Actually, it's not slashdotted, it's just really slow.
He mentions it's running on a sun box with apache. He also mentions that the last time it was on slashdot it didn't go down. This has been my experience with apache on sun. It may sometimes be very slow... but you'll eventually get the page in most cases under heavy load. Sun's app server works in the same way. I don't know if it's their philosophy but the servlet engine comparison's I've seen, the other servlet containers I've seen, Sun's product starts slowing down a bit earlier than the others under stress, but it returned far fewer errors.
The point is, if you wait 20-30seconds, you'll get the page.
How does the FSF subpeona factor into this? Couldn't SCO say that since the FSF hasn't provided it with the documents they requested that they would be unable to fully comply? Would that be a possible argument?
Just thinking out loud, not supporting their claims.
Here's how it's being played out: the Israelis want peace. They are willing to give up land for peace, which is most of what the Palestinians want (their own state is their ultimate goal). However, just as soon as Israel is willing to give up all this land, some Palestinian suicide bomber kills an Israeli.
Usually because some Isreallis started bulldozing their homes, or their refugee camp (i.e. the places they are living because their homes were already bulldozed.) Which might have been bulldozed in the first place because of some suicide bomber who became a suicide bomber because of something the Isreali's did and so on and so forth.
The reality is that the creation of the state of Isreal was poorly executed. Over the years there has been a lot of annimosity building up on both sides. For there to be any sort of peice between Isreal and the Palestinians, everyone will need to stop propogating their hate and start building trust. And their's enough hate on both sides. Which means no more expansion, no more bombings, no more name calling, no more demoralizing, no more all that stuff especially no more trying to claim the higher ground. Because in my opinion neither one has the right to claim to that.
For there to be any peace, there have to be two winners, two entities that want each other to win, not just to want to stop the violence. They will each be their neighbors, they should work on getting along. A lot of the individuals can manage that. Just not the governments yet.
From my perspective Isreal and the Palestinians are like two squabbling kids, at this point, they've done enough wrong that they should both receive a nice hard smack in the face.
Unless you're biased, you can make the same arguments about one as you do the other. Why not say Sharon should be removed because he's an innefective leader? Considering he proposed legislation to pull out of settlements and couldn't even get his own party to vote for it. Then again, Sharon was the one who lead a lot of those settlements and as he was positioning the bill refuge camps where being demolished. I'm not trying to knock the Isreali's but I really don't think Sharon is the right person, probably not Arafat either.
It would be nice to find an Isreali politician, whose best childhood friend is now in some leadership position on the other side. Let their pre existing friendship and trust help bridge the large casm that has grown between the two people.
It looks like it worked for Microsoft and Sun.
Also look at Greece and Turkey. Greece sponsored Turkey for EU membership. Historically Greeks and Turks have been like oil and water and a lot of that still exists today in the previous generation of Greeks. All animosity is not gone but it's been moving from reality to humorus jibes as the people truly victmized by past events have passed on.
I don't have the answers obviously. But I do have my opinions. I'm no expert on the subject but I do like the sound of my keyboard when I type:)
That's not proof, that's conjecture. Closer to proof would be comparing ip addresses.
I'm not saying it's not, just that someone being a happy end user and having access to pre-release software and being happy with it isn't any indication.
I've been in this situation before with other companies. Especially if you're a big client, you'll get access to new releases sooner. If you're a big client of a new technology, you're generally happy with it.
I can see it happening where some satisfied customers would want to come to Sun's defense as they are getting slammed a lot buy the OSS community and news sites. Personally, I find it a shame, out of all the companies out there now, Sun is the one company I see as being the company that grew out of similiar ideals and personalities as the current OS based companies now. They even share some of the same quirks... Just like they compare linux to solaris, the linux community compares linux to any other OS. They have faith and loyalty to their products, just like anyone else would that put that much effort into building something.
