Sure, the instruction set got cleaned up, the memory model got cleaned up, the security model got cleaned up, but they were slow. A 16MHz 80286 was noticably faster at most things than a 16MHz 80386DX. The 80386SX was even slower, because it was trying to cram a 32 bit wide data stream over a 16 bit data bus.
The Intel 80386SX processor is definately the way to go here. It will run Linux / Windows / Whatever, unlike many earlier processors, but the clock speeds are low by modern standards. Furthermore, this has to be one of the least efficient microprocessors ever designed, it certainly gives the least bang per clock cycle of anything Intel ever put out. Make sure you have a good network connection to the next hop of the scheme, and you're pretty much guaranteed to be CPU-bound.
The next hop, of course, being another machine on the same LAN: an SMTP server to quickly and efficiently accept all the emails put out by the spammers software and happily dump them in a bit bucket.
Thank you, you have given me a lot to think about regarding Mutt's IMAP implementation. There's no way I'm switching back to Pine (Mutt's Free and good enough for me, and I prefer its configuration flexibility), but I might look into the IMAP Spec and the Pine source and work on coding some IMAP improvements for Mutt to send to the maintainers.
I use Mutt so much during the day, I'd love to feel I put something good into it.
As it is, they only seem to drop the non-libre products that the community makes noise about (pine, xfree...). This is silly.
This isn't silly, it's troubling. The way I interpret Red Hat's reactions to license problems is that it cares about licensing issues, but not enough to have sufficent staff checking the licenses of what they're distributing. This could be a potential disaster, as if any Linux distro gets sued for a license snafu, they'd likely be first.
Also, even with the annoying license changes, XFree86 is still Free software. The noise isn't because they're non-free, it's because other software builds on XFree86, and you can't make a derivative work of something with an incompatible license, even if both are Free. Red Hat's switch here is either because they don't want to have to figure out if any licensing has broken due to the change, and/or because they want more input into X development, and the freedesktop.org model will give them that.
Likewise, I haven't tried recent versions of pine, so:
1. Mutt's LDAP indexing is fast enough for me, but I honestly don't know if it's faster, slower or the same as Pine
2. This is really two things: Yes, to my knowledge mutt can't search across multiple mailboxes (this would be a nifty feature, but I haven't needed it yet). I don't find IMAP searches slow, if you aren't searching the message bodies, it's blazing; if you are searching the message bodies, the bottleneck is the network and the IMAP server, not the client.
3. Refraining from storing configuration settings via IMAP strikes me as a feature, or more properly a bugfix. The one thing that always infuriated me about Pine was its insistance on polluting mail folders with special pine-specific things, making it hard and ugly to use any other mail client on the same emails.
Unless you are saying that Pine has ACAP support, which is news to me. To my knowledge UofW has talked about adding ACAP to Pine, but hasn't done it yet. ACAP doesn't mean much to me anyway without a good Free ACAP server (Cyrus has a server, but they apparently stopped developing it).
4. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "user-defined labels", are these per-message flags, or arbitrary variables? How are they stored on an IMAP server?
Modifying flags (such as deleted) seems straightforward to me, I'm not sure what your gripe is here.
- - - - -
When Red Hat started, they didn't know much about Free software, and they shipped anything they could get their hands on. Then they got a clue and said that the core will be all free, and dumped several non-free packages (but they still allowed non-essential packages to be non-free). Now that they're making their big enterprise push, I don't know what their policy is. Oracle isn't free software, that's for sure.
Since almost all Linux software wants to be in Red Hat, I think they really ought to give the community a clear statement as to what their packaging and licensing standards are.
Nosagt wrote: Pine has a superior IMAP implementation than any of these alternatives.
I use IMAP on Mutt daily, I used to use IMAP on Pine daily. I'm not just talking about a single folder in IMAP either, I'm talking about two seperate accounts each with over 20 folders in a hierarchy that goes up to four or five folders deep. Mutt handles it fine.
While Pine had IMAP before Mutt did, Mutt has long since caught up, and I can't think of a single way which Pine's IMAP implementation is superior to Mutt's. I would be interested to hear if you have an example?
