I know for a fact that it makes a shitty cookbook. I have a food processor jammed with tribbles. Who knew you had to shave them first? Worse than peeling potatoes. At least potatoes don't make noise when they scream.
I run postgres on my own database servers (when I'm not making movies, that is). Now, there's a distributed database project associated with Postgres, trying to add replication into the databases' bag of tricks.
Lotus Notes implements e-mail and lots of other things on top of a database engine that performs replication. So, could Postgres be used to develop a Lotus Notes type application with replicated databased for e-mail, calendars, team rooms, etc?
Why go through all that trouble when it's just much easier to keep pressing your thumb on the panel, getting the rejection, until the 16 year old at the register gets sick of you holding up the line and hits the bypass key on the register?
These things are going to be so flakey. Even something as simple as a mag-stripe reader on a credit card sometimes takes 10 swipes to read on one reader, and just 1 on another.
Derivativation is something that courts have to decide. Are you willing to use namespaces in some code, deliver that code to a customer, then have Microsoft sue your customer for a patent violation? Unless you have some sort of prescience, you shouldn't be taking that risk.
A game is different than a document in the respect that documents can last hundreds or thousands of years, because of historical significance. When Microsoft changes their file format, they don't take into account the documents that will eventually be lost because of their obsolete format.
>at least we'll be able to look at it and add things to it via an public specification. Or something to that effect.
The patents prohibit adding things to the spec. We won't be able to change it at all. It's not an open spec.
>Hm. I guess I'm not sure what would be gained by doing that - i.e., changing the spec and republishing it. Why would that be a good thing to do, even if you could?
1) All specifications are incomplete. The requirements that it addresses today are not static, and in 10 years there will be new requirements. 2) Microsoft will change their XML schema. 3) Historically, Microsoft has done things that are in the interest of Microsoft. Everyone else must follow along. 4) Therefore, the changes that Microsoft will make the the XML schema have a high liklihood of being advantageous to Microsoft.
When Microsoft keeps all the real control of the format, it turns any open source developer into a sharecropper. We're going to be plowing a field that we don't own, and the price we pay is going to entrench the Microsoft format even further.
It's NOT reasonable. They don't allow any modifications or derivatives of the schema without permission.
So, Microsoft will be free to continue changing their format with each new release, breaking all the open source programs for a time, causing time and trouble for users to upgrade.
We don't like Word formats because they change frequently, and they are developed in a direction that suits Microsoft. How does this change anything?
Slashdot Mirror
Don't feed the trolls. Move along.
Thanks for clarifying your position, you HEMISPHERIST! hehe
I can speak sperm whale.
(gargling sound)
I've been jacking off for 10 years while all you people wrote me an operating system. Thanks!
Advantage: furious masturbator
Being a starving artist won't get you laid, so you don't free work.
Being any kind of programmer won't get you laid, so you may as well work for free if it's fun.
Offtopic? The moderators have been jacking off instead of paying attention.
It's on-topic. The thread is dedicated to insults about Darl the SCO Guy.
The more yarn you pull out the more you see
Quite unlike Darl's cock!
For me, OS/2 wasn't a $100 product, it was a $100 product that required $400 worth of memory upgrades to run.
That is absolutely beautiful, thank you.
Not a new $40 CPU, but there's plenty of used ones out there. Someday I'm going to pick up a 10 Ghz processor and motherboard for $20.
I know for a fact that it makes a shitty cookbook. I have a food processor jammed with tribbles. Who knew you had to shave them first? Worse than peeling potatoes. At least potatoes don't make noise when they scream.
I run postgres on my own database servers (when I'm not making movies, that is). Now, there's a distributed database project associated with Postgres, trying to add replication into the databases' bag of tricks.
Lotus Notes implements e-mail and lots of other things on top of a database engine that performs replication. So, could Postgres be used to develop a Lotus Notes type application with replicated databased for e-mail, calendars, team rooms, etc?
Can you get a version of "Danny Boy" that we can sing at SCO's wake?
And it's also about good vs. evil; Jesus vs. the Devil; Rebels vs. the Empire; Babylon 5 vs the Shadows; and by god, Chevy vs. Ford!
Or maybe it really is just an uppity company that will be remembered for suing IBM and getting squashed.
I think that the money will go to a damages award.
More precisely, when the article talks about solving the puzzle, they mean finding all the possible solutions, not just one.
Why go through all that trouble when it's just much easier to keep pressing your thumb on the panel, getting the rejection, until the 16 year old at the register gets sick of you holding up the line and hits the bypass key on the register?
These things are going to be so flakey. Even something as simple as a mag-stripe reader on a credit card sometimes takes 10 swipes to read on one reader, and just 1 on another.
zealot: someone who bought high.
Why don't you stop being rude?
Derivativation is something that courts have to decide. Are you willing to use namespaces in some code, deliver that code to a customer, then have Microsoft sue your customer for a patent violation? Unless you have some sort of prescience, you shouldn't be taking that risk.
The patent license prohibits making derivative formats, so that would be out of the question.
Come on people, are we self-respecting geeks around here or aren't we? Geeks should know about the space program, considering its significance.
Geeks would know that the shuttle returning heavy payloads to Earth has been depricated because of safety concerns.
Hubble isn't going to come back, except in a blaze of glory with the possibility of free Tacos for everyone on the planet.
GPL UN-like, you mean.
The GPL explicitly grants permission to make changes. Microsoft quite clearly denies the right to make changes.
A game is different than a document in the respect that documents can last hundreds or thousands of years, because of historical significance. When Microsoft changes their file format, they don't take into account the documents that will eventually be lost because of their obsolete format.
>at least we'll be able to look at it and add things to it via an public specification. Or something to that effect.
The patents prohibit adding things to the spec. We won't be able to change it at all. It's not an open spec.
>Hm. I guess I'm not sure what would be gained by doing that - i.e., changing the spec and republishing it. Why would that be a good thing to do, even if you could?
1) All specifications are incomplete. The requirements that it addresses today are not static, and in 10 years there will be new requirements.
2) Microsoft will change their XML schema.
3) Historically, Microsoft has done things that are in the interest of Microsoft. Everyone else must follow along.
4) Therefore, the changes that Microsoft will make the the XML schema have a high liklihood of being advantageous to Microsoft.
When Microsoft keeps all the real control of the format, it turns any open source developer into a sharecropper. We're going to be plowing a field that we don't own, and the price we pay is going to entrench the Microsoft format even further.
It's NOT reasonable. They don't allow any modifications or derivatives of the schema without permission.
So, Microsoft will be free to continue changing their format with each new release, breaking all the open source programs for a time, causing time and trouble for users to upgrade.
We don't like Word formats because they change frequently, and they are developed in a direction that suits Microsoft. How does this change anything?