I don't see any conspicuous buttons to edit the main page, but the first entry under "Visitor Information" reads "If you... interested in a good software, leave this page!"
Welcome to the wonderful world of wiki defacement...
There is nothing in the story that you link which even remotely implies that Robert Marsh was in SF on Monday -- to support McBride, or for any other reason.
Lord of the Rings is not like other books. The greatness of the book cannot be distilled into a simple plot of ring is found, ring journeys, ring is destroyed.
If you think this description somehow characterizes The Lord of the Rings as something unique, then you apparently don't read much. The greatness of ANY great work cannot be reduced to a simplistic list of plot elements. It isn't the individual elements, it's the execution that makes something great (or not).
The book is an epic tale with multiple plot lines, and MUST be taken in as an overall story.
Again, that hardly makes it unique. Name one -- just one -- epic tale without multiple plotlines.
Perhaps what you mean to say is that the various published books that comprise The Lord of the Rings (even though JRRT wrote it as one story) must be considered as a complete and overall story when making a three part adaptation? In that case, you simply don't understand the needs and requirements of dramatic structure.
The object of the story is the destruction of the ring. The thing that makes it great is the fact that Tolkien doesn't treat the object of the story as the entire point of the story. He spends time commenting on the "human" condition, on the nature of duty, honor, and friendship, and the destruction of a rural, pastoral way of life in favor of an age of industry. And, it being a book, he has all the space in the world to do just that. If you want all of those things, read the book. If you want a distillation of as many of the things that Tolkien addressed as can be included in a thorough and respectful adaptation to another medium, then you'd be hard pressed to find a better shepherd of original material than Peter Jackson and company. You will note that I said thorough not slavish . Slavish adaptation -- meaning that which doesn't take into account the inherent strengths and weaknesses of the target medium -- will doom a project just as readily as if you entirely abandoned the original work.
This book is the progenitor of the fantasy genre, and those of us who loved the book long before the movies were even on the drawing board recognize the overall importance of it in its entirety.
The Lord of the Rings may be the progenitor of modern D&D-type quest fantasy, but it is most definitely NOT the point of origin for the whole genre. Frankly, Tolkien would be embarrassed by the legions of crap that has been spawned in his image (Terry Goodkind, David Eddings, anyone?), but then you could probably say that about any pioneering author who's been endlessly knocked off.
The thing that no one has yet commented upon -- and the thing which makes all of this even sillier and more moot (if that's possible) -- is what's going to happen when all of these vendors simply ignore this stupid memo? What's LA County going to do, refuse to contract with these thick-headed, insensitive troglodytes? Refuse to buy their products? In the case of drive manufacturers that doesn't exactly give LA County a wide range of alternative sources, now does it?
And in the case of documentation, perhaps we should just come up with a XML filter that switches terminology from normal readable text into PC-babble. It'd make a great ongoing document versioning contract... and if LA County complains then we can heap loads of negative press upon them claiming that they really don't have any interest in being a beacon of sensitivity...
This has got to be the most insane job description I've ever seen. There is an ongoing discussion thread about the nutball in question and he -- or someone posing as him -- has joined the thread to defend his requirements of things such as 80-100 hour work weeks and 24/7 beck and call.
For the record he's an affiliate marketer/spammer named Philip Seldon. Methinks he could use a good/.-ing...
One of the other stories linked in the sidebar -- also by Daniel Lyons -- contains this pithy quote about the community and its reaction to the initial suit:
Linux geeks howled a bit, but then wrote off SCO as a bunch of sleazebags and went back to playing live-action roleplaying (LARP) games in their mothers' basements, or whatever it is they do when they're not writing device drivers and complaining about clueless end users.
It's nice to see that a magazine as well-regarded as Forbes takes such pride in objective reporting.
They didn't issue a "warning" because it didn't occur to anyone that it might be taken seriously. "War of the Worlds" wasn't intended to be a hoax, and anyone willing to intellectually engage even slightly with the show would have been able to tell that it wasn't true.
