I'm sure this is not the first of such moves we will see. However I would also think that such moves are not just driven by the quality of the hardware. I think many companies may be aware of the attention the Transmeta's 3120 processor got from the involvement of Linus (I tend to refer to him as Mr. T since I can't spell). If the loyalty shown to Linux can be carried over to processor sales, or hardware that is using those processors, that's big bucks. A fact that was not lost on Transmeta I'm sure (not to say he didn't deserve the job). No doubt we'll see more such announcements.
I guess Mr. T is pretty funny. To be honest I started referring to him in text a bit ago for 2 reasons:
1. I find some of the hype around Mr. T a bit annoying (not to say he doesn't deserve much respect) and I so dislike "name dropping." So I find it a bit of a lighthearted way of referring to him and not feel bad. 2. I can't spell worth a damn.
Often we seen many companies skirt trademark law by using similar names for nearly identical products, so I wonder: Could one day this all escalate and Mr. T become some horrible dictator wielding his mighty TM so violently that Linux production splits into two nearly identical products? Could we see another OS called LinEx with a toucan in a tux as a mascot? Will we find ourselves at each other's throats on the edge of violence like we are about issues like Heinz Ketchup and Hunts Catsup even though there's partially no difference what so ever between them!?!? *tear*
Many legal actions like this have become very ugly PR problems (some even seen here on/.). Many companies stay out of such messes that can also be monetarily costly. I hope this does not become the case with Linux.
I also worry about a concern you brought up. While Mr. T indeed is deserving of respect regarding his work in Linux, I wonder if such action isn't determination of the use of the name of an OS that he does not actually own. Yes, legally he owns the TM and that indeed entitles him to attempt such action. However (regardless of all the work he's done) he does not own the OS and such action gives me a queasy feeling in my stomach. No I do not think Mr. T is going to one day rise up and somehow grab the OS as his own. Yet such action does not seem to follow the same free and open principles of the OS, who's name Mr. T owns the TM on.
For a long time I've been comfortable to know that Mr. T holds the Linux TM. However this act almost seems exactly what I think many people (including myself) hoped to avoid by Mr. T holding the TM. While I do not like domain hording at all, I wonder if this means that anyone wishing to have a domain using the TM Linux must deal with or pay Mr. T and his lawyers? Such actions seem entirely contradictory to a free an Open Source OS and similar software. Filtering what domains may have his TM in it seems a scary step that could be taken farther to use of that TM on sites that may be deemed inappropriate. Often when a corporation or organization takes such action it can become an ugly PR mess, and for myself this so far seems like a very disappointing act from Mr. T.
I use my CC online all the time. I've never been burnt but a friend of mine was. He just called the CC company and they refunded his $. It is that simple. It's good to be careful like Roblimo and careful whom you give it too. However it's more important to know your rights and that your not responsible for such charges.
For those of you unaware of who Red Hat Center for Open Source is (like me untill 5 min ago). http://www.redhat.com/community/rh_center.html It doesn't say allot, but it's something.
It should be noted that when Bell was one company they broke them up into the baby bells they had 3 parts too: One that handled selling phones, one that handled long distance, and one that handled local calls. Wait, that's not what they did, because that wouldn't have helped. To me this cure is worse than the disease. If this decision is ever implemented we may have to go through the same whole expencive deal again in a few years when they figure out that it didn't work as planned.
A horrible thought: If AOL becomes as big as it wishes to with the Time Warner deal . . . what would happen if they bought one of the three companies?
The following gets mentioned allot but I'll toss it on anyway as well. If I were M$ I'd just up and threaten move to Canada or somewhere that wants the piles of tax dollars and well paid workers they create.
Reading the article I'm not sure what to make of it. If Xerox is suing 3com over handwriting recognition in general I can see a genuine problem there. However I can't see anywhere where it says that exactly. The article did seem to indicate that it was regarding the Graffiti language but not more specific. Does anyone have any details regarding this case or what exactly Xerox is claiming?
Will Slashdot remain a mainly text based media? Or will projects like Slashdot Radio possibly spawn other experiments like perhaps:
The Slashdot Show (video) In perhaps a haphazard newsmagazine show like Slashdot Radio, where interviews from the site could be done in an audio or video format? With even fluffy little pieces like "A tour of RMS's home office!" and such. You could even do "Wallpapers of the Open Source and Famous."
