But Bob McGrath, a spokesman for BayStar, disputed that claim, telling eWeek on Friday that BayStar had examined its records and could find no side-by-side PIPE or other investments that it had participated in along with Microsoft.
Which was the first thing after the quoted sections in the article.
And just another few sentences down, we see:
"They invest their own capital as well as put deals together that involve other investors but, again, this specific deal did not include Microsoft," he said.
The only thing we have here that even possibly linking MS to this are people saying "no one would invest this much money in SCO. They eat money like a sweet, delicious candy. It must be MS!"
But does it matter? Let's assume MS is pumping more cash into SCO. Yes, more. Remember, they do have those interesting UNIX licenses. So what. What does this change. How does this suddenly lend any credibility to the SCO case? There are roughly 12 people who believe SCO has a case, and they all work in the same building with Darl McBride.
So MS gets to continue another anti-Linux marketing volley that, like the "viral" campaign from long ago, isn't working. Or do we really need to link to how ~80% of CIOs were not even stuttering in their GNU/Linux adoption plans?... I think it was CIOs. Was it CIOs?... Yah, I think it was CIOs.... I know they wore suits and spent cash. Probably CIOs.
But if MS wants to throw good money after bad, I say let them. If nothing else, I'm sure some investors in MS will have some choice words if 50 million just magically shows up missing.
If they succeed in taking control of the intellectual property that Linux represents, it'll be our worst nightmare: the average man will no longer be allowed to see how technology works, and it will cast us into a dark age.
Your right. With MS controlling the Linux IP, the "common man" would lose access to Free/Open/NetBSD, ReactOS, OpenBe, GNU/HURD, FreeDos, and all the other countless free OSes out there that aren't Linux. It's all make sense to me now...
This comment could also have read:
Your right. MS will use this to kill Linux. How? Through changing their name from that of the biggest software house in the world to that of the smallest litigation house. Of course. It was so obvious, how could I have missed it? It's not like they'd just buy SCO or something. I mean, that'd be crazy talk. And that's assuming there is any merit to the lawsuit, and that it can prove anything more than that IBM broke a contract, if that.
By this time 2050, after all the lawsuits would be done, MS could easily own Linux. It all makes sense to me now.....
If you CVSup your ports regularly, I don't even see that being a problem.
They had GNOME and XFCE's new versions within days of release, and there's no reason to believe KDE 3.2 will be any different.
As for the STABLE release having a more up-to-date ports and 5.0, that's expected. 4.8 was released after 5.0. 4.9 is due out any day now, and it'll have a more up-to-date ports collection than 5.1. That is, if you don't CVSup your ports.
The PS/2 has been able to run Linux for awhile now, Sony sells the kit to do it. With your ever-important hard drive, if I remember correctly. And now that MS has patched the dashboard on the Xbox, it can't run Linux anymore without being hardware-modded.
"But it can't run distro X!" Bollox. I've seen write ups on getting custom distros installed using CDRs and memory card files many times. Which seems no more difficult than the Xbox solutions I've seen, only with the added benefit of not voiding your warranty.
Point is, as far as alternatives go, the GNU Hurd is a much more interesting one, and it is already here... efforts spent on pie-in-the-sky efforts should go towards helping GNU Hurd reach its 1.0 release.
Or better yet, they could work on improving Free/Net/OpenBSD or GNU/Linux, all systems which actually support modern hardware and are already rich and robust enviroments. I mean, after all, why reinvent the wheel for pie-in-the-sky systems that after roughly a decade still haven't hit 1.0? Or why not help out the OpenBeOS team with their OS, which is coming along quite well right now, and support a real alternative instead of yet another open *NIX kernel which is only "interesting" because it's from GNU?
There are tons of projects I'm sure you'd much rather everyone abandon to support your toy kernel, but that doesn't make them any less worthy of their time.
A upgrade via ports, portage, apt-get, what-have-you doesn't require any restarts/reboots.
Everything in memory will continue running. You update. Next time you reboot, boom, everything is updated for you.
