"Let's be clear, I haven't commented on the Linux market"
With all due respect,
Yes you have. Twice. First, with your own exptrapolation from the article being about OS growth to your claiming that it's about the Desktop only. And second, with your claim that the numbers published by the community "doesn't ring true".
"As Net Applications measure web browsing I think I am pretty correct in identifying this as being about the desktop."
Perhaps. Or not. But that is your extrapolation, and not in the article. The article is pretty clear that it's trying to portray OS growth in general. And trying to claim that the installed Linux base is far smaller than it really is.
"Perhaps you should do more research before levelling such accusations."
Please, show me the links. And I would suggest that you should put more trust in the community than in propaganda pieces.
Personally, I'll put my belief in what the community is reporting; especially when their methodology is publically available, and can be debated upon in the open. The community has proven fairly quick to correct mistaken information. Plus it's been fairly beneficial to me, so I'll stick with that source, thanks.
You, on the otherhand, have stated you don't believe this information. You are welcome to your own beliefs. But I'll stick with mine until the numbers are proven otherwise, thanks. And this article doesn't come close to cutting it.
With all due respect, you are seriously mistaken here. Your submission is
at best erroneous, and at worst downright disingenous (though it's not clear to me the latter is your deliberate intention).
First of all, nowhere in the article does it make a single distinction between
servers and desktops. Indeed, there is no mention of either of these words
in TFA.
The article is about total market growth of Operating Systems, and
it makes no claims about the Desktop market whatsover.
The attempt to correlate it to Desktops are your words alone. It is not what
the article is representing.
As far as Fedora goes, you are welcome to dispute their methodology. It's
been discussed before. Personally, I think it's rather hard to argue with.
But in any case, it certainly is better documented than what these folks
are publishing.
In short, as someone else has mentioned, it's a clear troll article. I'd add
that it's using questionable methodology, and claiming an absolute. With
results which are in contradiction to even the simplest of the better documented claims.
Perhaps it might be hard for you to believe. But you shouldn't let your own views diminish the Linux market, or support the propaganda pieces which does. It would be far more helpful to focus on the methodology used, and contrast it to the other methodologies (and associated numbers).
Only then will we get a better view of the true number of Linux installations out there.
Please read the fine article. They are explicitly talking about the grow of the Operating Systems, and they don't make any distinction in terms of Desktop or Server. In fact, the word "desktop" is nowhere to be found in the article at all.
Now, one might infer that it's intended for desktops. But that inference is left up to the user. It is explicitly not what the article is claiming. TFA is only talking about their measurements of the total growth of OS's.
Had they stated that it was for Desktops only, and that they weren't talking about servers, this article might have more credibility. But they didn't. They are, instead, trying to misrepresent things.
There are currently about 1 Billion PCs worldwide. If Linux had a 0.81% "marketshare", that would equate to a grand total of 8.1 Million systems. Fedora alone provided a fairly accurate measure of installed systems last year (for FC6 IIRC), and the last I heard it was 7 Million and counting.
But that's just Fedora alone. Ubuntu has a significantly bigger "marketshare" than Fedora. SuSE is also a significant player. Altogether, the Linux marketshare is probably somewhere between 3-5 times what Fedora is reporting, which would put Linux at about a 3-4% marketshare, worldwide.
But the point remains that the numbers in the article don't jibe with what most other people are reporting. In fact, these numbers are downright silly.
All the people involved in shutting down this attempt at extending a monopoly by hacking the voting system through bribery deserve a hearty congratulations in stopping this for now.
I submit though, that the job isn't over, but incomplete. The ISO seriously needs to look at fixing how Microsoft attempted to hijack the process to suit their own gain, and ignore the real purpose of International Standards.
Until this fixed, we'll see more of the same, on a greater scale. And not just by Microsoft. The end result would be the weakening of the usefulness of real standards, if the current system is left as it is.
Good luck with that approach. Personally, if I saw someone with paypal on their Resume, it would be a serious negative. It would tell me that they have no morals.
I know Paypal is having trouble recruiting good people. About a year ago, they picked up my C.V. and tried to get me to apply for a job. I wrote back saying I'd never work at a place with such an awful reputation. Normally that would be the end of it, but the H.R. person kicked it up to his manager, who tried to lay on the sugar about how it was such a great place to work.
