>Radio Shack should get a patent on using keyboards with computers.
Considering keyboards existed on things called punch-card writers and on the follow-up product called the interactive terminal, exactly what clown-college-caker-jack-box legal school did you get a licence to practice law as a patent lawyer?
>Where I pound keys, if I tell the client they'll need to a few grand more to have this type of integrity, they'd go somewhere else.
www.postgresql.org
> MySQL is adequate for 90% of the sites out there.
So is PosgreSQL
>It's cheaper to buy (free),
PosgreSQL is transferable, without fee, so long as you keep 2 notices attached to the software.
The notices are about how you won't sue, and how this software is 'as is'.
MySQL is *NOT* free. It costs $200 for almost ALL users. (if you run a web site...you may not have to pay, but your clients who use the site get to pay, depending on how you read the licence)
> but it's also cheaper to develop.
Really? Now, you are comparing this to PostgreSQL right?
Remember/.ers....PostgreSQL got more votes in the 1999 Linux World Editors choice awards than MySQL did. A 200 or so margin.
Documentation (a book), links to people you can PAY to support your database, and other stuff in on the web site.
After comparing the 2, how can ANYONE claim MySQL is better than PostgeSQL?
And FreeBSD has been allowing users to execute one command (make update) and the system goes out, gets the code necessary to bring the latest and greatest in to compile for many, many years.
And the BSD package system goes out and gets any dependancies one needs and installs them 1st. Did this long b4 any Linux system thought it would be a good thing to do.
M$'s actions are more to stop someone else from suing them over such a patent award/a bargining chip.
If one wants to overthrow this patent on prior art, it looks like it could be done. And, because it *IS* Micro$oft, I'm sure some members of the geek community will try extra hard.
Why are you unwilling to go after the individual fans who are making MP3's of your music and obtaining judgements from them? Why are you unwilling to make the people copying your "art" personally responsible for the actions they take?
(Oh, and I don't believe for one minute the whole 'treating our music as a commodity and not the art it is' line. Make ya sound like a bunch of people used to fat cheques and see the possibility of not having said cheques in the future. Art has little to do with it. Given the continued interconnection of the planet, the copies of your "art" will continue with or without napster,mp3, etc. People who have 270 gigs of MP3's are not about to stop trading such a collection if napster goes *poof* away.)
And you seem to forget that *THIS* right here is text. Text *IS* the medium we use...some people just like it wrapped up in graphics, thinking this makes life eaiser.
Now...Dissing Unix? Keep in mind that VMS->WNT 3.1 was going to be a 'better unix than UNIX' and the model of the X window terminal was dead. (BTW, anyone have copies of these original Micro$oft proclimations) Today, it is Unix and M$...that is about all that is left standing, even Apple is going to Unix. And the X terminal model is alive and well, re-done as the 'application server' Citrix.
So, like it or not, AC, Unix *HAS* WON! M$ wants to BE unix, Apple is moving to Unix....its all over for you but your crying. Is Unix the best model for an OS? Perhaps, perhaps not, and perhaps one day Unix will be replaced. But for right now, Unix is the horse to beat!
>By keeping their software closed, they *will* fall behind other companies who opened their stuff to the world.
Damn straight...but let the manufactors figure that out over time. First things first is to get them to take that 'journey of 1000 miles' with a first step.
BSD has less of a byte to it than the GPL. Having a manufactor be once bit, 0x02 shy over OpenSource does Micro$oft good, and OpenSource no good.
*smile* And for the last 3 days, the main web site that the box accesses has said
HTTP/1.1 Server Too Busy
Note: The keyboard the webserver product uses and the virgin player uses look exactly alike. So the keyboard is some kind of 'standard' SWK-8695wt is the model number. Sejin Electron Inc. is the maker of the keyboard.
Previous reports on this box mumbled something about a 'linux clone' OS. Other mumbling-64 meg of DRAM is on the inside. It has a (unsupported) USB port.
Prediction: This will go the way of the FreePC people. After some time they will give up, and anyone who has the unit will be able to keep it.
Also note: The box it came in was from Boundless Technology. Perhaps IAN had something to do with it.
The AC is correct....that for the particular module the screw up happened, by the GPL, they SHOULD release the source. The only way that will happen is of the OWNER of the code in question wants to make a legal matter of it.
