Actually, I rely quite heavily on the Internet to perform my research and collaborate with folks all over the world.
Please forgive me for stating the obvious, but just because you use the internet does not mean you are an expert in its history or technology. I use cars heavily every day, yet I do not consider myself an expert in car mechanics, nor their history, creation, or evolution. I must also agree that a PhD is not necessarily an indicator of intelligence, nor is it an indicator of knowledge outside of its subject.
Do you ever look at that little disclaimer on the box (or in the beginning of the movie, I forget) stating that it isn't allowed to publicly display, or copy or rent this movie?
Is borrowing from the library considered renting? I don't think it is, but I don't really know.
they don't use the same DVD license that you use for home usage.
AFAIK DVDs aren't licensed, they are purchased. However, copyright law limits what you can do with the content.
Hmm, I didn't pay one red cent for Darwin, including source code and all. Looks free to me...
Giving you a great benenfit of doubt that you are not just trolling, here's a link where you can learn the difference between "free as in speech" and "free as in beer." While one may not be important to you, you should at least know the difference (and understand what is meant by "free" software).
Darwin may be open, but it isn't free. It's licensed under the Apple Public License, which is NOT a free license.
X11
Okay, what about X11. OS X doesn't run on X11, it runs on Aqua and Quartz, which are both very much closed source and proprietary. Yes, there are X servers for OS X. Yes, there are X servers for Windows and virtually every other desktop OS that I know of. What exactly was your point?
More "open" technologies than you could shake a stick at
What are you referring too? BSD userland? Apps? Just because the userland and apps are free doesn't mean the underlying OS is. Cygwin works great on Windows.
Loads of great built-in languages.
See my comment about userland stuff and apps. Do these languages not work on Windows?
Freely available ports of tons of great Unix apps
Again, just because the apps are free doesn't mean the underlying OS is. Cygwin contains ports of tons of great Unix apps, others have been ported to Windows natively, doesn't make Windows any less proprietary. Free software also runs great on lots of other proprietary Unixes (AIX, HP-UX, Solaris, Irix, etc.), Mac OS X isn't much different in this respect.
Exactly what is so "proprietary" about Mac OS X that is scaring you away?
Now don't get me wrong, I love how Apple is using and working with the open source world. However, Mac OS X is NOT a free OS, it is very much proprietary. Can you download and build Mac OS X from source? Can you play and tweak with the source, or port it to other architectures? Is there even a way to put Aqua and Quartz on top of an OpenDarwin core? Can you avoid the expensive OS upgrades to gain necessary functionality (most apps, like Safari and Apple's X server won't run on anything less than 10.2)? There's nothing inherently wrong with proprietary OS's, just don't try to pretend that OS X isn't one.
Well, you didn't really refute any of my points. Those you chose to ignore I will assume you agree with. However, despite your rudeness I'll respond one last time.
Most people already have Word. Not OO. I'm not requiring them to install a 300$ software. I'm the one that doesn't have Word like everyone else.
You shouldn't make sweeping generalizations without backing them up. Word is the standard for business, but do you have any numbers for home users (which is what we're talking about)? How many home users use MS Office? How many home users actually pay for MS Office? When I was in college (2 years ago) everyone I knew had MS Office, no one I knew actually paid for MS Office.
My point is that I don't want other people do more work because I'm using OO. And yes they shouldn't force me to use Word, but I'm the minority.
Fine, that's your opinion and I respect that.
Who says she can't afford a printer?
That was an assumption on my part. I have no idea why she doesn't have a printer, especially if she is printing documents regularly. It's not a convenience matter, since sending off documents to a friend every time you print certainly isn't convenient, so I assumed it must be price.
BTW, 35$ is the price of the ink.
Check around, you can get (cheap) printers for $35. Yes, you can buy printers for less than the cost of ink in some cases. Crazy world.
I'm simply saying that it messes up documents and you are talking to me about buying a cheap printer so I can still use OO.
