The problem is that every time you make it easier for the desktop user, you also make it harder for the people in other categories. Our needs are not the same, therefore, the remedy can never be the same.
The question is not whether we should accomodate new users, the question is what costs and inconvenienses are we willing to endure in order to accomodate the newbies. And I don't particularly care if new uers move to Linux, I would rather not accomodate them at all. It is a non-issue for me.
Are you then saying that there is also a possibility that SCO management is dumping perhaps in order to diversify or maybe because they need the money to pay for a house?
Incredible, hard to believe. ( By posting so many silly things at once, no wander the moderatiors graded your article intresting and informative. )
But why is this different to cut & paste and code extentions by hand, compared to doing it automatially via a program ?
The important issue here is if the 'black box' or the act of modifing, is itself derived work. If the program itself is derived work then you cannot distribute it as proprietory. Note, we are not talking about the output of the 'black box' (which is obviously derived work), I am only questioning whether the 'black box' program is derived work. Hard to tell.
I don't think Linux has any aces, but the GPL nature of linux allows it to become collective property for giants like Oracle, IBM, etc. Linux is fine for now, until the giants defeat the common enemy and start arguing among themselves. I should not become a surprise if sometime in the (distant) future IBM attacks Linux in order to harm Oracle.
In the mean time, although Linux seems it is not protected, perhaps IBM and friends should have already thought what to do when Linux is attacked through patents. One supposes they at least have some type of plans for this before they invested Billions of dollars. Now that the lawsuits have started, we should someday be able to tell how they plan to fight back.
SCO does not corcern itself with credibility, the only thing the care is to follow intructions from those who give it money: Microsoft. Anything else of little of no importance, including how the look to the public.
The number 1 objective is not to collect money from IT managers or IBM (they already know their limits). Their #1 goal should be determined by their actions which has little to do with the lawsuit and more to do with a FUD campain agains Linux and the GPL. After all, why should Microsoft should fight IBM in public when their case is not yet over in Europe. It is far better to hire SCO for the job. And that is what they did. Anybody who thinks is is fighting IBM alone in court with such silly arguments is still dreaming.
Given that SCO is *offering* to companies stock options and other inducements (like they did to Sun Microsystems), I will also be happy to "purchace" a SCO license when the net result of the deal is detrimental to SCO . Why not?
Joke of the day: In it's press release SCO said that IBM had a failed business linux model. SCO is out of its senses; beyond help.
How refreshing, finally! I see lots of efforts towards uniformity and standards. Not that I care, but today is perhaps the first day on slashdot without the "let the markets decide". Relief, finally. (Although I would not be so surprised if I read about market forces a few pages later.)
It is irrelevant if the kernel is downloadable from somewhere else on the net. The distributor of a GPL product is still required to inform you that of your rights, and how to get the source.
As for cc switches, that is is an interesting observation -- good point.
So far, SCO has is circulating (incoherent) nonsense (a) like we GPL'd it but not distributed, (b) we provided evidence to impartial reviewers who cannot say anything disparaging under NDA, (c) we own the IP but we asked Novel if the want to sell it , and (d) you have to pay for Unixware license so we don't sue you for using Linux(?) . I am sure there said much more, but I will let others to entertain us further.
If you are willing to hear anything coherent from SCO , I suspect it will probably take a long time.
I know you were going to answer, just another opportunity to repeat yourself several more times.
So you call the NDA show "evidence"? These peope where English majors (aka, Senior Techincal Analysts), hand-picked by SCO, and muzzled under the NDA and the journalist and their employer can by sued at will (at SCO's dicretion) if the report disparaging or unhelpfull comments for violating the terms of NDA.
I still see no evidence at their website or at any other place. If you insist of calling such phantoms as "solid evidence", then there is no reason to continue talking.
if the show us. And by "showing" we mean without the thread of a lawsuit via NDA that ensure that anything you say SCO must like it (or they will sue you).
Until SCO provides evidence, instead of spreading fear and extorting the weak, onbody can take them seriously.
( I see you have spend hours posting on Slashdot with a particular aim. Are you postering for pay? )
Perhaps. Although it is more accurate to say that the problem is not SCO circulating fud, but how the IT managers respond to it.
I could go around my town informing everyone that from March 23, 2005 , the Sun will stop rising from the East and start rising from the West. Will it be my fault if people start believing me?
No, it is the fault of the IT managers who are apt to believe just about anything, and it is the fault of (the even more) idiotic journalist who will by quick with their usual articles: the Linux community don't take the claims of screerc seriously, but consider: "What if srceenrc is right and the Sun starts rising from the West?"
We have been waiting for months to find out the Linux IP asssets of SCO/Caldera. What are they? Where are they?
