More like Google being a business. Seriously, get over this "Evil" crap, it's marketing speak for crying out loud. Nothing more, nothing less.
If you actually believe that Google will forgo profits to avoid appearing evil to an extremely small percentage of the population that actually give a shit what Google as a company does, I have a bridge to sell you.
Every Slashdot user could quit using Google, and the affect on their financial situation would be negligible. So they don't really care what you think, or whether you think they are "evil" or not.
Nonetheless, evil is an incredibly subjective term.
Ummm...you should check YOUR facts. lxrun is licensed under the MPL, but the LINUX LIBRARIES used by lxrun are still covered under the GPL or LGPL, much like the end-user software run using lxrun would retain the same license. The Groklaw article clearly states it is talking about Linux LIBRARIES used BY lxrun. I just skimmed the article and retained that much before reading your comment, did you even bother opening and reading it?
I suggest you search their site for SCO using Google and then try to tell me that OSDL should be impartial. They didn't exactly make it unknown which side of the fence they sit on, considering they published numerous position papers on why exactly SCO is full of shit (paraphrased here of course).
Besides, I could care less who funds Groklaw. They've been right 99% of the time, and SCO doesn't exactly have clean hands when it comes to influencing and abusing the media. I seem to recall SCO using the media to widely spread slanderous statements about other people and companies with the seemingly sole purpose of extorting licensing fees from innocent companies and boosting their stock price.
SCO accusing IBM of funding Groklaw to influence public opinion is a blatant case of the pot calling the kettle black. It's sad that SCO has such high standards for everyone else and no standards at all for their own conduct.
No, feel free to discuss them. However, the strength of the allegations SCO has made has been thoroughly debunked with regard to iBiblio. After 3 years of this consistently happening to every allegation SCO makes (millions of lines of code, Project Monteray, ownership of copyrights and patents), I would recommend you have your head thoroughly examined though if you actually BELIEVE what they say without confirmation first. Everyone important at SCO is a compulsive liar, plain and simple.
Do I necessarily believe PJ 100% of the time? No, have a look through my comment history at Groklaw, I disagree with her on many things and have even been labeled a troll at Groklaw at times as a result. She's blatantly biased. However, I'll believe PJ, IBM, Red Hat and some random guy trying to sell me the Brooklyn Bridge any day of the week before I blindly believe, or even suspect to be potentially true, anything SCO or their lawyers spew forth. They've earned that standing with me and most people who have watched this farce for 4 years now.
In short, if they present more than allegations and actually offer proof (something they struggle with often), I'll believe it. Otherwise, it's just hot air to me.
Hmmm, I always thought this case was about SCO's alleged IP. I wasn't aware that this case would establish that Linux doesn't infringe any IP, whether or not it (allegedly) belongs to SCO.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but any random company could turn around and sue Linux distributors for patent infringement after this case and the results of this case would have no bearing on it whatsoever.
You're both wrong. It is SCO that as been digging in their feet and dragging things out. IBM already tried to have the whole case thrown overboard 2 years ago, and they're trying again right now with their summary judgment motions. It was SCO that turned discovery from a 1 year preparation into a 3 year fishing expedition (still finding nothing in the end it seems).
One difference is that in the dot-com era, you saw companies valued billions operating in a market that was worth a fraction of that - in the hope that in the "new economy" there would suddenly be billions of new dollars pouring into all possible sectors of the economy. In contrast, Google is profitable
Sure. Google is profitable, but the bulk of it's revenue stream comes from a single source - web advertising. As with Microsoft and their Windows and Office products, no?
Google has $11 Billion in cash and short term receivables, and $18 Billion in total assets. This has nothing to do with stock price, but actual things they own. Furthermore, their revenue and profit has been doubling yearly for the last five years. They made $3+ billion in profit last year. They also (like it or not) own patents and other "intellectual property" (I hate that term) to license to make money. The search ad market is growing, and Google is gaining share in that growing market.
I'm not too worried. The stock is overvalued, yes. But ignoring that, Google is extremely strong financially, and is simply funding a research and development team, which will inevitably produce products that will never make money, but occasionally will come up with a money maker, much like Microsoft, IBM, HP and numerous other companies do.
