But I was under the impression that SCO was required to put ALL it's cards on the table AND THEN the judge would talk about whether or not IBM hadn't presented all the requested information.
SCO's statement makes it clear they are saying this is a sample only and they will cough up a little more after IBM gives what they want. Isn't this liable to piss off a judge who explicitly ordered they present everything?
This is redhat's way of saying sorry about the Fedora thing that pissed alot of people off.
(translation) I suspect this is redhat's way of donating technology they weren't making any money off of and using the Positive PR to make up for Negative PR they recieved last time they dumped liabilities onto the community.
There are more outstanding caes than people in the US primarily because of the inefficient legal system.
Typical criminal trespassing case,
First appearance, plea + maybe get lawyer second appearance, need some time your honor, inbetween some plea bargaining happens, third appearance maybe accepted plea bargain (at the 6 month mark here if there was a pleabargain which there usually is.) Fourth appearance, pretrial fifth appearance dicking around about pretrial etc etc etc
The way it SHOULD go down with the same crime.
First appearance, court appointed lawyer is on hand if needed, plea.
If guilty, sentence. If not guilty proceed without ever leaving the courtroom.
Prosecution better speak up if he wishes to offer a deal, he had after all 2+ months to offer something before the initial plea. Trial proceeds with whatever evidence the two lawyers/clients bothered to put together, they had TWO MONTHS to fetch a paper from the county clerk if needed after all. Trial is finished the same day, maybe takes as long as 2hrs.
This should apply to all cases unless the trial literally takes more than 8hrs with nothing but a 30min lunch break with a late penalty of forfeit, to present evidence and witnesses.
This should apply to corporate lawsuits as well. If their own operation isn't efficient enough to get their paperwork together in a 2 month time frame then it's really not john q taxpayers problem is it? And therefore it's not a valid reason to tie up MY courtroom. It's certainly not a valid excuse for citizen accused of X crime with no bail money sitting in jail for another day waiting on a trial. And John Q. Taxpayer shouldn't have to pay to house citizen accused of X crime either for an extra day over their bullshit either.
If the watch loses/gains 5-10 seconds a day that pretty pathetic, That's minute every week or two. A fire timepiece shouldn't lose more than a few seconds every few years.
yes but the signal still has to get back here. It can't interfere with OUR signals when it gets here (or rather, they don't want our signals interfering with it) and it has to make it through OUR atmosphere.
I know some of the signals are being relayed when it 's on the "dark side" of mars, but I wouldn't have thought they'd bother to mention that if ALL of the signals were being relayed the same way.
lol yes, but I think everyone knows that. If there is no family computer guy, there is a local tech shop who fills that position.
In either case the bigger issue is updates not support. Support you don't need microsoft for, updates however you do, because they keep the source to themselves and nobody can provide updates.
No kidding on the P2, we currently have a production mail server, running spam (spamassassin with bayes) and virus (mailscanner+clamAV+alittlescript that downloads and installs updates) filtering for 30 users. Runs squirrelmail as well so they have webmail, it also runs apache (for the squirrelmail) and a simple redirect script (if anyone wants it let me know, simple enough to write) that invisibly redirects mail.theirdomain.com to https://mail.theirdomain.com/webmail/. This helps because your average user has trouble with domains (and understanding msn search box is NOT where they go) and even the more tech savvy users are a little slow on the pickup with https addresses.
The server is running clarkconnect 1.3 (redhat 7.3 with an easy web interface), on a P1 (non MMX) 233 with 64mb ram, 128mb swap and a 2gig hard drive.
Purrs like a kitten. This was old when deployed (they wanted a solution for under $200) and has been running for 2yrs without an issue the only instance of downtime was for a couple hours and scheduled to add the virus and mail filtering. It only took that long because we needed to resize a partition and enlarge the swap (was 64mb) and the partitions were ext3 (so had to tar'd out to another drive, part resized, ext3 recreated on larger size then untar'd back in).
At some point unless VERY vital we setup all our linux servers/workstations/desktops to download and install updates automatically. Never had an update cause a problem yet.
I hope this ends the discussion on redhat dropping upgrade support. That's all that microsoft offers anyway, it's not like anyone calls them for support (at least anyone who does doesn't bother to call a second time).
The source for linux is open, and thus updates continue whether or not the original company continues to put them out. Yes it's true, not everyone can update the packages themselves, due to technical ability, time constraints etc. But maybe this will help you understand why we linux users consider ourselves a COMMUNITY.
http://apt.freshrpms.net
It has more than just baseOS updates, from 6.2 on. The rpm installs flawlessly on your redhat system and then apt-get update, apt-get upgrade will get you all your updates.
There are not only people who CAN do this, there are people who ARE doing this, and making the updates available to others who cannot for whatever reason. THIS is why we call it a community.
If you run 7.3 and need updates, check here http://apt.freshrpms.net/
Absolutely, you have purchased the right to have a copy of the game for the rest of your life. Your license never expires, transcends media and lives forever. The other end is that nobody has an obligation to provide you with new media should you lose yours.
It doesn't matter how irresponsible you are with your media, you have the right to back it up (according to US copyright law) so that you can ensure that 20yrs from now you can use your license via an emulator. No matter how many times you destroy media.
That works in a mathmatical equation but not in reality. For starters I'm not saying A includes B and vice versa, the not means I'm saying that A does NOT neccesarily include B, because I said they are NOT mutually inclusive.
However, if I WERE saying something was mutually inclusive that something merely needs to relate to one another. If you have a whole with mutiple components and when you have one of those components you MUST have another of those components then they are mutally inclusive, they are NOT however identical.
For example, in application an operating system and boot mechanism are mutally inclusive. They however are NOT identical, they are two seperate components which depend on one another.
My point is beautifully illustrated by the existance of circular dependencies. If dependancies were not mutually inclusive they could not be circular, you wouldn't need one to have the other, however this also does not mean that they are identical.
Although you might have a fair argument that two components which are mutually inclusive should be simplified into one component, that isn't the way the real world works. In the real world, component A and component B may not even be made by the same people, or they might be easier to work with if logically seperated (albeit rarely).
Not according to the dictionary they aren't. I frequently use the terms mutually inclusive to indicate that having one means automatically having the other. This is in keeping with the definitions of the words in any dictionary.
Or perhaps you thought that NAT and a firewall are identical? Ever heard of zone alarm (lousy firewall but common), it doesn't handle nat.
mutual ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mych-l) adj.
1. Having the same relationship each to the other: mutual predators.
2. Directed and received by each toward the other; reciprocal: mutual respect.
3. Possessed in common: mutual interests.
4. Of, relating to, or in the form of mutual insurance.
inclusive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-klsv) adj.
1. Taking a great deal or everything within its scope; comprehensive: an inclusive survey of world economic affairs.
2. Including the specified extremes or limits as well as the area between them: the numbers one to ten, inclusive.
3. Linguistics. Of, relating to, or being a first person plural pronoun that includes the addressee, such as we in the sentence If you're hungry, we could order some pizza.
With IPv6 EVERYONE should have enough ip's, that is the point. As it is, it's a bear to even get a partial class c.
With IPv6 254 ip's could be readily distributed with a web based form submission, no fees, to anyone who wants them. Only requiring a valid email address which is sent a mail every 5 years that waits another year for a reply before giving the ip's to someone else.
firewall and nat are not mutually inclusive. You can firewall a network of public addresses, you can assign those addresses via dhcp. You don't NEED nat.
Nat is a horrible and evil thing. Ever tried to run 4 ftp servers behind nat? Doesn't work very well does it? Right now there are barely enough ip's for every person to have one... but wait, what about work? oops now everybody needs two, but *gasp* your cell phone! Now everybody needs 3... we are already at 3 times what IPv4 can provide with what is already out there and popular and is pretty much guaranteed to be as essential tommorow as having a hammer or screwdriver.
What's more, people get new cellphones, they throw old ones away, sometimes have multiple phones, sometimes multiple computers. IPv6 would provide 5000 addresses for every micrometer of the surface of the earth. Giving everyhousehold on the internet a full 255 address block would be a fairly conservative approach in relation ot the address space.
Don't you want to see that world? Especially knowing it doesn't mean your can't have a router to share a net connection, and knowing that you can still be firewalled? Having public addresses means that you can configure your router not to block port x on ANY computer in your network, instead of being able to forward port x to ONE computer in your network.
Let's just hope when IPv6 becomes mainstream one can register for addresses without a fee right up on a website instead of the political review that is required now.
"there isn't a magical new technique which will meaningfully improve on them"
Nobody can make such a statement about ANYTHING with accuracy. The fact is that if there is a magnificant new technique that improve something, we aren't going to find it if there is no research being done on the subject.
Slashdot Mirror
But I was under the impression that SCO was required to put ALL it's cards on the table AND THEN the judge would talk about whether or not IBM hadn't presented all the requested information.
SCO's statement makes it clear they are saying this is a sample only and they will cough up a little more after IBM gives what they want. Isn't this liable to piss off a judge who explicitly ordered they present everything?
This is redhat's way of saying sorry about the Fedora thing that pissed alot of people off.
:)
(translation)
I suspect this is redhat's way of donating technology they weren't making any money off of and using the Positive PR to make up for Negative PR they recieved last time they dumped liabilities onto the community.
Either way, works for me, thanks redhat
There are more outstanding caes than people in the US primarily because of the inefficient legal system.
Typical criminal trespassing case,
First appearance, plea + maybe get lawyer
second appearance, need some time your honor,
inbetween some plea bargaining happens,
third appearance maybe accepted plea bargain (at the 6 month mark here if there was a pleabargain which there usually is.)
Fourth appearance, pretrial
fifth appearance dicking around about pretrial
etc etc etc
The way it SHOULD go down with the same crime.
First appearance, court appointed lawyer is on hand if needed, plea.
If guilty, sentence. If not guilty proceed without ever leaving the courtroom.
Prosecution better speak up if he wishes to offer a deal, he had after all 2+ months to offer something before the initial plea. Trial proceeds with whatever evidence the two lawyers/clients bothered to put together, they had TWO MONTHS to fetch a paper from the county clerk if needed after all. Trial is finished the same day, maybe takes as long as 2hrs.
This should apply to all cases unless the trial literally takes more than 8hrs with nothing but a 30min lunch break with a late penalty of forfeit, to present evidence and witnesses.
This should apply to corporate lawsuits as well. If their own operation isn't efficient enough to get their paperwork together in a 2 month time frame then it's really not john q taxpayers problem is it? And therefore it's not a valid reason to tie up MY courtroom. It's certainly not a valid excuse for citizen accused of X crime with no bail money sitting in jail for another day waiting on a trial. And John Q. Taxpayer shouldn't have to pay to house citizen accused of X crime either for an extra day over their bullshit either.
It's Canopy who is doing this, NOT Caldera, this began when SCO shifted into Darl McBride's hands.
ok, this is a MONITOR, that is a TV.
If the watch loses/gains 5-10 seconds a day that pretty pathetic, That's minute every week or two. A fire timepiece shouldn't lose more than a few seconds every few years.
How about because they purchased the linux distro which is not freely downloadable? Securing something like a 95% profit on the sale for Novell.
A "typical" home modem is 56kbit, not 28.8k
yes but the signal still has to get back here. It can't interfere with OUR signals when it gets here (or rather, they don't want our signals interfering with it) and it has to make it through OUR atmosphere.
I know some of the signals are being relayed when it 's on the "dark side" of mars, but I wouldn't have thought they'd bother to mention that if ALL of the signals were being relayed the same way.
" GroupWise has doubled its market share in the past three years."
What are you on? Groupwise has LOST 45% of it's market share in the last two years, the other poster was correct.
lol yes, but I think everyone knows that. If there is no family computer guy, there is a local tech shop who fills that position.
In either case the bigger issue is updates not support. Support you don't need microsoft for, updates however you do, because they keep the source to themselves and nobody can provide updates.
No kidding on the P2, we currently have a production mail server, running spam (spamassassin with bayes) and virus (mailscanner+clamAV+alittlescript that downloads and installs updates) filtering for 30 users. Runs squirrelmail as well so they have webmail, it also runs apache (for the squirrelmail) and a simple redirect script (if anyone wants it let me know, simple enough to write) that invisibly redirects mail.theirdomain.com to https://mail.theirdomain.com/webmail/. This helps because your average user has trouble with domains (and understanding msn search box is NOT where they go) and even the more tech savvy users are a little slow on the pickup with https addresses.
The server is running clarkconnect 1.3 (redhat 7.3 with an easy web interface), on a P1 (non MMX) 233 with 64mb ram, 128mb swap and a 2gig hard drive.
Purrs like a kitten. This was old when deployed (they wanted a solution for under $200) and has been running for 2yrs without an issue the only instance of downtime was for a couple hours and scheduled to add the virus and mail filtering. It only took that long because we needed to resize a partition and enlarge the swap (was 64mb) and the partitions were ext3 (so had to tar'd out to another drive, part resized, ext3 recreated on larger size then untar'd back in).
At some point unless VERY vital we setup all our linux servers/workstations/desktops to download and install updates automatically. Never had an update cause a problem yet.
I hope this ends the discussion on redhat dropping upgrade support. That's all that microsoft offers anyway, it's not like anyone calls them for support (at least anyone who does doesn't bother to call a second time).
The source for linux is open, and thus updates continue whether or not the original company continues to put them out. Yes it's true, not everyone can update the packages themselves, due to technical ability, time constraints etc. But maybe this will help you understand why we linux users consider ourselves a COMMUNITY.
http://apt.freshrpms.net
It has more than just baseOS updates, from 6.2 on. The rpm installs flawlessly on your redhat system and then apt-get update, apt-get upgrade will get you all your updates.