What modifications are needed to it in the first place? The stock-binary is well-maintained. And it is easy enough to apply a patch to the source code & recompile.
Security and bug fixes without being forced to wait for upstream to get around to it is always first on the list. Next on the list is "What if University of Washington decides to stop maintaining it". Many distributions also want to make sure the sofware integrates well with other software in their distro, this would possibly require changes. These issues are all solved with Free software, but difficult to impossible to do in a binary distribution like Red Hat with Pine's licensing.
Why take RMS's opinion on free/nonfree as scripture?
Who said anything about taking RMS's opinion as scripture?? I never said it shouldn't be used because RMS said it was bad, I said it shouldn't be distributed because distros need to be able to ship modified binaries. Gentoo's users might be happy recompiling everything, but most of Red Hat's users aren't.
I agree with RMS because I have given the topic a lot of thought and find he's right, not because RMS has a special place in the community, nor because of any alleged "scripture".
It is funny to see gratis software that ships with source being bashed for not being libre more than progams which don't ship with source.
As far as I know, the only serious extra bashing UofW got for Pine/Pico is when they started claiming that the Permission Notice and Disclaimer license that they used to ship under means something different than every other developer who used it says it does. However, for purposes of Pine and Pico, most distributors now treat their license according to UofW's interpretation, and don't distribute modified binaries, usually by not distributing Pine or Pico at all.
I don't have a problem with Debian's commitment to libre software & their choice not to ship pine. But other distros don't seem to have a consistent stance on how free apps have to be before they're included.
Some other distributions were slower than Debian in realizing that there was a problem. Some were lazy and figured UofW wouldn't call them on it. Some were happy shipping the unmodified binaries. Feel free to mock and call out distributors if their attitude on Pine/Pico is inconsistent. Personally, I run Debian.
It's not that pine is not GPL, it's that pine is altogether Not Free Software. Specifically, the University of Washington will not allow anyone to distribute modified versions, they've even threatened to sue people who do this with older versions of Pine. This makes it hard to work the software into a distribution like Red Hat, and even harder to want to.
Personally, I use Mutt, and I love it. Other people seem equally pleased with elm. With both of these clients, "all you need is an xterm".
If you really prefer Pine, there are two projects to create an Free replacement for it: Hydrant and OSERP. I don't know how far along and usable either project is. If you just miss Pico, there's an excellent Free clone called Nano, which is very usable and included in most Linux distros already.
zegebbers asks: If [an installer is] no big deal, then why is it nearly impossible for me to get a standard way for installing softwre[sic] on linux?
It's not, just create an LSB-compliant RPM file. Full specifications can be found at the LinuxBase.org website. Most recent distros can handle LSB-compliant RPM files with no hassle (even "old and non-compliant" Debian Stable/Woody can handle over 99% of them if you install the lsb package).
IMHO, it's perfectly legitimate to say "Requires LSB compliant Linux distro" in this day and age. Your once legitimate gripe goes in the "old news, fixed already" bin. Now, if you want native installs for multiple distros, you might elect to put some extra work into it, but a single LSB package should be good enough for most things.
You can get "-w mode" also by putting a set nowrap line in either/etc/nanorc or ~/.nanorc, depending on whether you want to make it the system default or your personal default. That should do it.
Nano is great, whenever I'm training a Windows-trained sysadmin for a Linux system, that's the first editor I throw at them. It's easy to use, and doesn't confuse the issue with either inscrutable modes or forgettable key combinations. In its default mode it even tells you the most important control keys on screen.
These people don't need much in an editor, just editing a few config files and maybe writing a short script. Nano does it easily.
Of course, I don't know how well it works with CJK scripts, I suspect badly, so it won't work well for this group.
J & R Music World is a really good store for that. Their prices might not be the best in the city, but they are consistently good. I have found them to be a reputable computer dealer, and they've been in the business for over twenty years. They are on Park Row, right by City Hall. You can't miss them, their various stores (Computers, cameras, music, books, videos, etc) take up almost an entire block.
Walt Dismal suggests: One solution is to not use electricity. OK so far.
Build a solar-powered steam engine and use it to run a Carnot cycle in reverse (heat pump) during the day. All mechanical, no electricity. Cheaper than solar cells plus batteries plus charger/inverter.
