patents you come up with don't do your company any good against their competitors. They just keep anyone else from entering the arena.
This sounds like it could be an OSS killer, since OSS would probably have a hard time entering into cross-licensing agreemants, and certainly hasn't yet. So the questions that arise in my mind are:
If this is a large problem for any OSS project, why is IBM so gung-ho on Linux?
Why hasn't MS used this *already* on Linux? Or are we just hearing the opening shots?
Look at what RedHat does - Get the OS for free, then encourage people to pay for their services.
There's a subtlty about Rehat that many havent' grasped, even though it was reported (here, among other places), at the time: the support horizons for their 'free' and retail releases has been dramtically shortened. For example, RH9.0 expires in April 30, 2004. After that,don't count on using up2date or getting RPMs from redhat for security or bug fixes. See http://www.redhat.com/apps/support/errata/ So, your options are:
Upgrade to the next retail release every year (except that they've stopped making a retail release - wonder when they will also stop having new ISOs to download?)
At the end of life or sooner, fallback to downloading patches/updates from the develpoers and compiling from source (unless omseone else packages these in RPMs). Compiling form source isn't (usually) rocket science, but it is definitiely more time consuming (quick, what is the./configure option for OpenSSL to cause it to rebuild the libs that OpenSSH uses? Or is int OpenSSH?).
Pony up what Redhat wants for their 'enterprise' relases, which start at something like $179 US (for a "workstation" version that shows up w/ apache and samba, lacks other servers) and ranges up to $1400 for the support of large memory or more than 2 or 4(I think) CPUs. I can't find the support pricing for the updates services
You may stil get by cheaper than MS, and you'll still have more control and understanding of "just what the heck is that computer doing and why", but free it ain't..
I don't see where it says that you're covered if you use an MS porudcut and you lose the suit. The article did say: "Punitive damages, which can exceed the verdict for damages, were not addressed." And it also said:
Issue: Third-party injury
Old: Costs covered to value of software purchased.
New: No liability cap, if Microsoft was grossly negligent or acted intentionally.
So there are still loopholes here, for a company that has shown willingess to use and stretch every loophole to the breaking point.
Oh! Someone told me I've lost! That means I've lost! I'm just gonna give up now!
Thurrott and Gartner are still MS apologists. Thurrott is still saying stuff with no factual basis, it's just harder to say what the factual bassis isn't. And you and your AC buddy are still without any facts - you just call someone a slashboi and expect them to crumble.
Been on the net since '95, been on slashdot since '99, been dealing with dipshits like you for too long.
Come back with a fact or prepare to stay ignored at -1 where you belong.
Thurrot writing style makes it fuzzy. He does write about the "up to the 80%" figure. I'll admit he does not explictly attribute the 80% figure to Gartner, in fact giving no source for it, while managing to imply that it comes from here.
Unix licensing...states that if a licensee (IBM) modifies the licensed code, then SCO or unix owner of the week then owns that modified code.
Especially since we're talking whole new modules, not just modified modules. By SCO's argument, they would own all of Unix, Linux, BSD, AIX, etc. - clearly nonsense.
The statement that any number from 0% to 80% falls within the range of Thurrottt's "up to 80%" garbage was a statment of fact. The statement that the Gartner article, to which Thurrott referred, nowhere mentioned the 80% figure was a statement of fact. I'm still waiting for your first statement of fact. I expect to wait a rather long time, if I actually cared. Dipshit.
OpenOffice.org still has its problems of handling files made with MS Office,
Is 100% MS compatibility a core business requiremnt? Which means that if you can't do it, you go out of business? I doubt it, since 100% Microsoft compatibility isn't even a core business requirement for Microsoft.
So it it's not a core business requirement, and there's a better way to do business, then less-than-100% comptibility with MS isn't something to bleat about while invite MS to drain our bank accounts, it's just one more problem to be solved on the way to taking back control of our data and our computers.
I remember stuff getting screwed up in RedHat and having to reinstall because it would no longer boot.
I have never heard or seen an instance of this. It is almost certain that you did something seriously wrong, and, unlike Windows, had we been watching the commands you issued and known the files you were dealing with, we'd be able to tell you what it was. Things don't 'just happen' in Linux.
