One particularly interesting bit in there, though IANAL:
You are not licensed to sublicense or transfer your rights.
There goes the GPL. There goes the BSD license. In fact, now I come to think of it, doesn't that somewhat screw up any open source license which makes it possible to fork a project?
Better document conversion in the long term, but don't get too excited because there are a lot of Word '9x/2000 format documents out there.
Re:Go Communism! (and zero-based indices!)
on
Why I Love The GPL
·
· Score: 1
As you say regarding GPL, any "half-decent software project can survive pretty well on a handful of interested developers," and thus is not everybody "putting work in?" Your description of opensource communities seems to well match your description of communism, eh?
No they're not. A GPL'd project can survive no matter how many people "take" (ie. use the software) without "giving" (ie. contributing, either financially or expertise). This is mainly because software, unlike food and shelter, isn't something tangible you can physically pick up and distribute. Provided there's one person interested in (and capable of) keeping the project going, it doesn't die.
Communism, on the other hand, collapses pretty quickly once you have a few greedy souls who want to take without giving back.
Regarding the number of unfinished programs.... all this depends on what you want to do. If you're looking at mainstream projects with a wide interest (such as KDE, Firefox or one of the major distributions), you're absolutely right - the software is frequently of a better standard than commercial equivalents. However, once you start looking at more unusual requirements, the available software can sometimes be a bit patchy.
Re:Go Communism! (and zero-based indices!)
on
Why I Love The GPL
·
· Score: 1
Communism doesn't work because it depends on everyone putting work in, and accepting the fact that what they get out will be "fair" (no such thing unless everyone can be guaranteed to put in an appropriate amount of effort and nobody gets greedy).
The GPL, OTOH, doesn't. A half-decent software project can survive pretty well on a handful of interested developers and however many people choose to submit patches. The barrier to entry with regards to pitching in is relatively low, and the entire shebang doesn't collapse simply because a number of people want to take without giving.
The downside here is you tend to wind up with software which gets to the point where it solves the original problem the developer was faced with, and then becomes unmaintained as a three-quarter-finished product.
Having said that, I've used plenty of commercial software products which felt unfinished....
I don't see it happening. Relatively few companies have the sheer balls to face the army of lawyers MS pays. And a Microsoft lawyer could probably convince a court that the sky was pink and the judge could breathe underwater unaided.
Better to fold on this and just keep WMP an easy free download
You may have hit on an idea there.
What if the version without media player still installs WMP, but disables the frontend? Then the "download" could simply enable WMP. Small, fast download, effortless and safe integration - and it doesn't affect any third party software which hooks into the media player APIs.
I haven't read the ruling, but I'm wondering if it dictates that the version without Media Player must be significantly cheaper than the version with.
If not, I think the thing up the sleeve will be:
Microsoft Price List 2005 Windows XP for OEMs (with Media Player): £59.99 Windows XP for OEMs (without Media Player): £64.99
Either that or something equally effective like they won't allow bulk discounts on the version without media player.
Re:Soft Technology Offerings
on
Linux, Inc.
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It could well be that most of the current linux developers would have been BSD developers, and perhaps FreeBSD would be the dominant force in the server room today.
I've thought of that myself. Thing is, a major driver behind Linux has been corporate adoption. The GPL effectively prevents a company from taking the software, improving it and keeping the improvements to themselves.
Unlike the BSD license, where Big Company Ltd. could write a whole bunch of improvements, release them to the world - and three weeks later find Microsoft has taken their improved software, improved it further, slapped a £9.99 price sticker on it and chosen not to release the source. Bit of a disincentive for Big Company Ltd?
To draw the parallel, it seems like this would make Microsoft comparable to, say, Acme Cesspit Corp., a fictional company that might have invented and patented cesspits and the means and tools for keeping them safe and usable in a city environment.
Do you mean "Microsoft specialises in being full of shit"?
How right you are.
Re:The Threat of Linux
on
Linux, Inc.
·
· Score: 1
Don't underestimate the importance of the server business.
For one, it's lucrative. Think of all those licenses.
