Seriously. Perhaps M$ knew they'd lose on facts, and wanted to get the judge so pissed off that he would make bench rulings that would be the basis for an appeal.
Suppose ATT charges $40/month for combined access. Suppose the split into wire and ISP is $20 + $20, or $10 + $30, or $30 + $10. It doesn't matter. Unless they are gouging you on the ISP cost (ATT? Never!), when you don't go thru them but use any old ISP instead, there's 5MB of disk, email storage, DNS, etc that ATT no longer has to maintain. Someone else does, and that's who you pay instead of ATT.
Where exactly is the theft here? What exactly is the problem with this scenario?
Like the judge in Portland said, ATT is either a cable company, in which case regulation is what the FCC has ordered, or they are a telecommunications company, in which case the FCC and state PUCs have said stop bundling and open up. You and ATT can't have it both ways.
How does AOL paying ATT give more risk to ATT? Either ATT does it all, and takes all the risk, or they take money from AOL, and have exactly the same risk -- but at reduced cost. How is this a problem, exactly?
How does AOL drop out nad make the risk bigger than if AOL had never dropped in at all?
Linux made it to the big tent without NASDAQ and will continue regardless of NASDAQ. It shows an atrocious misunderstanding of free source software to say otherwise. It simply can't be hijacked.
Suppose Borkland did release a killer IDE for Linux. Further suppose Borkland did intentionally make it incompatible with everything that exists now. How many free source developers would actually release code that *required* such a beast? Can you imagine a distribution that came with sources (as required by the GPL) yet couldn't be built except with the Borkland IDE?
You have got to be sleeping poorly to come up with any such scenario.
Like it or not, free source software CANNOT be hijacked.
Post your resume. Show us the questions you would ask. If you can't even think of better questions, then your real imagination exceeds your imaginary one.
Show us why you are better qualified than anyone for the job.
Go back and peruse the thread. Richard Smith said RealJukebox reports what is stored on the disk; I was responding to a paraphrase of that which claimed it scanned the disk.
I belive you are reading what you want into Richard Smith's quote, rather than coming to it with an open mind. He does not say it "scans" (your word) for anything. Any ordinary reading of his words discussing what is stored on a drive could just as easily take it as shorthand for the songs that RealJukebox has stored on the drive. In fact, I would bet that most people would take it that way, other than lawyers and wannabe lawyers. Only the paranoid would take it to mean it actually goes looking all over for songs.
This is a jukebox -- get it? It plays what you tell it to play. Has it got some way of loading up your MP3 player? Bet so. Therefore it knows what you have. Wakarimasuka? There's no more evidence of it scanning for MP3s or hardware than there is of it scanning for illegal copies of Word or Excel or insider trading or anything else.
That's quite a rant you've got going on no evidence whatsoever.
Don't get me wrong; their sneaky snoopy practice os sending this info off to HQ sets my teeth on edge. But the information itself is exactly what you'd expect a jukebox program to need. No disk snooping involved.
Like he says, there's a lot of text processing in CGI prorgams. How would you handle a standard regular expression in C or C++? -- you'd call a subroutine. Once Perl gets into its regular expression subroutine, it's running C itself, not interpreted Perl, so there is no speed difference. Same with a lot of other Perl code -- hashes? You'd just be calling subroutines in C to generate keys and manipulate the hashes. String manipulation? People who use strcpy and strcat are probably writing slower code than Perl has built in, because it tracks the length of strings, and allocates in chunks, so it doesn't need as much realloc as some lazy C coders write.
There is more memory overhead, and there is the compilation overhead, but using mod_perl helps bunches here.
As I remember, Unisys's line was that the $5000 was, in effect, insurance that if, by mistake, you were using unlicensed GIF generators, they wouldn't come after you. They never said they *would* come after you, or check up on you, but it was just insurance in case you didn't know and wanted to be safe.
Not their words of course, but that's how I remember it.
you still internally have to provide source in order to abide by the GPL
I believe that when the Corel beta license non-GPL flap came up, RMS said that an internal distribution (which the beta was NOT) need not supply source.
there is no binary compatibility between versions (or in some cases, compiles) of the linux kernel
Linus is on record as saying that's the manufacturer's problem, and he has no sympathy for them. If they want to lock up their code, then he will not hold back kernel development just to help keep their secrets.
If you GPL something, and then sell it to me. I am not allowed to redistribute it.
Absolutely wrong. You can sell it, give it away, whatever. You just can't prevent anyone else from doing the same, and you have to provide the source, if nto with the sale, at least provide access.
I am offended by Bill Joy's attitude that it's a wonderful thing, being able to add your own proprietary code to what everyone else has contributed and "not give it back". I gave up counting how many times he used that phrase. He seems quite proud of the concept.
He doesn't have even a first approximation of understanding the GPL. It's the same blindness that thinks Linux can fork as his BSD has forked, and as commercial UNIX has forked. The very fact that the GPL requires changes be GPLd is why it won't fork.
Put it another way: which license has prevented forking, and which one has encouraged it?