That said, XP is NT/2000 based, which makes it far more stable than the POS win9* line. It's stability could apporach that on Linux, I supppose.
2 thought it funny, one thought it a troll. Wow, I'm impressed. Also, since you ahve som,little respect for 'slashbois', why do you fall back on their opinions to defend yourself? Still pathetic. Let's hear a fact, or an informed opinion.
An anonymous Coward said: Look at the slashboi banging his head against the keyboard and screaming "it can't be!!! it's not true!!!1! it's all FUD from M$!!!"
Listen to this nonsense: up to 80 percent of those Linux desktops will be equipped with VMWare. Well if.01% of the desktops run VMWare, this statemtn was still true. The 80% figure if menitions nowhere in the Gartner report Thurrott is supposedly quoting.
Look at the name of Thurrott's site. Look at the rest of the pro-MS crap he writes. This boy is shaking in his boots and crap like this is his only possible response.
Looking at the first few hits from googling, it was done in the Congressional cafeterias. So far as I know, no official mandate imposing this on individuals or comapnies ever came out of the US government.
Now, as to the "freedom fry" thing, under what circumstances could it possibly have not been silly?
Under the circumstances that you thought the French were a bunch of efete, ungrateful, socialist swine, who have completely forgotten or ignored the fact that a certain USA saved their butts is the only reason they have French Culture, as opposed to German culture, or Russian culture, or the culture of anyone who can fight better than France, which would be just about anyone.
Of course, I would never say or think anything like that.
The GPL is intended to do exactly what you say it doesn't: it's intended to make all software free. It's a tool intended to destroy copyright from within.
That's right. GPL'd code reaches up, grabs you by the throat and makes you insert it into your project.
Oh, you mean it doesn't?
Then, it must, by itself, open your code in your favorite editor, and type itself into your code?
Oh, it doesn't?
Gee then you must be a fucking dumbshit, since your code got the GPL-ness in it because you included GPL code in your code. Because that's the only way it can happen.
CHrist, how many times does it have to be said? If you don't wnat your code GPL'd, don't use GPL'd code in your code. Even a moron like you should be able to undestand that.
Now this issue of using the LPGL.jars, it looks to me like you escape your whole work being LGPL' if you "b) Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the Library. A suitable mechanism is one that (1) uses at run time a copy of the library already present on the user's computer system, rather than copying library functions into the executable, and (2) will operate properly with a modified version of the library, if the user installs one, as long as the modified version is interface-compatible with the version that the work was made with." So, if you dind't actually incorporate the libraries into your code, ocne again you are OK.
I still remember one of the first PKD things I read.
Some guy meets a chick at a party who gives him some drugs. Then he watches the president on tv and sees a monster with writhing tentacles. But everything else looks normal.
Comes to find out, the drug he was given was an anti-hallucinogen. Everyone who gets it sees some hideous thing when lookig at the President because there are already drugs in the water. But everyone sees a different hideous thing when on the anti-hallucinogen, but everyone sees the same thing on the hallucinogen....
I'm pretty sure this is PKD. Something in my head says there's a slight chance it was Phillip Jose Farmer, but I don't think so.
I used to use grip... It was pretty clunky. Then I realized not to trust such a frontend when you can just use the stuff that IT uses in the first place.
Sure, this would probably save me some headaches, but it is awful nice to have grip go out to the CDDB server, tell me which tracks are which tunes, let me clikc on them, etc. I guess years of Windoze use has made me a little lazy. I *have* done the cdda2wav thing in the past, though. Gvien grip's problems, maybe a good idea.
Please dont even try to use gentoo, we don't want you. And rh changed kde to *LOOK* like gnome, and everything will compile correctly if you install the god damn dev packages, ass wipe...
You must know everything, since you post as an anonymous coward
I'll use whatever I like. Fuck you, moron.
Interesting theory that it'll all just work, but I'm pretty sure that redhat changed header files or symbol names or some such to accomplish what they did. There was considerable concern and displeasure about this on the kde lists, as I recall.
Slashdot Mirror
patents you come up with don't do your company any good against their competitors. They just keep anyone else from entering the arena.
