This could also be a great opportunity for some of the other distros. Like you said, Redhat is the Linux company with name-brand recognition, but they never really supported the desktop very well. Now with them stepping aside, maybe one of the more desktop oriented distros (is anyone listening at Mandrake?) will step up and fill the void.
Not to start a distro war, but on my Mandrake system, it seems to work. I plug in the camera and I have a icon on my desktop that I click and tada -- there are all my pictures. I can copy, move, delete or do whatever.
If Mandrake (and others) can do this, then why can't Redhat?
To turn on the run command for your KDE menu, go to K-Menu==>Configuration==>Configure Your Desktop==>LookNFeel==>Panels and select the "Menus" tab. Then click the box that says "Show run command"
" I read all the great reviews of Mandrake 9.1 and bought it, only to have it set up a dependency that my flash card be present to boot (redhat never did that)"
That's because in Redhat, you have to manually create the device, the mount point and edit the fstab by hand to get it recognize a flash card. To solve your problem needing the flash card installed to boot, change the "auto" to "noauto" in the fstab line.
Since I am not a member of the Mandrake club, I was not able to submit my feedback and script edits to them.
The Mandrake developers hang out on the Mandrake Cooker list, not the club site. Also, bugzilla, for reporting bugs is available to anyone, too. Nothing stopped you from submitting your feedback and scripts to them but you.
Hmmm, the official Mandrake documentation is available to all, club member or not. So, too, is the troubleshooting information located in the forums. There is a club member only section called documentation for tips and tricks, but it's not from Mandrake but from other club members (so it would never have been included in 8.2 anyway).
The installation and user documentation is available for free from the "docs" link on the club site and it is also included in the distro itself.
In short, the documentation is still freely available, to those who support Mandrake and those who do not. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that since you've chosen not to support Mandrake by becoming a member (because it's so slimy) that you will be supporting them by ordering a boxed set.
Joeb
p.s. Microsoft does not let users access ALL their technical info database without cost. We pay a hefty subscription to get detailed info that isn't available on their "free" website.
But Bolkenstein is wrong in this case. While large corporations can have an impact on the economy, it is the small business that affect employment and recession/recovery patterns. This has been shown time and time again. Therefore, his thinking should be 'good for the people=good for the economy.'
Specifically, though, large corporations aren't affected by the software patents, they have the resources to develop internally or buy what they want or need. It is specifically the small software developers that will suffer under this. They are already at a disadvantage when it comes to resources and now if they start becoming too competive, large companies can start a patent battle that the small developer can't afford to fight.
Software patents will do to the small developer industry what corporate farming has done to the family farm. Simply put, it will kill it off.
If, as you say, the purpose of software patents is to protect ideas, then couldn't whoever first came up with the idea of software patents patent the "idea" and sue everyone else who has filed one?
My Webster's dictionary defines patent as "A governmental grant assuring an inventor the sole right to his invention for a period of time." When dealing with software patents, one could make a case that the software itself is an invention, but unfortunately, most software patents don't deal with software but with ideas and concepts. Those aren't inventions, so why are they patentable?
By your closing, you point out how anti-competitive software patents are. You are correct, if NCSA or Netscape held a patent to graphical web browsing, there probably wouldn't be a Microsoft Internet Explorer. In the same way, patents are now being used to restrict or eliminate competition.
You also state that it's not the one who writes the patent who is to blame (i.e. patent laywer), but the one who enforces the patent. Last time I checked, it still took a laywer to enforce the patent. So, you can't have it both ways. You have voluntarily chosen to enter a field that is known for being suit happy and anti-competitive. Just because something is legal (software patents, in this case) doesn't make it right (just legal), and if it's not right, then no amount of self-justification will change that.
Patent laywers do what they do for the same reason as other laywers, for the fee. The fee to file a patent is significantly less than the fee to litigate a patent. If you're planning on only ever filing patents and not enforcing them, then you probably will need an additional source of income. I'm pretty sure that most companies that retain a patent laywer for filing purposes also expect them to be the enforcers, too.
