linus Torvalds and Andrew Morton.
CVS's centralised repository design is more or less exactly the opposite of what Linus wants when it comes to a version control system. No distributed repositories, no foreign branching, no dependency tracking between changesets, no atomic commits, expensive branching, etc, etc.
CVS may be the solution to some things, but it's not a solution to the problem Linus is trying to solve.
Bitmover dropping it's free version of Bitkeeper isn't a good enough reason?
What're the odds?!
PCs, MS Windows, and MS Office aren't technologies; they're products.
And the technology underlying those products (bitmapped displays, MMUs, TCP/IP networks, etc,etc) all became popular in CS departments and research labs long before they moved out into the rest of the world and ended up into consumer products from MS.
If you mean "they sent an email to a colleague (perhaps talking about tuning R.E.D. values)" then maybe. Yes- pointless websites existed 10 years ago (did you mean WWW as opposed to the internet?)- but so did printing out stereographic images from the internet (can you see the sailboat? Stare at it longer!). I haven't seen anyone doing that in ages. I also haven't seen too much quicktime VR (although some realestate web sites to have virtual tours like that).
So ten years ago, they were using what was intended to be a research tool to communicate with their friends and download pointless and silly bits of entertainment, and you don't think they were ahead of the game?
Anyway, don't count openstep out. It's not good for much now, except extending openstep, but with the proper development it could provide everything OSX does today and more. The biggest problem openstep faces is the lack of interest in development - it seems to have come a long way, but it's been a long time as well. I was excited about it so long ago I forgot I was excited.
Apple doesn't sell it any more, so I doubt the interest will be going up any time soon.
But I do disagree with the disturbingly prevalent opinion here that because we can't make something perfect, we shouldn't attempt to make it better.
The author has found a legitimate flaw in the program, one which, ideally, should be corrected. No program can be perfect, but they should all strive to be as good as they can be.
Example by example:
"Gates do good marketing job" We both agree this is incorrect because job is not pluralized, yes?
"The plumbers on South Street do good work" Work can be the plural form, as in "I have a lot of work" (contrast with "I have a lot of book"). That's why this sentence works.
"Bananas make a good snack" This doesn't exhibit the grammatical feature that the original sentence does, so it's not analogous. Consider, instead, "Bananas do make good meal". This can only be made grammatical by either pluralizing "meal" or inserting an "a" after "make".
"The plural objects act on a singular subject" Similarly, this doesn't exhibit the feature we're discussing (the auxiliary and emphatic "do").