Because people in power don't like things to change and want to be the only ones doing certain things. This is the Cold War mentality operating in today's world. Really stupid.
I actually look forward to reaping the rewards of all those Indians eventually being part of an economic system that can exploit their brains. Out of one billion people there has to be some good ideas...standard curve being what it is and all.
Governments and large corporations don't like one thing: competition!
Actually I don't think that's true. Companies with a good business model and low on cash usually can get a loan...especially, if as you say, they have friends in high places. The point is whether they actually are able to demonstrate that their plan is capable of generating enough revenue to cover costs and pay back a loan.
Firms can raise capital when needed even in today's economy if they are "just" in a short-term cash crunch. I think in this case it is more than just a short-term issue.
Go to France; megacorps do not have the same influence on what movies get made...the government provides significant funding for artists to do their thing. Compare what comes out of France versus USA. The result isn't any better, imho, just different. Nice to have both countries doing different things and providing balance.
Also, to be fair to the USA, the independent movie scene is getting better quality-wise and funding wise. The future is bright for the artistic film scene.
I think making money is a very good thing and I have no preference for open or closed source products but when I see these consulting fees:
Consulting Services Architect: $3,000 per day Programmer: $1,500 per day Jumpstart Workshop: $20,000 for one-week, up to 6 developers
and the other ways money is to be made ($100,000 for joining a committee!!!), I get the feeling that you guys are out to line your pockets by faking out stupid corporations who will waste gazillions on anything they don't understand. I get that curl feeling...
Good luck though since you will be competing with Sun and Microsoft.
"If you look at the history of programming languages, a lot of the best ones were languages designed for their own authors to use, and a lot of the worst ones were designed for other people to use.
When languages are designed for other people, it's always a specific group of other people: people not as smart as the language designer. So you get a language that talks down to you. Cobol is the most extreme case, but a lot of languages are pervaded by this spirit.
It has nothing to do with how abstract the language is. C is pretty low-level, but it was designed for its authors to use, and that's why hackers like it.
The argument for designing languages for bad programmers is that there are more bad programmers than good programmers. That may be so. But those few good programmers write a disproportionately large percentage of the software.
I'm interested in the question, how do you design a language that the very best hackers will like? I happen to think this is identical to the question, how do you design a good programming language?, but even if it isn't, it is at least an interesting question. "
My feeling was that the author was doing his best not to reveal his true enthusiasm and thus appear too supportive of a Microsoft product.
Personally, I was a bit stunned at the high praise for the Tablet PC...not just in this article but everywhere in general.
The Tablet PC appears to be a mini-breakthrough in that it has set a new standard for this product niche. This is unusual for Microsoft in that usually someone else sets the standard and Microsoft bullies their way in with an inferior product and takes over. In this case, Microsoft has moved ahead of the pack and set the standard by virtue of quality and function.
It will be interesting to see if the Open Source community can act in a nimble manner and provide competition to Microsoft in the Tablet world. The Tablet PC market is open for anyone to get in and win marketshare.
Yes, adding a love interest for Tintin will be a requirement if it is to be made for the masses.
I imagine a perky and silly American blonde girl that Tintin will try to ignore but she will pop up periodically and get everyone in trouble. Then, of course, she will save the day and Tintin will see her in a different light and fall in love with her (by the 3rd movie). Snowy will be jealous and that will provide some comedy.
The problem isn't Hollywood per se but rather the growing stupidity of the world's population. Hollywood just feeds off of that. Europe isn't improving intelligence-wise either. Everyone worldwide is getting fat and stupid just like here in the USA. People think Hollywood makes movies just for the American audience...that's not true - it is a global audience that Hollywood reaches.
The beautiful thing about Herge was that he could make very strong political points in his work without being shrill. Today political points by artists are almost always made loudly, obviously and with an "I'm right, you are wrong" attitude.
Herge represents a type of artist that you rarely see anymore unfortunately. Woody Allen is another good example of someone who has strong views and can use his art to spell out his feelings without being shrill and stupid (like, say, the Baldwin brothers or the Sheen family!).
Herge's work is too good for the likes of anyone today to mess with it.
