Funny the Slashdot editors didn't fix their dumb ass mistake with the whole Caldera Linux X thing. Not only did they fail to admit that they were both wrong and that they removed text from the original Slashdot submission about it that indicated that it could be fake or not real, they also rejected a story I submitted saying that Caldera Linux X is fake. At least on Digg, when a lot of readers indicate a story could be phony, it is fixed and a new story indicating that it is fake is posted within a day. I think I'm done with Slashdot for the time being. What good are editors when they're morons? How often does this crap go on on this website?
How is Apple closing off Darwin any more of a "threat" than Microsoft never opening Windows in the first place? You're being ridiculous.
How is Google amassing so much power....by launching a bunch of free services that next to no one actually use? I'd be far more scared of a company like Yahoo!, which has far more data about its customers than Google will have in the next 5 years. Yahoo! offers the full range of portal services, and unlike Google, people actually use these portal services. Portal services can amass far more data than search records ever could. Gmail is far behind Yahoo! Mail in terms of users, as is Google Finance, Picasa Web, Google Calendar, Froogle, Google Maps, Google Talk, etc. Despite having better technology (IMHO), Google is an also-ran in the portal market.
With a Calendar service, for instance, the Calendar provider could potentially view your entire life schedule and what you do in your time and use that for advertising purposes. With a Mail service, they have access to your communications. With the majority of people using google.com, they have access to search records attributed to a random IP address, and they have absolutely no way of actually tracing that IP address to a person without a court order, which they simply would not get.
Wow, Google has like so much data about like the 5 million people worldwide that actually have accounts on Google.com! Oh, and they can trace your IP ADDRESS!!!! *shivers* (/sarcasm)
Oh, wait, I'm on Slashdot, conspiracy theories and fearing all companies that make more than $10 million a year in profit is the norm here. Carry on then!
(disclaimer: I use services from both Yahoo! and Google, depending on the service, and also MSN Messenger. I have no problem doing so, because I'm not paranoid of everything that exists to make money)
Google does have a high usage of their search engine, but seriously, name me a single other product Google has that has higher usage than their competitors. Gmail? Nope. GCalendar? Nope. Google Earth/Maps, recent surveys say Mapquest still beats them out. Google News? Yahoo! News and CNN.com still have higher readership.
Oh, and it's not illegal to have a monopoly, what ever gave you that idea? It IS illegal to use your monopoly to push into new markets while pushing others out, or to use anticompetitive market behaviour. Considering most of Google's products aren't even linked to on their homepage, please explain to me how Google is doing either.
Hell, Google doesn't even lock their customers in. I use Google Calendar, Gmail and Google News, yet I still use ask.com and search.yahoo.com, direct competitors to Google's cash cow, almost as often as I use Google search itself.
Yes, the domain belongs to SCO, however the server is hosted in a German university. Clearly a hoax....SCO's regular press channel was not used in this press release, which has never been done before by SCO. It is available at neither PR Newswire, nor SCO.com. It not being a hoax is clearly more far-fetched than it being one.
As stated elsewhere, SCO abandoned this server years ago and it is hosted at a university in Germany. Some student playing a prank hoping to dupe a bunch of dumb asses that read Slashdot....at least the people on Groklaw actually have some level of intelligence and can tell a true press release from a hoax. For example, SCO ALWAYS distributes press releases through PR Newswire, and then makes them available on SCO.com....explain to me why this release is available in neither place, despite using PR Newswire's copyrighted page layout, with credit to PR Newswire removed, hmmmmm? Also explain to me why this page wasn't updated for 5 years, and then all of the sudden was again? And also explain to me why whomever wrote this doesn't know how to use proper grammar? And last but not least, explain to me why it went Caldera Linux 3, SCO Linux 4, then Caldera Linux X?
The sad thing is that they were able to dupe as many people as they were on Slashdot, including the editors (whom, judging by this slip on their part, really are monkeys as predicted elsewhere), while only a few were smart enough to see fact from fiction.
SCO abandoned this server years ago, and if you would use the *nix utility dig, you would see that the server is hosted at some random university in Germany. Also, the site wasn't updated for years. This is clearly a hoax.
Or else....nothing will happen....because the Slashdot editors are retards and linked to a hoax press release hosted on some random website SCO abandoned years ago and that is hosted from a German University. It isn't even distributed through SCO's regular press channels, and whomever the prankster is, he obviously doesn't know about a wonderful technology called "Grammar Check".