Plus, linux vendors shouldn't be pushing linux over proprietary unix. They should be pushing unix over windows, AS/400, OS/390, whatever. As unix as a whole gets more penetration, so does linux, then if linux wants to take over all of unix, it's a bigger area to take over.
This is just plain embarrassing and should have been responded to better.
Sometimes you have to admit you've done something stupid outright, which they didn't really do initially.
Kind of a historical trend for JBOSS. I find a lot of what they say misleading. The professional, in "professional open source" must mean something about heavy marketting as in talking a lot of crap weather it's true or not.
Just like the number of downloads as if that's a useful way of determining market share.
Also the big hype over Sun not certifying them. I'm sorry, it takes time and money to go through the certification process.... don't cry poor and then get 10million in VC money. Especially don't make up crap about how Sun doesn't want an open source j2ee server when it's really about money. Sun will certify any one that pays for certification and passes.
Speaking of which.... If they passed I'm sure I would hav eheard about it. Any one know if they ever got certified? Maybe all that yamming about being completely J2EE compliant and Sun just trying to hold them back was just that... talk.
It's a shame. Good idea, good way of implementing it with good training seminars (I hear), but there will be other open source options soon that don't try and diverge away from the J2EE spec like JBOSS does. A free, as in beer, J2EE server is already available that has passed certifiaction testing. Sun's own Sun ONE Application Server 8 Platform Edition is free to download, develop, deploy in production and redistribute. It's really stripped down to make it light and you can really only deploy one instance on it per server but for a lot of people that's enough.
Also, the Apache team has a much better history and more momentum as a whole. Geronimo will really be a big problem for JBoss.
Yeah... but can you imagine how silly it would be fighting over turkey feces? It'll be mad max beyond thunderdome all over again. And I don't know that Tina Turner still looks good in that outfit.
After Ray Noorda had to step down from the helm of Novell he set up a new company, Caldera, which bought the rights to Novell's legacy operating systems from its DRI acquisition. Caldera then filed a lawsuit against Microsoft over its anti-competitive practices against DRI. Caldera's lawyers and their witness documented ample evidence of the anti-competitive practices and dirty tricks that Microsoft had used to drive its competitor out of the market. At the beginning of 2000 the lawsuit was settled out of court in return for Microsoft paying a reported US$150-200 million to Caldera. Thus DR DOS, the product that I had helped develop, cost Microsoft dearly, both while DR DOS was a healthy challenge to Microsoft's virtual operating system monopoly and after Bill Gates had considered it dead and buried.
Funny how Novell Cheif starts Caldera... sues Microsoft based on technology he bought from Novell..... now Microsoft (it seems) helps Caldera (SCO) start a lawsuit based on technology it bought from Novell. Makes sense that Baystar would think SCO's value is in it's IP. It's worked for them in the past.
"But at the moment that's just a hypothetical, and Apple has no more or fewer frivolous patents than any other large software company, pretty much. We don't get pissy at those other such companies, for example IBM. "
Maybe we should. IBM makes about $1 billion dollars a year in licensing fees from it's patents. In addition to using it's patents to strong arm smaller companies into cross licensing deals.
Really? There are? Lets see... company A comes out with a product. That's Company A's only product. It's a pretty good product. MS doesn't have a product like Company's A product.
MS sees how much money Company A is making and decides to make a product like Company A's. MS charges significantly less than Company A for it's product because MS doesn't need to make money from it's product. It makes enough from Windows and Office to finance tons of other types of products. MS integrates it's product with it's other proprietary products, making their product more appealing in some regards, even though Company A's product performs it's intended purpose better. Company A starts loosing money. Eventually, Company A can no longer compete in the market, partly due to the fact that integrating with MS technology the way MS does is either technically unfeasable (poorly documented MS api's or large licensing fees.)
MS eventually makes their product better than Company A's product now that Company A doesn't have the money it used to have. MS isn't making a profit yet from their product and is lucky if they even break even.
