This makes me just as happy as Linux's market share growth. I love seeing Intel get humiliated like this! For years I've been saying that Intel is the MS of chip manufacturing, and now they've shot themselves in the foot. It's about damn time! Maybe Win2000 will be the Rambus of Microsoft?
The best rule of thumb is to be prepared for everything you say and write to be used against you. It's not right that that's the case, but there are many cases where your employer could accidentally bump into you (or your writing) that could put you in a very uncomfortable position. You'll never see me giving away and information or speaking badly about that big computer company based out of Round Rock for that reason.
Pez must think this will cut down on the occurance of sites with meta tags that say: Porn Porn Pez Candy Pez Porn Porn Rob Lowe Run DMC Naked Girls etc. By the way, here's a website that's breaking the law: http://www.pezheads.org/ Here are the meta tags: <META name="description" content="Shockwave games, non-java chatroom, PEZHead Locator, over 1700 dispensers for sale, PEZ facts, PEZ pictures, PEZ forum, Price Guide w/Photos, and SO much more! The LARGEST pez site, anywhere!"> <META name="keywords" content="Shockwave games, non-java Chatroom, PEZHead Locator, Shopping List PEZ Polling Booth, PEZ pictures, pez for sale, PEZ Price Guide, PEZ pictures, PEZ FAQ, new dispenser, PEZ forum, One Stop PEZ Shop, Flip Me Some PEZ"> Is/. now breaking the law too?
I don't see it as us against them. What I do see is that Sun is capaigning for the hearts and minds of Linux developers. Is that nessecarily a bad thing? Not really. Does it have the potential? I think so. I think that Sun wants to be detrimental to the Linux community without raising its ire. Maybe that's just conjecture on my part, but I see trends that I'm not ignoring. If you think I'm paranoid, so be it, but I think I'm being less paranoid than the most strident supporters of encryption. Sun has said a few bad things about Linux publicly, and if you don't see Linux as a competitor to Sun, it doesn't mean that they don't. They've communicated, in fact, that Linux is too "low end" to compete, but don't they have "low end" solutions too? All I'm saying is: watch them. They have the potential to be dangerous.
I guess it's just habit. I use NT at work and I have Excite set as the search engine to use when I type "go foo". I'll have to see if there's a way I can use Google for that.
The very definition of Linux as an Open Software effort means that commercial companies like Red Hat will make money by charging for services. Therefore, commercial support services for Linux will be fee-based and will likely be priced at a premium. These costs have to be factored into the total cost model.
Guess who's website this is from:
Incidents may be purchased on a pay-per incident basis, or in packs of 5. Phone submitted incidents are $245 each, or a 5-pack for $1225. Web submitted incidents are $195 each, or a 5-pack for $975.
This blurb is from Microsoft's web site regarding Windows NT server. That's what I call a premium. Forget about this site. In fact, we need to put together a compilation of facts about Windows NT server. I'll start: NT only has the C2 security rating if it is not connected to the network and doesn't have a floppy drive.
It's not logic. It's corporate thinking. Even if it's not a zero sum game for us, it is for them. All proprietary companies have the us vs. them mentality. Sun is not a friend of Linux and want to imitate our developement community. When you live in a world of market share, Linux developers are a commodity and they want them. Don't think that Sun's not interested in Linux developers switching sides. They'd love for some people to defect completely and cut themselves off at the knee.
Just because Sun say they're not attacking Linux doesn't mean they're not attacking Linux. They are tryng very hard to steal the developers from the Linux community. I'd rather they target the home user though I don't know anyone who'd be swayed by low(er) cost systems and (promises of) a partially open sourced operating system.
Besides, isn't MacMillian just like Cheapbytes? What do they offer besides a burned CD and a book? Not too damn much. I'd rather forgo the cheap little book and get a $5 CD.
What operating system do you use at home? With what word processor/text editor do you use to write your books? If you need assistance installing Linux, let me know. I work in Round Rock.