I will believe them when I see them. Until then, they IP assests are worth zero dollars.
( I suspect this is pump-and-dump stock manipulation scheme; let's see if we even get a SCO vs IBM trial, for this may turn out to be just a distraction. Maybe the main goal was to sell their stock options to the masses instead of linux "licenses".)
A small correction. Although Linus owns the "linux" trademark, he does NOT own the copyright to Linux kernel. The kernel copyright belongs to the hundreds of contributors, and Linus is one of these hundreds of developers.
I other words, Linus cannot just transfer or sell his version of the Linux kenel without approval from *all* contributors (if they are still alive, and if he can find them). That is why Linux is safe for Linus, because it cannot be sold even for 8000 trillion dollars.
As far as I know, most brokers will not allow you margin for stocks less than $5 per share. Therefore, there are not many SCOX shares available for shofting.
The comparison was not only with Basic, it was also with Lisp and Rexx, both of which are powerfull.
But powerfull is not the issue. The issue is whether *I* think that the C synstax is horrible; a subjective call, and for me it is.
Although our conversation is not about powerfull language semantics (our primary issue is syntax style), indeed, the more powerfull the language, the more complex will be the syntax. It is like a baby-talk vs adult language complaxity.
(As for C++, no, it is a just tiny 1-year baby when compared to Lisp or Parrot Assembly)
TiVo is probably guilty of using my IP and my contributions to GNU/Linux. Don't ask to be more specific of to show proof. If SCO is not required to show proof, I am not required to show proof either.
Yes, but many could argue that SCO/Calder does not intent to win in court. If the target is Linux (as per Microsoft instructions), then all the have to do is raise hell at regular intervals between now and the court date. It is a lot cheaper than buying time in TV to counter the Linux threat. FUD- mouthing does not cost money. It's free. And besides, the company that owns slashdot is all too happy to spread the word every 5 hours.
Oh, the NDA! THat was their idea of independent review. Thre reason for the NDA so that if the independent reviewer spoke unfavorably, they would sued them for speaking (as per NDA). If the reviewers spoke favorably, then they will no sue them.
Why pay each attorney $250/hour when you can hire some of them fulltime at bargain prices? This is a mirror issue for Red Hat, it is not an issue of 'must-win' importance.
Yes, C syntax is horrible, at least when compared to Lisp, Basic, and Rexx .
You imply that you make your living in programming and that the "feel" of a language is important. Why? As a programmer you should know that the "feel" of the language is probably the least of your worries. You know what other issues are important, but since you have to ask, and I don't feel like embarking on 3000 word essay, lets only mention that the capabilities of the language is more important than "feel", yes, and we are not fagots. Who about the ability to alter the parse tree? How about coninuations? How about arbitrary types of dispatch resolutions?
No you are not impress me by saying that C has simple syntax since I already mentioned languages that have better.
No you are not impress me by saying that syntax is very impartant. I would rather do with worse syntex if I can powerfull features from the language to manage complexity.
If you think Microsoft is not behind SCO/Caldera, then look at the facts:
1. Microsoft is financially supporting SCO with millions of dollars. (Do a google to find how many hundreds of millions.)
2. Miscroft is not a friend to Linux, it is foe.
3. IBM's sales manager said that the enemy is not SCO, but rather the enemy is Miscroft and it's satelites (like SCO).
Common sense dictates to presume that after Microsoft received their 5-year immutity from procecution (as punishment to their conviction!), they are not free to roam about ant stub old enemies.
Common sense dictates to assume that Microsoft is behind all this. Especially when they finance SCO, and IBM says that Microsoft is the cause of all this.
The C syntax is horrible, have you programmed in other languages in order to see the difference? I can think of at least 2 languages that are 50 miles simpler to read.
But syntax is not a major issue anyway. The main issue is the capabilities of the language. Apparently, those who speak on issues of syntax and general look-and-feel have no knowledge to talk about the more techincal issues. So here here you have it: 1000 posts about how the language "feels", and we are going to skip the hard technical issues which you have not heard about, much less know them!
No wonder non-techincal issues like SCO vs. IBM receive record posts. Same reason here with syntax style.
Well yes, we do agree that copyright is different that the license.
Now more on the GPL (the license part). I very correct in what you say, which actually, is more or less what I was saying also, so the only (minor) difference is between (A) it is unlikely for the courts to curb property rights, and (B) the courts have resticted property rights in the past.
In my opinion, both of our statements are true. Our differences are minor, and in essense equally speculative.
The GPL cannot "revert back to copyrights". The GPL defines the rights and obligations for people other than the copyright holders. If the GPL is illegal, that means that the licensing terms are illegal. Finding the licencing terms illegal will be restricion on property rights, that is, less freedom on what owners can do with their copyrighted work. It is like saying that it is illegal to donate your property to charity.
