[...]
it looks great at the beginning when you code a first working bootloader, then it's a great joy when your first single-tasking kernel can run its first process, et cetera
[...]
I think everyone should write few toy operating systems, that's the only way one can learn the craft
[...]
So what? Many people wanna hack into computer just because hacking is interesting. They do that just for fun. Writing someone's own OS can quench his/her thirst of knowledge.
You seem to have completely failed to understand my words... *sigh* But this was probably my fault, I might have written them in a too complicated way, which let me sincerely apologize for.
But next time, please do try harder to understand words, which you are going to argue with.
I hope you will avoid such an embarrassment in the future.
Did it already
I just cheat, and recompile my linux or *bsd kernel, and then call it a day.
Just like Linus. He took GNU and wrote the kernel and called it after his name.
Linus Torvalds perfectly realised that
the name Linux was much too egotistical
and simply unacceptable.
We all agree about it now, but there's no point in
comlaining, because Torvalds had already known that at
the time of publishing the 0.01 version.
"Linux" was only meant to be his private, temporary name of the OS on his own PC, before it has ever been meant to be made public.
When he finally got to publish the first alpha version, he named it Freax,
but the FTP server administrator renamed
it to Linux.
I just cannot believe, that even after twelve years, you are still so ignorant and completely clueless about that matter. These are just basic facts. You might want to educate yourself before you speak up next time
only to embarrass yourself.
As someone, who has some experience in this field, I can assure you, that the correct answer to the question "Want To Write Your Own OS?" is "No, you certainly do not." Of course, it looks great at the beginning when you code a first working bootloader, then it's a great joy when your first single-tasking kernel can run its first process, et cetera. But as soon as you start working on the multitasking, decent scheduling, threads, multiple processes, file system, networking, writing an optimizing compiler and assembler suited for your platform, while constantly keeping security in mind, it soon becomes more work than using mature systems, like Open BSD or Debian, or even Gentoo.
Don't get me wrong, I think everyone should write few toy operating systems, that's the only way one can learn the craft, but don't expect that your OS will soon become better than the systems already available, because they are bloated, while yours wouldn't be. This is a myth, and quite misleading at that, to say the very least. Still, this is great news (even if not actually new to anyone experienced).
I don't know, maybe the server cannot handle the heavy load. Fortunately, I read it early and never closed the tab. Here it is:
Lik Sang News Archive
Looking for a past article or stories regarding a specific title? Search our online database and find what you are looking for.
Mass produced portable Dreamcast available in the streets of Hong Kong - Info and Pictures Sat Jun 14 2003 20:23:30 Hong Kong Time - Dreamcast
Hong Kong is a freaky place... where you can find freaky tech stuff. The latest unbelievable-but-true thingy we could pick up in the streets of Sham Shui Po (we saw also a couple of units on some Mong Kok shops' shelves for those who are familiar with Kowloon) is a portable Dreamcast console.
What you get comes in a big zip-around nylon bag with a very original brand name on it: Treamcast (no joke).
In the bag, you get the unit itself and a bunch of accessories:
- Two Treamcast marked fighter pad style controllers - A remote control for VCD/MP3 Playback mode (this feature is implemented in the system) - A 'PS LCD Monitor Electronic Adapter' w/ US plug, Input 110-220V, Output 12V - A Car adapter for long road trips;)
The unit itself is a mutant Dreamcast machine with Sega made firmware inside (US games compatible), modified and with a specially designed shape. The top case of the DC machine is coming with a built-in LCD Screen (similar to those you can plug into your PSone or your GameCube). The LCD screen is backlit and comes with a brightness regulator on the side. There is also a volume regulator on the right side of the GD-Rom player. Speakers and headphone connector are also integrated in the monster.
There is also no logo whatsoever on the top of the system and the front logo is looking like the Dreamcast spiral, but with angles. The name on the LCD screen and on the back of the hardware is Treamacast:)
This can't be true? Just take a look at the pictures of the portable Dreamcast in action!