While I'm joking about some of the stuff the main question stands: Will Slashdot try new experiments to see if it can also exist in other forms of media as well as the website?
The Andover.net IPO quiet period is finally over I feel that I can finally start replying to the question asked of me by many strangers "Who is your daddy?" I now find myself having trouble choosing between CmdrTaco and Hemos.
Can you shed any light on how to make this decision?
My last name is Mankey and there is a Pokemon named Mankey. . . I'd sue except that a member of my family teaches 3rd Grade at an elementary school, it's shocking how popular she is with the kids because of that. They always want to discuss Pokemon with her, as if she has some deep genitally inherited Pokemon insights into Pokemon strategy.
My last name is Mankey and there is a Pokemon named Mankey. . . I'd sue except that a member of my family teaches 3rd Grade at an elementary school, it's interesting how popular she is with the kids because of that.
Our organization uses the PowerPC Microprocessor in cases where we had used other processors in the past where power consumption and other small factors had become an increasingly a problem over time. Also the fact the architecture isn't tied to an OS made things much easier to work with (stable) and thus we could design our systems to do exactly what we wanted to do how we wanted it. We also have the flexibility to change that how and when we want and stick with the same processor and a familiar architecture.
Granted we don't make Personal Computers but IBM has marketed those processors toward the Linux world.
Reading JB knock Bill Gates is like the time I taught my 3.5 year old cousin to scream "SUCKS" every time he heard someone say the word "Microsoft". As nice as it was, I wouldn't think it much of an accomplishment if my, now 4 year old, cousin happen to accidentally give me good advice about what the future holds either.
My current employer provides various wan networking support around the world so for 48 hours our company is going to be 95% staffed during that time. After our last (thank you lord) Y2k meeting the following bits of advice was issued from my employer via memo:
For the 5% who will not working over the event (Y2k) please if you drink, have a designated driver.
For those of you working over the event please use the designated drivers we will have here on site, we'll be drawing straws to see who they are tomorrow. (This one is actually true.)
For those of you brining weapons to work for the event, those with the better weapons get the better parking spots.
If things go for the worse during the event and the catered food is not enough, those with the least seniority will be killed and eaten first.
I like the idea but I'm not sure a general petition would have much effect. The company I currently work for received a request for the release of information specifically in relation to the Linux OS. The letter was also a general petition and seemed like a form letter since it didn't seemed to know what we specifically do (other than what our name specified). It was signed "The Linux Community" but nothing more specific than that. A general petition is nice in principle, but it had pretty much no effect on how we do things for a couple of reasons (given by engineering and management).
1. Our company's hardware and software is mostly proprietary, and we've yet to see any reason to switch to Linux (not to say I personally wouldn't like to see how it would go) that would benefit us or our clients.
2. The letter really didn't identify any clients (corporate or private) specifically asking our company to change our OS or release hardware specs. Thus no actual impact on us in financially or in the PR area that we can tell.
3. The manner in witch the letter was written was not entirely pleasant. The implication of the letter seemed as if the author was accusing us of limiting our clients options in some malicious way, but again, it wasn't from any of our clients (that we know of) and wasn't specific at all.
4. Some engineering concerns have been raised about moving to an OS that we do not know much about compared to our own. Security, support and the cost of such migration weigh heavily on many minds regarding such a switch. Also concerns about trade secrets were also brought up.
The idea seems nice, but I'm not sure how much effect this will have. Our company responds much better to specific requests from clients, or groups of clients than just a general letter like we received. I believe that most companies react the same.
I appreciate the claims here are pretty terrible. However I expect more from/. before something like this is posted. All the proof there is at the moment is something that amounts to a press release on Leonardo on-line's website. Perhaps for future stories should include the press releases "handed out" at Comdex?
Perhaps I should take my domain and post an interesting story about being raided and sued by some large company . . . people might just send money without checking.
I did technical supervision for a number of techs for a large computer company for some years. You'd be surprised how the numbers of customers calling in for help removing Linux (if they even could pronounce it correctly *tear*) skyrocketed over the last year. Most clients hear the benefits of Linux but find themselves terribly ill prepared to work in such an OS.
I think it's a bit of a long jump to assume that a single M$ support doc reinforces Linux's competitive value against M$ products, and is somehow an attack on Linux. We also had to develop a support doc for our (less capable) techs to help the increasing # of customers who wanted to go back to Windows. Our more experienced techs assisted clients in dual booting so they could experiment in Linux, but keep the computer productive until they had things going in Linux.