Google can't be compared to pets.com and other dot-bombs. Google wouldn't just disappear overnight, you would see it coming, so fear not.
As far as I know, the vast majority of Google's employees do in-fact work inside the United States for Google, with only tiny offices with a handful of employees in other parts of the world. I could be wrong though...
I'm no Microsoft apologist, but do you have any proof that Microsoft is still funneling money to SCO? I think Microsoft washed their hands of SCO long before now. SCO has no FUD value anymore because the only people who believe them anymore are 2-bit journalists working mainly for 2-bit media outlets that the vast majority of people don't read.
The Judge wouldn't issue a gag order on the whole case. At most, he would issue a gag order on her specific testimony. Furthermore, the Judges are already are quite disgusted with SCO's abuse of others through the media (and have said so on numerous occasions), so I very highly doubt they would actively attempt to shut Groklaw down, when Groklaw actively works to keep SCO inline. Not to say what you suggest is impossible....I just don't see it happening, especially not with Judges Kimball and Wells in charge.
In her defense, she makes it clear when something is fact (ie. provides a citation) and when something is her opinion. Furthermore, her opinion seems to come up right 99% of the time, right from the very beginning of Groklaw. Can you point out a single time where she was blatantly wrong about something to do with this case? I can certainly point out hundreds of times SCO's officers and other journalists have been dead wrong or outright lying when discussing this case.
Besides, Groklaw is HER Blog, she can say whatever she wants on it, and you can choose not to read it as well. Most blogs that I know of have someone in charge.
Better check the system requirements before downloading, considering Google Desktop partly relies on Spotlight for some of its settings and thus is only available on Tiger.
If you need to ask that question, don't bother downloading it, while people who DO want to do that will download it. Sound good? I doubt Google released this to please you specifically.
Oh, and it's nice to have your Gmail locally searchable while offline without having to use the piece of crap that is called Mail.app (spotlight cannot index Thunderbird, the only desktop client I can stand using).
What good does an open browser window do you if you're on a plane or bus with no internet connection? You see, there are these wonderful things called laptops. Wireless internet coverage is absolute crap up here in Canada.
Sorry, but it really bothers me when people say "Why would I want/need that?" just to downplay the usefulness of a product. I can't think of a single product, excluding things like toilet paper, that are meant for every single possible purchaser or user on the planet.
Exactly. This is one thing that pisses me off about Apple as well...WHY OH WHY must they still sell computers with 512 MB RAM. It is extremely painful to use...
I agree that support wise they are two different beasts. My impression from the post I originally replied to was that the poster was complaining about Red Hat the distribution (ie. fs layout, included apps, package manager, etc etc), which is, at least currently, identical between Oracle and RHEL.
I often hear this "flooded with ads" argument, but generally anything I look for I find on the first page. I'm willing to bet that no less than 99% of my searches require me to look beyond the second page at the worst. What exactly are you looking for all of the time? Any examples so I can see what you're talking about? (I've tried Yahoo! as well and don't have any issues with them either).
As for Adsense, if you're paying to use adsense, you need your head examined. Google pays you to use Adsense:-P (I'm assuming you meant Adwords).
Internet Explorer has no widely used ad blockers available, and controls almost 80% of the market. Every non-geek Firefox install I've seen also doesn't have adblock installed. I'm sure a small percentage of users blocking their ads aren't going to hurt them all that much.
I dont particularly like Redhat either. But Oracle is very similar from what I am told. It's not similar, it's identical. Oracle simply downloading the Source RPMs from Red Hat, replaced Red Hat's trademarks and then recompiled.
If Oracle supported SunOne ASP I might recommend switching but as it is, the only other option I could suggest that anyone might have supported would have been Solaris and that was too different from what we were used to. What good would switching to Oracle do, other than changing the price (which you don't personally pay for) and the brand name slapped onto the product, considering that for all intents and purposes, Unbreakable Linux IS RHEL?
Can you point to a single poster who has taken both positions, as opposed to two entirely different Apple users who have taken the 2 positions? If not, then it can hardly be called hypocrisy... I'm sure some Apple users think killing people is OK too, yet I don't.
Does it look worse than if you stuck a regular old tower into your entertainment center?