There is unfortunately no way for Lik Sang to carry this product as it is infringing several Sega copyrights or patents. It is likely that this is one more weird product that will never be exported and will remain exclusively available in the Hong Kong shopping centers, with a retail price between HK$ 1200 and 1500. But still we thought it was cool enough to make a pause;)
This shows one more time two years after production has been discontinued, Dreamcast is still well alive. Lik Sang never believed it was dead and still carries hundreds of games and tons of accessories. Check out our Dreamcast section to find out! Get informed always when it happens using the Lik Sang Product Alert®. Just enter your email address below and you don't have to worry about knowing EVERYTHING of importance as one of the first persons.
As a matter of fact, I have bothered to read the article.
The explanation
"as it is infringing several Sega copyrights or patents"
is very informative indeed.
(Of course, I'm just being sarcastic. This "several Sega copyrights or patents" sounds like written by someone completely ignorant, who might also use the term "intellectual property" as well.)
The kind of portability of this thing is closer
to this
than this, that's for sure. But having that been said, I still like the idea though. It looks kind of cute, if you ask me.
The solution to the problem is simple...
All Bill [Gates] has to do is buy up one record label, one movie studio and one TV network. Maybe a book publisher for good measure. If he wanted to do it in one fell swoop, he could buy Disney.
[...]
As for independent content developers, they could submit material to the network and get paid a royalty based on its popularity. This could spur on many more small projects like the "Blair Witch Projects" and "Clerks". Maybe music would become much more varied because just a few suits aren't deciding what gets played.
Yes, I'm sure Bill Gates controlling the only distribution channel for all of the content in the world, would mean a heaven for independent producers, indeed...
Just like controlling the software market by Microsoft has made it become a paradise for independent software producers.
*sigh*
You say 'is that how you talk to women', and yet use the most downgrading name you can think of, 'babe'
You find
these insults funny and "OK," still, you think that "babe" is "the most downgrading name you can think of"? Please take no offense, but your logic seems to be quite inconsistent, to say the very least.
If you really have to know that, then let me explain the reason I use that nickname. I do hope this explanation will finally end that farse. I personally don't find it downgrading at all. After I won a beauty contest at my university (I didn't even know that there was such a contest, I'm usually not interested in such things, and that anyone could vote for anyone, even for someone who didn't explicitly state her will to participate), some people, who didn't know me personally, but knew that I belong to the Mensa
and won the contest, started to call me Mensa Babe, because, in their opinion I am a "hot babe." Actually, I personally don't think so, but after most of my friends who liked that nick started to call me Mensa Babe, I got used to it, and it was natural to use such a nick on line. I probably would have never used that nick, if I had known that it would cause so much insulting comments from people like you.
So, i'll just treat all your posts as trolls.
Please treat them however you please,
even as "trolls" whatever that means
in today teenagers' "cool" lingo.
If that means, that you will finally stop insulting me, then I'm all for it.
The only possible way it could be illegal or invalid would be the case, if the rights which the author gives up, would be impossible to give up even if anyone wills to do it (e.g. some fundamental human right), while it is cetrainly not the case with the GPL.
Or, if, as SCO is claiming, the author didn't have the rights to give up in the first place (i.e., the author didn't have any right to the code in the first place).
Of course, this dosn't have anything to do with the license itself. Such a person who had no rights to license the code couldn't be considered author from the legal point of view. I was talking about the code licensed on the terms of the GPL by the copyright holder in the context of this story, which is not about SCO's code used in Linux, but the Linux code used in SCO's products.
While I agree 1000% with your opinion (I'm a big supporter of the GPL, and I have code released under its terms), it is still the case that GPL has never been tested in a court of law, and therefore, whether or not it is enforceable by a court is a variable who's value is still undetermined.
That is true, but I am not holding my breath. I cannot imagine anyone sane, who used someone else's GPL'ed code in a proprietary product,
going to court claiming that GPL is
unenforceable or otherwise invalid,
only to open oneself to charges for
breaking the copyright law.
Slashdot is crawling with idiots. Just ignore them.
You are right, thank you.
I'm trying to add every one of them to my "freak"
list, but it's not easy, when I'm still being
insulted by some new ones...
Thank you for good word, though.
You are trolling arn't you? Are you really a babe? are you a member of mensa? or just a good troll?