The originating news service is fake, the prestigious hotel in New York from which the show was supposedly broadcast didn't exist, the famous band leader at said hotel was also fictitious. There are many references to non-existent broadcasting services and locations, and as the show continues, and they're describing the swathe of destruction left by the aliens as they advance on New York City (with 20 minutes left in the show)... anyone actually in New York could simply look out at the sky and see if it was glowing. According to the broadcast within the broadcast, 3 million people had left the City, thousands were jumping into the Hudson River, and the location of the advancing fires were very specifically described.
So for a one hour show, the first 40 minutes are concerned with the initial "attack" and the fake documentary; even if that confused some people, there is absolutely NO WAY that anyone could mistake the last 20 minutes for anything other than radio drama. Orson Welles describing the actions of his character travelling through a wasteland of destruction and death, meeting a National Guardsman in hiding and engaging him in conversation and great inspirational speechifying.
"War of the Worlds" was the 17th broadcast episode of the Mercury Theatre. It aired weekly on CBS, in the same time slot, and with the same cast. The thing that REALLY makes you wonder about the American populace, is that Orson Welles was a constant fixture on the radio -- he was the original voice of The Shadow -- on multiple networks, and he appears prominently in the show. It's not like you'd mistake that voice for someone else.
Welles was on the radio as The Shadow from September 1937 until September '38. The Mercury Theatre on the Air began in July 1938. Considering the length of the broadcast day, and the lack of dense programming, that means that everyone knew who Orson Welles was.
Oh well. As H.L. Mencken is often misquoted as saying, "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."
1) Backups are absolutely critical to the functioning of EVERY company, therefore every company needs a 100% reliable, enterprise backup solution.
2) The more enterprise-level, commercial grade tools are available, the better the "sell" to non-techies (read "executives and pencil pushers")
3) Veritas is owned by IBM.
After a billion dollar commitment, a JFS port, and an ongoing three billion dollar lawsuit, I can't imagine why they'd want to broaden the popularity and acceptance of Linux.
AOL is *NOT* altering a port setting. They are disabling a service. And furthermore, disabling the Messenger service in no way effects the functionality of the M$ Messenger.
So, the OS and user experience is not in anyway compromised, in fact, it closes a nuisance hole that Microsoft should build a service pack or hotfix, so what exactly is the justification for a lawsuit? You certainly can't call it making unauthorized changes to the OS, because it's going to be covered by the EULA. And if you think about it, anytime you install a program that modifies your file associations, you're experiencing the same thing. Do you think they should have an approval box for each possible aspect of install? No user -- especially one's who use AOL -- is going to go through that hassle.
So AOL'ers are left with less spam? If you're using AOL in the first place, anything the software can do to improve your day is going to be greeted with open arms and great rejoicing.
The thing is, that studios will "get away" with this sort of behavior because audiences have largely been conditioned to accept whatever winds up on the screen in front of them. Unless a print is brand-spankin'-new, we're usually subjected to jaggy transitions between reels (because the films are spliced together then cut apart, therefore getting progressively shorter), dirt on the negative (or the projector lens), blown speakers in the theatre, to say nothing of the fat git with BO stuffing junk food in his face that somehow always manages to sit in front of you. And then there are the seats.
What they don't seem to realize is that as technology progresses -- and gets cheaper -- going OUT to the movies is an experience than more and more people can surpass in the comfort of their own living rooms. All they have to do is wait. And with the general quality of what's coming out, why not wait?
Lest anyone think this post completely off topic, my original point had to do with the quality of the print as it relates to the filmgoing experience. I was once at a screening of Lawrence of Arabia at the Director's Guild. It being Lawrence, there were the usual number of power players in attendance. The print was unbelievably gorgeous -- crisp, clear, and clean -- like it had been struck the day before. Better even than the DVD (which isn't color timed properly.) In only one place was there a slightly jumpy transition between reels -- and by slight, I mean virtually unnoticeable, not some huge explosion on the soundtrack where the audio didn't mesh together. After the show, as everyone was leaving, I happened to pass by this small cluster of people who were in the process of just tearing this poor guy a new one. Turns out he was the projectionist, and the Powers that Be were livid that this one tiny mistake "ruined" their presentation.
