Are you guys kidding or am I realy that old, IBM made Microsoft. Quite literaly microsoft was Bill Gates in a garage set-up hacking on Basic (a computer language designed to help teach Fortran in a friendly way). IBM had an OS they called IBM-DOS and hired microsoft to polish it up for their new product called a Personal Computer, and also liciensed microsoft to distribute DOS as MS-DOS to the clone market. In those days single-source was bad. Anyways that's the way I remember it, but I also walked to school 20 MI uphill both directions in waist deep snow with no shoes too so some of the details may be a little fuzzy
Um, age has nothing to do with it.:) You're just adding stuff to the discussion that wasn't there, that's all. I'll be more than happy to concede that IBM made Microsoft, because it's true. But it's totally irrelevant to the discussion. We were talking about IBM doing cutting-edge stuff, and the post I responded to was a guy wondering if Bill Gates existed before IBM. So, to set the poor dude straight, I cited IBMs dealings with the Nazis in WWII. Hell, I think they've been around now more than 100 years, but I could be wrong about that. They're an OLD company, and they've survived by changing with the times, albeit barely sometimes (they almost didn't make it out of the '90s).
It sounds to me like you're less a fan of Tolkien, and more a fan of accuracy. A recreation of every scene in Lord of the Rings? Preposterous!
Open for flaming, but here goes....
I've spent a lot of time trying to block out my memory of reading Fellowship of the Ring. It was the most time I've ever felt I truly wasted on one thing. I fell asleep frequently while reading it. I found the long laborious descriptions of *everything* to be, well, long and laborious. Nothing but two-dimensional characters (a staple of heroic fiction of any sort, in fact), and a contrived quest. Why is it that the ring was forgotten by all, but everyone who turns up in the book knows about it? Eh?
Where's the politics? What's so goddamn special about Moria? Where do the dwarves live? They're always running into gay elves, but where's the rest?
On the other hand, I am really enjoying the movies. Now I get to see the plot that was buried in all the verbiage. All the crap is being pulled away from the books or adapted well (the scenery is amazing! as the scenery in the books, but do you want to spend 10 minutes reading about the scenery or 3 seconds watching it all pass by?). I can finally see the plot! It makes sense now!
I'm filing LOTR in the bad books/good movies category.
In any case, if you want something that will be judged on its own, you should create something that can stand on its own not something that pretends to be the same as something else.
YOu got modded as funny, I found it insightful. Anyway, that last sentence of yours is the reason why I think that Willow will wind up standing up better as a movie than LOTR.:) All other issues about Willow aside, it was written to be a movie. That's an important distinction, so it stands up as a movie. Make it a book? More likely a short story. Heh.
I have to say that I do tend to picture scenes as I read, but it really depends on the scene. I do it in reverse. When the author goes out of his way to describe a scene, I tune it out. I find that verbiage boring. Just tell me the guy has a sword, is wearing leather, and maybe has a beard. I don't give a shit about the rest, I'll probably picture him as either me or Val Kilmer, no matter what.
Finally, I'm generally upset with the fact that movies based on books take the same names as the book. Why couldn't it be "Verhoven does Starship Troopers"? Something that doesn't take away any other moviemakers purchasing rights to make another movie that is their own depiction. I think variety in movie portrayals of books would be a good thing.
I have to disagree with your entire statement. I found that the movie stayed well true to the deep meaning of the book.
The basic problem is that Heinlein typically doesn't have any deep meaning.:) He's a shallow author. Sure, he writes about stuff that I'm directly interested, and I find it good reading. But when it comes down to it, the work is very shallow.
All plot deviations aside, 'cause it's been like 15 years since I read the book, I found the only unsatisfying thing about the movie being that they removed the power suits. That introduced the question of atmosphere and crap, something which Heinlein was specific not to ignore (like Star Trek does, but his really good stuff predates star trek). Of ocurse, the bugs could live in the same atmosphere as humans, otherwise they wouldn't be fighting, right?
The thing you've gotta remember, they took a book and crammed it into 2 hours or so. They made it into a war story, which it was to begin with, among other things. In doing so, they had to drop shit left and right from the book. Removing the power suits effectively cut the length of the movie in half, since most of the book was spent learning about the power suits. This is why sci-fi books rarely make movies that a geek will say "that was true to the book!". The nature of the medium is totally different. In a book you rely on your reader to supply visual and audio effects, and you focus on more impmortant things. You can go through an entire train of thought. If they made the Zelazny book "Guns of Avalon" into a movie, it would probably either be a long, boring narrative or a 30-minute flick for all the action that's actually in the book.
Heinlein is good at making neurotic characters and putting them into neurotic societies. They made a movie that portrayed this. They added some fluff and pulp so the audience would laugh and cry. It wasn't in the book for a reason, and had it not been added to the movie the movie might well have sucked. It's a different medium.
