Here is a mind bender, if you could see into the infrared spectrum with machine augmentation, what color would it be? There must be colors that have not yet been imagined.
I am not an expert in programming, but I work on fault tolerances in building processes. Tolerances come in two general categories, one is 'slop' the other is a factored tolerance where you predict where and how the processes will interact.
Slop, AKA 'quick and dirty', is the easiest and the cheapest way to design. It requires little forethought and marginal design ability. You begin by applying generic and standardized processes, you do not venture into any customization, you do not get fancy in any way. You specifically avoid all situations where two things have to line up and interact. This method is inneficient, not in terms of design resources, but in maintanance and operational resources (in computing, I imagine it would be memory, bandwidth et cetera). In architectural terms, this would be a shanty town. A million people can live in a shanty town, but it isn't pretty.
My preferred method is a precisely defined solution.
1. You start off by designing for the inherent demands of the overall system, which look at the long range extremes of usage, you decide how robust you want your system to be and game out 'all' likely failure points at intersections and interactions of the overall architecture. You benchmark past experience and develop overall standards for performance. The precise details of this overall architecture will determine day to day maintanance and operation requirements. You need to be aware of not only the the way elements within the system interact, but the physical properties or specifications of each element to be sure you know what you are doing and how they will perform. You need to be an expert.
2. As a co-continuous problem you design each particular system to a level of robustness based on its appropriate use. You need to assign safety factors, and acceptable failure levels so as not to waste resources while maintaining protection. In some cases failure can be catastrophic and people can die (the space shuttle systems, 911 call centers) or worse lose money (banking). The best example of a fault tolerant system I can think of besides the internet is the Interstate Highway System, which was originally designed as a transportation system that would remain operational in the event of a nuclear strike (its form isn't an accident, it was designed to specific criteria). In architectural terms, this kind of fault tolerance is a skyscraper city. Skyscrapers are durable and beautiful but are extremely expensive to design and construct. A skyscraper could stand for 100 years without maintanance of any kind, where a shanty will fall to pieces in 5 years.
Fault tolerance needs to be put in perspective. It is only useful based on how much it costs to fix and maintain a system and its 'aesthetic' value (it is always hard to sell an ugly or stupid design). A $1 million system for a $1 hundred dollar problem is not effective unless it is a critical application (a missile or a laser for eye surgery). It may well be cheaper to employ a person or ten to keep some system up, rather than make it 100% bullet proof (most web sites can fail for a few minutes an no one will care). It depends on the situation. As far as aesthetics of your work, I don't know anyone who wants to live in a shanytown, they have a tendency to get cholera, malaria et cetera and die, it isn't necessary to live like that. We invented trailer parks to solve that problem and it is now Americas #1 form of affordable housing.
Our friends at Darpa are researching this problem and have a good outline of these issues.
Now you can finally make a data port that connects directly to a person. You can theoretically send and receive neural signals which can interact and control a machine...or perhaps the other way around. If you think I full of crap, check out this link. Join the Army and you too can be a cyborg!
these users were disconnected because they failed to police themselves.
Many users do not have a clue. The small office where I work, some people are so clueless they click on the executable attachments like candy. Perhaps the solution is not cutting them off, the solution is caning the idiots, maybe they would learn then.
But in this case, Forbes published the correct and balanced information and it is Slashdot that grossly mischaracterized the events to the detriment of Linux.
This was not a balanced or fair or accurate article. Here is my paragraph by paragraph analysis why. You should be ashamed to support this kind of yellow journalism. It is pathetic by any standard.
Quotes from article:
Computer Associates International Inc. (nyse: CA - news - people) said on Monday it has licensed the freely available Linux operating system software from SCO -- a move that could become key legal ammunition for the SCO Group Inc.
Comment: Seems incorrect to me right off the bat. CA denied buying an IP license from SCO, much less a license for 'Linux'.
Quotes from article:SCO Group, which claims ownership over parts of Linux, is suing distributors and users of the software system in what has become a highly contentious legal battle among technology makers, and technology lawyers said each licensee SCO signs helps bolster its case.
Comment: what technology lawyers? Where are these mythical creatures? Are they the SCO laywers or the M$ lawyers. It doesn't sound like Eben Moglen said this?
