I seem to remember hearing about this a few years ago, too (maybe 4 years or so). The word was that NASA was trying to take it from him, but I don't remember how reputable the program was that mentioned it (fairly sure it was Discovery or TLC, though). I thought the same thing...why would it not be in use, if it worked as advertised? Guessing the high wind speed mentioned earlier is a problem.
So what happens to your competitive edge if you're forced to give out the secrets behind your product?
You lose market-share to competitors. Something Linksys should have known before they developed a GPL-based OS for that router. This is a null argument because they had other options and didn't use them.
I didn't build my house either, but I wouldn't be happy if RMS & crew tried to strongarm me into burning it down.
If you built your own house using plans that were freely available on the condition that you made any changes to the plan freely available too, would you be upset when somebody came asking for them? This isn't somebody asking you to burn down your house. It was a contrived argument from the outset, and has no teeth.
Where's your proof?
It's circumstantial, but if there was no compelling reason for them to use GPL'ed software, they would have done it another way. Logic dictates that proprietary software is more likely to have a licensing fee, and in-house development requires more time (otherwise, why not do it?). Where's your argument against the possibility? "Where's your proof?" doesn't cut it.
You call disclosing your product secrets a small contribution? I call it freely distributing the technology behind your product's distinct characteristics directly to your competition
I call it abiding by the rules that you agreed to. Stupidity on Linksys' part is not the fault of the GPL.
I'm not sure I understand the problem...why can't you set up restrictions like those on your primary MX on the secondary, and if you can, why do they work on one, but not the other?
Got an initial response (which didn't answer my question):
Thank you for your note. As you have observed, at times Google will return a result in which the keywords are located on links pointing to the page but not on the page itself. This is not an error. In evaluating the merit of a page, Google looks not only at information found on the page itself, but also the anchor text of links that point to the page. If links pointing to the page contain the exact phrase you searched on, this can cause a page to be returned as a match for your query.
We appreciate your feedback on this aspect of our search and will keep it in mind as we work to improve Google.
Regards,
The Google Team
I wrote back:
That's nice, but it's not an answer to the question I asked. I am aware that at times, Google will return results where the keywords are not on the page, but on links pointing to the page. My understanding of the reason for allintext: existing is that it is intended to return *only* results that involve the searched-for text actually existing on the pages in the result set.
Why is allintext: included as an option if it does not limit searches to what it says it's limiting them to? I agree that for normal searches, this is not an error, but I wasn't referring to a normal search.
In my mind it's kind of like saying "SELECT * from sometable where lastname='frank'" and getting some rows returned where frank was somewhere in the row, but not in "lastname". It wouldn't bother me if I knew that there was no way to get the expected results, as long as it was specifically stated that it's not possible.
Please help me understand how this is supposed to work.
I was perusing some of the current US copyright law here and found some curious words (section 102 b):
In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
Not much in and of itself, and certainly open to interpretation...I'd like to tell SCO that a C program is a way of describing a process to a compiler:)
Section 106.3 says the copyright holder has a right to:
distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending
Note that this section doesn't say that the copyright holder is barred from giving additional rights, just that these rights are explicitly granted to the holder of the copyright.
Section 117 b says:
Lease, Sale, or Other Transfer of Additional Copy or Adaptation. -- Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner.
The only part of this statement that makes any difference to Linux is that last sentence, and the GPL is that authorization (along with some restrictions to prevent outright theft).
It's fine for the GPL to assign whatever rights it wants, as long as those rights don't conflict with copyright law, which they don't. What's illegal is for users of copyrighted software to ignore those rights that the copyright holder allows them, and for them to break the restrictions imposed by copyright law where they are not specifically allowed by the copyright holder.
From:...
Newsgroups: google.public.support.general
Subject: allintext: "search for a phrase" returns incorrect results...
NNTP-Posting-Host:...
Message-ID: <bcc3911c.0310061027.60413603@posting.google.com>
For whatever reason, allintext searches for (example) "to be or not to
be" are returning responses that include ones not containing that
phrase on the page.
I noted that some of the pages included ones that *only* had the text
in pages that linked to them. This seems contrary to what was
specifically asked for (allintext: means "find this phrase in the
text", right?).