The next version of Office is probably going to be about this size. Actually, this would be a great way to avoid piracy. Make the distribution of the software about 150 Gig (Microsoft isn't too far from this already) and make it so it'll run directly off the read only media. That's the most assured form of copy protection there could be.
OK, I'm a little lost here. I'm assuming you meant to type "Linux" one of those places where you typed "Microsoft," but I can't tell which place -- i.e., I don't know if you're trying to make your own argument against me, or if you're telling me the argument that I should've used. A little clarification?
My bad. The second Microsoft was supposed to be a Linux. And I was trying to tell you the argument that would have made more sense, but mine sure didn't make much sense either, did it?
As for my feelings and projecting, I don't know. I am telling you what's logical. That my opinion disagrees with the Slashkiddies doesn't suprise me. However, to claim that there's nothing innovative about Linux is a bit misguided. There might not be many new ideas in software, but that's because Linux is a Unix clone that aims for stability and low cost. With a Unix clone there isn't that much room to think outside the box. You have to kind of stick with the known entity or become incompatible. The most innovative thing is the Free speech, Free beer, developement model, responsiveness, Beowulf (sic), flexibility, etc. All very laudable for an operating system that's just copying everything, isn't it?
I'm only quoting your response to me because I'm really the only one who matters to me;>
scumdamn writes: "If Microsoft wants to clone something first done in the Linux community, they're free to do so. If they want to embrace and extend, copy source code and make it proprietary, or spread FUD about Linux, they're not. [...] fvwm95 blatantly copied the Windows 'look & feel' and that didn't piss anyone off."
This is for reference
Organizations can't spread FUD about each other or embrace and extend? Come on.
They can and do. That's one of the things I'm against. Cloning and code sharing are two things that I don't object to. I guess I could have stated that more clearly the first time.
As far as copying source code, I don't see why Slashdotters would care about it -- I sure don't see too many complaining about violating other forms of Intellectual Property, namely when it comes to recorded music.
The idea of Intellectual property is a good one, and one we all should abide by. However, we all are a little hypocritical and a little too focussed on our pet issues. This is an insightful thing to say.
Regarding your second point, Apple's always had NIH syndrome, something that thankfully has never affected Microsoft. Whoever I'm getting my operating system from, I want then to take all the best ideas out there -- I couldn't care less where they originated.
Me too, but I also want my operating system to be stable and free.
And I think that most Linux users feel the same way (just don't ever tell them when they're using one of Microsoft's innovations or be prepared to get your head bitten off!;-). I have no complaints about Linux being filled with ideas taken from elsewhere -- I use Linux and, frankly, I'd be majorly pissed if they succumbed to Not Invented Here bollocks.
But this isn't what you originally said. You were claiming that Linux had nothing original. If you want to point out to some people that their thinking is hypocritical, you need to have a solid airtight argument or they'll tear you to pieces. Allow me: Linux is made of components either taken or cloned from other operating systems. To say that it's wrong for Microsoft to pick and choose the best ideas from other software you need to admit that it's wrong for Microsoft to do the same.
This argument should be made more toward Mac users than Linux users, though. They're the ones who don't want any other operating system to have the "ease of use" (personally, I don't see it) that their OS has. We'll freely admit that GNU isn't Linux, it sure looks like it.
The raison d'etre for my original post wasn't to slam Linux itself, not at all, just to point out a flaw in the thinking of a large number of its users.
It didn't take. I think many of us don't feel that way. I sure don't.
It's all a blatant copy. Everything you see now has been done before. The revolutionary stage of software has passed. Software is being evolved and refined now.
Damn, Bruce! Do we have to say it for you? Okay, listen up, everyone. Here's what Bruce meant to say, but his damn ego wouldn't let him (and remember, I still like you, Bruce): OK, but please remember that I was the one being threatened. I think in that case there was unprofessional behavior on both sides, and I'm sorry for my part in it. I'd like to bury the hatched and make up. Eric, will you accept my humble, heartfelt apology?
starting on the "what's best for me" level and moving upward
I think that's the way it's been for too long. We need to start at the "What's best for society" and go from there. There's too much chance for selfishness to get in the way if it's the other way around.
