I find this article somewhat naive. It's certainly true that there are lot of companies abusing GPL and OSS for commercial purposes some of them probably modify code and never release their changes.
They don't have to, of course. Only if they distribute it must they release the source code. Naturally, if they do't release it, they shouldn't be surprised if it doesn't work with later versions of OSS that didn't take its existence into account.
most phb's will automagically raise the (valid) point, who to blame when the shit hits the fan. When something goes haywire and you payed some college kid $500, you can't call him in the middle of his exams and expect him to fix it. You can ask him, but he/she is certainly not obliged to fix it.
Certainly true, but this is where the company in question should be hiring a code maintainer, even if they aren't releasing their own code (in fact especially) they will need someone on hand to fix problems and advance the software. It would be preferable for this person to be able to act as the codes gatekeeper too. In the case of outsourced IT, the company which is doing the IT work has only itself to blame if its interests aren't looked after because no-one in the OSS field knows about their product and its issues.
You could also try the OpenSource method of making a software business work, which is to release all of your mistakes and failures to the public with full annotation and then let them write the next version of the software while you sell 'support services' for it to the general populace.
Works a treat for service products like Apache, where the service the software provides is the actual value of it, and the act of releasing the code to those interested simply means more patchers working on the problems. Likewise it works for common software like Office software, where the people who use it don't generally care to understand the code.
Ironically, it fails in products targetted for sale to code-competent people, as this is a market that can support their own needs, but then this is a small market who could code their own product rather than pay any money anyway.
Since in-wheel engines are so highly efficient, the generator's diesel engine can be very small, about the size of the compact city car's engine. Because charging the batteries is all it needs to do, the tiny engine consumes very little fuel and can run continuously at a speed of 1700 revs per minute, the most efficient rev count.
The efficiency of the system means a smaller engine to acheive the same effect, because the electric engines have a greater range of optimum efficiency.
The problem with them is that they need specially re-inforced track. When the track management was privatised to RailTrack they wouldn't upgrade the Track as it would cut into their profits. Now that the Government has returned the track management to the public sector the works are (gradually) going ahead and we will soon have the APTs being able to work on all mainline track.
The French have, of course, used this concept for years as the TGV, and the italian Pendulino follows the same idea, which is basically modelled on the way a motorcycle rider fights the g-forces by leaning into the turn.
Of course, it is still fairly sad that these 'high speed trains' go no faster in most circumatances than the famous Mallard A4 Pacific Class Locomotive, built in the 1930s.
Well, in theory the Method could be used by any e-mail program to so encode the e-mail to comply, so any e-mail software could send to any other with this 10 second delay.
On the other hand MS could keep it to themselves and only alows MS mail senders to send to MS mail recievers, and so on.
If MS do this, then I would expect that the words Anti-Trust will start to be mentioned again, especially in the light of the number of governments who are moving over to Linux based offices.
The point I belive the other poster is making is that this won't solve the issue, it will simply result in the Spammers either faking the method (as at least part of the method is public domain), or distributing the workload among several computers.
You point out quite correctly that the Method takes exactly the same amount of time on an old machine as a new one.
Not having access to that text I will have to take your word on it. Do you know of any web resources describing the method?
Still, if what you say is true... Mod Parent +1 Informative
Now this is an important matter: although the rate of Linux adoption is not slowing down (in fact, it is speeding up), the fact that your company (and presumably others) have gone with business other than Linux means that Linux adoption would have been speeding up even faster.
In terms of the Red Hat law suit, this is demonstrable damage to the Linux Business.
Re:I used to have a laser 128k...
on
First Computers
·
· Score: 1
didn't that make the thing go beep?
on the same lines, anyone remember what doing 'call 7' on a ZX80 was supposed to do?
Re:The "Home Computer Museum"...
on
First Computers
·
· Score: 1
It doesn't have my first computer either, the Oric
It is interesting to see that about half the replies to this story are posts going 'but XXXX does this and has done for Y years'
There are a lot of e-mail clients do this, in some form or variance. Now, lets not let MS create a default standard that is unreadable to all of the existing clients shall we?
Opera is, overall, one of the finest pieces of desktop software available. In-built mouse gestures, total and obedient customisation, the life saving 'resume where you were before Windows crashed' feature, M2 for e-mail and news, a download agent and it does desktop memos for office use.
And thats to say nothing of the pure speed and power of the thing. Faster than any other web-browser than I have ever used.
an action that I don't think the judge looked kindly upon.
Got that right! Most observers thinking is that the judge was less than impressed at SCOs decision that a request for 'machine readable' source code meant scanning thousands of pages of dead tree format, and was even less impressed when Kevin McBride later tried to claim that SCO had released far more information to IBM than IBM had released in return based on the number of CD's exchanged...
Operas inbuilt E-mail client, M2, also already does this, integrating it with the usenet reader as well.
Opera can be set to a variety of preferences for how it makes threads, depending on reply-to's, users recieve, subject lines and matched text in the mail body.
This is not a new idea, it is just new to MS users.