For two, it's the thing that ties Windows together to make a complete office-in-a-box. I'm thinking user/printer/desktop management, Exchange, that sort of stuff. Samba's a great piece of software, but frankly nothing integrates the server and Windows desktop environment better than Windows.
I think that Microsoft are concerned that sooner or later these companies putting Linux on their servers will start thinking "I wonder.... we've been having problems with [insert MS product here], is there an alternative we could run on Linux?"
Once the people within the company become more confortable with Linux, it's only a matter of time before they start considering how viable it would be on the desktop. And if that happens - bang goes monopoly. Microsoft would have to compete on grounds of excellence rather than cost or sheer brute force.
Which is not something they're historically good at.
The great majority of desktop users aren't sitting at home with their PC, occasionally going down to PC world to buy software.
The great majority of desktop users are sitting at desks in offices around the world. In these offices, the software is chosen on a number of factors - obviously, cost is a factor, but an ingrained refusal to buy software is rare.
This is why (for example) Photoshop is so expensive. Yes, you may find a pretty packaged copy in PC world - but Adobe know damn well that 90% of the people who buy it are doing so to use it professionally, and will gladly pay that kind of money for the few features not found in free alternatives.
Contrast home users - how many home users do you know who actually went out and bought Office at full price?
IBM is bound by contract such that any code that touches SCO code is still controlled by SCO.
IANAL, but why would IBM sign something like that? Surely the net result is that IBM get to take an existing code base, turn it into whatever IBM want and SCO can have all IBMs work for no extra charge. What's in it for IBM?
Short answer: Not a lot. But (especially in low to medium-end cameras) the little ARM processor has access to the raw, uncompressed image. So a transform which is significantly impacted by JPEG compression doesn't have to be.
Of course, if your cameras compression algorithm leaves artefacts which are likely to be a problem, it's probably beyond help.
point is, it's a one-trick pony and a good place to put an embedded real-time system. so are medical devices; why they are using generic OS in medical devices like NT custom and linux is way, way beyond understanding.
Except with medical equipment it doesn't have to be. It can just be industrial-grade PC kit reading off a number of sensors or controlling a couple of mechanical devices. Much much cheaper to develop than a full embedded system.
Whether or not you want your life support machine running Windows (or Linux, for that matter) is another issue altogether...
I don't have mod points, so I'll bite the troll instead.
/. groupthink is only groupthink because it attracts like-minded individuals - those who think dramatically differently tend (note: not always) decide that they can't be bothered with all this nerdy-political-hippy-communist-patent rubbish, and don't spend that much time reading, much less posting to/. I suspect (though am prepared to be proved wrong), that much of the "groupthink" is based around a few simple principles:
Many things are wrong with society today. (Software Patents are an example something which affects a large proportion of/. readers, and so get discussed more frequently than many other issues).
Many/. readers don't have a solution, but feel that by airing their point of view (frequently similar to everyone elses, for reasons discussed above), they will add something useful to the discussion. Generally, most are wrong, but the mod system isn't very good at accounting for that.
Some (many?)/. readers think they have an answer to some/all of these issues, though these vary in how well they're thought out.
I will get modded either nowhere or down, mainly because what I say here doesn't mention Natalie Portman, hot grits (wtf are hot grits anyway?) or one of the running jokes about underpants gnomes.
I don't know if the OSDL is playing perceptions vs. truth here, but I don't like things that are phrased in that particular manner for those reasons.
I hear what you're saying, but I can't see anyone rewriting anything for patent reasons, at least not until the first reasonably sensible (ie. not SCO) lawsuit shows up. (This assumes that there is a single not-easily-dismissable patent infringed; for the purposes of this argument let's pretend there is)
Largely because the implications are huge. I'm thinking along the lines of: all of a sudden, everyone who doesn't contribute to the development of, and ultimately move to the new Patent-Free (TM) kernel could arguably be seen as having infringed the offending patent wilfully. Hence triple damages (particularly big problem if your vendor offers limited indemnity). Hands up all those who want to give every IT manager with a Linux box in the US palpitations!
That wasn't an explanation, that was speculation - I've never even heard of an ActiveX payroll system.