While it was completely unprofessional to have upbraided this guy in public, they're obviously a lot more sensitive to these sorts of things than most moviegoers. The DGA would have never let a print with this sort of marking through their front doors. Try getting your money back from a theatre on something like that...
By sheer coincidence, I was looking at ProLiant servers on the HP website this weekend, and oddly enough, the only OS options they listed in the config for purchase drop down was Windows and NetWare (a bunch of variations of each).
He's not discounting open source versions, he's completely ignoring them. And he's completely off his rocker. How much "less expensive in purchase price" do you get than FREE?
Contrary to a lot of the press (and opinions) you see bandied about, Linux isn't free. If nothing else, there's a cost of ownership -- you have to pay people to administer it, and qualified people aren't cheap. Granted, a Linux admin won't cost you nearly as much as an HP-UX admin, but there's still and associated cost.
But you notice he doesn't even try to draw a line of distinction between what he obviously imagines to be a "real" OS and Linux. There's no "you have to pay for it in the long run, so you might as well use Solaris because we do X, Y, and Z." Nope, he goes right for the retail cost. Someone get this man a cluebyfour...
And while I'm thinking about it, did anyone notice the peculiar subtlety of Linux users being indemnified from SCO if they're using Sun's shiny new JAVA desktop on a desktop machine but not a server? WTF's that about? Last I heard, NUMA and JFS run just fine on a desktop box. Is he privy to the next round of bizarre assertions and allegations from Planet McBride, and just none of us has heard about it yet?
Unlike patents, there is NO equivalent to prior art when it comes to trademark. Anyone can, at anytime, register a trademark on the most mundane thing or obvious thing. Trademarks -- unlike copyright and patents -- do not expire. It's the one thing that "creators" can be said to continuously own. An interesting application of this concept is the case of Tarzan. Created by Edgar Rice Burroughs in 1912, the work itself is now in the public domain. HOWEVER, Burroughs also had the forethought to register Tarzan as a trademark. That means a couple of things: 1) anyone can make a film adaptation of Tarzan of the Apes without having to pay money to the Burroughs estate; 2) no one can create *new* stories featuring the trademark protected character of Tarzan without they are licensed by same said Burroughs estate. The heirs of Conan Doyle were exceptionally displeased with things like Without a Clue and the Sherlock Holmes related stories on Star Trek: TNG, but since they had no legal protection, there wasn't a whole lot they could do about it.
Now, this begs an interesting question -- how is it, exactly, that the Doyle estate (or anyone else) could not (or cannot) register Holmes and Watson as a trademark, but Forest Press could register "Dewey Decimal Classification" some 31 years after the death of Melvil Dewey, and almost 100 years after its creation? I haven't a clue...
The worse this gets, the more it makes you wish you could countersue SCO, not for monetary damages, but for their heads on platters -- what other option do we have? They've already given up their souls...
not to sound trollish, but Quark and M$ Publisher are in such radically different product classes that your question is almost like asking if it will open Word and Illustrator files for compatibility. (and by "compatability," I'm assuming that you mean the ability to open and edit them.)
according to the Scribus homepage, the product is aimed at the same space as Quark and InDesign -- pretty much the top of the heap. the point behind the "product classes" remark is mostly one of user identification. top end users would never so much as touch pseudo-DTP programs (like Publisher or Word), and the people inclined to use *those* programs to achieve their ends are either unwilling to go through the necessary learning curve, or are oblivious to the function, power, and perhaps existence of "real" desktop publishing apps.
It's already supported by any professional offset printer worth talking to. It outputs PDF files - the prefered format of many, many printers.
out of curiosity, I picked up the phone and went through my list of preferred vendors for offset print work in the greater Elay metroplex. out of twelve calls, NONE of them had ever heard of Scribus, and the ONLY formats they were willing to accept were Quark and InDesign. they were occasionally willing to accept PDF for small jobs (like a mostly text ad or something where the graphic quality was largely irrelevant), but by and large not.
