" Do slashdot readers see Sun being relevant 10 years from now? Will they survive by selling 'mostly' software? I know they sell hardware, but they no longer control the full stack like IBM with POWER. Just a question."
Huh? This story is about a new line of servers and youq uestion if sone is selling mostly software!?!?! And you get modded interesting. I think it's pretty interesting that someone thinks it's a valid question.
These boxes are completely designed by Sun. Though the CPU is not manufactured by them they work together closely with AMD on the chip.
There's a good interview with Andy Bechtolsheim that includes some of the details between the AMD/Sun relationship concerning opteron.
"An autobiographical account of my `religious' beliefs and how they got that way. If you start this, please read it through. Stopping partway would probably leave you with some very silly misconceptions."
That was enough to make me stop reading in addition to seeing how long the document was.
No interest in reading the ramblings of a some blowhard who needs some help tightening a few screws. We're living in 2005, if he has some sort of disorder, which is the impression I'm getting, he should seek treatment.
He's slightly dellusional, self absorbed, thinks the world revolves around him, probabl a bit paranoid. He also thinks he's missunderstood but if people took the time to read the screenfulls of info he posted, hell the crap he posts routinely, he might finally be understood for the genious he is in his head. Someone with more knowledge may be able to name this condition but it's not the type of thing I'd want as a leader of anything I was involved with. It's sad but I can't feel sorry for him. He's digging his own hole but he's got an open source branded shovel and he's making sure everyone knows it.
The type of people that this behaviour attracts are probably similar to the types of people that follow some cult leader that think's they're god's earthbound vessel.
Robbins actually got an offer. This is most likely the case of some third party recruiter that works on behalf of microsoft sending out a bunch of letters to people that others told them about. If MS was serious about ESR they would have been more direct. This is like someone reading the Publishers Sweepstakes envelope and thinking they won a million dollars. Using this as an example of how MS is trying to infect open source is a joke. Robbins struggling to make Gentoo profitable and giving up so that he can have a decent salary to reflect his talents is a serious matter. It's not MS trying to infect Open Source, it's how big players in Open Source are having a hard time raising donations to support themselves to devote time to their projects. If Robbins had a dollar for every time someone said "Gentoo Rocks WooT!" on here he wouldn't have to go to MS. RMS may want software to be free but the store wants money when Robbins needs to get food or diapers for his kid and software developers need to have money to exist in society. If Microsoft infected Robbins, they infected him with money. Money he couldn't get by leading/founding what people consider to be a successful open source project. Do a search for the donations that the Gentoo Foundation received around the time of his move and interviews about how he had to get his mom to help pay for stuff.
AC: "So you didn't care to read the article? ESR _called_ the guy and talked with him over the phone! This guy was serious about offering him a job!"
ESR: "I called Mike Walters, who told me my name had been passed to him by his research team. I indicated to him that I thought somebody was probably having a little joke at his expense, and promised him an email reply. "
The guy was serious about sending him an invitation for an interview. The guy didn't give any indication that he even know who Raymond was. I have no idea what you are reading.
"Since when is a request for an interview a "job offer"?"
Since the person responding to it seems to think he's a lot more important than he is. I'm sorry but this is just plain sad. Maybe it's a bit humorous that ESR got a standard HR templated letter before the HR person did the research to see who this person is but ESR's response is actually quite sad. Starts off the same way as most ESR stories start off. ESR misinterprets what's going on but uses that to make a stand and pump himself up. Microsoft's worse nightmare? Please. If I had to pick Microsoft's worse nightmare it would be someone like Oracle, Sun, IBM, RedHat or some company like that. They have caused a lot more damage to MS's bottom line and trouble for them. Linus definately has made a few MS exec's wake up screaming "Mommy" more than ESR. Worst? Not by a long-shot.
Open Source isn't a company but it seems people like ESR have decided they've been promoted to upper management and spend more of their time being advocates than developers. While I don't always agree with what Linus says, he's at least a respectable leader in that he is still active in Open Source development. People like ESR have developed into loudmouths who have tried to capitalize on some of their open source achievements but gave up on working on open source software. This is probably the biggest threat to open source in my opinion.
I'm sorry to Eric and his fan base but getting a form letter from some HR person, posting it along with an over the top reply on your blog and having your fans talk it up and post it on slashdot doesn't keep you relevant. Do Something.