This, yet again, proves why the BSD licence is best for corporations. Companies can develop on BSD, take what code they want and incorporate it into their products. With BSD, they get a linux-binary compatible enviroment to QC the products they ship. (Some people are confused on this point. Because BSD doesn't use the linux kernel, they don't believe it can run Linux binaries. Using BSD/SCO/Solaris as a QC platform for "Linux binaries" goes farther than any other method of proving 'linux compatibility' with the absence of a functional LSB)
And, at some future date...when they decide that OpenSource isn't a bad thing then they can participate with a BSD-esque, GPL or some other model.
All the tactic of 'The appropriate fix (under the GPL) is to release the source code.' will do is push companies AWAY from OpenSource.
>but whining that they should be binary compatible with linux is like whining that cp/m should be binary compatible with linux.
Given that SCO/Solaris/BSD have Linux compatibilty and have had it for a while, there is no SHOULD...they ARE. It is a matter of having vendors who write code to decide that "RedHat is not Linux" and support ALL of the "linux environments".
Given the Unix world has had a CP/M environment compatibility for over 10 years, it looks like your wish has been answered along time ago. Odds are at that time you were still suckling your mothers breasts, so you wouldn't remember the 3 part SHAR from comp.sources on UseNet. http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/pds.cgi?ports/emulato rs/cpmemu By picking a Unix box with a Linux compatibility layer, you get Linux AND CP/M. The desire to run X and wordstar 3.3/Multiplan/TurboPascal on one box is satisifed.
Now, if you verbage was to seek 32/64 bit opcodes of a totally different processor architecture to run on an 8 bit Z80, then the reality is you know *SO* little about computers that anything you post on the topic should be dismissed as the posts of someone who does not know of what she speaks. Perhaps taking some computer electives would educate you in the topic of computers?
>nobody in the Linux community is really interested in setting any sort of binary 'standard'
Really? All those vendors of shrink-wrapped games and other programs like: Voice Recog OCR Games have *NO* use in having the ability to place on the box "works with linux" and have the consumer expect it to work...just like these consumers have come to expect "works with Windows" or "works with Mac OS" to get them a package that will work with the system they have.
>And guess what? That's a good thing. Ahhh, so an unstable system to build on is a GOOD thing?
>I also know that the LSB isn't making much progress. *yawn* The LSB project has been going on for a long damn time, and will KEEP going on until they take a different path....take a resource that is NOT part of the political process that LSB has been. The SCO/Solaris/BSD compatibily method of linux binary compatibility is outside the politics of 'my distro is better than yours' crap that has halted the LSB.
>Ha! "Linux binaries" are about as much of a standard as my stinky asshole.
Then you better take that to the LSB people and let them document it, not to mention you should show it off to the people who were at http://www.telly.org/86open/index.html, because they need to implement based on your standard.
>if your standard existed as you suggest it does,
Perhaps the extraction of your head from your stinky asshole (with the associated POPing sound) and you bothered to read what was attempted (http://www.telly.org/86open/index.html) you would see that the defacto standard *IS* a linux binary. And no amount of you equating it to the stink of shit changes this.
>lets face it - we need the linux standard base out there NOW. cmon you LSB guys - WTF are you guys doing ?
The Linuxbase (LSB) movement is beset with political strife of Linux vendor vs Linux vendor.
The SMART move would be to say to all the in-fighting linux-vendor weenies is this: "You people can't agree, so instead we are going declare the linux compatibility mode BSD uses."
Think about it: Access to the source used. A testable platform. And this is here NOW.
If the kiddies won't play nice together, bring in someone from 'the outside', and to hell with the in-fighting. And, perhaps NEXT TIME the 100+ linux distros need to all play nice together, they will remember how the LSB was defined as an outside source and they will pull TOGETHER instead of apart.
I agree with about porting to Unix. But the market reality doesn't agree with your POV on porting.
The REALITY (as reflected here http://www.telly.org/86open/index.html) is "linux binaries" are the de-facto standard. You think people would be HAPPY about this turn of events...."Linux binaries" have a chance to act as a way to PULL together a market, yet this chance is NOT being treated this way.
So, in short, if *YOU* are such an ungratful whiney bastard who can't stand that Linux has been annointed a de-facto standard and instead want people to "not get a cheap ride" you need to remove the stick from your ass and get a clue. I know you can get a clue....because you understand why shrink-wrapped binaries exist.