Only viable choice now is MS's product.
There have been a lot of "Comany A"'s out there.
as for "I dislike M$ as much as many people here but I wouldn't say they stole the money."
The case was about MS overcharging for their product. Now they have to pay some of that back. Sounds like stealing to me.
Anti trust case gets settled.
Users get $10 coupon on newest version of windows.
Newest version of windows price increases due to litigation by $40.
Two years later, court says "no no no", consumrs get $15 coupon towards new windows.
They don't get it. The fine is because they over charged people.. They're not allowed to "make it up". They are supposed to distribute that 50bln their hoarding back to the people the stole it from.
"IBM's client technology will support Microsoft Office through a plug-in, although the Windows operating system will be needed on the client. But Mills said the real savings will come through server-based management and not necessarily because of the operating system. "
A few years ago I stayed over at one of IBM's corporate conference centers. They had a whole bunch of NPC's everywhere, including the guestrooms. They ran everything from the server using Java. They had MS Office apps too as well as Lotus Notes.
The whole concept never really took off but it was pretty neat. This was back when everyone thought thin clients were the way to go. Everyone except the consumers that is.
After all these years I wonder if they got things right.
The big problem though is you can't get away from Microsoft's licensing fees. It doesn't matter how you deploy it, you have to have a paid license for every valid MS Office client.
IBM had said that they were working on this with Microsoft and have gotten some code from them to work on this. Microsoft said in a news article (that I can't find) that it didn't give IBM the resources or permission to port Office to Linux. That doesn't technically mean they can't do what they are trying to do. But the licensing issue is a concern.
With everything going on between Microsoft, IBM and Sun it might be hard to figure out what's going on.
As far as the pricing goes, if people can move away from Windows and Office, Sun's Java Desktop System or other linux based desktop systems that are coming out may be a cheaper alternative since it bundles a lot more, including the OS>
"I am not an MSCE, I don't use any Microsoft OS's, and I love Java. What I was pointing out was that Sun is having major financial problems(read the parent) and if it were not for that suit and a good cash injection from Microsoft they would be having more..."
Actually... what you said was
"Litigation seems to be a viable strategy for Sun too. What goes around comes around in the crazy patent game I guess."
Litigation wasn't a "viable strategy" for Sun. It was a last resort. Sun tried to get MS to conform to the spec before taking any legal action. I'm sure Sun would have rather had MS conform to the spec than have to go through this long trial. Java would have been much better off without it.
"Sun's first responsibility as stewards of the Java technology is to preserve the significant investments that Sun and hundreds of companies have made. We are required to take this action on behalf of our licensees, the Java industry and Sun's shareholders," said Alan Baratz, president of Sun's JavaSoft division. Baratz added that for the past six months and up until 6 p.m. Sunday, September 28, Sun worked diligently with Microsoft in hopes of convincing them to abide by their agreements.
You also sait "what goes around comes around". Which makes it sound like Sun deserves this and is a result of the MS case or that the two are even legally or morally the same.
I don't see how your follow up comment explains your first comment in the way you think it does.
I thought this was the case. In a statement that Sun had put out a couple years ago (not sure on the time but it was during a previous round of open sourcing java discussions) McNealy said they couldn't open source java and specifically pointed out Kodak as a company that they were licensing technology from. They didn't specify exactly what it was from Kodak. It may not be these patents he was talking about.
If it is these, and Sun wins, could this be the thing that allows Sun to open source Java?
Just wonder why you say this. The other day I was just curious about Sun's lawsuits and did a few searches. The majority of any Sun info I found were related to their Microsoft trials. Those were all contract and anti trust trials. Not patent trials. I don't think it was bad of sun to spend the time and money to help label MS as a monopoly and point out their anti-competitive practices. They've put a lot of companies out of business and it's good that Sun stood up to them. It's a shame people never recognized that what Sun was fighting for benefitted many independant software companies, not just sun. Maybe if they received that kind of support they never would have settled.
