Maybe the hypocrisy of having violated Linux's copyright, actually truly incorporated the code into BSD in violation of copyright, throwing a hissy fit when politely exposed and offered help in sorting it out, and then turning around and screaming another baby tantrum when a single Linux developer proposes switching the license of dual-licensed code but it hasn't actually been incorporated into a Linux distribution?
I for one welcome our new radioactive, reptilian overlords.
Good so far.
*ducks*
But that's pushing it. Ducks are birds, and birds are the last remnant dinosaurs, and dinosaurs and reptiles are related, but that doesn't mean ducks are reptiles.
If that's the essence of ninja, then someone's pulling your leg (ha ha) or you are pulling ours. If the ninja has a knife, why not just stab the victim in the first place? Why not throw the knife? Why go thru the extra steps of, first, walking past the victime, and second, yanking his arm?
Seems more like a mall ninja tactic, what you describe.
400mph is the speed of fighters near the end of WW II. Anything going 400mph is not designed for vertical operation, not even close. It's using wings for lift at that speed and 6000 fpm climb is not out of the question.
Now whether he can actually go 400 mph... I'll believe it when it flies, not from press releases.
And even if those traitors in the EU and Asia don't back us up, our allies Israel and Iraq and... uh, Israel and Iraq will back us up with their mighty tourist dollars... uhh... shekels and dinars.
It's pointing that lack of copyright laws means massive duplication. Nothing to do with whether that is desirable or not, but it's just making the point in a way that some mods apparently don't understand.
It uses the microphone to detect echo from your head. This starts with the first approximation that your head is symmetrical, smooth, and round. If the echo shows any sign of left/rigth asymmetry, it brings in the next layer of feedback control by simulating a rotated ovoid head, and progressively brings in more features such as topological variations (nose, eyes, ears, open mouth). It is continually trying various time delays to make sure it isn't confused by emenations from your own mouth, nose, or ears (tintinabulation).
Once it determines the maximum quality feedback parameters, it backs off various parameters to try to reduce the computational footprint. It keeps a record of these adjustments and periodically adds them back in temporarily to make sure the basic parameters are still valid. If any of these trials show the need, it will restart the complete feedback search cycle.
Where does the network figure in all this, you ask? Simple. All that I have described so far is reactive feedback. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, or more usefully, predicting how much feedback control is necessary can pay bigger dividends -- more bang for the buck, so to speak -- than reactive analysis. If it can tell what you are doing from packet analysis, it has a better chance of predicting your head position. It looks at HTML pages and tries to guess what content is shown, in order to know if it is likely to affect your head position, and then tries to guess where that content will show on the screen, in order to predict where your head will be.
Coupled with mouse and keyboard controls, this can lead to amazing sound quality from the piss-poor speakers found on most laptops, even simulating 5.1 speaker systems with just the two speakers found on most computers.
You said "That should not have a bearing on the issue. Although I am from India (and ESL country)english was the first language I learnt."
Then you're not ESL, are you?
On the other hand, you didn't capitalize "english". I don't know what to make of that.
And on the gripping hand, you said "learnt" which is almost certainly a UK idiom, even tho used over here once in a while.
None of what you said has much at all to do with his primary big picture complaint, that offshoring to ESL countries is a bad idea. All you have really done is dodged his compalints with hand waving. If you had some bacon, you'd have bacon and eggs, if you had some eggs.
Next time, try answering his hig picture complaint.
The biggest drawback to closing a BSD-licensed source is having to duplicate all the open source changes. BSD doesn't change nearly as fast as Linux, so they could probably get away with it. But if they want to keep up with the latest OS, and they want open source, they need Linux. It's not that Linux is inherently better, it's just that that's where the developers are. Look at how much later the BSDs got SMP, and they don't support anywhere near as much hardware as Linux. Now whether Microsoft would want all that is another question. It seems to me that, if they want to release Office for many platforms, making it work for generic X + UNIX / Linux / BSD is the only way to go.
But Microsoft being Microsoft, BSD certainly does offer more secrecy and the opportunity to add their own proprietary hooks. I think that if they do want to take Office to many platforms, and if that eventually leads to dropping their custom OS in favor of a rebranded OS or no OS at all, Linux would be a better long term choice, but Microsoft's mindset might lead them to the short term secrecy advantage of a BSD.