I wouldn't expect something this completely stupid from even the Slashdot editors....they continue to amaze me....Thank god for Slashback where they can fix their dumb ass mistakes. Perhaps everyone's predictions that the Slashdot editors are in-fact monkeys is true afterall, and the single human employee uses Slashback to fix the monkey's mistakes.
Seriously Slashdot editors, pull this story and make yourselves look less retarded.
1) SCO distributes ALL of their press releases through PR Newswire, not through some random website
2) the openlinux.org site hasn't been changed in years before this change, and has obviously been hacked, or a student at the hosting university in Germany is playing a nice prank
3) This press release is not available on SCO.com
4) The grammar in this press release is atrocious, which is highly unusual, even for SCO. Probably written by a non-native english speaker, which makes sense since this abandoned web server is hosted at a German university.
Ummm....why the hell would a search engine company, who also happens to have a couple consumer AJAX applications be responsible for straightening out the FBI's computer systems to ensure they could talk to each other? I think the most important question however, is, who the hell modded you insightful?
In-case you weren't aware, no patents are involved in this litigation at this point. SCO never claimed IBM infringed their patents (because they don't have any). IBM did countersue SCO for patent infringement, but IBM later dropped those claims because SCO is poor and it wasn't worth delaying the case to try and squeeze blood out of a stone. In-fact, all SCO ever claimed was breach of contract against IBM and copyright infringement for continuing to use and distribute AIX after they "terminated IBM's license".
"which certainly cannot be said for the newest versions of any commercial OS (OS X or Windows XP or Windows Vista)."
OS X Tiger on my Sawtooth 400 MHz G4 is a lot faster than SUSE 9.3 was running on my 700 MHz (may have been 800 MHz now that I think about it) P3 PC.
I'm still going to eventually upgrade the processor in this thing though. The prices for G4 upgrades are falling now, so I figure it may be worth it soon.
I would be pretty scared if it did, espescially considering "unrevocable" isn't a word. I think you're thinking of irrevocable and/or perpetual there.:-P
Sorry to burst your bubble, but had you bothered to translate the Google.cn page you linked to into English, you would see that they do infact notify their users that results have been removed.
" According to local laws, regulations, and policies, not part of the search results show."
Babelfish shows the exact same thing, although you'll have to do that yourself since it appears I cannot link directly to a translated page like I can with Google.
So, with that in mind, how is Google censoring results without notifying their users, when it clearly says right on the page that results have been removed?
Well, unless I'm going blind, this is what I saw on the parent post:
What they were denying...
Which is exactly what they were doing...for many months. The poster never said Google currently says they aren't compromising their values. In-fact, I read it as him showing Google's past stance, and agreeing with that past stance.
Plus, Page != Google. Page's beliefs don't necessarily reflect those of Google's.
Funny, I don't notice a date anywhere on your linked page, so how can we determine that Google had this on their site while censoring searches? In-fact, I went to that webpage, and this is what it currently says:
Does Google censor search results?
It is Google's policy not to censor search results. However, in response to local laws, regulations, or policies, we may do so. When we remove search results for these reasons, we display a notice on our search results pages. Please note: For some older removals (before March 2005), we may not show a notice at this time.
Nice try though. Plus, it could be argued that the wording in your linked page was on their American website, while the censoring occurs on their Chinese webpage. Then, as a previous poster stated, right on the Google.cn results page, it lets you know if there are any results that have been censored.
Ummmm, YES! If Trolltech waives their own rights under the GPL, or grants a license that replaces the GPL's terms, the derivative code is no longer required to be GPL'd. If a copyright owner (Trolltech) and you enter into a license agreement that replaces the GPL's terms, the GPL no longer applies. Only a copyright owner may do this. Trolltech has full authority to relieve the restrictions placed on any licensee (any person modifying or redistributing Trolltech's GPL'd code), or, with their consent, placing new restrictions on the code in exchange for the right to develop non-GPL applications.
Besides, if Trolltech signs an agreement stating that they won't sue for any violation of the GPL, who is going to sue the other people when they breach the GPL? Trolltech could easily remove this section from their license agreement. No one else owns the QT copyrights but Trolltech.
Ummm, the GPL doesn't contain clauses like that. Plus, even if it did, since Trolltech holds the copyrights to QT, Trolltech can waive any of their own rights and any requirements on the licensee as Trolltech sees fit for users of the GPL edition, so your point is bogus anyways. The only thing they can't do is impose additional restrictions on existing GPL licensees without their consent, and for the licensee it is a tradeoff (lose the rights granted by the GPL, but gain the right to make proprietary QT software), so they are obviously willing to give consent for this.