Quotes from article:One of the world's largest software sellers, Computer Associates has championed an industry coalition supporting the open and free use of Linux.
Comment: I am not sure 'champion' is a proper discription of CA, it inflates CA's contribution. I don't see how they are in any way at the core of what is going on with Linux at the same level as say a Redhat.
Quotes from article:While Computer Associates confirmed it agreed to license the software last August, it took pains on Monday to distance itself from SCO, saying it had signed the licenses as part of a confidential legal settlement with a third party.
Comment: The software in question was Unixware, not Linux, that was licensed. This 2 second Google search turned up these stories which directly refutes the Forbes/Reuters story, take a look here.
and here
Quotes from article:"(SCO) is grasping at straws to purport CA as a SCO supporter," Computer Associates said in a statement. "CA stands in stark disagreement with SCO's tactics, which are intended to intimidate and threaten customers."
Comment: A partial quote which fails to show the full CA position which is much more broadly a denial of SCO's claim.
Quotes from article:SCO has used the courts aggressively to assert ownership positions in Linux as well as software called Unix, whose code, SCO maintains, was utilized in the making of Linux.
Comment: SCO has not claimed to own any Linux code. They are in a contract dispute with IBM. The other lawsuits are with former SCO customers and virtually nothing is known about the substance of those charges.
Quotes from article:The SCO Group last week expanded its legal battle over Linux by suing AutoZone Inc. and DaimlerChrysler AG
Comment: SCO has certainly stepped up their legal attacks.
Quotes from article:Intellectual property, or IP, experts said CA's license could help convince a jury that SCO has a justified claim on Linux.
Comment: What intelectual property lawyer says that? Does he have a name? David Bois pwerhaps? Or is the aurthor of the article an expert on this?
Quotes from article:"Generally, if an IP holder is able to demonstrate that others in the industry have taken a license, thereby respecting the IP holder's claims, that can be used as evidence that is persuasive to a jury," said Brian Ferguson, a partner in a Washington, D.C. law firm that handles IP cases. Ferguson has no stake in the SCO case.
Comment: Who is Brian Fergeson? WTF? That is a 2 bit quo
Iraqi2600: $@!@#$!#@!$ [trans] Hello, there is a funny man who looked like a Saddam crazy man by hole near house of mine.
General Sanchez22: Really, can I come over and see? It might be Saddam.
Iraqi2600: !$#@!$#@!$#@^%#&^ [trans] Yes, what time will you be there?
General Sanchez22: How about 9:00, should I bring snacks and ammunition?
Pole007: &^%(*^%(# [trans] I can bring sausage and rutebegga! Party to catch Saddam is I love to have.
Iraqi2600: )(*(&*()&^%^& [trans] No more sausage, bring vodka or other devil drink.
General Sanchez22: cool, see you at 9:00, my hummer just got out of the shop, wait til you check out my new armor, later.
Iraqi2600: *$@%@#&*((^ [trans] Later
Pole007: &^%(*^%(# [trans] All have I is peppermint schnaps and Meisterbrau, will have to do, see you at 9:00. I sure hope Saddam it is this time. Running out of excuses for hangoever am I.
Its not Linux that has a weakness, its US law governing the conduct of corporations and their executives, especially that conduct when faced with an 'un-competitive arena' involving Free Products For the Masses, Which the Masses Want.
There are $billions at stake and ruthless people who will do anything legal or illegal to get that money. They are not concerned about morality or freedom as can be seen with SCO. It seems to me that Linux needs to build some defenses and some strong offensive weapons to take these people on, it isn't enough to rely on companies like IBM who have very narrow interests.
I agree with you completely, the law is screwed up, but realizing that doesn't fix the situation. We need to make sure the broken system can't be turned on Linux to destroy it, that is what I am trying to get at.
until schools start teaching "Propaganda 101" as a basic curriculum requirement, Western States are going to continue to be little more than Sheep Factories.