PDF is completely unsuitable for a large job -- like say, a video box or similar size package (where the little spine pictures are about 40MB each) -- which can average about 500-700MB and absolutely requires that graphics not be compressed or messed with by an utterly pointless packaging/wrapper app like Acrobat. PDF is fine for making formatted brochures (or whatever) for download, but no designer in their right mind would ever submit a real job to a printer in it -- despite what Adobe likes to claim or would have you believe.
keep in mind that I'm talking about offset printers -- the people who make/use film from the output files or go straight to plate -- and NOT the sorts of places who use equipment that are essentially high speed, high res photocopiers.
I hate to rain on anyone's parade, but while it might be exceptionally attractive to have a nice DTP app for Linux (from the user perspective), there is NO CHANCE that this product will EVER be able to "even marginally compete" with Quark without one thing happening... it has to be supported by output and print houses, and they tend to be extremely conservative about supporting/adopting new software.
I'm not talking about Kinko's-type places who will happily dump a PDF on their DocuTech, I'm talking about professional offset printers (which most people outside of the print industry don't even know exist). when InDesign came along, the places I dealt with lagged for a good year and a half before they'd even consider accepting jobs laid out with it (and they were right to do so, since the software was hugely bloated and appallingly slow). considering that these are the people who control the output of everything you see in print publications -- all the ads get submitted from all the dozens of different ad agencies, to say nothing of the actual content -- these are the people you have to sell on the idea of a new "platform," considering that they tend only to accept jobs in Quark, Illustrator, and Photoshop. maybe InDesign. definitely NOT Freehand, Ventura Publisher, M$ Publisher, Corel Draw, Word, PowerPoint, or whatever ersatz program the wouldbe designer happened to get their hands on. as a requisite aside, GIMP is worthless as a publishing tool unless your platform is the internet. not only does it lack CMYK support, but it only supports one resolution, so let's not confuse the purpose of the program. it is a design and paint app for the internet, and only the internet.
you can move users (and only a select few), but you will never move an industry unless you take their needs and requirements into account. on the other hand, if you're talking about a good solid open source replacement for Publisher, Pagemaker, Word, or any of the other lightweight apps that stand in for professional layout programs, then these guys have a chance and I wish them all the best.
That's 84 servers and 168 CPUs to a rack. Now blades are supposed to be more space efficient than regular rackmount servers.
I think you answered your own question. a full sized rack is 42U (1U = 1.5") and stands about six feet tall. if you fill a rack with dual proc 1U servers, you have 84 CPU's per rack. with these blade servers, you get twice that.
Compaq had been working on Blade Servers for quite awhile before RLX came along. not only did RLX filch a bunch of the CPQ engineers, but one of the founding members was one of Compaq's VP's (I don't remember which one). there was a massive flurry of conflict of interest lawsuits, NDA violations, and such like. it was pretty ugly for about six months.
and then when we got out hands on one of RLX's machine, the thing was impossible to even set up. it lived one of the validation labs for months while they tried to make sense of the thing. and in the end, the engineers weren't all that impressed.
But you also have to see that they filmed 3 movies for 2/3 of what Titanic cost to make.
I'm sorry but that's simply not accurate. by your equation, Titanic would have cost $500 million to make. in fact it cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $200 million. the entire LOTR trilogy was budgeted in the neighborhood of $350 million, but that figure would have gone up somewhat since PJ keeps dragging people back to NZ to shoot new little things for the extended editions. (which isn't really here or there since the DVD production phase isn't considered part of the initial budget.)
it should probably also be pointed out that neither Fellowship or Two Towers had higher theatrical grosses than Titanic -- and if the figures hold true, Return of the King probably won't either.
Slashdot Mirror
The other film was Splash.
I don't see any conspicuous buttons to edit the main page, but the first entry under "Visitor Information" reads "If you... interested in a good software, leave this page!"
