No wonder D'ohl wouldn't write out Microsoft as a future target of litigation. If Microsoft had to pay for all of the IP they stole, they'd implode. But first, they'd need wider cheque-books to handle the extra zeros.
The flaws in the AC's reasoning are (1) we don't steal, only share our own work between ourselves; and (2) The SCO Group have released the code under the GPL (and if not, then by their own reasoning no Linux users are liable for TSG's claimed IP); and (3) Caldera contributed code to the Linux kernel in the contested areas; and (4) Ransom Love publicly stated on several occasions that Caldera would be contributing code to Linux; and (5) TSG have contributed to their own damage, annhilating the value in any claims.
In short, if your comment gets a positive moderation it should be for humour.
The reason is that The SCO Group want to extort money from people and also drive up their share price. Note that a lot of the upper crust in there have been dumping their shares already, so at least they think the farce is nearly over. The share price has stopped rising for now, and even took a big hit on Monday ($13 -> $11 in two hours).
Linus replacing the code would not have any impact on TSG's damages claim, even if they had one.
Let's make a stupid presumption and say that TSG's code claims are all 100% straight-up correct. Because they have not showed the code, the people they are threatening to sue cannot determine whether they are using it or not. The law requires them to be able to. This has axed any and all damages claims that TSG may have had. TSG is able to claim zero dollars in damages right now because they've massively contributed to the damage by their own acts.
It would also take a very unreasonable judge to disallow you time to bring your systems into compliance, and as you said, Linus and his troops would replace it so fast that TSG wouldn't even have time to print out the legal documents requiring them to stop using UnixWare-derived code, let alone serve those papers. Some of the bits would head out over the wire only half-compressed.
A Pyrric victory indeed for TSG. So instead they try extortion - and I think the wheels are about to come off that caper as well.
"Won't anybody think of the chil- er, ^H^H^H^H, shareholders?"
The only real reason for founding a for-profit organisation is (big surprise) to make a profit. But that doesn't give the organisation any more right to break or bend laws or social conventions than it does an individual.
"Stacked" being slang (at least, it is here in Oz) for "pranged", "bent" or in Yankee parlance "wrecked".
Microsoft has but one software stack which can be piled up only one way and involves fitting a nose-ring. Where do you want to go today? Sorry, that location isn't supported. You insensitive clod.
Linux, on the other hand, has been "stacking" software after the fashion Mr Taylor intended to convey all of its busy little life. For a simple but clear model, gawk is stacked on bash is stacked on Linux. When you run a shell-script invoking gawk you have a three-deep software stack. When your PHP-powered web page churns out a Flash movie, that's a four-deep stack (Ming on Php on Apache on Linux). After %s/Linux/${RANDOM}BSD/g it still works jess farn. Big fat whoop-ti-do?
What Taylor will be focussing on will be the "advantages" of being chained to Microsoft's methods, protocols and software. The advantages are huge, it's just the polarity that's wrong: they are advantages for Microsoft, against their customers. That's what it's been all about since Bill published his "Open Letter to Hackers". Just like Linux services, Microsoft Facts(tm) will do less and cost more. Nothing new here... except that customers will be wondering why the Microsoft reps keep calling them "the lovely Miss Connie Swayle".
...it sounds like Microsoft has reopened their Baghdad office, may my stomach roast in hell if they haven't. (-: This office was never closed, never! It is all lies spread by these communistic scum to drag our good name through the mud!:-)
So that would explain BLOBs in their XML, deliberately broken sequencing in their TCP stack and their arbitrary extensions to Kerberos?
Welcome to Planet Earth! We have this company called Microsoft here, and it wears the stamp of its founder's personality.
Their first product (4K ROM BASIC for the Altair) was vapour-ware when it was sold and self-confessedly buggy after that, the bloke who did the hardest work in it isn't even mentioned on their web-site, and they had fixed-size elevators on the sides of their windows for the longest time simply because the Macintosh did. DOS apparently still ain't done because Lotus still runs, their pet platform supports an unmatched collection of over 70,000 different viruses, and whoever they can't bully or trick into submission they buy and trash. HELLO? <waves>
ISO Common Criteria (CC) security certification for Windows: "Moderate to High" security
Of course, that all goes out the (cough) window when you plug a modem or network cable into it (-: or a monitor, keyboard or any removable media if you heark back to their C3 compliance for NT 3.5.:-)
People who use glass products shouldn't throw stones.