Propoganda? I don't think it is helpful to attack the average American for holding a different point of view that we may disagree with. Most Linux users are just as biased as anyone, if not more so. That bias can blind intelligent and reasonable people (this happens all the time in business). Personally, I try to listen and understand why people hold the views they do. I also try to be self critical, even handed and open minded. It is hard some times, and I fail 90% of the time. But only by doing that, and not resorting to counter propoganda, can we learn our strengths and weaknesses. We need to honestly accept criticism in order to overcome our weaknesses. Right now, SCO is clearly and blatantly pointing to a weakness in the Linux model. If Linux doesn't have a weakness, how is it that a tiny company like SCO can cause such huge problems? I am not saying SCO is right, but we have a lot of work to do to make sure that Linux continues to offer freedom to users.
We need to realize the difference between strategy and tactics. Propoganda is a short lived persuading tool and can only achieve limited success. SCO is achieving some limited success with their propoganda, but their 'strategy' is to use the divided and decentralized structure of the Opens Source community against us, by winning small victories as leverage to divide and conquer and make us believe we are losing. The more success SCO has, the more dangerous SCO becomes. Because of our weakness SCO has the potential to make spectacular long term gains against us, we are only lightly defended and weak to a relentless predator. Realizing and fixing our underlying weakness, and designing a defense/attack mechanism in the Linux business model would be a good strategy to counter SCO. My favorite defense is one I have heard many times on/. which is a distributed legal attack, stalling SCO with 1000's of separate lawsuits in every state in the Union. My second favorite defense is a very strong, well funded and powerful Linux trade group.
Also at what point does the Bar association of Utah step in and say if you sco lawyers do this anymore kiss your licenses goodby?
The bar association of Utah? Why would they step in? Unless they directly lie or do something clearly illegal they won't do a damn thing. Sure, the SCO case is covered in the slime and stench of a corrupt company, but the lawyers are pretty well shielded from getting hit by the Bar in Utah. Honestly, you would have better luck with a States, Attorney General, they would be much more likely to listen to citizens. Send your State Attorney General a note, odds are he will respond to you.
I tried to buy a license. They refused to sell me one because I wasn't incorporated yet. I told them I was starting a small enterprise with a Linux web server that did not as yet exist, but was in the works. They even refused to give me information on what their product was and if it would protect me from a lawsuit. The only thing I got was this form letter.
Dear Mr. [name witheld to protect me from getting sued],
Thank you for your inquiry to obtain an SCO IP license. At this time, we have announced the license availability for commercial users only. If
you wish to pursue a commercial IP license, please enclose the following information.
Corporate Name, Corporate Phone and Address, Corporate officers names and titles, distribution of Linux and release/rev information. Once we
have received your updated information, we will contact you with the purchase requirements.
Thank you for your interest in SCO.
SCO
That was what they sent me in answer to a request about what their product was. I followed up but they did not respond to any correspondance I sent.
I am not an expert in this kind of thing, but if I were a large company thinking about buying a license, I would think twice. Buying a license is more likely to get you involved in a lawsuit and it might violate the GPL, opening you up to a lawsuit from any developer who ever contributed to Linux and void your ability to use Linux and barring you from using Linux. You are better off paying a one time penalty than being bound by a SCO license. Buying a SCO license will not make your problems go away, it will only make them worse. Basically what they are doing is going around saying that WE WILL SUE YOU over copyright violations. But the license (which I later read because they finally released copy of it) only sells a useless/unnamed product called 'IP' and does not give any assurances and only restricts rights of Linux users. Read the fine print, you get NOTHING. It does not indemnify you. They are entirely geared towards going after and exploiting existing Linux users based on fear of a lawsuit, they are not geared at providing a service to potential users or a useful product that does something. Their license does not make a single hard claim to any specific Linux product and does nothing but restrict your rights.
Only an idiot would buy this license. It is completely asinine. DO NOT BUY A LICENSE. It is an open ended legal liability.
You forgot the judge told them in no uncertain terms to explicitly outline exactly what Linux code is theirs and barred them from making some public comments.
Isn't there some version of this in nature? Just wondering, because if there is, they can only patent a process to make a nanotube, not the nanotube itself. Its like they can patent the making of polyester, but not silk.
I'm just curious, if SCO settles with AutoZone and they buy the SCO IP license, won't AutoZone be in violation of the GPL, and can't any contributor to Linux sue them for infringement because they are using a voided GPL license? Couldn't Novell for example, sue and force them to adhere to the GPL or stop using Linux. This would be especially harmful to someone like EV1 who already bought the SCO license, they are in violation of the GPL and can be sued by any contributor, and be forced to adhere to the GPL. As a matter of fact, this could be the 'in' that gives Linux copyright holders the right to sue SCO for 'copyright infringement' because SCO is trying to license their work. The GPL is a contract, that gives all the parties with a stake in that contract the right to sue to protect their rights.