If it is the MS trials you are reffering too, you obviously have your head shoved up way to far up your MCSE ass.
There were some trademark related ones, or threats of, over Java. They were just enforcing the fact that people can't call something Java or 100% Java compatible unless it's been tested as such. This is a good thing for the developer community that needs to rely on the claims of something being 100% pure java.
The only one I found regarding patents was related to Kingston which Sun later dropped. A stupid decision to start the suit in my opinion.
You want to talk about big patent lawsuits you're looking at the wrong tech company identified by three letters. Even MS is taking big blue's cue and building a patent portfolio to start raising revenue.
My own introduction to the realities of the patent system came in the 1980s, when my client, Sun Microsystems--then a small company--was accused by IBM of patent infringement. Threatening a massive lawsuit, IBM demanded a meeting to present its claims. Fourteen IBM lawyers and their assistants, all clad in the requisite dark blue suits, crowded into the largest conference room Sun had.
The chief blue suit orchestrated the presentation of the seven patents IBM claimed were infringed, the most prominent of which was IBM's notorious "fat lines" patent: To turn a thin line on a computer screen into a broad line, you go up and down an equal distance from the ends of the thin line and then connect the four points. You probably learned this technique for turning a line into a rectangle in seventh-grade geometry, and, doubtless, you believe it was devised by Euclid or some such 3,000-year-old thinker. Not according to the examiners of the USPTO, who awarded IBM a patent on the process.
After IBM's presentation, our turn came. As the Big Blue crew looked on (without a flicker of emotion), my colleagues--all of whom had both engineering and law degrees--took to the whiteboard with markers, methodically illustrating, dissecting, and demolishing IBM's claims. We used phrases like: "You must be kidding," and "You ought to be ashamed." But the IBM team showed no emotion, save outright indifference. Confidently, we proclaimed our conclusion: Only one of the seven IBM patents would be deemed valid by a court, and no rational court would find that Sun's technology infringed even that one.
An awkward silence ensued. The blue suits did not even confer among themselves. They just sat there, stonelike. Finally, the chief suit responded. "OK," he said, "maybe you don't infringe these seven patents. But we have 10,000 U.S. patents. Do you really want us to go back to Armonk [IBM headquarters in New York] and find seven patents you do infringe? Or do you want to make this easy and just pay us $20 million?" After a modest bit of negotiation, Sun cut IBM a check, and the blue suits went to the next company on their hit list.
In corporate America, this type of shakedown is repeated weekly. The patent as stimulant to invention has long since given way to the patent as blunt instrument for establishing an innovation stranglehold.
While lower voltage, cooler processors are great for laptops, it's the server market that could benefit most from these features. Paying $100 less for a processor is only one thing to consider when you have racks and racks of servers that you have to power and cool.
That's a terrible argument of Mono. Bsically, all the money will go to MS and MS consultants to develop the software and they'll deploy it on cheap unix boxes with the.net platform that they may not even pay for.
There's a problem with open source projects trying to innovate rather than copy.
They lack the funding required to innovate in most cases. It's far easier to try and recreate and maybe add some enhancements than it is to completely come up with something revolutionary.
To do the latter you have to spend a lot of resources on reaserch and development which includes user trials, user feedback and a whole lot of wasted effort on things that don't pan out.
Open source projects don't have a model where they can through that much into them. That is the case for most of the big open source projects anyway. Projects that compete in new areas, where there isn't an established market are a whole different beast.
I'm not trying to say that's bad. It has a lot of benefits. You can increase productivity of the development of a project as well as keep the project managable.
Open source needs companies around that are putting money into R&D so that they can benefit from those efforts. To try and kill off those companies would not be beneficial in my opinion. It's kind of like in races, where you see competitors tightly behind one another trying to draft off the person in front of them. It makes it easier for them to improve their performance while the competitor/teammate in front of them does slightly more work.
