Yes, but SCO had no interest in suing a small company; they needed to sue somebody with money. Their whole game has been to win billions of dollars and strike it rich. Nothing else would have convinced fools to buy SCO stock and drive it to the highs that made Daryl et al a pile of money. Suppose he had sued Red Hat. Do you really think outside investors would have seen enough upside to make buying SCO at high prices a worthwhile risk? The lawsuits were known to be risky right from the start.
Re:And all of a sudden....
on
SCO Loses
·
· Score: 1
If you truly believe that Microsoft did not fund SCO's lawsuits, either directly or indirectly, then you are living in a fantasy world of your own choosing. You are pulling the blankets over your head and sticking your fingers in your ears. There is no point giving you any sort of evidence because you would just ignore it, as you have been doing for the last four or five years since SCO started this nonsense.
And if you are ignorant about Baystar and how Microsoft screwed them into funding SCO, then it is by choice, and there is no point in providing any kind of evidence. There might be a chance for you being involuntarily ignorant about Baystar except for your willful refusal to believe that Microsoft funded SCO.
Good luck with the rest of your life.
Re:SCOX: death throes begin - spasms of appeals
on
SCO Loses
·
· Score: 1
Monday will be interesting. Will SCO's board evict Daryl et al and go straight to bankruptcy? Will Microsoft pony up money to buy out Daryl et al as part of the Faustian bargain they seem to have made?
Daryl may be expecting an appeal, but what does the SCO board think? That's were things will happen next, I believe. After a stunning pretty much complete loss like this, Daryl's strategy doesn't have much credibility left.
I don't know what SCO stock will do Monday. There will be a lot of downward pressure, but who would buy at any price that the owners would want to sell at? Only mental cases or souvenir hunters would have any interest in the stock. I wonder if it will even budge if no one buys.
I don't understand how the comparison can even be close to valid. The ancient group spans 700 years, the modern group is one snapshot. I dare say that any 700 year group would show more diversity than any single snapshot.
I'll (try to) answer the responses to my post here.
Yes, I know his patches address interactivity rather than thruput, which is precisely his complaint, that all the effort has been to increase thruput rather than latency. I also know that some people think linux has poor latency. My own servers, when configured as servers, do have poor latency, and I appreciate his patches.
However, to blame it all on latency is wrong. Microsoft didn't get their monopoly by playing fairly, and they didn't get it from better latency. If latency were so important because of perceptions of the response time destroying the user experience, then Microsoft would have long since lost market share for their shoddy programs, hard to use GUI, phony security, constant crashes, general bugginess, and for any number of other user-visible deficiencies, not to mention the continual forced upgrades and restrictive licensing.
If users don't give up on Microsoft because of all that, what makes you think latency matters?
As for OS X, I have a MacBook, and its responsiveness is not at all impressive to me. About the only non-Apple software on it is Firefox. No, holding up OS X as a leader in responsiveness is a like holding up Microsoft as a leader in happy user experiences.
Yup, in fact Slashdot is the only place where I ever read about intelligent design. Then again I live in Europe.
Well that explains it all! All decent god fearing Americans understand that intelligent and Europe don't go together. An intelligent designer would have intelligently designed things such that the smart people in Europe would migrate to America where they could displace the other dumb people who had only been invented to give the intelligent people target practice.
After all, condoms hadn't even been invented yet, y'know?
No I don't know. Plastics weren't invented until the 1800s and 1900s, but there were condoms made from organic materials before then. Said organic materials aren't likely to be preserved in the archaeological record of 30,000 years ago, so we can't tell if they had condoms back then.
Why can't you have a president that is NEITHER an idiot nor an eco-fascist?
Because there was no third choice. Because you have to choose the lesser of two evils. Because politics doesn't happen in a vacuum. Because you have to vote for what is available. Because the choice in the booth is relative.
What don't you understand about real world voting?
In a perverse way, I kind of like that, sort of like copyleft is a parody of copyright.
But my intent was to show that patents are not business' best friend. They lock companies in to their current product line instead of always doing what is best, and when they prevent competitors from building upon their idea and doing better, they are bad for society too.
I personally think patents have too little benefit and should be done away with. For every instance of a patent working like the system was expected to work, there must be hundreds or thousands of useless patents, or worse, patents which block progress.
DeBeers will rush to tout this tech. One, this will soak up the market for cubic zirconoia. Two, they will advertise it so much that the women who are attracted to bling will have an even worse attitude towards cubic zirconia. "What?!? Why don't you buy me a muffler while you're at it?"
