Put it this way: SCOX stock had been in free-fall for days (opened today around $13.5); after a phone-in, that was announced at 10:30pm last night, they declare that they will sue Novell; stock rises (now over $14.5).
If they highlight the supposed flaws against the Open Source model by highlighting any back doors that may have been inadvertantly placed in the Linux kernel. (Conspiracy hats on.)
There seem to be a couple of programs in Windows, I don't know their name, that shut-out competitors applications and routinely tunnel useage information back to it's headquarters. Not only that, but they seem to integrate with the system itself and mysterious de-configure my existing software. Strange.
They definately seem to be illegal, possibly even viruses; maybe I can get some payola from Microsoft for letting them know about them. Oh wait...
Really? I'd like to see how millions of dollars of hightech electronic equipment can defend agaist people who are willing strap bombs to themselves and bomb just about anything that get in their way.
There was a line in the Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy which stated that if someone ever found out the true meaning to life, the universe and everything; God would simply destroy it and replace it with something even more unexplainable.
Just because it can't be explained doesn't be that it can't be. Let's hope that whatever is lurking in the future for Linux has a case as plausible as SCO's.
The one thing I've never truely understood about the Export Control argument is that, firstly, Linux is not American, and can therefore not be controlled by it's government, secondly, export controls only apply to that which is not already freely available to the public. Unless, US law suddenly applies to everyone else in the world, I don't see this being successfull.
Shame really. I can just see it now. McBride's just spent his new $50 million hollowing out an old mountain (for SCO's new headquarters), bought him self a brand new white cat and leather chair and got his employees kit-ed out in matching grey overalls.
They can't be doing a very good job since Microsoft has just decided to block all non-MS clients to their MSN network. To me, that classifies as interoperability.
Besides, how can these judgements be even considered fitting when MS can simply purchase companies that offer non-strategically compatible protocols (a la the recent purchase of an Anti-virus company that developed software for Linux)
It -singlehandly- as the ability to ruin a large number of major players in the industry. Sun, Microsoft... SCO? They have a vested interest in undermining its success. Hence, the continual FUD attacks, sponsered reports, alledged IP infringements. The question is: how often do these attacks suceed. Answer: never!;-p
Yes, but in this case the "time" far outways the crime. When you have people being sued for tens of thousands of dollars for downloading a couple of songs that they probably wouldn't have bought anyway, that's a problem.
I don't see this as a crime per se. I see it as the final squirms of an industry that has just been made obsolete.
I'm sorry if I digress from the topic, but, with all the talk about Linux posing a threat to Microsoft's hegemony -I feel that *this* poses a greater one.
Here we have a company, Apple, whose following is so devoted that they would actually resurrect one of their old products out of sheer love for it. I don't see any followers of Microsoft doing the same; in fact, anybody who uses Microsoft's products are looking for a way out. And that, in the end, shall prove to be Microsoft's undoing.
They're fining $150k per song downloaded! How can they possibly, morally and legally, justify this? Not only can the song in question be bought on CD for $15 but more than likely now being offered over services such as iTunes for a couple of dollars.
Surely, any such fine would have to resemble any such damage caused to the record companies; and, in any case, how do they plan to prove that the person being sued would have actually bought the song in the first place had it not been freely available.
IANAL, but I would sure like to here their "reasoning" that would give them a claim to such amounts. And, more importantly, would that actually hold up in court? Why not just let the defendants buy the music, instead?
No really, no. If competition was active, the document format wouldn't matter -people would simply choose the suit which best suited their needs (price, performance, features etc...) Instead, because Microsoft can rely on the DOC format lockin' people are pretty much forced to use it if they want to communicate with anyone else.
And this "idea" of packaging OO.org software opposed to Office in new computers simply won't cut it. Though it seems plausible to us, for those in the know, i.e. those that sign the software contracts with Microsoft, know that -shall I say- "clauses" prevents this from ever happening (the IBM, OS/2 Warp, Win95 on the new aptivas highlights the fact).
What I don't understand by this is that under the US anti-trust settlement, Microsoft were made to release the specifications of their communication protocols to competitors.
Clearly, the intention of this settlement wasn't so that everyone could simply see what's in, for example, a word document (which is a communication protocol in itself), but how to build program which interoperate with them. Shouldn't the developers of Open Office then be able to simply download the DOC specs off of Microsoft.com and build it into their system? Or, am I assuming that the "settlement" was an actual binding agreement?