That said, I *do* wish the moviemakers would get the help of the author when they make these movies. I realize that was impossible for Starship Troopers as well os for LOTR. But if they want the best chance of being able to stay "true to the book" and still be able to add the plot shit that they sometimes need to, they need the author to help. I'm not saying all the added shit is always needed, though. Don't get me wrong.:) In the case of starship troopers, I think some of it was.
...for possibly bringing proprietary knowledge of IPX to Linux. A fair amount of Novell knowledge came over when Caldera was formed, a fair amount of the IPX code was developed by Caldera engineers (credited with or without a "caldera.com" email address), and a fair amount of IPX code in Linux _still_ has Caldera copyrights. How much of this IPX stuff is legal to put in the kernel is anyone's guess.
Duh. I am an anonymous coward and like all the others, I don't know shit.
ALL GPLd work is copyrighted by someone. All developers who release even a portion of GPL work own their copyright, so long as it is marked as such. Ever wonder why GNU requires contributors to assign copyright ownership to them? (Well, GNU Enterprise does, I don't know that GNU does) It's because when you acquire a piece of software legally, you have only the rights given to you by copyright law, plus whatever you get provided in a separate licensing agreement. The GPL is that agreement that guarantees that you can continue to use the code and change it and so forth.
Therefore, whatever IP Caldera stuck in there, Linux is safe. The code is GPL.
Now, whether or not SCO can now sue Novell is something I don't know. Furthermore, it might be possible for Novell to sue SCO, which is what I think you were trying to insinuate but failed miserable.
In the end, though, it's pointless for SCO or Novell to sue the other. It's what I tell creditors when they call. "Sue me, go ahead. I ain't got shit and you'll just waste a lot of money anyway."
"single stable, uniform platform for application development, certification, and deployment"
The #1 complaint from people looking at any GNU/Linux is the fact that all the distributions are differnet and don't necessarily interoperate easily. This is a serious issue for us all, and it is one everyone should be working together to address. Luckily, the choices seem to be UnitedLinux or LSB, or do something else entirely and probably get ignored.
Other posters have commented that LSB doesn't address nearly enough, but I'd like to point out that LSB is still young as a standard. How much did the first published specs of HTML define?
I'm not behind the UnitedLinux effort because I prefer LSB, given the choice. But from a development standpoint, I really like the idea of targetting UnitedLinux and knowing that it'll cover 5 distributions that I previously had to really worry about as 5 separate distributions.
Just for the record, there's no reason at all engineers and lawyers can't understood each other's business. They both revolve around very technical stuff. Legal documents read exactly the same as technical writing. In fact, it is the same.
The only real reason I can think of is all the time it takes to study both fields so you can have up to date knowledge of the field in your head.
I once had a lawyer show me how common sense applied to a divorce and the ensuing custody battle. I'm still happy I listened to him, but the reasoning presented on how it would go (regardless of what the case was actually built on) was very strong and very persuasive. But it sounded a lot like a description of 4-stroke engine mechanics.
The more realisitic part of me says this is a desparation move by SCO to get someone interested in buying out their IP so they can pay off some investors before dying. This is a bleeding corporate carcass, writhing in its death throes. Nothing more.
How about:
IBM: Mr. SCO, we're your only remaining source of revenue, outside the defunct Caldera. We intend to quit AIX ASAP.
SCO: Oh yeah? We'll sue!
IBM: Of course, but there's a way for you to sue us, make us look *really good* for Free Software, then sell out to us afterwards having lost nothing in the deal.
SCO: Really? How?
IBM: Just accuse us of using AIX to add shit to the LInux kernel....
Well, 7-Up calls themselves the un-cola.
SCO claims sole ownership of the UNIX trademark
So the new partnership coulb be called UN-UNIX
Oh boy, this is just so obvious. Why don't they just make a stupid-sounding acronym that doesn't mean anything? Call it, um, something is not Unix, let's see... *NU.....
I've got it!
LINU!
Linu Is Not Unix!
Then, since it's POSIX-compliant, stick an X on that end!
Hm. That'll spell Linux, which is trademarked. Better think on this some more.
Maybe they could name it after some stupid animal that doesn't even exist? Something that has NU in it..... so it'll be "not unix". How about a gnu?
THAT'S IT.
They should create a centralized distribution called GNU, for Gnu is Not Unix, and THEN stick the Linux kernel on it so everybody-----
Ok, I'll stop now.:) This is getting damn pointless.
For those of you wondering, that's a Vonnegut reference. Surprising that Linus would know it, I don't know many europeans who read/know Vonnegut.