Yeah right. I guess having a decent live potential candidate on the line has to be a rarity there. I can't think of a time when my initial contact has gotten kicked up to an H.R. manager. Usually the internal recruiter tries really hard to handle it, lest they look bad and/or get reduced credit.
Anyway, so I asked the manager that, if what she said was indeed true, how would she respond to some of the recent complaints on paypalsucks.com? I never heard back from her again.
Top technical talent is hard to find these days in Silicon Valley. Serious outages like this shouldn't happen in the first place. But they will when you have less-than-stellar people involved. What this, and my own experience, tells me is that Paypal is having trouble getting good talent. And their reputation isn't helping any.
I wouldn't be surprised to see further problems down the road.
Well, yes, one always should do one's research beforehand. But that's like only seeing the tree in front of you, and missing the entire forest.
The basic problem here, and throughout the U.S., is that the so-called "last mile" lines are tightly controlled by the local monopoly, and closed off almost completely to any competition. When you don't have competition, you have no incentive to offer better service.
The only way we'll ever see either wider deployment, or 100 Mbs to the house in the next 10 years, is if the Telephone companies are divested of the Central Offices. That is, these are spun off into businesses which sell the lines to competing companies. Only then will you have motivation to upgrade the last mile with better services and speeds.
What I find amusing is that there's always someone who will say "but there won't be any interest in upgrading the rural areas". They always fail to realize that there is no interest right now, and isn't any on the horizon.
If you make this market truly competitive, then there will be interest. Now, granted the price will necessarily be higher, and that's where the main objection from people living out in the rural area comes from. But at least there will be service for a price. And that's what is needed to get the infrastructure ball rolling to deploy better solutions than just a T1 (which really looks rather pathetic these days).
It's also amusing that America is facing internation pressure on this front (while doing nothing about it). Other countries are deploying high-speed internet (100+ Mbs), while the best we've got being rolled out is a pathetic 6 Mbps.
Silicon Valley in particular is extremely lacking here.
Unless this is changed, and soon, there will be a lot of other countries which are in a better position to compete than the U.S.. The next 10 years will be interesting.
"IBM - a much larger corporation than Microsoft and with a similarly larger patent portfolio - is certainly taking some productive steps, especially regarding 'gifting' patents to open source projects and clearing projects using open-standards from IBM patent threat."
Please be aware that IBM has recently started attacking companies, via bogus software patents. This includes companies who are using Linux in their products. One example is Platform Solutions Inc., who is IBM's only competitor in the very profitable mainframe space.
What is especially disconcerting is that IBM (who strongly supported the previous Software Patent inititive in Europe) is now proposing a so-called "softer" approach (referred to in FTA).
In short, IBM is basically trying to cozy up and pretend they are the good guys. But as soon as they get an advantage or control over a market place, they pull out all of the stops to dominate everything.
Fortunately Microsoft hasn't picked up on this approach yet, as it appears to be successful. IBM now appears to be driving the only approach being seriously considered to implement Software Patents in Europe. And people appear to be listening, because of the things like you stated above.
This is commonly referred to as a Trojan Horse approach, and many people, including the EU, appear to be buying it. As such, IBM is in the drivers seat on this one.
We are far better off without Software Patents. We don't need to worry about how IBM is going to exploit them to its advantage once it gets the laws it wants passed.
Yes, I am extremely grateful that Microsoft hasn't picked up on this thought or approach yet.
The lesson to take home here is:
"One does not need to be from the future to know what is going to happen tomorrow with reasonable accuracy"
Your entire post was very well said. Thank you for those insightful and well spoken words. A pity you are anonymous, as you deserve credit for them. But that does show the power of allowing people to choose anonymity when they so want it. Thank you Slashdot, for allowing anonymous postings.
I'd only add my favorite quote, from the well known Peter Drucker, which has been in my sig for ages.
Ray Beckerman, who's known here as the famous NYCountryLawyer (and the one who has won the most battles against the RIAA) has put together an article on
IMHO, these should be required reading for anyone who is hit by these lawsuits. If you want the real condensed version, it is this (from the second link):
"The best advice if you are sued by the RIAA is to quickly retain a lawyer who has some experience dealing with RIAA cases. Having knowledgeable council early on won't stop the process from being difficult, but can give you a better chance of protecting your rights."