Where it not for companies like Sun, who believed in open standards and publishing a lot of their work, would the linux kernel be where it's at today? If you look athe the linux kernel archives you see a lot of references to benchmarking against sun's kernel as well as "how sun does it".
Sun and linux do things in different ways. Sun is engineered for stability. I don't just mean it's more stable than linux. I mean Sun puts a lot of effort into binary compatibility accross versions as well as having a very long support lifetime for their products. Some people need the best, the fastest, the newest. Others need to know that in 7 years from the project's inception, they won't have to be left in the dust because they can't upgrade their OS without rewriting their code, which limits them in being able to upgrade hardware, etc.
Imposing those kinds of restrictions is good for a lot of customers. Not imposing those types of restrictions is good for a lot of others.
If Solaris does get GPL'd it would be a huge thing for the OSS community. I don't think linux should adopt all the things solaris does. Linux should be linux and solaris should be solaris.
By the way I came across this interesting account of IBM and abusing patents recently and thought I'd share. It made me laugh considering all the IP legal stuff going on with them now. For those of us that weren't around when IBM was the evil empire, it is a good refresher.
This probably won't be seen by many people at this point but what the heck.
My own introduction to the realities of the patent system came in the 1980s, when my client, Sun Microsystems--then a small company--was accused by IBM of patent infringement. Threatening a massive lawsuit, IBM demanded a meeting to present its claims. Fourteen IBM lawyers and their assistants, all clad in the requisite dark blue suits, crowded into the largest conference room Sun had.
The chief blue suit orchestrated the presentation of the seven patents IBM claimed were infringed, the most prominent of which was IBM's notorious "fat lines" patent: To turn a thin line on a computer screen into a broad line, you go up and down an equal distance from the ends of the thin line and then connect the four points. You probably learned this technique for turning a line into a rectangle in seventh-grade geometry, and, doubtless, you believe it was devised by Euclid or some such 3,000-year-old thinker. Not according to the examiners of the USPTO, who awarded IBM a patent on the process.
After IBM's presentation, our turn came. As the Big Blue crew looked on (without a flicker of emotion), my colleagues--all of whom had both engineering and law degrees--took to the whiteboard with markers, methodically illustrating, dissecting, and demolishing IBM's claims. We used phrases like: "You must be kidding," and "You ought to be ashamed." But the IBM team showed no emotion, save outright indifference. Confidently, we proclaimed our conclusion: Only one of the seven IBM patents would be deemed valid by a court, and no rational court would find that Sun's technology infringed even that one.
An awkward silence ensued. The blue suits did not even confer among themselves. They just sat there, stonelike. Finally, the chief suit responded. "OK," he said, "maybe you don't infringe these seven patents. But we have 10,000 U.S. patents. Do you really want us to go back to Armonk [IBM headquarters in New York] and find seven patents you do infringe? Or do you want to make this easy and just pay us $20 million?" After a modest bit of negotiation, Sun cut IBM a check, and the blue suits went to the next company on their hit list.
In corporate America, this type of shakedown is repeated weekly. The patent as stimulant to invention has long since given way to the patent as blunt instrument for establishing an innovation stranglehold.
Gary Reback
By the way if you don't like the original source it's also on Forbes.com
He doesn't look cuban. Last time I heard about something like this I read it in the New Yorker about some Cuban refugees that turned a truck into a boat.
Granted, he did a little more than strap some 55 gallon drums on the side as pontoons. But time is a luxury when you're fleeing from the clutches of a ruthless dictator.
Actually, that's pretty close to the number of copies of Red Hat Google actually paid for in 200.
The price was right; Google doesn't pay any significant amount of money to Red Hat. Google downloads the software for free and gets support in-house and from the Linux community. Google actually paid for only about 50 copies of Red Hat, and those purchases were more of a goodwill gesture. "I feel like I should be nice, so when I go to Fry's I pick up a copy," Brin said.