I think you're a little lost. You want to be in the Apple Advocacy forum. It's down and to the left. Obviously, Linux is not against cloning. Linux is basically a "clone" of Unix. We're anti reinventing the wheel, and pro code reuse. If Microsoft wants to clone something first done in the Linux community, they're free to do so. If they want to embrace and extend, copy source code and make it proprietary, or spread FUD about Linux, they're not. I think you are confusing the arguments here. MS blatantly copied the MacOS. That pissed off Mac fans. fvwm95 blatantly copied the Windows "look & feel" and that didn't piss anyone off. Why? Two different groups of people with entirely different sets of values. You need to differentiate between the different groups in what you must see as the "anyone but Microsoft" metagroup. One of the main innovations of Linux is the Open Source philosophy that began with GNU. It's not an innovation of code, but an innovation of operations. So, though I don't have a problem with either truth or honest (even I consider them the same thing) I respectfully disagree with your misguided opinion.
You know it's mostly hurt feelings, though. You gotta understand as well as anyone that when you question what a geek is saying it's worse than putting down his mother. So you hurt Eric's feelings. Give him a while, be nice, send him a patch (maybe even a Palm Pilot), and you'll have yourself a friend without even having to say you're sorry. Besides, you're a nice guy. I'm sure he'll come around.
I always finish an ESR interview excited. Thanks for answering everyone's question, Eric. Even though you kinda putzed around with mine. No matter, though. I'm happy to have you as the foremost advocate for "that rhetorical millstone around our necks". ; >
You are assuming Sun is an Open Source vendor. They're just releasing the source code. In all other aspects Sun is a proprietary company. I wouldn't assume they'll be as fast with the fixes as the Linux or BSD communities. I'd imagine they'd have to run things through legal first, then make sure it's tested, etc. Don't expect to have a fix for a problem reported in the morning by the end of the day.
Here's one: Sun can pull their license whenever they want. The "Free Software" they're offering depends on their continued generosity. Truly Open Source software does not rely on a companies generosity or even existence for that matter. Open Source software is the property of whoever holds one license of it. I have a RedHat CD and the Linux Source. With that, I could become a distributor of Linux and not be dependant on any other company. That's the difference.
This is just pure speculation, but if the K8 is going to be a 64bit chip it'll need a new instruction set. Isn't the Alpha a pretty damn good 64bit chip with and instruction set that's already supported by Linux, NT 4.0, VMS, and Tru64? Why doesn't AMD either use the same instruction set or start making Alphas (or RISC chips that can also run x86 binaries)? Basically, we have x86, RISC (and many RISC platforms, by the way), and Merced/McKinley. Why are we going to need another instruction set? Maybe AMD will just highly optimize their x86 processors. I'd rather see that than yet another platform. By the way, wouldn't it be nice if an EV7 motherboard could handle either a K7 or Alpha? We could buy one motherboard and choose between CISC or RISC. Imagine upgrading from an Athlon to an Alpha. There are so many cool things AMD could be doing right now. I just wish we could see some action.
Slashdot Mirror
This makes me just as happy as Linux's market share growth. I love seeing Intel get humiliated like this! For years I've been saying that Intel is the MS of chip manufacturing, and now they've shot themselves in the foot. It's about damn time!
Maybe Win2000 will be the Rambus of Microsoft?
The best rule of thumb is to be prepared for everything you say and write to be used against you. It's not right that that's the case, but there are many cases where your employer could accidentally bump into you (or your writing) that could put you in a very uncomfortable position.
You'll never see me giving away and information or speaking badly about that big computer company based out of Round Rock for that reason.
Pez must think this will cut down on the occurance of sites with meta tags that say: /. now breaking the law too?
Porn Porn Pez Candy Pez Porn Porn Rob Lowe Run DMC Naked Girls
etc.
