Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered SCO community when last month IDC confirmed that SCO accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that SCO has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. SCO is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict SCO's future. The hand writing is on the wall: SCO faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for SCO because SCO is dying. Things are looking very bad for SCO. As many of us are already aware, SCO continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. SCO UnixWare is the most endangered of them all.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
SCO leader Chris Sontag states that there are 7000 users of SCO Linux. How many users of SCO UnixWare are there? Let's see. The number of UnixWare versus SCO Linux posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 UnixWare users. SCO OpenServer posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of UnixWare posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of SCO OpenServer. A recent article put SCO UnixWare at about 80 percent of the SCO market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 SCO UnixWare users. This is consistent with the number of SCO UnixWare Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of OpenLinux, abysmal sales and so on, Caldera went out of business and was taken over by SCO who sell another troubled OS. Now OpenLinux is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that SCO has steadily declined in market share. SCO is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If SCO is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers. SCO continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, SCO is dead.
Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered SCO community when last month IDC confirmed that SCO accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that SCO has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. SCO is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict SCO's future. The hand writing is on the wall: SCO faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for SCO because SCO is dying. Things are looking very bad for SCO. As many of us are already aware, SCO continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. SCO UnixWare is the most endangered of them all.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
SCO leader Chris Sontag states that there are 7000 users of SCO Linux. How many users of SCO UnixWare are there? Let's see. The number of UnixWare versus SCO Linux posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 UnixWare users. SCO OpenServer posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of UnixWare posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of SCO OpenServer. A recent article put SCO UnixWare at about 80 percent of the SCO market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 SCO UnixWare users. This is consistent with the number of SCO UnixWare Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of OpenLinux, abysmal sales and so on, Caldera went out of business and was taken over by SCO who sell another troubled OS. Now OpenLinux is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that SCO has steadily declined in market share. SCO is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If SCO is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers. SCO continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, SCO is dead.
True enough. And before the Shah of Iran, there was the nationalist Mossadegh government, popular at the time, and also overthrown by the CIA to make way for the brutal Shah.
I would love there to be a simple exam to pass before becoming a registered voter (something like who was the first president of the USA, how many states are in the USA and etc...). Now I know this is being done in England...
Whereas George Bush says: "Iraqis, we are not out to get you. We want Saddam.", Osama Bin Laden says: "We will kill you all indiscriminately to frighten you into doing what we want." i.e. TO CAUSE WIDESPREAD FEAR.
Bin Laden never said that. He's not out to "kill us all". He has defined several political goals, and has expressed a willingness to export death and violence to achieve them, in what he sees as defense of his community.
But then, so has Bush. "We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of this great nation.", quoth he. This, from a man who considers himself a devout Christian.
As far as I can tell both of these men are terrorists. To hell with both of them.
The herbicides were indeed chemical weapons, because their horrible effects on humans were well known. There were demands in Congress during the Vietnam war to cease what was rightly called at the time "chemical warfare", but they went unheeded.
The victims go right on suffering today. Not a penny of compensation has ever been paid.
The same thing will happen with Depleted Uranium shells and cluster bombs. Are these meant to kill innocent civilians, and deform unborn children? No, but since the effect is known, the moral culpability still applies. The use of indiscriminate weapons is a war crime.
It's like arresting someone for putting a better engine in their car becuase "They might decide to speed", or worse, arresting the person who sold the performace parts.
Yes, or like invading a country and cluster-bombing its civilians because "they might develop WMD".
Both of those articles gave only a snippet of what Kate Adie said. Read the rest, and hear the audio stream of interview with Kate Adie available here: http://www.gulufuture.com/news/kate_adie030 310.htm
'The Pentagon has threatened to fire on the satellite uplink positions of independent journalists in Iraq, according to veteran BBC war correspondent, Kate Adie. In an interview with Irish radio, Ms. Adie said that questioned about the consequences of such potentially fatal actions, a senior Pentagon officer had said: "Who cares....They've been warned."
According to Ms. Adie, who twelve years ago covered the last Gulf War, the Pentagon attitude is: "entirely hostile to the the free spread of information."
"I am enormously pessimistic of the chance of decent on-the-spot reporting, as the war occurs," she told Irish national broadcaster, Tom McGurk on the RTE1 Radio "Sunday Show."