Tintin and the Picaros said it all...wake up and take an honest look at reality...it is rather ugly and a lot of romantic notions have to be forgotten. It is time for a real change.
That was funny. Do you also avoid reading articles from other scientists if you don't like their politics?
It is a shame that everyone is so shrill and carries their politics on their sleeve. I guess it is easier to be superficial than have depth these days since identifying with a group rather than being respected for who you are appears to be what matters.
By the way, crap usually isn't expensive (visit sourceforge for many examples)...good software though often is:)
Heh, the original article certainly had a LOT to chew on with respect to Raymond, failure of Nupedia (did it fail?), Stallman, etc.
The GPL is not a design method it is license. How one actually develops the project might be the author's point. Closed shop development can produce a GPL'd product. Also, it might just be the notion of control of a project - is it rigid (hierarchical) or flexible (very flat).
I got the feeling that the author is pointing out how an INDIVIDUAL can produce a great product (like his textbooks) if he has access to royalty-free information that he can use in his own work.
Note how the author points out Raymond's use of the cathedral approach to write his popular book. Essentially that was Raymond ALONE producing a work. Likewise, Stallman with EMACS - on his own but using other's work as well.
Look at this quote:
"The failure of the bazaar model with free books might not seem surprising, since to most people it sounds like the silly party game where each person takes a turn adding more onto a story. We normally assume that an author has a unique voice, and that authorship can't be delegated."
I really think his point is that lots of people editing, revising, adding chapters, fixing, etc. doesn't apply as well to books...except in the case of technical documentation.
For example, an author who has a particular teaching method and writing style that he wants to consistently use across chapters will not (and should not) be open to others messing with his text outside of the purely technical side of things. The end result though can be something that is free for all to change, edit, etc.
I like the author's approach because creativity usually means the artist/author/etc. realizes his own ideas in the form of the project. Projects that are not purely technical may not be best done with bazaar like methods. Too many chefs spoil the broth:) Construction by committee often doesn't yield very artistic results. etc.
Basically, realize your own project goals and then allow others to benefit as they want from them.
A BSc in Comp. Sci. and some co-op experience sounds more than enough to get your foot in the door (entry-level). Are you sure you are applying for the appropriate job? Perhaps you'll need to start lower than you want due to the sluggish economy? Since you are willing to work at any job, I would make sure that you aren't overlooking some of the lower end work (for the time being anyway) -- sys admin hopefully requires more experience than you have:) Likewise, look for "junior" positions as well. Look at non-tech companies that have tech needs (banks and insurance and investment companies for example).
I don't think certificates early in one's career are that beneficial since it starts looking like you are just too obviously trying to make up for lack of real-world experience by overloading your resume with these certificates. Certificates, in my opinion, are good ways for senior practicioners (i.e. those over 25:) of demonstrating over time that they are keeping pace with current technologies.
Also, some people may use certificates to help with transitioning from a different career into tech (since going back to school is not an option).
My opinion: don't worry about the certificate issue and start doing a broader search for entry level tech positions.
** Also, it is hard for anyone to know WHY you didn't get an interview if we don't know exactly what your resume and cover letter contain and for what position you applied. You may just have a goofy sounding cover letter or weak resume.
Worse comes to worse, you can always do tech sales (I guarantee you can get a job there) -- man that phone boy!!!
Time to look in the mirror and start applying more makeup as you are no longer passable...
Anyway, this has nothing to do with bait as most likely the Lindows people aren't enjoying spending time and other resources defending themselves. It is just MS trying to defend a trademark and seeing how far it can go. Also, there is the issue of whether it is "fair" to allow a company to ride the wave of someone else's work in building up a brand.
I think it is an important case. If MS wins then corporate lawyers everywhere will be licking their chops to go after anything that even remotely looks similar to an established corporate trademark...it will be another headache for small businesses.
Microsoft Windows (MS-Windows) is one thing; Linux Windows (Lindows) should certainly be another; Bindows (BeOS-Windows) could be another; etc. The "Windows" part is too generic alone to have exclusive right to use --- the identifier "Microsoft" _plus_ the generic though I think is fair to establish as one's own exclusive trademark.