I have often wondered when Microsoft's troubles will come home to roost. The problem with fences is that not only do they keep others out, they keep you in. Microsoft has gone to great trouble to lock people to their OS, and to design it with that lockin in mind rather then security or speed or reliability. At some point, it will be too crippled to compete with Linux. I don't mean next year, I mean 5 or ten years down the line.
It seems to me that Microsoft has to eventually modernize, and the easiest way would be to drop Windows and go with Linux. By easiest, I don't mean best for Linux fanboys, I mean with the least effort on their part. It would be easier to write a system call translate layer than write a brand new OS from the ground up. It will also make it harder to write in the crippleware lockin features they love so much.
Now I doubt Microsoft will want to do this any time soon. But they could migrate that way slowly, starting with porting their Office suite to Linux. As I understand it, they have only two profit centers -- the OS, mostly from OEM installs, and Office.
So I wonder if this move to cross platform, and their two recent open source licenses, is their way of dipping their toes in the water. I don't say they have a ten year plan for this, but maybe small ventures like this one will eventually turn into a full blown platform-neutral version of Office, and maybe a way to wean themselves from the burden of maintaining their crippled lockin OS.
Seems to me there is a real risk for anyone to take over SCO. There are counterclaims in both Novell and IBM and SCO is likely to end up owning tons of money. Wouldn't any buyer inherit those liablities? Much more likely that SCO will go to bankruptcy where the liabilities will be washed away.
Plus, right now SCO has so little value that the only reason to pursue the counterclaims is to bury SCO. But if someone with deep pockets were to buy SCO before everything is settled, that would make pursuit of those counterclaims financially worthwhile too.
Slashdot Mirror
Whats dishonest ... ?
Maybe the hypocrisy of having violated Linux's copyright, actually truly incorporated the code into BSD in violation of copyright, throwing a hissy fit when politely exposed and offered help in sorting it out, and then turning around and screaming another baby tantrum when a single Linux developer proposes switching the license of dual-licensed code but it hasn't actually been incorporated into a Linux distribution?
Hmmmm?
Yeh, but look at my user number. I was having a senior moment, you insensitive, uh, young squirt!
He must be married.
This is slashdot you inconsiderate fool.
But that was at 15 knots and 8700 tons in the tank ... (USS Midway, CV-41)
I for one welcome our new radioactive, reptilian overlords.
Good so far.
*ducks*
But that's pushing it. Ducks are birds, and birds are the last remnant dinosaurs, and dinosaurs and reptiles are related, but that doesn't mean ducks are reptiles.
This being slashdot, I think you meant "Here, here" ...
If that's the essence of ninja, then someone's pulling your leg (ha ha) or you are pulling ours. If the ninja has a knife, why not just stab the victim in the first place? Why not throw the knife? Why go thru the extra steps of, first, walking past the victime, and second, yanking his arm?
Seems more like a mall ninja tactic, what you describe.
400mph is the speed of fighters near the end of WW II. Anything going 400mph is not designed for vertical operation, not even close. It's using wings for lift at that speed and 6000 fpm climb is not out of the question.
... I'll believe it when it flies, not from press releases.
Now whether he can actually go 400 mph
That comment is more fun than mere mod points. You, sir, are a fine example of slashdot at its best.
Thsi is slashscrabble, where the whoosh counts for quadruple points all by itself.
A new record for invoking Godwin's Law!
You bring the relish.
And even if those traitors in the EU and Asia don't back us up, our allies Israel and Iraq and ... uh, Israel and Iraq will back us up with their mighty tourist dollars ... uhh ... shekels and dinars.
Or Tom Cruise?
Yeh, those overpaid "artists" might have to actually earn a proper wage for a change.
It's pointing that lack of copyright laws means massive duplication. Nothing to do with whether that is desirable or not, but it's just making the point in a way that some mods apparently don't understand.
What is this, jesusdot, where every Christian thinks superstition is immune from derision just because it has been around for 2000 years?
No they don't
It uses the microphone to detect echo from your head. This starts with the first approximation that your head is symmetrical, smooth, and round. If the echo shows any sign of left/rigth asymmetry, it brings in the next layer of feedback control by simulating a rotated ovoid head, and progressively brings in more features such as topological variations (nose, eyes, ears, open mouth). It is continually trying various time delays to make sure it isn't confused by emenations from your own mouth, nose, or ears (tintinabulation).