Regardless, you have chosen a profession that defends a practice that most people think is wrong. I think I'll go take a bathroom break now, unless someone else has already thought of that and has patented that idea, too.
You have to look at how SCO counts tainted source code. If I write a module or a driver or something, say for memory manipulation or even a video driver and to get it to work, I need to change something in the kernel, maybe add a defines or change a simple setting, or add a line to see if my code is loaded and if not, load it, SCO rightfully says I've made a derivative work.
The question is what part is the derivative work? The changes I made to the kernel, the module or driver or both. Here is where the problem comes in. Most likely, the changes made to the kernel could be construed as derivative. But to claim that the module itself is would mean that by extension of that flawed logic, any module, program, script, etc. that can be used with Unix is also a derivative work.
To follow that logic to the extreme (and why the court won't) is to say that even Oracle is a derivative work!
Let's say the courts rightfully declare that code that is still owned by other people but used by Unix is not a derivative work and only changes made to the kernel, to make such code work, could be constituted as derivative works. Then there are two questions at stake. First does this more limitedly defined derivative works constitute a significant infringement on SCO? Only the courts will tell, but most likely the amount of infringing code will be very small (maybe 80 lines).
Second, regardless of the first question, does this more limitedly defined derivative works keep people from being able to add code to Unix without loosing their rights to their own code. If so, the courts would most likely hold that this is a barrier to competition and it's sole purpose is to prevent competition and is therefore invalid (there are numerous cases to back this up).
Either way, it is highly unlikely that the courts will agree with SCO. Finally, if they do, then there is a whole nother discussion on what copyrifht ownership means, since SCO says that IBM/Sequent own their code. If you own copyright to something but can't use it freely as you wish than copyrights must not have any real value at all. I don't think that courts would not throw out all of the case law on copyrights just to appease SCO's dillusions.
Dcnjoe60
p.s. just thought of something, if the courts did throw out all the copyright laws on the books, what would that do the RIAA and the DMCA?
Do you think it is possible that both Unix and Linux borrowed code from BSD (which is totally legal)? Is it possible that SCO put linux code into SCO? Maybe the programmers got it from the same textbook (exactly how many ways are there to parse a command line or execute a loop).
The fact that there is similiar or even identical code in both sources doesn't mean anything. I have two different dictionaries on my desk and they both have the same words and pretty similar definitions. That doesn't mean one copied from the other.
Charging for content (that many others provide in the first place)! Next thing you know, they'll want to charge for putting air in your tires or a bottle of water!
That is true until IE7. Microsoft is changing the APIs. That's one of the reasons they give for dropping the stand alone version and embedding it in the OS itself.
Don't tell my boss that, since I've been developing for Windows since 3.0. I am well aware of how the HTML rendering engine works as a COM object. I've programmed for it numerous times.
But, whether it is imbeded or not, it doesn't change a thing. Microsoft has announced the current engine is dead and is being replaced and built into the OS. The new engine is based on a completely new code base and will have a new APIs and new features.
So, assuming that the old engine can be made to work on the next version of Windows without conflicting with the new engine, AOL will either a) need to use it and forgo the improvements in the new engine or b) have two code bases to talk to two different APIs or c) drop support for older versions of Windows.
If the old engine ends up being fully backwards compatable (which the current engine is not), then AOL still has two choices: a) forgo the improvements in the new engine and only write to the compatability layer or b) have two code bases to talk to two different APIs or c) drop support for older versions of Windows.
If AOL chooses a), then MSN will surely defeat it as it will offer new features while AOL won't be able to. If they choose b), then they will expend large amounts of resources maintaining two different code bases and many paying subscribers will not get all of the features they are paying for. Finally, choice c) would abandon a large amount of their user base.