>so what if its commercial, an interesting Slashdot poll would be "who has actually paid for Windows?", I imagine lots of people reading this have a windowspartition and haven't paid for their copy)
And this attitude is a FINE example of why Linux users/slashdot participants are considered a demographic unwilling to pay for software...so why should we make software for them.
Pro-linux columist Nick Pertley's call to download the 'free' copy of Wordperfect is yet another example of the "cheapass Linux bastards" view that must be overcome to get commerical software to run on OpenSource (and unix for that matter) OSes. Two weeks later he DID point out that you should pay to encourage vendors to port software.
(insert other conclusions about wanting copywrite protection for GPL software/calling in lawyers, yet they break these SAME laws in software or music.)
Linux is about: Being like unix Being OpenSource Having a set of userspace utilites running 'linux binaries'
BSD is about: Being linek unix Being OpenSource Having a set of userspace utilites running 'linux binaries'
Given the result of http://www.telly.org/86open/index.html the person unclear on the concept is you and the people who RUN this 'redhatisnotlinux.com' site.
Like it or not, BSD and Linux have MORE in common than not.
Slashdot Mirror
Cyrus has the 'each mail message is a file'. The licence isn't as nice as a BSD licence, but is one that most people can live with.
Now, does qmail work as an MTA and an MUA?
>several cases where the sendmail program running on the Linux server lost an e-mail message.
Huh? Ok, does anyone have PROOF it was sendmail's fault?
What in sendmail caused the messages to be lost? Or was it a problem with the POP, IMAP, the local users (lusers), or even Linux?
Anyone care to provide some 'proof' of this?
>Radio Shack should get a patent on using keyboards with computers.
Considering keyboards existed on things called punch-card writers and on the follow-up product called the interactive terminal, exactly what clown-college-caker-jack-box legal school did you get a licence to practice law as a patent lawyer?
>Where I pound keys, if I tell the client they'll need to a few grand more to have this type of integrity, they'd go somewhere else.
/.ers....PostgreSQL got more votes in the 1999 Linux World Editors choice awards than MySQL did. A 200 or so margin.
www.postgresql.org
> MySQL is adequate for 90% of the sites out there.
So is PosgreSQL
>It's cheaper to buy (free),
PosgreSQL is transferable, without fee, so long as you keep 2 notices attached to the software.
The notices are about how you won't sue, and how this software is 'as is'.
MySQL is *NOT* free. It costs $200 for almost ALL users. (if you run a web site...you may not have to pay, but your clients who use the site get to pay, depending on how you read the licence)
> but it's also cheaper to develop.
Really? Now, you are comparing this to PostgreSQL right?
Remember
Documentation (a book), links to people you can PAY to support your database, and other stuff in on the web site.
After comparing the 2, how can ANYONE claim MySQL is better than PostgeSQL?
And FreeBSD has been allowing users to execute one command (make update) and the system goes out, gets the code necessary to bring the latest and greatest in to compile for many, many years.
And the BSD package system goes out and gets any dependancies one needs and installs them 1st. Did this long b4 any Linux system thought it would be a good thing to do.
M$'s actions are more to stop someone else from suing them over such a patent award/a bargining chip.
If one wants to overthrow this patent on prior art, it looks like it could be done. And, because it *IS* Micro$oft, I'm sure some members of the geek community will try extra hard.
Do not confuse the hardware with the software.
/. stories show how Unix (in the form of Linux) can be the OS of choice on a OS/390.
5 241&mode=thread 5 207&mode=thread
The bandwidth in the big IBM frame *IS* impressive. OS/390 is useful on these systems because the proggrams/programmers already KNOW the 390.
These
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/04/03/005
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/03/30/141
Why are you unwilling to go after the individual fans who are making MP3's of your music and obtaining judgements from them? Why are you unwilling to make the people copying your "art" personally responsible for the actions they take?
(Oh, and I don't believe for one minute the whole 'treating our music as a commodity and not the art it is' line. Make ya sound like a bunch of people used to fat cheques and see the possibility of not having said cheques in the future. Art has little to do with it. Given the continued interconnection of the planet, the copies of your "art" will continue with or without napster,mp3, etc. People who have 270 gigs of MP3's are not about to stop trading such a collection if napster goes *poof* away.)
Wyse not wise
And you seem to forget that *THIS* right here is text. Text *IS* the medium we use...some people just like it wrapped up in graphics, thinking this makes life eaiser.
