What 'protection' does it offer? None. It offers up a way for a judge to make a ruling that MIGHT allow for compensation, but that is not protection, that is compensation AFTER the 'damage' has been done.
And, if you believe source code/computers/technology is out-dated the day it is released, by the time any decision winds its way thru the court system, the damage was long ago.
Micro$oft used that 'long ago' argument with DR-DOS in the lawsuit.
>And in a lawyer-happy country,
To gain 'your protection', you *NEED* the happy lawyers to hit others with a rolled-up legal brief. And, for evey violator you catch, there are many more who get away.
>I don't want to see it in a year or 2 with Sun's or MS's name on it.
If you have a novel way of implementation, what is stopping anyone from taking your code, creating a spec of it, passing that spec over the cube wall and having another implement the spec?
The GPL protected your intellectual property how?
How about this: They take your code, move the indentations about, change some var names, add one or two new vars...the GPL protects you how?
How about this: They just cut and paste your code into their product. Do you have the money to track down all the different people who might have done this cut-n-paste job? Do you have the money to take them to court?
*IF* your modivation is "to stop theft of my code", I wish to remind you that 'locks keep honest people honest'. People who are going to take things they should not, will take things they should not. Given the risk of you comming out of the woodwork and suing is miminal, taking your code and making a closed source project from it is a minimal risk.
>This is not to say that you have to be GPL compatible to release perfectly acceptable open source code, but the consequences are that you will never be able to use GPL code, and no GPL project will be able to use your code.
By this def. then, BSD licenced code it NOT open source because BSD code can not accept GPL code without destroying the BSD licence.
But, note how Ciff wanted to INCLUSIVE of other otions (BSD, etc) Cliff is thinking Open. The asker of the question is either un-informed or yet another 'lets make everything linux' zelot.
>The open-source nature of Linux sets off a red flag, to most government officals, that says "UNSECURE."
And, here I thought all this time, it was the root kits run by script kiddies that say 'unsecure', not the Open Source nature. Or the high number of security alerts on security focus for 'linux'. (And, I make good money de-root kitting other people's Linux boxes)
OpenBSD has managed to convice people that security is an option with Open Source software.
If time was spent educating that Open Source is not defined by linux, then perhaps the DII/DOE would evaluate Open Source fairly.
You licence a copy. And that 'licence' changes what your 'rights are'.
The question becomes: Will the owner of the software come and spank you and take away your birthday if you violate the licence? No....too many of you moles to whack. There is another 'final solution'.
You seem to have all forgotten this slashdot Sony story. The 'method' they want to apply to MP3's works to stop hackerquest. Yup, go after the ISP's to 'blackhole' the hackerquest systems.
::Linux, on the other hand, hasn't really changed a thing. It has given us an alternative, and a good one at that.
:so why is the phrase "open source software" one of the most popular buzzwords nowadays?
You are putting the Apple cart in front of the horse, and expecting to have the horse pull the cart.
"Open Source software" has existed for YEARS before Linus T. took minix and re-worked it as Linux. Before a 'marketing label' was applied to it, "Open Source" was BSD licenced, BSD licenced with an AT&T source licence, GPLed, or posted to comp.sources with a copywrite notice and not much else.
Open Source is the big event. Linux happens to be the most visable part of Open Source. But without all the BSD, GPL, X11, Artistic licenced, (blah blah blah) parts that are glued together in the Linux distro of the week, Linux is just a kernel that sits there and does very little useful stuff.
If you have some kind of timeline showing no GPL, no BSD, no X11, no artistic licence existing before the Linux kernel sprung forth from the forehead of Linus, I'd love to see this.
Free Software is a term co-opted by the FSF free software
That term is tied to the GPL.
Open Source wants to be INCLUSIVE. BSD/X11/Artistic/insert fav licence that is open/GPL *ALL* qualify as Open Source.
Last time *I* checked the GPL != BSD != X11, so to say Free Software == Open Source is not correct.
You can pick your words and actions to be inclusive of ALL people who publish their code per the Open Source guidelines, or just limit yourself to the GPL.