Is this an error in the search routine, or should there be some
documentation mentioning this unexpected (to me) behavior?
Your "allintext"-using example failed as well. For all your argument, you have yet to come up with a way to get A = A search results!
Well, shit. You're right. Although I've never noticed that before...I suppose it's possible that I've just been searching for stuff that returned too many good hits for me to notice a link that was missing the searched-for phrase.
Thank you for forcing me to notice a problem...now I'm off to complain.
Yet, I ask for A and it gives B. That is not brilliant at all. I'd rather have a search engine produce accurate results to my search, and not use some poor guesswork to come up with things that I did not ask for that it THINKS I might want.
No, you asked for ~A, and it gave you ~A. If you had gone through the trouble of figuring out how to actually ask for what you want, you would be able to quit wasting energy whining about the fact that you don't know how to get the results that you want. If you want a search engine that has different default settings than Google, use something else, *or* (wait for it) learn how to use Google to search for things.
Yet, if you turn the window knob, you expect the window to open. You don't expect the seat to go back because someone THINKS that is what you wanted instead.
Well, here's an idea...you haven't touched the window knob, you pressed the "call" button for the stewardess, and you wanted her to open the window, but she brought you a pillow, and then asked you if that was what you wanted. Instead of saying "no, I want the window open, where's the button?", you started bitching to the other passengers about the service on the flight.
No, the complaint boils down to the fact that Google is good, but it would be perfect if it corrected these bugs which produce unwanted and unmatching results to searches.
Well, then you can rest assured that Google is perfect (by your standards...I like it a lot, but can't claim it's perfect), and that you just haven't figured out how to use it yet.
are only as good as the searcher. If you want to see only pages that have the phrase "to be or not to be" in the text, type:
allintext: "to be or not to be"
In google's search box (or go to advanced search like you should have when you didn't get the results you expected). I don't think it's too much to expect of a person who wishes to use a search engine to bother to actually learn how to use a search engine.
Should I stay in first gear when I ride my buddy's bike that has the shift levers on the frame instead of the handlebars (and I didn't expect it), or should I find them and change gears?
The "showing results 1-1 of xxx,xxx" thing is odd. Getting results you don't expect because you didn't ask right is trivial and common.
Upgrading to the 2.6 kernel is different because it uses a different module and devfs system. It supposed to be backwards compatible but you need to upgrade your modutilities. I did this but Redhat put some of the files for their older version of modutils in the wrong place. This caused a conflict and since my USB keyboard uses the mod I could not fix it.
So, you *know* that the 2.6 kernel is a beta, and you know that you need to use an updated and unsupported modutils, and you know that RedHat screwed something up, and (hopefully) you know that you could borrow a PS/2 keyboard for 10 minutes and fix things, but you would rather whine about it all?
That fails to make a strong argument for BSD (as opposed to Linux). You *did* mention Gentoo, briefly ("emerge whatever" works well for me), but saying things like "Doing things like upgrading your modutils is a dangerous and bad idea. You need to upgrade your whole system at once and make sure its been tested. Only debian and FreeBSD can offer that." Is both obvious (first two sentences) and untrue (last sentence).
Sorry you had trouble with 2.6 beta and modutils, but get over it.
sounds more to me like SGI was spinning it "Well, we did remove some code, but we only did it so SCO would have abso-fucking-lutely nothing to complain about. We investigated, found that most, if not all, of the code had been released into the public domain, and that a lot of it already had better, existing implementations in the Linux kernel. Oh, yeah, and we can do whatever we want to with XFS, because we wrote it, and it's not derivative of anything in SYSV.".
They probably could have added a hearty "Kiss my ass and hug my nuts" to SCO in there, but they kept it pretty civil...
Well, it's not clearly marketed as something other than a phone service("Vonage: The Broadband Phone Company"), but the TOS (which nobody will read) says:
1.10 Service Distinctions
You acknowledge and understand that the Service is not a telephone service. Important distinctions exist between telephone service and the enhanced Service offering provided by Vonage. The Service is subject to different regulatory treatment than phone service. This treatment may limit or otherwise affect your rights of redress before Federal and State telecommunications regulatory agencies.