Having said that, everything makes sense if it's an old program. If it's recent, then its architects should be taken out and shot as a service to computer science.
Slashdot Mirror
One particularly interesting bit in there, though IANAL:
You are not licensed to sublicense or transfer your rights.
There goes the GPL. There goes the BSD license. In fact, now I come to think of it, doesn't that somewhat screw up any open source license which makes it possible to fork a project?
Better document conversion in the long term, but don't get too excited because there are a lot of Word '9x/2000 format documents out there.
As you say regarding GPL, any "half-decent software project can survive pretty well on a handful of interested developers," and thus is not everybody "putting work in?" Your description of opensource communities seems to well match your description of communism, eh?
No they're not. A GPL'd project can survive no matter how many people "take" (ie. use the software) without "giving" (ie. contributing, either financially or expertise). This is mainly because software, unlike food and shelter, isn't something tangible you can physically pick up and distribute. Provided there's one person interested in (and capable of) keeping the project going, it doesn't die.
Communism, on the other hand, collapses pretty quickly once you have a few greedy souls who want to take without giving back.
Regarding the number of unfinished programs.... all this depends on what you want to do. If you're looking at mainstream projects with a wide interest (such as KDE, Firefox or one of the major distributions), you're absolutely right - the software is frequently of a better standard than commercial equivalents. However, once you start looking at more unusual requirements, the available software can sometimes be a bit patchy.
You've been trolled:
m andrake/browse_thread/thread/51bafe7c724a8395/e90d 0ef6ecb1717f?q=Linux's+lack+of+Token+Ring+support& _done=%2Fgroups%3Fq%3DLinux's+lack+of+Token+Ring+s upport%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DN%26t ab%3Dwg%26&_doneTitle=Back+to+Search&&d#e90d0ef6ec b1717f
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.os.linux.
Communism doesn't work because it depends on everyone putting work in, and accepting the fact that what they get out will be "fair" (no such thing unless everyone can be guaranteed to put in an appropriate amount of effort and nobody gets greedy).
The GPL, OTOH, doesn't. A half-decent software project can survive pretty well on a handful of interested developers and however many people choose to submit patches. The barrier to entry with regards to pitching in is relatively low, and the entire shebang doesn't collapse simply because a number of people want to take without giving.
The downside here is you tend to wind up with software which gets to the point where it solves the original problem the developer was faced with, and then becomes unmaintained as a three-quarter-finished product.
Having said that, I've used plenty of commercial software products which felt unfinished....
I don't see it happening. Relatively few companies have the sheer balls to face the army of lawyers MS pays. And a Microsoft lawyer could probably convince a court that the sky was pink and the judge could breathe underwater unaided.
You are assuming that the people doing the promoting will themselves be smart enough to spot the people worth promoting.
Better to fold on this and just keep WMP an easy free download
You may have hit on an idea there.
What if the version without media player still installs WMP, but disables the frontend? Then the "download" could simply enable WMP. Small, fast download, effortless and safe integration - and it doesn't affect any third party software which hooks into the media player APIs.
I haven't read the ruling, but I'm wondering if it dictates that the version without Media Player must be significantly cheaper than the version with.
If not, I think the thing up the sleeve will be:
Microsoft Price List 2005
Windows XP for OEMs (with Media Player): £59.99
Windows XP for OEMs (without Media Player): £64.99
Either that or something equally effective like they won't allow bulk discounts on the version without media player.
It could well be that most of the current linux developers would have been BSD developers, and perhaps FreeBSD would be the dominant force in the server room today.
I've thought of that myself. Thing is, a major driver behind Linux has been corporate adoption. The GPL effectively prevents a company from taking the software, improving it and keeping the improvements to themselves.
Unlike the BSD license, where Big Company Ltd. could write a whole bunch of improvements, release them to the world - and three weeks later find Microsoft has taken their improved software, improved it further, slapped a £9.99 price sticker on it and chosen not to release the source. Bit of a disincentive for Big Company Ltd?
To draw the parallel, it seems like this would make Microsoft comparable to, say, Acme Cesspit Corp., a fictional company that might have invented and patented cesspits and the means and tools for keeping them safe and usable in a city environment.