Even a kernel upgrade doesn't require you to reboot after it's installed. Just because you have a update doesn't mean you have to restart. Sure, it's not as safe as it should be, but it's safer than the example you provided, that of not upgrading ever.
It's nice to have so much processing power but unless there's plenty of software the mac will be limited to running a specific function such as movie editing or photoshop
Which is basically what this would be best at.
I mean, really, do you need a dual G5 to launch Mozilla?
Well... I mean other than the 1.4 branch.;)
If your video editing, you most likely want only three things: power, power, and more coffee. This appears to provide at least two of those.
Now, if your going to complain about the "lack of software" for doing AV work on a mac, I'm honestly going to have to ask what drugs you've done today: that's pretty much been their main market since time began.
Meanwhile, your website is doing amazing things for "the cause of open source" with it's "coming soon" page.
Oh, wait. You mean not everything has to be used to advance the "cause of the open source community" at every given moment in time? People can do things other then strickly code?
You mean people might download this for fun, hear it, and maybe check out OpenBSD?
Who cares about the statistics. I'd much rather know why anyone would choose thing X over "my" thing Y.
If I were a GNU/Linux coder, I'd want to know what thing X looked/was better. And if I could, I'd want to change it. Not because they switched, but because I'd want to make what I could better.
And let me just preface this by saying I'm not a spammer,
Sounds like something a spammer would say.;)
Does "because I have to click "DELETE" a few times" REALLY count as a justifable reason to restrict free speech,
Free speech unfortunately does not mean free access to all media. For example you can not just walk into the local PBS and demand time on the TV.
Free speech means we're free to say whatever I want, but it does not mean we are entitled to have a instant, unwilling audience. Unfortunatly. Because if we were, I can think of a grand number of topics more important for that than "hotgirl222 wants you to see her live nude hot now!"
The other part of this is that this is commercial speech. Commercial entities have always had to accept higher forms of regulation on their speech, again for the societal good. For example, you can't just say "hey, our competitor gives you cancer. Drink Coke." If someone informs me that I can't send a email to everyone I want, there's no way I'd be OK with it. But this is just another law against commercial speech, and in theory it could be good.
but there is nothing efficient about not being able to drag and drop images between applications,
... you haven't used a GTK+2 app lately, have you? Hi, that's part of GTK+2, not the "desktops." Ever app I've tried has the same amount of "drag and drop abilities" in XFCE and GNOME.
about spending hours to get a printer to work,
... So... Wait... a problem with Cups is somehow related to XFCE not being a desktop. Or maybe I missed the large dragdown for printers in GNOME 2.4.
about endless menu editing.
The root menu on the desktop will be accepting KDE and GNOME menu items by default in the next version, and even then, the current menu is only for the desktop. Otherwise you just right-click and add a app to the panel.
If you've done your research, you'll know that Linux kernel is not bulletproof and there has been patches out for the Linux kernel.
Which is all well and good, had you actually read my post.
If your only running a kernel, and nothing else, there is nothing TO exploit. Patches or no.
Of course, the point of my post was to get people to stop this bull of "well, that's not a Linux vunerablity, it's a $PROJECT one," when 9 out of 10 distros come with it, and it's on 9 out of 9 Linux-based servers. Feel free to quote this one line and use it out of context to continue a pro-whatever-you-want bash as a reply.
It would be unfair to call vulnerabilities for Apache/MySQL/Any other open source programs for Windows are Windows vulnerabilities just as it would be unfair to call vulnerabilities for Apache/MySQL/Any other open source programs for "Linux" and call them Linux vulnerabilities. If I write 1,000 shitty programs full of security holes and if they can run on *BSD, does that mean that vunlerabilities for *BSD increased by 1,000?
If they're in the base distrobution for a major BSD, than yes. Was the OpenSSH buffer problem a vun for *BSD? Yes. Was the Sendmail exploit a vun in *BSD? Yes. Were they vuns for any GNU/Linux distro that include them as part of their server install? Yes. Are you going to tell me otherwise?