You tell em cowboy! SCO is going down! They are being stretched thin by all of these suits. Soon they will fun into a cash crunch, then get their bond rating sent to shit, then a desparate conferance call trying to reassure investors and then blammo...no more SCO.
You have just fullfilled Microsoft's goal in this suit. If they can obscure the growing use of Linux, they may yet survive...
This isn't about M$, it is about having a way to keep your freedom to develop products independant from other large developers. M$ will be around for a long time. Even if they stopped shipping an OS tommorrow, they would have 10 years of existing systems to close out. It takes a long, long time for a company like M$ to run down. Linux can become the dominant platform making M$ more like another Apple, a smaller niche player or IBM (the former monopoly holder). But the goal should not be to destroy M$. The goal should be to make an amazing product that keeps freedom to innovate intact and where a majority of people feel comfortable using it. I think SCO has picked a losing battle, Linux is a market force and movement as much as it is a product. One way or another, too many people have too much at stake to let SCO win. Eventually SCO will go down and the way they are playing, SCO will go out face down in the mud rather than a buyout which will preserve some shareholder value.
The real danger is not from a faceless government agencies, it comes from people who are unwilling to stand up for what they believe in and other people who will stop at nothing to get what they want. I am sure the government is doing some secret surveilance. But I doubt they are doing it en masse. Go back and read the declassified Venona files if you are interested on how the government deals with spying. They had Soviet agents within their grasp, but weren't able to convict some of them without violating their rights, so they went free. This was at the height of the McCarthy era.
There will always be abuses, but as long as people follow the rule of law and honest people are ready and willing to do whatever it takes to keep our government honest, we have nothing to fear. Don't be paranoid. Get involved and make a difference istead of complaining aobut the government.
The East Gemans did an experiment I read about to track currency by making it radioactive. This caused problems from coins when sitting in mens front pockets, making them sterile...ooops.
Just take a lightbulb, crack the glass up a bit and set it in the microwave. Fill your microwave full of gasoline/explosives and set a tripwire. Everything I know about explosives I learned on TV! This trick brought to you by Steven Segal in 'Under Siege'!
Besides, if Google did get sued, it wouldn't harm them that much,
This would directly harm Google. The IPO was already delayed, possibly because SCO is threatening to sue them. This will make the IPO price for Google lower if they have a $50million judgement hanging over their head.
The last license they got out of of EV1 was probably under the threat of a lawsuit. I can't see why else EV1 would give up a six figure fee. SCO is causing damage every day. They are harming good companies and this will lead to real people being harmed. McBride should go to prison for that.
What I don't get is why they didn't request that their name 'not' be made public. I don't see how this can help them in any way. Now they are a target for malicious hacking and ddos attacks. Not that I advocate that kind of thing, but cmon, you know some teenager with extra time on his hands will do it! The suits at EV1 must be complete fools.
Couldn't they take SCO to the cleaners if/when SCO loses and this "license" is proven not to be a requirement? Might be a nice short term investment...
They bought their license for an 'undisclosed' discount. SCO, probably desparate to sign someone up, probably gave them a 95% discount just to say that they signed someone up. Otherwise, if they had 20,000 servers at $699 that would come to about $14 million, which would be stupid/idiotic. Let the morons sign up and screw their bottom line. Idiots like that don't deserve mercy.
Is a sailboat a perpetual motion machine? Is a windmill a perpetual motion machine? This ship could sail in 3 dimensions and draw power from a turbine. Theoretically, that is possible. Althoug it does need some additional power, hard tack and beans possibly.
But what I don't understand is why he doesn't just create a giant inflatable airplane hybrid, that would probably work better. It could get 90% lift from helium and 10% from forward movement from a turbo fans powered by solar power. The helium ballon aspect of it could be the structural system as well, it would be an active system (inflatable), rather than a very heavy and expensive rigid frame.
Slashdot Mirror
Here is a mind bender, if you could see into the infrared spectrum with machine augmentation, what color would it be? There must be colors that have not yet been imagined.