Maybe he read AA Milne when he was a kid, since that's obviously where Vonnegut got it? I'm sorry, the only Winnie the Pooh you've ever heard of was Disney's mutilation? Ho Hum...
You knew this was going to happen. Ever since SCO announced this lawsuit, I was just waiting for IBM to come in and take them out. You know, I almost feel bad for SCO. Almost.
This is the first time I've cheered for IBM since, well, um, since.....
Of course, there's the question of how much it would cost to be dragging SCO/Caldera's remains around, which might well exceed $32.9 million.
Here's the steps::)
Get sued by SCO
Drag it around in court until SCO is a bankrupt mass of broken bones and dead limbs.
Offer to buy SCO at $TOTALSCODEBT + $0.25
Hang a SCO/Caldera trophy head on your wall
It looks like SCO doesn't want to commit suicide so they're trying to harass IBM into killing them in self-defense. Someone just give 'em some sleeping pills and let it be done...
In that case, can you build me a ship that I can use to fly up next to the ribbon that has an electromagnetic pickup like my guitar? That way, when this cable gets long enough, I can go play it!
Wait a minute, why do I get the feeling they're not trying to build a huge guitar string stretching into orbit? Damn... I would've liked to see floyd rose build a tremolo for that thing...
The space elevator is only feesible in the minds of those who have read TOO MUCH Heinlein.
Heinlein? Not as far as I know. Clarke, yes.
Friday, by Robert Heinlein. The book opens up with Friday going down on the beanstalk, er, going down the beanstalk. Later on in the book terrorists do something to it, but I don't recall what. It's also mentioned in other books, but I don't recall which. I think the Cat Who Walks Through Walls has a mention, but that book takes place in the same timeline as The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, and STranger in a Strange Land, so I think my memory is flawed on the Beanstalk in that particular book.
I do think the telephone and the lightbulb are from American inventors (though I'm sure very country on the planet wants to claim that it had some local hobbyist made one in his basement decades earlier)
Thomas Edison invented the lightbulb. Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone. Thomas Edison was an American, but I don't recall what nationality Bell was.
Argh. I've slept since this discussion, I had to go back and reread the whole thing.:)
First off, I wasn't trying to shoot down your entire point, because I didn't disagree with it. I was just trying to point out that the Declaration of Independence has no legal value. It has definite historical value, and is certainly worth referring to, especially when you're asking "is this the government intended for us? Is this the government we want?" and so on. It doesn't actually guarantee us rights. So, to begin:
[1] The reasons for the Colonies leaving English rule are the reasons for the U.S.'s existence. That ought to carry some weight, even if the Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document like the Constitution.
Yes, it does carry weight. At least, I think it does. However, it's weight is centered on the people rather than the government. The Declaration of Independence is a document written by the people of the colonies, establishing that they will make a government of their own choosing rather than submit to English rule any longer. It's the sort of thing the government needs to refer to and say "Am I representing my people? Am I doing my job?". And it's the sort of thing the people need to refer to and say "Is my government doing their job?". If the answer to these questions is no, there's a problem to be solved. It is above the Constitution in this regard. Contrary to popular belief, there is actually a document that is above the constitution in this country. So, yes, it does carry weight, but it's not exactly the kind of weight that you seemed to be wielding in the original post.
[2] Yes, the "all men are created equal" statement (which is in the Declaration) implies that men were created. Man's "creation" is not essential to my argument. Also, your observation that people are not equal in their strength, intelligence, etc., is also true, but also non-essential.
Absolutely correct. My comments on this matter were completely irrelevant.:) More discussion is irrelevant, since I agree completely with you on this point.
[3] Some people seem to think that you have the right to pursue happiness as long as you never obtain it. Others seem to think that obtaining it is OK, as long as you don't obtain more than they obtain. In order to disagree with these notions I have to claim that, yes, you do have the right to obtain happiness (and profits), without limit, as long as you can do so without infringing anybody else's rights. You'll note that I said that the first time. And that, pretty much, is my entire point!
You read LaVey too?;) Yes, yes, and yes. I did take disagreement in the concept that pursuit of profits == happiness. While the pursuit and achievement of profits can contribute to happiness, IMO happiness shouldn't depend on economics. And, yes, barter is a basic economic system still in use today. I'm not saying that's the whole statement you were trying to make, but it is what I read out of it.
[4] Obviously I don't think it's wrong to run projects on sourceforge; I run one. However, it is profit from other activities that makes non-profit activities possible... and sometimes necessary.
If you really want to get technical, it's profit from agriculture, specifically, that makes specialization of any kind possible. Anyway, I was doing two things in my post. I was answering what I read out of yours, and I was also ranting in general about the basic problem that people around here seem to run into. I'll address the second part of that sentence first.:)
The basic problem I see around here is that people ignore the fact that a person has the right to choose how they will distribute their work, if they distribute it. If they choose a for-profit model, they can open source the product (whatever it is, there is an open source approximation for most products), or not. It's entirely up to them. While it's a pet peeve of mine that people make freeware and still keep the code and never do anything with it, it's still their choice, just as it is mine not to use the software, even when it's free as in beer.
