To quickly launch an app, hit Space+Command (opens Spotlight) and then type in the first 3 letters of your program. Works nicely enough the few times I need to use it (I generally only use 8 or 9 programs, which are all in my dock)
Ummm, Judge Wells never once ruled on a Summary Judgment motion in either IBM or Novell. Furthermore, it is Judge Kimball who heard the Summary Judgment motions at the beginning of 2005, and the ones in March are scheduled to be heard before him. Please provide a link backing up your statement.
Yahoo! is offering free POP access on new accounts on at least yahoo.ca. I know, because I need a temporary e-mail address, and made one on yahoo. I was pleased to see it offers POP access, so I don't need to use their horridly slow interfaces.
Ummmm...I'm the one who submits the vast majority of SCO news lately to Slashdot, and I didn't even bother submitting this. Novell has been saying this, either word for word or using different words, since they filed their counterclaims in July 2005. Novell said this directly in their motion for summary judgment a month or 2 ago. Novell is now just repeating itself in a second filing on the same motion (reply memorandum). I never thought I would tag something on Slashdot as slownewsday on the same day as Macworld....
Gmail offers POP downloads for both all incoming AND outgoing e-mail. Install Thunderbird, set up with Gmail, download everything once a week and backup your contacts to Thunderbird's address book. There, problem solved:-)
I personally use Gmail for the interface and delete e-mail after it is 30 days or so old anyways as opposed to storing it (I'm much more worried about accidentally remaining logged in to Gmail on a school machine, exposing years of backups, than I am about Google's handling of my e-mail)
Wow, Microsoft is giving out free products to influential bloggers/"reporters" right before a product launch. Cause, you know, this is an unheard of and inexplicable practice and all. I hope the Associated Press breaks this story wide open. And yes, I'm being sarcastic.
Some days I'm really glad I don't actually pay to read Slashdot.
Novell didn't really sell Unix to SCO. SCO became a Unix licensing agent for Novell, but technically SCO does own the title to the Unix contracts. SCO collects money on these contracts, remits 100% to Novell, and then Novell pays SCO a pittance for its duties (5%). In order to protect its interests, Novell retained the right, "at its sole discretion and direction, to require SCO to amend, supplement, modify or waive any rights under, or assign any rights to, any SVRX licensee". If SCO failed to abide by this direction, Novell retained the right "to take any such action on behalf of SCO". Novell exercized this right in June 2003, August 2003 and Feb 2004, and is now asking the court for Summary Judgment to force SCO to recognize these 2+ year old waivers. Read the motion, it goes into great detail. Hope that helps enough that you don't have to though, that's the general gist of it.
Well, as great as that is and all, if you would kindly take the time to re-read the post you originally responded to, you would most likely notice this time around that he specifically asked about Windows 2000 Server. 2000 != 2003 or Vista.:-) (I meant to put XP+ btw, not XP, but my point still stands)
If the grandparent hasn't wrapped his head around what the author meant yet
I think he gets it, he's just being an Apple fanboy Hell, I agree with you on that one and I'm typing this from a Mac Mini and there is a Powermac sitting in the next room.
Why don't you go out and get laid and quit worrying so much about dumb shit? Honestly, so what if the article has bad grammar. Shut your mouth and don't read it. Now wasn't that difficult?
I hate to agree with an AC troll, but seconded. If the grandparent hasn't wrapped his head around what the author meant yet he has serious issues with his cognitive functioning. The author clearly states that OS X had it first, end of story.
I would say that if MS is correct in asserting that vista won't need A/V software, which I highly doubt, that would justify an upgrade. I hope you're kidding, as Jim Alchin promptly disputed that he said anything to that effect, and it was shown that he didn't.
Nope. Novell also, in October 2003, directed SCO to waive their right to claim IBM's own code as protected. In Feb 2004, they directed SCO to waive their right to claim Sequent's own code as protected.
Ummm, if you actually read the article/motion, you would know Novell waived SCO's claims back in June 2003. Furthermore, IBM has specifically used Novell's waiver as one of their defenses, before the SCO vs Novell lawsuit even started. The fact that you got modded insightful just shows how little the vast majority of Slashdot's readers actually know about this case.
