Ummmm....Windows Server has a much higher market share in the total server market than Linux (paid Linux at least), just to let you know. Geeks downloading and running their servers on Debian or Slackware aren't exactly Microsoft's target market. In-fact, Microsoft recently outpaced Unix to become the top selling server OS, while Linux sits in spot 3. Last I heard, third place isn't exactly "domination".
I'd wait until Yellowdog for PS3 comes out, and then see how well that runs. FC5 is not optimized for PS3 or the Cell architecture, whereas Yellowdog will be.
FC5 is not optimized for the PS3. It isn't even using all of the Cell's cores. Wait until YellowDog Linux 5.0 for PS3, which will be optimized, comes out. Apparently Sony provided them with dev boxes so they have been working on it for a while. That will be the one to test, not FC5.
To back up which claims? That SCO only holds one patent?
Simply search for them at uspto.gov (the site doesn't let you link directly to search results or patents for some odd reason). The only patent currently held by SCO is:
Method and apparatus for executing multiple JAVA(.TM.) applications on a single JAVA(.TM.) virtual machine Patent # 6,931,544
As for the claim that SCO licensed code to Microsoft and not patents, I refer to SCO's own SEC filings, and what only they can only modify and edit as opposed to Wikipedia's policy of allowing any random tom, dick and harry to edit entries.
From the filings:
We initiated the SCOsource effort to review the status of these licensing and sublicensing agreements and to identify others in the industry that may be currently using our intellectual property without obtaining the necessary licenses. This effort resulted in the execution of two license agreements during the April 30, 2003 quarter. The first of these licenses was with a long-time licensee of the UNIX source code which is a major participant in the UNIX industry and was a "clean-up" license to cover items that were outside the scope of the initial license. The second license was to Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft"), and covers Microsoft's UNIX compatibility products, subject to certain specified limitations. These license agreements will be typical of those we expect to enter into with developers, manufacturers, and distributors of operating systems in that they are non-exclusive, perpetual, royalty-free, paid up licenses to utilize the UNIX source code, including the right to sublicense that code.
The amount that we receive from any such licensee will generally depend on the license rights that the licensee previously held and the amount and level of our intellectual property the licensee desires to license. The two licensing agreements signed by us to date resulted in revenue of $8,250,000 during the April 30, 2003 quarter and provide for an aggregate of an additional $5,000,000 to be paid to us over the next three quarters. These contracts do not provide for any payments beyond 2003, except that Microsoft was granted the option to acquire expanded licensing rights, at its election, that would result in additional payments to us if exercised. In connection with the execution of the first license agreement, we granted a warrant to the licensee to purchase up to 210,000 shares of our common stock, for a period of five years, at a price of $1.83 per share. This warrant has been valued, using the Black-Scholes valuation method, at $500,000. Because the warrant was issued for no consideration, $500,000 of the license proceeds have been recorded as warrant outstanding and the license revenue reduced accordingly.
Nowhere in the filing does it mention any patents being licensed whatsoever to anyone. Once Novell started demanding royalties for these licenses, SCO told everyone it was a patent license, despite their SEC filings saying otherwise.
It happens quite often that SCO's SEC filings conflict with their public statements and court filings.
Novell has recently filed for an injunction against SCO, stating unequivocally that those agreements were source code licenses and thus Novell gets 95% of the revenue. Novell states that the license is a copyright license.
Microsoft didn't buy the "patents", they "licensed" them. The only funny thing is that SCO owned (and maybe still does) only one patent, and it has nothing to do with operating systems:-P Neither SCO nor Microsoft ever claimed that Microsoft actually purchased patents, nor does the Wikipedia article you linked to.
The license covered Unix code as well as far as I can tell, most of which is in the public domain, and the remaining bits owned mainly by Novell and other parties.
Why doesn't China scan Wikipedia for certain keywords and just block certain articles? Don't get me wrong, I think China should be banning no sites, period. However, if China's government insists on blocking Wikipedia due to concerns that articles that touch on their sensitive spots might pop-up, why don't they at least make the rest of Wikipedia available?
Durr. CDDL is less-restrictive than GPL, irregardless of whether or not you think the actual GPL is restrictive or not. CDDL has less restrictions, period.
OS 9 is clearly dated. I had to boot into it the other day to update a firmware I've been meaning to do for a while on my old Powermac, and I felt like I was using Windows 95 or KDE 2.x. I wish people would let it die. It should have been still-born IMHO. It was horrible stability wise as well.
LOL, so funny and so true. I got sick of how ugly my desktop looked because I had 10 applications using 5 different tool-kits open because some of the KDE applications are half-baked jokes so you are stuck running Gnome applications on KDE (or the other way around). The only half-way decent IM client is aMSN, which uses yet another tool-kit. Some weird program that monitored my fans just used a plain X window. It was a real eye sore, nevermind the fact that I had 2 or 3 different file choosers, all with different behaviours and layout. I used Linux for a long time, but since going back to Windows and then later getting a Mac, working on a Linux desktop makes me cringe.
