When was the last time you installled the operating system on your work pc? Most corporations don't want their users to install stuff on their computers.
Sun paid SCO a license to use SCO IP in solaris. By doing this they have de facto admitted that there is SCO IP in solaris.
Not being privy to the contract I would doubt SCO will sit idly by and let Sun do what they are suing IBM for doing. They are suing IBM for contributing code to linux they claim they own.
Did sun get the right to open source the code they licensed from SCO? That's the question. If they didn't I would expect a lawsuit from SCO if I used open solaris.
"So because Gates doesn't give away 99% of his savings, he isn't giving much? "
No he isn't giving much because he isn't giving a measurable percentage of his income.
"I don't see you giving up every dime you have and living on the street. "
If I give away 99% of my money I would be living on the street. If Bill gates gave away 99% of his money he would still have hundreds of millions of dollars. DO you see the difference?
"I mean, you can always give more, but belittling a man's attempts to help others because "he can always do more" is pathetic."
Nonsense. He can make a real difference in the world if he wants to. Why does he need 50 billion dollars? what is he going to do with that. I say it's his DUTY to end hunger or illiteracy in the world. He can do that and still fly his plane to france for dinner at a reastaurant he bought that day.
I just don't know how much of solaris they can open up legally. Remember Sun paid SCO millions of dollars for the right to use SCO IP in solaris. Buy paying that money they have admitted that the IP in question belongs to SCO.
The question is did Sun get the right to open source that IP in that agreement? My guess is that the didn't. SO what happens when SCO claims that the solaris SMP code actually belongs to them, that sun paid them to use it in solaris but not to open source it and let it be used in linux or freebsd?
Sun should publish that contract so the community can take a look at it.
Good to know Bill Gates is not the MOST evil person in the world. That's one competition he is not intent on winning. He seems perfectly happy to be in the top 10.
" Stating that free software isn't some grand altruistic venture isn't belittling. "
Who says it's not a grand altruistic venture? You? Thousands of people working for free to provide software for billions isn't altruistic enough for you?
"This is software, not food or medicine."
And this is the 21st century. Software the 21st century equavalent of a plow and a horse.
"While Microsoft has a lot of highly questionable anti-competitive products, they're hardly pharmaceutical companies trying to enforce patents in 3rd world countries for AIDS drugs."
What a ringing endorsement. Microsoft is not as evil as the most evil corporations.
"As far as Gate's generosity, he could easily have horded all his money like most billionaires do"
What a ringing endorsement. Bill Gates could be more evil if he wanted to!.
"No one is forcing him to give it all away. "
He isn't giving much. I gave a 100 dollars to the tsunami relief fund, that's a higher percentage of my salary then Bill Gates. Last year I have thousands of dollars to charities, expressed as a percentage of my salary that makes me 100 times better then Gates. Gates can give away 99% of his salary and still live like a king on a couple of billion dollars.
"Heard any stories about Richard Bramson of Virgin giving away billions of dollars?"
I don't know about billions but yes I have heard of it. TO be fair you have look because he does not make press releases when he gives away money becuase he is not trying to rehabilitate his reputation as an evil bastard. Oh and he doesn't have as money as Gates either. Ted Turner also doesn't have as money as gates but he gave away a billion dollars and tons of land. Unlike gates he is not simply giving stock either, he is giving actual money and land.
People keep coming out with these "what if it was microsoft" posts but I just don't get it.
Microsoft is an avoved enemy of open source. They are waging war financially (giving money to SCO), rhetorically (you are all communists), legally (lobbying governments), by funding "think tanks" like ADTI etc.
It's like saying "I see joe is moving next door to you but what if it was jeffrey dahmer?".
Google is not MS. If MS did that we would all be probably very suspicious of their motives because they have shown over and over again that they are unetical, sleazy, awful people.
I am not concerned that google is hiring a firefox developer, I would be concerned if MS was hiring one. It has nothing to do with idealogy it has everything to with how Ms behaves and has behaved.
Why does java run so much slower on linux and freebsd? Why can't the license for the jvm be tweaked to allow free distribution?. Why doesn't sun allow for free testing for open source projects to test compatibility with sun standards?