I got the latter from the second article. I have no idea if there are defensive legal strategies that any students can employ before they get a letter from the RIAA, but it would be interesting and useful if a skilled lawyer could make the University think twice before just bending over for the RIAA.
"... but of course the advanced tech we will have in 100-150 years will look like magic from our prospective."
This assumes that we haven't managed to kill ourselves off in the next 100-150 years. Given how fast we're progressing technologically (and how fast that technology propagates throughout the world), this may be an optimistic assumption.
Fermi raised an excellent (and possibly troubling) paradox, which still hasn't been answered.
IMHO our biggest challenge is how we can all live together in peace. Sadly, I don't see enough thought or resources directed towards solving that challenge.
"I don't mean to sound ignorant or naive, but isn't this just what businesses do?... So let them do their thing, maybe get some people and companies to switch to Linux"
Think about what you just said for a moment. Are you seriously suggesting that Microsoft is doing this in order to help people and companies switch to Linux?
Doesn't it strike you the least that there's something wrong with that picture? Are you at all familiar with how Microsoft plays the software game?
Microsoft is the ultimate control freak. They have well demonstrated that they want control over everything. And they have constantly demonstrated that they will do anything and everything, legal or illegal, in order to achieve their goal.
So now you're suggesting that they are doing a good thing for Linux. Excuse me, but yes, you do indeed sound naive.
It's not clear to me what Microsoft is trying to do here. But it is extremely clear that they still want complete control over everything. This pattern just strikes me as a new approach that they are trying.
And these little distros are doing their best in order to help Microsoft out.
This is a neat technology with uses other than skin. One thing which comes to mind is the issue of punctures in the space station, or even rocket ships, due to collisions with all of the junk that is currently in orbit. Or space suits.
If they could only get this to work in the low temperature of space, I think they'd have an instant contract with NASA.
IIRC, a science fiction writer once wrote about something similar. Asimov, I think. But the "healing" happened from a gel contained on the inside of the structure, not the outside. The combination of the two ideas could lead to much more hardened space structures.
No, your post didn't make that clear at all. Specifically, by equating the O.S.'s as "trivial issues" is marginalizing the efforts put in by many. I don't think you have any idea as to how much work has been involved in getting to the point where we are at now.
And sorry if you took my words as "venom"; they weren't intended as such. You asked a question; I was trying to educate you on the matter of "why". Perhaps I'm being foolish in the attempt, but I'll give anyone who asks at least one response (and even more if they are sincere).
Honestly though, I don't see how it could be read that way. I think you may be a bit too thin-skinned. If you want to see real venom, I can certainly show you the difference. But I find that seldom advances a discussion.
"Why do you, and many other people, make one out of such trivial issues as what OS to use?"
Because sticking to principles is what has built both the GNU and BSD movements. You fail to see that it is that adherence to priciples which has given you the exact choices which you have.
Without people sticking to principles, you simply wouldn't be able to choose between Windows, Linux and BSD.
Since you are using BSD and Linux, and complaining about the people who built the software, I'd also
like to ask exactly what have YOU contributed to make this world a little bit better?
Complaining about the principles which got you to this state, while doing nothing to advance the state
of the art, is living your life in sheer hypocrasy. It's also commonly called leaching.
If you like to live your life that way, that's fine. But bypocrits are usually not respected, for good
reason (I leave it to you to figure out why).
If your not capable of providing technical solutions, yet still use the software provided to you freely
by others, the least you can do is show them some respect.
"And in the wrong hands, the database could be used to enforce a blacklist of people not allowed to work for various reasons."
s/could be/would be/
Has there ever been a case of a government database which hasn't been misused? If this law passes, it's only a question of how many are going to get burned, not whether it's going to happen.
IBM's policy (as explained to me by one of their VPs, and reiterated by their HR grooup) was that they had an explicit policy of not putting too many employees in one town because of the negative effects on the whole community when they have to close that one site down. Their limit used to be about 6,000. I have no idea what it is today.
Imagine Cisco permanently shutting down most of their Silicon Valley operation. Or Intel, HP or any of the other giants with tens of thousands of people in Silicon Valley. We've already had a small-scale precursor called the dot-com bust. It wasn't pretty. And it had a significant impact on the lives of many others in Silicon Valley.