This sounds like it could be an OSS killer, since OSS would probably have a hard time entering into cross-licensing agreemants, and certainly hasn't yet. So the questions that arise in my mind are:
Look at what RedHat does - Get the OS for free, then encourage people to pay for their services.
There's a subtlty about Rehat that many havent' grasped, even though it was reported (here, among other places), at the time: the support horizons for their 'free' and retail releases has been dramtically shortened. For example, RH9.0 expires in April 30, 2004. After that,don't count on using up2date or getting RPMs from redhat for security or bug fixes. See http://www.redhat.com/apps/support/errata/ So, your options are:
- Upgrade to the next retail release every year (except that they've stopped making a retail release - wonder when they will also stop having new ISOs to download?)
- At the end of life or sooner, fallback to downloading patches/updates from the develpoers and compiling from source (unless omseone else packages these in RPMs). Compiling form source isn't (usually) rocket science, but it is definitiely more time consuming (quick, what is the
./configure option for OpenSSL to cause it to rebuild the libs that OpenSSH uses? Or is int OpenSSH?). - Pony up what Redhat wants for their 'enterprise' relases, which start at something like $179 US (for a "workstation" version that shows up w/ apache and samba, lacks other servers) and ranges up to $1400 for the support of large memory or more than 2 or 4(I think) CPUs. I can't find the support pricing for the updates services
You may stil get by cheaper than MS, and you'll still have more control and understanding of "just what the heck is that computer doing and why", but free it ain't..Somebody with mod points, mod up the parent please.
Also, while this was just a skirmish, MS has already lost a real one in Timeline vs. Microsoft.
who am I rooting for? Scumbags with no product other than lawsuits? Or scumbags like Microsoft? Shit, I think my head is going to explode....
Oh! Someone told me I've lost! That means I've lost! I'm just gonna give up now!
Thurrott and Gartner are still MS apologists. Thurrott is still saying stuff with no factual basis, it's just harder to say what the factual bassis isn't. And you and your AC buddy are still without any facts - you just call someone a slashboi and expect them to crumble.
Been on the net since '95, been on slashdot since '99, been dealing with dipshits like you for too long.
Come back with a fact or prepare to stay ignored at -1 where you belong.
Thurrot writing style makes it fuzzy. He does write about the "up to the 80%" figure. I'll admit he does not explictly attribute the 80% figure to Gartner, in fact giving no source for it, while managing to imply that it comes from here.
"YHL"?
Unix licensing ...states that if a licensee (IBM) modifies the licensed code, then SCO or unix owner of the week then owns that modified code.
Especially since we're talking whole new modules, not just modified modules. By SCO's argument, they would own all of Unix, Linux, BSD, AIX, etc. - clearly nonsense.
The statement that any number from 0% to 80% falls within the range of Thurrottt's "up to 80%" garbage was a statment of fact. The statement that the Gartner article, to which Thurrott referred, nowhere mentioned the 80% figure was a statement of fact. I'm still waiting for your first statement of fact. I expect to wait a rather long time, if I actually cared. Dipshit.
OpenOffice.org still has its problems of handling files made with MS Office,
Is 100% MS compatibility a core business requiremnt? Which means that if you can't do it, you go out of business? I doubt it, since 100% Microsoft compatibility isn't even a core business requirement for Microsoft.So it it's not a core business requirement, and there's a better way to do business, then less-than-100% comptibility with MS isn't something to bleat about while invite MS to drain our bank accounts, it's just one more problem to be solved on the way to taking back control of our data and our computers.
I remember stuff getting screwed up in RedHat and having to reinstall because it would no longer boot.
I have never heard or seen an instance of this. It is almost certain that you did something seriously wrong, and, unlike Windows, had we been watching the commands you issued and known the files you were dealing with, we'd be able to tell you what it was. Things don't 'just happen' in Linux.
That said, XP is NT/2000 based, which makes it far more stable than the POS win9* line. It's stability could apporach that on Linux, I supppose.
2 thought it funny, one thought it a troll. Wow, I'm impressed. Also, since you ahve som,little respect for 'slashbois', why do you fall back on their opinions to defend yourself? Still pathetic. Let's hear a fact, or an informed opinion.