There *is* a 911 service, and there is a method for a 911 dispatcher to determine your location, but you must explicitly set this up (it's a free, optional service). As for normal POTS line overrides, etc, I don't see any mention, other than section 1.10 of the TOS.
If you mind low-qality, insecure, tappable calls, you probably don't own a cell phone, and if you don't own a cell phone, this service likely won't be one you'd buy (IMHO).
Are you saying he's not already paying a phone company that's charging him regulatory fees for the lines you mentioned? the VOIP companies are already paying charges for the physical lines/numbers that *they* use. Now you're going to make them pay for the same lines that the customer's local phone company is already paying for. I'm gonna have to side with the original poster, and call bullshit. If you can prove that the phone company can't provide the same service, then I'll consider your opinion.
Re:Your definition is obviously bogus...
on
The "Spider Case"
·
· Score: 0
Not when you consider today's computers are about 1000-1500 times faster, and have 100,000-500,000 times more RAM than the Apollo Guidance Computer
You do have to worry a lot about shielding the components from radiation, but if we could do it with a computer that's less powerful than your garden variety calculator watch, I'd say commercialization is going to be limited by propulsion technology, not the control equipment.
Stories that lead to bitching about how SCO is bad doesn't qualify as "News for Nerds"??? Dear god, man (or woman...less likely, but possible), what *does*?
It's not obvious that he doesn't know that. The fact that he used that argument demonstrated a fairly severe lack of either understanding or thinking effort, which is the reason that this particular moron replied. Note the second half of the sentence you quoted. Show me how his post indicates that he knew that, and I'll write "I'm a moron" 500 times in my journal, and post a link to it on the next 5 slashdot threads, with props to "A.C"
or...*still* tough shit, but not for Linksys. Mr Fucktard wasn't supposed to alter the flash contents with unapproved firmware (guessing, here), and Linksys doesn't owe him a replacement or any support.
The issue wasn't that "these guys" didn't have some special compiler, it's that Linksys didn't supply all of the source code for their custom kernel. If I write a program that does something (under the GPL) that uses your program source (obtained via the GPL) as it's basis, and don't make the modifications I made available as source code (per the GPL), I'm wrong. Period.
If I want to add a line that points to some external module and make *that* available binary-only, fine, but that's not what's happened here.
Since he said it publically, and in response to IBM, does that mean it can be used in a legal argument? I thought SCO was trying to skirt the whole "copyright" issue, since they only had some odd contractual agreement. Is Darl really saying, out loud, in public, that SCO owns the copyright for some software that's in Linux?
Okay...I can see how that logic could lead you to a view that the two aren't mutually exclusive, assuming adam and eve were created 4.5 billion years (- 7days) ago.
Slashdot Mirror
I seem to remember hearing about this a few years ago, too (maybe 4 years or so). The word was that NASA was trying to take it from him, but I don't remember how reputable the program was that mentioned it (fairly sure it was Discovery or TLC, though). I thought the same thing...why would it not be in use, if it worked as advertised? Guessing the high wind speed mentioned earlier is a problem.
You lose market-share to competitors. Something Linksys should have known before they developed a GPL-based OS for that router. This is a null argument because they had other options and didn't use them.
I didn't build my house either, but I wouldn't be happy if RMS & crew tried to strongarm me into burning it down.
If you built your own house using plans that were freely available on the condition that you made any changes to the plan freely available too, would you be upset when somebody came asking for them? This isn't somebody asking you to burn down your house. It was a contrived argument from the outset, and has no teeth.
Where's your proof?
It's circumstantial, but if there was no compelling reason for them to use GPL'ed software, they would have done it another way. Logic dictates that proprietary software is more likely to have a licensing fee, and in-house development requires more time (otherwise, why not do it?). Where's your argument against the possibility? "Where's your proof?" doesn't cut it.
You call disclosing your product secrets a small contribution? I call it freely distributing the technology behind your product's distinct characteristics directly to your competition
I call it abiding by the rules that you agreed to. Stupidity on Linksys' part is not the fault of the GPL.