I am not an expert in programming, but I work on fault tolerances in building processes. Tolerances come in two general categories, one is 'slop' the other is a factored tolerance where you predict where and how the processes will interact.
Slop, AKA 'quick and dirty', is the easiest and the cheapest way to design. It requires little forethought and marginal design ability. You begin by applying generic and standardized processes, you do not venture into any customization, you do not get fancy in any way. You specifically avoid all situations where two things have to line up and interact. This method is inneficient, not in terms of design resources, but in maintanance and operational resources (in computing, I imagine it would be memory, bandwidth et cetera). In architectural terms, this would be a shanty town. A million people can live in a shanty town, but it isn't pretty.
My preferred method is a precisely defined solution.
1. You start off by designing for the inherent demands of the overall system, which look at the long range extremes of usage, you decide how robust you want your system to be and game out 'all' likely failure points at intersections and interactions of the overall architecture. You benchmark past experience and develop overall standards for performance. The precise details of this overall architecture will determine day to day maintanance and operation requirements. You need to be aware of not only the the way elements within the system interact, but the physical properties or specifications of each element to be sure you know what you are doing and how they will perform. You need to be an expert.
2. As a co-continuous problem you design each particular system to a level of robustness based on its appropriate use. You need to assign safety factors, and acceptable failure levels so as not to waste resources while maintaining protection. In some cases failure can be catastrophic and people can die (the space shuttle systems, 911 call centers) or worse lose money (banking). The best example of a fault tolerant system I can think of besides the internet is the Interstate Highway System, which was originally designed as a transportation system that would remain operational in the event of a nuclear strike (its form isn't an accident, it was designed to specific criteria). In architectural terms, this kind of fault tolerance is a skyscraper city. Skyscrapers are durable and beautiful but are extremely expensive to design and construct. A skyscraper could stand for 100 years without maintanance of any kind, where a shanty will fall to pieces in 5 years.
Fault tolerance needs to be put in perspective. It is only useful based on how much it costs to fix and maintain a system and its 'aesthetic' value (it is always hard to sell an ugly or stupid design). A $1 million system for a $1 hundred dollar problem is not effective unless it is a critical application (a missile or a laser for eye surgery). It may well be cheaper to employ a person or ten to keep some system up, rather than make it 100% bullet proof (most web sites can fail for a few minutes an no one will care). It depends on the situation. As far as aesthetics of your work, I don't know anyone who wants to live in a shanytown, they have a tendency to get cholera, malaria et cetera and die, it isn't necessary to live like that. We invented trailer parks to solve that problem and it is now Americas #1 form of affordable housing.
Our friends at Darpa are researching this problem and have a good outline of these issues.
Now you can finally make a data port that connects directly to a person. You can theoretically send and receive neural signals which can interact and control a machine...or perhaps the other way around. If you think I full of crap, check out this link. Join the Army and you too can be a cyborg!
these users were disconnected because they failed to police themselves.
Many users do not have a clue. The small office where I work, some people are so clueless they click on the executable attachments like candy. Perhaps the solution is not cutting them off, the solution is caning the idiots, maybe they would learn then.
But in this case, Forbes published the correct and balanced information and it is Slashdot that grossly mischaracterized the events to the detriment of Linux.
This was not a balanced or fair or accurate article. Here is my paragraph by paragraph analysis why. You should be ashamed to support this kind of yellow journalism. It is pathetic by any standard.
Quotes from article: Computer Associates International Inc. (nyse: CA - news - people) said on Monday it has licensed the freely available Linux operating system software from SCO -- a move that could become key legal ammunition for the SCO Group Inc.
Comment: Seems incorrect to me right off the bat. CA denied buying an IP license from SCO, much less a license for 'Linux'.
Quotes from article:SCO Group, which claims ownership over parts of Linux, is suing distributors and users of the software system in what has become a highly contentious legal battle among technology makers, and technology lawyers said each licensee SCO signs helps bolster its case.
Comment: what technology lawyers? Where are these mythical creatures? Are they the SCO laywers or the M$ lawyers. It doesn't sound like Eben Moglen said this?
Quotes from article:One of the world's largest software sellers, Computer Associates has championed an industry coalition supporting the open and free use of Linux.