As far as your post goes, even reading over it a few minutes ago, I still got the impression that you feel that everyone programs for profit only, without which there's no incentive to do so. You turn it around in your response, so allow me to quote the original:
If I don't profit, I can't afford to do it, QED. Sure, ideas are a dime a dozen, and I trip over dozens of the little things when I get out of bed in the morning. But guess what: if you want to turn one of them into a physical product or a typed-in program, it takes work, and that eats up time and resources and money that could have gone to other things. Now, if two dozen people come up with the same idea, but only one of them puts forth the effort to make the thing real, then why should the other 23 do-nothings get to share equally in the results?
Of this, the only statement I completely agreed with was the last one, the one that basically says "Why should the lazy bastard share in the results of *my* hard work?". Yes, it takes work to program. Yes yes yes. It also takes a lot of work to wash your clothes, and your dishes, and to cook dinner. (I'm a stay-at-home dad, so I do these things, and nobody fucking pays me for it!:) ) Very complex, it is. However, I don't profit by it at all. My wife makes money and pays the bills, and that's that. Economics are taken care of, and there isn't exactly profit around here.:) People do work just because it's satisfying, for some reason. While you approached that in the response, your original post was the complete opposite.
[6] Just because you file a patent doesn't mean you have to manufacture the thing yourself. That's what licensing is all about. The patent only requires that you build a prototype and then you can write letters to companies telling them how they can save a fortune by buying an exclusive (or non-exclusive) license to your patent. That's the way patents are supposed to be used.
Yes, yes, and yes. Patents aren't weapons, they're shields. That's all. And it's an agreement between the patent-holder and the public. Heinlein wrote about this.:) The Shipstone Corporation? Instead of patenting the idea so that the whole public would know about it, the shipstone guy kept it a secret. In that fashion, over a longer period of time than the patent, he had *no* competition. He had the choice. However, if someone else discovered the secret of his invention, they could've made a knockoff and he'd have no legal grounds to fight back with. THat was working within the system.
What heinlein apparently didn't foresee, though, was how a patent could be used to patent a secret. That's a complete violation of the purposes of patents. You get a monopoly on your invention for 15 years, or however long the patent is good, and then you donate the technology to the public domain. That's the agreement. If you can't make a fortune in 15 years, that's your problem, not mine.
So yes, I agree with this.:)
[9] It's rude to call people "idiot," especially on so little evidence. Try to be civilized!
Correct again. I apologize. I will say in my defense, however, that the evidence I did have was conducive (sp?) to the conclusion.;) Your second post provided much stronger evidence to the contrary. I can't promise to try to be civilized, though, since that word evades definition these days.
Your final paragraphs did a fair job of summing up the entire post, but I've more to say still.
Profit is neither a right nor a priviledge. It's a property of economics that you would ideally manipulate to be as high as possible while keeping other properties as low as possible. You cannot eliminate profit from the system even if you wanted to, it's inherent in the system. It's like pi, only it lacks a specific numerical designation. Eliminating profit from the system will lead you to a system that is *not* free. If you want freedom, profit must exist. There are lots of reasons for it that I don't feel like going into right now, but it's just a law of economics, or something like that. Immutable, but manipulable, without which the economic entity cannot survive, except at the charity of others.
Charity too *must* exist. Without charity, there's no freedom. This is much harder to explain, so you'll forgive me for not trying. If I try, I'll likely fail.
To close, I wasn't specifically arguing against the point of your post, rather I was striking some of the foundations presented. You probably also sparked off a general purpose rant that wasn't completely directed at you.
Any method of gaining access that circumnavigates the established security procedures is a back door.
Hey dude, I thought circumnavigate meant something like circle without penetrating, or something like that. Like, in the seven cities of gold days you would circumnavigate the new world on a couple of trips, go back to spain and get more men and boats and stuff, and then go back to start your exploration of the interior.
Arcades today are a social club for the console owners.