From Section 2 of the GPL:
"Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program."
In other words, the license does not place restrictions on the original author's code (unless he has incorporated others' code that is licensed under the GPL) and how him/herself may distribute it and under what license, but it is the author him/herself that is using the license to place restrictions on third parties whom want to distribute and modify the work.
Your reasoning behind Trolltech's decision to place this clause in their proprietary license is ridiculous. Trolltech simply wants people to buy licenses if there is a faint, slight chance that they may possibly sell what they write in the future, that's all. It's a cash grab. The GPL simply cannot, under current laws, place restrictions on the copyright holders themselves, as it is not the intent of a license to do so.
This is stupid. My telco (Shaw Communications) gives me 5 MB/s down and 60 GB traffic a month. If all I did was send the occasionally email or view web pages once in a while, I would use a fraction of a fraction of that amount. So now that I wish to use exactly what Shaw sold me 3 years ago, and what I have been paying for for 3 years, Shaw should be able to double-dip and charge someone else? (I'm just using Shaw as an example btw).
If the telcos don't have the infrastructure to deal with 60 GB transfer for every single one of their customers a month and a certain speed up and down, then *gasp* don't fucking advertise those numbers as benefits of your service.
Translation : Wahhh!!! We were using false advertising to get people to buy our services, and now we can't come through on our promises....Give us money!!!!
Charge your damn customers if they abuse your service, and then watch as the class actions for false advertising come flying in. And watch as the customers who have a choice in ISP's flee your service. Of course, the telcos know that this is what will happen, so they are instead trying to use the American government to allow them to hit third parties up for money. Truly pathetic indeed.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny the Slashdot editors didn't fix their dumb ass mistake with the whole Caldera Linux X thing. Not only did they fail to admit that they were both wrong and that they removed text from the original Slashdot submission about it that indicated that it could be fake or not real, they also rejected a story I submitted saying that Caldera Linux X is fake. At least on Digg, when a lot of readers indicate a story could be phony, it is fixed and a new story indicating that it is fake is posted within a day. I think I'm done with Slashdot for the time being. What good are editors when they're morons? How often does this crap go on on this website?
Please explain the relevance of this comment to anything else in this story or in any other comment?
How is Apple closing off Darwin any more of a "threat" than Microsoft never opening Windows in the first place? You're being ridiculous.
How is Google amassing so much power....by launching a bunch of free services that next to no one actually use? I'd be far more scared of a company like Yahoo!, which has far more data about its customers than Google will have in the next 5 years. Yahoo! offers the full range of portal services, and unlike Google, people actually use these portal services. Portal services can amass far more data than search records ever could. Gmail is far behind Yahoo! Mail in terms of users, as is Google Finance, Picasa Web, Google Calendar, Froogle, Google Maps, Google Talk, etc. Despite having better technology (IMHO), Google is an also-ran in the portal market.
With a Calendar service, for instance, the Calendar provider could potentially view your entire life schedule and what you do in your time and use that for advertising purposes. With a Mail service, they have access to your communications. With the majority of people using google.com, they have access to search records attributed to a random IP address, and they have absolutely no way of actually tracing that IP address to a person without a court order, which they simply would not get.
Wow, Google has like so much data about like the 5 million people worldwide that actually have accounts on Google.com! Oh, and they can trace your IP ADDRESS!!!! *shivers* (/sarcasm)
Oh, wait, I'm on Slashdot, conspiracy theories and fearing all companies that make more than $10 million a year in profit is the norm here. Carry on then!
(disclaimer: I use services from both Yahoo! and Google, depending on the service, and also MSN Messenger. I have no problem doing so, because I'm not paranoid of everything that exists to make money)
Google does have a high usage of their search engine, but seriously, name me a single other product Google has that has higher usage than their competitors. Gmail? Nope. GCalendar? Nope. Google Earth/Maps, recent surveys say Mapquest still beats them out. Google News? Yahoo! News and CNN.com still have higher readership.
Oh, and it's not illegal to have a monopoly, what ever gave you that idea? It IS illegal to use your monopoly to push into new markets while pushing others out, or to use anticompetitive market behaviour. Considering most of Google's products aren't even linked to on their homepage, please explain to me how Google is doing either.