An anonymous Coward said: Look at the slashboi banging his head against the keyboard and screaming "it can't be!!! it's not true!!!1! it's all FUD from M$!!!"
That's the best you can do? Pathetic.
amplified greatly by Thurrott.
Listen to this nonsense: up to 80 percent of those Linux desktops will be equipped with VMWare. Well if .01% of the desktops run VMWare, this statemtn was still true. The 80% figure if menitions nowhere in the Gartner report Thurrott is supposedly quoting.
Look at the name of Thurrott's site. Look at the rest of the pro-MS crap he writes. This boy is shaking in his boots and crap like this is his only possible response.
Actually, wasn't it a congressional thing?
Looking at the first few hits from googling, it was done in the Congressional cafeterias. So far as I know, no official mandate imposing this on individuals or comapnies ever came out of the US government.
Now, as to the "freedom fry" thing, under what circumstances could it possibly have not been silly?
Under the circumstances that you thought the French were a bunch of efete, ungrateful, socialist swine, who have completely forgotten or ignored the fact that a certain USA saved their butts is the only reason they have French Culture, as opposed to German culture, or Russian culture, or the culture of anyone who can fight better than France, which would be just about anyone.
Of course, I would never say or think anything like that.
No we're even sillier, we ban words like "French Fries" and "French Toast" by ourselves.
It might or might not have been silly, but it wasn't state-mandated.
..would even have a Culture Ministry in this sense.
Or does the USA have something equally silly of which I'm not aware? (I live in USA).
What if he links with a BINARY library he has found on his machine and came with the OS on the machine
How come you can type but you can't read? Just because you must include the copyright notice does not mean you have to open your code.
The GPL is intended to do exactly what you say it doesn't: it's intended to make all software free. It's a tool intended to destroy copyright from within.
That's right. GPL'd code reaches up, grabs you by the throat and makes you insert it into your project.
Oh, you mean it doesn't?
Then, it must, by itself, open your code in your favorite editor, and type itself into your code?
Oh, it doesn't?
Gee then you must be a fucking dumbshit, since your code got the GPL-ness in it because you included GPL code in your code. Because that's the only way it can happen.
CHrist, how many times does it have to be said? If you don't wnat your code GPL'd, don't use GPL'd code in your code. Even a moron like you should be able to undestand that.
Now this issue of using the LPGL .jars, it looks to me like you escape your whole work being LGPL' if you "b) Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the Library. A suitable mechanism is one that (1) uses at run time a copy of the library already present on the user's computer system, rather than copying library functions into the executable, and (2) will operate properly with a modified version of the library, if the user installs one, as long as the modified version is interface-compatible with the version that the work was made with." So, if you dind't actually incorporate the libraries into your code, ocne again you are OK.
He's not evil enough...
Which one?
I still remember one of the first PKD things I read.
Some guy meets a chick at a party who gives him some drugs. Then he watches the president on tv and sees a monster with writhing tentacles. But everything else looks normal.
Comes to find out, the drug he was given was an anti-hallucinogen. Everyone who gets it sees some hideous thing when lookig at the President because there are already drugs in the water. But everyone sees a different hideous thing when on the anti-hallucinogen, but everyone sees the same thing on the hallucinogen....
I'm pretty sure this is PKD. Something in my head says there's a slight chance it was Phillip Jose Farmer, but I don't think so.
as obvious and asinine mistake as violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics the way The Matrix's idiotic "humans as batteries" backstory does.
YES! YES! If I wasn't commenting elsewhere in this thread, I'd mod you up to high-heaven.
I've also noticed more than expected swap use with the redhat default 2.4.20-8 in rh 9. I agree - WTF?
I used to use grip... It was pretty clunky. Then I realized not to trust such a frontend when you can just use the stuff that IT uses in the first place.
Sure, this would probably save me some headaches, but it is awful nice to have grip go out to the CDDB server, tell me which tracks are which tunes, let me clikc on them, etc. I guess years of Windoze use has made me a little lazy. I *have* done the cdda2wav thing in the past, though. Gvien grip's problems, maybe a good idea.
Please dont even try to use gentoo, we don't want you. And rh changed kde to *LOOK* like gnome, and everything will compile correctly if you install the god damn dev packages, ass wipe...