That's funny. Last time I was in an arcade it was a social club for G Money. I looked around and saw all the people that the Offspring was talking about in "Pretty Fly for a White Guy". Not only are they people who don't have money, but they're the people who brag about how good they are at "jackin' those rich white folk'", all the time without enough balls to actually do it in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you guys kidding or am I realy that old, IBM made Microsoft. Quite literaly microsoft was Bill Gates in a garage set-up hacking on Basic (a computer language designed to help teach Fortran in a friendly way). IBM had an OS they called IBM-DOS and hired microsoft to polish it up for their new product called a Personal Computer, and also liciensed microsoft to distribute DOS as MS-DOS to the clone market. In those days single-source was bad. Anyways that's the way I remember it, but I also walked to school 20 MI uphill both directions in waist deep snow with no shoes too so some of the details may be a little fuzzy
Um, age has nothing to do with it. :) You're just adding stuff to the discussion that wasn't there, that's all. I'll be more than happy to concede that IBM made Microsoft, because it's true. But it's totally irrelevant to the discussion. We were talking about IBM doing cutting-edge stuff, and the post I responded to was a guy wondering if Bill Gates existed before IBM. So, to set the poor dude straight, I cited IBMs dealings with the Nazis in WWII. Hell, I think they've been around now more than 100 years, but I could be wrong about that. They're an OLD company, and they've survived by changing with the times, albeit barely sometimes (they almost didn't make it out of the '90s).
It sounds to me like you're less a fan of Tolkien, and more a fan of accuracy. A recreation of every scene in Lord of the Rings? Preposterous!
Open for flaming, but here goes....
I've spent a lot of time trying to block out my memory of reading Fellowship of the Ring. It was the most time I've ever felt I truly wasted on one thing. I fell asleep frequently while reading it. I found the long laborious descriptions of *everything* to be, well, long and laborious. Nothing but two-dimensional characters (a staple of heroic fiction of any sort, in fact), and a contrived quest. Why is it that the ring was forgotten by all, but everyone who turns up in the book knows about it? Eh?
Where's the politics? What's so goddamn special about Moria? Where do the dwarves live? They're always running into gay elves, but where's the rest?
On the other hand, I am really enjoying the movies. Now I get to see the plot that was buried in all the verbiage. All the crap is being pulled away from the books or adapted well (the scenery is amazing! as the scenery in the books, but do you want to spend 10 minutes reading about the scenery or 3 seconds watching it all pass by?). I can finally see the plot! It makes sense now!
I'm filing LOTR in the bad books/good movies category.
As I said, let the flames begin.
In any case, if you want something that will be judged on its own, you should create something that can stand on its own not something that pretends to be the same as something else.
YOu got modded as funny, I found it insightful. Anyway, that last sentence of yours is the reason why I think that Willow will wind up standing up better as a movie than LOTR. :) All other issues about Willow aside, it was written to be a movie. That's an important distinction, so it stands up as a movie. Make it a book? More likely a short story. Heh.
I have to say that I do tend to picture scenes as I read, but it really depends on the scene. I do it in reverse. When the author goes out of his way to describe a scene, I tune it out. I find that verbiage boring. Just tell me the guy has a sword, is wearing leather, and maybe has a beard. I don't give a shit about the rest, I'll probably picture him as either me or Val Kilmer, no matter what.
Finally, I'm generally upset with the fact that movies based on books take the same names as the book. Why couldn't it be "Verhoven does Starship Troopers"? Something that doesn't take away any other moviemakers purchasing rights to make another movie that is their own depiction. I think variety in movie portrayals of books would be a good thing.
I have to disagree with your entire statement. I found that the movie stayed well true to the deep meaning of the book.
The basic problem is that Heinlein typically doesn't have any deep meaning. :) He's a shallow author. Sure, he writes about stuff that I'm directly interested, and I find it good reading. But when it comes down to it, the work is very shallow.
All plot deviations aside, 'cause it's been like 15 years since I read the book, I found the only unsatisfying thing about the movie being that they removed the power suits. That introduced the question of atmosphere and crap, something which Heinlein was specific not to ignore (like Star Trek does, but his really good stuff predates star trek). Of ocurse, the bugs could live in the same atmosphere as humans, otherwise they wouldn't be fighting, right?
The thing you've gotta remember, they took a book and crammed it into 2 hours or so. They made it into a war story, which it was to begin with, among other things. In doing so, they had to drop shit left and right from the book. Removing the power suits effectively cut the length of the movie in half, since most of the book was spent learning about the power suits. This is why sci-fi books rarely make movies that a geek will say "that was true to the book!". The nature of the medium is totally different. In a book you rely on your reader to supply visual and audio effects, and you focus on more impmortant things. You can go through an entire train of thought. If they made the Zelazny book "Guns of Avalon" into a movie, it would probably either be a long, boring narrative or a 30-minute flick for all the action that's actually in the book.
Heinlein is good at making neurotic characters and putting them into neurotic societies. They made a movie that portrayed this. They added some fluff and pulp so the audience would laugh and cry. It wasn't in the book for a reason, and had it not been added to the movie the movie might well have sucked. It's a different medium.
