SCO first needs to show what part of code it is that they claim as IP. Since they are hesitant to do this even now with IBM, et al, I doubt they will get anywhere as close with Google.
Although from a PR perspective it's pure genius or pure insanity. Poking a stick a Google -The golden child of every Linux/OSS Technocrat; is like the proverbial beehive. It would bring more unification in this community than the smaller challenges and probably speed up the case for IBM vs. the bug on the windshield, since almost everyone uses Google and although there are many challengers waiting in the wings, no one wants to see them gone right now.
Though on the same note, toppling Google or forcing Google to stutter in any form or fashion would be a Fait Accompli for any company.
Anyhow its all speculation and dreams...which given the drunkards at the wheel at SCO, is probably a thought process in the making.
You can't force people to vote other than reminding them and pushing in the press the issue you want them to vote for.
Voting is an obligation of citizenship and the right of the citizen. We can all agree on that, but what happens to people who want to waive that right? Do we punish them for not participating in our democracy? How do you enforce it? Jail time, tax liens? How do you circumvent the people who are not interested in the election or that don't want to vote, or that are too busy working or the system is too complex....or...you get the drift.
And then what about the people who now are being forced to vote? You realize that they are going to start ruining the rest of the process by just voting and selecting anyone to get the damned thing over with? Skewered voting at it's finest.
It's becoming more and more increasing difficult to be a user on the internet without having to bow down in some way to Microsoft and their influence on the internet. Why suddenly do I have to suffer and do AV on my system(s) routers and local boxes when my network is secured like a transvestite in a holding cell?
It's bad enough that I have to suffer with the net being slow due to MS's newest bug/worm/exploit that by right should have no effect on me as a *Nixite and now I have to deal with shunted traffic.
While it's great that some of the bigger companies are going to clean up the mess for them, they need to realize that by the nature of the internet this is not going to happen.
"In a conference call Tuesday, the chief executives of all four firms said virulent programs like Blaster and Slammer demanded a more coordinated defense,
with security programs and hardware working together off a shared set of standards."
Great another internet proprietary standard at the top level. Seems like Verisign started a trend of "How to drive business in segement of intra-commerce".
I don't want to be forced to download program from someone who's business model I don't trust or depend on to do my business. More so in arenas where I never needed their products.
How about instead we just start using ssh/https the way it was meant to be used?
How about those companies work on what they are good at and let me worry about the network part of it?
But once again: if Geronimo has any GPL code in it, whether from
JBoss or not, then it will be expunged. We've always said that.
What we are doing now is looking at "cases" where such claims
are being made and whether or not they have any merit, while
at the same time reviewing what's in CVS.
Got it?
Love it. This is one of the things I like best about open source software: We can re-write it on the fly, or just do better than you...thanks for keeping us clean.
That doesn't sound as poetic as I mentally think it but that's my 2k.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I think that there is something else going on in their minds other than all this hoopla and propaganda.
I think they have a IP protection product exclusively for open source programmers/organizations that they are going to announce and market (think about the watermarked coding article last week).
Since they've obviously highlighted an issue that while most programmers hate the town cryer, deep down can agree with the IP stance.
It's the only thing that makes an iota of sense to me.
Good point, and not to throw in the Lin/win debate, but I think that they more than likely considered this and it is why they have chosen an open source solution. They can author, patch, admin and TRUST their own work, on their own system.
I wonder also with the drop of the PBX's will IBM become or position itself to become a baby bell in it's own right. Just a thought.
Not really. The argument for the open source solution boils down to the fact that with the latest voting 'issues' we have experienced in this country coupled with the rising distrust of the voting/electoral system, *people are grassroot spearheading the drive to have a means of voting that is accountable as well as not mired in backrooms, backdoors, or simple switch codings.
The OSS push for the voting system is simply a request from the people to have a simple thing done simply with accountability.
I think you've got it all completely wrong. Google despite not being a public company is THE hottest ".com"/company on the internet in terms of usage and customer loyalty; and it's only a Service company.
The fact that it's survived along the sides of Amazon who's first profit was not until 1/2002 and E-bay who's a different beast altogether show that the companies that are doing 'the different' are the ones who are setting the pace and maintaining their own quo's without Wall street intervention.
If you recall Wall Street intervention is what built up the tech sector bubble and the same thing that ultimately burst that same bubble.