If MS was really trying to recruit ESR for the important person he is, they would have contacted him more directly and with a more personalized letter. Either this is someone making a mistake, or MS did want to hire him, they just don't think he's all that important to waste 5 minutes writing a letter.
"So it appears that what the article quotes as fact is something in RMS's head that may or may not end up on paper and then may or may not become a new license. Sensationalism at it's best."
It shows what RMS is thinking and this isn't out of line with what his vision has been in the past. Just like how the FSF considers the LGPL to be an intermediate license to get people to start using free software and then hopefully get rid of the LGPL.
Many people like the GPL but how many software developers would like to go where RMS wants software to go? RMS is in a different boat. We can't expect all software developers to be teachers and get free/cheap rent by living on campus and make money on grants for developing a free software movement.
Some software developers want to afford to live a nice life like other people do. Some have to work for companies developing software that may have patents associated with it and also work on free software in their spare time.
Many projects are funded by large companies that have patented software projects. How will they react to GPL v3?
Though RMS and the FSF may take community input and make revisions to the license, is that good enough? What is really hapenning? Is RMS changing his view or is he just creating more intermediary steps to reach his goal. It's important to understand what RMS and the FSF are trying to achieve. Just because we like where they are now doesn't mean we should close our eyes and follow them blindly without really understanding where they want to be and if that fits in with what is attainable and what we personally want to attain. How many software developers out there really would want to be where RMS want's software development to be? This whole inching forward with the FSF seems like it could be a slippery slope and while working for more "freedom" we wind up losing it or something else.
Can free software, and software developers, survive and prosper in a world where software is free when not much else is?
Re:MOD REVIEW DOWN! TROLL!
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 1
I don't know why but I caught a few minutes of Gene Simon's Rock School the other day. At one point he said (paraphrasing because I don't remember the exact quote) "People come up to me and tell me I'm wrong because I have too much money and too many women. It feels good that so many people are envious of me for having what they want". Or something like that.
There are a lot of things in society that we think we shouldn't do but if someone does them we get angry at them for doing it while we don't. Like when you're in traffic and some guy on a bike passes right by you between the lanes or someone decides to drive on the shoulder. I call it the what-makes-him-so-special syndrome.
Re:I concur. Troll, indeed.
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 1
"I wonder if I could write a similar book about people who overdose on Evangelical Christianity and require ever-stronger doses of legislative activism and repression of women to get their rocks off."
the "any later version" statement in the license is optional. You have to specify that you're licensing it under GPL v2.0 or any later version. If you don't it's only under v2.0.
"Why, oh, why would MySql risk their reputation knowing how SCO looks to the entire open source community?"
Maybe it's the open source community that needs to really look at some of the things that MySQL ab has done in the past and really think if that reputation is warranted, especially after this.
It's one thing to like and use the product it's another to like and trust the company that is backing it. All too often people have one opinion and assume the other. This also work dislike and distrust.
I just think it's about time those poor lawyers can stop going after bad drivers that caused injury to their clients and go for a nice big fat class action suit against the manufacturers.
"This is a doubledge sword. The more Sun sells x86 solaris, the less they are selling sparc solaris. Which would ultimately effect their hardware baseline. They can't win."
Except that Sun has put more of an effort into selling x86 hardware. They're current opteron hardware sales have been growing fast. Their next line of galaxy opteron servers seem to be pretty good as well.
Talk is they are looking to give away all/most of their software and make money on support/consulting.
According to McNealy, Sun mostly paid for x86 unix drivers. You want to talk about an SCO connection how about how HP was the major contributor to SCO's bus tour.
thanks for clearing things up. I assumed at least an element of the case would be copyright.
"I am curious whether or not SCO can/will use this as a reason to delay the IBM suit."
I think the copyright issue may only have relavance in the IBM case in regards to SCO trying to revoke their license. I think SCO might have had a case against IBM if they stuck with project monterey. Not that they would win but that they would have some legitimate reasons for pursuing a case and I wouldn't put it past IBM to screw them over like that. Wouldn't have been so bad for them if they weren't grandstanding about everything. Instead they just went nuts.
"Which is precisely why the case should have been dismissed."
That doesn't make a lick of sense. You agree that there are some gray areas. That's what the court case is for, to clear those up. What you originally wrote was
"It's irrelevant as to whether Novell owns the copyright - they believe they do (and proved that they have a good reason to belive so), and that's all that matters for the case at hand."
