But the important thing is that it proves to the rest of corporate america that this is possible.
Several large enterprises have already done this successfully.
China's in the process of doing it as well.
I think that once companies see that this can realisticly be done, that more of the will start doing it. I'm glad.
I wish the organization I work for would do the same.
You accuse the parent of "sticking it to" and "shafting it to" "the rest of the world" as if he is some sick, depraved individual whose actions exist with the sole intent of causing harm to everyone else. "How dare you not purchase my product!" you seem to say. You even go so far as to admit that you are in favor of legistlation mandating the subsidizing of the music industry by leveling a tax on people.
I would say he's right on the money.
Seems to me that taxing the population for a product they do not buy is the only way for a company, or consortium of companies with no imagination to stay in business. If I were in their place, I would liquidate, and get into an industry that required little or no imagination. Insurance might be a good safe bet.
Damn straight.
In fact, I almost never give accurate information to strangers on the phone (if I don't hang up all together), except when Arbitron (the radio ratings people) calls me. That's important. I'll take any chance I can get to make sure the world (or at least the people in my zip code) listens to less r&b.
That's some crazy technology there.
I didn't realize they had taken it so far.
I did not know Chillisoft was related to Cobalt. Do you have any links from the period that I can read up on?
You're giving Microsoft more credit than they deserve. I can't think of the last time they pioneered anything. Most everything I thought they pioneered, they're getting sued over patent infringement. So that's a moot point. Microsoft has the smallest lobbying effort in the software industry. Outback stake house spent more on Lobbying in 2002 than they did. So you see, it's not really fair to credit Microsoft with the modern sad state of intelectual property law. If people wearen't using office, they would be using something else. But make no mistake. The automation of the work place was obvious, and unmistakably inevitable. Anyone who tells you otherwise probably works for Microsoft. I'm sorry that your company is incapable of writing their own software products, and chooses to integrate with office instead. But it's fair to point out that companies that choose that route don't usually last very long because Microsoft tends to expand office dramatically between versions. OpenOffice.org on the other hand still has lots of room for expansion. And makes for a more convincing TCO argument. But what do I know?
I don't see how this relates to the economy. Microsoft is a transnational corporation. Companies like this usually find ways out of paying taxes. Their only real contribution to the economy is in the people they employ and the resources they use here in the US. But that could be said of any transnational.
I think it's great! But the Israeli's have always been ahead of the curve technologically. I could be wrong, but wearen't they evaluating openoffice as part of a plan to migrate to Linux?
Let's take that thought experiment one step further.
If SCO has a claim on bsd, and not linux, and SCO can get the bsd decision changed or annulled all together, and linux is using pieces of bsd, then doesn't that lagitimize their claim on linux, which wouldn't have otherwise been valid?
Not that I know anything about this stuff, not being a lawyer and all.
Funny this should come up. I have a friend sells specialized unix-type systems to businesses. Before the SCO thing, his choice was FreeBSD. He has since switched to Linux for these systems because he thinks that the SCO claim to BSD has a more solid basis in fact than the linux claims.
Good point!
Still might be fun though. I'll start the ball rolling as soon as their stock goes back to what it's worth. Somewhere in the two to three dollar range.:L)>
It's only insider trading if you are using some sort of insider information that is not available to the public. Slashdot is by it's own definition, a public forum. If you decide to buy stock, on your own, or as part of a group, why would that be illegal? The selling part might get sticky, but again, with such a loosely organized group, how is anyone to control what an indavidual member of the group does? I would like to see them prove that.
You take yourself to seriously. I'm not disagreeing with you though. I was referring to the feature sprawl in photoshop.
Although,
Open source software like any other piece of software is driven by customer demand. And who better than developers to know what their audience, whatever that audience is, wants? What you end up with is a more eclectic system that is more rounded than a closed source product. And the article never mentioned reforking. The author didn't even consider that as a factor. Take for example, the recent little tidbit mentioned on slashdot, about REACTOS coming up with a way for writing to an NTFS partition. Since the system is open, other Linux developers working on other projects can benefit from that and other pieces like it. Closed source programmers (or any developers for that matter) on the other hand often suffer from tunnel vision. Forking a project can often bring the fresh blood the over all larger project needs. Just a thought. Don't assume it's the gospell, I could be wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe they're printing out their responses, and then putting it in PDF, just to confuse them. How eveel...
My favorite part was the way Novell was "acting on behalf of SCO" in regard to SGI. It's funny.
I couldn't find it either.
Hey, do you think they throw blank CD's at people when they try to run away?
Wait, so are we to believe that the RIAA has started a vigilante group?
But the important thing is that it proves to the rest of corporate america that this is possible. Several large enterprises have already done this successfully. China's in the process of doing it as well. I think that once companies see that this can realisticly be done, that more of the will start doing it. I'm glad. I wish the organization I work for would do the same.
Heh heh,
Yeah, I needed to get my SCO fix too. Educational stuff this.
Funny how there's no paragraph sighted when they talk about license termination rights that IBM and others insist do not exist.
