switched my service from AT&T to T-Mobile.... the other still hasn't transferred
Last year, I tried to switch my land line number away from AT&T to another land-line carrier. The new carrier could not get the number because AT&T would not release it. Eventually, we ran out of time and stuck with AT&T.
The GPL doesn't state that distributors have to supply source with all products, only that it is supplied on request.
To comply fully with the GPL you have to offer the source code. The GPL is quite explicit about this: when you distribute a binary, you have to tell people how they can get the source code and the offer has to accompany the binary distribution.
Evidently you did not read the original post, or you chose to mis-represent my posting.
The original post stated that 99% of windows crashes were due to third party code.
Also you are mis-representing the report, since it does not (according to ZDNET report) put any blame on third party code or bad OS hooks for the remaining 50% of the crashes. I am quite sure that all the crashes caused by faulty drivers and bad OS hooks written by third parties were added them to the total of third-party initiated crashes.
Finally, I'm not being biased, I'm just pointing to Microsoft's own figures. I made no mention of comparison with other OS-es. Nor did I make any comment about how good or bad the figure was. It's you who brought up the issue of other OS-es. It's you who used the adjectives, I just quoted the numbers.
It's probably not too far off to say 99.9% of Windows crashing problems are due to operator error from installing bad drivers (from other manufacterers), installing bad hardware, installing crappy software.
Evidently you did not read the report that stated that only 50% of Windows crashes were due to such problems. By implication, the other 50% are due to Windows itself.
Re:Linux written to compete with SCO?
on
SCO News Roundup
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I think Darl is going to have to prove that if he wants to enforce that no-compete clause in the contract.
The no-compete is there. Go over to Groklaw.net and you can read it.
The question in my mind is: did the old SCO (now Tarantella) ahve the right to sell the no-compete to Caldera? In other words, is the no-compete still a restriction on Novell competing with Tarantella's products?
I did not see anything in the agreement that allowed old-SCO to sell or transfer the no-compete to anyone else.
Wasn't the original justificiation for DMCA the ease with which digital copies could be transferred without loss of quality?
Yet, another part for this bill appears to be to stop people recording movies using camcorders -- clearly the original quality of such a copy is going to be low.
What this is really about is that the primary sources of illicit pre-release versions of movies are within the movie industry itself. What this act will allow is prosecution of those who receive copies while not prosecuting the original copyright violator who is most likely a movie industry insider.
This all seems wonderful, but the tapes almost always contain macrovision.
I have a little box at home, which I use to connect my DVD player to my VCR. The box strips out macrovision from a video signal.
I connect the DVD player to the VCR because the DVD player only has AV outputs and the TV only has RF-in. So I need a modulator and the VCR handily provides this (as well as providing switching between various signal sources). I have not used the box to tape a copy of a DVD, although the box does make this possible.
These little boxes are commercially available -- do some searching on the web and you will find them.
I'm just pointing out that there are quite a few false positives when large IP ranges are blocked.
If it is SPEWS that blocked you then you have mis-interpreted SPEWS' mission. SPEWS aims to list areas of the Internet from which SPAM is likely to come. Blocking is intended to get the non-SPAM customers to pressure the ISP's by either moving to another ISP or complaining.
Essentially, SPEWS tries to take away the economic benefit of hosting spammers from the ISP.
First of all, the idea of Verio blocking spammers is laughable. They have always been a haven for spammers and everyone here probably already knows that.
I don't think they were always a spam haven. In fact, I have an old email from Steve Linford in which he stated that Verio were a responsible ISP when it came to SPAM.
I strongly suspect that Steve regrets saying that, since the spamhaus I complained about is still spamming and still hosted by Verio!
It's interesting--most people don't realize that lightning rods are put in place in order to decrease the chance of lightning hitting there
Many years ago, a friend who studied high-voltage systems pointed out to me that the bends in lighning conductors (as the conductor is connected to ground) are far too small to allow the type of transient currents present in lightning to pass.
To put it another way, the inductance in the lightning conductor is very large when compared to the current/time transients.
If the interpretation of "derivative works" for Hollywood was defined in the same way that SCO wants Linux classified as derivative of Unix, then Hollywood stands to make a mint for doing absolutely nothing.
Actually, I think the reverse: how many book authors would be scanning movies for elements of their book? Each studio would be suing other studios -- there have to some elements of just about every movie that have appeared previously.