Microsoft is back to making hardware. (Who has a Z80 card that works in the Apple ]]+?) And, to reduce costs, they want to roll as much as they can into once chip.
Less interconnects, lower price.
Plus, if they are going to make the X box, why not make production mistakes on the webTV box? This is a learning experience for them, and they will need all the learning they can get before they start making X boxes.
I don't see it as scary. Bill wants to make the weTV hardware as cheap as they can.
Alas, I can't find the links, but 2 years ago there was limited press about a (polish? chech?) firm that was partnered with Microsoft and the wording of the press release was that M$ was actually BRANDING the hardware...yes you got a Microsoft computer, instead of a Dell/HP/Compaq/whatever box that had Microsoft on it. Perhaps someone that knows what Micro$oft is doing outside the US boarders has a link or 2.
That was rationalization from the mac crowd.
on
Is UNIX An OS?
·
· Score: 2
For years the Mac Crowd has talked about how they were superior. And, well, many of them still do. Go look at macinstein as an example of chest thumping.
Mr. Every is writing to that chest thumping Mac audience. And, rather than asking the Mac Community to accept they are just another version of Unix, with the potential of selling more copies of Unix than any SINGLE vendor, he makes the claim that:
An OS is what ships with a machine
Huh?
Notice how when the OS was called NeXTSTEP, no effort was made to seperate it from Unix. And, they even sold it without boxes and called it an OS. Mr. Every can barely mention NeXT, let alone BSD.
Its the same way a group of Linux users believe they are not a Unix, but 'something else'.
If mac users want to believe that they are not Unix, I guess they can. I hope they don't mind the snickering behind their backs. And the loudest snikering will come from the old Unix hacks who believe that portable Unix code is the best way to help ALL the Unixes.
>For everybody else, however, the zero-cost aspect of Linux will win out.
Huh?
Last time I checked BSD had a zero-cost aspect also.
>A software developer who simply wants to write and sell a binary-only product that runs on PocketLinux need not worry about it.
Are you sure? Do you have any court cases to prove this?
If you were a company, would you WANT to take the risk of adhearing to the GPL vs a BSD licence if you feel the IP as expressed as source code is worth keeping secret?
There are more of them now, MANY more potential players, all having faster network access, and yet the number of players per mud have dropped.
There used to be a catagory or role-playing games where you bought a rule book, a suplement or 2 and played. Then, along came the collectable cards gaming idea. Yes, you can still find and play the rule book games, but new 'gamers' are playing PokeMon not Paranoia.
And, well, face it. After you (or your program) has typed in backstab orge 10+ times, you have mastered that particular skill and can move on.
>f all it took to win in the PDA market was a fast processor and some impress-your-friends functionality ("Look! The Star Wars trailer! Right here in the palm of my hand!") then WindowsCE would have walked away with the whole market years ago.
And the Apple Newton, which existed before WinCE was able to play simpson and 1984 commericals on the handheld.
The market is about a price point. And at under $200, they have the price point.
>People already complain that too much software for Linux is really "Linux86," since it doesn't support SPARC, Alpha, or PPC.
Yes, and Windows NT suffered from this also.
1) A draw app that keeps your scrawling
2) A graffiti-like 'learn a special alphabet'
3) NI's rosetta code (printing handwriting engine)
4) Callifiger's cursive engine
Slashdot Mirror
>It offers us legal protection.
What 'protection' does it offer? None. It offers up a way for a judge to make a ruling that MIGHT allow for compensation, but that is not protection, that is compensation AFTER the 'damage' has been done.
And, if you believe source code/computers/technology is out-dated the day it is released, by the time any decision winds its way thru the court system, the damage was long ago.
Micro$oft used that 'long ago' argument with DR-DOS in the lawsuit.
>And in a lawyer-happy country,
To gain 'your protection', you *NEED* the happy lawyers to hit others with a rolled-up legal brief. And, for evey violator you catch, there are many more who get away.
>I don't want to see it in a year or 2 with Sun's or MS's name on it.
:-(
If you have a novel way of implementation, what is stopping anyone from taking your code, creating a spec of it, passing that spec over the cube wall and having another implement the spec?
The GPL protected your intellectual property how?