That said, I *do* wish the moviemakers would get the help of the author when they make these movies. I realize that was impossible for Starship Troopers as well os for LOTR. But if they want the best chance of being able to stay "true to the book" and still be able to add the plot shit that they sometimes need to, they need the author to help. I'm not saying all the added shit is always needed, though. Don't get me wrong. :) In the case of starship troopers, I think some of it was.
As others pointed out, Suse is German. It's an easy mistake to make.
Not that easy. Usually the German is the one pointing the gun and the Frenchman is the one yelling "I surrender!"
Duh. I am an anonymous coward and like all the others, I don't know shit.
ALL GPLd work is copyrighted by someone. All developers who release even a portion of GPL work own their copyright, so long as it is marked as such. Ever wonder why GNU requires contributors to assign copyright ownership to them? (Well, GNU Enterprise does, I don't know that GNU does) It's because when you acquire a piece of software legally, you have only the rights given to you by copyright law, plus whatever you get provided in a separate licensing agreement. The GPL is that agreement that guarantees that you can continue to use the code and change it and so forth.
Therefore, whatever IP Caldera stuck in there, Linux is safe. The code is GPL.
Now, whether or not SCO can now sue Novell is something I don't know. Furthermore, it might be possible for Novell to sue SCO, which is what I think you were trying to insinuate but failed miserable.
In the end, though, it's pointless for SCO or Novell to sue the other. It's what I tell creditors when they call. "Sue me, go ahead. I ain't got shit and you'll just waste a lot of money anyway."
"single stable, uniform platform for application development, certification, and deployment"
The #1 complaint from people looking at any GNU/Linux is the fact that all the distributions are differnet and don't necessarily interoperate easily. This is a serious issue for us all, and it is one everyone should be working together to address. Luckily, the choices seem to be UnitedLinux or LSB, or do something else entirely and probably get ignored.
Other posters have commented that LSB doesn't address nearly enough, but I'd like to point out that LSB is still young as a standard. How much did the first published specs of HTML define?
I'm not behind the UnitedLinux effort because I prefer LSB, given the choice. But from a development standpoint, I really like the idea of targetting UnitedLinux and knowing that it'll cover 5 distributions that I previously had to really worry about as 5 separate distributions.
Dude, you have 3 first names and no last name. Honest. :)
IANAL either (engineer instead),
Just for the record, there's no reason at all engineers and lawyers can't understood each other's business. They both revolve around very technical stuff. Legal documents read exactly the same as technical writing. In fact, it is the same.
The only real reason I can think of is all the time it takes to study both fields so you can have up to date knowledge of the field in your head.
I once had a lawyer show me how common sense applied to a divorce and the ensuing custody battle. I'm still happy I listened to him, but the reasoning presented on how it would go (regardless of what the case was actually built on) was very strong and very persuasive. But it sounded a lot like a description of 4-stroke engine mechanics.
The more realisitic part of me says this is a desparation move by SCO to get someone interested in buying out their IP so they can pay off some investors before dying. This is a bleeding corporate carcass, writhing in its death throes. Nothing more.
How about:
IBM: Mr. SCO, we're your only remaining source of revenue, outside the defunct Caldera. We intend to quit AIX ASAP.
SCO: Oh yeah? We'll sue!
IBM: Of course, but there's a way for you to sue us, make us look *really good* for Free Software, then sell out to us afterwards having lost nothing in the deal.
SCO: Really? How?
IBM: Just accuse us of using AIX to add shit to the LInux kernel....
Well, 7-Up calls themselves the un-cola. SCO claims sole ownership of the UNIX trademark So the new partnership coulb be called UN-UNIX
Oh boy, this is just so obvious. Why don't they just make a stupid-sounding acronym that doesn't mean anything? Call it, um, something is not Unix, let's see... *NU.....
I've got it!
LINU!
Linu Is Not Unix!
Then, since it's POSIX-compliant, stick an X on that end!
Hm. That'll spell Linux, which is trademarked. Better think on this some more.
Maybe they could name it after some stupid animal that doesn't even exist? Something that has NU in it..... so it'll be "not unix". How about a gnu?
THAT'S IT.
They should create a centralized distribution called GNU, for Gnu is Not Unix, and THEN stick the Linux kernel on it so everybody-----
Ok, I'll stop now. :) This is getting damn pointless.
the list does include love, sex, god, and secret.
That, of course, is because they are all frequently confused with one another, and none of them truly exist.
They took the Santa Cruz out of SCO a long time ago...
Are you seriously trying to suggest that moving to Utah saved their sanity?
For those of you wondering, that's a Vonnegut reference. Surprising that Linus would know it, I don't know many europeans who read/know Vonnegut.
Maybe he read AA Milne when he was a kid, since that's obviously where Vonnegut got it? I'm sorry, the only Winnie the Pooh you've ever heard of was Disney's mutilation? Ho Hum...