Comment: I am not sure 'champion' is a proper discription of CA, it inflates CA's contribution. I don't see how they are in any way at the core of what is going on with Linux at the same level as say a Redhat.
Quotes from article:While Computer Associates confirmed it agreed to license the software last August, it took pains on Monday to distance itself from SCO, saying it had signed the licenses as part of a confidential legal settlement with a third party.
Comment: The software in question was Unixware, not Linux, that was licensed. This 2 second Google search turned up these stories which directly refutes the Forbes/Reuters story, take a look here. and here
Quotes from article:"(SCO) is grasping at straws to purport CA as a SCO supporter," Computer Associates said in a statement. "CA stands in stark disagreement with SCO's tactics, which are intended to intimidate and threaten customers."
Comment: A partial quote which fails to show the full CA position which is much more broadly a denial of SCO's claim.
Quotes from article:SCO has used the courts aggressively to assert ownership positions in Linux as well as software called Unix, whose code, SCO maintains, was utilized in the making of Linux.
Comment: SCO has not claimed to own any Linux code. They are in a contract dispute with IBM. The other lawsuits are with former SCO customers and virtually nothing is known about the substance of those charges.
Quotes from article:The SCO Group last week expanded its legal battle over Linux by suing AutoZone Inc. and DaimlerChrysler AG
Comment: SCO has certainly stepped up their legal attacks.
Quotes from article:Intellectual property, or IP, experts said CA's license could help convince a jury that SCO has a justified claim on Linux.
Comment: What intelectual property lawyer says that? Does he have a name? David Bois pwerhaps? Or is the aurthor of the article an expert on this?
Quotes from article:"Generally, if an IP holder is able to demonstrate that others in the industry have taken a license, thereby respecting the IP holder's claims, that can be used as evidence that is persuasive to a jury," said Brian Ferguson, a partner in a Washington, D.C. law firm that handles IP cases. Ferguson has no stake in the SCO case.
Comment: Who is Brian Fergeson? WTF? That is a 2 bit quo
They were not "purchased".
This all sounds like a case of EV1 regret to me. I bet they feel like idiots now!
Iraqi2600: $@!@#$!#@!$ [trans] Hello, there is a funny man who looked like a Saddam crazy man by hole near house of mine.
General Sanchez22: Really, can I come over and see? It might be Saddam.
Iraqi2600: !$#@!$#@!$#@^%#&^ [trans] Yes, what time will you be there?
General Sanchez22: How about 9:00, should I bring snacks and ammunition?
Pole007: &^%(*^%(# [trans] I can bring sausage and rutebegga! Party to catch Saddam is I love to have.
Iraqi2600: )(*(&*()&^%^& [trans] No more sausage, bring vodka or other devil drink.
General Sanchez22: cool, see you at 9:00, my hummer just got out of the shop, wait til you check out my new armor, later.
Iraqi2600: *$@%@#&*((^ [trans] Later
Pole007: &^%(*^%(# [trans] All have I is peppermint schnaps and Meisterbrau, will have to do, see you at 9:00. I sure hope Saddam it is this time. Running out of excuses for hangoever am I.
Its not Linux that has a weakness, its US law governing the conduct of corporations and their executives, especially that conduct when faced with an 'un-competitive arena' involving Free Products For the Masses, Which the Masses Want.
There are $billions at stake and ruthless people who will do anything legal or illegal to get that money. They are not concerned about morality or freedom as can be seen with SCO. It seems to me that Linux needs to build some defenses and some strong offensive weapons to take these people on, it isn't enough to rely on companies like IBM who have very narrow interests.
I agree with you completely, the law is screwed up, but realizing that doesn't fix the situation. We need to make sure the broken system can't be turned on Linux to destroy it, that is what I am trying to get at.
until schools start teaching "Propaganda 101" as a basic curriculum requirement, Western States are going to continue to be little more than Sheep Factories.
/. which is a distributed legal attack, stalling SCO with 1000's of separate lawsuits in every state in the Union. My second favorite defense is a very strong, well funded and powerful Linux trade group.