Slashdot Mirror
He mentions it's running on a sun box with apache. He also mentions that the last time it was on slashdot it didn't go down. This has been my experience with apache on sun. It may sometimes be very slow... but you'll eventually get the page in most cases under heavy load. Sun's app server works in the same way. I don't know if it's their philosophy but the servlet engine comparison's I've seen, the other servlet containers I've seen, Sun's product starts slowing down a bit earlier than the others under stress, but it returned far fewer errors.
The point is, if you wait 20-30seconds, you'll get the page.
Just thinking out loud, not supporting their claims.
The reality is that the creation of the state of Isreal was poorly executed. Over the years there has been a lot of annimosity building up on both sides. For there to be any sort of peice between Isreal and the Palestinians, everyone will need to stop propogating their hate and start building trust. And their's enough hate on both sides. Which means no more expansion, no more bombings, no more name calling, no more demoralizing, no more all that stuff especially no more trying to claim the higher ground. Because in my opinion neither one has the right to claim to that.
For there to be any peace, there have to be two winners, two entities that want each other to win, not just to want to stop the violence. They will each be their neighbors, they should work on getting along. A lot of the individuals can manage that. Just not the governments yet.
From my perspective Isreal and the Palestinians are like two squabbling kids, at this point, they've done enough wrong that they should both receive a nice hard smack in the face.
Unless you're biased, you can make the same arguments about one as you do the other. Why not say Sharon should be removed because he's an innefective leader? Considering he proposed legislation to pull out of settlements and couldn't even get his own party to vote for it. Then again, Sharon was the one who lead a lot of those settlements and as he was positioning the bill refuge camps where being demolished. I'm not trying to knock the Isreali's but I really don't think Sharon is the right person, probably not Arafat either.
It would be nice to find an Isreali politician, whose best childhood friend is now in some leadership position on the other side. Let their pre existing friendship and trust help bridge the large casm that has grown between the two people. It looks like it worked for Microsoft and Sun.
Also look at Greece and Turkey. Greece sponsored Turkey for EU membership. Historically Greeks and Turks have been like oil and water and a lot of that still exists today in the previous generation of Greeks. All animosity is not gone but it's been moving from reality to humorus jibes as the people truly victmized by past events have passed on.
I don't have the answers obviously. But I do have my opinions. I'm no expert on the subject but I do like the sound of my keyboard when I type :)
I'm not saying it's not, just that someone being a happy end user and having access to pre-release software and being happy with it isn't any indication.
I've been in this situation before with other companies. Especially if you're a big client, you'll get access to new releases sooner. If you're a big client of a new technology, you're generally happy with it.
I can see it happening where some satisfied customers would want to come to Sun's defense as they are getting slammed a lot buy the OSS community and news sites. Personally, I find it a shame, out of all the companies out there now, Sun is the one company I see as being the company that grew out of similiar ideals and personalities as the current OS based companies now. They even share some of the same quirks... Just like they compare linux to solaris, the linux community compares linux to any other OS. They have faith and loyalty to their products, just like anyone else would that put that much effort into building something.
Plus, linux vendors shouldn't be pushing linux over proprietary unix. They should be pushing unix over windows, AS/400, OS/390, whatever. As unix as a whole gets more penetration, so does linux, then if linux wants to take over all of unix, it's a bigger area to take over.
Boy I'm going off topic.
Sometimes you have to admit you've done something stupid outright, which they didn't really do initially.
Kind of a historical trend for JBOSS. I find a lot of what they say misleading. The professional, in "professional open source" must mean something about heavy marketting as in talking a lot of crap weather it's true or not.
Just like the number of downloads as if that's a useful way of determining market share.
Also the big hype over Sun not certifying them. I'm sorry, it takes time and money to go through the certification process.... don't cry poor and then get 10million in VC money. Especially don't make up crap about how Sun doesn't want an open source j2ee server when it's really about money. Sun will certify any one that pays for certification and passes.