No, it would be a disaster for Hollywood and they know it!
SCO responsible for California Wildfires
October 31, 2003
By: Staff Reporter
The cause of wildfires engulfing much of southern California has recently been been identified as ageing SCO UnixWare computers used, ironically, by the California Department of Fire.
A spokesman stated: "It seems the servers that were handling the logistics of a small fire simply could not cope and overheated as a result."
OK, the above is a parody, inspired by reading a report about CDF's use of SCO (search for "fire SCO" in news.google.com and you will see).
I'm setting up my own Email server (yes, paid the extra bucks to get a business broadband account),
I was running my email aserver at home on my home cable connection (yes, I know, against the TOS/AUP), but recently I decided to move it to a virtual Linux server. I still have full control (I have "root" access to the virtual server). Within the bandwidth and disk limits, I can install anything I want on the virtual server, yet it is a cheaper solution than upgrading to a "business" broadband connection.
The virtual server hosting company even provides reverse DNS that resolves to my server's hostname (and not some generic ISP sub-domain name), so my email should make it through even the toughest email filters.
It's a PR move:
1. No (or almost no) small business were going to buy a license anyway.
2. Some small businesses will think that they can hedge their bets by writing in. They don't commit themselves, they don't have to pay anything now, but they do "lock in" the lower rate if they ever have to buy. They may think of it as free insurance.
3. SCO will trumpet the large number of small businesses that have written in.
There must be many small businesses with both SCO and Linux installations, perhaps those SCO resellers will advise their clients to write in "just in case"
Slashdot Mirror
It's the RedHat trademarks that are used to control re-distribution.
If you want to get the source, strip out the RH trademarks, compile/build everything, etc., you are free to so do.
"Last Year" Number portibility was not promised until just last week.
Here in CA, we have had number portability between land-line phones for some time (in theory!)
switched my service from AT&T to T-Mobile .... the other still hasn't transferred
Last year, I tried to switch my land line number away from AT&T to another land-line carrier. The new carrier could not get the number because AT&T would not release it. Eventually, we ran out of time and stuck with AT&T.
Moral of the story, don't expect too much!
What about 2.2.x series kernels, is there a similar patch?
The GPL doesn't state that distributors have to supply source with all products, only that it is supplied on request.
To comply fully with the GPL you have to offer the source code. The GPL is quite explicit about this: when you distribute a binary, you have to tell people how they can get the source code and the offer has to accompany the binary distribution.
Evidently you did not read the original post, or you chose to mis-represent my posting.
The original post stated that 99% of windows crashes were due to third party code.
Also you are mis-representing the report, since it does not (according to ZDNET report) put any blame on third party code or bad OS hooks for the remaining 50% of the crashes. I am quite sure that all the crashes caused by faulty drivers and bad OS hooks written by third parties were added them to the total of third-party initiated crashes.
Finally, I'm not being biased, I'm just pointing to Microsoft's own figures. I made no mention of comparison with other OS-es. Nor did I make any comment about how good or bad the figure was. It's you who brought up the issue of other OS-es. It's you who used the adjectives, I just quoted the numbers.
It's probably not too far off to say 99.9% of Windows crashing problems are due to operator error from installing bad drivers (from other manufacterers), installing bad hardware, installing crappy software.
Evidently you did not read the report that stated that only 50% of Windows crashes were due to such problems. By implication, the other 50% are due to Windows itself.
can be found in Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.'s blog.
I think Darl is going to have to prove that if he wants to enforce that no-compete clause in the contract.
The no-compete is there. Go over to Groklaw.net and you can read it.
The question in my mind is: did the old SCO (now Tarantella) ahve the right to sell the no-compete to Caldera? In other words, is the no-compete still a restriction on Novell competing with Tarantella's products?
I did not see anything in the agreement that allowed old-SCO to sell or transfer the no-compete to anyone else.
Wasn't the original justificiation for DMCA the ease with which digital copies could be transferred without loss of quality?
Yet, another part for this bill appears to be to stop people recording movies using camcorders -- clearly the original quality of such a copy is going to be low.
What this is really about is that the primary sources of illicit pre-release versions of movies are within the movie industry itself. What this act will allow is prosecution of those who receive copies while not prosecuting the original copyright violator who is most likely a movie industry insider.
Alan Cox is in exile in far-off England,
I doubt Alan would thank you for this comment. Alan is in Wales. Saying he is in England is a little like calling a Texan a "Yankee".