It doesn't matter one bit if Novell believes they own the copyright or if they believe they have good reason to. What they believe doesn't matter. SCO believes they have certain rights too and they believe they have good reason to believe that. There's that bit in the contract.
When two parties have a contract and they are in dispute you need to have a third party intervene. In this case the court. Now, the problem is that in the US courts, if there's a contract dispute and there is something unclear in a contract, the court favors the party that didn't write the contract, in this case maybe SCO? I don't know.. I'm not a lawyer. I wasn't involved in the contract.
Just because Novell is the good guy and SCO is the bad guy doesn't mean the case should be dismissed no matter what Novell believes.
I don't know what RMS' deal is. Maybe it has to do with Gosling but he seems very anti anything Sun.
Just look at what the FSF has to say about the CDDL (emphasis added):
This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL. That is, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the CDDL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the CDDL for this reason.
Also unfortunate in the CDDL is its use of the term "intellectual property".
Now lets look at what the FSF says about the MPL (em added):
This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; unlike the X11 license, it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL. That is, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the MPL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the MPL for this reason.
However, MPL 1.1 has a provision (section 13) that allows a program (or parts of it) to offer a choice of another license as well. If part of a program allows the GNU GPL as an alternate choice, or any other GPL-compatible license as an alternate choice, that part of the program has a GPL-compatible license.
Yet the fsf doesn't urge you not to use it.
How about the Eclipse Public License?
The Eclipse Public License is similar to the Common Public License, and our comments on the CPL apply equally to the EPL. The only change is that the EPL removes the broader patent retaliation language regarding patent infringement suits specifically against Contributors to the EPL'd program.
Ok not much info except that they removed something about patents. That part about patents must have been bad and IBM removed it to protected everyone. So lets look at the CPL:
This is a free software license but it is incompatible with the GPL.
The Common Public License is incompatible with the GPL because it has various specific requirements that are not in the GPL.
For example, it requires certain patent licenses be given that the GPL does not require. (We don't think those patent license requirements are inherently a bad idea, but nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL.)
Again not GPL compatible but this license doesn't get all crazy about saying you shouldn't use it. Also the patent thing IBM removed sounds like it was a good thing.
Let's see do any other licenses say do not use? Hmm... yeah. The LATEX license. "Please do not use this license for any other project". "The LPPL makes the controversial claim that simply having files on a machine where a few other people could log in and access them in itself constitutes distribution." Gee that does sounds really bad.
Hmm anything else? Oh yeah here are a few more... HOLY CRAP... The FSF says you should not use the PHP License or the Zend License!?!?!??!?! CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP... You mean all these PHP fanbois that talk shit about Java not being open sourced are using a non GPL compatible license that the FSF says you should not use for anything put php libraries!?!?!?!? HAHAHAHAAHAHAHA
Oh slashdot cracks me up... too bad other people have to listen to all this nonesense and might believe it.
RMS writes about the Java Trap... but there is no PHP trap!?!?!? More double standards?
Slashdot Mirror
apparently the freedom to earn a living writing software, isn't an FSF endorsed freedom.
er... Hippocratic
That's not in the hypocratic oath or any other oath doctors take. Reference
How often would you like your bank to switch the OS on the systems that manage your account transactions?
Huh? There's the Java Enterprise System software stack. Many of the components, including the app server has been around for a while.
Huh? This story is about a new line of servers and youq uestion if sone is selling mostly software!?!?! And you get modded interesting. I think it's pretty interesting that someone thinks it's a valid question.
These boxes are completely designed by Sun. Though the CPU is not manufactured by them they work together closely with AMD on the chip.
There's a good interview with Andy Bechtolsheim that includes some of the details between the AMD/Sun relationship concerning opteron.
"An autobiographical account of my `religious' beliefs and how they got that way. If you start this, please read it through. Stopping partway would probably leave you with some very silly misconceptions." That was enough to make me stop reading in addition to seeing how long the document was.
No interest in reading the ramblings of a some blowhard who needs some help tightening a few screws. We're living in 2005, if he has some sort of disorder, which is the impression I'm getting, he should seek treatment.
