A lot of people have been speculating of the damage SCO is trying to do to Google before their IPO. Look at it the other way around. Almost everyone uses and likes Google. They also have become one of the true valuable.com companies. If Google were to say STFU SCO, your claims are baseless, I think many executives would stop worrying about it.
Even posting a small cleverly worded notice on the front page could produce a strong public backlash against SCO.
How is this legal? Does the RIAA have ANY right to do this?
Take this for instance: "They said they were police from the recording industry or something, and next time they'd take me away in handcuffs," he said through an interpreter.
If the RIAA does not have any legal authority to say that, doesn't that make them guilty of several criminal charges?
You have a really good point. ISPs lose money on their extreme customers, but make tons on the average ones.
I also think ISPs should have to be up front about their limits. If they advertise unlimited, it should be unlimited. Or, it should at least have a small note at the bottom of any advertisement. Otherwise it's unfair to the customer.
Judging from your letter it sounds like you are using comcast. I havn't had a letter to sent to me, but I do read over the interesting threads at DSL Reports forum.
It seems Comcast is targetting people only on high use nodes. There really isn't a consistent amount of bandwidth that you have to be lower than to avoid it. Comcast has not said how they determine whether or not you are violating TOS. Instead, they throw out statistically useless comments such as "100 times over the national median" or downloading "over 50 full length movies a month".
I personally believe that if you advertise unlimited service, you should provide unlimited service. If your infrastructure can't support that, you shouldn't have advertised it. Comcast may also try to get you to upgrade to business cable. The same ToS provision is in the business level cable, so don't bother.
See here for one of the more interesting threads on this subject. (Warning: it's long!)
SCO never said it was in the original sources. I'm surprised Linus went out of his way to do such a large PR stunt.
SCO said it was in linux 2.4. Comparing the original kernel sources is nice, but kind of useless. Linus himself admits that most of the files have been changed a lot.
I know as well as most/.ers that the code was definitely not copied into Linux. But, Linus usually doesn't make casual slips like this. Then again, Darl has probably made some stupid statement at some point about it being in every version of Linux. Go figure.
make menuconfig
on
USB Menorah
·
· Score: 2, Funny
That's funny, I was going to go ahead and say the opposite: Let's completely decommercialize the root servers and take away Verisign's authority on.com/.net
The average Mac is probably 7 times more expensive than the average Dell, so how is this possible?
I know that G5s are powerful, but are they really that much more powerful?
I love Microsoft bashing as much as the next Linux user, but this article doesn't make much sense. Linux machines are targetted very often in security issues. If you have an unsecured Linux machine on the internet, it will either succomb to a worm, or be hacked by script kiddies. Most admins don't even usually notice script kiddie hacks (think monitoring thousands of servers..). Yes, Windows is insecure by design. So is Linux. So is *gasp* OpenBSD. Software written by humans is insecure by design.
I believe they are sueing for sharing, not actually posssing songs they supposedly don't own. I'm not sure if that's legal or not (back up servers etc).
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of people have been speculating of the damage SCO is trying to do to Google before their IPO. Look at it the other way around. Almost everyone uses and likes Google. They also have become one of the true valuable .com companies. If Google were to say STFU SCO, your claims are baseless, I think many executives would stop worrying about it.
Even posting a small cleverly worded notice on the front page could produce a strong public backlash against SCO.
I guarantee you that if sales did go down due to this boycott, any of these companies would not attribute it to their use of SCO products.
Take this for instance:
"They said they were police from the recording industry or something, and next time they'd take me away in handcuffs," he said through an interpreter.
If the RIAA does not have any legal authority to say that, doesn't that make them guilty of several criminal charges?
Isn't it illegal to work for less than minimum wage in the USA?
You have a really good point. ISPs lose money on their extreme customers, but make tons on the average ones. I also think ISPs should have to be up front about their limits. If they advertise unlimited, it should be unlimited. Or, it should at least have a small note at the bottom of any advertisement. Otherwise it's unfair to the customer.
Judging from your letter it sounds like you are using comcast. I havn't had a letter to sent to me, but I do read over the interesting threads at DSL Reports forum.
It seems Comcast is targetting people only on high use nodes. There really isn't a consistent amount of bandwidth that you have to be lower than to avoid it. Comcast has not said how they determine whether or not you are violating TOS. Instead, they throw out statistically useless comments such as "100 times over the national median" or downloading "over 50 full length movies a month".
I personally believe that if you advertise unlimited service, you should provide unlimited service. If your infrastructure can't support that, you shouldn't have advertised it. Comcast may also try to get you to upgrade to business cable. The same ToS provision is in the business level cable, so don't bother.
See here for one of the more interesting threads on this subject. (Warning: it's long!)
I know Windows ME was a bit of a flop in order to hold manufacturer's over until XP came out, but I would imagine it had a greater percentage than 1%.
Could they have just included ME in 98's group? I at least find it surprising that so many people still use it (even if it was MS's best OS!)
Do the BSDs use some X server I don't know about?
There doesn't look like there was a lot of other competition.. at least nearby!
SCO said it was in linux 2.4. Comparing the original kernel sources is nice, but kind of useless. Linus himself admits that most of the files have been changed a lot.
I know as well as most /.ers that the code was definitely not copied into Linux. But, Linus usually doesn't make casual slips like this. Then again, Darl has probably made some stupid statement at some point about it being in every version of Linux. Go figure.
---
USB Menorah (Y/M/N) Y
Why not?
Read his email on bugtraq. It sounds like Gamespy's lawyers are trying to make a juicy story.
That's funny, I was going to go ahead and say the opposite: Let's completely decommercialize the root servers and take away Verisign's authority on .com/.net
The average Mac is probably 7 times more expensive than the average Dell, so how is this possible? I know that G5s are powerful, but are they really that much more powerful?
I'm all for supporting other people's ideas, provided they provide evidence. Unfortunately, SCO has just provided lots of contradictions.
Why not buy it, and then redistribute it for free?
I love Microsoft bashing as much as the next Linux user, but this article doesn't make much sense. Linux machines are targetted very often in security issues. If you have an unsecured Linux machine on the internet, it will either succomb to a worm, or be hacked by script kiddies. Most admins don't even usually notice script kiddie hacks (think monitoring thousands of servers..). Yes, Windows is insecure by design. So is Linux. So is *gasp* OpenBSD. Software written by humans is insecure by design.
I suppose I'll write my next password cracker in basic, since speed doesn't matter and all based on the language.
Too afraid to reply as yourself huh?
Look for 70mb of files installed with Emacs and you'll be sure to find it.
I guess Linux and Java are the same thing for him.
I'll bet Bill is looking at zlib sources and wondering why code patterns are showing up in Windows too. Oh, that's right, they copied it.
Uh.. yes, your honor, but they copied the alleged music from me!
I believe they are sueing for sharing, not actually posssing songs they supposedly don't own. I'm not sure if that's legal or not (back up servers etc).
Yeah, according to the RIAA somehow the loss comes out to $150,000 per song. I guess they used a smoke-a-pipe loss model.