Re:Wright brothers are another good example
on
Patents Don't Pay
·
· Score: 1
It was becoming clear, however, that the lead in flight technology had passed from the Wright Company to other manufactures, in particular the French. Wilbur felt that this was due to the enormous time they had been compelled to devote, since 1906, to protecting their patents and exploiting the commercial value of their invention. Had they been able to sell their flying machine to governments, as they originally intended, they might have had more time for the research required to improve their invention.
Mentioned before this is why they had not been able to sell to governments. They were so paranoid of their ideas being stolen that they refused to even demonstrate that they actually could fly unless the governments they wanted to sell to signed NDAs. Of course no government was willing to do that for such grandiose claims.
August, 1909 also marked the initiation of a long patent war with Glen Hammond Curtis, who earlier that year had formed the Curtis-Herring Company with Augustus Herring and built a successful airplane with a control system that the Wrights felt was an infringement on their patent.
Wright brothers are another good example
on
Patents Don't Pay
·
· Score: 4, Informative
They first flew under barely controllable circumstances Dec 17, 1903, but then spent several years trying to keep it secret, or at least not publicize it, while they made it practical. They used wing warping which physically bent the wings to control roll, and in order to get around this patented idea, Curtis, in 1908 I think, invented ailerons, hinged sections of wing which have been in use ever since. The Wrights spent the next ten years in court over the matter, and it wasn't settled until the US government forced a settlement when it joined WW I. The Wrights never did much at all after the first few years except sue the competition in court. Everyone else made advances in the technology, but not the Wrights, and they later had to merge just to keep the name in business.
A real lesson in the relative merits of innovation to stay at the front of the pack instead of dying in court battles.
Theo posts a link to a GIF of the errata, wherein AE4 and AE11 appear to describe the same bug (REP MOVS across a memory type boundary) but one says SHOW STOPPER while the other says possible effect on performance, no data loss or corruption.
'twould be nice if the errata were more consistent. I'll have to check thePDF.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean a scorpse? scorpsicle?
Yes, but SCO had no interest in suing a small company; they needed to sue somebody with money. Their whole game has been to win billions of dollars and strike it rich. Nothing else would have convinced fools to buy SCO stock and drive it to the highs that made Daryl et al a pile of money. Suppose he had sued Red Hat. Do you really think outside investors would have seen enough upside to make buying SCO at high prices a worthwhile risk? The lawsuits were known to be risky right from the start.
If you truly believe that Microsoft did not fund SCO's lawsuits, either directly or indirectly, then you are living in a fantasy world of your own choosing. You are pulling the blankets over your head and sticking your fingers in your ears. There is no point giving you any sort of evidence because you would just ignore it, as you have been doing for the last four or five years since SCO started this nonsense.
And if you are ignorant about Baystar and how Microsoft screwed them into funding SCO, then it is by choice, and there is no point in providing any kind of evidence. There might be a chance for you being involuntarily ignorant about Baystar except for your willful refusal to believe that Microsoft funded SCO.
Good luck with the rest of your life.
Monday will be interesting. Will SCO's board evict Daryl et al and go straight to bankruptcy? Will Microsoft pony up money to buy out Daryl et al as part of the Faustian bargain they seem to have made?
Daryl may be expecting an appeal, but what does the SCO board think? That's were things will happen next, I believe. After a stunning pretty much complete loss like this, Daryl's strategy doesn't have much credibility left.
I don't know what SCO stock will do Monday. There will be a lot of downward pressure, but who would buy at any price that the owners would want to sell at? Only mental cases or souvenir hunters would have any interest in the stock. I wonder if it will even budge if no one buys.
I don't understand how the comparison can even be close to valid. The ancient group spans 700 years, the modern group is one snapshot. I dare say that any 700 year group would show more diversity than any single snapshot.
This just in: Pixar's Nemo, found in hard drive. News at 11.
Mine only goes to 10, you insensitive clod!
So I am ahead? Then maybe I should continue criticizing Microsoft, fanboy.
You need to learn to argue better.
I'll (try to) answer the responses to my post here.
Yes, I know his patches address interactivity rather than thruput, which is precisely his complaint, that all the effort has been to increase thruput rather than latency. I also know that some people think linux has poor latency. My own servers, when configured as servers, do have poor latency, and I appreciate his patches.
However, to blame it all on latency is wrong. Microsoft didn't get their monopoly by playing fairly, and they didn't get it from better latency. If latency were so important because of perceptions of the response time destroying the user experience, then Microsoft would have long since lost market share for their shoddy programs, hard to use GUI, phony security, constant crashes, general bugginess, and for any number of other user-visible deficiencies, not to mention the continual forced upgrades and restrictive licensing.
If users don't give up on Microsoft because of all that, what makes you think latency matters?