Speaking of which.... If they passed I'm sure I would hav eheard about it. Any one know if they ever got certified? Maybe all that yamming about being completely J2EE compliant and Sun just trying to hold them back was just that... talk.
It's a shame. Good idea, good way of implementing it with good training seminars (I hear), but there will be other open source options soon that don't try and diverge away from the J2EE spec like JBOSS does. A free, as in beer, J2EE server is already available that has passed certifiaction testing. Sun's own Sun ONE Application Server 8 Platform Edition is free to download, develop, deploy in production and redistribute. It's really stripped down to make it light and you can really only deploy one instance on it per server but for a lot of people that's enough.
Also, the Apache team has a much better history and more momentum as a whole. Geronimo will really be a big problem for JBoss.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/infocardnew.html I think this is what he was talking about.
Yeah... but can you imagine how silly it would be fighting over turkey feces? It'll be mad max beyond thunderdome all over again. And I don't know that Tina Turner still looks good in that outfit.
If someone asshole has a video tshirt that annoys me, I at least have a target for my frustration :)
Maybe we should. IBM makes about $1 billion dollars a year in licensing fees from it's patents. In addition to using it's patents to strong arm smaller companies into cross licensing deals.
Really? There are? Lets see... company A comes out with a product. That's Company A's only product. It's a pretty good product. MS doesn't have a product like Company's A product.
MS sees how much money Company A is making and decides to make a product like Company A's. MS charges significantly less than Company A for it's product because MS doesn't need to make money from it's product. It makes enough from Windows and Office to finance tons of other types of products. MS integrates it's product with it's other proprietary products, making their product more appealing in some regards, even though Company A's product performs it's intended purpose better. Company A starts loosing money. Eventually, Company A can no longer compete in the market, partly due to the fact that integrating with MS technology the way MS does is either technically unfeasable (poorly documented MS api's or large licensing fees.)
MS eventually makes their product better than Company A's product now that Company A doesn't have the money it used to have. MS isn't making a profit yet from their product and is lucky if they even break even.
Only viable choice now is MS's product.
There have been a lot of "Comany A"'s out there.
as for "I dislike M$ as much as many people here but I wouldn't say they stole the money."
The case was about MS overcharging for their product. Now they have to pay some of that back. Sounds like stealing to me.
Users get $10 coupon on newest version of windows.
Newest version of windows price increases due to litigation by $40.
Two years later, court says "no no no", consumrs get $15 coupon towards new windows.
They don't get it. The fine is because they over charged people.. They're not allowed to "make it up". They are supposed to distribute that 50bln their hoarding back to the people the stole it from.
http://www.computerworld.com/hardwaretopics/hardwa re/server/story/0,10801,93035,00.html
The whole concept never really took off but it was pretty neat. This was back when everyone thought thin clients were the way to go. Everyone except the consumers that is.
After all these years I wonder if they got things right.
The big problem though is you can't get away from Microsoft's licensing fees. It doesn't matter how you deploy it, you have to have a paid license for every valid MS Office client.
IBM had said that they were working on this with Microsoft and have gotten some code from them to work on this. Microsoft said in a news article (that I can't find) that it didn't give IBM the resources or permission to port Office to Linux. That doesn't technically mean they can't do what they are trying to do. But the licensing issue is a concern.
With everything going on between Microsoft, IBM and Sun it might be hard to figure out what's going on.
As far as the pricing goes, if people can move away from Windows and Office, Sun's Java Desktop System or other linux based desktop systems that are coming out may be a cheaper alternative since it bundles a lot more, including the OS>
From http://www.post369.columbus.oh.us/ExpNews.d/1997.d /971028.ExpNews.html
You also sait "what goes around comes around". Which makes it sound like Sun deserves this and is a result of the MS case or that the two are even legally or morally the same.I don't see how your follow up comment explains your first comment in the way you think it does.