Now...Dissing Unix? Keep in mind that VMS->WNT 3.1 was going to be a 'better unix than UNIX' and the model of the X window terminal was dead. (BTW, anyone have copies of these original Micro$oft proclimations) Today, it is Unix and M$...that is about all that is left standing, even Apple is going to Unix. And the X terminal model is alive and well, re-done as the 'application server' Citrix.
So, like it or not, AC, Unix *HAS* WON! M$ wants to BE unix, Apple is moving to Unix....its all over for you but your crying. Is Unix the best model for an OS? Perhaps, perhaps not, and perhaps one day Unix will be replaced. But for right now, Unix is the horse to beat!
>Oh don't bother asking for proof.
That is because she can't actually prove her claim.
Perhaps this /. user believes all modules should be quiet.
Or finds the whole 'advertizing clause' argument to not be worth anyones time....
Or how about "advertising BAD, GPL GOOD" then seeing "advertising" in "GPL-ed" code.
And such discussion is only flamebait if YOU are unwilling to talk about/defend such a position. As an AC, I guess you are unwilling to discuss it,
RMS is morally opposed to advertising...that is why he railed against the BSD "advertising clause".
Where are the outraged voices now that some code associated with the Linux kernel-space has "advertising"?
Gee, and you are anonymous because you are afraid to have your name tied to a troll?
What 'proof' do you have to your claims?
You should be able to provide proof...unless you are as worthless a troll as the original poster of this thread.
I don't know how much maketing info they get from me reading slashdot, but hey.....if they find it useful, ok fine.
>By keeping their software closed, they *will*
fall behind other companies who opened their stuff to the world.
Damn straight...but let the manufactors figure that out over time. First things first is to get them to take that 'journey of 1000 miles' with a first step.
BSD has less of a byte to it than the GPL. Having a manufactor be once bit, 0x02 shy over OpenSource does Micro$oft good, and OpenSource no good.
*smile*
And for the last 3 days, the main web site that the box accesses has said
HTTP/1.1 Server Too Busy
Note: The keyboard the webserver product uses and the virgin player uses look exactly alike. So the keyboard is some kind of 'standard'
SWK-8695wt is the model number. Sejin Electron Inc. is the maker of the keyboard.
Previous reports on this box mumbled something about a 'linux clone' OS. Other mumbling-64 meg of DRAM is on the inside. It has a (unsupported) USB port.
Prediction: This will go the way of the FreePC people. After some time they will give up, and anyone who has the unit will be able to keep it.
Also note: The box it came in was from Boundless Technology. Perhaps IAN had something to do with it.
The AC is correct....that for the particular module the screw up happened, by the GPL, they SHOULD release the source. The only way that will happen is of the OWNER of the code in question wants to make a legal matter of it.
This, yet again, proves why the BSD licence is best for corporations. Companies can develop on BSD, take what code they want and incorporate it into their products. With BSD, they get a linux-binary compatible enviroment to QC the products they ship. (Some people are confused on this point. Because BSD doesn't use the linux kernel, they don't believe it can run Linux binaries. Using BSD/SCO/Solaris as a QC platform for "Linux binaries" goes farther than any other method of proving 'linux compatibility' with the absence of a functional LSB)
And, at some future date...when they decide that OpenSource isn't a bad thing then they can participate with a BSD-esque, GPL or some other model.
All the tactic of 'The appropriate fix (under the GPL) is to release the source code.' will do is push companies AWAY from OpenSource.
*clap*
Oncore, oncore. It would be nice to see more followup and even followthrough on some of the articles covered here (and elsewhere even)
>but whining that they should be binary compatible with linux is like whining that cp/m should be binary compatible with linux.
o rs/cpmemu
Given that SCO/Solaris/BSD have Linux compatibilty and have had it for a while, there is no SHOULD...they ARE. It is a matter of having vendors who write code to decide that "RedHat is not Linux" and support ALL of the "linux environments".
Given the Unix world has had a CP/M environment compatibility for over 10 years, it looks like your wish has been answered along time ago. Odds are at that time you were still suckling your mothers breasts, so you wouldn't remember the 3 part SHAR from comp.sources on UseNet.
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/pds.cgi?ports/emulat
By picking a Unix box with a Linux compatibility layer, you get Linux AND CP/M. The desire to run X and wordstar 3.3/Multiplan/TurboPascal on one box is satisifed.