Read my other comments in this thread (Ctrl+F and then type in my name) and you'll realize why there is a difference. Primarily, you can uninstall Safari quite easily and Apple isn't a monopoly in the desktop market. In-fact, Apple promotes competing browsers on their very own website.
Fourth, Apple is not a monopoly in the desktop market, and has a small share of the market, so it would be absurd to sue them under antitrust laws anyways.
If you want to hold Apple to that standard, you'd better be damn rich so you can buy a hell of a lot of Macs, because Apple will need more than 3 or 4% of the Desktop market before they can be charged under Antitrust laws. You know, the ones that apply to Monopolies, as in, companies that have more than 3 or 4% of a market. Seems like a simple concept to me personally....
"Wouldn't it be best for SCO to simply drop the suit and try to get back into the technology business? Or would that just firmly seat the hook for the expected counter-suit from IBM to reclaim damages from the frivolous lawsuit?"
IBM has already filed numerous counterclaims.
"I'm not understanding why SCO would continue to pump any of their few remaining pennies into a lawsuit, when the judge's actions are clearly saying "DROP THIS NOW, YOU DAMN IDIOTS.""
Due to IBM's counterclaims, SCO has no choice but to continue and try to win.
"Even ignoring the financial impact of the suit, he's managed to turn a once-profitable company into a penny stock as well as a laughing stock. If I were an investor, I'd be mad enough to want a change."
LOL, when the hell was Caldera/SCO EVER profitable, excluding the single quarter they turned a profit from Microsoft licensing money, money Novell is now suing SCO for anyways.
"If I could go to Comp-u-City and buy a different commercial (I stress commercial, not open source but new from the ground up) operating system off the shelf for $150, I'd do it today instead of golfing."
You know someone takes their anti-Microsoft tirade a bit too far when they're willing to buy a competing product without even checking whether or not it suits their needs:-P
Slashdot Mirror
Ummmm, Google Reader uses the term Tags, not Labels. Apparently someone needs to do their homework.
To quickly launch an app, hit Space+Command (opens Spotlight) and then type in the first 3 letters of your program. Works nicely enough the few times I need to use it (I generally only use 8 or 9 programs, which are all in my dock)
Ummm, Judge Wells never once ruled on a Summary Judgment motion in either IBM or Novell. Furthermore, it is Judge Kimball who heard the Summary Judgment motions at the beginning of 2005, and the ones in March are scheduled to be heard before him. Please provide a link backing up your statement.
This article pertains to Slashdot only...
Yahoo! is offering free POP access on new accounts on at least yahoo.ca. I know, because I need a temporary e-mail address, and made one on yahoo. I was pleased to see it offers POP access, so I don't need to use their horridly slow interfaces.
Ummmm...I'm the one who submits the vast majority of SCO news lately to Slashdot, and I didn't even bother submitting this. Novell has been saying this, either word for word or using different words, since they filed their counterclaims in July 2005. Novell said this directly in their motion for summary judgment a month or 2 ago. Novell is now just repeating itself in a second filing on the same motion (reply memorandum). I never thought I would tag something on Slashdot as slownewsday on the same day as Macworld....
Gmail offers POP downloads for both all incoming AND outgoing e-mail. Install Thunderbird, set up with Gmail, download everything once a week and backup your contacts to Thunderbird's address book. There, problem solved :-)
I personally use Gmail for the interface and delete e-mail after it is 30 days or so old anyways as opposed to storing it (I'm much more worried about accidentally remaining logged in to Gmail on a school machine, exposing years of backups, than I am about Google's handling of my e-mail)
Wow, Microsoft is giving out free products to influential bloggers/"reporters" right before a product launch. Cause, you know, this is an unheard of and inexplicable practice and all. I hope the Associated Press breaks this story wide open. And yes, I'm being sarcastic.
Some days I'm really glad I don't actually pay to read Slashdot.