The reason i mention derivative works in the first post is that i'm pretty sure IBM will just claim that both the GNU/Linux and the Unix variants of the code are derivative of interal IBM development and both are a poth of the work IBM did in development of the theory.
The further point is that SCO don't have the right to determine what happens to copyrights held by other companies.
If a company (lets say... IBM) creates a software form which is copyrighted, they can choose exactly what to do with it. If they want to release it under the GPL, they can do that. If they want to release it to SCO for inclusion in Unix, they can do that too.
Note that, because it is possible for the copyright holder to release exactly the same code under both the GPL and another form of license, should they so wish. They can also create derivative works of the original code of theirs and distribute those derivative works as they see fit.
OpenOffice/StarOffice works on this principle, as (i belive) does one or more of the SQL implementations.
What SCO are claiming in this case is that IBM have effectively assigned all copyrights to SCO for the code in question, and/or that by licensing the code to SCO for use in Linux, the same code cannot also be Licensed for use in Linux. This is a gross misstatement or misunderstanding of the GPL and copyright law.
As copyright holders, IBM can allow anyone they feel like to use their code (including anything they have written regarding JFS, NUMA and SMP).
Note that this means that the code in UNIX does not mean that any part of UNIX will have to be placed under the GPL.
By any reasonable measure of the term competition is served by actually having a competitor.
The non inclusion of KDE as an available choice means that GNOME has no competition in the UserLinux package. You unselected the KDE checkbox when doing your install by choice. This decision unselects the KDE checkbox for all who would use UserLinux, and does not give the option to recheck.
This isn't about your personal choice, it is about you _having_ a personal choice, regardless of what it actually is.
I sense another Holy War incoming over this. In all honesty, while having a single interface to deal with would be easier, I don't feel the GNOME ca claim to be it. Nor can KDE, but shortening the field by including only one in this project is a bit anti-competitive, and OSS has allways thrived on the competition between similar projects.
Part of their study has been on how Linux has been able to maintain a high level of consistency in the kernel while groups around it maintain maximum flexibility
An organizational change is exactly what they would need to be able to do this. Having the code open and available is what promotes this.
Flexibility is GNU/Linux middle name...
MS on the other hand don't allow their code to be seen anywhere it isn't 'supposed' to be. The lack of restrictions in Open Source development allows programmers to do whatever they want, not to follow the established trail of the development model. Okay, a lot of the trails Open Source follows will be dead ends, but the maximisation of effort (and the open nature of peer review) means that these get seen and die off reasonably quickly. MS on the other hand would have great focus, but wouldn't have as wide a view of the posibilities, nor as honest a view of problems.
Slashdot Mirror
Certainly true, but this is where the company in question should be hiring a code maintainer, even if they aren't releasing their own code (in fact especially) they will need someone on hand to fix problems and advance the software. It would be preferable for this person to be able to act as the codes gatekeeper too. In the case of outsourced IT, the company which is doing the IT work has only itself to blame if its interests aren't looked after because no-one in the OSS field knows about their product and its issues.
You could also try the OpenSource method of making a software business work, which is to release all of your mistakes and failures to the public with full annotation and then let them write the next version of the software while you sell 'support services' for it to the general populace.
Works a treat for service products like Apache, where the service the software provides is the actual value of it, and the act of releasing the code to those interested simply means more patchers working on the problems. Likewise it works for common software like Office software, where the people who use it don't generally care to understand the code.
Ironically, it fails in products targetted for sale to code-competent people, as this is a market that can support their own needs, but then this is a small market who could code their own product rather than pay any money anyway.
The efficiency of the system means a smaller engine to acheive the same effect, because the electric engines have a greater range of optimum efficiency.
What, you mean these?
The problem with them is that they need specially re-inforced track. When the track management was privatised to RailTrack they wouldn't upgrade the Track as it would cut into their profits. Now that the Government has returned the track management to the public sector the works are (gradually) going ahead and we will soon have the APTs being able to work on all mainline track.
The French have, of course, used this concept for years as the TGV, and the italian Pendulino follows the same idea, which is basically modelled on the way a motorcycle rider fights the g-forces by leaning into the turn.
Of course, it is still fairly sad that these 'high speed trains' go no faster in most circumatances than the famous Mallard A4 Pacific Class Locomotive, built in the 1930s.
So X means overmarketed and annoying?
You have a point I suppose...
I have to question if having your cooker globally routable is necessary or even desirable.
Still, it would be peotically satisfying to be able to route all spam mail to a honeypot in your fridge i suppose.
Laugh. It's Funny.
Well, in theory the Method could be used by any e-mail program to so encode the e-mail to comply, so any e-mail software could send to any other with this 10 second delay.
On the other hand MS could keep it to themselves and only alows MS mail senders to send to MS mail recievers, and so on.
If MS do this, then I would expect that the words Anti-Trust will start to be mentioned again, especially in the light of the number of governments who are moving over to Linux based offices.