IBM has been contributing to the state of the art in computing since before Microsoft even existed (mebbe even Bill too).
Definitely before Bill. Unless Bill was up and programming when IBM helped slaughter Jews.
You knew this was going to happen. Ever since SCO announced this lawsuit, I was just waiting for IBM to come in and take them out. You know, I almost feel bad for SCO. Almost.
This is the first time I've cheered for IBM since, well, um, since.....
This is the first time I've cheered for IBM!
Of course, there's the question of how much it would cost to be dragging SCO/Caldera's remains around, which might well exceed $32.9 million.
Here's the steps: :)
It looks like SCO doesn't want to commit suicide so they're trying to harass IBM into killing them in self-defense. Someone just give 'em some sleeping pills and let it be done...
Yes, I AM a rocket scientist. :)
In that case, can you build me a ship that I can use to fly up next to the ribbon that has an electromagnetic pickup like my guitar? That way, when this cable gets long enough, I can go play it!
Wait a minute, why do I get the feeling they're not trying to build a huge guitar string stretching into orbit? Damn... I would've liked to see floyd rose build a tremolo for that thing...
The space elevator is only feesible in the minds of those who have read TOO MUCH Heinlein.
Heinlein? Not as far as I know. Clarke, yes.
Friday, by Robert Heinlein. The book opens up with Friday going down on the beanstalk, er, going down the beanstalk. Later on in the book terrorists do something to it, but I don't recall what. It's also mentioned in other books, but I don't recall which. I think the Cat Who Walks Through Walls has a mention, but that book takes place in the same timeline as The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, and STranger in a Strange Land, so I think my memory is flawed on the Beanstalk in that particular book.
I do think the telephone and the lightbulb are from American inventors (though I'm sure very country on the planet wants to claim that it had some local hobbyist made one in his basement decades earlier)
Thomas Edison invented the lightbulb. Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone. Thomas Edison was an American, but I don't recall what nationality Bell was.
Argh. I've slept since this discussion, I had to go back and reread the whole thing. :)
First off, I wasn't trying to shoot down your entire point, because I didn't disagree with it. I was just trying to point out that the Declaration of Independence has no legal value. It has definite historical value, and is certainly worth referring to, especially when you're asking "is this the government intended for us? Is this the government we want?" and so on. It doesn't actually guarantee us rights. So, to begin:
[1] The reasons for the Colonies leaving English rule are the reasons for the U.S.'s existence. That ought to carry some weight, even if the Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document like the Constitution.
Yes, it does carry weight. At least, I think it does. However, it's weight is centered on the people rather than the government. The Declaration of Independence is a document written by the people of the colonies, establishing that they will make a government of their own choosing rather than submit to English rule any longer. It's the sort of thing the government needs to refer to and say "Am I representing my people? Am I doing my job?". And it's the sort of thing the people need to refer to and say "Is my government doing their job?". If the answer to these questions is no, there's a problem to be solved. It is above the Constitution in this regard. Contrary to popular belief, there is actually a document that is above the constitution in this country. So, yes, it does carry weight, but it's not exactly the kind of weight that you seemed to be wielding in the original post.
[2] Yes, the "all men are created equal" statement (which is in the Declaration) implies that men were created. Man's "creation" is not essential to my argument. Also, your observation that people are not equal in their strength, intelligence, etc., is also true, but also non-essential.
Absolutely correct. My comments on this matter were completely irrelevant. :) More discussion is irrelevant, since I agree completely with you on this point.
[3] Some people seem to think that you have the right to pursue happiness as long as you never obtain it. Others seem to think that obtaining it is OK, as long as you don't obtain more than they obtain. In order to disagree with these notions I have to claim that, yes, you do have the right to obtain happiness (and profits), without limit, as long as you can do so without infringing anybody else's rights. You'll note that I said that the first time. And that, pretty much, is my entire point!
You read LaVey too? ;) Yes, yes, and yes. I did take disagreement in the concept that pursuit of profits == happiness. While the pursuit and achievement of profits can contribute to happiness, IMO happiness shouldn't depend on economics. And, yes, barter is a basic economic system still in use today. I'm not saying that's the whole statement you were trying to make, but it is what I read out of it.
[4] Obviously I don't think it's wrong to run projects on sourceforge; I run one. However, it is profit from other activities that makes non-profit activities possible... and sometimes necessary.
If you really want to get technical, it's profit from agriculture, specifically, that makes specialization of any kind possible. Anyway, I was doing two things in my post. I was answering what I read out of yours, and I was also ranting in general about the basic problem that people around here seem to run into. I'll address the second part of that sentence first. :)
The basic problem I see around here is that people ignore the fact that a person has the right to choose how they will distribute their work, if they distribute it. If they choose a for-profit model, they can open source the product (whatever it is, there is an open source approximation for most products), or not. It's entirely up to them. While it's a pet peeve of mine that people make freeware and still keep the code and never do anything with it, it's still their choice, just as it is mine not to use the software, even when it's free as in beer.