You accuse the parent of "sticking it to" and "shafting it to" "the rest of the world" as if he is some sick, depraved individual whose actions exist with the sole intent of causing harm to everyone else. "How dare you not purchase my product!" you seem to say. You even go so far as to admit that you are in favor of legistlation mandating the subsidizing of the music industry by leveling a tax on people.
I would say he's right on the money. Seems to me that taxing the population for a product they do not buy is the only way for a company, or consortium of companies with no imagination to stay in business. If I were in their place, I would liquidate, and get into an industry that required little or no imagination. Insurance might be a good safe bet.
Damn straight. In fact, I almost never give accurate information to strangers on the phone (if I don't hang up all together), except when Arbitron (the radio ratings people) calls me. That's important. I'll take any chance I can get to make sure the world (or at least the people in my zip code) listens to less r&b.
That's some crazy technology there. I didn't realize they had taken it so far. I did not know Chillisoft was related to Cobalt. Do you have any links from the period that I can read up on?
Not Cobol, Cobalt. Huge difference. Read the article. It's interesting.
I really wish these kinds of announcements were a little less ambiguous. Judging by the post, we know the core team is disbanding. Great! Now what?
There is nothing in it about the future of X86, which would be mine and many others big concern.
It's all Slashdot speculation right now. Unless someone can provide us with more information on the subject.
Any Xfree86 developers out there?
What new core team?
The post indicated in the article said nothing about that.
I did.
It didn't say much of anything.
They used the word "disbanded" without any explination of how who when how or what will happen.
My reaction exactly.
But just because they stop producing it and supporting it, does that really mean we need to switch to something else?
Look at Windows, it's never been supported and that doesn't seem to stop anyone from continuing to use it.
Still, it kind of feels like the end of an era.
I can't help but wonder how all the applications that run on top of xfree86 will deal with this.
Fun!
You're giving Microsoft more credit than they deserve. I can't think of the last time they pioneered anything. Most everything I thought they pioneered, they're getting sued over patent infringement. So that's a moot point. Microsoft has the smallest lobbying effort in the software industry. Outback stake house spent more on Lobbying in 2002 than they did. So you see, it's not really fair to credit Microsoft with the modern sad state of intelectual property law. If people wearen't using office, they would be using something else. But make no mistake. The automation of the work place was obvious, and unmistakably inevitable. Anyone who tells you otherwise probably works for Microsoft. I'm sorry that your company is incapable of writing their own software products, and chooses to integrate with office instead. But it's fair to point out that companies that choose that route don't usually last very long because Microsoft tends to expand office dramatically between versions. OpenOffice.org on the other hand still has lots of room for expansion. And makes for a more convincing TCO argument. But what do I know?
Ariel's got bigger problems then a bunch of russians copying office...
I don't see how this relates to the economy. Microsoft is a transnational corporation. Companies like this usually find ways out of paying taxes. Their only real contribution to the economy is in the people they employ and the resources they use here in the US. But that could be said of any transnational.
I think it's great!
But the Israeli's have always been ahead of the curve technologically. I could be wrong, but wearen't they evaluating openoffice as part of a plan to migrate to Linux?
Let's take that thought experiment one step further. If SCO has a claim on bsd, and not linux, and SCO can get the bsd decision changed or annulled all together, and linux is using pieces of bsd, then doesn't that lagitimize their claim on linux, which wouldn't have otherwise been valid? Not that I know anything about this stuff, not being a lawyer and all.
Funny this should come up. I have a friend sells specialized unix-type systems to businesses. Before the SCO thing, his choice was FreeBSD. He has since switched to Linux for these systems because he thinks that the SCO claim to BSD has a more solid basis in fact than the linux claims.
Good point! Still might be fun though. I'll start the ball rolling as soon as their stock goes back to what it's worth. Somewhere in the two to three dollar range. :L)>
Depends. How do you know it would minipulate the stock price? Furthermore, how would you trace it back to /.?
It's only insider trading if you are using some sort of insider information that is not available to the public. Slashdot is by it's own definition, a public forum. If you decide to buy stock, on your own, or as part of a group, why would that be illegal? The selling part might get sticky, but again, with such a loosely organized group, how is anyone to control what an indavidual member of the group does? I would like to see them prove that.
You take yourself to seriously. I'm not disagreeing with you though. I was referring to the feature sprawl in photoshop. Although, Open source software like any other piece of software is driven by customer demand. And who better than developers to know what their audience, whatever that audience is, wants? What you end up with is a more eclectic system that is more rounded than a closed source product. And the article never mentioned reforking. The author didn't even consider that as a factor. Take for example, the recent little tidbit mentioned on slashdot, about REACTOS coming up with a way for writing to an NTFS partition. Since the system is open, other Linux developers working on other projects can benefit from that and other pieces like it. Closed source programmers (or any developers for that matter) on the other hand often suffer from tunnel vision. Forking a project can often bring the fresh blood the over all larger project needs. Just a thought. Don't assume it's the gospell, I could be wrong.