And, lest one dismiss this scenario as impossible, that's what Detroit thought back in the 1960's. You might want to see the movie "Roger and me".
Personally, I think there's a very large chance of this happening in the next 30 years, simply because of the way India, China and others are rapidly growing.
So consider this a "Heads Up". IBM hasn't forgotten its experiences of the past; indeed, it has learned from them. Most other companies have choosen not to learn anything, and really don't care about long-term planning.
When (not if) this happens, the results won't be pretty.
"Novell, it appears, may need those funds. This news comes just one day following rumors, still unconfirmed by Novell, that the Linux company had laid off some employees. In addition, Novell announced on Nov. 6, for the third time, that it was extending its deadline to get the holders of its Convertible Senior Debentures to not demand immediate payment of the total $600-million owed in 2024.
Wells Fargo Bank N.A. demanded the early payment in full when it claimed that Novell had defaulted on its payment agreement by not turning in its July 31 quarterly earnings report to the SEC in a timely fashion.
This, in turn, had been caused because Novell, like many other technology companies, has delayed its financial reports while it audits its past stock option practices."
"I don't like Novell cozying up to M$ any more than anyone on/., but I understand why they're doing it - they're customers want compatibility guarantees and protection from IP disputes."
IMO, you are helping Novell out by repeating this myth. The main reason why Novell sold everyone out is because they were cash strapped. Novell was in serious debt, and that $350 Million from Microsoft offered them a way out.
Anything they said about customers was just at best secondary, and likely just a convenient excuse. If it was really an issue with customers, you'd see a lot more of these deals being signed.
And I also take issue with your reliance on legislators for a fix. It would be an uphill, long term battle. By which time Microsoft could rule the commercial world.
A better approach is to boycott Novell and to educate everyone WHY Novell should be boycotted. And combine this with Software Patent reform. But I won't hold my breath for the latter.
"Can you please tell me what monopoly IBM has? Are they a HUGE multi-national corporation? Yes, but a monopoly they hardly are."
Certainly, since your claimed expertise isn't technology, I'll repeat this again. IBM has had a monopoly for over 50 years in the mainframe business. There was an anti-trust case taken by the U.S. government back in the 1950's IIRC against them. Contrary to popular myth, the mainframe business is very much alive and well, and in Q4 last year, it was their largest growth segment.
I say "almost all" because there's a small startup which is selling mainframe-class computers which runs IBMs software directly. IBM didn't like this, so they filed a Software Patent lawsuit against the company.
The company is called "Platform Solutions", and they are apparently using Linux to achieve their emulation.
So, in short, IBM has filed a Software Patent lawsuit against a Linux company. Here's some Press Coverage:
IBM has a VERY long history of patent abuse in the mainframe business; software patents are only the latest variation on a theme. Please check Wikipedia if you want to learn more about the Consent Decree that IBM had to operate under until possibly recently.
"Actually, some of the reform these guys have proposed and the briefs they have written for SCOTUS cases have been in favor of things that would REDUCE the number of patents."
Prove it (but you can't). The standard argument is that first-to-file INCREASES the number of patents, since large companies find it easier to generate more patents than small companies do.
"First to invent is a mess."
And First-to-file stifles innovation. It is pure pork for the big companies. The patent system was supposed to be about encouraging innovation, not stifling it. I agree the whole system needs to be redone. But First-to-file is neither necessary nor sufficient to bring about the changes that are needed.
"Um, working prototype is currently a requirement FOR ALL PATENTS. You do not patent an idea, you patent an invention"
Really? Do you mean all those patent trolls who never ship any product have a working prototype? I'm a little surprised to hear this claim from a supposed Patent Attorney. I can think of several Troll companies which don't have a working product. This is usually their standard operating procedure.
A copy of the prototype binary and source code ought to be a part of any current Software Patent, IMHO.
"The corporate roster of backers includes Microsoft, IBM, Amazon,..."
Each of these companies is well-known for abusing Software patents; the first two in order to maintain their monopolies. Usually "reform" by these folks means "give me a bigger piece of the pie in order to stifle innovation and keep the little guys out".
Pardon my suspicions, but I doubt this so-called "reform" is here to help us. TFA isn't clear on this, but it sounds like this is just to establish the first-to-file basis of patents, rather thna first-to-invent. First-to-invent is advantagous for the little guy, so it's no wonder the big companies are behind this dubious "reform". This is not good legislation.
