I think Windows 2000 has been the winner thus far, if not Windows 98. MS is destroying this by phasing out patch support for these products, however.
I may have not been completely fair when I suggested that the two projects were chasing Windows 2000, however you have to admit that it's the closest thing they've got to a general theory of implementation. Most of the advances they've made are evolutionary, not completely new concepts. I'm sure that will change as they continue to improve both projects, and my faith in either is no less than 100%!
...after all, we're all waiting with baited breath for that Yellow Dog IPO. The corporate world loves nothing more than diversity, and will embrace all kinds of wacky, different platforms.
Big money in getting a 3% sliver of that 10% market share! Am I right?
If KDE and Gnome just keep right on chasing the Windows 2000 UI, I think Linux will win by default. MS is abandoning something that basically works in favor of MS Bob v2.0.
It's like somebody at MS looked at OS X and noticed that things were shiny a lot and dialogs were sparse, and decided that the answer resided in making *everything* shiny and sparse.
"However, who wants to lug a whole reciever system, with detached speakers, outside. If I'm in the yard with some friends having a party, I just want to be able to pull out a radio and have instant access to a playlist I created on my machine."
LOL! Moron! You miss the point completely.
You've never even been with a girl, have you. No, you haven't. Here's a useful hint for you: If you'd spend some time with girls, you'd stop coming away looking like this every night.
I don't see anything in the description which explains how the authors are making money with this. It's possible this is an entirely altrustic movement, however history isn't on our side with this kind of application.
Have any of you installed this, and can you comment on whether you're being shown ads or if you otherwise see how it works?
Even if the code wasn't in there at all, but they examined the original SCO code in order to create their own, that would still be in violation of their IP rights.
Please don't use "IP rights." That concept was created to cloud the distinction between copyright and patent, and it seems to have succeeded in your perception. Copyright is the only issue here, nothing patent-like.
Further, IBM's contract with SCO exempts IBM from giving up copyright on IBM's enhancements to UNIX -- they did not negotiate a standard UNIX source license, so copyright isn't even an issue. This means that even if they use code they created for AIX verbatim, they are free to distribute it or use it for any other purpose.
IANAL, but it would seem to me to be a good defence, given that they are unwilling to reveal exactly which sections of code were supposedly stolen.
Responding to a legal threat with lies can really bite you in the end. Instead, I would say that you're not using the entire kernel - which is true since you aren't loading every device driver, architecture, and filesystem - and that you need the sections in violation to be identified to verify their claim.
I should also add that the idea wasn't initially mine -- writing Carly was suggested on the Linux Elitists mailing list -- a low-traffic mailing list with some very well thought out posts, plus Mr. Bad!
Actually while I had mentioned that Intel had backed out, when I submitted an article last week, HP was still listed as a premier sponsor of SCO's event. I urged Slashdot readers to write Carly Fiorina and let her know how you felt about HP supporting SCO. The point is moot now as the event has already started and HP has already retreated their support somewhat. Still, you might still write and express how you feel about HP having pulled out: a visible reaction from the Linux community this time around might well shape how they deal with SCO in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
Black Hat - Bad hacker
White Hat - Good hacker
Red Hat - Hacked nightly
If people visit and run through a bunch of the links, he probably nets a profit on every hit.
On a non-dork populated site, an anonymous coward wouldn't take a jab at his OS quite so personally. :-)
Sorry! Move along!
(Yes, I know -- mod me down because I won't drink the Kool Aid... but I -did- just order myself an iPod for use with Linux.) :-)
Javol!
You fascists are all alike.
I may have not been completely fair when I suggested that the two projects were chasing Windows 2000, however you have to admit that it's the closest thing they've got to a general theory of implementation. Most of the advances they've made are evolutionary, not completely new concepts. I'm sure that will change as they continue to improve both projects, and my faith in either is no less than 100%!
You're scaring the children.
Big money in getting a 3% sliver of that 10% market share! Am I right?
Am I right, people?
I'm still hit with Code Red attempts daily. At some point, shouldn't somebody have to take responsibility for this?
A little respect, if I please indeed. As very little as I'm able, I say!
It's like somebody at MS looked at OS X and noticed that things were shiny a lot and dialogs were sparse, and decided that the answer resided in making *everything* shiny and sparse.
Hello, you've missed the point!?
Seriously... this is not helpful at all.
Any word on how they'll avoid a Fischer-Price look-and-feel lawsuit?
LOL! Moron! You miss the point completely.
You've never even been with a girl, have you. No, you haven't. Here's a useful hint for you: If you'd spend some time with girls, you'd stop coming away looking like this every night.
Love ya.
Did the beer really come out of your nose, or was that an attempt to sound cool?
Why do you go on?
Why the hell was the parent moderated as flamebait? He makes a perfectly valid point.
Have any of you installed this, and can you comment on whether you're being shown ads or if you otherwise see how it works?
Please don't use "IP rights." That concept was created to cloud the distinction between copyright and patent, and it seems to have succeeded in your perception. Copyright is the only issue here, nothing patent-like.
Further, IBM's contract with SCO exempts IBM from giving up copyright on IBM's enhancements to UNIX -- they did not negotiate a standard UNIX source license, so copyright isn't even an issue. This means that even if they use code they created for AIX verbatim, they are free to distribute it or use it for any other purpose.
Hint: Armed with an MBA, he'll be every venture capitalist's wet dream.
Could it possibly NOT be the San Jose Dirty Linux Hippies?
Responding to a legal threat with lies can really bite you in the end. Instead, I would say that you're not using the entire kernel - which is true since you aren't loading every device driver, architecture, and filesystem - and that you need the sections in violation to be identified to verify their claim.
I should also add that the idea wasn't initially mine -- writing Carly was suggested on the Linux Elitists mailing list -- a low-traffic mailing list with some very well thought out posts, plus Mr. Bad!
Actually while I had mentioned that Intel had backed out, when I submitted an article last week, HP was still listed as a premier sponsor of SCO's event. I urged Slashdot readers to write Carly Fiorina and let her know how you felt about HP supporting SCO. The point is moot now as the event has already started and HP has already retreated their support somewhat. Still, you might still write and express how you feel about HP having pulled out: a visible reaction from the Linux community this time around might well shape how they deal with SCO in the future.