How about this: They take your code, move the indentations about, change some var names, add one or two new vars...the GPL protects you how?
How about this: They just cut and paste your code into their product. Do you have the money to track down all the different people who might have done this cut-n-paste job? Do you have the money to take them to court?
*IF* your modivation is "to stop theft of my code", I wish to remind you that 'locks keep honest people honest'. People who are going to take things they should not, will take things they should not. Given the risk of you comming out of the woodwork and suing is miminal, taking your code and making a closed source project from it is a minimal risk.
And, well, your code may not worth taking
>This is not to say that you have to be GPL compatible to release perfectly acceptable open source code, but the consequences are that you will never be able to use GPL code, and no GPL project will be able to use your code.
By this def. then, BSD licenced code it NOT open source because BSD code can not accept GPL code without destroying the BSD licence.
>Linux as one kernel with lots of userlands
If it is ONE kernel, then things like PICK should work on *ANY* Linux distro. PICK only works on a few.
The linux kernel as shipped on CD's from the 150+ linux vendors is not ONE. It is one+small changes that break compatibility.
www.openbsd.org
But, note how Ciff wanted to INCLUSIVE of other otions (BSD, etc) Cliff is thinking Open. The asker of the question is either un-informed or yet another 'lets make everything linux' zelot.
>The open-source nature of Linux sets off a red flag, to most government officals, that says "UNSECURE."
And, here I thought all this time, it was the root kits run by script kiddies that say 'unsecure', not the Open Source nature. Or the high number of security alerts on security focus for 'linux'. (And, I make good money de-root kitting other people's Linux boxes)
OpenBSD has managed to convice people that security is an option with Open Source software.
If time was spent educating that Open Source is not defined by linux, then perhaps the DII/DOE would evaluate Open Source fairly.
>If I own a legit copy of the game,
Except they don't let you OWN the game.
You licence a copy. And that 'licence' changes what your 'rights are'.
The question becomes: Will the owner of the software come and spank you and take away your birthday if you violate the licence? No....too many of you moles to whack. There is another 'final solution'.
You seem to have all forgotten this slashdot Sony story. The 'method' they want to apply to MP3's works to stop hackerquest. Yup, go after the ISP's to 'blackhole' the hackerquest systems.
Don't make the mistake that only IBM or Microsoft are the only FUDsters.
/., there are a few posters who spread FUD like "BSD is dying, move to Linux"
Whenever the BSD vs Linux OS flames are fanned here on
>NT costs more to purchase (if you're not Microsoft) than FreeBSD/Linux, yes. But NT costs less to maintain for most companies.
Do you have any PROOF of this statement?
The $30,000 number you give is suspect for most markets, so your whole claim is likely bogus.
:1/ Mac OS X Server is not Mac OS X.
Given you have 2/ wrong (at least according to the offical Apple PDF) I'm betting you have this wrong also.
Go look at the PDF. it shows 2 platforms.
::Linux, on the other hand, hasn't really changed a thing. It has given us an alternative, and a good one at that.
:so why is the phrase "open source software" one of the most popular buzzwords nowadays?
You are putting the Apple cart in front of the horse, and expecting to have the horse pull the cart.
"Open Source software" has existed for YEARS before Linus T. took minix and re-worked it as Linux. Before a 'marketing label' was applied to it, "Open Source" was BSD licenced, BSD licenced with an AT&T source licence, GPLed, or posted to comp.sources with a copywrite notice and not much else.
Open Source is the big event. Linux happens to be the most visable part of Open Source. But without all the BSD, GPL, X11, Artistic licenced, (blah blah blah) parts that are glued together in the Linux distro of the week, Linux is just a kernel that sits there and does very little useful stuff.
If you have some kind of timeline showing no GPL, no BSD, no X11, no artistic licence existing before the Linux kernel sprung forth from the forehead of Linus, I'd love to see this.
Got a link for this?
Err Mac OS X *IS* shipping already.
The server edition was being sold over a year ago.
And web-objects REQUIRES Mac OS server (or NT)
Web Objects
Is anyone aple to explain why one should dump tripwire 1.2 for this product?