Those are probably the most stupid questions I have ever seen. (I know, there are no stupid questions, there are only stupid people.)
As a member of Mensa
and someone who can think logically,
I can assure you, that no matter what I would answer to any of these questions, there would be absolutely no way
to prove those anwers and therefore those questions themselves
are completely meaningless,
as would also be any answer to them.
I can understand that you might have little interaction with women
(and this is really nothing to be embarrassed about), so a conversation with a woman,
even on a public web forum, can
be unbelievable to you.
But what would have you answered if
I had asked you
if you are really a boy?
(Of course you understand that saying just "yes" doesn't mean anything, as our stated gender
is something, which is already implied by our nick names.)
I would have laughed when I was a minors, what are you protecting them from anyhow?
If this is the way you think
men should talk to women,
then I can only
wish one thing
to your future girlfriend.
I wish her
that you will first grow up
and become more intelligent,
before you ever meet her.
Otherwise, it can be
a very insulting experience to her.
Trust me,
I know what I am talking about.
In my opinion it is not possible to
say that
the GNU General Public License
is unenforceable.
First of all, the GPL is not an EULA.
Second of all, it doesn't forbit doing anything
at all with the software, which isn't already forbidden by the copyright law.
Everything the GPL does is giving the user
more rights, while giving up some
privileges of the author,
i.e. those very privileges to not give the additional rights to the user, which are not given to the user by the copyright law itself.
The only
possible way it could be illegal or invalid would be the case, if the rights which the author gives up, would be impossible to give up
even if anyone wills to do it
(e.g. some fundamental human right),
while it is cetrainly not the case
with the GPL.
In the context of SCO,
the only way the GPL could go to court
would be something like this:
SCO says: "Yes, your honor,
we used the GPL lincensed code
in out proprietary software, but GPL
is invalid, illegal, unenforceable, viral,
evil, stupid, we didn't sign it, it's not legally binding, etc."
The fact is, that even if the GPL is perfectly OK,
they didn't have to accept it,
it's really up to them, so it doesn't
matter if they say it's illegal, or that they
simply rejected it. It doesn't matter at all.
What does matter is the fact, that after
questioning or rejecting the GPL, the rest
of the case is a classical ages-old example
of violating the copyright law.
It is the very same situation, no matter
if they used Linux while rejecting the GPL,
they used a code without any explicit
license with
only a copyright notice "Copyright (C) XXX All rights reserved"
or they illegally
distributed some proprietary software, like, say,
parts of Microsoft Windows or Sun Solaris.
When they don't like the terms of the GNU General Public License, then from their point of view,
and from the court point of view,
Linux is legally indistinguishable from
Windows.
So, it doesn't even make much
sense to wonder if the GPL is enforceable.
The copyright law is enforceable
and this is what really matters.
This, by the way, shows the genius of Richard Stallman, who hacked the copyright law
with the GNU General Public License.
I am talking about it now, but he
already knew it all twenty years ago,
while discussing the GPL
(called GNU Emacs License during 1985-1989)
with Mark Fischer, Jerry Cohen and other great copyright law experts.
As Stallman said in 1986 BYTE interview:
"You could also see it as using the legal system that software hoarders have set up against them. I'm using it to protect the public from them."
I think you misunderstand the reason for compiling the code. (...)
One possible way of proving it is to compile the code, and then compare it to binaries that SCO has sold to its customers for the last 10 years.
I see, you are talking about the way, how SCO could prove to us that the code is old indeed, without showing us the code, am I right?
Well, it's not important to me.
I don't care if their trade secrets are lost.
What I was talking about was how we could
check if there is indeed the same code in Linux and SCO's proprietary software, having access to Linux source, but not to SCO's source.
Then, knowing the exact bytes in Linux binary, we could get to the source and track who and when added it to Linux. I was talking about how we could find the secret code which SCO is talking about, before SCO is even willing to show it to us. That way we could already track the history of this code
(Was it copied from BSD? Was it sent by IBM employer? Was it written by Linus even before Caldera had bought SCO? etc.)
without waiting for SCO to finally tell us what are they really talking about, to already have
a counterattack prepared and ready to strike.
