Frankly I don't think this will really do much for or against the adoption of FOSS. The fact of the matter is Linux/*BSD/Apache/Perl/et al are taking off all by themselves, and the way the licenses are designed there's no way to legislate FOSS out of existance without fundamentally changing copyright laws, so much in so it would be detrimental to all software companies.
FOSS is here to stay and will continue to be adopted whether or not the WIPO sit around and talk about it.
Someain'thappy at all. There seem to be a small core set of ISVs / Developer that are sticking by SCO, but according to this guy things aren't looking too healthy on the "product" side of SCO.
And you really think that every user of Linux, every vendor and every company should bet that all 890,000+ lines of code come from 1979 or earlier? Do you really think UNIX Version 7 in 1979 had a NUMA implementation?
And has SysV or any version of UnixWare / OpenUnix had a NUMA implementation? As far as I know the answer to that question is a big, fat *no*. This seems to be the crux of the SCO headfake: It isnt' SCO code to begin with. Apparently, most (all?) of the code in question is IBM's (by SCO's own admission). If IBM submitted it to the Linux kernel it isn't exactly "stolen" since its hard to steal something that was given to you.
Of course, SCO doesn't frame it in those terms. They *may* have licensing rights over certain code assuming that a) the code in questions is deemed by a court to be derivitive of SysV code and b) the licence IBM and AT&T signed governing the SysV code is binding (in the way SCO claims it is), but the NUMA, RCP, etc. implementations are most certainly not their code.
*If* there actual SysV code found in Linux (that is copyrighted SCO/AT&T/Whoever) in Linux then they still have a bunch of problems. 1st being they seem to have released all the old legacy stuff under a BSD license, not to mention the whole AT&T vs. BSD which pretty much kills any of their claims.
To sum up: if its old code chance are SCO has no claim to it due to the AT&T case and the fact they BSD'ed a lot of stuff. If its new code chances are its not SCOs to begin with.
Boies has been a Democrat party pawn for some time, so that may suggest some political connections there...
And if the current administration is still in power if and when this happens how happy would they be to embarrass the guy who defended Gore in Florida? In one word: VERY.
But they weren't funded for the "greater good," they were funded to solve particular, defined problems (mostly military). The fact that they helped spawn an information revolution was a secondary, and unplanned, benefit. Frankly, that's a much better way of going about "funding" software than the "programmer welfare" the topic seems to be advocating.
Have they actually gotten down to minor version numbers? Last I heard they were simply saying 2.4 (and 2.5). If this is indeed true it should be pretty trivial to find all the changes from 2.4.17 to 2.4.18 and start narrowing down the list of suspects.
(I agree, I bet you'll find it was Caldera/SCO submitted code, considering old Love said that migrating features from SysV to Linux was their top prioritiy after the SCO buyout)
For *my* needs (ie. not a professional, not wealthy, but artistically inclined) GIMP is just what I need.
If you read any of my posts I pretty much agree with that (but still prefer PS Elements), but this thread wasn't about what you or I needed, but what Disney's needs were. Stated in the article was that GIMP and CinePaint *didn't* meet their needs, which is why they stuck with PS. This whole thread was about why Disney, et al didn't chuck PS along with windows and go Linux/GIMP.
I suspect because it would be expensive. If you add all of the controls and headphone jack to the dock you then have to pump data from the drive to the dock. Thus, the dock has to have USB hub hardware for data transfer from the drive to the dock. With all of the controls / jack on the drive all the dock needs to do is provide power to the drive, which I suspect is a much simpler hardware setup (thus cheaper).
Finally, you didn't answer my question -- what EXACTLY does PS do better? If it is just a matter of interface difference and CYMK, then a decent skin and key bindings could go a long way.
No idea. As I said in the orig. post I'm (artistically) crap with both GIMP and PS and am in no position to comment on technical superiority (although I will say the learning curve for PS Elements was a hell of a lot better than for the GIMP) and the folks I kno that do graphics arts work that I know prefer PS (a few folks like Corel) over GIMP for whatever reason. I didn't state it was for technical or any other. They all, even ones who have played around with GIMP, prefer to use PS to do real work so I assume there's a very good reason for it.
Again, these folks do this for a *living*, have deadlines to meet, etc. Why force them to eat into productive time to learn a new program just to meet someone else's political view of "what's right"?