I think the main reason for this is because it already has, it's just that the dopey and the terminally stupid have failed to notice it.
Can I quote you a for-example? This is a bloke called Christopher Dawkins who runs his whole school (Felstead, in Essex) on Linux desktops. Kim Perkins, who runs his entire school (Strathcona, in Melbourne) on Linux fat clients, would say pretty much the same thing. And of course neither Munich or Largo would be of a mind to disagree with them:
I have been using thin clients of many sorts for over thirty years. I have tried three or four ways of thin-clienting Windows, and reckon that's the problem: you can't. It's just not thin-client-friendly. It's not network-friendly either: networks weren't anywhere in the minds of those who designed either Windows or Macs. You can network either system now, of course, but with expensive snags. Thin-clienting is an extension of the network idea, and neither system likes it.
I run here a large number of KDE thin clients, and basically (given the assistance of a guru - this is vital) it's easy. It just works. All the apps are sensibly written to accommodate the multiple-user highly networked thin-client (or thick client, as you wish) paradigm. I look at the things that concern other people and just wonder what planet they're on. Viruses? What's a virus? Expensive? Yes, BT do charge a lot for ISDN connectivity. Point of failure? Failure? Yes, being in the country we do have nasty power cuts. Slow? Yes, I agree, I find my 40MHz clients too slow now and am upgrading to 166 and above, and I have now changed both my personal desktops to 200MHz. Hacking? Have you tried to hack FreeBSD? VPN? World-wide access to our system seems to have been built-in from the start. The default assumption seems to be that you can do the same whether a metre or a megametre from the server, though granted it is faster to be closer.
I may have exaggerated a little! I had serious server congestion with classes using StarOffice from 20 clients concurrently when there was one 500MHz 256M application server four years ago. That was fixed by spreading the load over four or five similar machines (no licensing costs of course, and discarded Windows machines made good servers), and last year by adding a new one with twin 2.4GHz processors and a gigabyte of RAM. I am now re-allocating the 500/700MHz servers.
I am sure that the Linux (in my case FreeBSD) RAM-sharing system is a lot more efficient than the Windows one, and I suspect multi-user context switching is too - certainly at all times in the last eight years of using these servers I have noted that schools using other platforms generally have servers of around four times the power of mine for roughly similar loads.
For example. From April 2001 till August 2002 our main server was a 700MHz Athlon with 256MB RAM. It did all our DNS, DHCP, local Web serving with dynamic PHP pages, MySQL databases, printserving to half a dozen printers and running POP/IMAP/SMTP services for around 1500 emails a day. I was conccerned about it being overloaded: it did slow down at times, processor usage often exceeded 100% during that last term. So we investigated, and found the BIOS had disabled the processor cache, giving it an effective speed of 100MHz. We turned the cache on, and it's breezed along for the last year, mostly around 20% load with no problems. Were you running last year with your main server at 100MHz?
Slower machines use less electricity, of course, and that's now becoming quite an issue. I've just bought a C3 VIA mini-ITX machine, and I reckon it's the shape of things to come. No fans, for a start!
I therefore agree with you - thin clients aren't viable in the school classroom.
...they only use Microsoft(c)(R)(tm)-compatible facts. After all, you can't trust just any old fact, can you? What good is a fact if it hasn't been centrally acknowledged by a competent corporation? It needs to be passed as Factually-Uniform Documentation.
Who knows, it might be an improvement...
on
Novell Buys Ximian
·
· Score: 1
...you might switch to KDE. (-: g/d/r:-)
Dang, you're going to need another example (-:
on
Novell Buys Ximian
·
· Score: 1
The way that bugs become resistant to pesticides is a good example of evolution in action.
