The difference here is that the Linux version is apparently going to be on the same CD as the Windows one, so they will presumably come out at the same time.
That'll last up right until the point that the Windows version is ready and there are still problems with the Linux version. Or the point when it's late and they need to commit all of their resources towards getting the Windows version shipped.
This is a pretty big change for the government of Munich, and it has been very high profile. IBM had better be very careful that they don't go over budget or have problems with the installation (as _every_ project I have ever had to work with IBM on has done). Microsoft has a good PR machine as well, and it won't matter if it's IBM's fault or a problem with Linux - you can bet they'll spin it so that Linux takes the blame.
I've been through a couple of mergers, and I think the best advice would be "update your resume". Things can get ugly quickly and you want to be prepared.
Really, it's worse than this, because the author appears to be trying to incite some kind of revolt in the programming community against all kinds of closed-source development.
Getting rid of closed-source developers would be terrible for open source - there would be nothing left to copy or get ideas from.
I would lean more towards wishful thinking than blind speculation, but I think you're on the right track. They're not basing this on any actual evidence because the evidence has not been made available to the public yet.
Exactly. If somebody else distribuited SCOs code, then SCO can claim that their code was included illegally and should be removed. However, they released it themselves. Whoever releases it, is reponsible for that action. So, if SCO released their own stuff accidentally - tough cookie. They have no leg to stand on.
The danger here is that it would set a dangerous precedent. From that point forward, any company or individual distributing open source code is liable for the contents whether they themselves added the infringing code or not.
What is omitted from this discussion, and what Eben certainly must already know, is that if SCO redistributes in good faith Free products that it receives from the community, then the illegal inclusion by a third party of material copyrighted by SCO does not in any way lessen SCO's claim to that copyright.
That depends on whether the court holds that SCO should have been more diligent in reviewing the source code before they released their version of Linux. If they had done a thorough review they would certainly have found the offending code This could be a lose-lose situation for Open Source.. If the court finds that SCO was not responsible for reviewing the code, then the copyright infringement case against the authors of Linux can go forward. If they find that SCO was responsible and that the code is now GPL, it would mean that anybody who publishes open source software is responsible for its content, whether they wrote the code or not. I have no idea which way the courts will come down on this issue, but it could definitely complicate publishing open source software.
What's pretty obvious is that Open Source Software functions like an online magazine or bulletin board, to which malicious or incompetent users may illegally post copyrighted material.
This argument didn't help Napster. There's a distinction in the law where financial incentive is concerned. Bulletin board operators don't gain anything by copyrighted material being posted on their systems (unless they do it themselves to attract users). Software vendors do gain an advantage by using code from other software since they save the cost of writing the code themselves.
they bot end the mainstream spport, but the home version does not have esxtneded support. All other 'consumer' version of window has/had it.
Before Windows XP "home edition" they've never had an OS that is sold exclusively for use within homes. 2000, ME, 98, 95 and so on were all used both in homes and in businesses. As far as I can tell, you can't get Home Edition on any of their corporate volume pricing plans either. I'm still surprised (it is MS though, so not THAT surprised) that they wouldn't offer extended support for both versions.
You can use the handy official Microsoft desktop support lifecycle wizard to see how long they plan to support each desktop OS version. Windows 2000 will be fully supported through 3/31/05, then it will enter "extended support" for two more years (extended=more expensive). After that you're on your own. Win2k server follows basically the same guidelines, except that in the "extended" support period you need to pay for non-security-related hotfixes.
I'm differentiating between "the operating system" and "the services" here; I think IIS is much less stable than is Apache, and Microsoft DNS sucks rocks. But the fundamental Win2K OS itself is as good or better than Linux, and enormously MORE stable as a desktop.
I'm with you on IIS, but just out of curiosity what issues have you had with their DNS server? I haven't had any problems with it, but then again we do have a pretty 'vanilla' configuration.
If you're under the impression that commercial companies always support every customer platform in perpuity, you haven't been in this business very long. You pays your money, you places your bets. The difference with OSS is that, if your platform gets dropped, or the whole application stops development, you still have the source, which is a damn sight better than the situation with commercial software as a rule.