If they really wanted to reform the system, it would be better to either toss out Software Patents (and harmonize our system with much of the rest of the world) or at least require a working prototype before a Software Patent is granted.
With all due respect to the EFF, have they forgotten their roots? This stuff was discussed extensively on the old Cypherpunk list back in the early 90's. Heck, it was downright obvious, given that the FBI was mandating wiretapping equipment from the Telco's, and the Internet was in full use by any techically savvy person.
So just look at the Cypherpunk discussions for starters. You know, from the folks who started the EFF.
Here are link from a quick Google search for "cypherpunk voice internet":
The point, which you completely missed, is that presenting the yearly number is completely misleading; and it's probably done so deliberately in order to downplay the effects of the H1/L1 visa issue. It would be more honest to present the total number allowed into the US. But that would be politically unpaletable, since it is a large fraction of the total number of unemployed in the U.S.. It's even a larger percentage of the unemployed in the IT area.
Sorry for having to keep repeating the point over and over, but some people are rather slow, and are either unable or unwilling to grasp new concepts.
I realize this is Slashdot and all, and that people constantly post without understanding what they're talking about. But seriously, if you're going to try to add to a conversation try reading and understanding what the points being made are.
Slashdot Mirror
With all due respect, Yes you have. Twice. First, with your own exptrapolation from the article being about OS growth to your claiming that it's about the Desktop only. And second, with your claim that the numbers published by the community "doesn't ring true".
"As Net Applications measure web browsing I think I am pretty correct in identifying this as being about the desktop."
Perhaps. Or not. But that is your extrapolation, and not in the article. The article is pretty clear that it's trying to portray OS growth in general. And trying to claim that the installed Linux base is far smaller than it really is.
"Perhaps you should do more research before levelling such accusations."
Please, show me the links. And I would suggest that you should put more trust in the community than in propaganda pieces.
Personally, I'll put my belief in what the community is reporting; especially when their methodology is publically available, and can be debated upon in the open. The community has proven fairly quick to correct mistaken information. Plus it's been fairly beneficial to me, so I'll stick with that source, thanks.
You, on the otherhand, have stated you don't believe this information. You are welcome to your own beliefs. But I'll stick with mine until the numbers are proven otherwise, thanks. And this article doesn't come close to cutting it.
First of all, nowhere in the article does it make a single distinction between servers and desktops. Indeed, there is no mention of either of these words in TFA.
The article is about total market growth of Operating Systems, and it makes no claims about the Desktop market whatsover.
The attempt to correlate it to Desktops are your words alone. It is not what the article is representing.
As far as Fedora goes, you are welcome to dispute their methodology. It's been discussed before. Personally, I think it's rather hard to argue with. But in any case, it certainly is better documented than what these folks are publishing.
In short, as someone else has mentioned, it's a clear troll article. I'd add that it's using questionable methodology, and claiming an absolute. With results which are in contradiction to even the simplest of the better documented claims.
Perhaps it might be hard for you to believe. But you shouldn't let your own views diminish the Linux market, or support the propaganda pieces which does. It would be far more helpful to focus on the methodology used, and contrast it to the other methodologies (and associated numbers).
Only then will we get a better view of the true number of Linux installations out there.
Now, one might infer that it's intended for desktops. But that inference is left up to the user. It is explicitly not what the article is claiming. TFA is only talking about their measurements of the total growth of OS's.
Had they stated that it was for Desktops only, and that they weren't talking about servers, this article might have more credibility. But they didn't. They are, instead, trying to misrepresent things.
But that's just Fedora alone. Ubuntu has a significantly bigger "marketshare" than Fedora. SuSE is also a significant player. Altogether, the Linux marketshare is probably somewhere between 3-5 times what Fedora is reporting, which would put Linux at about a 3-4% marketshare, worldwide.
But the point remains that the numbers in the article don't jibe with what most other people are reporting. In fact, these numbers are downright silly.
I submit though, that the job isn't over, but incomplete. The ISO seriously needs to look at fixing how Microsoft attempted to hijack the process to suit their own gain, and ignore the real purpose of International Standards.
Until this fixed, we'll see more of the same, on a greater scale. And not just by Microsoft. The end result would be the weakening of the usefulness of real standards, if the current system is left as it is.
Good luck to the ISO.