"Bugs" is a fairly generalised Americanism, but if it means "insects" then the way the population becomes resistant by letting the members of it who are not resistant die. This means that the population as a whole loses genetic information and becomes, overall, weaker. No evolving takes place. In order for evolution to work, there must be a mechanism for generating new, useful genetic information at least as fast as it is destroyed in this manner.
If "bugs" means bacteria, they exchange information in forms like protein rings, and this is a "design feature", not an accident. No new information is being made, it's just being swapped around. No evolving takes place. Whichever bacteria are holding the magic info when the plague arrives survive, and so the information itself survives. Kind of like musical chairs, only not as funny.
I try to hate no one. That is one of ways I try to express my faith in a God.
Almost every religion has The Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. For Atheism to be sustainable, even it has to have a similar rule.
I am just not as good as it as I would like.
Just as programming would be a lot easier if it weren't for all of these annoying users, so a good attitude is much easier in the absence of real-world subjects on which to practice it.
The SCO Group: getting the "purloined IP in GPL code" question out of the way spectacularly and soon by charging in really stupidly with all guns blazing and no facts behind them only to die in court very messily (with, I predict, D'ohl storming out at the last moment then turning around to sue TSG and probably also Canopy for stuffing up his impeccable ploy), thus frightening off any other wakkers who feel inclined to try the same lousy trick for real.
Microsoft will keep altering CIFS until SAMBA can't keep up.
Tridge and the SaMBa team have zero tolerance for this kind of thing.
The short story is that Microsoft can fiddle it all they like, Australian law will ensure that Tridge and his crew are free to reverse-engineer it. Meanwhile, Microsoft will be alienating customers, giving them yet another reason to switch (to linux or another alternate).
Unlike some academic situations where "zero tolerance" has been used as yet another excuse for picking on minorities or unusual people, the SaMBa team have a clear and simple mandate.
...given that "bigot" is attributed to martyrs who refused to renounce their faith: "No, b'God!"
Mr A. "Jackass" Coward is probably a left-winger.
I don't follow either wing, but I do agree with so many others - even some Atheists - that the theory of evolution is a dangerous crock. Because it can be bent to fit any situation (nothing so funny as watching two True Believers bending it convincingly in opposite directions to explain a contradiction) it has no explanatory power at all.
Despite this, it is used to justify murder (genocide, euthanasia and abortion), rape, sundering of families on eugenic and other grounds, and so much other destructive stuff.
I surmise that it might only be a pressing problem if you combine it with extremism, because the Roman Catholic Church has killed or caused the death of something in the order of 100 million people and they were and still officially are creationist - just. And I hear many right-wingers making statements that add up to the same stupid pseudo-rationale: "the ends justify the means".
Nevertheless, there is much that contradicts evolution even in Truly Believing publications that would never dream of knowingly exposing evidence against the One True Faith; but because they can only see evolution everywhere they look, it never dawns on them that it's only their preconceptions that make it so, or that looked at without that prejudice the evidence they rely on tells a completely different story.
"Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is still repeated as gospel well over a hundred years after it was conclusively shown to be deliberate fraud. Big polystrate fossils are either ignored or given the most breathtakingly daring explanations. Cubic kilometers of homogeneous alluvials with no internal evidence of conformities are just written off. Every new discovery in microbiology raises another apparently insuperable barrier to gradual development but is marketed as a shiny new discovery brought to us by all-conquering evolution. And so on.
On the other side of the story, all of the major arguments for long time periods have holes in them. Tree-rings and ice-layers have both been shown to be semi-annual, big time. Oxygen "varves" and gradients are known to be natural and relatively short-term (hundreds or thousands of years rather than millions or billions). Arp's quantified redshifts and linked quasars have poked big holes in uniformitarian cosmology (Arp himself is not creationist). And so on.
It might be an attention-getter tagline, but it's transient. (-:
Slashdot Mirror
abuse@sco.com plus a page-pummeling bot sounds like a good deal to me. (-:
I include mutation. Expecting that to add structure is like expecting to be able to add structure to Lego with an assult rifle.
TSG have explicitly refused to rule out "contamination" of the 2.2 kernels.
No wonder D'ohl wouldn't write out Microsoft as a future target of litigation. If Microsoft had to pay for all of the IP they stole, they'd implode. But first, they'd need wider cheque-books to handle the extra zeros.