While we're at it, we can make the air conditioner even more efficient by making it out of point masses and assuming no friction.
[Hint: The Carnot cycle is a theoretical model from the thermodynamics unit in physics class, it's not a real heat pump to cool anything. It makes some assumptions (eg. a fully reversable process, no entropy increase) that we don't know how to engineer. It's the oversimplified ideal heat pump, not a real one.]
Frost22 asks What is wrong with paper ballots ?... Why can't yopu[sic] make that work in the US ?
The biggest fraud problem with paper ballots is ballot stuffing. It is horribly easy to use counterfeit or fraudulently obtained ballots to cast a few extra votes for the candidates of your choice. I have far too often heard of paper ballot elections having more votes cast than registered voters. Careful poll management can minimize but not eliminate this risk, unless you are strip searching voters, or clearly marking which ballot belongs to which registered voter. Whether this problem is worse than the problems in other systems is, of course, a matter for debate.
Why can't we make paper ballots work in the US? I think it's less can't than won't. Counting paper ballots in a timely fashion requires a lot of people. These people expect to be paid for their time. Municipalities (cities, towns) are usually forced to foot the bill for voting, and they would generally rather pay for a fancy machine once than a pile of people each election.
I was unaware at the time of writing that they were using the Trademark with permission . Generally, if you are using someone else's trademark with permission, among other things you identify whose trademark it is as part of the message, something like "Project Gutenberg is a trademark of Michael Hart".
Since I saw no such notice on the Project Gutenberg 2 Website, I assumed they were in violation of the trademark.
Assuming they are legitimately using the trademark, this is a really disappointing usage. They give no credit to the work of the volunteers of Project Gutenberg, and they make their site sound like they are the new, improved replacement for the project. This is confusing to many people, and seriously dilutes the trademark, two things that licensing is supposed to minimize. *sigh*
Nursie asks: What gave you the idea that it was going to fund free books or the original project gutenberg? This looks like an attempt to make money from someone else's work to me......
The fact that one of the few restrictions on the Project Gutenberg files is that any use of the files or trademark for commercial sales requires a royalty payment of 20% of gross profits to the project. The exact legalese can be found at http://gutenberg.net/howto/header-howto.txt.
"Project Gutenberg 2" seems to me to be run by completely different people, specifically the World eBook Library Consortia.
The real Project Gutenberg is unchanged. Furthermore, the whole idea of the original project seems (at least to me) to be to take Public Domain works, and make them freely available to as many people as possible so they can do what they want with them. If what you want to do is sell PDF eBooks with these works, that's fine. To quote the notice on the top of Project Gutenberg works:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net
So the problem here isn't what these people are doing, but the cynical and callous adoption of the "Project Gutenberg" name, which seems designed to cause confusion in the community and the market. I think it might be time for Project Gutenberg to remind the World eBook Library Consortia the nature of trademarks.
A hint, in general, if you see ", Inc." after a company name, that means it's a corporation. All of the "Electronics Boutique, Inc." should have clued you in. Making up that it's a sole propritorship with no evidence (as if anyone would accept the liability problems of a sole proprietorship for a nationwide chain of retail storefronts) is what made this post a troll.
I would have just ignored the troll, except idiot moderators were making it a highly rated troll. Consider this a notice to metamoderators that above "Informative" moderation was unfair.
I have seen statements, allegedly from SCO, claiming AutoZone is a copyright infringement case regarding System V code in Linux. I have also seen statements, allegedly from SCO, claiming that the case is regarding OpenServer shared libraries.
To be blunt, we don't know which it is, or if it's neither or both. The only way we will know is to read the case, and unless you are in the Nevada Courts Clerk's office to pick it up, you're going to have to wait for it to hit Pacer, or Groklaw, or any of the other sites that will make the filings available online.
Until then, it might well be about Linux, or it might not be. Your claim that it isn't is just as much speculation as their claim that it is.
AKnightCowboy wrote: Most likely Autozone has thousands of SCO UNIX POS terminals or something.