Believe it or not, that wasn't a troll:-)
There's certainly no guarantee that any vendor will support a particular platform, but when a platform is dropped there's usually a good economic reason. A commercial vendor usually won't stop supporting a platform as long as there's money to be made there. OSS vendors have no such incentive, and dropping support for a platform because of an ad that a company is running is downright infantile. If OSS vendors want to be taken seriously they need to drop the "true believer" mentality and focus on the bottom line. Linux vendors have done this already and have been very successful as a result.
Also Oracle specifically said that they would continue PeopleSoft to support and enhance PeopleSoft's applications "into the next decade", but I seriously doubt that deal will go through anyway... And if it does, it gives me an excuse to dump our *&#%@( PeopleSoft system for something less bloated.
Suppose a closed-source application company has a "Business Alliance" with a platform vendor; i.e. they get money upfront from the platform vendor to develop applications for that platform. If the vendor gets upset with the application company and the business alliance ends, they may not write for that platform anymore. This is no surprise.
Sounds like a good reason to run Windows... (ducking)
Basically what the Nmap people are showing me is that if I implement an OSS product in my company, I have to worry about the developers dropping support for the platform I'm running it on if they have a personal grudge against the company that makes it. I'll be sure to take that into account next time I'm evaluating software.
The part I was referring to as straightforward was the fact that there is a mechanism by which SCO can terminate the agreement. IBM claimed in their press release that the license is "irrevocable, perpetual and fully paid up. It cannot be terminated."
Given that the infringement was (on most peoples' part) unknowing and inadvertent, I rather doubt that there would be a terribly high price to pay -- especially if a replacement is relatively fast in coming.
Tell that to Napster... They even had the "non-infringing use" doctrine on their side and still lost.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder how this would work in a diabetic...
Probably something like this.
The difference here is that the Linux version is apparently going to be on the same CD as the Windows one, so they will presumably come out at the same time.
That'll last up right until the point that the Windows version is ready and there are still problems with the Linux version. Or the point when it's late and they need to commit all of their resources towards getting the Windows version shipped.
To quote The Tick: "My God man! What's the point?!"
I should really learn how to read. SuSE got the contract, not IBM. Thank you for your patience.
This is a pretty big change for the government of Munich, and it has been very high profile. IBM had better be very careful that they don't go over budget or have problems with the installation (as _every_ project I have ever had to work with IBM on has done). Microsoft has a good PR machine as well, and it won't matter if it's IBM's fault or a problem with Linux - you can bet they'll spin it so that Linux takes the blame.
I've been through a couple of mergers, and I think the best advice would be "update your resume". Things can get ugly quickly and you want to be prepared.
Really, it's worse than this, because the author appears to be trying to incite some kind of revolt in the programming community against all kinds of closed-source development.
Getting rid of closed-source developers would be terrible for open source - there would be nothing left to copy or get ideas from.
blind speculation, I think
I would lean more towards wishful thinking than blind speculation, but I think you're on the right track. They're not basing this on any actual evidence because the evidence has not been made available to the public yet.
NAI was the result of the merger of Network General and McAfee.
That thing looks like the ultra-modern input device found on my old Atari 400.
RAID5 is good for redundancy, 1gb of RAM is cheap, but Dual P4's is a waste of money for that setup.
Sure, but what if when he's done he posts a link to his new server here on Slashdot?
Exactly. If somebody else distribuited SCOs code, then SCO can claim that their code was included illegally and should be removed. However, they released it themselves. Whoever releases it, is reponsible for that action. So, if SCO released their own stuff accidentally - tough cookie. They have no leg to stand on.
The danger here is that it would set a dangerous precedent. From that point forward, any company or individual distributing open source code is liable for the contents whether they themselves added the infringing code or not.
What is omitted from this discussion, and what Eben certainly must already know, is that if SCO redistributes in good faith Free products that it receives from the community, then the illegal inclusion by a third party of material copyrighted by SCO does not in any way lessen SCO's claim to that copyright.
That depends on whether the court holds that SCO should have been more diligent in reviewing the source code before they released their version of Linux. If they had done a thorough review they would certainly have found the offending code This could be a lose-lose situation for Open Source.. If the court finds that SCO was not responsible for reviewing the code, then the copyright infringement case against the authors of Linux can go forward. If they find that SCO was responsible and that the code is now GPL, it would mean that anybody who publishes open source software is responsible for its content, whether they wrote the code or not. I have no idea which way the courts will come down on this issue, but it could definitely complicate publishing open source software.