How anyone could work at paypal knowing how they deliberately screw over people, without any concern is beyond me.
I know Paypal is having trouble recruiting good people. About a year ago, they picked up my C.V. and tried to get me to apply for a job. I wrote back saying I'd never work at a place with such an awful reputation. Normally that would be the end of it, but the H.R. person kicked it up to his manager, who tried to lay on the sugar about how it was such a great place to work.
Yeah right. I guess having a decent live potential candidate on the line has to be a rarity there. I can't think of a time when my initial contact has gotten kicked up to an H.R. manager. Usually the internal recruiter tries really hard to handle it, lest they look bad and/or get reduced credit.
Anyway, so I asked the manager that, if what she said was indeed true, how would she respond to some of the recent complaints on paypalsucks.com? I never heard back from her again.
Top technical talent is hard to find these days in Silicon Valley. Serious outages like this shouldn't happen in the first place. But they will when you have less-than-stellar people involved. What this, and my own experience, tells me is that Paypal is having trouble getting good talent. And their reputation isn't helping any.
I wouldn't be surprised to see further problems down the road.
Well, yes, one always should do one's research beforehand. But that's like only seeing the tree in front of you, and missing the entire forest.
The basic problem here, and throughout the U.S., is that the so-called "last mile" lines are tightly controlled by the local monopoly, and closed off almost completely to any competition. When you don't have competition, you have no incentive to offer better service.
The only way we'll ever see either wider deployment, or 100 Mbs to the house in the next 10 years, is if the Telephone companies are divested of the Central Offices. That is, these are spun off into businesses which sell the lines to competing companies. Only then will you have motivation to upgrade the last mile with better services and speeds.
What I find amusing is that there's always someone who will say "but there won't be any interest in upgrading the rural areas". They always fail to realize that there is no interest right now, and isn't any on the horizon.
If you make this market truly competitive, then there will be interest. Now, granted the price will necessarily be higher, and that's where the main objection from people living out in the rural area comes from. But at least there will be service for a price. And that's what is needed to get the infrastructure ball rolling to deploy better solutions than just a T1 (which really looks rather pathetic these days).
It's also amusing that America is facing internation pressure on this front (while doing nothing about it). Other countries are deploying high-speed internet (100+ Mbs), while the best we've got being rolled out is a pathetic 6 Mbps.
Silicon Valley in particular is extremely lacking here.
Unless this is changed, and soon, there will be a lot of other countries which are in a better position to compete than the U.S.. The next 10 years will be interesting.
Please be aware that IBM has recently started attacking companies, via bogus software patents. This includes companies who are using Linux in their products. One example is Platform Solutions Inc., who is IBM's only competitor in the very profitable mainframe space.
What is especially disconcerting is that IBM (who strongly supported the previous Software Patent inititive in Europe) is now proposing a so-called "softer" approach (referred to in FTA).
In short, IBM is basically trying to cozy up and pretend they are the good guys. But as soon as they get an advantage or control over a market place, they pull out all of the stops to dominate everything.
Fortunately Microsoft hasn't picked up on this approach yet, as it appears to be successful. IBM now appears to be driving the only approach being seriously considered to implement Software Patents in Europe. And people appear to be listening, because of the things like you stated above.
This is commonly referred to as a Trojan Horse approach, and many people, including the EU, appear to be buying it. As such, IBM is in the drivers seat on this one.
We are far better off without Software Patents. We don't need to worry about how IBM is going to exploit them to its advantage once it gets the laws it wants passed.
Yes, I am extremely grateful that Microsoft hasn't picked up on this thought or approach yet.
Your entire post was very well said. Thank you for those insightful and well spoken words. A pity you are anonymous, as you deserve credit for them. But that does show the power of allowing people to choose anonymity when they so want it. Thank you Slashdot, for allowing anonymous postings.
I'd only add my favorite quote, from the well known Peter Drucker, which has been in my sig for ages.
How the RIAA Litigation Process Works
There's also an excellent overview of this here, entitled: The RIAA vs. John Doe, a layperson's guide to filesharing lawsuits.
IMHO, these should be required reading for anyone who is hit by these lawsuits. If you want the real condensed version, it is this (from the second link):
"The best advice if you are sued by the RIAA is to quickly retain a lawyer who has some experience dealing with RIAA cases. Having knowledgeable council early on won't stop the process from being difficult, but can give you a better chance of protecting your rights."