By the way, here's a website that's breaking the law:
http://www.pezheads.org/
Here are the meta tags:
<META name="description"
content="Shockwave games, non-java chatroom, PEZHead Locator, over 1700 dispensers for sale,
PEZ facts, PEZ pictures, PEZ forum, Price Guide w/Photos,
and SO much more! The LARGEST pez site, anywhere!">
<META name="keywords"
content="Shockwave games, non-java Chatroom, PEZHead Locator, Shopping List
PEZ Polling Booth, PEZ pictures, pez for sale, PEZ Price Guide, PEZ pictures,
PEZ FAQ, new dispenser, PEZ forum, One Stop PEZ Shop, Flip Me Some PEZ">
Is
I don't see it as us against them. What I do see is that Sun is capaigning for the hearts and minds of Linux developers. Is that nessecarily a bad thing? Not really. Does it have the potential? I think so. I think that Sun wants to be detrimental to the Linux community without raising its ire. Maybe that's just conjecture on my part, but I see trends that I'm not ignoring. If you think I'm paranoid, so be it, but I think I'm being less paranoid than the most strident supporters of encryption. Sun has said a few bad things about Linux publicly, and if you don't see Linux as a competitor to Sun, it doesn't mean that they don't. They've communicated, in fact, that Linux is too "low end" to compete, but don't they have "low end" solutions too? All I'm saying is: watch them. They have the potential to be dangerous.
I guess it's just habit. I use NT at work and I have Excite set as the search engine to use when I type "go foo". I'll have to see if there's a way I can use Google for that.
Guess who's website this is from:
This blurb is from Microsoft's web site regarding Windows NT server. That's what I call a premium.
Forget about this site. In fact, we need to put together a compilation of facts about Windows NT server. I'll start:
NT only has the C2 security rating if it is not connected to the network and doesn't have a floppy drive.
It's not logic. It's corporate thinking. Even if it's not a zero sum game for us, it is for them. All proprietary companies have the us vs. them mentality. Sun is not a friend of Linux and want to imitate our developement community. When you live in a world of market share, Linux developers are a commodity and they want them. Don't think that Sun's not interested in Linux developers switching sides. They'd love for some people to defect completely and cut themselves off at the knee.
Just because Sun say they're not attacking Linux doesn't mean they're not attacking Linux. They are tryng very hard to steal the developers from the Linux community. I'd rather they target the home user though I don't know anyone who'd be swayed by low(er) cost systems and (promises of) a partially open sourced operating system.
Besides, isn't MacMillian just like Cheapbytes? What do they offer besides a burned CD and a book? Not too damn much. I'd rather forgo the cheap little book and get a $5 CD.
Actually, maybe something by Peter Gabriel would be more appropriate.
What operating system do you use at home?
With what word processor/text editor do you use to write your books?
If you need assistance installing Linux, let me know. I work in Round Rock.
The next version of Office is probably going to be about this size.
Actually, this would be a great way to avoid piracy. Make the distribution of the software about 150 Gig (Microsoft isn't too far from this already) and make it so it'll run directly off the read only media. That's the most assured form of copy protection there could be.
This kind of thing should be in the church where it belongs.
Hacking is an abomination against God. Hack and be cast down with Satan and Mitnick. Can I get a Hallelujah and $1,000?
My bad. The second Microsoft was supposed to be a Linux. And I was trying to tell you the argument that would have made more sense, but mine sure didn't make much sense either, did it?
As for my feelings and projecting, I don't know. I am telling you what's logical. That my opinion disagrees with the Slashkiddies doesn't suprise me. However, to claim that there's nothing innovative about Linux is a bit misguided.
There might not be many new ideas in software, but that's because Linux is a Unix clone that aims for stability and low cost. With a Unix clone there isn't that much room to think outside the box. You have to kind of stick with the known entity or become incompatible. The most innovative thing is the Free speech, Free beer, developement model, responsiveness, Beowulf (sic), flexibility, etc. All very laudable for an operating system that's just copying everything, isn't it?