And finally, at one point he claims that the Sun licenses are better because they freeze the API but allow innovation behind the scenes; he also denigrates Linux as being a mere clone of the Unix API. Which way does he want it? Is this jealousy?
DCOM is far more successful than CORBA is in the world
Stats I have seen (but have no pointers to) say CORBA is twice as popular as DCOM.
Microsoft isn't threatended by either CORBA or Java RMI
Regardless of what you profess to believe, M$ acts as if threatened by everything they don't own. That's all that counts. Your perceptions of what threatens them is insignificant.
It's all well and good to want to be a cheapskate, but someone has to pay for it. Regardless of whether price == 0, cost != 0. Who do you nominate? Name names!
--
Minor nitpick about 1 inch thick
on
IBMs 73Gig Drive
·
· Score: 2
The only mention of size of the 36G version, and it's not clear:
Arriving this year, though, will be new 36GB drives. The drives are based on the same innards as the 73GB model, but will be only 1 inch thick. Current 36GB drives aren't as thin.
It's not clear whether the double capacity version is also 1 inch thick.
Hypocrisy about worrying about "privacy" while at the same time denying privacy to its own citizens, you know, the "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" kind of government.
The Martin Luther King part is well documented. J Edgar Hoover detested MLK so much that he fabricated tapes from snippets of illegaly tapped conversations and spread them around to make MLK look like a communist dope peddling paedophile wife beater.
On a personal note, my uncle was wiretapped during the Vietnam war for daring to stop LBJ's "voluntary" $100/month war bond program, and for organizing a union. FBI wiretapped him, asked his neighbors, friends, and co-workers nosy questions, generally intent only on making it obvious he also was a scumbag under investigation.
That's what this rant is all about. Hypocrisy. It's nothing new. It just needs a good rant once in a while.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously. Perhaps M$ knew they'd lose on facts, and wanted to get the judge so pissed off that he would make bench rulings that would be the basis for an appeal.
--
Suppose ATT charges $40/month for combined access. Suppose the split into wire and ISP is $20 + $20, or $10 + $30, or $30 + $10. It doesn't matter. Unless they are gouging you on the ISP cost (ATT? Never!), when you don't go thru them but use any old ISP instead, there's 5MB of disk, email storage, DNS, etc that ATT no longer has to maintain. Someone else does, and that's who you pay instead of ATT.
Where exactly is the theft here? What exactly is the problem with this scenario?
Like the judge in Portland said, ATT is either a cable company, in which case regulation is what the FCC has ordered, or they are a telecommunications company, in which case the FCC and state PUCs have said stop bundling and open up. You and ATT can't have it both ways.
--
How does AOL paying ATT give more risk to ATT? Either ATT does it all, and takes all the risk, or they take money from AOL, and have exactly the same risk -- but at reduced cost. How is this a problem, exactly?
How does AOL drop out nad make the risk bigger than if AOL had never dropped in at all?
--
So I guess I won't post it again!
Very nice printer guide.
--
...but unfortunately I'm at work now and the URL is at home. It lists printers which are supported by Linux, primarily via Ghostscript IIRC.
I'm sending email home to remember to post a followup to this. Check back after midnight GMT.
--
What a sorry bunch of FUD!
Linux made it to the big tent without NASDAQ and will continue regardless of NASDAQ. It shows an atrocious misunderstanding of free source software to say otherwise. It simply can't be hijacked.
Suppose Borkland did release a killer IDE for Linux. Further suppose Borkland did intentionally make it incompatible with everything that exists now. How many free source developers would actually release code that *required* such a beast? Can you imagine a distribution that came with sources (as required by the GPL) yet couldn't be built except with the Borkland IDE?
You have got to be sleeping poorly to come up with any such scenario.
Like it or not, free source software CANNOT be hijacked.
--
3:56.82 -- call it four
Divide by 3:07 -- call it three
Both roundings favor resiserfs, yet the ratio is said to be 1.56. I don't think so.
Look at the rm -rf * stats -- ration is claimed to be 10.1, yet it's a lot closer to 7.
What hope is there for the numbers themselves?
--
1. This is not about porting ext2 to BSD, but a journaled fs. So comparisons to ext2 are meaningless.
2. Running linux binaries has nothing to do with this either, unless someone wants to make a user space version of RFS, and BSD can support it.
--
Post your resume. Show us the questions you would ask. If you can't even think of better questions, then your real imagination exceeds your imaginary one.
Show us why you are better qualified than anyone for the job.
--
The discreetly hidden volume control is manual rather than electronic making it a breeze to reach over and turn down the sound
A touch of reality! Fire that copywriter! Fire that designer!
--
Go back and peruse the thread. Richard Smith said RealJukebox reports what is stored on the disk; I was responding to a paraphrase of that which claimed it scanned the disk.
That was the intrepretation I took exception to.
I wonder what got you so fired up?
--
Yes I am not anonymous.