The point I belive the other poster is making is that this won't solve the issue, it will simply result in the Spammers either faking the method (as at least part of the method is public domain), or distributing the workload among several computers.
You point out quite correctly that the Method takes exactly the same amount of time on an old machine as a new one.
Now, Imagine a Beowulf Cluster of 386's....
Not having access to that text I will have to take your word on it. Do you know of any web resources describing the method? Still, if what you say is true... Mod Parent +1 Informative
Please remember that slashcode won't allow the posting of long text with no whitespace.
Here is a link to The Strange case of Fobos-2
...that way you can always charge it up from someone elses sockets.
Now this is an important matter: although the rate of Linux adoption is not slowing down (in fact, it is speeding up), the fact that your company (and presumably others) have gone with business other than Linux means that Linux adoption would have been speeding up even faster.
In terms of the Red Hat law suit, this is demonstrable damage to the Linux Business.
didn't that make the thing go beep? on the same lines, anyone remember what doing 'call 7' on a ZX80 was supposed to do?
It doesn't have my first computer either, the Oric
It is interesting to see that about half the replies to this story are posts going 'but XXXX does this and has done for Y years'
There are a lot of e-mail clients do this, in some form or variance. Now, lets not let MS create a default standard that is unreadable to all of the existing clients shall we?
Opera is, overall, one of the finest pieces of desktop software available. In-built mouse gestures, total and obedient customisation, the life saving 'resume where you were before Windows crashed' feature, M2 for e-mail and news, a download agent and it does desktop memos for office use.
And thats to say nothing of the pure speed and power of the thing. Faster than any other web-browser than I have ever used.
This post crafted using Opera
Got that right! Most observers thinking is that the judge was less than impressed at SCOs decision that a request for 'machine readable' source code meant scanning thousands of pages of dead tree format, and was even less impressed when Kevin McBride later tried to claim that SCO had released far more information to IBM than IBM had released in return based on the number of CD's exchanged...
Operas inbuilt E-mail client, M2, also already does this, integrating it with the usenet reader as well.
Opera can be set to a variety of preferences for how it makes threads, depending on reply-to's, users recieve, subject lines and matched text in the mail body.
This is not a new idea, it is just new to MS users.
The reason i mention derivative works in the first post is that i'm pretty sure IBM will just claim that both the GNU/Linux and the Unix variants of the code are derivative of interal IBM development and both are a poth of the work IBM did in development of the theory.
The further point is that SCO don't have the right to determine what happens to copyrights held by other companies.
:: The GPL is a License, Not a Contract, Which is Why the Sky Isn't Falling for related discussion.
If a company (lets say... IBM) creates a software form which is copyrighted, they can choose exactly what to do with it. If they want to release it under the GPL, they can do that. If they want to release it to SCO for inclusion in Unix, they can do that too.
Note that, because it is possible for the copyright holder to release exactly the same code under both the GPL and another form of license, should they so wish. They can also create derivative works of the original code of theirs and distribute those derivative works as they see fit.
OpenOffice/StarOffice works on this principle, as (i belive) does one or more of the SQL implementations.
What SCO are claiming in this case is that IBM have effectively assigned all copyrights to SCO for the code in question, and/or that by licensing the code to SCO for use in Linux, the same code cannot also be Licensed for use in Linux. This is a gross misstatement or misunderstanding of the GPL and copyright law.
As copyright holders, IBM can allow anyone they feel like to use their code (including anything they have written regarding JFS, NUMA and SMP).
Note that this means that the code in UNIX does not mean that any part of UNIX will have to be placed under the GPL.
See the Groklaw Article
And with that fact in mind we refer you to the RedHat case on anti-competitive practices.
Did you possibly fail english in school?
By any reasonable measure of the term competition is served by actually having a competitor.
The non inclusion of KDE as an available choice means that GNOME has no competition in the UserLinux package. You unselected the KDE checkbox when doing your install by choice. This decision unselects the KDE checkbox for all who would use UserLinux, and does not give the option to recheck.
This isn't about your personal choice, it is about you _having_ a personal choice, regardless of what it actually is.
I sense another Holy War incoming over this. In all honesty, while having a single interface to deal with would be easier, I don't feel the GNOME ca claim to be it. Nor can KDE, but shortening the field by including only one in this project is a bit anti-competitive, and OSS has allways thrived on the competition between similar projects.
PR
The US probes are fancy and will make good press as the roll about, but in terms of actual science, the Beagle probe is way ahead.
If you notice, Linus' patches are mainly dealing with bug fixes in SMP
Flexibility is GNU/Linux middle name...
MS on the other hand don't allow their code to be seen anywhere it isn't 'supposed' to be. The lack of restrictions in Open Source development allows programmers to do whatever they want, not to follow the established trail of the development model. Okay, a lot of the trails Open Source follows will be dead ends, but the maximisation of effort (and the open nature of peer review) means that these get seen and die off reasonably quickly. MS on the other hand would have great focus, but wouldn't have as wide a view of the posibilities, nor as honest a view of problems.
Shooting themselves in BOTH feet.