No matter how you look at it AOL will become less of a player because in all of the solutions, they either loose to MSN or other ISPs or they abandon large portions of their user base (presumably to other ISPs since these people wouldn't be able to go to MSN with older Windows, either).
I don't know about this. Making Mozilla look and act exactly like IE seems a major step backwards! Besides doing so means that Mozilla would always be playing catch-up to IE every time Microsoft would make even a slight change. Third, if they were exactly the same, what would be the reason to switch? And finally, I think it would take a lot of programming effort to introduce all of the IE bugs and security flaws into an otherwise very good Mozilla!
But that would mean that AOL users of older windows systems (IE6) would have different AOL features than users of new windows systems (IE7). Unless, of course, AOL only impliment features on their site that work with IE6 and ignore any new capabilities of newer versions of IE.
AOL has announced that it will use IE for the browser for seven years. Microsoft has announced that there will no longer be a standalone version of IE.
So, if AOL is to still work on existing Windows boxes, then it must remain at IE6. But, it's hard to beleive that they won't want to move to the latest and greatest (tongue in cheek) IE when it ships, but that would force AOL to either maintain separate code bases or drop support for current versions of Windows.
If they choose the separate code bases, then using the least common denominator approach, AOL won't be able to include future web features, because they don't exist in IE6. Dropping support for older versions of Windows, is a very calculated risk. There are two possible outcomes. Facing a forced upgrade, either AOL's would switch to a different ISP or shell out the bucks for a new version of Windows (and possibly new hardware).
My bet would be to switch ISPs, but I'm sure AOL and MS are counting on people buying a new version of Windows, instead.
If they are right, that's not a bad investment for MS $750M to get AOL users to all buy a copy of the next version of Windows. At 35 million AOL subscribers and a $100 upgrade cost, MS stands to gross $3.5 billion dollars. Not a bad return on investment.
Don't know what happened to the formatting, but this should be easier to read than the original post.
Sorry for shouting, but this is getting crazy! People are slamming NeTraverse for using SCO technology and are even calling to boycott NeTraverse. That is simply untrue. Below is a quote from Jim Curtin, the CEO of NeTraverse:
"Win4Lin is not built on technology licensed from SCO. SCO licenses technology from NeTraverse as an OEM and packages the technology on their UNIX platforms under our name "Merge". We do not license anything from SCO (nor do we need to)."
People should check their facts before posting accusations and calls to boycott. They (the posters) have done NeTraverse and the Slashdot community a grave diservice. Instead of boycotting Win4Lin, maybe the posters should go out and by a copy to make amends for the mis-information they've spread and the harm they've done.
NOTE: I have no affiliation, whatsoever with NeTraverse, Win4Lin, Jim Curtin or SCO. I just think the record should be set straight on this one issue.
WIN4LIN DOES NOT USE SCO TECHNOLOGY!
on
Win4Lin 5.0 Reviewed
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Sorry for shouting, but this is getting crazy! People are slamming NeTraverse for using SCO technology and are even calling to boycott NeTraverse. That is simply untrue. Below is a quote from Jim Curtin, the CEO of NeTraverse:
"Win4Lin is not built on technology licensed from SCO. SCO licenses technology from NeTraverse as an OEM and packages the technology on their UNIX platforms under our name "Merge". We do not license anything from SCO (nor do we need to)."
People should check their facts before posting accusations and calls to boycott. They (the posters) have done NeTraverse and the Slashdot community a grave diservice.
Instead of boycotting Win4Lin, maybe the posters should go out and by a copy to make amends for the mis-information they've spread and the harm they've done.
Dcnjoe60
NOTE: I have no affiliation, whatsoever with NeTraverse, Win4Lin, Jim Curtin or SCO. I just think the record should be set straight on this one issue.