He's slightly dellusional, self absorbed, thinks the world revolves around him, probabl a bit paranoid. He also thinks he's missunderstood but if people took the time to read the screenfulls of info he posted, hell the crap he posts routinely, he might finally be understood for the genious he is in his head. Someone with more knowledge may be able to name this condition but it's not the type of thing I'd want as a leader of anything I was involved with. It's sad but I can't feel sorry for him. He's digging his own hole but he's got an open source branded shovel and he's making sure everyone knows it.
The type of people that this behaviour attracts are probably similar to the types of people that follow some cult leader that think's they're god's earthbound vessel.
Robbins actually got an offer. This is most likely the case of some third party recruiter that works on behalf of microsoft sending out a bunch of letters to people that others told them about. If MS was serious about ESR they would have been more direct. This is like someone reading the Publishers Sweepstakes envelope and thinking they won a million dollars. Using this as an example of how MS is trying to infect open source is a joke. Robbins struggling to make Gentoo profitable and giving up so that he can have a decent salary to reflect his talents is a serious matter. It's not MS trying to infect Open Source, it's how big players in Open Source are having a hard time raising donations to support themselves to devote time to their projects. If Robbins had a dollar for every time someone said "Gentoo Rocks WooT!" on here he wouldn't have to go to MS. RMS may want software to be free but the store wants money when Robbins needs to get food or diapers for his kid and software developers need to have money to exist in society. If Microsoft infected Robbins, they infected him with money. Money he couldn't get by leading/founding what people consider to be a successful open source project. Do a search for the donations that the Gentoo Foundation received around the time of his move and interviews about how he had to get his mom to help pay for stuff.
ESR: "I called Mike Walters, who told me my name had been passed to him by his research team. I indicated to him that I thought somebody was probably having a little joke at his expense, and promised him an email reply. "
The guy was serious about sending him an invitation for an interview. The guy didn't give any indication that he even know who Raymond was. I have no idea what you are reading.
Since the person responding to it seems to think he's a lot more important than he is. I'm sorry but this is just plain sad. Maybe it's a bit humorous that ESR got a standard HR templated letter before the HR person did the research to see who this person is but ESR's response is actually quite sad. Starts off the same way as most ESR stories start off. ESR misinterprets what's going on but uses that to make a stand and pump himself up. Microsoft's worse nightmare? Please. If I had to pick Microsoft's worse nightmare it would be someone like Oracle, Sun, IBM, RedHat or some company like that. They have caused a lot more damage to MS's bottom line and trouble for them. Linus definately has made a few MS exec's wake up screaming "Mommy" more than ESR. Worst? Not by a long-shot.
Open Source isn't a company but it seems people like ESR have decided they've been promoted to upper management and spend more of their time being advocates than developers. While I don't always agree with what Linus says, he's at least a respectable leader in that he is still active in Open Source development. People like ESR have developed into loudmouths who have tried to capitalize on some of their open source achievements but gave up on working on open source software. This is probably the biggest threat to open source in my opinion.
I'm sorry to Eric and his fan base but getting a form letter from some HR person, posting it along with an over the top reply on your blog and having your fans talk it up and post it on slashdot doesn't keep you relevant. Do Something.
If MS was really trying to recruit ESR for the important person he is, they would have contacted him more directly and with a more personalized letter. Either this is someone making a mistake, or MS did want to hire him, they just don't think he's all that important to waste 5 minutes writing a letter.
It shows what RMS is thinking and this isn't out of line with what his vision has been in the past. Just like how the FSF considers the LGPL to be an intermediate license to get people to start using free software and then hopefully get rid of the LGPL.
Many people like the GPL but how many software developers would like to go where RMS wants software to go? RMS is in a different boat. We can't expect all software developers to be teachers and get free/cheap rent by living on campus and make money on grants for developing a free software movement.
Some software developers want to afford to live a nice life like other people do. Some have to work for companies developing software that may have patents associated with it and also work on free software in their spare time.
Many projects are funded by large companies that have patented software projects. How will they react to GPL v3?
Though RMS and the FSF may take community input and make revisions to the license, is that good enough? What is really hapenning? Is RMS changing his view or is he just creating more intermediary steps to reach his goal. It's important to understand what RMS and the FSF are trying to achieve. Just because we like where they are now doesn't mean we should close our eyes and follow them blindly without really understanding where they want to be and if that fits in with what is attainable and what we personally want to attain. How many software developers out there really would want to be where RMS want's software development to be? This whole inching forward with the FSF seems like it could be a slippery slope and while working for more "freedom" we wind up losing it or something else.