Can, yes. Will, apparently not. IBM did a lot of this and I never heard of any IBM lawyer going to prison over this.
I thought this was the case. In a statement that Sun had put out a couple years ago (not sure on the time but it was during a previous round of open sourcing java discussions) McNealy said they couldn't open source java and specifically pointed out Kodak as a company that they were licensing technology from. They didn't specify exactly what it was from Kodak. It may not be these patents he was talking about.
If it is these, and Sun wins, could this be the thing that allows Sun to open source Java?
If it is the MS trials you are reffering too, you obviously have your head shoved up way to far up your MCSE ass.
There were some trademark related ones, or threats of, over Java. They were just enforcing the fact that people can't call something Java or 100% Java compatible unless it's been tested as such. This is a good thing for the developer community that needs to rely on the claims of something being 100% pure java.
The only one I found regarding patents was related to Kingston which Sun later dropped. A stupid decision to start the suit in my opinion.
You want to talk about big patent lawsuits you're looking at the wrong tech company identified by three letters. Even MS is taking big blue's cue and building a patent portfolio to start raising revenue.
Read this interesting bit on how IBM tried to bully Sun out of $10 million in it's early days."
I've been using it in netbeans since one of the early 3.6 betas I downloaded. It's in the 3.6 version that was recently released.
While lower voltage, cooler processors are great for laptops, it's the server market that could benefit most from these features. Paying $100 less for a processor is only one thing to consider when you have racks and racks of servers that you have to power and cool.
That's a terrible argument of Mono. Bsically, all the money will go to MS and MS consultants to develop the software and they'll deploy it on cheap unix boxes with the .net platform that they may not even pay for.
They lack the funding required to innovate in most cases. It's far easier to try and recreate and maybe add some enhancements than it is to completely come up with something revolutionary. To do the latter you have to spend a lot of resources on reaserch and development which includes user trials, user feedback and a whole lot of wasted effort on things that don't pan out.
Open source projects don't have a model where they can through that much into them. That is the case for most of the big open source projects anyway. Projects that compete in new areas, where there isn't an established market are a whole different beast.
I'm not trying to say that's bad. It has a lot of benefits. You can increase productivity of the development of a project as well as keep the project managable.
Open source needs companies around that are putting money into R&D so that they can benefit from those efforts. To try and kill off those companies would not be beneficial in my opinion. It's kind of like in races, where you see competitors tightly behind one another trying to draft off the person in front of them. It makes it easier for them to improve their performance while the competitor/teammate in front of them does slightly more work.
Where it not for companies like Sun, who believed in open standards and publishing a lot of their work, would the linux kernel be where it's at today? If you look athe the linux kernel archives you see a lot of references to benchmarking against sun's kernel as well as "how sun does it".
Sun and linux do things in different ways. Sun is engineered for stability. I don't just mean it's more stable than linux. I mean Sun puts a lot of effort into binary compatibility accross versions as well as having a very long support lifetime for their products. Some people need the best, the fastest, the newest. Others need to know that in 7 years from the project's inception, they won't have to be left in the dust because they can't upgrade their OS without rewriting their code, which limits them in being able to upgrade hardware, etc.
Imposing those kinds of restrictions is good for a lot of customers. Not imposing those types of restrictions is good for a lot of others.
If Solaris does get GPL'd it would be a huge thing for the OSS community. I don't think linux should adopt all the things solaris does. Linux should be linux and solaris should be solaris.
This probably won't be seen by many people at this point but what the heck.
By the way if you don't like the original source it's also on Forbes.comHow do you like dem apples?
Granted, he did a little more than strap some 55 gallon drums on the side as pontoons. But time is a luxury when you're fleeing from the clutches of a ruthless dictator.
Actually, that's pretty close to the number of copies of Red Hat Google actually paid for in 200.
From here