You've got that all wrong! SCO licenses the technology from NetTraverse, not vice versa. It doesn't use any SCO code and you do them a disservice for claiming otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
This could also be a great opportunity for some of the other distros. Like you said, Redhat is the Linux company with name-brand recognition, but they never really supported the desktop very well. Now with them stepping aside, maybe one of the more desktop oriented distros (is anyone listening at Mandrake?) will step up and fill the void.
Not to start a distro war, but on my Mandrake system, it seems to work. I plug in the camera and I have a icon on my desktop that I click and tada -- there are all my pictures. I can copy, move, delete or do whatever.
If Mandrake (and others) can do this, then why can't Redhat?
To turn on the run command for your KDE menu, go to K-Menu==>Configuration==>Configure Your Desktop==>LookNFeel==>Panels and select the "Menus" tab. Then click the box that says "Show run command"
Joeb
" I read all the great reviews of Mandrake 9.1 and bought it, only to have it set up a dependency that my flash card be present to boot (redhat never did that)"
That's because in Redhat, you have to manually create the device, the mount point and edit the fstab by hand to get it recognize a flash card. To solve your problem needing the flash card installed to boot, change the "auto" to "noauto" in the fstab line.
Joeb
Since I am not a member of the Mandrake club, I was not able to submit my feedback and script edits to them.
The Mandrake developers hang out on the Mandrake Cooker list, not the club site. Also, bugzilla, for reporting bugs is available to anyone, too. Nothing stopped you from submitting your feedback and scripts to them but you.
Hmmm, the official Mandrake documentation is available to all, club member or not. So, too, is the troubleshooting information located in the forums. There is a club member only section called documentation for tips and tricks, but it's not from Mandrake but from other club members (so it would never have been included in 8.2 anyway).
The installation and user documentation is available for free from the "docs" link on the club site and it is also included in the distro itself.
In short, the documentation is still freely available, to those who support Mandrake and those who do not. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that since you've chosen not to support Mandrake by becoming a member (because it's so slimy) that you will be supporting them by ordering a boxed set.
Joeb
p.s. Microsoft does not let users access ALL their technical info database without cost. We pay a hefty subscription to get detailed info that isn't available on their "free" website.
Any guesses as to how long it will be before SCO makes claims that this, too, is a derivative work of UNIX?
But Bolkenstein is wrong in this case. While large corporations can have an impact on the economy, it is the small business that affect employment and recession/recovery patterns. This has been shown time and time again. Therefore, his thinking should be 'good for the people=good for the economy.'
Specifically, though, large corporations aren't affected by the software patents, they have the resources to develop internally or buy what they want or need. It is specifically the small software developers that will suffer under this. They are already at a disadvantage when it comes to resources and now if they start becoming too competive, large companies can start a patent battle that the small developer can't afford to fight.
Software patents will do to the small developer industry what corporate farming has done to the family farm. Simply put, it will kill it off.
If, as you say, the purpose of software patents is to protect ideas, then couldn't whoever first came up with the idea of software patents patent the "idea" and sue everyone else who has filed one?
My Webster's dictionary defines patent as "A governmental grant assuring an inventor the sole right to his invention for a period of time." When dealing with software patents, one could make a case that the software itself is an invention, but unfortunately, most software patents don't deal with software but with ideas and concepts. Those aren't inventions, so why are they patentable?
By your closing, you point out how anti-competitive software patents are. You are correct, if NCSA or Netscape held a patent to graphical web browsing, there probably wouldn't be a Microsoft Internet Explorer. In the same way, patents are now being used to restrict or eliminate competition.
You also state that it's not the one who writes the patent who is to blame (i.e. patent laywer), but the one who enforces the patent. Last time I checked, it still took a laywer to enforce the patent. So, you can't have it both ways. You have voluntarily chosen to enter a field that is known for being suit happy and anti-competitive. Just because something is legal (software patents, in this case) doesn't make it right (just legal), and if it's not right, then no amount of self-justification will change that.
