Torvalds in an e-mail interview compared the fight between SCO, IBM and Novell Inc. to bad TV. "Quite frankly, I found it mostly interesting in a Jerry Springer kind of way. White trash battling it out in public, throwing chairs at each other. SCO crying about IBM's other women.... Fairly entertaining," said Torvalds.
Pass me the popcorn.
On a more serious note is the statement that;
[Micheal] Overly said a review of the code by anyone other than a judge "means absolutely, positively nothing" in determining the merit of SCO's claims.
So basically, the word from a legal expert is 'lets get this to court, shall we?'
and you will find that there is a charitable fund set up to buy this and turn her into a floating museum, as befits her place as the last surviving WW2 british aircraft carrier
A lot less interesting than the 'world domination' plans, but then, this carrier is outdated and wouldn't last 2 minutes against a modern navy, hence why it is for public sale.
They no longer support Windows 98 either, officially, and Me... well, Me is M$'s bastard grandchild OS and all copies of it should have been burnt in the pressing house.
What I am expecting will happen is that IE will be absorbed into the integrated office environment, in the same way the Word/Excel et al are being drawn into just one package.
By bundling everything in together (probably with a mail client), M$ no longer have to worry about the opposition packages. It also would no surprise me to see integrated OS and Office package bundles/licenses, to keep out the competition.
As for the lack of support for DRM in Win98 being a motivation for no longer producing a standalone version, remember that M$ officially no longer supports Win98 installations.
Re:It's because of the women
on
Nokia 5100 Reviewed
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
That is a little simplistic (not to mention quite sexist) - I think it is marketed at the kind of person who would buy useless upgrades like the glow in the dark alloys.
Or the kind of people who buy SUV's, that is more the target 'demographic'
At the end of the day, what I want from a mobile phone is the ability to make calls, a battery that lasts ages, and the ability to recieve text messages. All the rest of this shite doesn't interest me in the slightest. I have a torch I carry around anyway.
It was Carthage, IIRC, not Capua, that was the victim of the original salting of the earth, which does ruin the soil to a certain extent (although it can be later rejuvenated, with a great deal of effort)
Probably, but its just the same as glossing over the problems with electric vehicles - the power has to come from somewhere, and while solar is all very well, some days it just won't do (bad weather)
at that point, its going to come from the mains electric supply, which means coal, oil or nuclear, in the main.
Burning Hydrogen causes no pollutants whatsoever, so i'd imagine that the design simply went with whatever solution provided most mechanical/engineering/sales benefits.
Could be anything, the building is redbrick, so there are Iron traces in the walls naturally, nothing can be done about that as a possible cause.
The fact of the matter is that I and the rest of the techs are fed up of hearing the word 'should' being used in conjunction with Wireless in all its forms. It isn't good for us to troubleshoot, it isn't good for the customer who has critical operations failing because of the technology.
Give it 5 years and I'd expect that most of the issues will have been documented and ironed out, or at least are known and with a workaround. But until then, I fail to see the benefits of using Wireless over using wires in all but an exceptionally small number of cases.
We do have other clients, with Wireless are satisfied with the technology. But in the centre of a large city, it just isn't a reliable option for our clients, so we recomend against.
Regretably, our company didn't get to install the networks, in question, we just got employed to support them...
The WAN thing was a typo, my bad.
But yes, you are correct in everything you say, the weather shouldn't affect signalling, nor should conventional mobile phones.
But it does.
There is a very definite, and very noticeable correlation between weather conditions and poor Wireless connectivity. Every time we have done any research into the problem, with the manufacturer or in any one of a bunch of online forums, all the answer that comes back is "that isn't possible for blah reason".
Great. I and my colleagues on the other hand, am the one with hands on the controls, and I can categorically state that it DOES have an effect.
We can duplicate the issues, we can predict when the weather is going to cause issues. We cannot actually figure out why. Any suggestions are more than welcome. Until then, we are recomending against all forms of Wireless. It is not a working technology yet. It works in ideal conditions, in labs, in our own test beds. It fails in the field.
As someone who has, on regular occasion, the responsibility of supporting Wireless access technologies for Companies, I can state categorically that the current standards are NOT up to scratch as yet.