Want to point out where I said that? You said your girlfriend didn't have a printer, I said she can get a cheap printer for ~$35. Document conversion doesn't even enter the picture.
My girlfriend was just an example. I'm not going to make everyone install OO.
So you think it's entirely reasonable to require everyone to purchase ~$300 software for compatibility, yet it is not reasonable to require someone to download free software?
whatever...
Wow, your awesome argumentative capabilities astound me.
Not on complexe documents.
Well, no, obviously RTF won't work on highly complex documents (I have no idea what a CV document is). That being the case, I assume you've tried it in your specific case and can confirm it doesn't work (and aren't just dismissing it out of hand)? If you're going to create highly complex documents in a closely guarded, proprietary format, you have to expect incompatibility. This goes back to my point of who controls your data (which you completely ignored). For your situation, why don't you just have your girlfriend print it out in PDF format and you can print it just fine from work?
Sometimes I feel that some of you are not in the real world. Don't get me wrong, I love Linux and Open Source Software but I'm still in the real world.
Well gee, thanks for the personal attack. If you said "I work in business, all my customers use MS Office and I need it for compatibility" my answer would have been different than for "my girlfriend needs to send me documents so I can print them at work." Your lack of argumentative ability is no excuse for rudeness.
Thanks for the suggestion. I'll email my girlfriend to learn to use pagemaker if she just wants to send me her CV to print out for her. (She has no printer at home)...
Well, your girlfriend could write her document in OOo, thus eliminating compatibility problems between you. BTW, if she can't even afford a cheap printer (~$35) how in the heck can she afford MS Office? Have you tried saving Word docs in RTF, then importing this into OOo? RTF is suprisingly capable, able to keep images, tables, etc. quite nicely.
Of course, the real issue with this, at least for me, is who controls your data? If you can't even view it without purchasing the latest and greatest software from a single vendor, or share it with others who may or may not be on the same platform, is it still your data?
Actually, what's even more interesting is that Microsoft is "sharing" its source with foreign governments (including China) and not the US. Doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling.
Although the project is not directly involved with medical science, Hosoi says there is hope it could lead to advances in the field, particularly in one aspect known as "lab on a chip." Just as silicon chips revolutionized computer electronics, the "lab on a chip" may spawn miniaturized machines or methods for providing medical treatment.
The robotic snail could play a key role in the drive toward smaller devices.
How are they making this connection? I fail to see how studying snail locomotion in any way affects lab-on-a-chip technology. Is snail locomoton being considered to mobilize lab-on-a-chips? How would you miniturize the mechanical components as well as prodce the slime? Other technologies seem much better suited if you need a mobile lab-on-a-chip. The article talks about the robotic snail, then discusses lab-on-a-chip, then switches back to slugs at the end. Overall a very poorly written article extremey lacking in any technical detail or cohesiveness. Not that I expect much from Yahoo News or anything.
Window Maker is not a free implementation of OPENSTEP.
I didn't say that Windowmaker was a free implementation of OPENSTEP, I said it was a free implementation of GNUstep, please parse my origianl post again. From the Window Maker page "Window Maker is an X11 window manager originally designed to provide integration support for the GNUstep Desktop Environment." If it doesn't actually use the GNUstep framework then this is a bit misleading. Still, it's very NeXTish and is quite a nice window manager.
In case anyone didn't know Window Maker is the free implementation of GNUstep. From the website "In every way possible, it reproduces the elegant look and feel of the NEXTSTEP[tm] user interface." It's actually quite a nice lightweight window manger and runs great on older hardware (for which GNOME & KDE are much too bloated) and has a pretty good developement community.
Well, I think this would look just fine next to a TV and stereo, certainly better then a generic white box. Not too sure about the wireless keyboard, I wonder how often you actually have to use that. A whole keyboard would look pretty silly sitting on the coffee table all the time.
Re:doesn't support dvd writing *yet*
on
New Linux PVR Box
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Since it has network connectivity couldn't you just copy the video to your main PC and burn a DVD there (assuming you have a DVD burner on your main PC)?