This is the thrust of the entire article. Disney's (and the two other, unnamed companies') workers use Photoshop. Moving PS from windows to linux obviously saved more money from ditching Windows licenses over time than the investment they put into tweaking WINE. Save $$$ = good. But, as the article stated, GIMP and CinePaint didn't meet their requirements. Thus, there was no saving of $$$ since the time and effort needed to bring GIMP and CinePaint up to the level of PS (not to mention training) would cost more than the savings they would have gotten from tossing the Adobe licenses. One day this *may* happen in the future, but obviously it wasn't a good business decision now.
Just because it doesn't meet some zealot's political muster doesn't mean it was a bad idea.
An application doesn't bestow one with talent no matter how well it's written.
But it can be a tool that makes a talented person's life a hell of a lot easier.
A talented carpernter may be able to build a house with a Bowie knife and 20 acres of forest, but its not exactly the quickest and easiest way of doing it, especially if there are commercial demands and deadlines to meet. Sure, you're pure "artist" could render Finding Nemo with a #2 pencil, but how long would it take him.
Personally, for the amount of PSing I do (bad Fark contests) the gimp and PS (or PS Elements) is a wash (mainly because I suck eggs). BUT... from the folks who do some sort of graphic design for a living almost all of them swear by PS, and quite a few of them have dicked around with the GIMP as well. To a (wo)man they all say it just isn't as good of a tool to get the type of work done in a timely manner.
Or maybe they just wanted to use the tool that's best for them. Considering its their time, their money and their livelyhood I figure this particular scratch to their particular itch is a hell of a lot more productive than your whining about the Gimp.
So, it means you can run it on another platform. If all of your other tools run on linux you can now ditch the 2nd box on your desk / VMWare partition on your disk. Not to mention its one less piece of software you have to license. Read the article: its all about the $$$.
I'm not saying that a lot won't stick with Microsoft, hell where I went to uni we had a nice, big computer lab stocked with PS/2 (and IBM did sell a lot of those puppies), but plenty of other people contiued to buy Compaqs and other "clones." So many, in fact, that IBM couldn't recapture 100% of the market for themselves. Essentially IBM lost being the technology lead of the PC business because they wanted the pie to themselves. MS will face exactly the same fate over.NET. Either they respect the "standard" and contiue to drive the evolution of.NET, and thus allow Mono, et al to survive and flurish, or they try to hijack the standard and risk losing all control over it whatsoever. MS aren't dumb. Mono should be safe for quite a while.
My take is Novell bought them for (in order of importance):
- Mono - Having a well known "Open Source" company associated with them - - - - - - - - Everything else
I assume that Nat and Miguel only accepted under their own terms (i.e. business as usual at Ximian) and wouldn't have sold if it ment they were to knive a bunch of their babies, thus Novell are looking to have some Mono/.Net work done, or they simply want the "glamor" of a respected Open Source company attached to their name.
Doubtful. Once the barn door is open its hard to close. IBM is a perfect example: Make a business computer out of standard parts (mainly because the project is a fast tracked, skunkworks type project without the time or budget to build everything inhouse), watch the "clone" makers jump into your market, try to squash the clone market with the proprietary MCA style PS/2s. Where did the market go?
Same thing would probably happend with MS. Unless it can kill mono completely (via IP claims) once its out of the bag they probably won't be able to control it with an iron fist. Even if they change APIs midstream if Mono has enough of a following and is cross platform an awful lot of people will stick with it.
So buying time of a politician is not a form of corruption?
Is a saleman taking a client out to eat / a ballgame a form of corruption (since it is, by definition, buying someone's time)?
And if the RIAA is corrupt by buying access/time to a congressman, then so is the EFF.
Face it, politics is a nasty dirty business that no honest man will have anything to do with. To state otherwise reveals either a lack of critical examination or deluded ideals.
On this I will somewhat agree. The simple solution then is to limit what gov't can do; it cuts the legs from right out under them. Easy to say, but hard to do since most everyone, no matter what their political stripe, certainly wants the gov't to redress some disadvantage they have (be it real or imagined)
Hell, I have the orig 5 and while the thought of playlists on the fly is nice, for the most part I just put my baby on random and let it go to town. The only thing I would fix if I could would be to have the non-rotating thumbwheel (since mine is getting a bit crusty from so much use), and no firmware update is going to fix that.
Slashdot Mirror
Frankly I don't think this will really do much for or against the adoption of FOSS. The fact of the matter is Linux/*BSD/Apache/Perl/et al are taking off all by themselves, and the way the licenses are designed there's no way to legislate FOSS out of existance without fundamentally changing copyright laws, so much in so it would be detrimental to all software companies.
FOSS is here to stay and will continue to be adopted whether or not the WIPO sit around and talk about it.