Had. From everything I've heard, AutoZone used to have (SCO) OpenServer-based POS systems for all their stores. They then ported their POS software to Linux, and they now have Linux-based POS systems for all of their stores.
One of the statements SCO has made in the IBM lawsuit is that the only way AutoZone could have made the transition to Linux so quickly is if IBM helped them by porting the OpenServer libraries over to Linux. They offer no evidence for this, and the entire charge strikes me as complete bunk.
--
"Hillbilly roots", I like it. I'm picturing a few 386's and an AlphaServer system up on cinderblocks in the driveway, Grampa playing banjo tunes on SpiralSynthModular. Mmmm, country air, nobody calling with thoughtless tech support questions.
From Yahoo! Finance, the bulk of the loss happened between yesterday's closing price (88.40) and today's opening price (82.73). The price as of this writing (83.47) represents a gain from earlier this morning. I'm sure the SCO suit has had some influence on the price, but I would have to assume that something else is affecting the price even more.
Regardless, it looks like AutoZone is yet another company large enough to eat SCO for breakfast, if they cared to. Not to mention DaimlerChrysler.
John Kerry's mother is Rosemary Forbes. My understanding is that she is somewhat related to the Forbes magazine publishers. This would, of course, make him related. It doesn't matter, he was born to a rich family, and became richer through marriage.
Bush, too, is quite rich.
None of this changes the fact that I think Kerry poses less of a threat to our future than Bush, and might even try to do some things I agree with if he becomes President.
OK, you might not be able to port Linux to run directly the bare hardware, but what about porting a simpler, more streamlined, processor emulation to run on the bare hardware, preferably one that Linux has already been ported to. Maybe a Crusoe emulating MIPS running Linux might be a more efficient proposition than a Crusoe emulating IA-32 running Linux. Or perhaps Crusoe->ARM->Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, the instruction set got cleaned up, the memory model got cleaned up, the security model got cleaned up, but they were slow. A 16MHz 80286 was noticably faster at most things than a 16MHz 80386DX. The 80386SX was even slower, because it was trying to cram a 32 bit wide data stream over a 16 bit data bus.
The Intel 80386SX processor is definately the way to go here. It will run Linux / Windows / Whatever, unlike many earlier processors, but the clock speeds are low by modern standards. Furthermore, this has to be one of the least efficient microprocessors ever designed, it certainly gives the least bang per clock cycle of anything Intel ever put out. Make sure you have a good network connection to the next hop of the scheme, and you're pretty much guaranteed to be CPU-bound.
The next hop, of course, being another machine on the same LAN: an SMTP server to quickly and efficiently accept all the emails put out by the spammers software and happily dump them in a bit bucket.
Thank you, you have given me a lot to think about regarding Mutt's IMAP implementation. There's no way I'm switching back to Pine (Mutt's Free and good enough for me, and I prefer its configuration flexibility), but I might look into the IMAP Spec and the Pine source and work on coding some IMAP improvements for Mutt to send to the maintainers.
I use Mutt so much during the day, I'd love to feel I put something good into it.
As it is, they only seem to drop the non-libre products that the community makes noise about (pine, xfree...). This is silly.
This isn't silly, it's troubling. The way I interpret Red Hat's reactions to license problems is that it cares about licensing issues, but not enough to have sufficent staff checking the licenses of what they're distributing. This could be a potential disaster, as if any Linux distro gets sued for a license snafu, they'd likely be first.
Also, even with the annoying license changes, XFree86 is still Free software. The noise isn't because they're non-free, it's because other software builds on XFree86, and you can't make a derivative work of something with an incompatible license, even if both are Free. Red Hat's switch here is either because they don't want to have to figure out if any licensing has broken due to the change, and/or because they want more input into X development, and the freedesktop.org model will give them that.
Likewise, I haven't tried recent versions of pine, so:
1. Mutt's LDAP indexing is fast enough for me, but I honestly don't know if it's faster, slower or the same as Pine
2. This is really two things: Yes, to my knowledge mutt can't search across multiple mailboxes (this would be a nifty feature, but I haven't needed it yet). I don't find IMAP searches slow, if you aren't searching the message bodies, it's blazing; if you are searching the message bodies, the bottleneck is the network and the IMAP server, not the client.