I think you are going a bit far although political assassinations in Italy and Netherlands; no Presidential debate in France between the final two contenders; massive anti-semitism throughout Europe; etc. do make one wonder if the start of a "closed-minded" Europe is happening.
In this case though, my opinion, is that the tax just shows that politicians in Europe respond to local business interests that want every ounce of protection from foreign competition they can get. This happens in the US, Asia and everywhere else...it is basically a non-event. Pretty soon US Governors will be harping again about taxing cross-State-border internet sales and it isn't because the US is starting to be a closed-society just that local brick-and-mortar firms don't like competition (even with other _American_ firms) and State bureaucrats want fatter budgets.
Of course, as a business they do what they have to do but, NO, we don't have to limit who we get upset at...some of us in that "we" don't think _software_ patents should be permitted so any software patent is bad.
Do I misunderstand the whole issue? My take on it is as such: The problem with these patents is that they aren't against someone copying the EXACT, at the source code level, process but rather copying the idea. That would be like getting a patent for curing a particular disease (in general) rather than for the very specific process used to cure the disease....I was first to think up a cure for cancer, so no one else can do that even if they do it differently.
If I can't see the source code, there should not be anything stopping me from implementing the same idea...like 1-Click shopping; if they want to patent a particular non-obvious algorithm they used to implement it, at best that's fine but to stop everyone from implementing, in a different manner, the same idea is just stupid.
"Fewer than one percent" does not mean one percent so the number is LESS than your assumed 15,000. Anyway, I think that there hasn't been more publicity because it really isn't that much of an issue. A product with some defects; some bad customer service; things will get fixed though --- this is normal. Lots of products have had defects and get recalled/brought in and fixed. Sometimes software has bugs too.
My XBox has been working fine since I got it as a gift this Christmas. Likewise for my brother's XBox.
Sony tried Be's offering and it failed miserably. BeIA/BeOS/BeWHATEVER, despite all of its nice features, had problems which doomed it.
Believe you me; Sony, IBM, et al all had the opportunity to investigate and buy Be and save themselves 3+ years of development time --- obviously they didn't think Be was worth it.
I think the comma is left-out rather than misplaced since the comma after Linux is fine (I think). Add a comma after 'Unix operating system' and you get that they are focusing on Irix and Linux...rather than having Irix being a version of Linux !!
They have moved from NT but the problem for SGI is that they have also lost time and money with their misguided attempts at doing "other things." Hopefully, the new demand (and money) from government will give them an extra lease on life that can be properly used to build a solid profitable company.
Since the stock is so cheap, it would be nice for some heavy hitters to buy them and make it a private company and some time in the future, if ever, they can take the company public.
SGI needs to do a lot more R&D to ensure that it doesn't lose to others with deep pockets and they also need a clear strategy to determine the proper future of Irix vis a vis Linux.
Being private will take a lot of pressure off their shoulders and allow them to focus on building something sustainable. I wouldn't be surprised if their best bet is to become a smaller research focused software company and letting hardware be handled by others.
It is a nice operating system. You can get a free personal version from www.bebits.com or you can buy a more deluxe version from www.gobe.com -- oddly enough, I don't think you can get it from Palm.
They are abandoning their GNU values because they are now involved in proprietary software (original poster indicated the particular proprietary product they sell).
GNU is about accepting the fact that source code is nothing more than information. This has been gone over ad nauseum. Any, and I mean any god dammit, attempt to restrict access to source code is evil according to GNU Values. Ximian is now evil. That they are now working with the Devil then should come as no surprise.
Actually, it isn't possible to work with MS without selling your soul. By working with Microsoft you are explicitly telling the world that their licenses and policies and practicies should not be a reason to avoid doing business with MS. They are just another company and we need to be pragmatic about our values -- that's the message Ximian and you are sending.
I think Stallman would give you a pretty harsh answer to your issue about more collaboration with MS.
The GPL is NOT a libertarian document (or at least not by old-school standards). The GPL advocates the use of force against those who do not abide by its view of intellectual property.
The GPL REQUIRES that an author RELEASE SOURCE CODE. If a developer does not physically go through the procedures to do that then the GPL (working with copyright law) allows for legal action (force) to rectify the situation.