Welcome to the wonderful world of wiki defacement...
There is nothing in the story that you link which even remotely implies that Robert Marsh was in SF on Monday -- to support McBride, or for any other reason.
Lord of the Rings is not like other books. The greatness of the book cannot be distilled into a simple plot of ring is found, ring journeys, ring is destroyed.
If you think this description somehow characterizes The Lord of the Rings as something unique, then you apparently don't read much. The greatness of ANY great work cannot be reduced to a simplistic list of plot elements. It isn't the individual elements, it's the execution that makes something great (or not).
The book is an epic tale with multiple plot lines, and MUST be taken in as an overall story.
Again, that hardly makes it unique. Name one -- just one -- epic tale without multiple plotlines.
Perhaps what you mean to say is that the various published books that comprise The Lord of the Rings (even though JRRT wrote it as one story) must be considered as a complete and overall story when making a three part adaptation? In that case, you simply don't understand the needs and requirements of dramatic structure.
The object of the story is the destruction of the ring. The thing that makes it great is the fact that Tolkien doesn't treat the object of the story as the entire point of the story. He spends time commenting on the "human" condition, on the nature of duty, honor, and friendship, and the destruction of a rural, pastoral way of life in favor of an age of industry. And, it being a book, he has all the space in the world to do just that. If you want all of those things, read the book. If you want a distillation of as many of the things that Tolkien addressed as can be included in a thorough and respectful adaptation to another medium, then you'd be hard pressed to find a better shepherd of original material than Peter Jackson and company. You will note that I said thorough not slavish . Slavish adaptation -- meaning that which doesn't take into account the inherent strengths and weaknesses of the target medium -- will doom a project just as readily as if you entirely abandoned the original work.
This book is the progenitor of the fantasy genre, and those of us who loved the book long before the movies were even on the drawing board recognize the overall importance of it in its entirety.
The Lord of the Rings may be the progenitor of modern D&D-type quest fantasy, but it is most definitely NOT the point of origin for the whole genre. Frankly, Tolkien would be embarrassed by the legions of crap that has been spawned in his image (Terry Goodkind, David Eddings, anyone?), but then you could probably say that about any pioneering author who's been endlessly knocked off.
The thing that no one has yet commented upon -- and the thing which makes all of this even sillier and more moot (if that's possible) -- is what's going to happen when all of these vendors simply ignore this stupid memo? What's LA County going to do, refuse to contract with these thick-headed, insensitive troglodytes? Refuse to buy their products? In the case of drive manufacturers that doesn't exactly give LA County a wide range of alternative sources, now does it?
And in the case of documentation, perhaps we should just come up with a XML filter that switches terminology from normal readable text into PC-babble. It'd make a great ongoing document versioning contract... and if LA County complains then we can heap loads of negative press upon them claiming that they really don't have any interest in being a beacon of sensitivity...
This has got to be the most insane job description I've ever seen. There is an ongoing discussion thread about the nutball in question and he -- or someone posing as him -- has joined the thread to defend his requirements of things such as 80-100 hour work weeks and 24/7 beck and call.
/.-ing...
For the record he's an affiliate marketer/spammer named Philip Seldon. Methinks he could use a good
It's nice to see that a magazine as well-regarded as Forbes takes such pride in objective reporting.
-----http://www.forbes.com/2003/08/04/cz_dl_080
I think the phrase you're looking for is, "What the figgity fuck is this?" But that's obviously just a poor approximation.
"Lord Vader -- the rebels are here."
"Do they want tea?"
"They have a flag."
"DAMN!"
They didn't issue a "warning" because it didn't occur to anyone that it might be taken seriously. "War of the Worlds" wasn't intended to be a hoax, and anyone willing to intellectually engage even slightly with the show would have been able to tell that it wasn't true.
... anyone actually in New York could simply look out at the sky and see if it was glowing. According to the broadcast within the broadcast, 3 million people had left the City, thousands were jumping into the Hudson River, and the location of the advancing fires were very specifically described.
