Where is the beef? It is with 2.4 and 2.6, in which a lot of high-end things, unnecessary on the desktop, PDAs, net appliances, etc., are simply not used (those things are usually uni-processor). So why not remove any doubts and DUMP the IBM and SGI contributions to Linux? Who, out of the many Linux users uses those things? Let's see the numbers.
At Linux Expo (2000?) in San Jose, CA (it was the 1st one with all the big companies exhibiting), SCO, the SCO prior to Caldera, was giving out CDs for free. I still have my set. Let's see: UnixWare 7 server and development kit, "Faximum," and Skunkware 7 (GNU stuff). Oh! but now I see that I had 60 days to get a license (free for non-commercial, educational or personal use); otherwise, the installation would expire in sixty days. The only thing I ever tried to do with it was check whether Solaris (i386) would run their binaries -- nope. Maybe one of the BSDs will -- maybe Slackware will. In 2000 their compiler and libs were ahead of GNU -- don't know if that's still the case.
It depends on the broker, but it should be RARE that the broker would force you to buy because the owner wants to sell. The reason is that the better brokers have an arrangement with a long-term holder of the stock; the arrangement allows the broker to borrow the stock on your behalf; the arrangement usually involves a consideration.
Really! If the feds, al qaeda, neo-cons, DHS, or any other enemy is after you, knowing how to thoroughly destroy your computer may save your skin. Hint: start with the data: NVRAM, drives, etc -- and don't forget to shred AND burn all paper associated with your computer. Seriously, this is what the enemy does.
Are the BSDs working on this? It seems it would be a "good thing," since most of the cracks hope to smash the stack and execute some mal-code. Solaris may have had this feature, but not sure.
An int'l radio body recently dropped the code requirement. This is a good thing, even though I learned code to get a general license when about 13 years old. It was easy for me to learn, but really isn't necessary if the potential licensee wants to experiment with radio -- there are many ways to do that without code: packet radio, rtty, tv, ham satellite, vhf/uhf/shf/ehf.
Gov't may have a solution to a lot of these problems: exercise its right of eminent domain and become the owner of UNIX. As gov't property it would be truly free for everyone's use. Of course, eminent domain would require that SCO, or whoever the current owner of UNIX may be, to be compensated for the loss of their property, but it would seem a small price to pay to free-up UNIX and remove any doubt about its ownership. If SCO is the owner, then a generous price would be whatever they paid Novell for UNIX.
-Rock, with regards to rms and hope for a Free-er Software Foundation
TRON has been open source for a long time. BSD license -- go get the real, genuine source if you want. Do you mean by "has been open-sourced" that there is a GPL version?
Why doesn't DHS ("Department of Homeland Security") do something? Like require MS to ship products that are secure out-of-the-box. Then MS could make support money telling people that need (want?) to run insecure software how to do it.
They (DHS) worry about terrorists taking down the net, but don't seem to realize that the work of crackers and spammers is just as much a threat. It certainly consumes the resources of ISPs, not to mention all the lost time (money) of individual and business users.
If they wanted to help their customers, they could indemnify them agaist IP claims. Wouldn't that be putting their money where their mouth is?
A million dollar legal fund for GPL open source developers? They wouldn't create that fund if there weren't a serious possibility of suits happening. Would anyone want to work on GPL stuff with that possibility looming? What if the million dollars is exhausted before someone's suit goes to trial?
The brokers usually have an arrangement with an institution that has purchased the stock as a long term holding. For a small per-share fee, the institution agrees to make a number of shares available to the broker, so that the broker will have shares to borrow. Perfectly legal.
Also, a short seller is obligated to pay any dividends that would be payable -- not to mention the fact that most brokers don't pay any interest on the (sometimes) large cash pile in the short-sellers account (the cash came from the short sale), and they certainly don't allow that cash pile to be touched -- it is the broker's collateral.