Conversely, I would say that erasure of "unimpressive" e-mails from the Burst case, _will_ likely coincided with equally "unimpressive" e-mails surrounding the purchase of Unix licences from SCO.
I'm confused. I thought that, in the settlement for the recent anti-trust hearing, where Microsoft were saved by a wisker from being broken up, the judges ruled that Microsoft had to OPEN it's proprietry communication protocols to outside parties.
MSN ---> Communication protocol. MSN --> Supposedly open protocol --> Now secret "secure" protocol??????????
Explain to me how this isn't just a vast contravention of these rulings?
I find this drive for computer generated artificial music unnecessary. Why bother, when we have airwaves full of _equally_ uninspired, artifical music such as Justin Timberlake and Christina Aguilera.
Besides, it seems like this process of Musical distillation, of which the story speaks, has brought us these "talents" in the first place!
That's because, if they weren't the de facto standard, they'd simply integrate it into their product line and force everyone to use it. Can you say Monopoly?
This isn't about choice, it's about money. Linux on the desktop will never take off before their is some serious investment behind it. Furthermore, nobody will ever switch to Linux unless it's in their interest to do so. What Linux really needs is the development of native high-applications of which there are no suitable OSS alternatives, at a cost comparable or lower than their Windows counterparts.
The one way will take place is through a sufficient, standardised, framework through which applications can be developed. I'm not talking about GTK or QT, but the whole environment surrounding it; and more importantly, one that's not constantly in flux for long periods of time. Once that happens, then a trickle of applications will start to appear.
It's important to notice that for Linux to succeed Windows on the desktop, it doesn't need to displace it entirely. The moment Desktop Linux becomes an option to the consumer, is the moment Microsoft has lost it's grip on it's monopoly.
Slashdot Mirror
So what if George says it's about the "art and filmmaking"... After seeing the phantom menace and attack of the clones, I am inclined to disagree.
Steve
Put it this way: SCOX stock had been in free-fall for days (opened today around $13.5); after a phone-in, that was announced at 10:30pm last night, they declare that they will sue Novell; stock rises (now over $14.5).
And this has been going on for months.
Strange.
Nice timing for SCO...
I guess they had to get something out to counter the pumping allegations that have just shown up on Groklaw.
Notice, the similarity here:
"We haven't talked to a single user who has said they're using because it's better."
to,
"There are no tanks in Bagdad!"
You forgot one point...
If they highlight the supposed flaws against the Open Source model by highlighting any back doors that may have been inadvertantly placed in the Linux kernel. (Conspiracy hats on.)
There seem to be a couple of programs in Windows, I don't know their name, that shut-out competitors applications and routinely tunnel useage information back to it's headquarters. Not only that, but they seem to integrate with the system itself and mysterious de-configure my existing software. Strange.
They definately seem to be illegal, possibly even viruses; maybe I can get some payola from Microsoft for letting them know about them. Oh wait...
Really? I'd like to see how millions of dollars of hightech electronic equipment can defend agaist people who are willing strap bombs to themselves and bomb just about anything that get in their way.
There was a line in the Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy which stated that if someone ever found out the true meaning to life, the universe and everything; God would simply destroy it and replace it with something even more unexplainable. Just because it can't be explained doesn't be that it can't be. Let's hope that whatever is lurking in the future for Linux has a case as plausible as SCO's.
The one thing I've never truely understood about the Export Control argument is that, firstly, Linux is not American, and can therefore not be controlled by it's government, secondly, export controls only apply to that which is not already freely available to the public. Unless, US law suddenly applies to everyone else in the world, I don't see this being successfull.
Shame really. I can just see it now. McBride's just spent his new $50 million hollowing out an old mountain (for SCO's new headquarters), bought him self a brand new white cat and leather chair and got his employees kit-ed out in matching grey overalls.
"Microsoft is ordered to allow interoperability."
They can't be doing a very good job since Microsoft has just decided to block all non-MS clients to their MSN network. To me, that classifies as interoperability.
Besides, how can these judgements be even considered fitting when MS can simply purchase companies that offer non-strategically compatible protocols (a la the recent purchase of an Anti-virus company that developed software for Linux)
Linux the most attacked server? Of course it is!
;-p
It -singlehandly- as the ability to ruin a large number of major players in the industry. Sun, Microsoft... SCO? They have a vested interest in undermining its success. Hence, the continual FUD attacks, sponsered reports, alledged IP infringements. The question is: how often do these attacks suceed. Answer: never!
I try to download it the other day, but my KBrowser was having KTrouble downloading the KFiles from the KFtp.