3. Refraining from storing configuration settings via IMAP strikes me as a feature, or more properly a bugfix. The one thing that always infuriated me about Pine was its insistance on polluting mail folders with special pine-specific things, making it hard and ugly to use any other mail client on the same emails.
Unless you are saying that Pine has ACAP support, which is news to me. To my knowledge UofW has talked about adding ACAP to Pine, but hasn't done it yet. ACAP doesn't mean much to me anyway without a good Free ACAP server (Cyrus has a server, but they apparently stopped developing it).
4. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "user-defined labels", are these per-message flags, or arbitrary variables? How are they stored on an IMAP server?
Modifying flags (such as deleted) seems straightforward to me, I'm not sure what your gripe is here.
- - - - -
When Red Hat started, they didn't know much about Free software, and they shipped anything they could get their hands on. Then they got a clue and said that the core will be all free, and dumped several non-free packages (but they still allowed non-essential packages to be non-free). Now that they're making their big enterprise push, I don't know what their policy is. Oracle isn't free software, that's for sure.
Since almost all Linux software wants to be in Red Hat, I think they really ought to give the community a clear statement as to what their packaging and licensing standards are.
Nosagt wrote:
Pine has a superior IMAP implementation than any of these alternatives.
I use IMAP on Mutt daily, I used to use IMAP on Pine daily. I'm not just talking about a single folder in IMAP either, I'm talking about two seperate accounts each with over 20 folders in a hierarchy that goes up to four or five folders deep. Mutt handles it fine.
While Pine had IMAP before Mutt did, Mutt has long since caught up, and I can't think of a single way which Pine's IMAP implementation is superior to Mutt's. I would be interested to hear if you have an example?
What modifications are needed to it in the first place? The stock-binary is well-maintained. And it is easy enough to apply a patch to the source code & recompile.
Security and bug fixes without being forced to wait for upstream to get around to it is always first on the list. Next on the list is "What if University of Washington decides to stop maintaining it". Many distributions also want to make sure the sofware integrates well with other software in their distro, this would possibly require changes. These issues are all solved with Free software, but difficult to impossible to do in a binary distribution like Red Hat with Pine's licensing.
Why take RMS's opinion on free/nonfree as scripture?
Who said anything about taking RMS's opinion as scripture?? I never said it shouldn't be used because RMS said it was bad, I said it shouldn't be distributed because distros need to be able to ship modified binaries. Gentoo's users might be happy recompiling everything, but most of Red Hat's users aren't.
I agree with RMS because I have given the topic a lot of thought and find he's right, not because RMS has a special place in the community, nor because of any alleged "scripture".
It is funny to see gratis software that ships with source being bashed for not being libre more than progams which don't ship with source.
As far as I know, the only serious extra bashing UofW got for Pine/Pico is when they started claiming that the Permission Notice and Disclaimer license that they used to ship under means something different than every other developer who used it says it does. However, for purposes of Pine and Pico, most distributors now treat their license according to UofW's interpretation, and don't distribute modified binaries, usually by not distributing Pine or Pico at all.
I don't have a problem with Debian's commitment to libre software & their choice not to ship pine. But other distros don't seem to have a consistent stance on how free apps have to be before they're included.
Some other distributions were slower than Debian in realizing that there was a problem. Some were lazy and figured UofW wouldn't call them on it. Some were happy shipping the unmodified binaries. Feel free to mock and call out distributors if their attitude on Pine/Pico is inconsistent. Personally, I run Debian.
It's not that pine is not GPL, it's that pine is altogether Not Free Software. Specifically, the University of Washington will not allow anyone to distribute modified versions, they've even threatened to sue people who do this with older versions of Pine. This makes it hard to work the software into a distribution like Red Hat, and even harder to want to.
Personally, I use Mutt, and I love it. Other people seem equally pleased with elm. With both of these clients, "all you need is an xterm".
If you really prefer Pine, there are two projects to create an Free replacement for it: Hydrant and OSERP. I don't know how far along and usable either project is. If you just miss Pico, there's an excellent Free clone called Nano, which is very usable and included in most Linux distros already.
zegebbers asks:
If [an installer is] no big deal, then why is it nearly impossible for me to get a standard way for installing softwre[sic] on linux?