Some ain't happy at all. There seem to be a small core set of ISVs / Developer that are sticking by SCO, but according to this guy things aren't looking too healthy on the "product" side of SCO.
And you really think that every user of Linux, every vendor and every company should bet that all 890,000+ lines of code come from 1979 or earlier? Do you really think UNIX Version 7 in 1979 had a NUMA implementation?
And has SysV or any version of UnixWare / OpenUnix had a NUMA implementation? As far as I know the answer to that question is a big, fat *no*. This seems to be the crux of the SCO headfake: It isnt' SCO code to begin with. Apparently, most (all?) of the code in question is IBM's (by SCO's own admission). If IBM submitted it to the Linux kernel it isn't exactly "stolen" since its hard to steal something that was given to you.
Of course, SCO doesn't frame it in those terms. They *may* have licensing rights over certain code assuming that a) the code in questions is deemed by a court to be derivitive of SysV code and b) the licence IBM and AT&T signed governing the SysV code is binding (in the way SCO claims it is), but the NUMA, RCP, etc. implementations are most certainly not their code.
*If* there actual SysV code found in Linux (that is copyrighted SCO/AT&T/Whoever) in Linux then they still have a bunch of problems. 1st being they seem to have released all the old legacy stuff under a BSD license, not to mention the whole AT&T vs. BSD which pretty much kills any of their claims.
To sum up: if its old code chance are SCO has no claim to it due to the AT&T case and the fact they BSD'ed a lot of stuff. If its new code chances are its not SCOs to begin with.
Boies has been a Democrat party pawn for some time, so that may suggest some political connections there...
And if the current administration is still in power if and when this happens how happy would they be to embarrass the guy who defended Gore in Florida? In one word: VERY.
But they weren't funded for the "greater good," they were funded to solve particular, defined problems (mostly military). The fact that they helped spawn an information revolution was a secondary, and unplanned, benefit. Frankly, that's a much better way of going about "funding" software than the "programmer welfare" the topic seems to be advocating.
They're claiming 2.4.18 and later is infringeing.
Have they actually gotten down to minor version numbers? Last I heard they were simply saying 2.4 (and 2.5). If this is indeed true it should be pretty trivial to find all the changes from 2.4.17 to 2.4.18 and start narrowing down the list of suspects.
(I agree, I bet you'll find it was Caldera/SCO submitted code, considering old Love said that migrating features from SysV to Linux was their top prioritiy after the SCO buyout)
For *my* needs (ie. not a professional, not wealthy, but artistically inclined) GIMP is just what I need.
If you read any of my posts I pretty much agree with that (but still prefer PS Elements), but this thread wasn't about what you or I needed, but what Disney's needs were. Stated in the article was that GIMP and CinePaint *didn't* meet their needs, which is why they stuck with PS. This whole thread was about why Disney, et al didn't chuck PS along with windows and go Linux/GIMP.
ah, well I stand corrected.
ok, but man, mankind, and he, are generic terms for our race and members of it who happen to be of either gender. According to the dictionary.
Is that still valid if I'm talking about a very specific group of 4-5 guys and a couple of women (the sum total of graphic artist-y types I know)?
I suspect because it would be expensive. If you add all of the controls and headphone jack to the dock you then have to pump data from the drive to the dock. Thus, the dock has to have USB hub hardware for data transfer from the drive to the dock. With all of the controls / jack on the drive all the dock needs to do is provide power to the drive, which I suspect is a much simpler hardware setup (thus cheaper).
Finally, you didn't answer my question -- what EXACTLY does PS do better? If it is just a matter of interface difference and CYMK, then a decent skin and key bindings could go a long way.
No idea. As I said in the orig. post I'm (artistically) crap with both GIMP and PS and am in no position to comment on technical superiority (although I will say the learning curve for PS Elements was a hell of a lot better than for the GIMP) and the folks I kno that do graphics arts work that I know prefer PS (a few folks like Corel) over GIMP for whatever reason. I didn't state it was for technical or any other. They all, even ones who have played around with GIMP, prefer to use PS to do real work so I assume there's a very good reason for it.
Again, these folks do this for a *living*, have deadlines to meet, etc. Why force them to eat into productive time to learn a new program just to meet someone else's political view of "what's right"?
This is the thrust of the entire article. Disney's (and the two other, unnamed companies') workers use Photoshop. Moving PS from windows to linux obviously saved more money from ditching Windows licenses over time than the investment they put into tweaking WINE. Save $$$ = good. But, as the article stated, GIMP and CinePaint didn't meet their requirements. Thus, there was no saving of $$$ since the time and effort needed to bring GIMP and CinePaint up to the level of PS (not to mention training) would cost more than the savings they would have gotten from tossing the Adobe licenses. One day this *may* happen in the future, but obviously it wasn't a good business decision now.