Patent laywers do what they do for the same reason as other laywers, for the fee. The fee to file a patent is significantly less than the fee to litigate a patent. If you're planning on only ever filing patents and not enforcing them, then you probably will need an additional source of income. I'm pretty sure that most companies that retain a patent laywer for filing purposes also expect them to be the enforcers, too.
Regardless, you have chosen a profession that defends a practice that most people think is wrong. I think I'll go take a bathroom break now, unless someone else has already thought of that and has patented that idea, too.
I could go on and on, but
You have to look at how SCO counts tainted source code. If I write a module or a driver or something, say for memory manipulation or even a video driver and to get it to work, I need to change something in the kernel, maybe add a defines or change a simple setting, or add a line to see if my code is loaded and if not, load it, SCO rightfully says I've made a derivative work.
The question is what part is the derivative work? The changes I made to the kernel, the module or driver or both. Here is where the problem comes in. Most likely, the changes made to the kernel could be construed as derivative. But to claim that the module itself is would mean that by extension of that flawed logic, any module, program, script, etc. that can be used with Unix is also a derivative work.
To follow that logic to the extreme (and why the court won't) is to say that even Oracle is a derivative work!
Let's say the courts rightfully declare that code that is still owned by other people but used by Unix is not a derivative work and only changes made to the kernel, to make such code work, could be constituted as derivative works. Then there are two questions at stake. First does this more limitedly defined derivative works constitute a significant infringement on SCO? Only the courts will tell, but most likely the amount of infringing code will be very small (maybe 80 lines).
Second, regardless of the first question, does this more limitedly defined derivative works keep people from being able to add code to Unix without loosing their rights to their own code. If so, the courts would most likely hold that this is a barrier to competition and it's sole purpose is to prevent competition and is therefore invalid (there are numerous cases to back this up).
Either way, it is highly unlikely that the courts will agree with SCO. Finally, if they do, then there is a whole nother discussion on what copyrifht ownership means, since SCO says that IBM/Sequent own their code. If you own copyright to something but can't use it freely as you wish than copyrights must not have any real value at all. I don't think that courts would not throw out all of the case law on copyrights just to appease SCO's dillusions.
Dcnjoe60
p.s. just thought of something, if the courts did throw out all the copyright laws on the books, what would that do the RIAA and the DMCA?
Do you think it is possible that both Unix and Linux borrowed code from BSD (which is totally legal)? Is it possible that SCO put linux code into SCO? Maybe the programmers got it from the same textbook (exactly how many ways are there to parse a command line or execute a loop).
The fact that there is similiar or even identical code in both sources doesn't mean anything. I have two different dictionaries on my desk and they both have the same words and pretty similar definitions. That doesn't mean one copied from the other.
Charging for content (that many others provide in the first place)! Next thing you know, they'll want to charge for putting air in your tires or a bottle of water!
That is true until IE7. Microsoft is changing the APIs. That's one of the reasons they give for dropping the stand alone version and embedding it in the OS itself.
Don't tell my boss that, since I've been developing for Windows since 3.0. I am well aware of how the HTML rendering engine works as a COM object. I've programmed for it numerous times. But, whether it is imbeded or not, it doesn't change a thing. Microsoft has announced the current engine is dead and is being replaced and built into the OS. The new engine is based on a completely new code base and will have a new APIs and new features. So, assuming that the old engine can be made to work on the next version of Windows without conflicting with the new engine, AOL will either a) need to use it and forgo the improvements in the new engine or b) have two code bases to talk to two different APIs or c) drop support for older versions of Windows. If the old engine ends up being fully backwards compatable (which the current engine is not), then AOL still has two choices: a) forgo the improvements in the new engine and only write to the compatability layer or b) have two code bases to talk to two different APIs or c) drop support for older versions of Windows. If AOL chooses a), then MSN will surely defeat it as it will offer new features while AOL won't be able to. If they choose b), then they will expend large amounts of resources maintaining two different code bases and many paying subscribers will not get all of the features they are paying for. Finally, choice c) would abandon a large amount of their user base. No matter how you look at it AOL will become less of a player because in all of the solutions, they either loose to MSN or other ISPs or they abandon large portions of their user base (presumably to other ISPs since these people wouldn't be able to go to MSN with older Windows, either).