The way the pyramids were built was by pouring the stones. Yes, they mixed something like our concrete and poured it on site. Amazing, huh? They had rock-making technology!
editor's note: Moderators! Is this guy out of his mind?
This is true. Reading the contract between AT&T and IBM, it says that IBM may only share its work with others with the same license. That rules out sharing with anyone without a System V license.
If company 'A' wants to distribute some software, it can ease its customers' IP concerns by imdemnifying the customer against all IP claims. What that would do would make company 'A' responsible -- not company A's customer -- for any IP violation claims.
The Plan 9 license requires this of a distributor.
Microsoft has recently announced such an addition to its terms.
Does the FSF indemnify its customers/users against such claims? I read something in the GPL about this, but as usual the GPL is fuzzy, with all its rationale and "freedom" rhetoric, which will probably PO any judge that has to read it.
They are working on a GPL-less gcc!
Got a script that rips the "license" out of every file.
Then they are cleaning it of lisp-isms.
Can't wait.
We will all be better off with freer software!
Free, freer, freest (spelling?).
GPL, BSD, Public Domain.
Yahoo!
There is the Free Software Foundation.
When will we have a Freer Software Foundation?
Then when will we have the Freest Software Foundation?
Rise up! Revolt!
Distribute gcc, et al., with the GPL removed.
Go ahead!
Slashdot Mirror
Does the OED offer any OTHER definitions of "affileated?"
SCOware is used in a lot of POS systems. As those systems get upgraded, though, some retailers are switching to an alternative.
Where is the beef? It is with 2.4 and 2.6, in which a lot of high-end things, unnecessary on the desktop, PDAs, net appliances, etc., are simply not used (those things are usually uni-processor). So why not remove any doubts and DUMP the IBM and SGI contributions to Linux? Who, out of the many Linux users uses those things? Let's see the numbers.
At Linux Expo (2000?) in San Jose, CA (it was the 1st one with all the big companies exhibiting), SCO, the SCO prior to Caldera, was giving out CDs for free. I still have my set. Let's see: UnixWare 7 server and development kit, "Faximum," and Skunkware 7 (GNU stuff). Oh! but now I see that I had 60 days to get a license (free for non-commercial, educational or personal use); otherwise, the installation would expire in sixty days. The only thing I ever tried to do with it was check whether Solaris (i386) would run their binaries -- nope. Maybe one of the BSDs will -- maybe Slackware will. In 2000 their compiler and libs were ahead of GNU -- don't know if that's still the case.
It depends on the broker, but it should be RARE that the broker would force you to buy because the owner wants to sell. The reason is that the better brokers have an arrangement with a long-term holder of the stock; the arrangement allows the broker to borrow the stock on your behalf; the arrangement usually involves a consideration.
-Rock
Really! If the feds, al qaeda, neo-cons, DHS, or any other enemy is after you, knowing how to thoroughly destroy your computer may save your skin. Hint: start with the data: NVRAM, drives, etc -- and don't forget to shred AND burn all paper associated with your computer. Seriously, this is what the enemy does.
Are the BSDs working on this? It seems it would be a "good thing," since most of the cracks hope to smash the stack and execute some mal-code. Solaris may have had this feature, but not sure.
-Rock
In section 4.X of "uITON3.0," Ken Sakamura, ISBN 0-8186-7795-3, IEEE Computer Society Press, there is this:
http://tron.um.u-tokyo.ac.jp/TRON/ITRON/
An int'l radio body recently dropped the code requirement. This is a good thing, even though I learned code to get a general license when about 13 years old. It was easy for me to learn, but really isn't necessary if the potential licensee wants to experiment with radio -- there are many ways to do that without code: packet radio, rtty, tv, ham satellite, vhf/uhf/shf/ehf.