Hell, Google doesn't even lock their customers in. I use Google Calendar, Gmail and Google News, yet I still use ask.com and search.yahoo.com, direct competitors to Google's cash cow, almost as often as I use Google search itself.
It is obviously fake, but we're talking about openlinux.ORG here, not .COM! Jesus....
It resolves to a server in a German University that students have access to....what does that tell you?
Yes, the domain belongs to SCO, however the server is hosted in a German university. Clearly a hoax....SCO's regular press channel was not used in this press release, which has never been done before by SCO. It is available at neither PR Newswire, nor SCO.com. It not being a hoax is clearly more far-fetched than it being one.
As stated elsewhere, SCO abandoned this server years ago and it is hosted at a university in Germany. Some student playing a prank hoping to dupe a bunch of dumb asses that read Slashdot....at least the people on Groklaw actually have some level of intelligence and can tell a true press release from a hoax. For example, SCO ALWAYS distributes press releases through PR Newswire, and then makes them available on SCO.com....explain to me why this release is available in neither place, despite using PR Newswire's copyrighted page layout, with credit to PR Newswire removed, hmmmmm? Also explain to me why this page wasn't updated for 5 years, and then all of the sudden was again? And also explain to me why whomever wrote this doesn't know how to use proper grammar? And last but not least, explain to me why it went Caldera Linux 3, SCO Linux 4, then Caldera Linux X?
The sad thing is that they were able to dupe as many people as they were on Slashdot, including the editors (whom, judging by this slip on their part, really are monkeys as predicted elsewhere), while only a few were smart enough to see fact from fiction.
Use your head, this is a hoax
SCO abandoned this server years ago, and if you would use the *nix utility dig, you would see that the server is hosted at some random university in Germany. Also, the site wasn't updated for years. This is clearly a hoax.
Or else....nothing will happen....because the Slashdot editors are retards and linked to a hoax press release hosted on some random website SCO abandoned years ago and that is hosted from a German University. It isn't even distributed through SCO's regular press channels, and whomever the prankster is, he obviously doesn't know about a wonderful technology called "Grammar Check".
I wouldn't expect something this completely stupid from even the Slashdot editors....they continue to amaze me....Thank god for Slashback where they can fix their dumb ass mistakes. Perhaps everyone's predictions that the Slashdot editors are in-fact monkeys is true afterall, and the single human employee uses Slashback to fix the monkey's mistakes.
Seriously Slashdot editors, pull this story and make yourselves look less retarded.
1) SCO distributes ALL of their press releases through PR Newswire, not through some random website
2) the openlinux.org site hasn't been changed in years before this change, and has obviously been hacked, or a student at the hosting university in Germany is playing a nice prank
3) This press release is not available on SCO.com
4) The grammar in this press release is atrocious, which is highly unusual, even for SCO. Probably written by a non-native english speaker, which makes sense since this abandoned web server is hosted at a German university.
Seriously....just pull the freakin article....
Morons.
Ummm....why the hell would a search engine company, who also happens to have a couple consumer AJAX applications be responsible for straightening out the FBI's computer systems to ensure they could talk to each other? I think the most important question however, is, who the hell modded you insightful?
In-case you weren't aware, no patents are involved in this litigation at this point. SCO never claimed IBM infringed their patents (because they don't have any). IBM did countersue SCO for patent infringement, but IBM later dropped those claims because SCO is poor and it wasn't worth delaying the case to try and squeeze blood out of a stone. In-fact, all SCO ever claimed was breach of contract against IBM and copyright infringement for continuing to use and distribute AIX after they "terminated IBM's license".
"which certainly cannot be said for the newest versions of any commercial OS (OS X or Windows XP or Windows Vista)."
OS X Tiger on my Sawtooth 400 MHz G4 is a lot faster than SUSE 9.3 was running on my 700 MHz (may have been 800 MHz now that I think about it) P3 PC.
I'm still going to eventually upgrade the processor in this thing though. The prices for G4 upgrades are falling now, so I figure it may be worth it soon.
I would be pretty scared if it did, espescially considering "unrevocable" isn't a word. I think you're thinking of irrevocable and/or perpetual there. :-P
Sorry to burst your bubble, but had you bothered to translate the Google.cn page you linked to into English, you would see that they do infact notify their users that results have been removed.
a ges.google.cn%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtiananmen&langpair=zh -CN%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF8
http://www.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fim
As shown in the (admittedly shitty) translation:
" According to local laws, regulations, and policies, not part of the search results show."