Propoganda? I don't think it is helpful to attack the average American for holding a different point of view that we may disagree with. Most Linux users are just as biased as anyone, if not more so. That bias can blind intelligent and reasonable people (this happens all the time in business). Personally, I try to listen and understand why people hold the views they do. I also try to be self critical, even handed and open minded. It is hard some times, and I fail 90% of the time. But only by doing that, and not resorting to counter propoganda, can we learn our strengths and weaknesses. We need to honestly accept criticism in order to overcome our weaknesses. Right now, SCO is clearly and blatantly pointing to a weakness in the Linux model. If Linux doesn't have a weakness, how is it that a tiny company like SCO can cause such huge problems? I am not saying SCO is right, but we have a lot of work to do to make sure that Linux continues to offer freedom to users.
We need to realize the difference between strategy and tactics. Propoganda is a short lived persuading tool and can only achieve limited success. SCO is achieving some limited success with their propoganda, but their 'strategy' is to use the divided and decentralized structure of the Opens Source community against us, by winning small victories as leverage to divide and conquer and make us believe we are losing. The more success SCO has, the more dangerous SCO becomes. Because of our weakness SCO has the potential to make spectacular long term gains against us, we are only lightly defended and weak to a relentless predator. Realizing and fixing our underlying weakness, and designing a defense/attack mechanism in the Linux business model would be a good strategy to counter SCO. My favorite defense is one I have heard many times on
Also at what point does the Bar association of Utah step in and say if you sco lawyers do this anymore kiss your licenses goodby?
The bar association of Utah? Why would they step in? Unless they directly lie or do something clearly illegal they won't do a damn thing. Sure, the SCO case is covered in the slime and stench of a corrupt company, but the lawyers are pretty well shielded from getting hit by the Bar in Utah. Honestly, you would have better luck with a States, Attorney General, they would be much more likely to listen to citizens. Send your State Attorney General a note, odds are he will respond to you.
I tried to buy a license. They refused to sell me one because I wasn't incorporated yet. I told them I was starting a small enterprise with a Linux web server that did not as yet exist, but was in the works. They even refused to give me information on what their product was and if it would protect me from a lawsuit. The only thing I got was this form letter.
Dear Mr. [name witheld to protect me from getting sued],
Thank you for your inquiry to obtain an SCO IP license. At this time, we have announced the license availability for commercial users only. If you wish to pursue a commercial IP license, please enclose the following information.
Corporate Name, Corporate Phone and Address, Corporate officers names and titles, distribution of Linux and release/rev information. Once we have received your updated information, we will contact you with the purchase requirements.
Thank you for your interest in SCO.
SCO
That was what they sent me in answer to a request about what their product was. I followed up but they did not respond to any correspondance I sent.
I am not an expert in this kind of thing, but if I were a large company thinking about buying a license, I would think twice. Buying a license is more likely to get you involved in a lawsuit and it might violate the GPL, opening you up to a lawsuit from any developer who ever contributed to Linux and void your ability to use Linux and barring you from using Linux. You are better off paying a one time penalty than being bound by a SCO license. Buying a SCO license will not make your problems go away, it will only make them worse. Basically what they are doing is going around saying that WE WILL SUE YOU over copyright violations. But the license (which I later read because they finally released copy of it) only sells a useless/unnamed product called 'IP' and does not give any assurances and only restricts rights of Linux users. Read the fine print, you get NOTHING. It does not indemnify you. They are entirely geared towards going after and exploiting existing Linux users based on fear of a lawsuit, they are not geared at providing a service to potential users or a useful product that does something. Their license does not make a single hard claim to any specific Linux product and does nothing but restrict your rights.
Only an idiot would buy this license. It is completely asinine. DO NOT BUY A LICENSE. It is an open ended legal liability.
You forgot the judge told them in no uncertain terms to explicitly outline exactly what Linux code is theirs and barred them from making some public comments.
Isn't there some version of this in nature? Just wondering, because if there is, they can only patent a process to make a nanotube, not the nanotube itself. Its like they can patent the making of polyester, but not silk.
I'm just curious, if SCO settles with AutoZone and they buy the SCO IP license, won't AutoZone be in violation of the GPL, and can't any contributor to Linux sue them for infringement because they are using a voided GPL license? Couldn't Novell for example, sue and force them to adhere to the GPL or stop using Linux. This would be especially harmful to someone like EV1 who already bought the SCO license, they are in violation of the GPL and can be sued by any contributor, and be forced to adhere to the GPL. As a matter of fact, this could be the 'in' that gives Linux copyright holders the right to sue SCO for 'copyright infringement' because SCO is trying to license their work. The GPL is a contract, that gives all the parties with a stake in that contract the right to sue to protect their rights.