Slashdot Mirror
easier for the desktop user, you also make it harder
for the people in other categories. Our needs are
not the same, therefore, the remedy can never
be the same.
The question is not whether we should accomodate
new users, the question is what costs and
inconvenienses are we willing to endure in
order to accomodate the newbies. And I don't
particularly care if new uers move to Linux, I would
rather not accomodate them at all. It is a
non-issue for me.
a possibility that SCO management is dumping
perhaps in order to diversify or maybe because
they need the money to pay for a house?
Incredible, hard to believe. ( By posting so
many silly things at once, no wander the moderatiors
graded your article intresting and informative. )
But why is this different to cut & paste and
code extentions by hand, compared to doing
it automatially via a program ?
The important issue here is if the 'black box'
or the act of modifing, is itself derived work.
If the program itself is derived work then you cannot
distribute it as proprietory. Note, we are not
talking about the output of the 'black box'
(which is obviously derived work), I am only
questioning whether the 'black box' program is derived
work. Hard to tell.
GPL nature of linux allows it to become collective
property for giants like Oracle, IBM, etc.
Linux is fine for now, until the giants defeat
the common enemy and start arguing among themselves.
I should not become a surprise if sometime in the (distant) future IBM attacks
Linux in order to harm Oracle.
In the mean time, although Linux seems it is not
protected, perhaps IBM and friends should
have already thought what to do when Linux is
attacked through patents. One supposes they
at least have some type of plans for this before they invested
Billions of dollars. Now that the lawsuits have
started, we should someday be able to tell how they plan
to fight back.
the only thing the care is to follow intructions
from those who give it money: Microsoft. Anything
else of little of no importance, including how
the look to the public.
The number 1 objective is not to collect money from IT managers or IBM
(they already know their limits). Their #1 goal
should be determined by their actions which
has little to do with the lawsuit and more
to do with a FUD campain agains Linux and the GPL.
After all, why should Microsoft should fight
IBM in public when their case is not yet over in Europe.
It is far better to hire SCO for the job. And
that is what they did. Anybody who thinks is
is fighting IBM alone in court with such
silly arguments is still dreaming.
stock options and other inducements (like they
did to Sun Microsystems), I will also be happy
to "purchace" a SCO license when the net
result of the deal is detrimental to SCO . Why not?
Joke of the day: In it's press release SCO
said that IBM had a failed business linux model.
SCO is out of its senses; beyond help.
How refreshing, finally! I see lots of efforts
towards uniformity and standards. Not that
I care, but today is perhaps the first day
on slashdot without the "let the markets
decide". Relief, finally. (Although I would
not be so surprised if I read about market
forces a few pages later.)
from somewhere else on the net. The distributor
of a GPL product is still required to inform you
that of your rights, and how to get the source.
As for cc switches, that is is an interesting
observation -- good point.
like we GPL'd it but not distributed, (b)
we provided evidence to impartial reviewers
who cannot say anything disparaging under NDA,
(c) we own the IP but we asked Novel if the
want to sell it , and (d) you have to pay
for Unixware license so we don't sue you
for using Linux(?) . I am sure there said
much more, but I will let others to entertain us
further.
If you are willing to hear anything coherent from
SCO , I suspect it will probably take a long time.
another opportunity to repeat yourself several
more times.
So you call the NDA show "evidence"? These
peope where English majors (aka, Senior Techincal
Analysts), hand-picked by SCO, and muzzled under
the NDA and the journalist and their employer
can by sued at will (at SCO's dicretion) if
the report disparaging or unhelpfull comments
for violating the terms of NDA.
I still see no evidence at their website or
at any other place. If you insist of calling
such phantoms as "solid evidence", then there is
no reason to continue talking.
without the thread of a lawsuit via NDA
that ensure that anything you say SCO must like
it (or they will sue you).
Until SCO provides evidence, instead of spreading
fear and extorting the weak, onbody can take
them seriously.
( I see you have spend hours posting on Slashdot
with a particular aim. Are you postering for pay? )
the problem is not SCO circulating fud, but
how the IT managers respond to it.
I could go around my town informing everyone that
from March 23, 2005 , the Sun will stop rising from the
East and start rising from the West.
Will it be my fault if people start believing me?
No, it is the fault of the IT managers who are apt to
believe just about anything, and it is the fault of
(the even more) idiotic journalist who will by quick with
their usual articles: the Linux community
don't take the claims of screerc seriously, but consider:
"What if srceenrc is right and the Sun starts rising from the West?"
the Linux IP asssets of SCO/Caldera. What
are they? Where are they?