Does Office work on my WinXP box without a cheap workaround involving Works?
I have no idea what you're talking about. What version of office are you using? Anything other than Office XP is unfair, you can't compare the latest copy of OpenOffice.org with Office 97. That's like people who say that Linux is loads better than Windows 98. I had no problem running Office 2000 or XP on Windows XP, didn't try with 97 though.
Does Office import nearly every other office suite's files? No. Does OpenOffice? Yes.
From the earlier discussion on OOo it appears that OOo can't open WordPerfect files, I know MS Office can. Besides, when you are the standard, you don't have to support others, they have to support you. Sad but true.
Does Office crash frequently, causing much frustration and lost work?
I never have any stability problems with office and I use it everyday at work. I'm guessing you're still comparing Office 97 or some such?
Does Office have all the features I need to get my work done as efficiently as possible? Yes. Does OpenOffice? Yes.
It's great that OOo does everything you need, of course others have different needs. Not everyone needs $100,000 servers either, but some do.
Disclaimer: I run Linux and OOo at home. I run Windows 2000 & Office XP at work. I find that OOo is still lacking several features but it is certainly acceptable for my home use. Besides, I refuse to let my data be controlled by Microsoft. I'm all for Linux and FOSS evangelization, but only when it is supported by facts, not FUD, as the parent post was full of.
Yes, you are correct that the article says gross, I should have read it a little closer. So what is the net profit margin? I have heard the figure 80% referred to before in regards to net margin and it is not at all unreasonable, considering the incredibly low cost of reproducing software and the equally incredible huge volume of sales. Is it possible the article is incorrect?
No kidding. The 80% profit margin on Windows & Office quoted in the aricle is obscene. 15% profit margin is great, 20% is fantastic. Much more than this means that the product is way overpriced or there are serious market failures going on (both of which apply here).
No, their offer before the last minute offer was still lower than Linux, just not by as big a margin. Besides, Microsoft's last ditch efforts just kinda pissed people off.
MS: "This is our best offer."
Munich: "Thanks, but we're going with Linux."
MS: "OK, take off another 8 million."
Munich: Wha... But you just said... Grr...
Which made it easy to change her PC in stages. Replace MS Office with OOo. Then replace Win with Linux later.
Well, you could have gone the other way too. Replaced Win w/ Linux, then replace MS Office w/ OOo later.
With all of the drawbacks of MS Office still intact (upgrade treadmill, exorbitant pricing, format lock-in). No thanks.
Hey, I'm certainly not advocating running Windows or MS Office (I run Linux & OOo myself). I think it's great you've been able to make the switch. I was merely pointing out the fact that office software is multiplatform and so has no bearing in the decision to switch platforms. I repeat my earlier statement "While there are many reasons to switch from Windows to Linux, your office software is not one of them." Linux advocacy is all well and good, but let's back it up with facts, not FUD.
With OOo 1.1, I finally moved my wife's computer from Win2K to Linux. No regrets.
This seems like a bit of a troll. You do know that OpenOffice.org runs on Windows, and that MS Ofiice runs superbly on Linux w/ Wine (even faster than on Windows, if you believe it). While there are many reasons to switch from Windows to Linux, your office software is not one of them.
If "Funny" doesn't count towards karma, neither should "offtopic" or "troll".
Tell me about it. I made a funny comment last week. It god modded up +5 funny, then got meta-modded overrated & even offtopic. So even though the post ended up at +4 funny, I lost 3 or 4 karma points. Not that karma matters, but sheesh!
Interesting? Informative? No, how about incorrect.
Selling of modded X-Boxes is clearly an abuse of Microsoft's Trademark.
So if I put a new engine in my Ford truck and sell it I'm violating Ford's trademark? No. Building your own game console and calling it an XBox would violate Microsoft's trademark. Selling a used item, in original condition or no, does not in any way violate the original manufacture's trademark.