An old-school libertarian would not accept being forced to do anything of the sort if he or she did not want to.
Without Copyright law, the GPL is nothing. So Libertarians cannot be for the GPL and against copyright law. Using force (GPL) against the developer to "balance" the force (copyright law) used against the user is a joke. Libertarians should be against copyright law PERIOD. That means the GPL too.
That libertarians want to get into the homes of softare developers, put a gun to their head and force them to release source code is chilling and indicates how intellectually bankrupt the libertarians are.
Communists, radical islamists and libertarians are not all that different anymore it seems --- the use of force rather than debate is their tool. Losers always have to resort to force because no one is interested in the big ideas they have for everyone else.
"use" alone is permitted so I probably should have been more precise with respect to the license. The coders didn't just "use," they "modified" and the license covers that. So, the point remains, if Russian law allows enforcement of contracts/licenses then the coders would be required to follow the GPL otherwise they were violating it - according to Russian law.
Copyright law, I believe, gives the author the right to come up with such a contract as GPL. Whether Russia has such a copyright law is maybe what the original poster was commenting on.
I think it is a contract/license issue. I'm sure Russia has contract law. If you use the software you have agreed to the contract/license. Contracts put conditions on your actions that are not normally there under the law. So, unless it is legal to violate licenses/contracts in Russia they broke the law (maybe? perhaps? I really don't know but I don't think it is a property issue.).
You are right on the merits of the case but it was a bit ridiculous for the MPlayer people to overemphasize the "Russia" part - their tirade about this being bad for "Russian" Coders suggests their fiery was perhaps not entirely based on the license violation.
Actually, I don't think this has everything to do with Copyrights. If it were only copyrights then Stallman would have no problem with closed-source programs that were freely distributed.
Instead, he demands access to the source code. In other words, you have to PHYSICALLY go through the process of making source code available regardless of whether you want to or not. Essentially, he is saying that producing software OBLIGATES you to release source code. Making someone physically do something they don't want to do used to be considered bad.
So, it isn't entirely a copyright issue - it is all about Stallman's archaic view that the masses are being exploited by the producers and the only way to destroy large corporations is to take away their intellectual property.
My guess is that he is hoping that, now after a generation has passed, there will be a lot of young people who think that his "cause" is something new - when it is just a re-run of the rhetoric spewed out by the Soviet Union, Castro and Mao.
Stallman comes across as a lunatic with the "my way or you are evil" type mentality.
Stallman is a tried and true Marxist who puts value only on physical labor and does not believe that intellectual capital should be permitted to have any value. His rationalization about "power" is laughable but does make me feel _better_ about using Microsoft software. My reply to Stallbaby would be: JUST BECAUSE __YOU DECIDE__ TO USE MY SOFTWARE DOESN'T MEAN __I HAVE TO__ MOVE MY BIG FAT WHITE BUTT TO GIVE YOU THE SOURCE. YOU KNOW AHEAD OF TIME WHETHER YOU GET THE SOURCE OR NOT; IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT TOUGH.
Free software (if you want to make money then become a slave, err, consultant running down projects)! Free music (if you want to make money, go on a tour)! Free video (one paid showing and that's it -- actors - no more residuals for you)! Join the revolution now to FREE the masses!!! What a hoot!
The guys at Microsoft are probably laughing their asses off with that article.
Slashdot Mirror
Because people in power don't like things to change and want to be the only ones doing certain things. This is the Cold War mentality operating in today's world. Really stupid.
I actually look forward to reaping the rewards of all those Indians eventually being part of an economic system that can exploit their brains. Out of one billion people there has to be some good ideas...standard curve being what it is and all.
Governments and large corporations don't like one thing: competition!
Actually I don't think that's true. Companies with a good business model and low on cash usually can get a loan...especially, if as you say, they have friends in high places. The point is whether they actually are able to demonstrate that their plan is capable of generating enough revenue to cover costs and pay back a loan.
Firms can raise capital when needed even in today's economy if they are "just" in a short-term cash crunch. I think in this case it is more than just a short-term issue.