Novell didn't really sell Unix to SCO. SCO became a Unix licensing agent for Novell, but technically SCO does own the title to the Unix contracts. SCO collects money on these contracts, remits 100% to Novell, and then Novell pays SCO a pittance for its duties (5%). In order to protect its interests, Novell retained the right, "at its sole discretion and direction, to require SCO to amend, supplement, modify or waive any rights under, or assign any rights to, any SVRX licensee". If SCO failed to abide by this direction, Novell retained the right "to take any such action on behalf of SCO". Novell exercized this right in June 2003, August 2003 and Feb 2004, and is now asking the court for Summary Judgment to force SCO to recognize these 2+ year old waivers. Read the motion, it goes into great detail. Hope that helps enough that you don't have to though, that's the general gist of it.
Well, as great as that is and all, if you would kindly take the time to re-read the post you originally responded to, you would most likely notice this time around that he specifically asked about Windows 2000 Server. 2000 != 2003 or Vista. :-) (I meant to put XP+ btw, not XP, but my point still stands)
Nope. Parallels yes, boot camp no. Boot Camp only supports Windows XP.
Why don't you go out and get laid and quit worrying so much about dumb shit? Honestly, so what if the article has bad grammar. Shut your mouth and don't read it. Now wasn't that difficult?
I hate to agree with an AC troll, but seconded. If the grandparent hasn't wrapped his head around what the author meant yet he has serious issues with his cognitive functioning. The author clearly states that OS X had it first, end of story.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061111-819
The state of internet journalism is truly pathetic.
Nope. Novell also, in October 2003, directed SCO to waive their right to claim IBM's own code as protected. In Feb 2004, they directed SCO to waive their right to claim Sequent's own code as protected.
Ummm, if you actually read the article/motion, you would know Novell waived SCO's claims back in June 2003. Furthermore, IBM has specifically used Novell's waiver as one of their defenses, before the SCO vs Novell lawsuit even started. The fact that you got modded insightful just shows how little the vast majority of Slashdot's readers actually know about this case.
Read my other comments in this thread (Ctrl+F and then type in my name) and you'll realize why there is a difference. Primarily, you can uninstall Safari quite easily and Apple isn't a monopoly in the desktop market. In-fact, Apple promotes competing browsers on their very own website.
i lities/ (scroll down)
http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/internet_ut
Good points, but I got one more.
Fourth, Apple is not a monopoly in the desktop market, and has a small share of the market, so it would be absurd to sue them under antitrust laws anyways.
If you want to hold Apple to that standard, you'd better be damn rich so you can buy a hell of a lot of Macs, because Apple will need more than 3 or 4% of the Desktop market before they can be charged under Antitrust laws. You know, the ones that apply to Monopolies, as in, companies that have more than 3 or 4% of a market. Seems like a simple concept to me personally....
"Wouldn't it be best for SCO to simply drop the suit and try to get back into the technology business? Or would that just firmly seat the hook for the expected counter-suit from IBM to reclaim damages from the frivolous lawsuit?"
IBM has already filed numerous counterclaims.
"I'm not understanding why SCO would continue to pump any of their few remaining pennies into a lawsuit, when the judge's actions are clearly saying "DROP THIS NOW, YOU DAMN IDIOTS.""
Due to IBM's counterclaims, SCO has no choice but to continue and try to win.
"Even ignoring the financial impact of the suit, he's managed to turn a once-profitable company into a penny stock as well as a laughing stock. If I were an investor, I'd be mad enough to want a change."
LOL, when the hell was Caldera/SCO EVER profitable, excluding the single quarter they turned a profit from Microsoft licensing money, money Novell is now suing SCO for anyways.
My point still stands. Linux doesn't dominate the server market. Far from it.
Congratulations. You've posted the absolute dumbest comment today on Slashdot :-)
Please download Firefox 2.0. It includes a built-in spell checker, which I hope you'll make good use of in the future. Thanks.
"If I could go to Comp-u-City and buy a different commercial (I stress commercial, not open source but new from the ground up) operating system off the shelf for $150, I'd do it today instead of golfing."
:-P
You know someone takes their anti-Microsoft tirade a bit too far when they're willing to buy a competing product without even checking whether or not it suits their needs