Right...cause there aren't any black people (colored??? are you *that* much of a jackass?) living in Texas.
I'm not sure I understand the problem...why can't you set up restrictions like those on your primary MX on the secondary, and if you can, why do they work on one, but not the other?
Thank you for your note. As you have observed, at times Google will return a result in which the keywords are located on links pointing to the page but not on the page itself. This is not an error. In evaluating the merit of a page, Google looks not only at information found on the page itself, but also the anchor text of links that point to the page. If links pointing to the page contain the exact phrase you searched on, this can cause a page to be returned as a match for your query.
We appreciate your feedback on this aspect of our search and will keep it in mind as we work to improve Google.
Regards,
The Google Team
I wrote back:
That's nice, but it's not an answer to the question I asked. I am aware that at times, Google will return results where the keywords are not on the page, but on links pointing to the page. My understanding of the reason for allintext: existing is that it is intended to return *only* results that involve the searched-for text actually existing on the pages in the result set.
Why is allintext: included as an option if it does not limit searches to what it says it's limiting them to? I agree that for normal searches, this is not an error, but I wasn't referring to a normal search.
In my mind it's kind of like saying "SELECT * from sometable where lastname='frank'" and getting some rows returned where frank was somewhere in the row, but not in "lastname". It wouldn't bother me if I knew that there was no way to get the expected results, as long as it was specifically stated that it's not possible.
Please help me understand how this is supposed to work.
More to come...
In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
Not much in and of itself, and certainly open to interpretation...I'd like to tell SCO that a C program is a way of describing a process to a compiler :)
Section 106.3 says the copyright holder has a right to:
distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending
Note that this section doesn't say that the copyright holder is barred from giving additional rights, just that these rights are explicitly granted to the holder of the copyright.
Section 117 b says:
Lease, Sale, or Other Transfer of Additional Copy or Adaptation. -- Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner.
The only part of this statement that makes any difference to Linux is that last sentence, and the GPL is that authorization (along with some restrictions to prevent outright theft).
It's fine for the GPL to assign whatever rights it wants, as long as those rights don't conflict with copyright law, which they don't. What's illegal is for users of copyrighted software to ignore those rights that the copyright holder allows them, and for them to break the restrictions imposed by copyright law where they are not specifically allowed by the copyright holder.
Newsgroups: google.public.support.general
Subject: allintext: "search for a phrase" returns incorrect results...
NNTP-Posting-Host:
Message-ID: <bcc3911c.0310061027.60413603@posting.google.com>
For whatever reason, allintext searches for (example) "to be or not to
be" are returning responses that include ones not containing that
phrase on the page.
I noted that some of the pages included ones that *only* had the text
in pages that linked to them. This seems contrary to what was
specifically asked for (allintext: means "find this phrase in the
text", right?).
Is this an error in the search routine, or should there be some
documentation mentioning this unexpected (to me) behavior?
I'll let you know what they say.
Well, shit. You're right. Although I've never noticed that before...I suppose it's possible that I've just been searching for stuff that returned too many good hits for me to notice a link that was missing the searched-for phrase.
Thank you for forcing me to notice a problem...now I'm off to complain.
No, you asked for ~A, and it gave you ~A. If you had gone through the trouble of figuring out how to actually ask for what you want, you would be able to quit wasting energy whining about the fact that you don't know how to get the results that you want. If you want a search engine that has different default settings than Google, use something else, *or* (wait for it) learn how to use Google to search for things.
Yet, if you turn the window knob, you expect the window to open. You don't expect the seat to go back because someone THINKS that is what you wanted instead.
Well, here's an idea...you haven't touched the window knob, you pressed the "call" button for the stewardess, and you wanted her to open the window, but she brought you a pillow, and then asked you if that was what you wanted. Instead of saying "no, I want the window open, where's the button?", you started bitching to the other passengers about the service on the flight.
No, the complaint boils down to the fact that Google is good, but it would be perfect if it corrected these bugs which produce unwanted and unmatching results to searches.