However, I have seen a computer that was in the form factor you speak of. Was at a friend's house. Can't remember the manufacturer of it though....unfortunately. It looked pretty nifty.
Slashdot Mirror
Fixed Link
More like Google being a business. Seriously, get over this "Evil" crap, it's marketing speak for crying out loud. Nothing more, nothing less.
If you actually believe that Google will forgo profits to avoid appearing evil to an extremely small percentage of the population that actually give a shit what Google as a company does, I have a bridge to sell you.
Every Slashdot user could quit using Google, and the affect on their financial situation would be negligible. So they don't really care what you think, or whether you think they are "evil" or not.
Nonetheless, evil is an incredibly subjective term.
Ummm...you should check YOUR facts. lxrun is licensed under the MPL, but the LINUX LIBRARIES used by lxrun are still covered under the GPL or LGPL, much like the end-user software run using lxrun would retain the same license. The Groklaw article clearly states it is talking about Linux LIBRARIES used BY lxrun. I just skimmed the article and retained that much before reading your comment, did you even bother opening and reading it?
I suggest you search their site for SCO using Google and then try to tell me that OSDL should be impartial. They didn't exactly make it unknown which side of the fence they sit on, considering they published numerous position papers on why exactly SCO is full of shit (paraphrased here of course).
Besides, I could care less who funds Groklaw. They've been right 99% of the time, and SCO doesn't exactly have clean hands when it comes to influencing and abusing the media. I seem to recall SCO using the media to widely spread slanderous statements about other people and companies with the seemingly sole purpose of extorting licensing fees from innocent companies and boosting their stock price.
SCO accusing IBM of funding Groklaw to influence public opinion is a blatant case of the pot calling the kettle black. It's sad that SCO has such high standards for everyone else and no standards at all for their own conduct.
No, feel free to discuss them. However, the strength of the allegations SCO has made has been thoroughly debunked with regard to iBiblio. After 3 years of this consistently happening to every allegation SCO makes (millions of lines of code, Project Monteray, ownership of copyrights and patents), I would recommend you have your head thoroughly examined though if you actually BELIEVE what they say without confirmation first. Everyone important at SCO is a compulsive liar, plain and simple.
Do I necessarily believe PJ 100% of the time? No, have a look through my comment history at Groklaw, I disagree with her on many things and have even been labeled a troll at Groklaw at times as a result. She's blatantly biased. However, I'll believe PJ, IBM, Red Hat and some random guy trying to sell me the Brooklyn Bridge any day of the week before I blindly believe, or even suspect to be potentially true, anything SCO or their lawyers spew forth. They've earned that standing with me and most people who have watched this farce for 4 years now.
In short, if they present more than allegations and actually offer proof (something they struggle with often), I'll believe it. Otherwise, it's just hot air to me.
Hmmm, I always thought this case was about SCO's alleged IP. I wasn't aware that this case would establish that Linux doesn't infringe any IP, whether or not it (allegedly) belongs to SCO.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but any random company could turn around and sue Linux distributors for patent infringement after this case and the results of this case would have no bearing on it whatsoever.
You're both wrong. It is SCO that as been digging in their feet and dragging things out. IBM already tried to have the whole case thrown overboard 2 years ago, and they're trying again right now with their summary judgment motions. It was SCO that turned discovery from a 1 year preparation into a 3 year fishing expedition (still finding nothing in the end it seems).
Sure. Google is profitable, but the bulk of it's revenue stream comes from a single source - web advertising. As with Microsoft and their Windows and Office products, no?
Google has $11 Billion in cash and short term receivables, and $18 Billion in total assets. This has nothing to do with stock price, but actual things they own. Furthermore, their revenue and profit has been doubling yearly for the last five years. They made $3+ billion in profit last year. They also (like it or not) own patents and other "intellectual property" (I hate that term) to license to make money. The search ad market is growing, and Google is gaining share in that growing market.
I'm not too worried. The stock is overvalued, yes. But ignoring that, Google is extremely strong financially, and is simply funding a research and development team, which will inevitably produce products that will never make money, but occasionally will come up with a money maker, much like Microsoft, IBM, HP and numerous other companies do.