Oh sure, there are some cases where it can be exploited from "3rd party" programs, but that's because everything in your "Linux" OS is a 3rd party program.
Now, is OpenSSH in most GNU/Linux OSes? Yes. Sendmail? Yes. Apache? Yes.
So basically, your advice is to say "hey, we've got a rock solid system with Linux. Oh sure, it runs nothing but a kernel, but it runs it so well!"
Feh.
For the record, I'm also a BSD user. Just so you know which OS to claim I'm a zealot for.
Re:It could be viewed as stealing.
on
RIAA Bits
·
· Score: 1
The copyright holder is the owner of exclusive rights.
If you take on the execution of one of those rights for yourself and make a copy then you have taken away from the exclusivity that they own.
Which is, (say it with us everyone) copyright infringement.
It was going on a tour of a house, that's arranged by the owner, noticing where it's not roped off, and taking a look.
Later, the owner notices, goes "Jesus Christ, your not supposed to be there," after the fact, and then makes it their point to make your life a living hell.
He's didn't go break into a building and get onto the network. He used a publicly available connection, and looked around. He saw somehwere people wouldn't normally go, and went.
Your use of "breaking into someone's house" analogy is flawed.
Slashdot Mirror
No publisher will ever pay you enough to successfully sue them.
- Dave Sim, ~2000 CE
No programmer will ever code you enough to successfully sue them.
- Sim Dave, ~4000 CE
But Bob McGrath, a spokesman for BayStar, disputed that claim, telling eWeek on Friday that BayStar had examined its records and could find no side-by-side PIPE or other investments that it had participated in along with Microsoft.
... I think it was CIOs. Was it CIOs? ... Yah, I think it was CIOs.... I know they wore suits and spent cash. Probably CIOs.
Which was the first thing after the quoted sections in the article.
And just another few sentences down, we see:
"They invest their own capital as well as put deals together that involve other investors but, again, this specific deal did not include Microsoft," he said.
The only thing we have here that even possibly linking MS to this are people saying "no one would invest this much money in SCO. They eat money like a sweet, delicious candy. It must be MS!"
But does it matter? Let's assume MS is pumping more cash into SCO. Yes, more. Remember, they do have those interesting UNIX licenses. So what. What does this change. How does this suddenly lend any credibility to the SCO case? There are roughly 12 people who believe SCO has a case, and they all work in the same building with Darl McBride.
So MS gets to continue another anti-Linux marketing volley that, like the "viral" campaign from long ago, isn't working. Or do we really need to link to how ~80% of CIOs were not even stuttering in their GNU/Linux adoption plans?
But if MS wants to throw good money after bad, I say let them. If nothing else, I'm sure some investors in MS will have some choice words if 50 million just magically shows up missing.
If they succeed in taking control of the intellectual property that Linux represents, it'll be our worst nightmare: the average man will no longer be allowed to see how technology works, and it will cast us into a dark age.
Your right. With MS controlling the Linux IP, the "common man" would lose access to Free/Open/NetBSD, ReactOS, OpenBe, GNU/HURD, FreeDos, and all the other countless free OSes out there that aren't Linux. It's all make sense to me now...
This comment could also have read:
Your right. MS will use this to kill Linux. How? Through changing their name from that of the biggest software house in the world to that of the smallest litigation house. Of course. It was so obvious, how could I have missed it? It's not like they'd just buy SCO or something. I mean, that'd be crazy talk. And that's assuming there is any merit to the lawsuit, and that it can prove anything more than that IBM broke a contract, if that.
By this time 2050, after all the lawsuits would be done, MS could easily own Linux. It all makes sense to me now.....
If you CVSup your ports regularly, I don't even see that being a problem.
They had GNOME and XFCE's new versions within days of release, and there's no reason to believe KDE 3.2 will be any different.
As for the STABLE release having a more up-to-date ports and 5.0, that's expected. 4.8 was released after 5.0. 4.9 is due out any day now, and it'll have a more up-to-date ports collection than 5.1. That is, if you don't CVSup your ports.