One thing about the Eli Lilly employees on the webpage: they're either bloody small, or they've got one huge photographer!
Yes, but in this case the "time" far outways the crime. When you have people being sued for tens of thousands of dollars for downloading a couple of songs that they probably wouldn't have bought anyway, that's a problem. I don't see this as a crime per se. I see it as the final squirms of an industry that has just been made obsolete.
I'm sorry if I digress from the topic, but, with all the talk about Linux posing a threat to Microsoft's hegemony -I feel that *this* poses a greater one.
Here we have a company, Apple, whose following is so devoted that they would actually resurrect one of their old products out of sheer love for it. I don't see any followers of Microsoft doing the same; in fact, anybody who uses Microsoft's products are looking for a way out. And that, in the end, shall prove to be Microsoft's undoing.
I think it's pretty likely that he'll get a place in Star Wars 3. I mean, he's got about as much talent as anybody else in it.
I'm just waiting for the action figures!
They're fining $150k per song downloaded! How can they possibly, morally and legally, justify this? Not only can the song in question be bought on CD for $15 but more than likely now being offered over services such as iTunes for a couple of dollars. Surely, any such fine would have to resemble any such damage caused to the record companies; and, in any case, how do they plan to prove that the person being sued would have actually bought the song in the first place had it not been freely available. IANAL, but I would sure like to here their "reasoning" that would give them a claim to such amounts. And, more importantly, would that actually hold up in court? Why not just let the defendants buy the music, instead?
No really, no. If competition was active, the document format wouldn't matter -people would simply choose the suit which best suited their needs (price, performance, features etc...) Instead, because Microsoft can rely on the DOC format lockin' people are pretty much forced to use it if they want to communicate with anyone else.
And this "idea" of packaging OO.org software opposed to Office in new computers simply won't cut it. Though it seems plausible to us, for those in the know, i.e. those that sign the software contracts with Microsoft, know that -shall I say- "clauses" prevents this from ever happening (the IBM, OS/2 Warp, Win95 on the new aptivas highlights the fact).
What I don't understand by this is that under the US anti-trust settlement, Microsoft were made to release the specifications of their communication protocols to competitors.
Clearly, the intention of this settlement wasn't so that everyone could simply see what's in, for example, a word document (which is a communication protocol in itself), but how to build program which interoperate with them. Shouldn't the developers of Open Office then be able to simply download the DOC specs off of Microsoft.com and build it into their system? Or, am I assuming that the "settlement" was an actual binding agreement?
"I'd be dissapointed with every bar of soap, every beer, and every Big Mac."
You know, as a Student, I'd gladly take that beer off you if you don't want it!
Conversely, I would say that erasure of "unimpressive" e-mails from the Burst case, _will_ likely coincided with equally "unimpressive" e-mails surrounding the purchase of Unix licences from SCO.
I'm confused. I thought that, in the settlement for the recent anti-trust hearing, where Microsoft were saved by a wisker from being broken up, the judges ruled that Microsoft had to OPEN it's proprietry communication protocols to outside parties.
MSN ---> Communication protocol.
MSN --> Supposedly open protocol --> Now secret "secure" protocol??????????
Explain to me how this isn't just a vast contravention of these rulings?
Oh that's right! It is!
I find this drive for computer generated artificial music unnecessary. Why bother, when we have airwaves full of _equally_ uninspired, artifical music such as Justin Timberlake and Christina Aguilera.
Besides, it seems like this process of Musical distillation, of which the story speaks, has brought us these "talents" in the first place!
"Microsoft... the de facto standard out there"
That's because, if they weren't the de facto standard, they'd simply integrate it into their product line and force everyone to use it. Can you say Monopoly?
This isn't about choice, it's about money. Linux on the desktop will never take off before their is some serious investment behind it. Furthermore, nobody will ever switch to Linux unless it's in their interest to do so. What Linux really needs is the development of native high-applications of which there are no suitable OSS alternatives, at a cost comparable or lower than their Windows counterparts.
The one way will take place is through a sufficient, standardised, framework through which applications can be developed. I'm not talking about GTK or QT, but the whole environment surrounding it; and more importantly, one that's not constantly in flux for long periods of time. Once that happens, then a trickle of applications will start to appear.
It's important to notice that for Linux to succeed Windows on the desktop, it doesn't need to displace it entirely. The moment Desktop Linux becomes an option to the consumer, is the moment Microsoft has lost it's grip on it's monopoly.