I'm sorry but I don't really think
such texts like this answer to
my comment are appropriate,
to say the very least.
This forum could be read by minors.
I, as an adult, feel insulted and disgusted.
I'm sure everyone here will agree with me, that
we should not tolerate such behavior.
Obviously? Maybe there is another explanation. Maybe your comment just sucked. Moderators, anybody got some overrated points left, because even at 2 is has more points than it deserves... Keep your positive mod points for the insightful response to that comment...
Actually, what I meant was, that
my comment had only Score:2
and for that reason
no one had read it,
not the other way around.
When there are few hundreds of comments
with Score:2, most of readers will
set higher threshold.
What can I say...
I am very sorry that you misunderstood me,
and I am even sorrier that your
comment was so rude and childish.
Next time please try to calm down and
post nicer comments.
Offensive rhetoric and vulgar words
don't make your comments sound more
intelligent.
I am sorry that you didn't find my comment
interesting or worth reading,
but you could say it in some nicer way,
offending me was at least unnecessary.
It had to be compiled with the same compiler and with the same options, but the binary comparicon might not be enough, because the same code in different context would be compiled with different registers, different memory addresses, etc. But a disassembly of both compiled binaries could be stripped of everything but the opcodes, and
it could be compared by some modified version of diff, which would print common blocks which are larger than some minimal number,
maybe even allowing some maximum number of mistakes, etc. This could be done, provided we could compile Linux with exactly the same compiler, the same version, with the same options, as the SCO's system was compiled with.
This could be the case that tests the GPL. We *need* this and should embrace it. It will put to the death once and for all the FUD that Open Source licenses won't pass legal muster.
There is no need to prove the legality
of GPL. If it was invalid, or if
someone doesn't want to agree with its terms
(because no one has to accept GPL,
as it is stated in the GPL itself
-- you don't have to sign it, after all)
then the only rules there are, are those
imposed by the copyright law, which makes it
illegal to distribute copyrighted works.
If anyone wants to distribute GPL'ed software
while saying that she doesn't agree with the GPL,
or while questioning its legality,
then all she has is a copyright law,
which clearly states that what she's doing
is illegal.
I have posted a comment about it, but it has only Score:2, so obviously no one has read it.
Basically, if SCO thinks GPL doesn't mean
anything from the legal point of view, then,
after rejecting the GPL,
when they look at the Linux kernel,
what they have is just a piece of software
with "Copyright (C) 1991-2003 Linus & Co. All right reserved."
that even if you have already read it,
this text is being constantly updated,
so you still might want to check
it out for the latest
updated, such as those from 2003-05-26.
First of all, I will be really grateful,
if you start using at least whole
sentences while quoting me. Thank you.
If (by which I mean IF)
this.zip thing was a standard,
it would not be going to "fragment,"
period.
That's idiotic...
There is nothing
like a mature argument
between two intelligent, adult human beings... *sigh*
Today, I could grab the GZip/BZip2 source code, then make some changes to make an incompatible version. By your definition, Bzip2/Gzip are therefore, not standards.
No. *sigh*
(Please take no offense, but your logic
is quite irrational, to say the very least,
so don't mind if I get somehow annoyed.)
"By [my] definition," if you insist
calling the pure reason that way,
such
an incompatible derivative work
would not be standard, while
the original standard
versions would
still be standard
versions.
Gzip is a standard. Bzip2 is a standard.
Tar is a standard. Zip is NOT
a standard.
The specifications for the Zip standard are freely available. Therefore, it is a standard.
Once again, No.
I could design my own format,
totally incompatible with everything in use,
publish the specification and call it
a "standard."
But would it instantly become a standard?
By all means, no,
not at all.
And I see absolutely no reason to
use slower, compression-ratio-wise poorer,
proprietary,
as well as otherwise inferior "standard"
(notice the quote marks), when we have
real standards available.
If compression ratio is all that matters, stop using Gzip and exclusively use Bzip2.
For God's sake... No.
(You are just not going to stop, are you?)
Please read my words once again.
I was talking about
compression-ratio, as well as about speed and the
software legal status.
I'm sure now you can clearly see, that compression-ratio
is not "all that matters" for me.