The PS/2 has been able to run Linux for awhile now, Sony sells the kit to do it. With your ever-important hard drive, if I remember correctly. And now that MS has patched the dashboard on the Xbox, it can't run Linux anymore without being hardware-modded.
"But it can't run distro X!" Bollox. I've seen write ups on getting custom distros installed using CDRs and memory card files many times. Which seems no more difficult than the Xbox solutions I've seen, only with the added benefit of not voiding your warranty.
Missed where he mentioned Debian.
Part of the Slashcode instantly +1troll mods any post containing the words "debian," "rms"(in all lower case), "is dying," and ") Profit!"
Where you've seen them modded something else are simple glitches in the modding matrix.
So they can bring pcmcia-cs and linux-wlan-ng in line with the 2.6 series?
I've heard of people getting it to work (I can't, but hey), but damned if it isn't a pain.
Point is, as far as alternatives go, the GNU Hurd is a much more interesting one, and it is already here... efforts spent on pie-in-the-sky efforts should go towards helping GNU Hurd reach its 1.0 release.
Or better yet, they could work on improving Free/Net/OpenBSD or GNU/Linux, all systems which actually support modern hardware and are already rich and robust enviroments. I mean, after all, why reinvent the wheel for pie-in-the-sky systems that after roughly a decade still haven't hit 1.0? Or why not help out the OpenBeOS team with their OS, which is coming along quite well right now, and support a real alternative instead of yet another open *NIX kernel which is only "interesting" because it's from GNU?
There are tons of projects I'm sure you'd much rather everyone abandon to support your toy kernel, but that doesn't make them any less worthy of their time.
A upgrade via ports, portage, apt-get, what-have-you doesn't require any restarts/reboots.
Everything in memory will continue running. You update. Next time you reboot, boom, everything is updated for you.
Even a kernel upgrade doesn't require you to reboot after it's installed. Just because you have a update doesn't mean you have to restart. Sure, it's not as safe as it should be, but it's safer than the example you provided, that of not upgrading ever.
You just paid someone else to register it with them.
Ah, the joys of a monopoly.
It's nice to have so much processing power but unless there's plenty of software the mac will be limited to running a specific function such as movie editing or photoshop
;)
Which is basically what this would be best at.
I mean, really, do you need a dual G5 to launch Mozilla?
Well... I mean other than the 1.4 branch.
If your video editing, you most likely want only three things: power, power, and more coffee. This appears to provide at least two of those.
Now, if your going to complain about the "lack of software" for doing AV work on a mac, I'm honestly going to have to ask what drugs you've done today: that's pretty much been their main market since time began.
Not true.
;)
I'm sure this is a great deal faster than even the highest of the line WebTVs.
Hmm,
Linux or BSD for PPC?
Why, that's crazy enough to work.
Meanwhile, your website is doing amazing things for "the cause of open source" with it's "coming soon" page.
Oh, wait. You mean not everything has to be used to advance the "cause of the open source community" at every given moment in time? People can do things other then strickly code?
You mean people might download this for fun, hear it, and maybe check out OpenBSD?
shocking
Who cares about the statistics. I'd much rather know why anyone would choose thing X over "my" thing Y.
If I were a GNU/Linux coder, I'd want to know what thing X looked/was better. And if I could, I'd want to change it. Not because they switched, but because I'd want to make what I could better.
And let me just preface this by saying I'm not a spammer,
;)
Sounds like something a spammer would say.
Does "because I have to click "DELETE" a few times" REALLY count as a justifable reason to restrict free speech,
Free speech unfortunately does not mean free access to all media. For example you can not just walk into the local PBS and demand time on the TV.
Free speech means we're free to say whatever I want, but it does not mean we are entitled to have a instant, unwilling audience. Unfortunatly. Because if we were, I can think of a grand number of topics more important for that than "hotgirl222 wants you to see her live nude hot now!"