The originating news service is fake, the prestigious hotel in New York from which the show was supposedly broadcast didn't exist, the famous band leader at said hotel was also fictitious. There are many references to non-existent broadcasting services and locations, and as the show continues, and they're describing the swathe of destruction left by the aliens as they advance on New York City (with 20 minutes left in the show)
So for a one hour show, the first 40 minutes are concerned with the initial "attack" and the fake documentary; even if that confused some people, there is absolutely NO WAY that anyone could mistake the last 20 minutes for anything other than radio drama. Orson Welles describing the actions of his character travelling through a wasteland of destruction and death, meeting a National Guardsman in hiding and engaging him in conversation and great inspirational speechifying.
"War of the Worlds" was the 17th broadcast episode of the Mercury Theatre. It aired weekly on CBS, in the same time slot, and with the same cast. The thing that REALLY makes you wonder about the American populace, is that Orson Welles was a constant fixture on the radio -- he was the original voice of The Shadow -- on multiple networks, and he appears prominently in the show. It's not like you'd mistake that voice for someone else.
Welles was on the radio as The Shadow from September 1937 until September '38. The Mercury Theatre on the Air began in July 1938. Considering the length of the broadcast day, and the lack of dense programming, that means that everyone knew who Orson Welles was.
Oh well. As H.L. Mencken is often misquoted as saying, "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."
Hmmm... let's see if we can't reason this out...
1) Backups are absolutely critical to the functioning of EVERY company, therefore every company needs a 100% reliable, enterprise backup solution.
2) The more enterprise-level, commercial grade tools are available, the better the "sell" to non-techies (read "executives and pencil pushers")
3) Veritas is owned by IBM.
After a billion dollar commitment, a JFS port, and an ongoing three billion dollar lawsuit, I can't imagine why they'd want to broaden the popularity and acceptance of Linux.
AOL is *NOT* altering a port setting. They are disabling a service. And furthermore, disabling the Messenger service in no way effects the functionality of the M$ Messenger.
So, the OS and user experience is not in anyway compromised, in fact, it closes a nuisance hole that Microsoft should build a service pack or hotfix, so what exactly is the justification for a lawsuit? You certainly can't call it making unauthorized changes to the OS, because it's going to be covered by the EULA. And if you think about it, anytime you install a program that modifies your file associations, you're experiencing the same thing. Do you think they should have an approval box for each possible aspect of install? No user -- especially one's who use AOL -- is going to go through that hassle.
So AOL'ers are left with less spam? If you're using AOL in the first place, anything the software can do to improve your day is going to be greeted with open arms and great rejoicing.
The thing is, that studios will "get away" with this sort of behavior because audiences have largely been conditioned to accept whatever winds up on the screen in front of them. Unless a print is brand-spankin'-new, we're usually subjected to jaggy transitions between reels (because the films are spliced together then cut apart, therefore getting progressively shorter), dirt on the negative (or the projector lens), blown speakers in the theatre, to say nothing of the fat git with BO stuffing junk food in his face that somehow always manages to sit in front of you. And then there are the seats.
What they don't seem to realize is that as technology progresses -- and gets cheaper -- going OUT to the movies is an experience than more and more people can surpass in the comfort of their own living rooms. All they have to do is wait. And with the general quality of what's coming out, why not wait?
Lest anyone think this post completely off topic, my original point had to do with the quality of the print as it relates to the filmgoing experience. I was once at a screening of Lawrence of Arabia at the Director's Guild. It being Lawrence, there were the usual number of power players in attendance. The print was unbelievably gorgeous -- crisp, clear, and clean -- like it had been struck the day before. Better even than the DVD (which isn't color timed properly.) In only one place was there a slightly jumpy transition between reels -- and by slight, I mean virtually unnoticeable, not some huge explosion on the soundtrack where the audio didn't mesh together. After the show, as everyone was leaving, I happened to pass by this small cluster of people who were in the process of just tearing this poor guy a new one. Turns out he was the projectionist, and the Powers that Be were livid that this one tiny mistake "ruined" their presentation.