Ms. Adie made the startling revelations during a discussion of media freedom issues in the likely upcoming war in Iraq. She also warned that the Pentagon is vetting journalists according to their stance on the war, and intends to take control of US journalists' satellite equipment --in order to control access to the airwaves.
Another guest on the show, war author Phillip Knightley, reported that the Pentagon has also threatened they: "may find it necessary to bomb areas in which war correspondents are attempting to report from the Iraqi side."
Tom McGurk:
" Now, Kate Adie, you join us from the BBC in London. Thank you very much for going to all this trouble on a Sunday morning to come and join us. I suppose you are watching with a mixture of emotions this war beginning to happen, because you are not going to be covering it." Kate Adie:
" Oh I will be. And what actually appalls me is the difference between twelve years ago and now. I've seen a complete erosion of any kind of acknowledgment that reporters should be able to report as they witness."
" The Americans... and I've been talking to the Pentagon...take the attitude which is entirely hostile to the free spread of information."
" I was told by a senior officer in the Pentagon, that if uplinks --that is the television signals out of... Baghdad, for example-- were detected by any planes...electronic media... mediums, of the military above Bhagdad... they'd be fired down on. Even if they were journalists..' Who cares! ' said.. [inaudible].." Tom McGurk: "...Kate...sorry Kate..just to underline that. Sorry to interrupt you. Just to explain for our listeners. Uplinks is where you have your own satellite telephone method of distributing information." Kate Adie: " The telephones and the television signals." Tom McGurk: " And they would be fired on? " Kate Adie: " Yes. They would be 'targeted down,' said the officer." Tom McGurk: " Extraordinary ! " Kate Adie: " Shameless! "
He said: ' Well... they know this... they've been warned.'
This is threatening freedom of information, before you even get to a war.
The second thing is there was a massive news blackout imposed.
In the last Gulf war, where I was one of the pool correspondents with the British Army. We effectively had very, very light touch when it came to any kind of censorship.
We were told that anything which was going to endanger troops lives which we understood we shouldn't broadcast. But other than that, we were relatively free.
Unlike our American colleagues, who immediately left their pool, after about 48 hours, having just had enough of it.
And this time the Americans are: a) Asking journalists who go with them, whether they are... have feelings against the war. And therefore if you have views that are skeptical, then you are not to be acceptable.
The company is called Executive Software, and their product is called Diskeeper.
Diskeeper was developed by Craig Jensen, who is indeed a scientologist. I understand that his company is also run on scientology principles, whatever that might mean.
When Microsoft bundled a cut-down version of Diskeeper with Windows 2000, they ran into a dispute with the German govt, who had a long running battle with the scientologists. The government basically demanded to see the source code, for security reasons.
A compromise was proposed whereby Win2K would ship with a Diskeeper-free option. I never did hear how that turned out in the end. And many people might think it a bit naive imagining that Windows without Diskeeper code is somehow safer.
IMHO this debate helped nudge the German govt toward treating Free/OSS software as a matter of national strategic importance. So thank you, scientology.:-)
Here's a thought. Suppose MS decided to port the Win32 API from NT kernel over to BSD?
And maybe replace some of the above-the-kernel bits too: replace IIS with Apache, etc. ISTR reading somewhere that Windows' TCP/IP stack is based in large part on BSD code already. Ballmer is on record saying that Apache is superior to IIS, and Apache's market share speaks for itself.
MS already support.Net for FreeBSD. They could do an Apple, and sell a proprietary GUI on a rock-solid OS core. Away go the complaints about security and reliability. Hell, they could make it more secure out-of-the-box than some Linux distros.
They could then claim to be an "Open Source vendor", whatever that means. They'd become the largest *nix vendor (by license volume) overnight. If they passed the right compliance tests, they could even call it Unix, as IBM has done with OS/390 (I know, no-one takes that very seriously outside of IBM, but it's technically true.)
They'd need an equivalent of MS WoW to run existing Win32 software: that might explain their recent purchase of Connectix. Since Connectix already has a native version for the BSD-based MacOS X, porting would be pretty straightforward. Maybe they've tried this already on the quiet before agreeing to buy.
They could also quit banging their faces into the ground, trying to migrate Hotmail from BSD to WinXP.:-)
It is just too restrictive for a business entity. How many companies that you know of that can claim to have profitted from GPL-based software?