Well, then you can rest assured that Google is perfect (by your standards...I like it a lot, but can't claim it's perfect), and that you just haven't figured out how to use it yet.
allintext: "to be or not to be"
In google's search box (or go to advanced search like you should have when you didn't get the results you expected). I don't think it's too much to expect of a person who wishes to use a search engine to bother to actually learn how to use a search engine.
Should I stay in first gear when I ride my buddy's bike that has the shift levers on the frame instead of the handlebars (and I didn't expect it), or should I find them and change gears?
The "showing results 1-1 of xxx,xxx" thing is odd. Getting results you don't expect because you didn't ask right is trivial and common.
So, you *know* that the 2.6 kernel is a beta, and you know that you need to use an updated and unsupported modutils, and you know that RedHat screwed something up, and (hopefully) you know that you could borrow a PS/2 keyboard for 10 minutes and fix things, but you would rather whine about it all?
That fails to make a strong argument for BSD (as opposed to Linux). You *did* mention Gentoo, briefly ("emerge whatever" works well for me), but saying things like "Doing things like upgrading your modutils is a dangerous and bad idea. You need to upgrade your whole system at once and make sure its been tested. Only debian and FreeBSD can offer that." Is both obvious (first two sentences) and untrue (last sentence).
Sorry you had trouble with 2.6 beta and modutils, but get over it.
They probably could have added a hearty "Kiss my ass and hug my nuts" to SCO in there, but they kept it pretty civil...
"most (or all) of the code was apparently released into the public domain"
1.10 Service Distinctions You acknowledge and understand that the Service is not a telephone service. Important distinctions exist between telephone service and the enhanced Service offering provided by Vonage. The Service is subject to different regulatory treatment than phone service. This treatment may limit or otherwise affect your rights of redress before Federal and State telecommunications regulatory agencies.
There *is* a 911 service, and there is a method for a 911 dispatcher to determine your location, but you must explicitly set this up (it's a free, optional service). As for normal POTS line overrides, etc, I don't see any mention, other than section 1.10 of the TOS.
If you mind low-qality, insecure, tappable calls, you probably don't own a cell phone, and if you don't own a cell phone, this service likely won't be one you'd buy (IMHO).
Are you saying he's not already paying a phone company that's charging him regulatory fees for the lines you mentioned? the VOIP companies are already paying charges for the physical lines/numbers that *they* use. Now you're going to make them pay for the same lines that the customer's local phone company is already paying for. I'm gonna have to side with the original poster, and call bullshit. If you can prove that the phone company can't provide the same service, then I'll consider your opinion.
You must not read Spider Robinson...
You do have to worry a lot about shielding the components from radiation, but if we could do it with a computer that's less powerful than your garden variety calculator watch, I'd say commercialization is going to be limited by propulsion technology, not the control equipment.
Stories that lead to bitching about how SCO is bad doesn't qualify as "News for Nerds"??? Dear god, man (or woman...less likely, but possible), what *does*?
It's not obvious that he doesn't know that. The fact that he used that argument demonstrated a fairly severe lack of either understanding or thinking effort, which is the reason that this particular moron replied. Note the second half of the sentence you quoted. Show me how his post indicates that he knew that, and I'll write "I'm a moron" 500 times in my journal, and post a link to it on the next 5 slashdot threads, with props to "A.C"
or...*still* tough shit, but not for Linksys. Mr Fucktard wasn't supposed to alter the flash contents with unapproved firmware (guessing, here), and Linksys doesn't owe him a replacement or any support.
So they stand to lose nothing by not publishing the source
as opposed to
they have nothing to risk by releasing it (emphasis changed to clarify things a bit.).
If I want to add a line that points to some external module and make *that* available binary-only, fine, but that's not what's happened here.
That's "Perl", not "PERL".
Since he said it publically, and in response to IBM, does that mean it can be used in a legal argument? I thought SCO was trying to skirt the whole "copyright" issue, since they only had some odd contractual agreement. Is Darl really saying, out loud, in public, that SCO owns the copyright for some software that's in Linux?
Okay...I can see how that logic could lead you to a view that the two aren't mutually exclusive, assuming adam and eve were created 4.5 billion years (- 7days) ago.