The flaws in the AC's reasoning are (1) we don't steal, only share our own work between ourselves; and (2) The SCO Group have released the code under the GPL (and if not, then by their own reasoning no Linux users are liable for TSG's claimed IP); and (3) Caldera contributed code to the Linux kernel in the contested areas; and (4) Ransom Love publicly stated on several occasions that Caldera would be contributing code to Linux; and (5) TSG have contributed to their own damage, annhilating the value in any claims.
In short, if your comment gets a positive moderation it should be for humour.
Er, is that the rattle and hum of SEC servers mainlining OpenBSD packages I hear...? (-:
Linus replacing the code would not have any impact on TSG's damages claim, even if they had one.
Let's make a stupid presumption and say that TSG's code claims are all 100% straight-up correct. Because they have not showed the code, the people they are threatening to sue cannot determine whether they are using it or not. The law requires them to be able to. This has axed any and all damages claims that TSG may have had. TSG is able to claim zero dollars in damages right now because they've massively contributed to the damage by their own acts.
It would also take a very unreasonable judge to disallow you time to bring your systems into compliance, and as you said, Linus and his troops would replace it so fast that TSG wouldn't even have time to print out the legal documents requiring them to stop using UnixWare-derived code, let alone serve those papers. Some of the bits would head out over the wire only half-compressed.
A Pyrric victory indeed for TSG. So instead they try extortion - and I think the wheels are about to come off that caper as well.
...really? (-:
Who could fire you? Would they fire Bill Gates if he bought IBM? All of IBM? (-:
What do the source files actually say? Is there a copyright message in them?
The only real reason for founding a for-profit organisation is (big surprise) to make a profit. But that doesn't give the organisation any more right to break or bend laws or social conventions than it does an individual.
Microsoft has but one software stack which can be piled up only one way and involves fitting a nose-ring. Where do you want to go today? Sorry, that location isn't supported. You insensitive clod.
Linux, on the other hand, has been "stacking" software after the fashion Mr Taylor intended to convey all of its busy little life. For a simple but clear model, gawk is stacked on bash is stacked on Linux. When you run a shell-script invoking gawk you have a three-deep software stack. When your PHP-powered web page churns out a Flash movie, that's a four-deep stack (Ming on Php on Apache on Linux). After %s/Linux/${RANDOM}BSD/g it still works jess farn. Big fat whoop-ti-do?
What Taylor will be focussing on will be the "advantages" of being chained to Microsoft's methods, protocols and software. The advantages are huge, it's just the polarity that's wrong: they are advantages for Microsoft, against their customers. That's what it's been all about since Bill published his "Open Letter to Hackers". Just like Linux services, Microsoft Facts(tm) will do less and cost more. Nothing new here... except that customers will be wondering why the Microsoft reps keep calling them "the lovely Miss Connie Swayle".
...it sounds like Microsoft has reopened their Baghdad office, may my stomach roast in hell if they haven't. (-: This office was never closed, never! It is all lies spread by these communistic scum to drag our good name through the mud! :-)
Ah.
So that would explain BLOBs in their XML, deliberately broken sequencing in their TCP stack and their arbitrary extensions to Kerberos?
Welcome to Planet Earth! We have this company called Microsoft here, and it wears the stamp of its founder's personality.
Their first product (4K ROM BASIC for the Altair) was vapour-ware when it was sold and self-confessedly buggy after that, the bloke who did the hardest work in it isn't even mentioned on their web-site, and they had fixed-size elevators on the sides of their windows for the longest time simply because the Macintosh did. DOS apparently still ain't done because Lotus still runs, their pet platform supports an unmatched collection of over 70,000 different viruses, and whoever they can't bully or trick into submission they buy and trash. HELLO? <waves>
Of course, that all goes out the (cough) window when you plug a modem or network cable into it (-: or a monitor, keyboard or any removable media if you heark back to their C3 compliance for NT 3.5. :-)
People who use glass products shouldn't throw stones.
I think the main reason for this is because it already has, it's just that the dopey and the terminally stupid have failed to notice it.