If the GPL is too restrictive for closed-source software vendors, but thrives anyway, then their business model is obsolete.
The business proposition for GPL software is not in selling software, it's in selling support. My company could, in theory, self-support on JBoss, PostgreSQL, etc. But it would far cheaper and faster for us to outsource that support to specialists. It's a potential goldmine for service providers.
We outsource our Zope support to a Zope specialist. They make out like bandits per-hour, we spend nil on the software, and only need to fund first-line support in-house. It's worked out so well that we're evaluating replacing our expensive, atrociously badly-supported Oracle with Postgres. So far so good...
Well, you did say: let us play tit for tat i admit that the cia has and is doing nasty things in venezuela agreed? i am being intellectually honest ok, now for your intellectual honesty: the people of venezuela- with or without the cia with them, want to overthrow chavez agreed? good, now we can proceed without taint of propaganda from the right OR the left geez
I took this to mean that you want to have an objective dialogue about this, free of partisan dogma. But you coupled this with the assertion that "the people of VZ... want to overthrow Chavez". You offered no proof for this, and the only evidence I've seen cited to date is polls and TV pictures. Both can be misleading. Why do you believe that all the people of VZ want to overthrow Chavez?
No, I can't find any hard evidence that a majority in Venezuela wants to overthrow Chavez. The polls coming out of there all seem to be sourced from the same two polling companies, both run by his opponents, one of whom has stated publicly that Chavez should be killed. So getting the straight facts on the situation is not quite as easy as it looks.
This sounds too much like some crazy conspiracy. Answer me this simple question: Why did the US not take control of the Iraq oil fields after the gulf war?
Because there was no need to. It was much cheaper to keep Saddam "contained", and buy his oil in practically inflation-free dollars, in a market that the US could keep control of.
That high-minded Foe of Terrorism, Dick Cheney, was doing exactly that via his company Haliburton, until Saddam started demanding payment in Euros.
I agree with you, it's absolutely mindboggling. But it's true. Cheney has successfully managed to keep this out of the press though, and keep Congress from subpoenaing papers that described his involvement, using court injunctions.
Why do you think the US grabbed Saddam's recently submitted documentation on WMD, and then distributed an "edited version" to the other members of the UN Security Council? Because all the dirt on US and European companies was in there, and Bush and Blair's "moral case for war" would have been made a laughingstock. This is all about the money.
They sent me a free issue a while back, along with a psychedelic marketing wrapper covered with a breathless 48-point screed about "Steve Case, CEO of Apple! and Steve Jobs, CEO of AOL!". Oh dear.
But it was free, so I read a few articles: it was all the same sort of ludicrous "New Economy! Balance Sheets and ROI are things of the past! Paradigm Shift!" horseshit that Wired and a dozen others were spewing out. Straight into the bin.
Here's a thought. Suppose MS decided to port the Win32 API from WNT over to BSD.
They already support.Net for FreeBSD. They could do an Apple, and sell a proprietary GUI on a rock-solid OS core. Bang go the complaints about security and reliability.
They could then claim to be an "Open Source vendor", whatever that means. They'd become the largest Unix vendor (by license volume) overnight.
But they'd need an equivalent of MS WoW to run existing Win32 software. Since Connectix already has a native version for the BSD-based MacOS X, porting would be pretty straightforward. Maybe they've tried this already on the quiet before agreeing to buy.
They could also quit banging their faces into the ground, trying to migrate Hotmail from BSD to WinXP.
It is fair though to warn anyone contemplating an OS/2 installation for the first time to check hardware compatibility. OTOH, presumably most/. readers have dealt with this problem (caused deliberately by M$) in the course of Linux installations.
Sure, that's fair. But the difference with Linux (or *BSD or any open-source OS) is that you don't need to wait for a vendor to write the driver for you. You can write it yourself, and chances are good someone else has the same problem, and is willing to help with code, testing, documentation, etc. I remember Ralph Nader begging IBM to open up OS/2 years ago, to give us a weapon with which to fight MS on the desktop. IBM seem to have decided that it would undermine some other revenue stream to do so: Linux and AIX revenue, most likely.