I think it does provide a good sign that Linux indeed is getting allot of good attention from people who are willing to move to a new OS, but find current distributions too difficult to begin with. Perhaps if newer distributions were easier to use, customers would be more willing to stay. Many of them want to learn how to use Linux, but do not have the resources (or time) necessary to switch without a massive amount of bother.
I agree that if Corel wasn't provided the correct information to compete in the Canadian case that they indeed were an a an unfair disadvantage. However I'm concerned by this case.
The article states that: "Corel said yesterday that it and other software makers were blocked earlier this year from bidding fairly for a lucrative contract with the U.S. department because it standardized its software on Microsoft's office automation suite, even though a majority of the department's 20,000 work stations already had licences for Corel's WordPerfect software."
If they were rejected from the chance to even bid on providing their software because they didn't fit the mold of "Microsoft's office automation suite." I can understand they're case. Such a situation would make it very difficult, if not impossible for anyone to compete in such a situation and indeed is unfair.
If they were given a chance, and simply rejected because they didn't have similar automation features or the tools that that the Gov. wanted I'm concerned what kind of president that this could set.
If my company were a government agency and chose an office suite (regardless of what suite) and told the losing companies "I'm sorry but we liked (insert any feature here) that none of your software had that so we're going with X." Would that be unfair? Or is that basically how the free market works? Could any Gov, agency (or maybe even private companies) be sued because they chose a product because it had (or they wanted) a feature that another doesn't?
Often when I debate the quality different pieces of software or even Operating Systems, they discuss the features and culpabilities of the software that other software does not have. I think the differences between the such software and Operating Systems is what drives developers to make they're software better, and in the end helps us all.
In the end it's hard to say if Corel was able to compete fairly with MS and I'm sure that will be the focal point of the case.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure this is not the first of such moves we will see. However I would also think that such moves are not just driven by the quality of the hardware. I think many companies may be aware of the attention the Transmeta's 3120 processor got from the involvement of Linus (I tend to refer to him as Mr. T since I can't spell). If the loyalty shown to Linux can be carried over to processor sales, or hardware that is using those processors, that's big bucks. A fact that was not lost on Transmeta I'm sure (not to say he didn't deserve the job). No doubt we'll see more such announcements.
"Run a piece of Linus in your PC!"
I guess Mr. T is pretty funny.
To be honest I started referring to him in text a bit ago for 2 reasons:
1. I find some of the hype around Mr. T a bit annoying (not to say he doesn't deserve much respect) and I so dislike "name dropping." So I find it a bit of a lighthearted way of referring to him and not feel bad.
2. I can't spell worth a damn.
Often we seen many companies skirt trademark law by using similar names for nearly identical products, so I wonder:
Could one day this all escalate and Mr. T become some horrible dictator wielding his mighty TM so violently that Linux production splits into two nearly identical products?
Could we see another OS called LinEx with a toucan in a tux as a mascot?
Will we find ourselves at each other's throats on the edge of violence like we are about issues like Heinz Ketchup and Hunts Catsup even though there's partially no difference what so ever between them!?!?
*tear*
Many legal actions like this have become very ugly PR problems (some even seen here on /.). Many companies stay out of such messes that can also be monetarily costly. I hope this does not become the case with Linux.
I also worry about a concern you brought up. While Mr. T indeed is deserving of respect regarding his work in Linux, I wonder if such action isn't determination of the use of the name of an OS that he does not actually own. Yes, legally he owns the TM and that indeed entitles him to attempt such action. However (regardless of all the work he's done) he does not own the OS and such action gives me a queasy feeling in my stomach. No I do not think Mr. T is going to one day rise up and somehow grab the OS as his own. Yet such action does not seem to follow the same free and open principles of the OS, who's name Mr. T owns the TM on.
For a long time I've been comfortable to know that Mr. T holds the Linux TM. However this act almost seems exactly what I think many people (including myself) hoped to avoid by Mr. T holding the TM.
While I do not like domain hording at all, I wonder if this means that anyone wishing to have a domain using the TM Linux must deal with or pay Mr. T and his lawyers? Such actions seem entirely contradictory to a free an Open Source OS and similar software. Filtering what domains may have his TM in it seems a scary step that could be taken farther to use of that TM on sites that may be deemed inappropriate. Often when a corporation or organization takes such action it can become an ugly PR mess, and for myself this so far seems like a very disappointing act from Mr. T.