Now, if you verbage was to seek 32/64 bit opcodes of a totally different processor architecture to run on an 8 bit Z80, then the reality is you know *SO* little about computers that anything you post on the topic should be dismissed as the posts of someone who does not know of what she speaks. Perhaps taking some computer electives would educate you in the topic of computers?
Yuppers, and this should get moderated up so everyone has a chance to see it.
Demand the money back...in full.
And, go to the store...demand them to open the box so you can read the licence.
If you or I don't buy software....no one will care. But if Compusa and Best Buy stop buying software....then software makers WILL care.
>nobody in the Linux community is really interested in setting any sort of binary 'standard'
Really? All those vendors of shrink-wrapped games and other programs like:
Voice Recog
OCR
Games
have *NO* use in having the ability to place on the box "works with linux" and have the consumer expect it to work...just like these consumers have come to expect "works with Windows" or "works with Mac OS" to get them a package that will work with the system they have.
>And guess what? That's a good thing.
Ahhh, so an unstable system to build on is a GOOD thing?
>I also know that the LSB isn't making much progress.
*yawn* The LSB project has been going on for a long damn time, and will KEEP going on until they take a different path....take a resource that is NOT part of the political process that LSB has been. The SCO/Solaris/BSD compatibily method of linux binary compatibility is outside the politics of 'my distro is better than yours' crap that has halted the LSB.
>Ha! "Linux binaries" are about as much of a standard as my stinky asshole.
Then you better take that to the LSB people and let them document it, not to mention you should show it off to the people who were at http://www.telly.org/86open/index.html, because they need to implement based on your standard.
>if your standard existed as you suggest it does,
Perhaps the extraction of your head from your stinky asshole (with the associated POPing sound) and you bothered to read what was attempted (http://www.telly.org/86open/index.html) you would see that the defacto standard *IS* a linux binary. And no amount of you equating it to the stink of shit changes this.
>lets face it - we need the linux standard base out there NOW. cmon you LSB guys - WTF are you guys doing ?
The Linuxbase (LSB) movement is beset with political strife of Linux vendor vs Linux vendor.
The SMART move would be to say to all the in-fighting linux-vendor weenies is this:
"You people can't agree, so instead we are going declare the linux compatibility mode BSD uses."
Think about it:
Access to the source used.
A testable platform.
And this is here NOW.
If the kiddies won't play nice together, bring in someone from 'the outside', and to hell with the in-fighting. And, perhaps NEXT TIME the 100+ linux distros need to all play nice together, they will remember how the LSB was defined as an outside source and they will pull TOGETHER instead of apart.
I agree with about porting to Unix. But the market reality doesn't agree with your POV on porting.
The REALITY (as reflected here http://www.telly.org/86open/index.html) is "linux binaries" are the de-facto standard. You think people would be HAPPY about this turn of events...."Linux binaries" have a chance to act as a way to PULL together a market, yet this chance is NOT being treated this way.
So, in short, if *YOU* are such an ungratful whiney bastard who can't stand that Linux has been annointed a de-facto standard and instead want people to "not get a cheap ride" you need to remove the stick from your ass and get a clue. I know you can get a clue....because you understand why shrink-wrapped binaries exist.
>so what if its commercial, an interesting Slashdot poll would be "who has actually paid for Windows?", I imagine lots of people reading this have a windowspartition and haven't paid for their copy)
And this attitude is a FINE example of why Linux users/slashdot participants are considered a demographic unwilling to pay for software...so why should we make software for them.
Pro-linux columist Nick Pertley's call to download the 'free' copy of Wordperfect is yet another example of the "cheapass Linux bastards" view that must be overcome to get commerical software to run on OpenSource (and unix for that matter) OSes. Two weeks later he DID point out that you should pay to encourage vendors to port software.
(insert other conclusions about wanting copywrite protection for GPL software/calling in lawyers, yet they break these SAME laws in software or music.)
What is 'unclear' about it?
Linux is about:
Being like unix
Being OpenSource
Having a set of userspace utilites
running 'linux binaries'
BSD is about:
Being linek unix
Being OpenSource
Having a set of userspace utilites
running 'linux binaries'
Given the result of http://www.telly.org/86open/index.html
the person unclear on the concept is you and the people who RUN this 'redhatisnotlinux.com' site.
Like it or not, BSD and Linux have MORE in common than not.