As far as your post goes, even reading over it a few minutes ago, I still got the impression that you feel that everyone programs for profit only, without which there's no incentive to do so. You turn it around in your response, so allow me to quote the original:
If I don't profit, I can't afford to do it, QED. Sure, ideas are a dime a dozen, and I trip over dozens of the little things when I get out of bed in the morning. But guess what: if you want to turn one of them into a physical product or a typed-in program, it takes work, and that eats up time and resources and money that could have gone to other things. Now, if two dozen people come up with the same idea, but only one of them puts forth the effort to make the thing real, then why should the other 23 do-nothings get to share equally in the results?
Of this, the only statement I completely agreed with was the last one, the one that basically says "Why should the lazy bastard share in the results of *my* hard work?". Yes, it takes work to program. Yes yes yes. It also takes a lot of work to wash your clothes, and your dishes, and to cook dinner. (I'm a stay-at-home dad, so I do these things, and nobody fucking pays me for it! :) ) Very complex, it is. However, I don't profit by it at all. My wife makes money and pays the bills, and that's that. Economics are taken care of, and there isn't exactly profit around here. :) People do work just because it's satisfying, for some reason. While you approached that in the response, your original post was the complete opposite.
[6] Just because you file a patent doesn't mean you have to manufacture the thing yourself. That's what licensing is all about. The patent only requires that you build a prototype and then you can write letters to companies telling them how they can save a fortune by buying an exclusive (or non-exclusive) license to your patent. That's the way patents are supposed to be used.
Yes, yes, and yes. Patents aren't weapons, they're shields. That's all. And it's an agreement between the patent-holder and the public. Heinlein wrote about this. :) The Shipstone Corporation? Instead of patenting the idea so that the whole public would know about it, the shipstone guy kept it a secret. In that fashion, over a longer period of time than the patent, he had *no* competition. He had the choice. However, if someone else discovered the secret of his invention, they could've made a knockoff and he'd have no legal grounds to fight back with. THat was working within the system.
What heinlein apparently didn't foresee, though, was how a patent could be used to patent a secret. That's a complete violation of the purposes of patents. You get a monopoly on your invention for 15 years, or however long the patent is good, and then you donate the technology to the public domain. That's the agreement. If you can't make a fortune in 15 years, that's your problem, not mine.
So yes, I agree with this. :)
[9] It's rude to call people "idiot," especially on so little evidence. Try to be civilized!
Correct again. I apologize. I will say in my defense, however, that the evidence I did have was conducive (sp?) to the conclusion. ;) Your second post provided much stronger evidence to the contrary. I can't promise to try to be civilized, though, since that word evades definition these days.
Your final paragraphs did a fair job of summing up the entire post, but I've more to say still.
Profit is neither a right nor a priviledge. It's a property of economics that you would ideally manipulate to be as high as possible while keeping other properties as low as possible. You cannot eliminate profit from the system even if you wanted to, it's inherent in the system. It's like pi, only it lacks a specific numerical designation. Eliminating profit from the system will lead you to a system that is *not* free. If you want freedom, profit must exist. There are lots of reasons for it that I don't feel like going into right now, but it's just a law of economics, or something like that. Immutable, but manipulable, without which the economic entity cannot survive, except at the charity of others.
Charity too *must* exist. Without charity, there's no freedom. This is much harder to explain, so you'll forgive me for not trying. If I try, I'll likely fail.
To close, I wasn't specifically arguing against the point of your post, rather I was striking some of the foundations presented. You probably also sparked off a general purpose rant that wasn't completely directed at you.
You were too quick to poke fun, look closely at definition numero dos :)
eh? The point was to plug seven cities of gold, one of the best games ever made and it didn't require 400MB of multimedia to play it!
I'd bet that Iraqi pilots in F15s would get beaten hands down by Americans in the same aircraft.
You're probably right, but we'll never know. They'll just run to Iran again when the American jets appear in the skies...
Any method of gaining access that circumnavigates the established security procedures is a back door.
Hey dude, I thought circumnavigate meant something like circle without penetrating, or something like that. Like, in the seven cities of gold days you would circumnavigate the new world on a couple of trips, go back to spain and get more men and boats and stuff, and then go back to start your exploration of the interior.
Arcades today are a social club for the console owners.
That's funny. Last time I was in an arcade it was a social club for G Money. I looked around and saw all the people that the Offspring was talking about in "Pretty Fly for a White Guy". Not only are they people who don't have money, but they're the people who brag about how good they are at "jackin' those rich white folk'", all the time without enough balls to actually do it in the first place.