I belive you are reading what you want into Richard Smith's quote, rather than coming to it with an open mind. He does not say it "scans" (your word) for anything. Any ordinary reading of his words discussing what is stored on a drive could just as easily take it as shorthand for the songs that RealJukebox has stored on the drive. In fact, I would bet that most people would take it that way, other than lawyers and wannabe lawyers. Only the paranoid would take it to mean it actually goes looking all over for songs.
--
This is a jukebox -- get it? It plays what you tell it to play. Has it got some way of loading up your MP3 player? Bet so. Therefore it knows what you have. Wakarimasuka? There's no more evidence of it scanning for MP3s or hardware than there is of it scanning for illegal copies of Word or Excel or insider trading or anything else.
That's quite a rant you've got going on no evidence whatsoever.
Don't get me wrong; their sneaky snoopy practice os sending this info off to HQ sets my teeth on edge. But the information itself is exactly what you'd expect a jukebox program to need. No disk snooping involved.
--
Like he says, there's a lot of text processing in CGI prorgams. How would you handle a standard regular expression in C or C++? -- you'd call a subroutine. Once Perl gets into its regular expression subroutine, it's running C itself, not interpreted Perl, so there is no speed difference. Same with a lot of other Perl code -- hashes? You'd just be calling subroutines in C to generate keys and manipulate the hashes. String manipulation? People who use strcpy and strcat are probably writing slower code than Perl has built in, because it tracks the length of strings, and allocates in chunks, so it doesn't need as much realloc as some lazy C coders write.
There is more memory overhead, and there is the compilation overhead, but using mod_perl helps bunches here.
--
As I remember, Unisys's line was that the $5000 was, in effect, insurance that if, by mistake, you were using unlicensed GIF generators, they wouldn't come after you. They never said they *would* come after you, or check up on you, but it was just insurance in case you didn't know and wanted to be safe.
Not their words of course, but that's how I remember it.
--
you still internally have to provide source in order to abide by the GPL
I believe that when the Corel beta license non-GPL flap came up, RMS said that an internal distribution (which the beta was NOT) need not supply source.
there is no binary compatibility between versions (or in some cases, compiles) of the linux kernel
Linus is on record as saying that's the manufacturer's problem, and he has no sympathy for them. If they want to lock up their code, then he will not hold back kernel development just to help keep their secrets.
--
If you GPL something, and then sell it to me. I am not allowed to redistribute it.
Absolutely wrong. You can sell it, give it away, whatever. You just can't prevent anyone else from doing the same, and you have to provide the source, if nto with the sale, at least provide access.
--
I am offended by Bill Joy's attitude that it's a wonderful thing, being able to add your own proprietary code to what everyone else has contributed and "not give it back". I gave up counting how many times he used that phrase. He seems quite proud of the concept.
He doesn't have even a first approximation of understanding the GPL. It's the same blindness that thinks Linux can fork as his BSD has forked, and as commercial UNIX has forked. The very fact that the GPL requires changes be GPLd is why it won't fork.
Put it another way: which license has prevented forking, and which one has encouraged it?
And finally, at one point he claims that the Sun licenses are better because they freeze the API but allow innovation behind the scenes; he also denigrates Linux as being a mere clone of the Unix API. Which way does he want it? Is this jealousy?
--
He was quoting the ZD article which explains that a micron is 1,000th of a meter.
Here's ZDnet: A micron is a 1,000th of a meter.
Here's The Musician: Last I checked we called that a millimeter.
See the thread now?
--
You complain about assertions without proof. You seem to think just saying "No taint so" is good enough. Come on, show your stats, the world awaits...
--
DCOM is far more successful than CORBA is in the world
Stats I have seen (but have no pointers to) say CORBA is twice as popular as DCOM.
Microsoft isn't threatended by either CORBA or Java RMI
Regardless of what you profess to believe, M$ acts as if threatened by everything they don't own. That's all that counts. Your perceptions of what threatens them is insignificant.
--
It's all well and good to want to be a cheapskate, but someone has to pay for it. Regardless of whether price == 0, cost != 0. Who do you nominate? Name names!
--
The only mention of size of the 36G version, and it's not clear:
Arriving this year, though, will be new 36GB drives. The drives are based on the same innards as the 73GB model, but will be only 1 inch thick. Current 36GB drives aren't as thin.
It's not clear whether the double capacity version is also 1 inch thick.
--
...and you males out there, watch for hand burns when you come to a full stop after stroking :-) :-) :-)
--
Hypocrisy about worrying about "privacy" while at the same time denying privacy to its own citizens, you know, the "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" kind of government.
The Martin Luther King part is well documented. J Edgar Hoover detested MLK so much that he fabricated tapes from snippets of illegaly tapped conversations and spread them around to make MLK look like a communist dope peddling paedophile wife beater.
On a personal note, my uncle was wiretapped during the Vietnam war for daring to stop LBJ's "voluntary" $100/month war bond program, and for organizing a union. FBI wiretapped him, asked his neighbors, friends, and co-workers nosy questions, generally intent only on making it obvious he also was a scumbag under investigation.
That's what this rant is all about. Hypocrisy. It's nothing new. It just needs a good rant once in a while.
--