Finally, here's another article that Ray has put together, on a Directory of Lawyers Defending Against RIAA Lawsuits
I got the latter from the second article. I have no idea if there are defensive legal strategies that any students can employ before they get a letter from the RIAA, but it would be interesting and useful if a skilled lawyer could make the University think twice before just bending over for the RIAA.
Thanks for posting that link. I wasn't aware of this group before.
This assumes that we haven't managed to kill ourselves off in the next 100-150 years. Given how fast we're progressing technologically (and how fast that technology propagates throughout the world), this may be an optimistic assumption.
Fermi raised an excellent (and possibly troubling) paradox, which still hasn't been answered.
IMHO our biggest challenge is how we can all live together in peace. Sadly, I don't see enough thought or resources directed towards solving that challenge.
Think about what you just said for a moment. Are you seriously suggesting that Microsoft is doing this in order to help people and companies switch to Linux?
Doesn't it strike you the least that there's something wrong with that picture? Are you at all familiar with how Microsoft plays the software game?
Microsoft is the ultimate control freak. They have well demonstrated that they want control over everything. And they have constantly demonstrated that they will do anything and everything, legal or illegal, in order to achieve their goal.
So now you're suggesting that they are doing a good thing for Linux. Excuse me, but yes, you do indeed sound naive.
It's not clear to me what Microsoft is trying to do here. But it is extremely clear that they still want complete control over everything. This pattern just strikes me as a new approach that they are trying.
And these little distros are doing their best in order to help Microsoft out.
If they could only get this to work in the low temperature of space, I think they'd have an instant contract with NASA.
IIRC, a science fiction writer once wrote about something similar. Asimov, I think. But the "healing" happened from a gel contained on the inside of the structure, not the outside. The combination of the two ideas could lead to much more hardened space structures.
Please do your trolling somewhere else.
And sorry if you took my words as "venom"; they weren't intended as such. You asked a question; I was trying to educate you on the matter of "why". Perhaps I'm being foolish in the attempt, but I'll give anyone who asks at least one response (and even more if they are sincere).
Honestly though, I don't see how it could be read that way. I think you may be a bit too thin-skinned. If you want to see real venom, I can certainly show you the difference. But I find that seldom advances a discussion.
Because sticking to principles is what has built both the GNU and BSD movements. You fail to see that it is that adherence to priciples which has given you the exact choices which you have.
Without people sticking to principles, you simply wouldn't be able to choose between Windows, Linux and BSD.
Since you are using BSD and Linux, and complaining about the people who built the software, I'd also like to ask exactly what have YOU contributed to make this world a little bit better?
Complaining about the principles which got you to this state, while doing nothing to advance the state of the art, is living your life in sheer hypocrasy. It's also commonly called leaching.
If you like to live your life that way, that's fine. But bypocrits are usually not respected, for good reason (I leave it to you to figure out why).
If your not capable of providing technical solutions, yet still use the software provided to you freely by others, the least you can do is show them some respect.
s/could be/would be/
Has there ever been a case of a government database which hasn't been misused? If this law passes, it's only a question of how many are going to get burned, not whether it's going to happen.
Imagine Cisco permanently shutting down most of their Silicon Valley operation. Or Intel, HP or any of the other giants with tens of thousands of people in Silicon Valley. We've already had a small-scale precursor called the dot-com bust. It wasn't pretty. And it had a significant impact on the lives of many others in Silicon Valley.
And, lest one dismiss this scenario as impossible, that's what Detroit thought back in the 1960's. You might want to see the movie "Roger and me".
Personally, I think there's a very large chance of this happening in the next 30 years, simply because of the way India, China and others are rapidly growing.
So consider this a "Heads Up". IBM hasn't forgotten its experiences of the past; indeed, it has learned from them. Most other companies have choosen not to learn anything, and really don't care about long-term planning.
When (not if) this happens, the results won't be pretty.
Here ya go. This is just one of the links from that time. The google search was trivial:
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS7235986827.html
Note the following:
"Novell, it appears, may need those funds. This news comes just one day following rumors, still unconfirmed by Novell, that the Linux company had laid off some employees. In addition, Novell announced on Nov. 6, for the third time, that it was extending its deadline to get the holders of its Convertible Senior Debentures to not demand immediate payment of the total $600-million owed in 2024.