Joe consumer does not but then again the american consumer always takes it in the shorts whether it's operating systems or medicine.
But Joe corporate CIO definately has the leverage fo negotiate and does. I don't know what you mean by "consumer" but corporations are "consumers" of software.
"Now this is an interesting viewpoint, because I consider myself a moral person, but not a religious person. Perhaps different people in this discussion are using slightly different definitions of the word?"
It was a distinction made in my philosophy classes a long time ago. There are guidelines that are fundamentality based on religion (homosexuals should be killed) and guidelines made by rationality or socail concensus (it's illegal to travel north on this street).
"Therefore all legislation is, fundamentally, moral."
For any arbitrarity definition of moral.
In the end we are pack animals, we have to make rules so the pack stays together.
"I love the idea of open source, but if you honestly think that it drives the prices of commercial software down, you're kidding yourself, at least on the consumer level."
Nonsense. How many times MS lowered prices on windows and office when corporations, countries and cities have threatened to switch? You can buy a legal copy of windows XP and office for $50.00 in taiwan legally. MS has reduced their prices by more then $400 in order to compete with open source.
Actually I think it's causal. MS can afford to subsidize software due to their monopoly profits. Of course this means the competition has to drop their prices hence "cutting off their air supply".
Once the competition has been eliminated or marginilized MS raises their prices or holds them steady (see office).
This is why open source is so great. MS can't undercut it and now is threatened with somebody else cutting off their air supply. Note how MS is cutting prices left and right on their monopoloy products.
In the end MS will probably end up like netscape, you can't really win if your competition is giving away stuff for free.
I believe that guns are no longer adequate to be able to protect your right to a revolution. If you look at palestine, iraq, afghanistan and elsewhere people who want to overthrow invading or occupying armies have moved on to rockets, propelled granades, roadside bombs and plastic explosives. It won't be long now and they'll start using chemical and biological weapons.
If you are serious about that right you should be advocating for the right to have plastic explosives and yes even chemical and biological weaponry.
Not every decision on right and wrong is a moral one. There are many frameworks you can use to decide right and wrong. Morality is using religion as a framework.
In philosophy a distinction is made between mores and morality. Mores being a rationally arrived at set of right and wrong actions and morality being a religiously dictated set.
I can make a rational argument that the law should forbid murder and theft. You can make a religious argument for the same thing (the 10 commandments). All this means is that we happen to agree. It does not mean the laws are based on religion or morality. the laws should be based on a rational process and not handed down by god.
"Personally, do I believe pornography should be banned? No. But I do believe that some level of regulation is warranted, and that the benefits of that regulation must be balanced against the cost to personal liberty."
I am curious to know if you feel the same about guns? That's exactly how I feel about guns and i vote more democrat then republican.
The law doesn't say you can't pray. Anybody can pray anywhere they want any time they want. You want to pray in school? Go ahead. You want to pray in court? Go ahead. Nobody is going to stop you (well maybe if you are disrupting the proceedings they might).
What is illegal is a shcool official leading a prayer therefore excluding people who don't believe in their superstition.
The problem seems to be that some people's gods are deaf so they have to pray out loud. Other peoples gods like to watch so they have to make physical manifestations and face east in order to be listened to. Some people's gods are not impressed unless the prayer is done by massess of people at the same time. Some gods want to be prayed to on sunday, other on saturday and yet others on friday (but none on monday that I know of). To me it all seems weird but I am sure it makes sense to them.
Anyway I say pray all you want but if you whip out a rug during class, face east and start genuflecting realize that it might be disruptive to the class, same thing if you get out of your chair, kneel, bow your head and chant the lord's prayer out loud. Other people may not want to be a witness to your form of worship and you should take that into account.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want a fast, multi platform, zero administration database that's also open source check out firebird.
When was the last time you installled the operating system on your work pc? Most corporations don't want their users to install stuff on their computers.
Sun paid SCO a license to use SCO IP in solaris. By doing this they have de facto admitted that there is SCO IP in solaris.