Modding the X-Box to bypass game security is clearly a violation of the DMCA. Even if you are running unauthorized third-party games rather than illegal copies, you are still using Microsoft's Intellectual Property contrary to the software lisence that was granted with the sale of the unit.
You do know that there are several boot ROMs for the XBox which use no Microsoft code whatsoever don't you? Also, the latest hack doesn't ever require flashing your ROM, just using a special font file. Running pirated games is certainly illegal. Running 3rd party games or Linux should not be. Is using these hacks in violation of the DMCA? Maybe, maybe not. That is for the courts to decide, not you or me. BTW, I know of no software license you agree to when purchasing an XBox. Microsoft's Xbox firmare is covered under copyright law, not licensing. You are correct that using this code in another boot ROM is illegal, but under copyright law, not DMCA.
Interesting accusation coming from Anonymous Coward.
Sun does Unix as a business and it is entirely reasonable that they would would commercial support for the drivers that they will package with Solaris.
You think Sun is going to get commercial support from SCO? No, Sun will modify the drivers themselves to work with Solaris and they will support them. The only difference is that if they used BSD drivers as the source then they would own the entire code instead of having to pay a perpetual license.
The just shows that Sun is committed to its customers and listens, particularly after almost killing Solaris on X86.
I find this statement contradictory. The fact that Sun was so wishy-washy on x86 Solaris for so long would indicate to me that they weren't listening to their customers.
Your view that Sun's motivation is part of a plot against Linux in unfortunately too common in Linuxland.
This is a very arrogant statement considering I did not mention Linux at all in my post.
So what they had solaris working on intel years ago. Does that mean the license was current?
What license? Do you need a license from SCO to run an operating system on x86 hardware now? My point was that Solaris x86 has been working well for quite some time now so it seems rather suspect that they are licensing x86 driver code from SCO just before the FUD heats up. As I said in my post, although this driver code may be legitimate, I find it highly dubious that it is the only reason behind the licensing.
Yea, I suppose they [SUN] could have... like multi-billion dollar companies just throw any old public GNU/GPL set of drivers into their software dist, and then resell them all the time.
To quote you "The ignorance of such a statement is astounding." First, BSD drivers are not GNU nor are they GPL, they are covered under the BSD license (amazing I know) which allows proprietary derivations. Yes, companies can and do use BSD code in their proprietary projects. You may have heard of a small company called Microsoft which uses the BSD TCP/IP stack in their Windows operating system (which is quite popular from what I hear).
... assigning blame and motive to what amounts to good sound CYA business decisions.
Anyone who uses "good sound... business decisons" in reference to anything connected with the whole SCO ordeal deserves a good hard slap. I don't mean to flame, but it's true.
Slashdot Mirror
Please forgive me for stating the obvious, but just because you use the internet does not mean you are an expert in its history or technology. I use cars heavily every day, yet I do not consider myself an expert in car mechanics, nor their history, creation, or evolution. I must also agree that a PhD is not necessarily an indicator of intelligence, nor is it an indicator of knowledge outside of its subject.
Is borrowing from the library considered renting? I don't think it is, but I don't really know.
they don't use the same DVD license that you use for home usage.
AFAIK DVDs aren't licensed, they are purchased. However, copyright law limits what you can do with the content.
Giving you a great benenfit of doubt that you are not just trolling, here's a link where you can learn the difference between "free as in speech" and "free as in beer." While one may not be important to you, you should at least know the difference (and understand what is meant by "free" software).
Open-source Darwin core
Darwin may be open, but it isn't free. It's licensed under the Apple Public License, which is NOT a free license.
X11
Okay, what about X11. OS X doesn't run on X11, it runs on Aqua and Quartz, which are both very much closed source and proprietary. Yes, there are X servers for OS X. Yes, there are X servers for Windows and virtually every other desktop OS that I know of. What exactly was your point?
More "open" technologies than you could shake a stick at
What are you referring too? BSD userland? Apps? Just because the userland and apps are free doesn't mean the underlying OS is. Cygwin works great on Windows.
Loads of great built-in languages.