I don't know about this. Making Mozilla look and act exactly like IE seems a major step backwards! Besides doing so means that Mozilla would always be playing catch-up to IE every time Microsoft would make even a slight change. Third, if they were exactly the same, what would be the reason to switch? And finally, I think it would take a lot of programming effort to introduce all of the IE bugs and security flaws into an otherwise very good Mozilla!
But that would mean that AOL users of older windows systems (IE6) would have different AOL features than users of new windows systems (IE7). Unless, of course, AOL only impliment features on their site that work with IE6 and ignore any new capabilities of newer versions of IE.
AOL has announced that it will use IE for the browser for seven years. Microsoft has announced that there will no longer be a standalone version of IE. So, if AOL is to still work on existing Windows boxes, then it must remain at IE6. But, it's hard to beleive that they won't want to move to the latest and greatest (tongue in cheek) IE when it ships, but that would force AOL to either maintain separate code bases or drop support for current versions of Windows. If they choose the separate code bases, then using the least common denominator approach, AOL won't be able to include future web features, because they don't exist in IE6. Dropping support for older versions of Windows, is a very calculated risk. There are two possible outcomes. Facing a forced upgrade, either AOL's would switch to a different ISP or shell out the bucks for a new version of Windows (and possibly new hardware). My bet would be to switch ISPs, but I'm sure AOL and MS are counting on people buying a new version of Windows, instead. If they are right, that's not a bad investment for MS $750M to get AOL users to all buy a copy of the next version of Windows. At 35 million AOL subscribers and a $100 upgrade cost, MS stands to gross $3.5 billion dollars. Not a bad return on investment.
Don't know what happened to the formatting, but this should be easier to read than the original post.
Sorry for shouting, but this is getting crazy! People are slamming NeTraverse for using SCO technology and are even calling to boycott NeTraverse. That is simply untrue. Below is a quote from Jim Curtin, the CEO of NeTraverse:
"Win4Lin is not built on technology licensed from SCO. SCO licenses technology from NeTraverse as an OEM and packages the technology on their UNIX platforms under our name "Merge". We do not license anything from SCO (nor do we need to)."
People should check their facts before posting accusations and calls to boycott. They (the posters) have done NeTraverse and the Slashdot community a grave diservice. Instead of boycotting Win4Lin, maybe the posters should go out and by a copy to make amends for the mis-information they've spread and the harm they've done.
NOTE: I have no affiliation, whatsoever with NeTraverse, Win4Lin, Jim Curtin or SCO. I just think the record should be set straight on this one issue.
Sorry for shouting, but this is getting crazy! People are slamming NeTraverse for using SCO technology and are even calling to boycott NeTraverse. That is simply untrue. Below is a quote from Jim Curtin, the CEO of NeTraverse: "Win4Lin is not built on technology licensed from SCO. SCO licenses technology from NeTraverse as an OEM and packages the technology on their UNIX platforms under our name "Merge". We do not license anything from SCO (nor do we need to)." People should check their facts before posting accusations and calls to boycott. They (the posters) have done NeTraverse and the Slashdot community a grave diservice. Instead of boycotting Win4Lin, maybe the posters should go out and by a copy to make amends for the mis-information they've spread and the harm they've done. Dcnjoe60 NOTE: I have no affiliation, whatsoever with NeTraverse, Win4Lin, Jim Curtin or SCO. I just think the record should be set straight on this one issue.
You've got that all wrong! SCO licenses the technology from NetTraverse, not vice versa. It doesn't use any SCO code and you do them a disservice for claiming otherwise.