Leave it in the server room and on the geeks desktop where it belongs. Linux is a long way away from running on Joe Blow's Dell.
Your point is? If I owned a computer store should I start only pre-installing Linux because that's what runs on the store router? Just so we're clear, you were attempting to make some kind of point, weren't you?
Yes, but his point is that you are purposefully doing things the hard way and then complaining about how difficult it is. And, as far back as I remember, single user (safe) mode has always been a 2 key combo on startup (Command+S), never 10 commands. You sure you weren't on acid when you were playing with OS X?
Apple ships viruses with their products, somehow managed to push them through all their testers, and then complains about Microsoft's security record? Pot, meet kettle
Santa Cruz gave Novell stock-options. They didn't actually pay them anything.
The agreement was that if SCO became an agent for Novell's Unix SysV licensing business, they could completely take over the Unixware business, while only paying Novell limited royalties on Unixware. Santa Cruz was fully aware that certain assets were excluded, espesially considering the SVRX royalties were listed under the header "Excluded Assets". In-fact, because Santa Cruz couldn't afford to buy the business outright, them and Novell personally agreed in negotiations before the actual signing that certain assets would be excluded for the purchase.
Novell and SCO are disputing ownership of the copyrights. BOTH NOVELL and SCO have distributed Linux under the GPL, for years. They BOTH have licensed its use in Linux. End of story.
Netscape open-sourced their Netscape software to form Mozilla before being aquired by AOL.
Gnutella was made by Nullsoft, and after Slashdot published a story about the software, AOL yanked the download and forced Nullsoft to stop development. The protocol was later reverse-engineered.
"The ad buyer just wasted money so the other guy could get a sale."
Not if the consumer didn't click on the ad, and instead clicked on the lower price in the search results. Google only charges per click, not for just showing the ad.
Slashdot Mirror
Ummmm....Windows Server has a much higher market share in the total server market than Linux (paid Linux at least), just to let you know. Geeks downloading and running their servers on Debian or Slackware aren't exactly Microsoft's target market. In-fact, Microsoft recently outpaced Unix to become the top selling server OS, while Linux sits in spot 3. Last I heard, third place isn't exactly "domination".
I'd wait until Yellowdog for PS3 comes out, and then see how well that runs. FC5 is not optimized for PS3 or the Cell architecture, whereas Yellowdog will be.
FC5 is not optimized for the PS3. It isn't even using all of the Cell's cores. Wait until YellowDog Linux 5.0 for PS3, which will be optimized, comes out. Apparently Sony provided them with dev boxes so they have been working on it for a while. That will be the one to test, not FC5.
To back up which claims? That SCO only holds one patent?
4 65903012299/j2045_10q.htm
4 _03_n-sco.pdf
Simply search for them at uspto.gov (the site doesn't let you link directly to search results or patents for some odd reason). The only patent currently held by SCO is:
Method and apparatus for executing multiple JAVA(.TM.) applications on a single JAVA(.TM.) virtual machine Patent # 6,931,544
As for the claim that SCO licensed code to Microsoft and not patents, I refer to SCO's own SEC filings, and what only they can only modify and edit as opposed to Wikipedia's policy of allowing any random tom, dick and harry to edit entries.
From the filings:
We initiated the SCOsource effort to review the status of these licensing and sublicensing agreements and to identify others in the industry that may be currently using our intellectual property without obtaining the necessary licenses. This effort resulted in the execution of two license agreements during the April 30, 2003 quarter. The first of these licenses was with a long-time licensee of the UNIX source code which is a major participant in the UNIX industry and was a "clean-up" license to cover items that were outside the scope of the initial license. The second license was to Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft"), and covers Microsoft's UNIX compatibility products, subject to certain specified limitations. These license agreements will be typical of those we expect to enter into with developers, manufacturers, and distributors of operating systems in that they are non-exclusive, perpetual, royalty-free, paid up licenses to utilize the UNIX source code, including the right to sublicense that code.
The amount that we receive from any such licensee will generally depend on the license rights that the licensee previously held and the amount and level of our intellectual property the licensee desires to license. The two licensing agreements signed by us to date resulted in revenue of $8,250,000 during the April 30, 2003 quarter and provide for an aggregate of an additional $5,000,000 to be paid to us over the next three quarters. These contracts do not provide for any payments beyond 2003, except that Microsoft was granted the option to acquire expanded licensing rights, at its election, that would result in additional payments to us if exercised. In connection with the execution of the first license agreement, we granted a warrant to the licensee to purchase up to 210,000 shares of our common stock, for a period of five years, at a price of $1.83 per share. This warrant has been valued, using the Black-Scholes valuation method, at $500,000. Because the warrant was issued for no consideration, $500,000 of the license proceeds have been recorded as warrant outstanding and the license revenue reduced accordingly.
http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/000110
Nowhere in the filing does it mention any patents being licensed whatsoever to anyone. Once Novell started demanding royalties for these licenses, SCO told everyone it was a patent license, despite their SEC filings saying otherwise.
http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/pdf/6_2
It happens quite often that SCO's SEC filings conflict with their public statements and court filings.