What do I mean? Well, for a start I have lost track of the number of times individual machines on Wireless simply 'drop out' of communication, leading to perception on the part of our customers that this isn't a reliable , responsible technology.
We have seen, in implementing Wireless, a whole host of different issues - in ideal circumstances Wireless access works well, is fast enough to be used for most internal office purposes and so on.
The problem with Wireless in any form is that it is not as tollerant of non-ideal conditions. Adverse weather conditions (especially during the summer, when static build up knocks out entire Wireless networks on a regular basis), passing vehicles, other communication devices (especially mobile phones, which regardless of advancements in tech will continue to operate alongside any upgraded solution for some considerable time) and simple things like the type of clothing work by the person using the computer, have been known to knock a machine out of a WAN.
Solutions of phone technology over existing Cat5e UTP cable networking, such as that provided by Nortel Networks work well, with integration into existing office apps, but Wireless for Data is still, in the field, an unreliable technology. Wireless for VoIP still runs the issue of packet lossage (which on any Wireless solution i have ever seen runs at upwards of 25%), which is far more serious than equivalent signal loss for conventional mobile telecom solutions.
Well, that link appears to have been/.ed, but if it is as you say then I would hope that $CO would have checked it first.
Then again, they haven't shown much in the way of common sense so far in this anti-Linux campaign, so who knows. It would be entertaining if they have shot themselves in the foot.
Slashdot Mirror
Query: Does anyone have a link to the text of the non-disclosure agreement the SCO are wanting the experts to sign?
I'd quite like to have a look at exactly what is being asked of the experts.
Might be a spoof. Might not. All of it rings eerily plausible.
An MSN tech speaks
Some of the other links from the blog page are even funnier, especially the one about M$ spam
And the one about the periodic table of elements... some people are just odd.
Have you noticed that it was registered only 12 days ago?
:)
So, anyone out there bought the domain? We'll all help with content
Linus is right;
... Fairly entertaining," said Torvalds.
Torvalds in an e-mail interview compared the fight between SCO, IBM and Novell Inc. to bad TV. "Quite frankly, I found it mostly interesting in a Jerry Springer kind of way. White trash battling it out in public, throwing chairs at each other. SCO crying about IBM's other women.
Pass me the popcorn.
On a more serious note is the statement that;
[Micheal] Overly said a review of the code by anyone other than a judge "means absolutely, positively nothing" in determining the merit of SCO's claims.
So basically, the word from a legal expert is 'lets get this to court, shall we?'
Bring it on Darl!
"We do not see the dismissal as a loss, rather, we see it as a victory."
Repeat after me: There are no American Tanks in Baghdad
For so many reasons, This page comes to mind.
It appears that /. has denied service to the links in the story - mirrors anyone?
only because it is the most common - it is actually less compliant than most other browsers
and you will find that there is a charitable fund set up to buy this and turn her into a floating museum, as befits her place as the last surviving WW2 british aircraft carrier
A lot less interesting than the 'world domination' plans, but then, this carrier is outdated and wouldn't last 2 minutes against a modern navy, hence why it is for public sale.
Yeah, i got that bit, it was the detailed proof that made my head hurt
Nope, they lost me as well. Those people are Real geeks. :)
/. effect.
It would also appear that their server was a bit fragile, it isn't responding fast and I think it'll be succumbing to the
They no longer support Windows 98 either, officially, and Me... well, Me is M$'s bastard grandchild OS and all copies of it should have been burnt in the pressing house.
Just my personal bias, that.
What I am expecting will happen is that IE will be absorbed into the integrated office environment, in the same way the Word/Excel et al are being drawn into just one package.
By bundling everything in together (probably with a mail client), M$ no longer have to worry about the opposition packages. It also would no surprise me to see integrated OS and Office package bundles/licenses, to keep out the competition.
As for the lack of support for DRM in Win98 being a motivation for no longer producing a standalone version, remember that M$ officially no longer supports Win98 installations.
That is a little simplistic (not to mention quite sexist) - I think it is marketed at the kind of person who would buy useless upgrades like the glow in the dark alloys.