Can I quote you a for-example? This is a bloke called Christopher Dawkins who runs his whole school (Felstead, in Essex) on Linux desktops. Kim Perkins, who runs his entire school (Strathcona, in Melbourne) on Linux fat clients, would say pretty much the same thing. And of course neither Munich or Largo would be of a mind to disagree with them:
Get it? Got it? Oh, never mind...
Double the encryption on your tagline. That way I don't have to uninstall "tr".
...they only use Microsoft(c)(R)(tm)-compatible facts. After all, you can't trust just any old fact, can you? What good is a fact if it hasn't been centrally acknowledged by a competent corporation? It needs to be passed as Factually-Uniform Documentation.
Is that just a coincidence? (-:
...you might switch to KDE. (-: g/d/r :-)
"Bugs" is a fairly generalised Americanism, but if it means "insects" then the way the population becomes resistant by letting the members of it who are not resistant die. This means that the population as a whole loses genetic information and becomes, overall, weaker. No evolving takes place. In order for evolution to work, there must be a mechanism for generating new, useful genetic information at least as fast as it is destroyed in this manner.
If "bugs" means bacteria, they exchange information in forms like protein rings, and this is a "design feature", not an accident. No new information is being made, it's just being swapped around. No evolving takes place. Whichever bacteria are holding the magic info when the plague arrives survive, and so the information itself survives. Kind of like musical chairs, only not as funny.
Almost every religion has The Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. For Atheism to be sustainable, even it has to have a similar rule.
Just as programming would be a lot easier if it weren't for all of these annoying users, so a good attitude is much easier in the absence of real-world subjects on which to practice it.
wxRuby is about to go 1.0, and has a new entry on (the very OS-X-looking) RubyForge. Ruby itself is a great language!
...that TSG don't use Open Source Software?
Tridge and the SaMBa team have zero tolerance for this kind of thing.
The short story is that Microsoft can fiddle it all they like, Australian law will ensure that Tridge and his crew are free to reverse-engineer it. Meanwhile, Microsoft will be alienating customers, giving them yet another reason to switch (to linux or another alternate).
Unlike some academic situations where "zero tolerance" has been used as yet another excuse for picking on minorities or unusual people, the SaMBa team have a clear and simple mandate.
Mr A. "Jackass" Coward is probably a left-winger.
I don't follow either wing, but I do agree with so many others - even some Atheists - that the theory of evolution is a dangerous crock. Because it can be bent to fit any situation (nothing so funny as watching two True Believers bending it convincingly in opposite directions to explain a contradiction) it has no explanatory power at all.
Despite this, it is used to justify murder (genocide, euthanasia and abortion), rape, sundering of families on eugenic and other grounds, and so much other destructive stuff.
I surmise that it might only be a pressing problem if you combine it with extremism, because the Roman Catholic Church has killed or caused the death of something in the order of 100 million people and they were and still officially are creationist - just. And I hear many right-wingers making statements that add up to the same stupid pseudo-rationale: "the ends justify the means".
Nevertheless, there is much that contradicts evolution even in Truly Believing publications that would never dream of knowingly exposing evidence against the One True Faith; but because they can only see evolution everywhere they look, it never dawns on them that it's only their preconceptions that make it so, or that looked at without that prejudice the evidence they rely on tells a completely different story.
"Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is still repeated as gospel well over a hundred years after it was conclusively shown to be deliberate fraud. Big polystrate fossils are either ignored or given the most breathtakingly daring explanations. Cubic kilometers of homogeneous alluvials with no internal evidence of conformities are just written off. Every new discovery in microbiology raises another apparently insuperable barrier to gradual development but is marketed as a shiny new discovery brought to us by all-conquering evolution. And so on.
On the other side of the story, all of the major arguments for long time periods have holes in them. Tree-rings and ice-layers have both been shown to be semi-annual, big time. Oxygen "varves" and gradients are known to be natural and relatively short-term (hundreds or thousands of years rather than millions or billions). Arp's quantified redshifts and linked quasars have poked big holes in uniformitarian cosmology (Arp himself is not creationist). And so on.
It might be an attention-getter tagline, but it's transient. (-: