In this particular instance (SCO FUD) the use of the terms GNU/Linux, GNU, and Linux, to differentiate between the tools+kernel, the tools alone, and the kernel alone, is not just appropriate, it's probably one of the best ways to cut through SCO's FUD;
That's easy: Linux Kernel, GNU tools, Linux OS.
It's unfortunate that in many cases, standing up for your beliefs rather than "going with the flow", is sufficient excuse to be labeled a loon.
Respecting someone and agreeing with them are usually two different things. You'll also note that I made that reference to this specific action.
Many of us started with a version of this Linux in a Nutshell book. The first (and most important, IMNSHO) part was the GNU toolchain. Without mastering that (especially in the pre-everything-in-3-cds-and-a-fancy-installer days) you really couldn't do anything.
Irrelevant (and I got started in Linux before LJ even got started). In fact, Apache and Samba existed by then (1997), and helped fuel interest in Linux.
At best, GNU and Linux have a symbiotic relationship. Linux could not have gotten where it was without GNU, but GNU would not be as popular today if it weren't for Linux using GNU utilities. Even today I'll spend many hours installing GNU utilities on a Solaris box because I know how the GNU tools work and don't want to spend time relearning the Solaris quirks.
Huh. That would seem to imply that if I 'steal' under $1000 worth of movies in 180 days, I'm okay.
So every 6 months I can get, what 50 DVDs (being generous at $20/DVD), or even 50 CDs (also being generous at $20/CD). You can't even have the RIAA say a CD is 'worth' $1mil because of production costs, etc. because the bill says retail value.
Sounds like that makes Kazaa legal so long as you don't seal too much too fast.
1) The artist is a known quantity (Seal, Radiohead, Enigma, Faith No More, Paul Oakenfold) 2) Heard two songs from said CD and liked it.
If I want singles, I go grab the 'best of'. Too bad I don't listen to the radio much anymore, but it's pretty rare for a radio station to play more than two songs off a CD.
At first, it was that IBM stole code from SCO, but the stolen code was not in the main kernel. Then it was in the main kernel. Then they were going to sue Linus for patent infringement. Then they weren't. Then they asked for copyrights that they apparently already own.
According to the complaint vs. IBM (the only thing we REALLY have to go on), SCO doesn't believe that Linux could have advanced as quickly as it did without swiping code. What kind of judge will allow that argument?
That insurance would only be a few cents per dollar. Don't forget things like the employer portion of social security, health benefits, 401(k) matching, etc.
IIRC, that's would only be between IBM and SCO (for example). If Linus or Alan implemented the features on their own without help from IBM, then SCO is out of luck on both fronts (removing the code and suing IBM).
If you do decide to read Foundation, read it in the order they were written, not the order of the timeline. There are prequels, post prequels, pre-prequels, and postquels. The first three books (written in the 1950s) were genius. The remainder (written in the 80s) are good, but not as good. Asimov was basically pressured into writing the later books by his publisher.
Then there are the ones written after his death by other authors. Don't bother. I got about 1/4 of the way through Foundation's End and realized I had no idea what was going on.
The last I heard from the SCO Information Minister was that three independent (yet unnamed) groups have reviewed the code bases and found similarities.
But this is getting really strange. Let's take a look at a few scenarios:
1) SCO has a patent, implemented by IBM, released as patch to stock kernel.
IBM gets sued for patent infringement, retracts patch from locations it's distributing it, noone can implement it without paying SCO.
2) SCO has a patent, implemented by IBM, submitted to Linus and part of stock kernel
If the offending patent is implemented in a kernel relased by SCO, they're SOL for the patent infringement because of the GPL. They may still be able to sue IBM for breach of contract, but the offending code and implementation could remain.
3) SCO has code lifted by IBM, relased as patches
Trade secrets are different than patents as they can have no expiration date, but if it gets out, you have no recourse. Which is why you don't see patents for Coca-cola. It's a trade secret. If you know the secret and ever divulge it, there's probably enough legal paperwork you signed to make you wish you were in pound-me-in-the-ass prison instead of the hell the Coke lawyers will send you.
4) SCO has code lifted by IBM, released as part of stock kernel.
Again, maybe they could sue IBM, but SCO has also released the offending code. Thus they would have no recourse against Linus.
So the only situation that could actually cause Linux grief is #1. But the patch wouldn't be part of the stock kernel, meaning that it would not affect all Linux users. But as has been pointed out before, SCO doesn't seem to have many patents. Certainly nothing they could sue Linus for.
IF IBM gave bad goods to Linus for inclusion in the kernel, the it's a breach of contract with IBM. They can then be sued. Linus gets sued to remove the offending code/features, which he (AFAIK) still hasn't seen, so he can't remove what he hasn't been asked to remove.
When SCO first started this, they said the offending code was not in the stock kernel, but in kernels distributed by IBM and/or Red Hat.
Slashdot Mirror
That's easy: Linux Kernel, GNU tools, Linux OS.
It's unfortunate that in many cases, standing up for your beliefs rather than "going with the flow", is sufficient excuse to be labeled a loon.
Respecting someone and agreeing with them are usually two different things. You'll also note that I made that reference to this specific action.
Many of us started with a version of this Linux in a Nutshell book. The first (and most important, IMNSHO) part was the GNU toolchain. Without mastering that (especially in the pre-everything-in-3-cds-and-a-fancy-installer days) you really couldn't do anything.
Irrelevant (and I got started in Linux before LJ even got started). In fact, Apache and Samba existed by then (1997), and helped fuel interest in Linux.
At best, GNU and Linux have a symbiotic relationship. Linux could not have gotten where it was without GNU, but GNU would not be as popular today if it weren't for Linux using GNU utilities. Even today I'll spend many hours installing GNU utilities on a Solaris box because I know how the GNU tools work and don't want to spend time relearning the Solaris quirks.
Standing up for your beliefs and acting like a total loon are not mutually exclusive.
I have a lot of respect for RMS and the FSF (having used GNU tools before Linux was around). The man has his ideas and stands by them, no matter what.
But this (GNU/Linux) is one idea that is just way off base for reasons that have already been said a zillion times.
The difference is that this guy has actual facts to back up his claims.
Huh. That would seem to imply that if I 'steal' under $1000 worth of movies in 180 days, I'm okay.
So every 6 months I can get, what 50 DVDs (being generous at $20/DVD), or even 50 CDs (also being generous at $20/CD). You can't even have the RIAA say a CD is 'worth' $1mil because of production costs, etc. because the bill says retail value.
Sounds like that makes Kazaa legal so long as you don't seal too much too fast.
I seemed to be more interested in the interview with the homestarrunner.com people. It was linked off the page.
It's 9:45AM on the East Coast of the US. Where did they announce this, London?
I don't buy a CD unless:
1) The artist is a known quantity (Seal, Radiohead, Enigma, Faith No More, Paul Oakenfold)
2) Heard two songs from said CD and liked it.
If I want singles, I go grab the 'best of'. Too bad I don't listen to the radio much anymore, but it's pretty rare for a radio station to play more than two songs off a CD.
IIRC, it passed on a voice vote. No idea if or who voted against it.
Yea, except we actually care about the outcome of this trial.
The fact is,
The fact is SCO keeps changing the argument.
At first, it was that IBM stole code from SCO, but the stolen code was not in the main kernel. Then it was in the main kernel. Then they were going to sue Linus for patent infringement. Then they weren't. Then they asked for copyrights that they apparently already own.
According to the complaint vs. IBM (the only thing we REALLY have to go on), SCO doesn't believe that Linux could have advanced as quickly as it did without swiping code. What kind of judge will allow that argument?
I've got 8 servers managing about 20TB total with all of it being managed by LVM.
/boot with 100M and the rest of the drive is LVM.
The 30 RH desktops I've installed have
That insurance would only be a few cents per dollar. Don't forget things like the employer portion of social security, health benefits, 401(k) matching, etc.
Much like Fox News. If you say it often enough, people will start to believe it.
Woo! Look at my Pulitzer!
.txt has no markup capabilities. No way to signal chapter headings, etc.
what about HTML? Compressed HTML at that.
You mean a giant "laser".
FM broadcasting is another.
Upgradability is a third.
If this product cannot reliably transfer music without copious under the hood tweaking, I am not interested.
Not to be a troll (this is a serious question), but how did you ever get started in Linux with *that* attitude?
Because the Neuros doen't run Linux.
IIRC, that's would only be between IBM and SCO (for example). If Linus or Alan implemented the features on their own without help from IBM, then SCO is out of luck on both fronts (removing the code and suing IBM).
It was late. I was tired.
If you do decide to read Foundation, read it in the order they were written, not the order of the timeline. There are prequels, post prequels, pre-prequels, and postquels. The first three books (written in the 1950s) were genius. The remainder (written in the 80s) are good, but not as good. Asimov was basically pressured into writing the later books by his publisher.
Then there are the ones written after his death by other authors. Don't bother. I got about 1/4 of the way through Foundation's End and realized I had no idea what was going on.
Sure we might. Cryptonomicon is (hopefully) the second book in a trilogy. The first is due this september.
The last I heard from the SCO Information Minister was that three independent (yet unnamed) groups have reviewed the code bases and found similarities.
But this is getting really strange. Let's take a look at a few scenarios:
1) SCO has a patent, implemented by IBM, released as patch to stock kernel.
IBM gets sued for patent infringement, retracts patch from locations it's distributing it, noone can implement it without paying SCO.
2) SCO has a patent, implemented by IBM, submitted to Linus and part of stock kernel
If the offending patent is implemented in a kernel relased by SCO, they're SOL for the patent infringement because of the GPL. They may still be able to sue IBM for breach of contract, but the offending code and implementation could remain.
3) SCO has code lifted by IBM, relased as patches
Trade secrets are different than patents as they can have no expiration date, but if it gets out, you have no recourse. Which is why you don't see patents for Coca-cola. It's a trade secret. If you know the secret and ever divulge it, there's probably enough legal paperwork you signed to make you wish you were in pound-me-in-the-ass prison instead of the hell the Coke lawyers will send you.
4) SCO has code lifted by IBM, released as part of stock kernel.
Again, maybe they could sue IBM, but SCO has also released the offending code. Thus they would have no recourse against Linus.
So the only situation that could actually cause Linux grief is #1. But the patch wouldn't be part of the stock kernel, meaning that it would not affect all Linux users. But as has been pointed out before, SCO doesn't seem to have many patents. Certainly nothing they could sue Linus for.
That's rather irrelevant.
IF IBM gave bad goods to Linus for inclusion in the kernel, the it's a breach of contract with IBM. They can then be sued. Linus gets sued to remove the offending code/features, which he (AFAIK) still hasn't seen, so he can't remove what he hasn't been asked to remove.
When SCO first started this, they said the offending code was not in the stock kernel, but in kernels distributed by IBM and/or Red Hat.
Apparently this story has changed.
That was last quarter. This quarter was a $4.5 mil profit.
2nd quarter '03