Or the kind of people who buy SUV's, that is more the target 'demographic'
At the end of the day, what I want from a mobile phone is the ability to make calls, a battery that lasts ages, and the ability to recieve text messages. All the rest of this shite doesn't interest me in the slightest. I have a torch I carry around anyway.
It was Carthage, IIRC, not Capua, that was the victim of the original salting of the earth, which does ruin the soil to a certain extent (although it can be later rejuvenated, with a great deal of effort)
Probably, but its just the same as glossing over the problems with electric vehicles - the power has to come from somewhere, and while solar is all very well, some days it just won't do (bad weather)
at that point, its going to come from the mains electric supply, which means coal, oil or nuclear, in the main.
Burning Hydrogen causes no pollutants whatsoever, so i'd imagine that the design simply went with whatever solution provided most mechanical/engineering/sales benefits.
2H + O = Water
Could be anything, the building is redbrick, so there are Iron traces in the walls naturally, nothing can be done about that as a possible cause.
The fact of the matter is that I and the rest of the techs are fed up of hearing the word 'should' being used in conjunction with Wireless in all its forms. It isn't good for us to troubleshoot, it isn't good for the customer who has critical operations failing because of the technology.
Give it 5 years and I'd expect that most of the issues will have been documented and ironed out, or at least are known and with a workaround. But until then, I fail to see the benefits of using Wireless over using wires in all but an exceptionally small number of cases.
We do have other clients, with Wireless are satisfied with the technology. But in the centre of a large city, it just isn't a reliable option for our clients, so we recomend against.
They switched IT suppliers to come to us after their Wireless went in and didn't work properly when the other company did it.
We are recomending a return to wires. They work, the wireless doesn't.
Regretably, our company didn't get to install the networks, in question, we just got employed to support them...
The WAN thing was a typo, my bad.
But yes, you are correct in everything you say, the weather shouldn't affect signalling, nor should conventional mobile phones.
But it does.
There is a very definite, and very noticeable correlation between weather conditions and poor Wireless connectivity. Every time we have done any research into the problem, with the manufacturer or in any one of a bunch of online forums, all the answer that comes back is "that isn't possible for blah reason".
Great. I and my colleagues on the other hand, am the one with hands on the controls, and I can categorically state that it DOES have an effect.
We can duplicate the issues, we can predict when the weather is going to cause issues. We cannot actually figure out why. Any suggestions are more than welcome. Until then, we are recomending against all forms of Wireless. It is not a working technology yet. It works in ideal conditions, in labs, in our own test beds. It fails in the field.
As someone who has, on regular occasion, the responsibility of supporting Wireless access technologies for Companies, I can state categorically that the current standards are NOT up to scratch as yet.
What do I mean? Well, for a start I have lost track of the number of times individual machines on Wireless simply 'drop out' of communication, leading to perception on the part of our customers that this isn't a reliable , responsible technology.
We have seen, in implementing Wireless, a whole host of different issues - in ideal circumstances Wireless access works well, is fast enough to be used for most internal office purposes and so on.
The problem with Wireless in any form is that it is not as tollerant of non-ideal conditions. Adverse weather conditions (especially during the summer, when static build up knocks out entire Wireless networks on a regular basis), passing vehicles, other communication devices (especially mobile phones, which regardless of advancements in tech will continue to operate alongside any upgraded solution for some considerable time) and simple things like the type of clothing work by the person using the computer, have been known to knock a machine out of a WAN.
Solutions of phone technology over existing Cat5e UTP cable networking, such as that provided by Nortel Networks work well, with integration into existing office apps, but Wireless for Data is still, in the field, an unreliable technology. Wireless for VoIP still runs the issue of packet lossage (which on any Wireless solution i have ever seen runs at upwards of 25%), which is far more serious than equivalent signal loss for conventional mobile telecom solutions.
Title says it all really. This will be of great help to those who implement/support Linux on a commercial level.
I think It'll go a little more like;
"La, La, La, La, we're not listening, we can't hear you, La, La, La!"
Well, that link appears to have been /.ed, but if it is as you say then I would hope that $CO would have checked it first.
Then again, they haven't shown much in the way of common sense so far in this anti-Linux campaign, so who knows. It would be entertaining if they have shot themselves in the foot.