What's pretty obvious is that Open Source Software functions like an online magazine or bulletin board, to which malicious or incompetent users may illegally post copyrighted material.
This argument didn't help Napster. There's a distinction in the law where financial incentive is concerned. Bulletin board operators don't gain anything by copyrighted material being posted on their systems (unless they do it themselves to attract users). Software vendors do gain an advantage by using code from other software since they save the cost of writing the code themselves.
they bot end the mainstream spport, but the home version does not have esxtneded support. All other 'consumer' version of window has/had it.
Before Windows XP "home edition" they've never had an OS that is sold exclusively for use within homes. 2000, ME, 98, 95 and so on were all used both in homes and in businesses. As far as I can tell, you can't get Home Edition on any of their corporate volume pricing plans either. I'm still surprised (it is MS though, so not THAT surprised) that they wouldn't offer extended support for both versions.
MS Windows 2000 and run it on a 64 bit processor?
Why run 2000 when you can run a 64-bit version of XP instead?
You can use the handy official Microsoft desktop support lifecycle wizard to see how long they plan to support each desktop OS version. Windows 2000 will be fully supported through 3/31/05, then it will enter "extended support" for two more years (extended=more expensive). After that you're on your own. Win2k server follows basically the same guidelines, except that in the "extended" support period you need to pay for non-security-related hotfixes.
Another SP.. means it's time to backup everything "just in case".
It might be a good idea to back up more often than just when a service pack comes out.
I'm differentiating between "the operating system" and "the services" here; I think IIS is much less stable than is Apache, and Microsoft DNS sucks rocks. But the fundamental Win2K OS itself is as good or better than Linux, and enormously MORE stable as a desktop.
I'm with you on IIS, but just out of curiosity what issues have you had with their DNS server? I haven't had any problems with it, but then again we do have a pretty 'vanilla' configuration.
How come nobody has posted a lame joke about SCO suing Intellivision yet?
If you're under the impression that commercial companies always support every customer platform in perpuity, you haven't been in this business very long. You pays your money, you places your bets. The difference with OSS is that, if your platform gets dropped, or the whole application stops development, you still have the source, which is a damn sight better than the situation with commercial software as a rule.
:-)
Believe it or not, that wasn't a troll
There's certainly no guarantee that any vendor will support a particular platform, but when a platform is dropped there's usually a good economic reason. A commercial vendor usually won't stop supporting a platform as long as there's money to be made there. OSS vendors have no such incentive, and dropping support for a platform because of an ad that a company is running is downright infantile. If OSS vendors want to be taken seriously they need to drop the "true believer" mentality and focus on the bottom line. Linux vendors have done this already and have been very successful as a result.
Also Oracle specifically said that they would continue PeopleSoft to support and enhance PeopleSoft's applications "into the next decade", but I seriously doubt that deal will go through anyway... And if it does, it gives me an excuse to dump our *&#%@( PeopleSoft system for something less bloated.
committing suicide on the walls of Baghdad
...on the FIREWALLS of Baghdad.
Suppose a closed-source application company has a "Business Alliance" with a platform vendor; i.e. they get money upfront from the platform vendor to develop applications for that platform. If the vendor gets upset with the application company and the business alliance ends, they may not write for that platform anymore. This is no surprise.
Sounds like a good reason to run Windows... (ducking)
Basically what the Nmap people are showing me is that if I implement an OSS product in my company, I have to worry about the developers dropping support for the platform I'm running it on if they have a personal grudge against the company that makes it. I'll be sure to take that into account next time I'm evaluating software.
So you see, it's not straight-forward at all.
The part I was referring to as straightforward was the fact that there is a mechanism by which SCO can terminate the agreement. IBM claimed in their press release that the license is "irrevocable, perpetual and fully paid up. It cannot be terminated."
Given that the infringement was (on most peoples' part) unknowing and inadvertent, I rather doubt that there would be a terribly high price to pay -- especially if a replacement is relatively fast in coming.
Tell that to Napster... They even had the "non-infringing use" doctrine on their side and still lost.