Just because it doesn't meet some zealot's political muster doesn't mean it was a bad idea.
No, some of the graphic artists are, you know, WOMEN. If they were all guys I would have said "to a man."
An application doesn't bestow one with talent no matter how well it's written.
But it can be a tool that makes a talented person's life a hell of a lot easier.
A talented carpernter may be able to build a house with a Bowie knife and 20 acres of forest, but its not exactly the quickest and easiest way of doing it, especially if there are commercial demands and deadlines to meet. Sure, you're pure "artist" could render Finding Nemo with a #2 pencil, but how long would it take him.
Personally, for the amount of PSing I do (bad Fark contests) the gimp and PS (or PS Elements) is a wash (mainly because I suck eggs). BUT... from the folks who do some sort of graphic design for a living almost all of them swear by PS, and quite a few of them have dicked around with the GIMP as well. To a (wo)man they all say it just isn't as good of a tool to get the type of work done in a timely manner.
Or maybe they just wanted to use the tool that's best for them. Considering its their time, their money and their livelyhood I figure this particular scratch to their particular itch is a hell of a lot more productive than your whining about the Gimp.
So, it means you can run it on another platform. If all of your other tools run on linux you can now ditch the 2nd box on your desk / VMWare partition on your disk. Not to mention its one less piece of software you have to license. Read the article: its all about the $$$.
Good job I say.
I'm not saying that a lot won't stick with Microsoft, hell where I went to uni we had a nice, big computer lab stocked with PS/2 (and IBM did sell a lot of those puppies), but plenty of other people contiued to buy Compaqs and other "clones." So many, in fact, that IBM couldn't recapture 100% of the market for themselves. Essentially IBM lost being the technology lead of the PC business because they wanted the pie to themselves. MS will face exactly the same fate over .NET. Either they respect the "standard" and contiue to drive the evolution of .NET, and thus allow Mono, et al to survive and flurish, or they try to hijack the standard and risk losing all control over it whatsoever. MS aren't dumb. Mono should be safe for quite a while.
My take is Novell bought them for (in order of importance):
- Mono
- Having a well known "Open Source" company associated with them
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Everything else
I assume that Nat and Miguel only accepted under their own terms (i.e. business as usual at Ximian) and wouldn't have sold if it ment they were to knive a bunch of their babies, thus Novell are looking to have some Mono/.Net work done, or they simply want the "glamor" of a respected Open Source company attached to their name.
Doubtful. Once the barn door is open its hard to close. IBM is a perfect example: Make a business computer out of standard parts (mainly because the project is a fast tracked, skunkworks type project without the time or budget to build everything inhouse), watch the "clone" makers jump into your market, try to squash the clone market with the proprietary MCA style PS/2s. Where did the market go?
Same thing would probably happend with MS. Unless it can kill mono completely (via IP claims) once its out of the bag they probably won't be able to control it with an iron fist. Even if they change APIs midstream if Mono has enough of a following and is cross platform an awful lot of people will stick with it.
I always liked the urban legend that XP was Chi-Roe (Cairo, the old internal project name)
How?
So buying time of a politician is not a form of corruption?
Is a saleman taking a client out to eat / a ballgame a form of corruption (since it is, by definition, buying someone's time)?
And if the RIAA is corrupt by buying access/time to a congressman, then so is the EFF.
Face it, politics is a nasty dirty business that no honest man will have anything to do with. To state otherwise reveals either a lack of critical examination or deluded ideals.
On this I will somewhat agree. The simple solution then is to limit what gov't can do; it cuts the legs from right out under them. Easy to say, but hard to do since most everyone, no matter what their political stripe, certainly wants the gov't to redress some disadvantage they have (be it real or imagined)
Which is just too damn funny. To build on his own original example your responses read like some PHB we like to gripe about here...
"Linux? Its a toy OS made by a bunch of hippies... not going to use it here."
And then when you try to defend Linux as a possible platform choice...
"Well, of course you'd support it since you are one of the aformentioned commie hippies..."
Nice blanket statement. It highlights your ignorance very well.
Go read the re-rebuttal. Diebold's claim that there is no connectivity seems to be a bold face lie.
Hell, I have the orig 5 and while the thought of playlists on the fly is nice, for the most part I just put my baby on random and let it go to town. The only thing I would fix if I could would be to have the non-rotating thumbwheel (since mine is getting a bit crusty from so much use), and no firmware update is going to fix that.