Once it determines the maximum quality feedback parameters, it backs off various parameters to try to reduce the computational footprint. It keeps a record of these adjustments and periodically adds them back in temporarily to make sure the basic parameters are still valid. If any of these trials show the need, it will restart the complete feedback search cycle.
Where does the network figure in all this, you ask? Simple. All that I have described so far is reactive feedback. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, or more usefully, predicting how much feedback control is necessary can pay bigger dividends -- more bang for the buck, so to speak -- than reactive analysis. If it can tell what you are doing from packet analysis, it has a better chance of predicting your head position. It looks at HTML pages and tries to guess what content is shown, in order to know if it is likely to affect your head position, and then tries to guess where that content will show on the screen, in order to predict where your head will be.
Coupled with mouse and keyboard controls, this can lead to amazing sound quality from the piss-poor speakers found on most laptops, even simulating 5.1 speaker systems with just the two speakers found on most computers.
Now you know.
I measure my cable in *cables*.
I said "compalints" and no doubt made other mistakes too. Boo hoo!
He said "They are ESL."
You said "That should not have a bearing on the issue. Although I am from India (and ESL country)english was the first language I learnt."
Then you're not ESL, are you?
On the other hand, you didn't capitalize "english". I don't know what to make of that.
And on the gripping hand, you said "learnt" which is almost certainly a UK idiom, even tho used over here once in a while.
None of what you said has much at all to do with his primary big picture complaint, that offshoring to ESL countries is a bad idea. All you have really done is dodged his compalints with hand waving. If you had some bacon, you'd have bacon and eggs, if you had some eggs.
Next time, try answering his hig picture complaint.
The biggest drawback to closing a BSD-licensed source is having to duplicate all the open source changes. BSD doesn't change nearly as fast as Linux, so they could probably get away with it. But if they want to keep up with the latest OS, and they want open source, they need Linux. It's not that Linux is inherently better, it's just that that's where the developers are. Look at how much later the BSDs got SMP, and they don't support anywhere near as much hardware as Linux. Now whether Microsoft would want all that is another question. It seems to me that, if they want to release Office for many platforms, making it work for generic X + UNIX / Linux / BSD is the only way to go.
But Microsoft being Microsoft, BSD certainly does offer more secrecy and the opportunity to add their own proprietary hooks. I think that if they do want to take Office to many platforms, and if that eventually leads to dropping their custom OS in favor of a rebranded OS or no OS at all, Linux would be a better long term choice, but Microsoft's mindset might lead them to the short term secrecy advantage of a BSD.
Instead of ranting more than the one you denigrate, how about showing a counter example where Microsoft HAS played fair?
I have often wondered when Microsoft's troubles will come home to roost. The problem with fences is that not only do they keep others out, they keep you in. Microsoft has gone to great trouble to lock people to their OS, and to design it with that lockin in mind rather then security or speed or reliability. At some point, it will be too crippled to compete with Linux. I don't mean next year, I mean 5 or ten years down the line.
It seems to me that Microsoft has to eventually modernize, and the easiest way would be to drop Windows and go with Linux. By easiest, I don't mean best for Linux fanboys, I mean with the least effort on their part. It would be easier to write a system call translate layer than write a brand new OS from the ground up. It will also make it harder to write in the crippleware lockin features they love so much.
Now I doubt Microsoft will want to do this any time soon. But they could migrate that way slowly, starting with porting their Office suite to Linux. As I understand it, they have only two profit centers -- the OS, mostly from OEM installs, and Office.
So I wonder if this move to cross platform, and their two recent open source licenses, is their way of dipping their toes in the water. I don't say they have a ten year plan for this, but maybe small ventures like this one will eventually turn into a full blown platform-neutral version of Office, and maybe a way to wean themselves from the burden of maintaining their crippled lockin OS.
Seems to me there is a real risk for anyone to take over SCO. There are counterclaims in both Novell and IBM and SCO is likely to end up owning tons of money. Wouldn't any buyer inherit those liablities? Much more likely that SCO will go to bankruptcy where the liabilities will be washed away.
Plus, right now SCO has so little value that the only reason to pursue the counterclaims is to bury SCO. But if someone with deep pockets were to buy SCO before everything is settled, that would make pursuit of those counterclaims financially worthwhile too.