Gov't may have a solution to a lot of these problems: exercise its right of eminent domain and become the owner of UNIX. As gov't property it would be truly free for everyone's use. Of course, eminent domain would require that SCO, or whoever the current owner of UNIX may be, to be compensated for the loss of their property, but it would seem a small price to pay to free-up UNIX and remove any doubt about its ownership. If SCO is the owner, then a generous price would be whatever they paid Novell for UNIX.
-Rock, with regards to rms and hope for a Free-er Software Foundation
TRON has been open source for a long time. BSD license -- go get the real, genuine source if you want. Do you mean by "has been open-sourced" that there is a GPL version?
Apple has lost or is losing the education market. Reason: powers that be want everyone running the same OS: Windows.
How do the people who buy a PC with everything loaded by the hardware vendor fare? Do they have install CDs?
Why doesn't DHS ("Department of Homeland Security") do something? Like require MS to ship products that are secure out-of-the-box. Then MS could make support money telling people that need (want?) to run insecure software how to do it.
They (DHS) worry about terrorists taking down the net, but don't seem to realize that the work of crackers and spammers is just as much a threat. It certainly consumes the resources of ISPs, not to mention all the lost time (money) of individual and business users.
-Rock
This is proof that GPL warez are in trouble.
If they wanted to help their customers, they could indemnify them agaist IP claims. Wouldn't that be putting their money where their mouth is?
A million dollar legal fund for GPL open source developers? They wouldn't create that fund if there
weren't a serious possibility of suits happening. Would anyone want to work on GPL stuff with that possibility looming? What if the million dollars is exhausted before someone's suit goes to trial?
Can I change from being a schill for Sun into a shill for GNU/Linux/Whatever?
Any advice?
The brokers usually have an arrangement with an institution that has purchased the stock as a
long term holding. For a small per-share fee, the institution agrees to make a number of shares available to the broker, so that the broker will have shares to borrow. Perfectly legal.
Also, a short seller is obligated to pay any dividends that would be payable -- not to mention the fact that most brokers don't pay any interest on the (sometimes) large cash pile in the short-sellers account (the cash came from the short sale), and they certainly don't allow that cash pile to be touched -- it is the broker's collateral.
actually, it is GNU/Linux/PowerPC, or whatever chip you run yours on. while at it, might also add some other things:
GNU/Linux/PowerPC/silicon/earth
any more? come on, we need more.
The way the pyramids were built was by pouring the stones. Yes, they mixed something like our concrete and poured it on site. Amazing, huh? They had rock-making technology!
editor's note: Moderators! Is this guy out of his mind?
This is true.
Reading the contract between AT&T and IBM,
it says that IBM may only share its work
with others with the same license.
That rules out sharing with anyone
without a System V license.
Indemnification solves the problem.
If company 'A' wants to distribute some software,
it can ease its customers' IP concerns by imdemnifying the customer against all IP claims.
What that would do would make company 'A' responsible -- not company A's customer -- for any IP violation claims.
The Plan 9 license requires this of a distributor.
Microsoft has recently announced such an addition to its terms.
Does the FSF indemnify its customers/users against such claims? I read something in the GPL about this, but as usual the GPL is fuzzy, with all its
rationale and "freedom" rhetoric, which will probably PO any judge that has to read it.
Is rms capable of this?
What do the FSF financials look like?
Has the FSF conformed to the requirments that it has to conform to in order to be and to continue to be a non-profit?
Is any of the FSF GNU code "derived" from AT&T code? The author of gcc appears to have been familar with the pcc code from UNIX.
They are working on a GPL-less gcc! Got a script that rips the "license" out of every file. Then they are cleaning it of lisp-isms. Can't wait. We will all be better off with freer software! Free, freer, freest (spelling?). GPL, BSD, Public Domain. Yahoo!
There is the Free Software Foundation. When will we have a Freer Software Foundation? Then when will we have the Freest Software Foundation? Rise up! Revolt! Distribute gcc, et al., with the GPL removed. Go ahead!
Linus says something like, "It is just a contract dispute." It is a contract dispute, true; but, what is the contract dispute about? IP?