Babelfish shows the exact same thing, although you'll have to do that yourself since it appears I cannot link directly to a translated page like I can with Google.
So, with that in mind, how is Google censoring results without notifying their users, when it clearly says right on the page that results have been removed?
As I said further down, the top 3 in the company hold over 50% of the voting power, so they can still do whatever the hell they want.
Considering Eric Schmidt, Sergey Brin and Larry Page combined hold the majority of the voting shares, I don't think this is much of a problem.
Well, unless I'm going blind, this is what I saw on the parent post:
What they were denying...
Which is exactly what they were doing...for many months. The poster never said Google currently says they aren't compromising their values. In-fact, I read it as him showing Google's past stance, and agreeing with that past stance.
Plus, Page != Google. Page's beliefs don't necessarily reflect those of Google's.
Funny, I don't notice a date anywhere on your linked page, so how can we determine that Google had this on their site while censoring searches? In-fact, I went to that webpage, and this is what it currently says:
r =17795&topic=368
Does Google censor search results?
It is Google's policy not to censor search results. However, in response to local laws, regulations, or policies, we may do so. When we remove search results for these reasons, we display a notice on our search results pages. Please note: For some older removals (before March 2005), we may not show a notice at this time.
http://www.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answe
Nice try though. Plus, it could be argued that the wording in your linked page was on their American website, while the censoring occurs on their Chinese webpage. Then, as a previous poster stated, right on the Google.cn results page, it lets you know if there are any results that have been censored.
Ummmm, the Google Toolbar for Firefox is a regular .xpi, it works just fine under Linux.
Ummmm, YES! If Trolltech waives their own rights under the GPL, or grants a license that replaces the GPL's terms, the derivative code is no longer required to be GPL'd. If a copyright owner (Trolltech) and you enter into a license agreement that replaces the GPL's terms, the GPL no longer applies. Only a copyright owner may do this. Trolltech has full authority to relieve the restrictions placed on any licensee (any person modifying or redistributing Trolltech's GPL'd code), or, with their consent, placing new restrictions on the code in exchange for the right to develop non-GPL applications.
Besides, if Trolltech signs an agreement stating that they won't sue for any violation of the GPL, who is going to sue the other people when they breach the GPL? Trolltech could easily remove this section from their license agreement. No one else owns the QT copyrights but Trolltech.
Ummm, the GPL doesn't contain clauses like that. Plus, even if it did, since Trolltech holds the copyrights to QT, Trolltech can waive any of their own rights and any requirements on the licensee as Trolltech sees fit for users of the GPL edition, so your point is bogus anyways. The only thing they can't do is impose additional restrictions on existing GPL licensees without their consent, and for the licensee it is a tradeoff (lose the rights granted by the GPL, but gain the right to make proprietary QT software), so they are obviously willing to give consent for this.
From Section 2 of the GPL:
"Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to
exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or
collective works based on the Program."
In other words, the license does not place restrictions on the original author's code (unless he has incorporated others' code that is licensed under the GPL) and how him/herself may distribute it and under what license, but it is the author him/herself that is using the license to place restrictions on third parties whom want to distribute and modify the work.
Your reasoning behind Trolltech's decision to place this clause in their proprietary license is ridiculous. Trolltech simply wants people to buy licenses if there is a faint, slight chance that they may possibly sell what they write in the future, that's all. It's a cash grab. The GPL simply cannot, under current laws, place restrictions on the copyright holders themselves, as it is not the intent of a license to do so.
This is stupid. My telco (Shaw Communications) gives me 5 MB/s down and 60 GB traffic a month. If all I did was send the occasionally email or view web pages once in a while, I would use a fraction of a fraction of that amount. So now that I wish to use exactly what Shaw sold me 3 years ago, and what I have been paying for for 3 years, Shaw should be able to double-dip and charge someone else? (I'm just using Shaw as an example btw).
If the telcos don't have the infrastructure to deal with 60 GB transfer for every single one of their customers a month and a certain speed up and down, then *gasp* don't fucking advertise those numbers as benefits of your service.
Translation : Wahhh!!! We were using false advertising to get people to buy our services, and now we can't come through on our promises....Give us money!!!!
Charge your damn customers if they abuse your service, and then watch as the class actions for false advertising come flying in. And watch as the customers who have a choice in ISP's flee your service. Of course, the telcos know that this is what will happen, so they are instead trying to use the American government to allow them to hit third parties up for money. Truly pathetic indeed.