I will believe them when I see them. Until then,
they IP assests are worth zero dollars.
( I suspect this is pump-and-dump stock
manipulation scheme; let's see if we even
get a SCO vs IBM trial, for this may turn out to be
just a distraction. Maybe the main goal was to sell their stock options
to the masses instead of linux "licenses".)
he does NOT own the copyright to Linux kernel. The
kernel copyright belongs to the hundreds of contributors, and
Linus is one of these hundreds of developers.
I other words, Linus cannot just transfer or
sell his version of the Linux kenel without
approval from *all* contributors (if they are
still alive, and if he can find them). That is
why Linux is safe for Linus, because it cannot be sold even
for 8000 trillion dollars.
As far as I know, most brokers will not
allow you margin for stocks less than $5 per share.
Therefore, there are not many SCOX shares available
for shofting.
was also with Lisp and Rexx, both of which
are powerfull.
But powerfull is not the issue. The issue is
whether *I* think that the C synstax is horrible;
a subjective call, and for me it is.
Although our conversation is not about powerfull
language semantics (our primary issue is syntax
style), indeed, the more powerfull the language,
the more complex will be the syntax. It is like
a baby-talk vs adult language complaxity.
(As for C++, no, it is a just tiny 1-year baby when compared to
Lisp or Parrot Assembly)
TiVo is probably guilty of using my IP and
my contributions to GNU/Linux. Don't ask to
be more specific of to show proof. If SCO is
not required to show proof, I am not required
to show proof either.
Yes, but many could argue that SCO/Calder does
not intent to win in court. If the target is
Linux (as per Microsoft instructions), then
all the have to do is raise hell at regular intervals between now
and the court date. It is a lot cheaper than
buying time in TV to counter the Linux threat.
FUD- mouthing does not cost money. It's free.
And besides, the company that owns slashdot
is all too happy to spread the word every 5 hours.
review. Thre reason for the NDA so that
if the independent reviewer spoke unfavorably,
they would sued them for speaking (as per NDA).
If the reviewers spoke favorably, then they
will no sue them.
Why pay each attorney $250/hour when you
can hire some of them fulltime at bargain prices?
This is a mirror issue for Red Hat, it is not
an issue of 'must-win' importance.
compared to Lisp, Basic, and Rexx .
You imply that you make your living in programming and
that the "feel" of a language is important. Why?
As a programmer you should know that the "feel"
of the language is probably the least of your
worries. You know what other issues are important,
but since you have to ask, and I don't feel
like embarking on 3000 word essay, lets only
mention that the capabilities of the language
is more important than "feel", yes, and we are not
fagots. Who about the ability to alter the parse
tree? How about coninuations? How about arbitrary
types of dispatch resolutions?
No you are not impress me by saying that C has
simple syntax since I already mentioned languages
that have better.
No you are not impress me by saying that syntax
is very impartant. I would rather do with worse
syntex if I can powerfull features from the language to manage complexity.
look at the facts:
1. Microsoft is financially supporting SCO
with millions of dollars. (Do a google to
find how many hundreds of millions.)
2. Miscroft is not a friend to Linux, it is foe.
3. IBM's sales manager said that the enemy is
not SCO, but rather the enemy is Miscroft and
it's satelites (like SCO).
Common sense dictates to presume that after Microsoft
received their 5-year immutity from procecution
(as punishment to their conviction!), they are
not free to roam about ant stub old enemies.
Common sense dictates to assume that Microsoft
is behind all this. Especially when they finance
SCO, and IBM says that Microsoft is the cause of
all this.
in other languages in order to see the difference?
I can think of at least 2 languages that are
50 miles simpler to read.
But syntax is not a major issue anyway. The
main issue is the capabilities of the language.
Apparently, those who speak on issues of syntax
and general look-and-feel have no knowledge
to talk about the more techincal issues. So here
here you have it: 1000 posts about how the
language "feels", and we are going to skip
the hard technical issues which you have
not heard about, much less know them!
No wonder non-techincal issues like SCO vs. IBM
receive record posts. Same reason here with syntax style.
that the license.
Now more on the GPL (the license part). I very correct
in what you say, which actually, is more or
less what I was saying also, so the only (minor) difference
is between (A) it is unlikely for the courts to
curb property rights, and (B) the courts have
resticted property rights in the past.
In my opinion, both of our statements are true. Our
differences are minor, and in essense equally speculative.
GPL defines
the rights and obligations for people other
than the copyright holders. If the GPL is
illegal, that means that the licensing terms
are illegal. Finding the licencing terms illegal will
be restricion on property rights, that is,
less freedom on what owners can do with their copyrighted work.
It is like saying that it is illegal to
donate your property to charity.