Both gzip and bzip2 are open standards
with standard implementation
available as free software.
Gzip is faster.
Bzip2 has better compression ratio.
I always use the one, which is
better for a given situation.
Sometimes computational complexity is the most
important factor and "gzip -1" is the best choice. Sometimes output size is
the most important factor and then "bzip2 -9" is optimal.
I have no idea why on Earth
do you think data compression
methods
could only have one important characteristic, and I am insulted
by you implying, that I
have said that, while in fact, I certainly
have not
said anything like that.
If you only use *nix systems then yes, that is correct.
However for many years the Windows standard of compressing files has been the zip. Ask a standard Windows user what a tar, bz2, or tgz file is and will have no clue.
"A standard Windows user"
(since when MS-Windows is a standard?
I don't think it is POSIX compliant.)
doesn't even see her
files' suffixii (which, by the way,
is the sole reason for e-mail Trojan
horses usually having names, such as
"innocent.doc.exe")
and she uses whatever program, which is
associated with a given suffix.
For that very reason, no matter if she gets
"cat-latest-photos.zip" or, e.g.
"cat-latest-photos.tgz,"
she sees just "cat-latest-photos," which, after clicking, will be handled by, e.g.
Win Zip. See Internet File Format Support In WinZip:
"WinZip features support for the TAR and gzip formats. This means you can use WinZip to work with almost all compressed files downloaded from the Internet. No external programs are needed for these file formats."
I always care about MS-Windows users.
I don't see any reason to ignore them just because they are usually misinformed. This would just not
be professional.
While it's always good to have a *nix perspective on things here on/., to say that zip is not a standard in the Windows world is to ignore the reality of the situation.
I can assure you, that,
no matter how strongly you are
trying to implicate it,
I would never
ignore the reality of the situation.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to have completely failed to understand my words... *sigh* But this was probably my fault, I might have written them in a too complicated way, which let me sincerely apologize for. But next time, please do try harder to understand words, which you are going to argue with. I hope you will avoid such an embarrassment in the future.
Linus Torvalds perfectly realised that the name Linux was much too egotistical and simply unacceptable. We all agree about it now, but there's no point in comlaining, because Torvalds had already known that at the time of publishing the 0.01 version. "Linux" was only meant to be his private, temporary name of the OS on his own PC, before it has ever been meant to be made public. When he finally got to publish the first alpha version, he named it Freax, but the FTP server administrator renamed it to Linux. I just cannot believe, that even after twelve years, you are still so ignorant and completely clueless about that matter. These are just basic facts. You might want to educate yourself before you speak up next time only to embarrass yourself.
As someone, who has some experience in this field, I can assure you, that the correct answer to the question "Want To Write Your Own OS?" is "No, you certainly do not." Of course, it looks great at the beginning when you code a first working bootloader, then it's a great joy when your first single-tasking kernel can run its first process, et cetera. But as soon as you start working on the multitasking, decent scheduling, threads, multiple processes, file system, networking, writing an optimizing compiler and assembler suited for your platform, while constantly keeping security in mind, it soon becomes more work than using mature systems, like Open BSD or Debian, or even Gentoo. Don't get me wrong, I think everyone should write few toy operating systems, that's the only way one can learn the craft, but don't expect that your OS will soon become better than the systems already available, because they are bloated, while yours wouldn't be. This is a myth, and quite misleading at that, to say the very least. Still, this is great news (even if not actually new to anyone experienced).
Is it really incorrect to write "for all intensive purposes"? That's very interesting... Who would of thought about it?
I don't know, maybe the server cannot handle the heavy load. Fortunately, I read it early and never closed the tab. Here it is:
;)
:)
;)
Lik Sang News Archive
Looking for a past article or stories regarding a specific title? Search our online database and find what you are looking for.
Mass produced portable Dreamcast available in the streets of Hong Kong - Info and Pictures
Sat Jun 14 2003 20:23:30 Hong Kong Time - Dreamcast
Hong Kong is a freaky place... where you can find freaky tech stuff. The latest unbelievable-but-true thingy we could pick up in the streets of Sham Shui Po (we saw also a couple of units on some Mong Kok shops' shelves for those who are familiar with Kowloon) is a portable Dreamcast console.