You tell em cowboy! SCO is going down! They are being stretched thin by all of these suits. Soon they will fun into a cash crunch, then get their bond rating sent to shit, then a desparate conferance call trying to reassure investors and then blammo...no more SCO.
You have just fullfilled Microsoft's goal in this suit. If they can obscure the growing use of Linux, they may yet survive...
This isn't about M$, it is about having a way to keep your freedom to develop products independant from other large developers. M$ will be around for a long time. Even if they stopped shipping an OS tommorrow, they would have 10 years of existing systems to close out. It takes a long, long time for a company like M$ to run down. Linux can become the dominant platform making M$ more like another Apple, a smaller niche player or IBM (the former monopoly holder). But the goal should not be to destroy M$. The goal should be to make an amazing product that keeps freedom to innovate intact and where a majority of people feel comfortable using it. I think SCO has picked a losing battle, Linux is a market force and movement as much as it is a product. One way or another, too many people have too much at stake to let SCO win. Eventually SCO will go down and the way they are playing, SCO will go out face down in the mud rather than a buyout which will preserve some shareholder value.
The real danger is not from a faceless government agencies, it comes from people who are unwilling to stand up for what they believe in and other people who will stop at nothing to get what they want. I am sure the government is doing some secret surveilance. But I doubt they are doing it en masse. Go back and read the declassified Venona files if you are interested on how the government deals with spying. They had Soviet agents within their grasp, but weren't able to convict some of them without violating their rights, so they went free. This was at the height of the McCarthy era.
There will always be abuses, but as long as people follow the rule of law and honest people are ready and willing to do whatever it takes to keep our government honest, we have nothing to fear. Don't be paranoid. Get involved and make a difference istead of complaining aobut the government.
The East Gemans did an experiment I read about to track currency by making it radioactive. This caused problems from coins when sitting in mens front pockets, making them sterile...ooops.
Just take a lightbulb, crack the glass up a bit and set it in the microwave. Fill your microwave full of gasoline/explosives and set a tripwire. Everything I know about explosives I learned on TV! This trick brought to you by Steven Segal in 'Under Siege'!
Besides, if Google did get sued, it wouldn't harm them that much,
This would directly harm Google. The IPO was already delayed, possibly because SCO is threatening to sue them. This will make the IPO price for Google lower if they have a $50million judgement hanging over their head.
The last license they got out of of EV1 was probably under the threat of a lawsuit. I can't see why else EV1 would give up a six figure fee. SCO is causing damage every day. They are harming good companies and this will lead to real people being harmed. McBride should go to prison for that.
The problem isn't tanks, it is guys with RPG's and AK's. Hence the reason this program was cancelled.
What I don't get is why they didn't request that their name 'not' be made public. I don't see how this can help them in any way. Now they are a target for malicious hacking and ddos attacks. Not that I advocate that kind of thing, but cmon, you know some teenager with extra time on his hands will do it! The suits at EV1 must be complete fools.
Couldn't they take SCO to the cleaners if/when SCO loses and this "license" is proven not to be a requirement? Might be a nice short term investment...
They bought their license for an 'undisclosed' discount. SCO, probably desparate to sign someone up, probably gave them a 95% discount just to say that they signed someone up. Otherwise, if they had 20,000 servers at $699 that would come to about $14 million, which would be stupid/idiotic. Let the morons sign up and screw their bottom line. Idiots like that don't deserve mercy.
Is a sailboat a perpetual motion machine? Is a windmill a perpetual motion machine? This ship could sail in 3 dimensions and draw power from a turbine. Theoretically, that is possible. Althoug it does need some additional power, hard tack and beans possibly.
But what I don't understand is why he doesn't just create a giant inflatable airplane hybrid, that would probably work better. It could get 90% lift from helium and 10% from forward movement from a turbo fans powered by solar power. The helium ballon aspect of it could be the structural system as well, it would be an active system (inflatable), rather than a very heavy and expensive rigid frame.
The real test of this machine will be whether or not it can fly upwind!