Novell has recently filed for an injunction against SCO, stating unequivocally that those agreements were source code licenses and thus Novell gets 95% of the revenue. Novell states that the license is a copyright license.
Microsoft didn't buy the "patents", they "licensed" them. The only funny thing is that SCO owned (and maybe still does) only one patent, and it has nothing to do with operating systems :-P Neither SCO nor Microsoft ever claimed that Microsoft actually purchased patents, nor does the Wikipedia article you linked to.
The license covered Unix code as well as far as I can tell, most of which is in the public domain, and the remaining bits owned mainly by Novell and other parties.
Because they do that with the rest of the internet anyways, so they could do the exact same thing with Wikipedia.
Why doesn't China scan Wikipedia for certain keywords and just block certain articles? Don't get me wrong, I think China should be banning no sites, period. However, if China's government insists on blocking Wikipedia due to concerns that articles that touch on their sensitive spots might pop-up, why don't they at least make the rest of Wikipedia available?
How exactly are the MPL and CDDL more restrictive? Clause and paragraph number please...
Durr. CDDL is less-restrictive than GPL, irregardless of whether or not you think the actual GPL is restrictive or not. CDDL has less restrictions, period.
OS 9 is clearly dated. I had to boot into it the other day to update a firmware I've been meaning to do for a while on my old Powermac, and I felt like I was using Windows 95 or KDE 2.x. I wish people would let it die. It should have been still-born IMHO. It was horrible stability wise as well.
LOL, so funny and so true. I got sick of how ugly my desktop looked because I had 10 applications using 5 different tool-kits open because some of the KDE applications are half-baked jokes so you are stuck running Gnome applications on KDE (or the other way around). The only half-way decent IM client is aMSN, which uses yet another tool-kit. Some weird program that monitored my fans just used a plain X window. It was a real eye sore, nevermind the fact that I had 2 or 3 different file choosers, all with different behaviours and layout. I used Linux for a long time, but since going back to Windows and then later getting a Mac, working on a Linux desktop makes me cringe.
Leave it in the server room and on the geeks desktop where it belongs. Linux is a long way away from running on Joe Blow's Dell.
How exactly is Google getting "edged" of the Windows desktop? Last I checked, their market share was going up....
Your point is? If I owned a computer store should I start only pre-installing Linux because that's what runs on the store router? Just so we're clear, you were attempting to make some kind of point, weren't you?
Yes, but his point is that you are purposefully doing things the hard way and then complaining about how difficult it is. And, as far back as I remember, single user (safe) mode has always been a 2 key combo on startup (Command+S), never 10 commands. You sure you weren't on acid when you were playing with OS X?
The download counter is now useless. Firefox+Windows users are going to now download IE7, even if they aren't going to use it....
Apple ships viruses with their products, somehow managed to push them through all their testers, and then complains about Microsoft's security record? Pot, meet kettle
Actually, Novell never alleged Lanham Act violations. It is IBM and Red Hat that are suing for those.
As long as Nintendo provides a written offer to provide source code with the Wii, it is fine. Go read the FAQ on the GPL.
You really don't know what you are talking about.
Santa Cruz gave Novell stock-options. They didn't actually pay them anything.
The agreement was that if SCO became an agent for Novell's Unix SysV licensing business, they could completely take over the Unixware business, while only paying Novell limited royalties on Unixware. Santa Cruz was fully aware that certain assets were excluded, espesially considering the SVRX royalties were listed under the header "Excluded Assets". In-fact, because Santa Cruz couldn't afford to buy the business outright, them and Novell personally agreed in negotiations before the actual signing that certain assets would be excluded for the purchase.
Go crawl back in your hole, ignorant troll.
Novell and SCO are disputing ownership of the copyrights. BOTH NOVELL and SCO have distributed Linux under the GPL, for years. They BOTH have licensed its use in Linux. End of story.
SCO filed numerous motions for summary judgment on IBM's counterclaims and one for their claim of Breach of Contract, not just one.
Netscape open-sourced their Netscape software to form Mozilla before being aquired by AOL.
Gnutella was made by Nullsoft, and after Slashdot published a story about the software, AOL yanked the download and forced Nullsoft to stop development. The protocol was later reverse-engineered.
"The ad buyer just wasted money so the other guy could get a sale."
Not if the consumer didn't click on the ad, and instead clicked on the lower price in the search results. Google only charges per click, not for just showing the ad.
Commas were invented for a reason you know...
I bought a Mini 3 months ago, which by default came with Airport Extreme and Bluetooth. What planet have you been on?