Can free software, and software developers, survive and prosper in a world where software is free when not much else is?
There are a lot of things in society that we think we shouldn't do but if someone does them we get angry at them for doing it while we don't. Like when you're in traffic and some guy on a bike passes right by you between the lanes or someone decides to drive on the shoulder. I call it the what-makes-him-so-special syndrome.
I hope you do.
the "any later version" statement in the license is optional. You have to specify that you're licensing it under GPL v2.0 or any later version. If you don't it's only under v2.0.
Stop being such an elitist prick... the slashdot, hell the internet in general, should not discriminate against schizophrenics. :)
Maybe it's the open source community that needs to really look at some of the things that MySQL ab has done in the past and really think if that reputation is warranted, especially after this.
It's one thing to like and use the product it's another to like and trust the company that is backing it. All too often people have one opinion and assume the other. This also work dislike and distrust.
I just think it's about time those poor lawyers can stop going after bad drivers that caused injury to their clients and go for a nice big fat class action suit against the manufacturers.
I remember being able to order a compaq proliant server with solaris x86 preloaded.
Except that Sun has put more of an effort into selling x86 hardware. They're current opteron hardware sales have been growing fast. Their next line of galaxy opteron servers seem to be pretty good as well.
Talk is they are looking to give away all/most of their software and make money on support/consulting.
According to McNealy, Sun mostly paid for x86 unix drivers. You want to talk about an SCO connection how about how HP was the major contributor to SCO's bus tour.
Anyone else start humming the theme song for the Benny Hill show while watching this?
"I am curious whether or not SCO can/will use this as a reason to delay the IBM suit."
I think the copyright issue may only have relavance in the IBM case in regards to SCO trying to revoke their license. I think SCO might have had a case against IBM if they stuck with project monterey. Not that they would win but that they would have some legitimate reasons for pursuing a case and I wouldn't put it past IBM to screw them over like that. Wouldn't have been so bad for them if they weren't grandstanding about everything. Instead they just went nuts.
doh! shame on the fsf for hiding it like that right in front of my face.
That doesn't make a lick of sense. You agree that there are some gray areas. That's what the court case is for, to clear those up. What you originally wrote was
"It's irrelevant as to whether Novell owns the copyright - they believe they do (and proved that they have a good reason to belive so), and that's all that matters for the case at hand."
It doesn't matter one bit if Novell believes they own the copyright or if they believe they have good reason to. What they believe doesn't matter. SCO believes they have certain rights too and they believe they have good reason to believe that. There's that bit in the contract.
When two parties have a contract and they are in dispute you need to have a third party intervene. In this case the court. Now, the problem is that in the US courts, if there's a contract dispute and there is something unclear in a contract, the court favors the party that didn't write the contract, in this case maybe SCO? I don't know.. I'm not a lawyer. I wasn't involved in the contract.
Just because Novell is the good guy and SCO is the bad guy doesn't mean the case should be dismissed no matter what Novell believes.
Just look at what the FSF has to say about the CDDL (emphasis added):
Now lets look at what the FSF says about the MPL (em added): Yet the fsf doesn't urge you not to use it.How about the Eclipse Public License?
Ok not much info except that they removed something about patents. That part about patents must have been bad and IBM removed it to protected everyone. So lets look at the CPL: Again not GPL compatible but this license doesn't get all crazy about saying you shouldn't use it. Also the patent thing IBM removed sounds like it was a good thing.Let's see do any other licenses say do not use? Hmm... yeah. The LATEX license. "Please do not use this license for any other project". "The LPPL makes the controversial claim that simply having files on a machine where a few other people could log in and access them in itself constitutes distribution." Gee that does sounds really bad.
Hmm anything else? Oh yeah here are a few more... HOLY CRAP... The FSF says you should not use the PHP License or the Zend License!?!?!??!?! CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP... You mean all these PHP fanbois that talk shit about Java not being open sourced are using a non GPL compatible license that the FSF says you should not use for anything put php libraries!?!?!?!? HAHAHAHAAHAHAHA
Oh slashdot cracks me up... too bad other people have to listen to all this nonesense and might believe it.
RMS writes about the Java Trap... but there is no PHP trap!?!?!? More double standards?