This is for reference
They can and do. That's one of the things I'm against. Cloning and code sharing are two things that I don't object to. I guess I could have stated that more clearly the first time.
It's all a blatant copy. Everything you see now has been done before. The revolutionary stage of software has passed. Software is being evolved and refined now.
Damn, Bruce! Do we have to say it for you?
Okay, listen up, everyone. Here's what Bruce meant to say, but his damn ego wouldn't let him (and remember, I still like you, Bruce):
OK, but please remember that I was the one being threatened. I think in that case there was unprofessional behavior on both sides, and I'm sorry for my part in it. I'd like to bury the hatched and make up. Eric, will you accept my humble, heartfelt apology?
I think that's the way it's been for too long. We need to start at the "What's best for society" and go from there. There's too much chance for selfishness to get in the way if it's the other way around.
I think you're a little lost. You want to be in the Apple Advocacy forum. It's down and to the left. Obviously, Linux is not against cloning. Linux is basically a "clone" of Unix. We're anti reinventing the wheel, and pro code reuse. If Microsoft wants to clone something first done in the Linux community, they're free to do so. If they want to embrace and extend, copy source code and make it proprietary, or spread FUD about Linux, they're not. I think you are confusing the arguments here. MS blatantly copied the MacOS. That pissed off Mac fans. fvwm95 blatantly copied the Windows "look & feel" and that didn't piss anyone off. Why? Two different groups of people with entirely different sets of values. You need to differentiate between the different groups in what you must see as the "anyone but Microsoft" metagroup.
One of the main innovations of Linux is the Open Source philosophy that began with GNU. It's not an innovation of code, but an innovation of operations.
So, though I don't have a problem with either truth or honest (even I consider them the same thing) I respectfully disagree with your misguided opinion.
You know it's mostly hurt feelings, though. You gotta understand as well as anyone that when you question what a geek is saying it's worse than putting down his mother. So you hurt Eric's feelings. Give him a while, be nice, send him a patch (maybe even a Palm Pilot), and you'll have yourself a friend without even having to say you're sorry. Besides, you're a nice guy. I'm sure he'll come around.
I always finish an ESR interview excited. Thanks for answering everyone's question, Eric. Even though you kinda putzed around with mine. No matter, though. I'm happy to have you as the foremost advocate for "that rhetorical millstone around our necks". ; >
You are assuming Sun is an Open Source vendor. They're just releasing the source code. In all other aspects Sun is a proprietary company. I wouldn't assume they'll be as fast with the fixes as the Linux or BSD communities. I'd imagine they'd have to run things through legal first, then make sure it's tested, etc. Don't expect to have a fix for a problem reported in the morning by the end of the day.
Doesn't Sun's license conflict with the Open Source Definition?
Here's one:
Sun can pull their license whenever they want. The "Free Software" they're offering depends on their continued generosity.
Truly Open Source software does not rely on a companies generosity or even existence for that matter. Open Source software is the property of whoever holds one license of it. I have a RedHat CD and the Linux Source. With that, I could become a distributor of Linux and not be dependant on any other company. That's the difference.
This is just pure speculation, but if the K8 is going to be a 64bit chip it'll need a new instruction set. Isn't the Alpha a pretty damn good 64bit chip with and instruction set that's already supported by Linux, NT 4.0, VMS, and Tru64? Why doesn't AMD either use the same instruction set or start making Alphas (or RISC chips that can also run x86 binaries)? Basically, we have x86, RISC (and many RISC platforms, by the way), and Merced/McKinley. Why are we going to need another instruction set? Maybe AMD will just highly optimize their x86 processors. I'd rather see that than yet another platform.
By the way, wouldn't it be nice if an EV7 motherboard could handle either a K7 or Alpha? We could buy one motherboard and choose between CISC or RISC. Imagine upgrading from an Athlon to an Alpha. There are so many cool things AMD could be doing right now. I just wish we could see some action.