Not being privy to the contract I would doubt SCO will sit idly by and let Sun do what they are suing IBM for doing. They are suing IBM for contributing code to linux they claim they own.
Did sun get the right to open source the code they licensed from SCO? That's the question. If they didn't I would expect a lawsuit from SCO if I used open solaris.
Civillians?
"So because Gates doesn't give away 99% of his savings, he isn't giving much? "
No he isn't giving much because he isn't giving a measurable percentage of his income.
"I don't see you giving up every dime you have and living on the street. "
If I give away 99% of my money I would be living on the street. If Bill gates gave away 99% of his money he would still have hundreds of millions of dollars. DO you see the difference?
"I mean, you can always give more, but belittling a man's attempts to help others because "he can always do more" is pathetic."
Nonsense. He can make a real difference in the world if he wants to. Why does he need 50 billion dollars? what is he going to do with that. I say it's his DUTY to end hunger or illiteracy in the world. He can do that and still fly his plane to france for dinner at a reastaurant he bought that day.
I just don't know how much of solaris they can open up legally. Remember Sun paid SCO millions of dollars for the right to use SCO IP in solaris. Buy paying that money they have admitted that the IP in question belongs to SCO.
The question is did Sun get the right to open source that IP in that agreement? My guess is that the didn't. SO what happens when SCO claims that the solaris SMP code actually belongs to them, that sun paid them to use it in solaris but not to open source it and let it be used in linux or freebsd?
Sun should publish that contract so the community can take a look at it.
Bullshit. Software enables the people in the third world to participate in the global economy. This enables them to buy food, water and vaccines.
Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.
Good to know Bill Gates is not the MOST evil person in the world. That's one competition he is not intent on winning. He seems perfectly happy to be in the top 10.
" Stating that free software isn't some grand altruistic venture isn't belittling. "
Who says it's not a grand altruistic venture? You? Thousands of people working for free to provide software for billions isn't altruistic enough for you?
"This is software, not food or medicine."
And this is the 21st century. Software the 21st century equavalent of a plow and a horse.
"While Microsoft has a lot of highly questionable anti-competitive products, they're hardly pharmaceutical companies trying to enforce patents in 3rd world countries for AIDS drugs."
What a ringing endorsement. Microsoft is not as evil as the most evil corporations.
"As far as Gate's generosity, he could easily have horded all his money like most billionaires do"
What a ringing endorsement. Bill Gates could be more evil if he wanted to!.
"No one is forcing him to give it all away. "
He isn't giving much. I gave a 100 dollars to the tsunami relief fund, that's a higher percentage of my salary then Bill Gates. Last year I have thousands of dollars to charities, expressed as a percentage of my salary that makes me 100 times better then Gates. Gates can give away 99% of his salary and still live like a king on a couple of billion dollars.
"Heard any stories about Richard Bramson of Virgin giving away billions of dollars?"
I don't know about billions but yes I have heard of it. TO be fair you have look because he does not make press releases when he gives away money becuase he is not trying to rehabilitate his reputation as an evil bastard. Oh and he doesn't have as money as Gates either. Ted Turner also doesn't have as money as gates but he gave away a billion dollars and tons of land. Unlike gates he is not simply giving stock either, he is giving actual money and land.
" Google are the new MS,"
Really? When was the last time they called open source developers communists?
People keep coming out with these "what if it was microsoft" posts but I just don't get it.
Microsoft is an avoved enemy of open source. They are waging war financially (giving money to SCO), rhetorically (you are all communists), legally (lobbying governments), by funding "think tanks" like ADTI etc.
It's like saying "I see joe is moving next door to you but what if it was jeffrey dahmer?".
Google is not MS. If MS did that we would all be probably very suspicious of their motives because they have shown over and over again that they are unetical, sleazy, awful people.
I am not concerned that google is hiring a firefox developer, I would be concerned if MS was hiring one. It has nothing to do with idealogy it has everything to with how Ms behaves and has behaved.
Yes but he was going to let the homosexuals get married and probably teach evolution in schools. We can't have that can we?
If somebody is a habitual liar then you should stop listening to them.