Ahem, she did.
Ahem, Not according to Salon
Or, if you don't want to access the "premium" content, search for DiDio in this page
Even better, the confidentiality agreement between the people who've seen the code and SCO can be breeched in court.
Do some searching. I'm pretty sure DiDio did not actually sign an NDA.
This all seems wonderful, but the tapes almost always contain macrovision.
I have a little box at home, which I use to connect my DVD player to my VCR. The box strips out macrovision from a video signal.
I connect the DVD player to the VCR because the DVD player only has AV outputs and the TV only has RF-in. So I need a modulator and the VCR handily provides this (as well as providing switching between various signal sources). I have not used the box to tape a copy of a DVD, although the box does make this possible.
These little boxes are commercially available -- do some searching on the web and you will find them.
I'm just pointing out that there are quite a few false positives when large IP ranges are blocked.
If it is SPEWS that blocked you then you have mis-interpreted SPEWS' mission. SPEWS aims to list areas of the Internet from which SPAM is likely to come. Blocking is intended to get the non-SPAM customers to pressure the ISP's by either moving to another ISP or complaining.
Essentially, SPEWS tries to take away the economic benefit of hosting spammers from the ISP.
First of all, the idea of Verio blocking spammers is laughable. They have always been a haven for spammers and everyone here probably already knows that.
I don't think they were always a spam haven. In fact, I have an old email from Steve Linford in which he stated that Verio were a responsible ISP when it came to SPAM.
I strongly suspect that Steve regrets saying that, since the spamhaus I complained about is still spamming and still hosted by Verio!
It's interesting--most people don't realize that lightning rods are put in place in order to decrease the chance of lightning hitting there
Many years ago, a friend who studied high-voltage systems pointed out to me that the bends in lighning conductors (as the conductor is connected to ground) are far too small to allow the type of transient currents present in lightning to pass.
To put it another way, the inductance in the lightning conductor is very large when compared to the current/time transients.
If the interpretation of "derivative works" for Hollywood was defined in the same way that SCO wants Linux classified as derivative of Unix, then Hollywood stands to make a mint for doing absolutely nothing.
Actually, I think the reverse: how many book authors would be scanning movies for elements of their book? Each studio would be suing other studios -- there have to some elements of just about every movie that have appeared previously.
No, it would be a disaster for Hollywood and they know it!
Or they could pay for it outright for 50 years or so ... that'd cost maybe $ 1-2 K per domain name.
Actually *.co.uk domain names can be registered for a mere UK Pounds 2.59 per year. Max 10 years. What's that: less than $40 for 10 years?
Windows just trashed 2 partitions on one of my computers. Who needs to delete anything when you have Windows to do it for you?
SCO responsible for California Wildfires
October 31, 2003
By: Staff Reporter
The cause of wildfires engulfing much of southern California has recently been been identified as ageing SCO UnixWare computers used, ironically, by the California Department of Fire.
A spokesman stated: "It seems the servers that were handling the logistics of a small fire simply could not cope and overheated as a result."
OK, the above is a parody, inspired by reading a report about CDF's use of SCO (search for "fire SCO" in news.google.com and you will see).
Now RedHat can add more claims to their suit against SCO.
My daily driver was built in 1957. Not even a single transistor in the whole car and only perhaps one diode (in the fuel pump)
I'm setting up my own Email server (yes, paid the extra bucks to get a business broadband account),
I was running my email aserver at home on my home cable connection (yes, I know, against the TOS/AUP), but recently I decided to move it to a virtual Linux server. I still have full control (I have "root" access to the virtual server). Within the bandwidth and disk limits, I can install anything I want on the virtual server, yet it is a cheaper solution than upgrading to a "business" broadband connection.
The virtual server hosting company even provides reverse DNS that resolves to my server's hostname (and not some generic ISP sub-domain name), so my email should make it through even the toughest email filters.
It's a PR move:
1. No (or almost no) small business were going to buy a license anyway.
2. Some small businesses will think that they can hedge their bets by writing in. They don't commit themselves, they don't have to pay anything now, but they do "lock in" the lower rate if they ever have to buy. They may think of it as free insurance.
3. SCO will trumpet the large number of small businesses that have written in.
There must be many small businesses with both SCO and Linux installations, perhaps those SCO resellers will advise their clients to write in "just in case"