The other part of this is that this is commercial speech. Commercial entities have always had to accept higher forms of regulation on their speech, again for the societal good. For example, you can't just say "hey, our competitor gives you cancer. Drink Coke." If someone informs me that I can't send a email to everyone I want, there's no way I'd be OK with it. But this is just another law against commercial speech, and in theory it could be good.
Call me a troll,
How's the trolling, troll?
but there is nothing efficient about not being able to drag and drop images between applications,
... you haven't used a GTK+2 app lately, have you? Hi, that's part of GTK+2, not the "desktops." Ever app I've tried has the same amount of "drag and drop abilities" in XFCE and GNOME.
about spending hours to get a printer to work,
... So... Wait... a problem with Cups is somehow related to XFCE not being a desktop. Or maybe I missed the large dragdown for printers in GNOME 2.4.
about endless menu editing.
The root menu on the desktop will be accepting KDE and GNOME menu items by default in the next version, and even then, the current menu is only for the desktop. Otherwise you just right-click and add a app to the panel.
What was your point, again?
Wow. A international font does look like a "mangled" English font. And also resemble the text in that language.
Imagine that.
This also just in: GNOME and KDE support internation fonts as well. Damn these broken fonts, damn them all!
But English looks just as good as any GTK+2 based desktop does these days.
Well, it's all about price, really.
You pay 15$ for a CD, while most large corperations pay roughly $2, $3 million per senator. And that's with a bulk discount.
.... until someone comes in with a dremel. ;)
Just great. Now, not only will be have flame wars over Free versus free software, but also RMS versus rms.
Accursed capitalization!
*sigh*
If you've done your research, you'll know that Linux kernel is not bulletproof and there has been patches out for the Linux kernel.
Which is all well and good, had you actually read my post.
If your only running a kernel, and nothing else, there is nothing TO exploit. Patches or no.
Of course, the point of my post was to get people to stop this bull of "well, that's not a Linux vunerablity, it's a $PROJECT one," when 9 out of 10 distros come with it, and it's on 9 out of 9 Linux-based servers. Feel free to quote this one line and use it out of context to continue a pro-whatever-you-want bash as a reply.
It would be unfair to call vulnerabilities for Apache/MySQL/Any other open source programs for Windows are Windows vulnerabilities just as it would be unfair to call vulnerabilities for Apache/MySQL/Any other open source programs for "Linux" and call them Linux vulnerabilities. If I write 1,000 shitty programs full of security holes and if they can run on *BSD, does that mean that vunlerabilities for *BSD increased by 1,000?
If they're in the base distrobution for a major BSD, than yes. Was the OpenSSH buffer problem a vun for *BSD? Yes. Was the Sendmail exploit a vun in *BSD? Yes. Were they vuns for any GNU/Linux distro that include them as part of their server install? Yes. Are you going to tell me otherwise?
OK hot shot, how can Linux have any exploits?
Answer? It can't. It's a kernel.
Oh sure, there are some cases where it can be exploited from "3rd party" programs, but that's because everything in your "Linux" OS is a 3rd party program.
Now, is OpenSSH in most GNU/Linux OSes? Yes.
Sendmail? Yes.
Apache? Yes.
So basically, your advice is to say "hey, we've got a rock solid system with Linux. Oh sure, it runs nothing but a kernel, but it runs it so well!"
Feh.
For the record, I'm also a BSD user. Just so you know which OS to claim I'm a zealot for.
The copyright holder is the owner of exclusive rights.
If you take on the execution of one of those rights for yourself and make a copy then you have taken away from the exclusivity that they own.
Which is, (say it with us everyone) copyright infringement.
Thank you for defining the term.
What he did here wasn't breaking into a house.
It was going on a tour of a house, that's arranged by the owner, noticing where it's not roped off, and taking a look.
Later, the owner notices, goes "Jesus Christ, your not supposed to be there," after the fact, and then makes it their point to make your life a living hell.
He's didn't go break into a building and get onto the network. He used a publicly available connection, and looked around. He saw somehwere people wouldn't normally go, and went.
Your use of "breaking into someone's house" analogy is flawed.