When OS/2 Warp came out, I tried it and was pleasantly surprised at how good it was, although my colleagues all sneered at its huge RAM requirement of 16MB. What killed it for me was 3rd party support. For instance, I phoned up Epson to enquire whether they planned to produce OS/2 drivers, and got the following reply:
Epson: "What version of Windows is this product running on Sir?" Me: "Well actually, it's a different operating system from Windows. It's from IBM, and it's called OS/2. I was wondering if you were planning to provide printer drivers for this new OS?" Epson: (long-suffering sigh) "Yes, SIR, but what version of Windows will you be running the product on?"
And of course I couldn't write a driver myself, unless I signed up as a developer etc. etc. No point in re-hashing all that history I guess.
We represent Microsoft Corporation, the owner of the federally registered trademark and service mark "MS". The mark "MS" is registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office under registration numbers 1,775,441; 1,540,928; 1,342,353; 1,329,474; 1,318,717; 1,306,997; and 898018, copies of which are attached. We also represent the editors of Ms. Magazine, which is the licensee of the "Ms." trademark.
The federally registered trademark, "MS", is famous, distinctive and unique. Your use of this mark in the "newdocms" name dilutes the distinctiveness of the mark in violation of the federal trademark antidilution statute, 15 U.S.C. $ 1125(c) and California's antidilution statute. See, Archdiocese of St. Louis v. Internet Entertainment Group, Inc., 34 F.Supp.2d 1145 (E.D. Mo. 1999); Mattel, Inc. v. Internet dimensions, Inc., 55 U.S.P.Q.2d 1620 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); Deere & Co. v. MTD Products, Inc., 41 F.3d 39, 43 (2nd Cir. 1994).
Accordingly, in the hope that we may resolve this matter amicably, we request that you immediately cease and desist the use of this name and transfer it to us at once.
Yours Sincerely,
His Infernal Sliminess, Screwtape Screwtape, Slubgob and Wormwood Attorneys 666 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90010
Slashdot Mirror
It was a joke, son. Chill.
Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered SCO community when last month IDC confirmed that SCO accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that SCO has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. SCO is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict SCO's future. The hand writing is on the wall: SCO faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for SCO because SCO is dying. Things are looking very bad for SCO. As many of us are already aware, SCO continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. SCO UnixWare is the most endangered of them all.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
SCO leader Chris Sontag states that there are 7000 users of SCO Linux. How many users of SCO UnixWare are there? Let's see. The number of UnixWare versus SCO Linux posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 UnixWare users. SCO OpenServer posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of UnixWare posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of SCO OpenServer. A recent article put SCO UnixWare at about 80 percent of the SCO market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 SCO UnixWare users. This is consistent with the number of SCO UnixWare Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of OpenLinux, abysmal sales and so on, Caldera went out of business and was taken over by SCO who sell another troubled OS. Now OpenLinux is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that SCO has steadily declined in market share. SCO is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If SCO is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers. SCO continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, SCO is dead.
Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered SCO community when last month IDC confirmed that SCO accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that SCO has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. SCO is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict SCO's future. The hand writing is on the wall: SCO faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for SCO because SCO is dying. Things are looking very bad for SCO. As many of us are already aware, SCO continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. SCO UnixWare is the most endangered of them all.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
SCO leader Chris Sontag states that there are 7000 users of SCO Linux. How many users of SCO UnixWare are there? Let's see. The number of UnixWare versus SCO Linux posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 UnixWare users. SCO OpenServer posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of UnixWare posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of SCO OpenServer. A recent article put SCO UnixWare at about 80 percent of the SCO market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 SCO UnixWare users. This is consistent with the number of SCO UnixWare Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of OpenLinux, abysmal sales and so on, Caldera went out of business and was taken over by SCO who sell another troubled OS. Now OpenLinux is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that SCO has steadily declined in market share. SCO is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If SCO is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers. SCO continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, SCO is dead.
I was only kidding about the football part: I should have affixed a :-).
The rest was serious though.
Dubious beginnings in the Unix industry
...and of course, was once a famously crap England manager.
Seems to think it's all about saving money up-front
Apparently used to work for Gartner, aieeee.
RMS is nothing to do with Open Source Software: he's an advocate for Free Software, and you can read why here.
The difference is more than just semantics. Even if you support OSS, it's important to be aware of the distinction between Free and Open Source.
...look who they're putting in charge of agriculture:
True enough. And before the Shah of Iran, there was the nationalist Mossadegh government, popular at the time, and also overthrown by the CIA to make way for the brutal Shah.