There are not only people who CAN do this, there are people who ARE doing this, and making the updates available to others who cannot for whatever reason. THIS is why we call it a community.
If you run 7.3 and need updates, check here http://apt.freshrpms.net/
Heck, with clonecd and Daemon tools mounting the clonecd images directly you can play pretty much any game this way.
Absolutely, you have purchased the right to have a copy of the game for the rest of your life. Your license never expires, transcends media and lives forever. The other end is that nobody has an obligation to provide you with new media should you lose yours.
It doesn't matter how irresponsible you are with your media, you have the right to back it up (according to US copyright law) so that you can ensure that 20yrs from now you can use your license via an emulator. No matter how many times you destroy media.
If the ladies can no longer breath through their noses, how does this bode for oral sex?
Am I the only one who is concerned that replacement females could become scarce if they are dying left and right from lack of oxygen?
This is a serious issue, perhaps we should just keep this bit of research to ourselves gentlemen.
That works in a mathmatical equation but not in reality. For starters I'm not saying A includes B and vice versa, the not means I'm saying that A does NOT neccesarily include B, because I said they are NOT mutually inclusive.
However, if I WERE saying something was mutually inclusive that something merely needs to relate to one another. If you have a whole with mutiple components and when you have one of those components you MUST have another of those components then they are mutally inclusive, they are NOT however identical.
For example, in application an operating system and boot mechanism are mutally inclusive. They however are NOT identical, they are two seperate components which depend on one another.
My point is beautifully illustrated by the existance of circular dependencies. If dependancies were not mutually inclusive they could not be circular, you wouldn't need one to have the other, however this also does not mean that they are identical.
Although you might have a fair argument that two components which are mutually inclusive should be simplified into one component, that isn't the way the real world works. In the real world, component A and component B may not even be made by the same people, or they might be easier to work with if logically seperated (albeit rarely).
Not according to the dictionary they aren't. I frequently use the terms mutually inclusive to indicate that having one means automatically having the other. This is in keeping with the definitions of the words in any dictionary.
Or perhaps you thought that NAT and a firewall are identical? Ever heard of zone alarm (lousy firewall but common), it doesn't handle nat.
mutual ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mych-l)
adj.
1. Having the same relationship each to the other: mutual predators.
2. Directed and received by each toward the other; reciprocal: mutual respect.
3. Possessed in common: mutual interests.
4. Of, relating to, or in the form of mutual insurance.
inclusive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-klsv)
adj.
1. Taking a great deal or everything within its scope; comprehensive: an inclusive survey of world economic affairs.
2. Including the specified extremes or limits as well as the area between them: the numbers one to ten, inclusive.
3. Linguistics. Of, relating to, or being a first person plural pronoun that includes the addressee, such as we in the sentence If you're hungry, we could order some pizza.
I dunno, I suspect apple would be quite thrilled with another 700,000 ipod sales in the US alone.
Except for the flexible part, it's missing that, it's still DRM'd.
I think that might be pushing it, perhaps ambient white noise?
With IPv6 EVERYONE should have enough ip's, that is the point. As it is, it's a bear to even get a partial class c.
With IPv6 254 ip's could be readily distributed with a web based form submission, no fees, to anyone who wants them. Only requiring a valid email address which is sent a mail every 5 years that waits another year for a reply before giving the ip's to someone else.
firewall and nat are not mutually inclusive. You can firewall a network of public addresses, you can assign those addresses via dhcp. You don't NEED nat.
Nat is a horrible and evil thing. Ever tried to run 4 ftp servers behind nat? Doesn't work very well does it? Right now there are barely enough ip's for every person to have one... but wait, what about work? oops now everybody needs two, but *gasp* your cell phone! Now everybody needs 3... we are already at 3 times what IPv4 can provide with what is already out there and popular and is pretty much guaranteed to be as essential tommorow as having a hammer or screwdriver.
What's more, people get new cellphones, they throw old ones away, sometimes have multiple phones, sometimes multiple computers. IPv6 would provide 5000 addresses for every micrometer of the surface of the earth. Giving everyhousehold on the internet a full 255 address block would be a fairly conservative approach in relation ot the address space.
Don't you want to see that world? Especially knowing it doesn't mean your can't have a router to share a net connection, and knowing that you can still be firewalled? Having public addresses means that you can configure your router not to block port x on ANY computer in your network, instead of being able to forward port x to ONE computer in your network.
Let's just hope when IPv6 becomes mainstream one can register for addresses without a fee right up on a website instead of the political review that is required now.
"there isn't a magical new technique which will meaningfully improve on them"
Nobody can make such a statement about ANYTHING with accuracy. The fact is that if there is a magnificant new technique that improve something, we aren't going to find it if there is no research being done on the subject.