What you get comes in a big zip-around nylon bag with a very original brand name on it: Treamcast (no joke).
In the bag, you get the unit itself and a bunch of accessories:
- Two Treamcast marked fighter pad style controllers
- A remote control for VCD/MP3 Playback mode (this feature is implemented in the system)
- A 'PS LCD Monitor Electronic Adapter' w/ US plug, Input 110-220V, Output 12V
- A Car adapter for long road trips
The unit itself is a mutant Dreamcast machine with Sega made firmware inside (US games compatible), modified and with a specially designed shape. The top case of the DC machine is coming with a built-in LCD Screen (similar to those you can plug into your PSone or your GameCube). The LCD screen is backlit and comes with a brightness regulator on the side. There is also a volume regulator on the right side of the GD-Rom player. Speakers and headphone connector are also integrated in the monster.
There is also no logo whatsoever on the top of the system and the front logo is looking like the Dreamcast spiral, but with angles. The name on the LCD screen and on the back of the hardware is Treamacast
This can't be true? Just take a look at the pictures of the portable Dreamcast in action!
There is unfortunately no way for Lik Sang to carry this product as it is infringing several Sega copyrights or patents. It is likely that this is one more weird product that will never be exported and will remain exclusively available in the Hong Kong shopping centers, with a retail price between HK$ 1200 and 1500. But still we thought it was cool enough to make a pause
This shows one more time two years after production has been discontinued, Dreamcast is still well alive. Lik Sang never believed it was dead and still carries hundreds of games and tons of accessories. Check out our Dreamcast section to find out!
Get informed always when it happens using the Lik Sang Product Alert®. Just enter your email address below and you don't have to worry about knowing EVERYTHING of importance as one of the first persons.
As a matter of fact, I have bothered to read the article. The explanation "as it is infringing several Sega copyrights or patents" is very informative indeed. (Of course, I'm just being sarcastic. This "several Sega copyrights or patents" sounds like written by someone completely ignorant, who might also use the term "intellectual property" as well.)
The kind of portability of this thing is closer to this than this, that's for sure. But having that been said, I still like the idea though. It looks kind of cute, if you ask me.
"No idea as to how legal this would be in the US or Europe though."
Why on Earth anyone sane would think it could be illegal?
Yes, I'm sure Bill Gates controlling the only distribution channel for all of the content in the world, would mean a heaven for independent producers, indeed... Just like controlling the software market by Microsoft has made it become a paradise for independent software producers. *sigh*
You find these insults funny and "OK," still, you think that "babe" is "the most downgrading name you can think of"? Please take no offense, but your logic seems to be quite inconsistent, to say the very least. If you really have to know that, then let me explain the reason I use that nickname. I do hope this explanation will finally end that farse. I personally don't find it downgrading at all. After I won a beauty contest at my university (I didn't even know that there was such a contest, I'm usually not interested in such things, and that anyone could vote for anyone, even for someone who didn't explicitly state her will to participate), some people, who didn't know me personally, but knew that I belong to the Mensa and won the contest, started to call me Mensa Babe, because, in their opinion I am a "hot babe." Actually, I personally don't think so, but after most of my friends who liked that nick started to call me Mensa Babe, I got used to it, and it was natural to use such a nick on line. I probably would have never used that nick, if I had known that it would cause so much insulting comments from people like you.
Please treat them however you please, even as "trolls" whatever that means in today teenagers' "cool" lingo. If that means, that you will finally stop insulting me, then I'm all for it.
is to let this license be revoked, use GNU, Linux, BSD, whatever instead of SCO's code, and finally end this whole farse.
Of course, this dosn't have anything to do with the license itself. Such a person who had no rights to license the code couldn't be considered author from the legal point of view. I was talking about the code licensed on the terms of the GPL by the copyright holder in the context of this story, which is not about SCO's code used in Linux, but the Linux code used in SCO's products.
That is true, but I am not holding my breath. I cannot imagine anyone sane, who used someone else's GPL'ed code in a proprietary product, going to court claiming that GPL is unenforceable or otherwise invalid, only to open oneself to charges for breaking the copyright law.