It's not, just create an LSB-compliant RPM file. Full specifications can be found at the LinuxBase.org website. Most recent distros can handle LSB-compliant RPM files with no hassle (even "old and non-compliant" Debian Stable/Woody can handle over 99% of them if you install the lsb package).
IMHO, it's perfectly legitimate to say "Requires LSB compliant Linux distro" in this day and age. Your once legitimate gripe goes in the "old news, fixed already" bin. Now, if you want native installs for multiple distros, you might elect to put some extra work into it, but a single LSB package should be good enough for most things.
You can get "-w mode" also by putting a set nowrap line in either /etc/nanorc or ~/.nanorc, depending on whether you want to make it the system default or your personal default. That should do it.
Nano is great, whenever I'm training a Windows-trained sysadmin for a Linux system, that's the first editor I throw at them. It's easy to use, and doesn't confuse the issue with either inscrutable modes or forgettable key combinations. In its default mode it even tells you the most important control keys on screen.
These people don't need much in an editor, just editing a few config files and maybe writing a short script. Nano does it easily.
Of course, I don't know how well it works with CJK scripts, I suspect badly, so it won't work well for this group.
J & R Music World is a really good store for that. Their prices might not be the best in the city, but they are consistently good. I have found them to be a reputable computer dealer, and they've been in the business for over twenty years. They are on Park Row, right by City Hall. You can't miss them, their various stores (Computers, cameras, music, books, videos, etc) take up almost an entire block.
Mmmm, I like the slaves with palm fronds idea ;-)
Walt Dismal suggests:
One solution is to not use electricity.
OK so far.
Build a solar-powered steam engine and use it to run a Carnot cycle in reverse (heat pump) during the day. All mechanical, no electricity. Cheaper than solar cells plus batteries plus charger/inverter.
While we're at it, we can make the air conditioner even more efficient by making it out of point masses and assuming no friction.
[Hint: The Carnot cycle is a theoretical model from the thermodynamics unit in physics class, it's not a real heat pump to cool anything. It makes some assumptions (eg. a fully reversable process, no entropy increase) that we don't know how to engineer. It's the oversimplified ideal heat pump, not a real one.]
Frost22 asks ... Why can't yopu[sic] make that work in the US ?
What is wrong with paper ballots ?
The biggest fraud problem with paper ballots is ballot stuffing. It is horribly easy to use counterfeit or fraudulently obtained ballots to cast a few extra votes for the candidates of your choice. I have far too often heard of paper ballot elections having more votes cast than registered voters. Careful poll management can minimize but not eliminate this risk, unless you are strip searching voters, or clearly marking which ballot belongs to which registered voter. Whether this problem is worse than the problems in other systems is, of course, a matter for debate.
Why can't we make paper ballots work in the US? I think it's less can't than won't. Counting paper ballots in a timely fashion requires a lot of people. These people expect to be paid for their time. Municipalities (cities, towns) are usually forced to foot the bill for voting, and they would generally rather pay for a fancy machine once than a pile of people each election.
That, and we can't count.
I was unaware at the time of writing that they were using the Trademark with permission . Generally, if you are using someone else's trademark with permission, among other things you identify whose trademark it is as part of the message, something like "Project Gutenberg is a trademark of Michael Hart".
Since I saw no such notice on the Project Gutenberg 2 Website, I assumed they were in violation of the trademark.
Assuming they are legitimately using the trademark, this is a really disappointing usage. They give no credit to the work of the volunteers of Project Gutenberg, and they make their site sound like they are the new, improved replacement for the project. This is confusing to many people, and seriously dilutes the trademark, two things that licensing is supposed to minimize. *sigh*
Nursie asks:
What gave you the idea that it was going to fund free books or the original project gutenberg? This looks like an attempt to make money from someone else's work to me......
The fact that one of the few restrictions on the Project Gutenberg files is that any use of the files or trademark for commercial sales requires a royalty payment of 20% of gross profits to the project. The exact legalese can be found at http://gutenberg.net/howto/header-howto.txt.