I would love there to be a simple exam to pass before becoming a registered voter (something like who was the first president of the USA, how many states are in the USA and etc...). Now I know this is being done in England...
No it isn't.
...are still terrorists.
Whereas George Bush says: "Iraqis, we are not out to get you. We want Saddam.", Osama Bin Laden says: "We will kill you all indiscriminately to frighten you into doing what we want." i.e. TO CAUSE WIDESPREAD FEAR.
Bin Laden never said that. He's not out to "kill us all". He has defined several political goals, and has expressed a willingness to export death and violence to achieve them, in what he sees as defense of his community.
But then, so has Bush. "We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of this great nation.", quoth he. This, from a man who considers himself a devout Christian.
As far as I can tell both of these men are terrorists. To hell with both of them.
The herbicides were indeed chemical weapons, because their horrible effects on humans were well known. There were demands in Congress during the Vietnam war to cease what was rightly called at the time "chemical warfare", but they went unheeded.
The victims go right on suffering today. Not a penny of compensation has ever been paid.
The same thing will happen with Depleted Uranium shells and cluster bombs. Are these meant to kill innocent civilians, and deform unborn children? No, but since the effect is known, the moral culpability still applies. The use of indiscriminate weapons is a war crime.
It's like arresting someone for putting a better engine in their car becuase "They might decide to speed", or worse, arresting the person who sold the performace parts.
Yes, or like invading a country and cluster-bombing its civilians because "they might develop WMD".
Both of those articles gave only a snippet of what Kate Adie said. Read the rest, and hear the audio stream of interview with Kate Adie available here:
..They've been warned."
...take the attitude which is entirely hostile to the free spread of information."
...electronic media... mediums, of the military above Bhagdad... they'd be fired down on. Even if they were journalists ..' Who cares! ' said.. [inaudible] .." ...sorry Kate ..just to underline that. Sorry to interrupt you. Just to explain for our listeners. Uplinks is where you have your own satellite telephone method of distributing information."
... they've been warned.'
http://www.gulufuture.com/news/kate_adie030 310.htm
'The Pentagon has threatened to fire on the satellite uplink positions of independent journalists in Iraq, according to veteran BBC war correspondent, Kate Adie. In an interview with Irish radio, Ms. Adie said that questioned about the consequences of such potentially fatal actions, a senior Pentagon officer had said: "Who cares..
According to Ms. Adie, who twelve years ago covered the last Gulf War, the Pentagon attitude is: "entirely hostile to the the free spread of information."
"I am enormously pessimistic of the chance of decent on-the-spot reporting, as the war occurs," she told Irish national broadcaster, Tom McGurk on the RTE1 Radio "Sunday Show."
Ms. Adie made the startling revelations during a discussion of media freedom issues in the likely upcoming war in Iraq. She also warned that the Pentagon is vetting journalists according to their stance on the war, and intends to take control of US journalists' satellite equipment --in order to control access to the airwaves.
Another guest on the show, war author Phillip Knightley, reported that the Pentagon has also threatened they: "may find it necessary to bomb areas in which war correspondents are attempting to report from the Iraqi side."
Tom McGurk:
" Now, Kate Adie, you join us from the BBC in London. Thank you very much for going to all this trouble on a Sunday morning to come and join us. I suppose you are watching with a mixture of emotions this war beginning to happen, because you are not going to be covering it."
Kate Adie:
" Oh I will be. And what actually appalls me is the difference between twelve years ago and now. I've seen a complete erosion of any kind of acknowledgment that reporters should be able to report as they witness."
" The Americans... and I've been talking to the Pentagon
" I was told by a senior officer in the Pentagon, that if uplinks --that is the television signals out of... Baghdad, for example-- were detected by any planes
Tom McGurk: "...Kate
Kate Adie: " The telephones and the television signals."
Tom McGurk: " And they would be fired on? "
Kate Adie: " Yes. They would be 'targeted down,' said the officer."
Tom McGurk: " Extraordinary ! "
Kate Adie: " Shameless! "
He said: ' Well... they know this
This is threatening freedom of information, before you even get to a war.
The second thing is there was a massive news blackout imposed.
In the last Gulf war, where I was one of the pool correspondents with the British Army. We effectively had very, very light touch when it came to any kind of censorship.