Good point!
My mistake and apologies.
I use my CC online all the time. I've never been burnt but a friend of mine was. He just called the CC company and they refunded his $. It is that simple.
It's good to be careful like Roblimo and careful whom you give it too. However it's more important to know your rights and that your not responsible for such charges.
For those of you unaware of who Red Hat Center for Open Source is (like me untill 5 min ago).
http://www.redhat.com/community/rh_center.html
It doesn't say allot, but it's something.
3 thoughts
It should be noted that when Bell was one company they broke them up into the baby bells they had 3 parts too: One that handled selling phones, one that handled long distance, and one that handled local calls. Wait, that's not what they did, because that wouldn't have helped.
To me this cure is worse than the disease. If this decision is ever implemented we may have to go through the same whole expencive deal again in a few years when they figure out that it didn't work as planned.
A horrible thought:
If AOL becomes as big as it wishes to with the Time Warner deal . . . what would happen if they bought one of the three companies?
The following gets mentioned allot but I'll toss it on anyway as well.
If I were M$ I'd just up and threaten move to Canada or somewhere that wants the piles of tax dollars and well paid workers they create.
Reading the article I'm not sure what to make of it. If Xerox is suing 3com over handwriting recognition in general I can see a genuine problem there. However I can't see anywhere where it says that exactly. The article did seem to indicate that it was regarding the Graffiti language but not more specific.
Does anyone have any details regarding this case or what exactly Xerox is claiming?
Will Slashdot remain a mainly text based media? Or will projects like Slashdot Radio possibly spawn other experiments like perhaps:
The Slashdot Show (video)
In perhaps a haphazard newsmagazine show like Slashdot Radio, where interviews from the site could be done in an audio or video format? With even fluffy little pieces like "A tour of RMS's home office!" and such. You could even do "Wallpapers of the Open Source and Famous."
While I'm joking about some of the stuff the main question stands: Will Slashdot try new experiments to see if it can also exist in other forms of media as well as the website?
The Andover.net IPO quiet period is finally over I feel that I can finally start replying to the question asked of me by many strangers "Who is your daddy?"
I now find myself having trouble choosing between CmdrTaco and Hemos.
Can you shed any light on how to make this decision?
My last name is Mankey and there is a Pokemon named Mankey. . . I'd sue except that a member of my family teaches 3rd Grade at an elementary school, it's shocking how popular she is with the kids because of that. They always want to discuss Pokemon with her, as if she has some deep genitally inherited Pokemon insights into Pokemon strategy.
My last name is Mankey and there is a Pokemon named Mankey. . . I'd sue except that a member of my family teaches 3rd Grade at an elementary school, it's interesting how popular she is with the kids because of that.
Our organization uses the PowerPC Microprocessor in cases where we had used other processors in the past where power consumption and other small factors had become an increasingly a problem over time. Also the fact the architecture isn't tied to an OS made things much easier to work with (stable) and thus we could design our systems to do exactly what we wanted to do how we wanted it. We also have the flexibility to change that how and when we want and stick with the same processor and a familiar architecture.
Granted we don't make Personal Computers but IBM has marketed those processors toward the Linux world.
Reading JB knock Bill Gates is like the time I taught my 3.5 year old cousin to scream "SUCKS" every time he heard someone say the word "Microsoft". As nice as it was, I wouldn't think it much of an accomplishment if my, now 4 year old, cousin happen to accidentally give me good advice about what the future holds either.
The only prob is . . . i'm new! If we have to eat more than 2 people, I'm in bad shape.
My current employer provides various wan networking support around the world so for 48 hours our company is going to be 95% staffed during that time. After our last (thank you lord) Y2k meeting the following bits of advice was issued from my employer via memo:
For the 5% who will not working over the event (Y2k) please if you drink, have a designated driver.
For those of you working over the event please use the designated drivers we will have here on site, we'll be drawing straws to see who they are tomorrow. (This one is actually true.)
For those of you brining weapons to work for the event, those with the better weapons get the better parking spots.
If things go for the worse during the event and the catered food is not enough, those with the least seniority will be killed and eaten first.