Why does java run so much slower on linux and freebsd? Why can't the license for the jvm be tweaked to allow free distribution?. Why doesn't sun allow for free testing for open source projects to test compatibility with sun standards?
Yes, pot calling the kettle black.
Joe consumer does not but then again the american consumer always takes it in the shorts whether it's operating systems or medicine.
But Joe corporate CIO definately has the leverage fo negotiate and does. I don't know what you mean by "consumer" but corporations are "consumers" of software.
"Now this is an interesting viewpoint, because I consider myself a moral person, but not a religious person. Perhaps different people in this discussion are using slightly different definitions of the word?"
It was a distinction made in my philosophy classes a long time ago. There are guidelines that are fundamentality based on religion (homosexuals should be killed) and guidelines made by rationality or socail concensus (it's illegal to travel north on this street).
"Therefore all legislation is, fundamentally, moral."
For any arbitrarity definition of moral.
In the end we are pack animals, we have to make rules so the pack stays together.
There was a price increase for both windows and office. There was also the situation where corporations were double paying for windows.
"I love the idea of open source, but if you honestly think that it drives the prices of commercial software down, you're kidding yourself, at least on the consumer level."
Nonsense. How many times MS lowered prices on windows and office when corporations, countries and cities have threatened to switch? You can buy a legal copy of windows XP and office for $50.00 in taiwan legally. MS has reduced their prices by more then $400 in order to compete with open source.
Actually I think it's causal. MS can afford to subsidize software due to their monopoly profits. Of course this means the competition has to drop their prices hence "cutting off their air supply".
Once the competition has been eliminated or marginilized MS raises their prices or holds them steady (see office).
This is why open source is so great. MS can't undercut it and now is threatened with somebody else cutting off their air supply. Note how MS is cutting prices left and right on their monopoloy products.
In the end MS will probably end up like netscape, you can't really win if your competition is giving away stuff for free.
The reader does not run on all platforms and will not allow you to modify the content.
I believe that guns are no longer adequate to be able to protect your right to a revolution. If you look at palestine, iraq, afghanistan and elsewhere people who want to overthrow invading or occupying armies have moved on to rockets, propelled granades, roadside bombs and plastic explosives. It won't be long now and they'll start using chemical and biological weapons.
If you are serious about that right you should be advocating for the right to have plastic explosives and yes even chemical and biological weaponry.
Not every decision on right and wrong is a moral one. There are many frameworks you can use to decide right and wrong. Morality is using religion as a framework.
In philosophy a distinction is made between mores and morality. Mores being a rationally arrived at set of right and wrong actions and morality being a religiously dictated set.
I can make a rational argument that the law should forbid murder and theft. You can make a religious argument for the same thing (the 10 commandments). All this means is that we happen to agree. It does not mean the laws are based on religion or morality. the laws should be based on a rational process and not handed down by god.
"Personally, do I believe pornography should be banned? No. But I do believe that some level of regulation is warranted, and that the benefits of that regulation must be balanced against the cost to personal liberty."
I am curious to know if you feel the same about guns? That's exactly how I feel about guns and i vote more democrat then republican.
The law doesn't say you can't pray. Anybody can pray anywhere they want any time they want. You want to pray in school? Go ahead. You want to pray in court? Go ahead. Nobody is going to stop you (well maybe if you are disrupting the proceedings they might).
What is illegal is a shcool official leading a prayer therefore excluding people who don't believe in their superstition.
The problem seems to be that some people's gods are deaf so they have to pray out loud. Other peoples gods like to watch so they have to make physical manifestations and face east in order to be listened to. Some people's gods are not impressed unless the prayer is done by massess of people at the same time. Some gods want to be prayed to on sunday, other on saturday and yet others on friday (but none on monday that I know of). To me it all seems weird but I am sure it makes sense to them.
Anyway I say pray all you want but if you whip out a rug during class, face east and start genuflecting realize that it might be disruptive to the class, same thing if you get out of your chair, kneel, bow your head and chant the lord's prayer out loud. Other people may not want to be a witness to your form of worship and you should take that into account.