Free Software is a term co-opted by the FSF free software
That term is tied to the GPL.
Open Source wants to be INCLUSIVE. BSD/X11/Artistic/insert fav licence that is open/GPL *ALL* qualify as Open Source.
Last time *I* checked the GPL != BSD != X11, so to say Free Software == Open Source is not correct.
You can pick your words and actions to be inclusive of ALL people who publish their code per the Open Source guidelines, or just limit yourself to the GPL.
Microsoft is back to making hardware. (Who has a Z80 card that works in the Apple ]]+?) And, to reduce costs, they want to roll as much as they can into once chip.
Less interconnects, lower price.
Plus, if they are going to make the X box, why not make production mistakes on the webTV box? This is a learning experience for them, and they will need all the learning they can get before they start making X boxes.
I don't see it as scary. Bill wants to make the weTV hardware as cheap as they can.
Alas, I can't find the links, but 2 years ago there was limited press about a (polish? chech?) firm that was partnered with Microsoft and the wording of the press release was that M$ was actually BRANDING the hardware...yes you got a Microsoft computer, instead of a Dell/HP/Compaq/whatever box that had Microsoft on it. Perhaps someone that knows what Micro$oft is doing outside the US boarders has a link or 2.
For years the Mac Crowd has talked about how they were superior. And, well, many of them still do. Go look at macinstein as an example of chest thumping.
Mr. Every is writing to that chest thumping Mac audience. And, rather than asking the Mac Community to accept they are just another version of Unix, with the potential of selling more copies of Unix than any SINGLE vendor, he makes the claim that:
An OS is what ships with a machine
Huh?
Notice how when the OS was called NeXTSTEP, no effort was made to seperate it from Unix. And, they even sold it without boxes and called it an OS. Mr. Every can barely mention NeXT, let alone BSD.
Its the same way a group of Linux users believe they are not a Unix, but 'something else'.
If mac users want to believe that they are not Unix, I guess they can. I hope they don't mind the snickering behind their backs. And the loudest snikering will come from the old Unix hacks who believe that portable Unix code is the best way to help ALL the Unixes.
>GPL sets the ground rules in such a way that people that want to go proprietary are on their own.
If that is your goal, what will you do when someone uses your platform w/o releasing their code?
>For everybody else, however, the zero-cost aspect of Linux will win out.
Huh?
Last time I checked BSD had a zero-cost aspect also.
>A software developer who simply wants to write and sell a binary-only product that runs on PocketLinux need not worry about it.
Are you sure? Do you have any court cases to prove this?
If you were a company, would you WANT to take the risk of adhearing to the GPL vs a BSD licence if you feel the IP as expressed as source code is worth keeping secret?
>For mass produced embedded use, Linux has the advantage -- zero cost.
And it has the DISADVANTAGE of the GPL.
PicoBSD doesn't have the shackles of forcing the release of source code.
Text based MUDS are on the decline.
There are more of them now, MANY more potential players, all having faster network access, and yet the number of players per mud have dropped.
There used to be a catagory or role-playing games where you bought a rule book, a suplement or 2 and played. Then, along came the collectable cards gaming idea. Yes, you can still find and play the rule book games, but new 'gamers' are playing PokeMon not Paranoia.
And, well, face it. After you (or your program) has typed in backstab orge 10+ times, you have mastered that particular skill and can move on.
>f all it took to win in the PDA market was a fast processor and some impress-your-friends functionality ("Look! The Star Wars trailer! Right here in the palm of my hand!") then WindowsCE would have walked away with the whole market years ago.
And the Apple Newton, which existed before WinCE was able to play simpson and 1984 commericals on the handheld.
The market is about a price point. And at under $200, they have the price point.
>People already complain that too much software for Linux is really "Linux86," since it doesn't support SPARC, Alpha, or PPC.
Yes, and Windows NT suffered from this also.
8 megs of ROM is not at ALL nutz for a machine of this class.
It all depends on what get bundled....
Is the handwritting on this:
1) A draw app that keeps your scrawling
2) A graffiti-like 'learn a special alphabet'
3) NI's rosetta code (printing handwriting engine)
4) Callifiger's cursive engine