You are right, thank you. I'm trying to add every one of them to my "freak" list, but it's not easy, when I'm still being insulted by some new ones... Thank you for good word, though.
Those are probably the most stupid questions I have ever seen. (I know, there are no stupid questions, there are only stupid people.)
As a member of Mensa and someone who can think logically, I can assure you, that no matter what I would answer to any of these questions, there would be absolutely no way to prove those anwers and therefore those questions themselves are completely meaningless, as would also be any answer to them.
I can understand that you might have little interaction with women (and this is really nothing to be embarrassed about), so a conversation with a woman, even on a public web forum, can be unbelievable to you. But what would have you answered if I had asked you if you are really a boy? (Of course you understand that saying just "yes" doesn't mean anything, as our stated gender is something, which is already implied by our nick names.)
If this is the way you think men should talk to women, then I can only wish one thing to your future girlfriend. I wish her that you will first grow up and become more intelligent, before you ever meet her. Otherwise, it can be a very insulting experience to her. Trust me, I know what I am talking about.
In my opinion it is not possible to say that the GNU General Public License is unenforceable.
First of all, the GPL is not an EULA.
Second of all, it doesn't forbit doing anything at all with the software, which isn't already forbidden by the copyright law. Everything the GPL does is giving the user more rights, while giving up some privileges of the author, i.e. those very privileges to not give the additional rights to the user, which are not given to the user by the copyright law itself.
The only possible way it could be illegal or invalid would be the case, if the rights which the author gives up, would be impossible to give up even if anyone wills to do it (e.g. some fundamental human right), while it is cetrainly not the case with the GPL.
In the context of SCO, the only way the GPL could go to court would be something like this: SCO says: "Yes, your honor, we used the GPL lincensed code in out proprietary software, but GPL is invalid, illegal, unenforceable, viral, evil, stupid, we didn't sign it, it's not legally binding, etc."
The fact is, that even if the GPL is perfectly OK, they didn't have to accept it, it's really up to them, so it doesn't matter if they say it's illegal, or that they simply rejected it. It doesn't matter at all.
What does matter is the fact, that after questioning or rejecting the GPL, the rest of the case is a classical ages-old example of violating the copyright law.
It is the very same situation, no matter if they used Linux while rejecting the GPL, they used a code without any explicit license with only a copyright notice "Copyright (C) XXX All rights reserved" or they illegally distributed some proprietary software, like, say, parts of Microsoft Windows or Sun Solaris.
When they don't like the terms of the GNU General Public License, then from their point of view, and from the court point of view, Linux is legally indistinguishable from Windows.
So, it doesn't even make much sense to wonder if the GPL is enforceable. The copyright law is enforceable and this is what really matters.
This, by the way, shows the genius of Richard Stallman, who hacked the copyright law with the GNU General Public License. I am talking about it now, but he already knew it all twenty years ago, while discussing the GPL (called GNU Emacs License during 1985-1989) with Mark Fischer, Jerry Cohen and other great copyright law experts.
As Stallman said in 1986 BYTE interview: "You could also see it as using the legal system that software hoarders have set up against them. I'm using it to protect the public from them."
I see, you are talking about the way, how SCO could prove to us that the code is old indeed, without showing us the code, am I right? Well, it's not important to me. I don't care if their trade secrets are lost. What I was talking about was how we could check if there is indeed the same code in Linux and SCO's proprietary software, having access to Linux source, but not to SCO's source. Then, knowing the exact bytes in Linux binary, we could get to the source and track who and when added it to Linux. I was talking about how we could find the secret code which SCO is talking about, before SCO is even willing to show it to us. That way we could already track the history of this code (Was it copied from BSD? Was it sent by IBM employer? Was it written by Linus even before Caldera had bought SCO? etc.) without waiting for SCO to finally tell us what are they really talking about, to already have a counterattack prepared and ready to strike.
I'm sorry but I don't really think such texts like this answer to my comment are appropriate, to say the very least. This forum could be read by minors. I, as an adult, feel insulted and disgusted. I'm sure everyone here will agree with me, that we should not tolerate such behavior.