While it was completely unprofessional to have upbraided this guy in public, they're obviously a lot more sensitive to these sorts of things than most moviegoers. The DGA would have never let a print with this sort of marking through their front doors. Try getting your money back from a theatre on something like that...
By sheer coincidence, I was looking at ProLiant servers on the HP website this weekend, and oddly enough, the only OS options they listed in the config for purchase drop down was Windows and NetWare (a bunch of variations of each).
As the Fedora site says, "Making things look pretty is the name of the game."
ironic that they claim that, then lay the site out in a completely unreadable font. not too reassuring, that...
He's not discounting open source versions, he's completely ignoring them. And he's completely off his rocker. How much "less expensive in purchase price" do you get than FREE?
Contrary to a lot of the press (and opinions) you see bandied about, Linux isn't free. If nothing else, there's a cost of ownership -- you have to pay people to administer it, and qualified people aren't cheap. Granted, a Linux admin won't cost you nearly as much as an HP-UX admin, but there's still and associated cost.
But you notice he doesn't even try to draw a line of distinction between what he obviously imagines to be a "real" OS and Linux. There's no "you have to pay for it in the long run, so you might as well use Solaris because we do X, Y, and Z." Nope, he goes right for the retail cost. Someone get this man a cluebyfour...
And while I'm thinking about it, did anyone notice the peculiar subtlety of Linux users being indemnified from SCO if they're using Sun's shiny new JAVA desktop on a desktop machine but not a server? WTF's that about? Last I heard, NUMA and JFS run just fine on a desktop box. Is he privy to the next round of bizarre assertions and allegations from Planet McBride, and just none of us has heard about it yet?
Unlike patents, there is NO equivalent to prior art when it comes to trademark. Anyone can, at anytime, register a trademark on the most mundane thing or obvious thing. Trademarks -- unlike copyright and patents -- do not expire. It's the one thing that "creators" can be said to continuously own. An interesting application of this concept is the case of Tarzan. Created by Edgar Rice Burroughs in 1912, the work itself is now in the public domain. HOWEVER, Burroughs also had the forethought to register Tarzan as a trademark. That means a couple of things: 1) anyone can make a film adaptation of Tarzan of the Apes without having to pay money to the Burroughs estate; 2) no one can create *new* stories featuring the trademark protected character of Tarzan without they are licensed by same said Burroughs estate. The heirs of Conan Doyle were exceptionally displeased with things like Without a Clue and the Sherlock Holmes related stories on Star Trek: TNG, but since they had no legal protection, there wasn't a whole lot they could do about it. Now, this begs an interesting question -- how is it, exactly, that the Doyle estate (or anyone else) could not (or cannot) register Holmes and Watson as a trademark, but Forest Press could register "Dewey Decimal Classification" some 31 years after the death of Melvil Dewey, and almost 100 years after its creation? I haven't a clue...
check out the DDCS trademark filing.
The worse this gets, the more it makes you wish you could countersue SCO, not for monetary damages, but for their heads on platters -- what other option do we have? They've already given up their souls...
not to sound trollish, but Quark and M$ Publisher are in such radically different product classes that your question is almost like asking if it will open Word and Illustrator files for compatibility. (and by "compatability," I'm assuming that you mean the ability to open and edit them.)
according to the Scribus homepage, the product is aimed at the same space as Quark and InDesign -- pretty much the top of the heap. the point behind the "product classes" remark is mostly one of user identification. top end users would never so much as touch pseudo-DTP programs (like Publisher or Word), and the people inclined to use *those* programs to achieve their ends are either unwilling to go through the necessary learning curve, or are oblivious to the function, power, and perhaps existence of "real" desktop publishing apps.
It's already supported by any professional offset printer worth talking to. It outputs PDF files - the prefered format of many, many printers.
out of curiosity, I picked up the phone and went through my list of preferred vendors for offset print work in the greater Elay metroplex. out of twelve calls, NONE of them had ever heard of Scribus, and the ONLY formats they were willing to accept were Quark and InDesign. they were occasionally willing to accept PDF for small jobs (like a mostly text ad or something where the graphic quality was largely irrelevant), but by and large not.