Google can't be compared to pets.com and other dot-bombs. Google wouldn't just disappear overnight, you would see it coming, so fear not.
As far as I know, the vast majority of Google's employees do in-fact work inside the United States for Google, with only tiny offices with a handful of employees in other parts of the world. I could be wrong though...
I'm no Microsoft apologist, but do you have any proof that Microsoft is still funneling money to SCO? I think Microsoft washed their hands of SCO long before now. SCO has no FUD value anymore because the only people who believe them anymore are 2-bit journalists working mainly for 2-bit media outlets that the vast majority of people don't read.
The Judge wouldn't issue a gag order on the whole case. At most, he would issue a gag order on her specific testimony. Furthermore, the Judges are already are quite disgusted with SCO's abuse of others through the media (and have said so on numerous occasions), so I very highly doubt they would actively attempt to shut Groklaw down, when Groklaw actively works to keep SCO inline. Not to say what you suggest is impossible....I just don't see it happening, especially not with Judges Kimball and Wells in charge.
In her defense, she makes it clear when something is fact (ie. provides a citation) and when something is her opinion. Furthermore, her opinion seems to come up right 99% of the time, right from the very beginning of Groklaw. Can you point out a single time where she was blatantly wrong about something to do with this case? I can certainly point out hundreds of times SCO's officers and other journalists have been dead wrong or outright lying when discussing this case.
Besides, Groklaw is HER Blog, she can say whatever she wants on it, and you can choose not to read it as well. Most blogs that I know of have someone in charge.
According to PJ's next story, her vacation took place in her bedroom down the hall from the computer she normally uses to write Groklaw.
1 23029796
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070405
I'm talking about the one included with Tiger. Maybe it's just me, but I really dislike it, and I have tried using it numerous times.
I did not know that. If I ever travel internationally, I'll remember to pack my own :-)
Better check the system requirements before downloading, considering Google Desktop partly relies on Spotlight for some of its settings and thus is only available on Tiger.
"And why would I want to do that?"
If you need to ask that question, don't bother downloading it, while people who DO want to do that will download it. Sound good? I doubt Google released this to please you specifically.
Oh, and it's nice to have your Gmail locally searchable while offline without having to use the piece of crap that is called Mail.app (spotlight cannot index Thunderbird, the only desktop client I can stand using).
What good does an open browser window do you if you're on a plane or bus with no internet connection? You see, there are these wonderful things called laptops. Wireless internet coverage is absolute crap up here in Canada.
Sorry, but it really bothers me when people say "Why would I want/need that?" just to downplay the usefulness of a product. I can't think of a single product, excluding things like toilet paper, that are meant for every single possible purchaser or user on the planet.
Exactly. This is one thing that pisses me off about Apple as well...WHY OH WHY must they still sell computers with 512 MB RAM. It is extremely painful to use...
I agree that support wise they are two different beasts. My impression from the post I originally replied to was that the poster was complaining about Red Hat the distribution (ie. fs layout, included apps, package manager, etc etc), which is, at least currently, identical between Oracle and RHEL.
I often hear this "flooded with ads" argument, but generally anything I look for I find on the first page. I'm willing to bet that no less than 99% of my searches require me to look beyond the second page at the worst. What exactly are you looking for all of the time? Any examples so I can see what you're talking about? (I've tried Yahoo! as well and don't have any issues with them either).
:-P (I'm assuming you meant Adwords).
As for Adsense, if you're paying to use adsense, you need your head examined. Google pays you to use Adsense
Internet Explorer has no widely used ad blockers available, and controls almost 80% of the market. Every non-geek Firefox install I've seen also doesn't have adblock installed. I'm sure a small percentage of users blocking their ads aren't going to hurt them all that much.
However, I do hate Doubleclick....
Can you point to a single poster who has taken both positions, as opposed to two entirely different Apple users who have taken the 2 positions? If not, then it can hardly be called hypocrisy... I'm sure some Apple users think killing people is OK too, yet I don't.
Does it look worse than if you stuck a regular old tower into your entertainment center?
However, I have seen a computer that was in the form factor you speak of. Was at a friend's house. Can't remember the manufacturer of it though....unfortunately. It looked pretty nifty.