We were told that anything which was going to endanger troops lives which we understood we shouldn't broadcast. But other than that, we were relatively free.
Unlike our American colleagues, who immediately left their pool, after about 48 hours, having just had enough of it.
And this time the Americans are: a) Asking journalists who go with them, whether they are... have feelings against the war. And therefore if you have views that are skeptical, then you are not to be acceptable.
Secondly, they are intending
GTA3 was the top seller for many weeks in the UK too, but it hadn't been banned. It just sold well, that's all.
The company is called Executive Software, and their product is called Diskeeper.
:-)
Diskeeper was developed by Craig Jensen, who is indeed a scientologist. I understand that his company is also run on scientology principles, whatever that might mean.
When Microsoft bundled a cut-down version of Diskeeper with Windows 2000, they ran into a dispute with the German govt, who had a long running battle with the scientologists. The government basically demanded to see the source code, for security reasons.
A compromise was proposed whereby Win2K would ship with a Diskeeper-free option. I never did hear how that turned out in the end. And many people might think it a bit naive imagining that Windows without Diskeeper code is somehow safer.
IMHO this debate helped nudge the German govt toward treating Free/OSS software as a matter of national strategic importance. So thank you, scientology.
Here's a thought. Suppose MS decided to port the Win32 API from NT kernel over to BSD?
.Net for FreeBSD. They could do an Apple, and sell a proprietary GUI on a rock-solid OS core. Away go the complaints about security and reliability. Hell, they could make it more secure out-of-the-box than some Linux distros.
:-)
And maybe replace some of the above-the-kernel bits too: replace IIS with Apache, etc. ISTR reading somewhere that Windows' TCP/IP stack is based in large part on BSD code already. Ballmer is on record saying that Apache is superior to IIS, and Apache's market share speaks for itself.
MS already support
They could then claim to be an "Open Source vendor", whatever that means. They'd become the largest *nix vendor (by license volume) overnight. If they passed the right compliance tests, they could even call it Unix, as IBM has done with OS/390 (I know, no-one takes that very seriously outside of IBM, but it's technically true.)
They'd need an equivalent of MS WoW to run existing Win32 software: that might explain their recent purchase of Connectix. Since Connectix already has a native version for the BSD-based MacOS X, porting would be pretty straightforward. Maybe they've tried this already on the quiet before agreeing to buy.
They could also quit banging their faces into the ground, trying to migrate Hotmail from BSD to WinXP.
It is just too restrictive for a business entity. How many companies that you know of that can claim to have profitted from GPL-based software?
If the GPL is too restrictive for closed-source software vendors, but thrives anyway, then their business model is obsolete.
The business proposition for GPL software is not in selling software, it's in selling support. My company could, in theory, self-support on JBoss, PostgreSQL, etc. But it would far cheaper and faster for us to outsource that support to specialists. It's a potential goldmine for service providers.
We outsource our Zope support to a Zope specialist. They make out like bandits per-hour, we spend nil on the software, and only need to fund first-line support in-house. It's worked out so well that we're evaluating replacing our expensive, atrociously badly-supported Oracle with Postgres. So far so good...
Well, you did say:
let us play tit for tat
i admit that the cia has and is doing nasty things in venezuela
agreed? i am being intellectually honest
ok, now for your intellectual honesty:
the people of venezuela- with or without the cia with them, want to overthrow chavez
agreed?
good, now we can proceed without taint of propaganda from the right OR the left
geez
I took this to mean that you want to have an objective dialogue about this, free of partisan dogma. But you coupled this with the assertion that "the people of VZ... want to overthrow Chavez". You offered no proof for this, and the only evidence I've seen cited to date is polls and TV pictures. Both can be misleading. Why do you believe that all the people of VZ want to overthrow Chavez?
No, I can't find any hard evidence that a majority in Venezuela wants to overthrow Chavez. The polls coming out of there all seem to be sourced from the same two polling companies, both run by his opponents, one of whom has stated publicly that Chavez should be killed. So getting the straight facts on the situation is not quite as easy as it looks.
This sounds too much like some crazy conspiracy. Answer me this simple question: Why did the US not take control of the Iraq oil fields after the gulf war?
Because there was no need to. It was much cheaper to keep Saddam "contained", and buy his oil in practically inflation-free dollars, in a market that the US could keep control of.