See my comment about userland stuff and apps. Do these languages not work on Windows?
Freely available ports of tons of great Unix apps
Again, just because the apps are free doesn't mean the underlying OS is. Cygwin contains ports of tons of great Unix apps, others have been ported to Windows natively, doesn't make Windows any less proprietary. Free software also runs great on lots of other proprietary Unixes (AIX, HP-UX, Solaris, Irix, etc.), Mac OS X isn't much different in this respect.
Exactly what is so "proprietary" about Mac OS X that is scaring you away?
Now don't get me wrong, I love how Apple is using and working with the open source world. However, Mac OS X is NOT a free OS, it is very much proprietary. Can you download and build Mac OS X from source? Can you play and tweak with the source, or port it to other architectures? Is there even a way to put Aqua and Quartz on top of an OpenDarwin core? Can you avoid the expensive OS upgrades to gain necessary functionality (most apps, like Safari and Apple's X server won't run on anything less than 10.2)? There's nothing inherently wrong with proprietary OS's, just don't try to pretend that OS X isn't one.
Most people already have Word. Not OO. I'm not requiring them to install a 300$ software. I'm the one that doesn't have Word like everyone else.
You shouldn't make sweeping generalizations without backing them up. Word is the standard for business, but do you have any numbers for home users (which is what we're talking about)? How many home users use MS Office? How many home users actually pay for MS Office? When I was in college (2 years ago) everyone I knew had MS Office, no one I knew actually paid for MS Office.
My point is that I don't want other people do more work because I'm using OO. And yes they shouldn't force me to use Word, but I'm the minority.
Fine, that's your opinion and I respect that.
Who says she can't afford a printer?
That was an assumption on my part. I have no idea why she doesn't have a printer, especially if she is printing documents regularly. It's not a convenience matter, since sending off documents to a friend every time you print certainly isn't convenient, so I assumed it must be price.
BTW, 35$ is the price of the ink.
Check around, you can get (cheap) printers for $35. Yes, you can buy printers for less than the cost of ink in some cases. Crazy world.
I'm simply saying that it messes up documents and you are talking to me about buying a cheap printer so I can still use OO.
Want to point out where I said that? You said your girlfriend didn't have a printer, I said she can get a cheap printer for ~$35. Document conversion doesn't even enter the picture.
So you think it's entirely reasonable to require everyone to purchase ~$300 software for compatibility, yet it is not reasonable to require someone to download free software?
whatever...
Wow, your awesome argumentative capabilities astound me.
Not on complexe documents.
Well, no, obviously RTF won't work on highly complex documents (I have no idea what a CV document is). That being the case, I assume you've tried it in your specific case and can confirm it doesn't work (and aren't just dismissing it out of hand)? If you're going to create highly complex documents in a closely guarded, proprietary format, you have to expect incompatibility. This goes back to my point of who controls your data (which you completely ignored). For your situation, why don't you just have your girlfriend print it out in PDF format and you can print it just fine from work?
Sometimes I feel that some of you are not in the real world. Don't get me wrong, I love Linux and Open Source Software but I'm still in the real world.
Well gee, thanks for the personal attack. If you said "I work in business, all my customers use MS Office and I need it for compatibility" my answer would have been different than for "my girlfriend needs to send me documents so I can print them at work." Your lack of argumentative ability is no excuse for rudeness.
Well, your girlfriend could write her document in OOo, thus eliminating compatibility problems between you. BTW, if she can't even afford a cheap printer (~$35) how in the heck can she afford MS Office? Have you tried saving Word docs in RTF, then importing this into OOo? RTF is suprisingly capable, able to keep images, tables, etc. quite nicely.
Of course, the real issue with this, at least for me, is who controls your data? If you can't even view it without purchasing the latest and greatest software from a single vendor, or share it with others who may or may not be on the same platform, is it still your data?
Actually, what's even more interesting is that Microsoft is "sharing" its source with foreign governments (including China) and not the US. Doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling.