As for OS X, I have a MacBook, and its responsiveness is not at all impressive to me. About the only non-Apple software on it is Firefox. No, holding up OS X as a leader in responsiveness is a like holding up Microsoft as a leader in happy user experiences.
Right, blame it all on the kernel performance, as if the average user could even notice, say, a 10% difference in any kind of speed.
Nothing to do with a monopoly.
Nothing to do with existing applications that WINE can't handle.
Just kernel speed. He's a freakin' genius, this boy is.
Probably at the county jail, being anonymous and all.
Yup, in fact Slashdot is the only place where I ever read about intelligent design. Then again I live in Europe.
Well that explains it all! All decent god fearing Americans understand that intelligent and Europe don't go together. An intelligent designer would have intelligently designed things such that the smart people in Europe would migrate to America where they could displace the other dumb people who had only been invented to give the intelligent people target practice.
Duh!
After all, condoms hadn't even been invented yet, y'know?
No I don't know. Plastics weren't invented until the 1800s and 1900s, but there were condoms made from organic materials before then. Said organic materials aren't likely to be preserved in the archaeological record of 30,000 years ago, so we can't tell if they had condoms back then.
Are you talking about gay (bee fetishists) or (gay bee) fetishists?
Why can't you have a president that is NEITHER an idiot nor an eco-fascist?
Because there was no third choice. Because you have to choose the lesser of two evils. Because politics doesn't happen in a vacuum. Because you have to vote for what is available. Because the choice in the booth is relative.
What don't you understand about real world voting?
Its about opposing what the other guy likes and vice versa. Especially when that person is Bush.
He does do a lot of that, I have to admit. Good catch.
Yes, and the solution you should have employed is to understand that MOSIX and OpenMOSIX are two different projects.
Open mouth, insert foot is the solution you did employ.
In a perverse way, I kind of like that, sort of like copyleft is a parody of copyright.
But my intent was to show that patents are not business' best friend. They lock companies in to their current product line instead of always doing what is best, and when they prevent competitors from building upon their idea and doing better, they are bad for society too.
I personally think patents have too little benefit and should be done away with. For every instance of a patent working like the system was expected to work, there must be hundreds or thousands of useless patents, or worse, patents which block progress.
DeBeers will rush to tout this tech. One, this will soak up the market for cubic zirconoia. Two, they will advertise it so much that the women who are attracted to bling will have an even worse attitude towards cubic zirconia. "What?!? Why don't you buy me a muffler while you're at it?"
Here's something from a Wright Brothers website I found for a different reply below.
It was becoming clear, however, that the lead in flight technology had passed from the Wright Company to other manufactures, in particular the French. Wilbur felt that this was due to the enormous time they had been compelled to devote, since 1906, to protecting their patents and exploiting the commercial value of their invention. Had they been able to sell their flying machine to governments, as they originally intended, they might have had more time for the research required to improve their invention.
Mentioned before this is why they had not been able to sell to governments. They were so paranoid of their ideas being stolen that they refused to even demonstrate that they actually could fly unless the governments they wanted to sell to signed NDAs. Of course no government was willing to do that for such grandiose claims.
The important patent the Wright brothers got didn't have anything to do with aerodynamic designs at all.
The patent squabble that lasted until forcibly resolved by the government, and which Curtis fought tooth and nail, was for wing warping.
Here is something from a Wright Brothers website.
August, 1909 also marked the initiation of a long patent war with Glen Hammond Curtis, who earlier that year had formed the Curtis-Herring Company with Augustus Herring and built a successful airplane with a control system that the Wrights felt was an infringement on their patent.
They first flew under barely controllable circumstances Dec 17, 1903, but then spent several years trying to keep it secret, or at least not publicize it, while they made it practical. They used wing warping which physically bent the wings to control roll, and in order to get around this patented idea, Curtis, in 1908 I think, invented ailerons, hinged sections of wing which have been in use ever since. The Wrights spent the next ten years in court over the matter, and it wasn't settled until the US government forced a settlement when it joined WW I. The Wrights never did much at all after the first few years except sue the competition in court. Everyone else made advances in the technology, but not the Wrights, and they later had to merge just to keep the name in business.
A real lesson in the relative merits of innovation to stay at the front of the pack instead of dying in court battles.
Their signal at Pearl Harbor was Torah Torah Torah.
Yeh, but it's SWEDISH granny porn.
Maybe yours was second. When they got the first one, it was good enough, no point in waiting for a better one that might not ever arrive.
Theo posts a link to a GIF of the errata, wherein AE4 and AE11 appear to describe the same bug (REP MOVS across a memory type boundary) but one says SHOW STOPPER while the other says possible effect on performance, no data loss or corruption.
'twould be nice if the errata were more consistent. I'll have to check thePDF.