The fact that google has survived so long is why it's such a hot stock and a hot topic, they didn't need the advice or the help from the Wall Street guru's other than the fact that Wall Streets greed for the company is going to set the price higher than what it would have been. Which is genius from any shareholder viewpoint (supply demand and control).
So essentially Google is writing their own history rather than letting the Wall Street vultures write their obituary. If that's not reinventing the IPO market then what is?
My personal cynic is asking me if we can we just forgo the electronic voting and vote with a pencil and paper or a stand-up voting booth, I'm certainly going to inquire about it if (when) the new voting methods hit my town.
This story is yet another crack in the armor (paper machete) of the new age of voting. The trouble is that the people trying to usher in the new age of voting are forgetting that the new age has ignorance, corruption, greed and hidden agendas as the standing guard. Not to mention the bystanders of activists, the Just and the uninformed held on the sidelines by a velvet rope called lack of media interest.
Who is to say that despite the binary or non binary...whatever.. that this leak was done just to undermine the credibility of the new system(s). Seems to me that in this case the ends justify the means because not only am I questioning them, I'm also starting to wonder if having a central authoriy in place would not be a great idea after all.
But who do we trust now? We can't trust the voters, can't trust Chad, and now it seems as though we can't trust the election system at all.
This is like the 15th event in the weekly mental circus with this company. I'm starting to wonder if it's all smoke and glass and a ploy to tie in a new product announcement that they plan on selling that watermarks coding for instituions and programmers.
Does this not go against what open source is all about? It's open code given without the extremes of ownership like water/copy/trade-marks. Where does this apply with CVS and open project developments?
I like the idea behind it but I don't think it's the answer. It would be easier and more applicable to have a 3rd party database that held published coding rather than having to graph and mark my work everytime I released etc... this way I have it (1) in the public domain and (2) have a published reference for it. (For smaller works).
And borrowing code despite our hatred for it is one of the tools of software development, not so much in the word for word copying and ctrl-V (thats a whole separate discussion) but capturing the methods and innovating them, then re-releasing it into the wild for the next innovator or janitorial white hat. Thats what open source coding is for me anyway not the profit or the credit but the goal.
I'm not a doomsayer or a OMG the world is ending yokel. But with more and more stories surfacing about the lacking credibility and accuracy of the 'new' school of voting....one can only come to see the outrage when people start to connect the idea (perhaps even falsely) that their votes are easily manipulated, miscounted, or simple footnotes catered to the wanted result.
This line: In addition to that, people signed a form that said that they had verified the results of the test before the test had finished running.
Instead of focusing on a campaign about the fixes to a voting system they should spend that PR funding on trying to educate the populance and put some faith back in the voters hands. More so after the Florida debacle and the
conscientious of the voting system after it.
I think that most people are unaware of the voting holes/issues simply because they don't even care anymore. They've given up on the system and having the words "generate positive public perception" and PR and voting... in the same vein as politics is not helping them or their cause.
1) National Safety - and they didn't really care about security. Now we all pay those special taxes because we (fear) what that lack of security can do and we still carry the trauma with us.
2) Yes. The internet for the most part is not regulatable in the same manner as other utilities, etc. It's a daunting task for some people as it is and for others it's the last bastion of free speech. The internet doesn't need policing - it just needs to refine it's current forumla of less big brother and more responsible parenting/usage.
I will stop getting those stupid emails about the internet tax for emails, and bandwidth taxes, etc...Which is the good side.
BUT on the other side of the equation a part of me would not mind paying an internet tax on emails, if it would help in the battle against spam and junk mailings...although one may assume that the senders have deep pockets.
So in this end this really resolves nothing for me. Execept for a link I can point to when I get the next barage of "Internet Email Tax!!!" emails.:)
"There is no such thing as completely secure software."
Phil Reitinger, Microsoft senior security strategist.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/964552.asp?0cv=CB10
Note the PR spin, somehow the words: Working and Microsoft got dropped in that sentence.
Finally we can start getting mech wars on tv instead of the robot wars.:)
Seriously though, the implications for this technology are astounding. Once the core of the system development addresses issues like system crashes, weight limits, security, and other such modulations; we are sure to see variants of this technology abounding in hazardous inudstries, police / military interventions, and explorer expeditions -pending the next logical stage that being a closed system exoskelton.