That high-minded Foe of Terrorism, Dick Cheney, was doing exactly that via his company Haliburton, until Saddam started demanding payment in Euros.
I agree with you, it's absolutely mindboggling. But it's true. Cheney has successfully managed to keep this out of the press though, and keep Congress from subpoenaing papers that described his involvement, using court injunctions.
Why do you think the US grabbed Saddam's recently submitted documentation on WMD, and then distributed an "edited version" to the other members of the UN Security Council? Because all the dirt on US and European companies was in there, and Bush and Blair's "moral case for war" would have been made a laughingstock.
This is all about the money.
They sent me a free issue a while back, along with a psychedelic marketing wrapper covered with a breathless 48-point screed about "Steve Case, CEO of Apple! and Steve Jobs, CEO of AOL!". Oh dear.
But it was free, so I read a few articles: it was all the same sort of ludicrous "New Economy! Balance Sheets and ROI are things of the past! Paradigm Shift!" horseshit that Wired and a dozen others were spewing out. Straight into the bin.
Here's a thought. Suppose MS decided to port the Win32 API from WNT over to BSD.
.Net for FreeBSD. They could do an Apple, and sell a proprietary GUI on a rock-solid OS core. Bang go the complaints about security and reliability.
They already support
They could then claim to be an "Open Source vendor", whatever that means. They'd become the largest Unix vendor (by license volume) overnight.
But they'd need an equivalent of MS WoW to run existing Win32 software. Since Connectix already has a native version for the BSD-based MacOS X, porting would be pretty straightforward. Maybe they've tried this already on the quiet before agreeing to buy.
They could also quit banging their faces into the ground, trying to migrate Hotmail from BSD to WinXP.
It is fair though to warn anyone contemplating an OS/2 installation for the first time to check hardware compatibility. OTOH, presumably most /. readers have dealt with this problem (caused deliberately by M$) in the course of Linux installations.
Sure, that's fair. But the difference with Linux (or *BSD or any open-source OS) is that you don't need to wait for a vendor to write the driver for you. You can write it yourself, and chances are good someone else has the same problem, and is willing to help with code, testing, documentation, etc.
I remember Ralph Nader begging IBM to open up OS/2 years ago, to give us a weapon with which to fight MS on the desktop. IBM seem to have decided that it would undermine some other revenue stream to do so: Linux and AIX revenue, most likely.
When OS/2 Warp came out, I tried it and was pleasantly surprised at how good it was, although my colleagues all sneered at its huge RAM requirement of 16MB.
What killed it for me was 3rd party support. For instance, I phoned up Epson to enquire whether they planned to produce OS/2 drivers, and got the following reply:
Epson: "What version of Windows is this product running on Sir?"
Me: "Well actually, it's a different operating system from Windows. It's from IBM, and it's called OS/2. I was wondering if you were planning to provide printer drivers for this new OS?"
Epson: (long-suffering sigh) "Yes, SIR, but what version of Windows will you be running the product on?"
And of course I couldn't write a driver myself, unless I signed up as a developer etc. etc. No point in re-hashing all that history I guess.
Dear Mr. Arriaga,
:-)
We represent Microsoft Corporation, the owner of the federally registered trademark and service mark "MS". The mark "MS" is registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office under registration numbers 1,775,441; 1,540,928; 1,342,353; 1,329,474; 1,318,717; 1,306,997; and 898018, copies of which are attached. We also represent the editors of Ms. Magazine, which is the licensee of the "Ms." trademark.
The federally registered trademark, "MS", is famous, distinctive and unique. Your use of this mark in the "newdocms" name dilutes the distinctiveness of the mark in violation of the federal trademark antidilution statute, 15 U.S.C. $ 1125(c) and California's antidilution statute. See, Archdiocese of St. Louis v. Internet Entertainment Group, Inc., 34 F.Supp.2d 1145 (E.D. Mo. 1999); Mattel, Inc. v. Internet dimensions, Inc., 55 U.S.P.Q.2d 1620 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); Deere & Co. v. MTD Products, Inc., 41 F.3d 39, 43 (2nd Cir. 1994).
Accordingly, in the hope that we may resolve this matter amicably, we request that you immediately cease and desist the use of this name and transfer it to us at once.
Yours Sincerely,
His Infernal Sliminess, Screwtape
Screwtape, Slubgob and Wormwood Attorneys
666 Wilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90010