Although the project is not directly involved with medical science, Hosoi says there is hope it could lead to advances in the field, particularly in one aspect known as "lab on a chip." Just as silicon chips revolutionized computer electronics, the "lab on a chip" may spawn miniaturized machines or methods for providing medical treatment.
The robotic snail could play a key role in the drive toward smaller devices.
How are they making this connection? I fail to see how studying snail locomotion in any way affects lab-on-a-chip technology. Is snail locomoton being considered to mobilize lab-on-a-chips? How would you miniturize the mechanical components as well as prodce the slime? Other technologies seem much better suited if you need a mobile lab-on-a-chip. The article talks about the robotic snail, then discusses lab-on-a-chip, then switches back to slugs at the end. Overall a very poorly written article extremey lacking in any technical detail or cohesiveness. Not that I expect much from Yahoo News or anything.
I didn't say that Windowmaker was a free implementation of OPENSTEP, I said it was a free implementation of GNUstep, please parse my origianl post again. From the Window Maker page "Window Maker is an X11 window manager originally designed to provide integration support for the GNUstep Desktop Environment." If it doesn't actually use the GNUstep framework then this is a bit misleading. Still, it's very NeXTish and is quite a nice window manager.
In case anyone didn't know Window Maker is the free implementation of GNUstep. From the website "In every way possible, it reproduces the elegant look and feel of the NEXTSTEP[tm] user interface." It's actually quite a nice lightweight window manger and runs great on older hardware (for which GNOME & KDE are much too bloated) and has a pretty good developement community.
Well, I think this would look just fine next to a TV and stereo, certainly better then a generic white box. Not too sure about the wireless keyboard, I wonder how often you actually have to use that. A whole keyboard would look pretty silly sitting on the coffee table all the time.
Since it has network connectivity couldn't you just copy the video to your main PC and burn a DVD there (assuming you have a DVD burner on your main PC)?
Does Office work on my WinXP box without a cheap workaround involving Works?
I have no idea what you're talking about. What version of office are you using? Anything other than Office XP is unfair, you can't compare the latest copy of OpenOffice.org with Office 97. That's like people who say that Linux is loads better than Windows 98. I had no problem running Office 2000 or XP on Windows XP, didn't try with 97 though.
Does Office import nearly every other office suite's files? No. Does OpenOffice? Yes.
From the earlier discussion on OOo it appears that OOo can't open WordPerfect files, I know MS Office can. Besides, when you are the standard, you don't have to support others, they have to support you. Sad but true.
Does Office crash frequently, causing much frustration and lost work?
I never have any stability problems with office and I use it everyday at work. I'm guessing you're still comparing Office 97 or some such?
Does Office have all the features I need to get my work done as efficiently as possible? Yes. Does OpenOffice? Yes.
It's great that OOo does everything you need, of course others have different needs. Not everyone needs $100,000 servers either, but some do.
Disclaimer: I run Linux and OOo at home. I run Windows 2000 & Office XP at work. I find that OOo is still lacking several features but it is certainly acceptable for my home use. Besides, I refuse to let my data be controlled by Microsoft. I'm all for Linux and FOSS evangelization, but only when it is supported by facts, not FUD, as the parent post was full of.
Yes, you are correct that the article says gross, I should have read it a little closer. So what is the net profit margin? I have heard the figure 80% referred to before in regards to net margin and it is not at all unreasonable, considering the incredibly low cost of reproducing software and the equally incredible huge volume of sales. Is it possible the article is incorrect?
No kidding. The 80% profit margin on Windows & Office quoted in the aricle is obscene. 15% profit margin is great, 20% is fantastic. Much more than this means that the product is way overpriced or there are serious market failures going on (both of which apply here).
That they lost?
MS: "This is our best offer." ... Grr...
Munich: "Thanks, but we're going with Linux."
MS: "OK, take off another 8 million."
Munich: Wha... But you just said
Well, you could have gone the other way too. Replaced Win w/ Linux, then replace MS Office w/ OOo later.