I have to agree with many of you who are stating that one of the reasons for the change is the lose of revenue that they are losing by way of the captive advertising audience. However I think that the move is more along the lines of Microsofts vision of having one operation system as the sole interface for each and everything that may or will require a computer.
The less they have to worry about catering to others, or time spent on monitoring 'others' on their products or network is time they can spend in their deployment of the one product end user goal. We've seen a glimmer of that mindset when last week they announced that the reason for BSOD's was outside programing etc....
LI}But eventually changes like this that ostracize entire portions of computer users will eventually lead to the better development by those who subscribe to deviant technologies. So in the end this move could start off the stages needed as a catalyst for better development and increases onward and upward.
Perhaps the plausibility(laughability) of this project and the scale it will take might force some of the others countries with ambitious space ideas to start actively planning and persuing those ideas; at the benefit of the current space projects.
If anything I think this idea seems more like a thought gambit, akin to "Well, here's what we've put on the table, how about you?" than an actual bid to get people or supplies onto Mars.
Slashdot Mirror
Would it really have hurt to say "Hey, man good job with the tools you had at hand. It's impressive".
It's impressive;Don't spit in the sandbox..
Although from a PR perspective it's pure genius or pure insanity. Poking a stick a Google -The golden child of every Linux /OSS Technocrat; is like the proverbial beehive. It would bring more unification in this community than the smaller challenges and probably speed up the case for IBM vs. the bug on the windshield, since almost everyone uses Google and although there are many challengers waiting in the wings, no one wants to see them gone right now.
Though on the same note, toppling Google or forcing Google to stutter in any form or fashion would be a Fait Accompli for any company.
Anyhow its all speculation and dreams...which given the drunkards at the wheel at SCO, is probably a thought process in the making.
You can't force people to vote other than reminding them and pushing in the press the issue you want them to vote for. Voting is an obligation of citizenship and the right of the citizen. We can all agree on that, but what happens to people who want to waive that right? Do we punish them for not participating in our democracy? How do you enforce it? Jail time, tax liens? How do you circumvent the people who are not interested in the election or that don't want to vote, or that are too busy working or the system is too complex....or...you get the drift. And then what about the people who now are being forced to vote? You realize that they are going to start ruining the rest of the process by just voting and selecting anyone to get the damned thing over with? Skewered voting at it's finest.
Then again, here's how I see it:
Buy (insert product here),
the best (slander rest of competition here),
we (possible guarantee here or fast announcer speaking).
(10 seconds of fillspace, for next recycle or plug ANOTHER product for 1/2 price).
Actual picture of product.
Profit.
I agree on both counts & this should be upped.
It's bad enough that I have to suffer with the net being slow due to MS's newest bug/worm/exploit that by right should have no effect on me as a *Nixite and now I have to deal with shunted traffic.
While it's great that some of the bigger companies are going to clean up the mess for them, they need to realize that by the nature of the internet this is not going to happen.
"In a conference call Tuesday, the chief executives of all four firms said virulent programs like Blaster and Slammer demanded a more coordinated defense, with security programs and hardware working together off a shared set of standards."
Great another internet proprietary standard at the top level. Seems like Verisign started a trend of "How to drive business in segement of intra-commerce". I don't want to be forced to download program from someone who's business model I don't trust or depend on to do my business. More so in arenas where I never needed their products.
How about instead we just start using ssh/https the way it was meant to be used? How about those companies work on what they are good at and let me worry about the network part of it?
Indeed.
Got it?
Love it. This is one of the things I like best about open source software: We can re-write it on the fly, or just do better than you...thanks for keeping us clean.
That doesn't sound as poetic as I mentally think it but that's my 2k.
I think they have a IP protection product exclusively for open source programmers /organizations that they are going to announce and market (think about the watermarked coding article last week).
Since they've obviously highlighted an issue that while most programmers hate the town cryer, deep down can agree with the IP stance.
It's the only thing that makes an iota of sense to me.
That and the pure comedy.
I wonder also with the drop of the PBX's will IBM become or position itself to become a baby bell in it's own right. Just a thought.
Not really. The argument for the open source solution boils down to the fact that with the latest voting 'issues' we have experienced in this country coupled with the rising distrust of the voting/electoral system, *people are grassroot spearheading the drive to have a means of voting that is accountable as well as not mired in backrooms, backdoors, or simple switch codings.
The OSS push for the voting system is simply a request from the people to have a simple thing done simply with accountability.