The real Project Gutenberg is unchanged. Furthermore, the whole idea of the original project seems (at least to me) to be to take Public Domain works, and make them freely available to as many people as possible so they can do what they want with them. If what you want to do is sell PDF eBooks with these works, that's fine. To quote the notice on the top of Project Gutenberg works:
So the problem here isn't what these people are doing, but the cynical and callous adoption of the "Project Gutenberg" name, which seems designed to cause confusion in the community and the market. I think it might be time for Project Gutenberg to remind the World eBook Library Consortia the nature of trademarks.
Ah, I love "Informative" moderations for posts of wrong information, probably for trolling purposes.
Anonymous Coward trolls:
EB is not a corporation. It is a sole proprietorship. Please do better research next time. Thank you.
Troll bridge, pay troll:
Electronics Boutique Holding Corporation (aka Electronics Boutiqe, EB, EB Games, EB Games Online, EBX) is a publically traded corporation on NASDAQ with the ticker symbol ELBO. For more information, you can look at their corporate site.
A hint, in general, if you see ", Inc." after a company name, that means it's a corporation. All of the "Electronics Boutique, Inc." should have clued you in. Making up that it's a sole propritorship with no evidence (as if anyone would accept the liability problems of a sole proprietorship for a nationwide chain of retail storefronts) is what made this post a troll.
I would have just ignored the troll, except idiot moderators were making it a highly rated troll. Consider this a notice to metamoderators that above "Informative" moderation was unfair.
I have seen statements, allegedly from SCO, claiming AutoZone is a copyright infringement case regarding System V code in Linux. I have also seen statements, allegedly from SCO, claiming that the case is regarding OpenServer shared libraries.
To be blunt, we don't know which it is, or if it's neither or both. The only way we will know is to read the case, and unless you are in the Nevada Courts Clerk's office to pick it up, you're going to have to wait for it to hit Pacer, or Groklaw, or any of the other sites that will make the filings available online.
Until then, it might well be about Linux, or it might not be. Your claim that it isn't is just as much speculation as their claim that it is.
AKnightCowboy wrote:
Most likely Autozone has thousands of SCO UNIX POS terminals or something.
Had. From everything I've heard, AutoZone used to have (SCO) OpenServer-based POS systems for all their stores. They then ported their POS software to Linux, and they now have Linux-based POS systems for all of their stores.
One of the statements SCO has made in the IBM lawsuit is that the only way AutoZone could have made the transition to Linux so quickly is if IBM helped them by porting the OpenServer libraries over to Linux. They offer no evidence for this, and the entire charge strikes me as complete bunk.
--
"Hillbilly roots", I like it. I'm picturing a few 386's and an AlphaServer system up on cinderblocks in the driveway, Grampa playing banjo tunes on SpiralSynthModular. Mmmm, country air, nobody calling with thoughtless tech support questions.
From Yahoo! Finance, the bulk of the loss happened between yesterday's closing price (88.40) and today's opening price (82.73). The price as of this writing (83.47) represents a gain from earlier this morning. I'm sure the SCO suit has had some influence on the price, but I would have to assume that something else is affecting the price even more.
Regardless, it looks like AutoZone is yet another company large enough to eat SCO for breakfast, if they cared to. Not to mention DaimlerChrysler.
John Kerry's mother is Rosemary Forbes. My understanding is that she is somewhat related to the Forbes magazine publishers. This would, of course, make him related. It doesn't matter, he was born to a rich family, and became richer through marriage.
Bush, too, is quite rich.
None of this changes the fact that I think Kerry poses less of a threat to our future than Bush, and might even try to do some things I agree with if he becomes President.
"... I told you it was not important."
... as Frankie Mouse!
We've had plenty of evidence of current, as well as past weather on Mars before we even launched the Spirit Rover.
OK, you might not be able to port Linux to run directly the bare hardware, but what about porting a simpler, more streamlined, processor emulation to run on the bare hardware, preferably one that Linux has already been ported to. Maybe a Crusoe emulating MIPS running Linux might be a more efficient proposition than a Crusoe emulating IA-32 running Linux. Or perhaps Crusoe->ARM->Linux.