With all of the drawbacks of MS Office still intact (upgrade treadmill, exorbitant pricing, format lock-in). No thanks.
Hey, I'm certainly not advocating running Windows or MS Office (I run Linux & OOo myself). I think it's great you've been able to make the switch. I was merely pointing out the fact that office software is multiplatform and so has no bearing in the decision to switch platforms. I repeat my earlier statement "While there are many reasons to switch from Windows to Linux, your office software is not one of them." Linux advocacy is all well and good, but let's back it up with facts, not FUD.
This seems like a bit of a troll. You do know that OpenOffice.org runs on Windows, and that MS Ofiice runs superbly on Linux w/ Wine (even faster than on Windows, if you believe it). While there are many reasons to switch from Windows to Linux, your office software is not one of them.
Har, that was amusing. What's even more amusing is the +2 Informative mod. Mods on crack, film at 11.
Tell me about it. I made a funny comment last week. It god modded up +5 funny, then got meta-modded overrated & even offtopic. So even though the post ended up at +4 funny, I lost 3 or 4 karma points. Not that karma matters, but sheesh!
Selling of modded X-Boxes is clearly an abuse of Microsoft's Trademark.
So if I put a new engine in my Ford truck and sell it I'm violating Ford's trademark? No. Building your own game console and calling it an XBox would violate Microsoft's trademark. Selling a used item, in original condition or no, does not in any way violate the original manufacture's trademark.
Modding the X-Box to bypass game security is clearly a violation of the DMCA. Even if you are running unauthorized third-party games rather than illegal copies, you are still using Microsoft's Intellectual Property contrary to the software lisence that was granted with the sale of the unit.
You do know that there are several boot ROMs for the XBox which use no Microsoft code whatsoever don't you? Also, the latest hack doesn't ever require flashing your ROM, just using a special font file. Running pirated games is certainly illegal. Running 3rd party games or Linux should not be. Is using these hacks in violation of the DMCA? Maybe, maybe not. That is for the courts to decide, not you or me. BTW, I know of no software license you agree to when purchasing an XBox. Microsoft's Xbox firmare is covered under copyright law, not licensing. You are correct that using this code in another boot ROM is illegal, but under copyright law, not DMCA.
Interesting accusation coming from Anonymous Coward.
Sun does Unix as a business and it is entirely reasonable that they would would commercial support for the drivers that they will package with Solaris.
You think Sun is going to get commercial support from SCO? No, Sun will modify the drivers themselves to work with Solaris and they will support them. The only difference is that if they used BSD drivers as the source then they would own the entire code instead of having to pay a perpetual license.
The just shows that Sun is committed to its customers and listens, particularly after almost killing Solaris on X86.
I find this statement contradictory. The fact that Sun was so wishy-washy on x86 Solaris for so long would indicate to me that they weren't listening to their customers.
Your view that Sun's motivation is part of a plot against Linux in unfortunately too common in Linuxland.
This is a very arrogant statement considering I did not mention Linux at all in my post.
What license? Do you need a license from SCO to run an operating system on x86 hardware now? My point was that Solaris x86 has been working well for quite some time now so it seems rather suspect that they are licensing x86 driver code from SCO just before the FUD heats up. As I said in my post, although this driver code may be legitimate, I find it highly dubious that it is the only reason behind the licensing.
Yea, I suppose they [SUN] could have ... like multi-billion dollar companies just throw any old public GNU/GPL set of drivers into their software dist, and then resell them all the time.
To quote you "The ignorance of such a statement is astounding." First, BSD drivers are not GNU nor are they GPL, they are covered under the BSD license (amazing I know) which allows proprietary derivations. Yes, companies can and do use BSD code in their proprietary projects. You may have heard of a small company called Microsoft which uses the BSD TCP/IP stack in their Windows operating system (which is quite popular from what I hear).
Anyone who uses "good sound ... business decisons" in reference to anything connected with the whole SCO ordeal deserves a good hard slap. I don't mean to flame, but it's true.