*(Us being the computer proficient and literate)
The fact that it's survived along the sides of Amazon who's first profit was not until 1/2002 and E-bay who's a different beast altogether show that the companies that are doing 'the different' are the ones who are setting the pace and maintaining their own quo's without Wall street intervention.
If you recall Wall Street intervention is what built up the tech sector bubble and the same thing that ultimately burst that same bubble.
The fact that google has survived so long is why it's such a hot stock and a hot topic, they didn't need the advice or the help from the Wall Street guru's other than the fact that Wall Streets greed for the company is going to set the price higher than what it would have been. Which is genius from any shareholder viewpoint (supply demand and control). So essentially Google is writing their own history rather than letting the Wall Street vultures write their obituary. If that's not reinventing the IPO market then what is?
This story is yet another crack in the armor (paper machete) of the new age of voting. The trouble is that the people trying to usher in the new age of voting are forgetting that the new age has ignorance, corruption, greed and hidden agendas as the standing guard. Not to mention the bystanders of activists, the Just and the uninformed held on the sidelines by a velvet rope called lack of media interest.
Who is to say that despite the binary or non binary...whatever.. that this leak was done just to undermine the credibility of the new system(s). Seems to me that in this case the ends justify the means because not only am I questioning them, I'm also starting to wonder if having a central authoriy in place would not be a great idea after all.
But who do we trust now? We can't trust the voters, can't trust Chad, and now it seems as though we can't trust the election system at all.
I like the idea behind it but I don't think it's the answer. It would be easier and more applicable to have a 3rd party database that held published coding rather than having to graph and mark my work everytime I released etc... this way I have it (1) in the public domain and (2) have a published reference for it. (For smaller works).
And borrowing code despite our hatred for it is one of the tools of software development, not so much in the word for word copying and ctrl-V (thats a whole separate discussion) but capturing the methods and innovating them, then re-releasing it into the wild for the next innovator or janitorial white hat. Thats what open source coding is for me anyway not the profit or the credit but the goal.
This line: In addition to that, people signed a form that said that they had verified the results of the test before the test had finished running.
Scares the hell out of me.
I think that most people are unaware of the voting holes/issues simply because they don't even care anymore. They've given up on the system and having the words "generate positive public perception" and PR and voting... in the same vein as politics is not helping them or their cause.
1) National Safety - and they didn't really care about security. Now we all pay those special taxes because we (fear) what that lack of security can do and we still carry the trauma with us.
2) Yes. The internet for the most part is not regulatable in the same manner as other utilities, etc. It's a daunting task for some people as it is and for others it's the last bastion of free speech. The internet doesn't need policing - it just needs to refine it's current forumla of less big brother and more responsible parenting/usage.
I will stop getting those stupid emails about the internet tax for emails, and bandwidth taxes, etc...Which is the good side.
:)
BUT on the other side of the equation a part of me would not mind paying an internet tax on emails, if it would help in the battle against spam and junk mailings...although one may assume that the senders have deep pockets.
So in this end this really resolves nothing for me. Execept for a link I can point to when I get the next barage of "Internet Email Tax!!!" emails.
"There is no such thing as completely secure software." Phil Reitinger, Microsoft senior security strategist. http://www.msnbc.com/news/964552.asp?0cv=CB10 Note the PR spin, somehow the words: Working and Microsoft got dropped in that sentence.
Seriously though, the implications for this technology are astounding. Once the core of the system development addresses issues like system crashes, weight limits, security, and other such modulations; we are sure to see variants of this technology abounding in hazardous inudstries, police / military interventions, and explorer expeditions -pending the next logical stage that being a closed system exoskelton.
The less they have to worry about catering to others, or time spent on monitoring 'others' on their products or network is time they can spend in their deployment of the one product end user goal. We've seen a glimmer of that mindset when last week they announced that the reason for BSOD's was outside programing etc.... LI}But eventually changes like this that ostracize entire portions of computer users will eventually lead to the better development by those who subscribe to deviant technologies. So in the end this move could start off the stages needed as a catalyst for better development and increases onward and upward.
Perhaps the plausibility(laughability) of this project and the scale it will take might force some of the others countries with ambitious space ideas to start actively planning and persuing those ideas; at the benefit of the current space projects. If anything I think this idea seems more like a thought gambit, akin to "Well, here's what we've put on the table, how about you?" than an actual bid to get people or supplies onto Mars.