Actually, what I meant was, that my comment had only Score:2 and for that reason no one had read it, not the other way around. When there are few hundreds of comments with Score:2, most of readers will set higher threshold. What can I say... I am very sorry that you misunderstood me, and I am even sorrier that your comment was so rude and childish. Next time please try to calm down and post nicer comments. Offensive rhetoric and vulgar words don't make your comments sound more intelligent. I am sorry that you didn't find my comment interesting or worth reading, but you could say it in some nicer way, offending me was at least unnecessary.
It had to be compiled with the same compiler and with the same options, but the binary comparicon might not be enough, because the same code in different context would be compiled with different registers, different memory addresses, etc. But a disassembly of both compiled binaries could be stripped of everything but the opcodes, and it could be compared by some modified version of diff, which would print common blocks which are larger than some minimal number, maybe even allowing some maximum number of mistakes, etc. This could be done, provided we could compile Linux with exactly the same compiler, the same version, with the same options, as the SCO's system was compiled with.
There is no need to prove the legality of GPL. If it was invalid, or if someone doesn't want to agree with its terms (because no one has to accept GPL, as it is stated in the GPL itself -- you don't have to sign it, after all) then the only rules there are, are those imposed by the copyright law, which makes it illegal to distribute copyrighted works. If anyone wants to distribute GPL'ed software while saying that she doesn't agree with the GPL, or while questioning its legality, then all she has is a copyright law, which clearly states that what she's doing is illegal. I have posted a comment about it, but it has only Score:2, so obviously no one has read it. Basically, if SCO thinks GPL doesn't mean anything from the legal point of view, then, after rejecting the GPL, when they look at the Linux kernel, what they have is just a piece of software with "Copyright (C) 1991-2003 Linus & Co. All right reserved."
"Did SCO Violate the GPL?"
No. If they had published Linux code as proprietary software, they have violated the copyright law.
that even if you have already read it, this text is being constantly updated, so you still might want to check it out for the latest updated, such as those from 2003-05-26.
read Eric S. Raymond's OSI Position Paper on the SCO-vs.-IBM Complaint, I suggest to read it. It is very interesting and shows that we have nothing at all to worry about. Great job, ESR!
First of all, I will be really grateful, if you start using at least whole sentences while quoting me. Thank you.
There is nothing like a mature argument between two intelligent, adult human beings... *sigh*
No. *sigh* (Please take no offense, but your logic is quite irrational, to say the very least, so don't mind if I get somehow annoyed.)
"By [my] definition," if you insist calling the pure reason that way, such an incompatible derivative work would not be standard, while the original standard versions would still be standard versions.
Once again, No. I could design my own format, totally incompatible with everything in use, publish the specification and call it a "standard." But would it instantly become a standard? By all means, no, not at all.
For God's sake... No. (You are just not going to stop, are you?) Please read my words once again. I was talking about compression-ratio, as well as about speed and the software legal status.
I'm sure now you can clearly see, that compression-ratio is not "all that matters" for me.
Both gzip and bzip2 are open standards with standard implementation available as free software.
Gzip is faster.
Bzip2 has better compression ratio.
I always use the one, which is better for a given situation.
Sometimes computational complexity is the most important factor and "gzip -1" is the best choice. Sometimes output size is the most important factor and then "bzip2 -9" is optimal.
I have no idea why on Earth do you think data compression methods could only have one important characteristic, and I am insulted by you implying, that I have said that, while in fact, I certainly have not said anything like that.
"A standard Windows user" (since when MS-Windows is a standard? I don't think it is POSIX compliant.) doesn't even see her files' suffixii (which, by the way, is the sole reason for e-mail Trojan horses usually having names, such as "innocent.doc.exe") and she uses whatever program, which is associated with a given suffix.
For that very reason, no matter if she gets "cat-latest-photos.zip" or, e.g. "cat-latest-photos.tgz," she sees just "cat-latest-photos," which, after clicking, will be handled by, e.g. Win Zip. See Internet File Format Support In WinZip:
I always care about MS-Windows users. I don't see any reason to ignore them just because they are usually misinformed. This would just not be professional.
I can assure you, that, no matter how strongly you are trying to implicate it, I would never ignore the reality of the situation.