Do you mean "Microsoft specialises in being full of shit"?
How right you are.
Don't underestimate the importance of the server business.
For one, it's lucrative. Think of all those licenses.
For two, it's the thing that ties Windows together to make a complete office-in-a-box. I'm thinking user/printer/desktop management, Exchange, that sort of stuff. Samba's a great piece of software, but frankly nothing integrates the server and Windows desktop environment better than Windows.
I think that Microsoft are concerned that sooner or later these companies putting Linux on their servers will start thinking "I wonder.... we've been having problems with [insert MS product here], is there an alternative we could run on Linux?"
Once the people within the company become more confortable with Linux, it's only a matter of time before they start considering how viable it would be on the desktop. And if that happens - bang goes monopoly. Microsoft would have to compete on grounds of excellence rather than cost or sheer brute force.
Which is not something they're historically good at.
The great majority of desktop users are sitting at desks in offices around the world. In these offices, the software is chosen on a number of factors - obviously, cost is a factor, but an ingrained refusal to buy software is rare.
This is why (for example) Photoshop is so expensive. Yes, you may find a pretty packaged copy in PC world - but Adobe know damn well that 90% of the people who buy it are doing so to use it professionally, and will gladly pay that kind of money for the few features not found in free alternatives.
Contrast home users - how many home users do you know who actually went out and bought Office at full price?
IBM is bound by contract such that any code that touches SCO code is still controlled by SCO.
IANAL, but why would IBM sign something like that? Surely the net result is that IBM get to take an existing code base, turn it into whatever IBM want and SCO can have all IBMs work for no extra charge. What's in it for IBM?
IBM has to turn over every revision of their AIX and Dynx code,
That should keep SCO going for a few hours.
Short answer: Not a lot. But (especially in low to medium-end cameras) the little ARM processor has access to the raw, uncompressed image. So a transform which is significantly impacted by JPEG compression doesn't have to be.
Of course, if your cameras compression algorithm leaves artefacts which are likely to be a problem, it's probably beyond help.
point is, it's a one-trick pony and a good place to put an embedded real-time system. so are medical devices; why they are using generic OS in medical devices like NT custom and linux is way, way beyond understanding.
Except with medical equipment it doesn't have to be. It can just be industrial-grade PC kit reading off a number of sensors or controlling a couple of mechanical devices. Much much cheaper to develop than a full embedded system.
Whether or not you want your life support machine running Windows (or Linux, for that matter) is another issue altogether...
IME, not really. However, it's getting hard to find a compact digital camera which takes CompactFlash. It's still the standard in digital SLRs though.
I suspect (though am prepared to be proved wrong), that much of the "groupthink" is based around a few simple principles:
reload OS, cover system with kerosene, light it on fire
If you're going to set it on fire, why bother reloading it?
(grins, ducks and runs)
It's the poor carpenter who blames his tools.
Some might say it's an equally poor carpenter who tries to get through the day with lousy tools.
I don't know if the OSDL is playing perceptions vs. truth here, but I don't like things that are phrased in that particular manner for those reasons.
I hear what you're saying, but I can't see anyone rewriting anything for patent reasons, at least not until the first reasonably sensible (ie. not SCO) lawsuit shows up. (This assumes that there is a single not-easily-dismissable patent infringed; for the purposes of this argument let's pretend there is)
Largely because the implications are huge. I'm thinking along the lines of: all of a sudden, everyone who doesn't contribute to the development of, and ultimately move to the new Patent-Free (TM) kernel could arguably be seen as having infringed the offending patent wilfully. Hence triple damages (particularly big problem if your vendor offers limited indemnity). Hands up all those who want to give every IT manager with a Linux box in the US palpitations!
IANAL, so I could be way out here...
I'm not sure any US-based maintainers could easily maintain it (legally) then.
Disclaimer: IANAL
That wasn't an explanation, that was speculation - I've never even heard of an ActiveX payroll system.
Having said that, everything makes sense if it's an old program. If it's recent, then its architects should be taken out and shot as a service to computer science.
I've heard a lot about valgrind, bit of a shame it only works on x86. You don't know of a platform independent free memory leak finder?