Wells Fargo Bank N.A. demanded the early payment in full when it claimed that Novell had defaulted on its payment agreement by not turning in its July 31 quarterly earnings report to the SEC in a timely fashion.
This, in turn, had been caused because Novell, like many other technology companies, has delayed its financial reports while it audits its past stock option practices."
IMO, you are helping Novell out by repeating this myth. The main reason why Novell sold everyone out is because they were cash strapped. Novell was in serious debt, and that $350 Million from Microsoft offered them a way out.
Anything they said about customers was just at best secondary, and likely just a convenient excuse. If it was really an issue with customers, you'd see a lot more of these deals being signed.
And I also take issue with your reliance on legislators for a fix. It would be an uphill, long term battle. By which time Microsoft could rule the commercial world.
A better approach is to boycott Novell and to educate everyone WHY Novell should be boycotted. And combine this with Software Patent reform. But I won't hold my breath for the latter.
Certainly, since your claimed expertise isn't technology, I'll repeat this again. IBM has had a monopoly for over 50 years in the mainframe business. There was an anti-trust case taken by the U.S. government back in the 1950's IIRC against them. Contrary to popular myth, the mainframe business is very much alive and well, and in Q4 last year, it was their largest growth segment.
I say "almost all" because there's a small startup which is selling mainframe-class computers which runs IBMs software directly. IBM didn't like this, so they filed a Software Patent lawsuit against the company.
The company is called "Platform Solutions", and they are apparently using Linux to achieve their emulation.
So, in short, IBM has filed a Software Patent lawsuit against a Linux company. Here's some Press Coverage:
"IBM's decision to sue Platform Solutions is another indication that the company is becoming more aggressive about defending its intellectual property in an effort to extract more revenue from its extensive patent trove."
IBM has a VERY long history of patent abuse in the mainframe business; software patents are only the latest variation on a theme. Please check Wikipedia if you want to learn more about the Consent Decree that IBM had to operate under until possibly recently.
"Actually, some of the reform these guys have proposed and the briefs they have written for SCOTUS cases have been in favor of things that would REDUCE the number of patents."
Prove it (but you can't). The standard argument is that first-to-file INCREASES the number of patents, since large companies find it easier to generate more patents than small companies do.
"First to invent is a mess."
And First-to-file stifles innovation. It is pure pork for the big companies. The patent system was supposed to be about encouraging innovation, not stifling it. I agree the whole system needs to be redone. But First-to-file is neither necessary nor sufficient to bring about the changes that are needed.
"Um, working prototype is currently a requirement FOR ALL PATENTS. You do not patent an idea, you patent an invention"
Really? Do you mean all those patent trolls who never ship any product have a working prototype? I'm a little surprised to hear this claim from a supposed Patent Attorney. I can think of several Troll companies which don't have a working product. This is usually their standard operating procedure.
A copy of the prototype binary and source code ought to be a part of any current Software Patent, IMHO.
Each of these companies is well-known for abusing Software patents; the first two in order to maintain their monopolies. Usually "reform" by these folks means "give me a bigger piece of the pie in order to stifle innovation and keep the little guys out".
Pardon my suspicions, but I doubt this so-called "reform" is here to help us. TFA isn't clear on this, but it sounds like this is just to establish the first-to-file basis of patents, rather thna first-to-invent. First-to-invent is advantagous for the little guy, so it's no wonder the big companies are behind this dubious "reform". This is not good legislation.
If they really wanted to reform the system, it would be better to either toss out Software Patents (and harmonize our system with much of the rest of the world) or at least require a working prototype before a Software Patent is granted.
So just look at the Cypherpunk discussions for starters. You know, from the folks who started the EFF.
Here are link from a quick Google search for "cypherpunk voice internet":
March 15, 2004 A Race the FBI Can't Win: The Increasingly Asymmetric Costs of Wiretap Surveillance vs. Wiretap Avoidance. This one even mentions the term Voip.
Sorry for having to keep repeating the point over and over, but some people are rather slow, and are either unable or unwilling to grasp new concepts.
I realize this is Slashdot and all, and that people constantly post without understanding what they're talking about. But seriously, if you're going to try to add to a conversation try reading and understanding what the points being made are.