PDF is completely unsuitable for a large job -- like say, a video box or similar size package (where the little spine pictures are about 40MB each) -- which can average about 500-700MB and absolutely requires that graphics not be compressed or messed with by an utterly pointless packaging/wrapper app like Acrobat. PDF is fine for making formatted brochures (or whatever) for download, but no designer in their right mind would ever submit a real job to a printer in it -- despite what Adobe likes to claim or would have you believe.
keep in mind that I'm talking about offset printers -- the people who make/use film from the output files or go straight to plate -- and NOT the sorts of places who use equipment that are essentially high speed, high res photocopiers.
I hate to rain on anyone's parade, but while it might be exceptionally attractive to have a nice DTP app for Linux (from the user perspective), there is NO CHANCE that this product will EVER be able to "even marginally compete" with Quark without one thing happening... it has to be supported by output and print houses, and they tend to be extremely conservative about supporting/adopting new software.
I'm not talking about Kinko's-type places who will happily dump a PDF on their DocuTech, I'm talking about professional offset printers (which most people outside of the print industry don't even know exist). when InDesign came along, the places I dealt with lagged for a good year and a half before they'd even consider accepting jobs laid out with it (and they were right to do so, since the software was hugely bloated and appallingly slow). considering that these are the people who control the output of everything you see in print publications -- all the ads get submitted from all the dozens of different ad agencies, to say nothing of the actual content -- these are the people you have to sell on the idea of a new "platform," considering that they tend only to accept jobs in Quark, Illustrator, and Photoshop. maybe InDesign. definitely NOT Freehand, Ventura Publisher, M$ Publisher, Corel Draw, Word, PowerPoint, or whatever ersatz program the wouldbe designer happened to get their hands on. as a requisite aside, GIMP is worthless as a publishing tool unless your platform is the internet. not only does it lack CMYK support, but it only supports one resolution, so let's not confuse the purpose of the program. it is a design and paint app for the internet, and only the internet.
you can move users (and only a select few), but you will never move an industry unless you take their needs and requirements into account. on the other hand, if you're talking about a good solid open source replacement for Publisher, Pagemaker, Word, or any of the other lightweight apps that stand in for professional layout programs, then these guys have a chance and I wish them all the best.
'It think it sucks!'
I'm impressed. I didn't realize the thing was both sentient, and self-loathing.
588 servers, each with 2 CPUs, in seven racks.
That's 84 servers and 168 CPUs to a rack. Now blades are supposed to be more space efficient than regular rackmount servers.
I think you answered your own question. a full sized rack is 42U (1U = 1.5") and stands about six feet tall. if you fill a rack with dual proc 1U servers, you have 84 CPU's per rack. with these blade servers, you get twice that.
sounds more space efficient to me...
Compaq had been working on Blade Servers for quite awhile before RLX came along. not only did RLX filch a bunch of the CPQ engineers, but one of the founding members was one of Compaq's VP's (I don't remember which one). there was a massive flurry of conflict of interest lawsuits, NDA violations, and such like. it was pretty ugly for about six months.
and then when we got out hands on one of RLX's machine, the thing was impossible to even set up. it lived one of the validation labs for months while they tried to make sense of the thing. and in the end, the engineers weren't all that impressed.
But you also have to see that they filmed 3 movies for 2/3 of what Titanic cost to make.
I'm sorry but that's simply not accurate. by your equation, Titanic would have cost $500 million to make. in fact it cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $200 million. the entire LOTR trilogy was budgeted in the neighborhood of $350 million, but that figure would have gone up somewhat since PJ keeps dragging people back to NZ to shoot new little things for the extended editions. (which isn't really here or there since the DVD production phase isn't considered part of the initial budget.)
it should probably also be pointed out that neither Fellowship or Two Towers had higher theatrical grosses than Titanic -- and if the figures hold true, Return of the King probably won't either.