I like the idea but I'm not sure a general petition would have much effect.
The company I currently work for received a request for the release of information specifically in relation to the Linux OS. The letter was also a general petition and seemed like a form letter since it didn't seemed to know what we specifically do (other than what our name specified). It was signed "The Linux Community" but nothing more specific than that.
A general petition is nice in principle, but it had pretty much no effect on how we do things for a couple of reasons (given by engineering and management).
1. Our company's hardware and software is mostly proprietary, and we've yet to see any reason to switch to Linux (not to say I personally wouldn't like to see how it would go) that would benefit us or our clients.
2. The letter really didn't identify any clients (corporate or private) specifically asking our company to change our OS or release hardware specs. Thus no actual impact on us in financially or in the PR area that we can tell.
3. The manner in witch the letter was written was not entirely pleasant. The implication of the letter seemed as if the author was accusing us of limiting our clients options in some malicious way, but again, it wasn't from any of our clients (that we know of) and wasn't specific at all.
4. Some engineering concerns have been raised about moving to an OS that we do not know much about compared to our own. Security, support and the cost of such migration weigh heavily on many minds regarding such a switch. Also concerns about trade secrets were also brought up.
The idea seems nice, but I'm not sure how much effect this will have. Our company responds much better to specific requests from clients, or groups of clients than just a general letter like we received. I believe that most companies react the same.
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/mozilla/
"Help! My iMac is on UDP crack!"
I appreciate the claims here are pretty terrible. However I expect more from /. before something like this is posted. All the proof there is at the moment is something that amounts to a press release on Leonardo on-line's website.
Perhaps for future stories should include the press releases "handed out" at Comdex?
Perhaps I should take my domain and post an interesting story about being raided and sued by some large company . . . people might just send money without checking.
Are there any other sources other than the Leonardo Online site?
I'm not saying anyone is falsifying anything here, but I'd like to see some independent confirmation of the facts.
I did technical supervision for a number of techs for a large computer company for some years. You'd be surprised how the numbers of customers calling in for help removing Linux (if they even could pronounce it correctly *tear*) skyrocketed over the last year. Most clients hear the benefits of Linux but find themselves terribly ill prepared to work in such an OS.
I think it's a bit of a long jump to assume that a single M$ support doc reinforces Linux's competitive value against M$ products, and is somehow an attack on Linux. We also had to develop a support doc for our (less capable) techs to help the increasing # of customers who wanted to go back to Windows. Our more experienced techs assisted clients in dual booting so they could experiment in Linux, but keep the computer productive until they had things going in Linux.
I think it does provide a good sign that Linux indeed is getting allot of good attention from people who are willing to move to a new OS, but find current distributions too difficult to begin with. Perhaps if newer distributions were easier to use, customers would be more willing to stay. Many of them want to learn how to use Linux, but do not have the resources (or time) necessary to switch without a massive amount of bother.
In the meantime, the calls keep coming.
I agree that if Corel wasn't provided the correct information to compete in the Canadian case that they indeed were an a an unfair disadvantage. However I'm concerned by this case.
The article states that:
"Corel said yesterday that it and other software makers were blocked earlier this year from bidding fairly for a lucrative contract with the U.S. department because it standardized its software on Microsoft's office automation suite, even though a majority of the department's 20,000 work stations already had licences for Corel's WordPerfect software."
If they were rejected from the chance to even bid on providing their software because they didn't fit the mold of "Microsoft's office automation suite." I can understand they're case. Such a situation would make it very difficult, if not impossible for anyone to compete in such a situation and indeed is unfair.
If they were given a chance, and simply rejected because they didn't have similar automation features or the tools that that the Gov. wanted I'm concerned what kind of president that this could set.
If my company were a government agency and chose an office suite (regardless of what suite) and told the losing companies "I'm sorry but we liked (insert any feature here) that none of your software had that so we're going with X." Would that be unfair? Or is that basically how the free market works? Could any Gov, agency (or maybe even private companies) be sued because they chose a product because it had (or they wanted) a feature that another doesn't?
Often when I debate the quality different pieces of software or even Operating Systems, they discuss the features and culpabilities of the software that other software does not have. I think the differences between the such software and Operating Systems is what drives developers to make they're software better, and in the end helps us all.
In the end it's hard to say if Corel was able to compete fairly with MS and I'm sure that will be the focal point of the case.
IMHO