Go to France; megacorps do not have the same influence on what movies get made...the government provides significant funding for artists to do their thing. Compare what comes out of France versus USA. The result isn't any better, imho, just different. Nice to have both countries doing different things and providing balance.
Also, to be fair to the USA, the independent movie scene is getting better quality-wise and funding wise. The future is bright for the artistic film scene.
I think making money is a very good thing and I have no preference for open or closed source products but when I see these consulting fees:
Consulting Services
Architect: $3,000 per day
Programmer: $1,500 per day
Jumpstart Workshop: $20,000 for one-week, up to 6 developers
and the other ways money is to be made ($100,000 for joining a committee!!!), I get the feeling that you guys are out to line your pockets by faking out stupid corporations who will waste gazillions on anything they don't understand. I get that curl feeling...
Good luck though since you will be competing with Sun and Microsoft.
I leave this bit to ponder from http://www.paulgraham.com/langdes.html:
"If you look at the history of programming languages, a lot of the best ones were languages designed for their own authors to use, and a lot of the worst ones were designed for other people to use.
When languages are designed for other people, it's always a specific group of other people: people not as smart as the language designer. So you get a language that talks down to you. Cobol is the most extreme case, but a lot of languages are pervaded by this spirit.
It has nothing to do with how abstract the language is. C is pretty low-level, but it was designed for its authors to use, and that's why hackers like it.
The argument for designing languages for bad programmers is that there are more bad programmers than good programmers. That may be so. But those few good programmers write a disproportionately large percentage of the software.
I'm interested in the question, how do you design a language that the very best hackers will like? I happen to think this is identical to the question, how do you design a good programming language?, but even if it isn't, it is at least an interesting question. "
-----
I got the opposite impression from the article.
My feeling was that the author was doing his best not to reveal his true enthusiasm and thus appear too supportive of a Microsoft product.
Personally, I was a bit stunned at the high praise for the Tablet PC...not just in this article but everywhere in general.
The Tablet PC appears to be a mini-breakthrough in that it has set a new standard for this product niche. This is unusual for Microsoft in that usually someone else sets the standard and Microsoft bullies their way in with an inferior product and takes over. In this case, Microsoft has moved ahead of the pack and set the standard by virtue of quality and function.
It will be interesting to see if the Open Source community can act in a nimble manner and provide competition to Microsoft in the Tablet world. The Tablet PC market is open for anyone to get in and win marketshare.
Yes, adding a love interest for Tintin will be a requirement if it is to be made for the masses.
I imagine a perky and silly American blonde girl that Tintin will try to ignore but she will pop up periodically and get everyone in trouble. Then, of course, she will save the day and Tintin will see her in a different light and fall in love with her (by the 3rd movie). Snowy will be jealous and that will provide some comedy.
The problem isn't Hollywood per se but rather the growing stupidity of the world's population. Hollywood just feeds off of that. Europe isn't improving intelligence-wise either. Everyone worldwide is getting fat and stupid just like here in the USA. People think Hollywood makes movies just for the American audience...that's not true - it is a global audience that Hollywood reaches.
The beautiful thing about Herge was that he could make very strong political points in his work without being shrill. Today political points by artists are almost always made loudly, obviously and with an "I'm right, you are wrong" attitude.
Herge represents a type of artist that you rarely see anymore unfortunately. Woody Allen is another good example of someone who has strong views and can use his art to spell out his feelings without being shrill and stupid (like, say, the Baldwin brothers or the Sheen family!).
Herge's work is too good for the likes of anyone today to mess with it.
Tintin and the Picaros said it all...wake up and take an honest look at reality...it is rather ugly and a lot of romantic notions have to be forgotten. It is time for a real change.
ha ha!
:)
That was funny. Do you also avoid reading articles from other scientists if you don't like their politics?
It is a shame that everyone is so shrill and carries their politics on their sleeve. I guess it is easier to be superficial than have depth these days since identifying with a group rather than being respected for who you are appears to be what matters.
By the way, crap usually isn't expensive (visit sourceforge for many examples)...good software though often is
Heh, the original article certainly had a LOT to chew on with respect to Raymond, failure of Nupedia (did it fail?), Stallman, etc.
:) Construction by committee often doesn't yield very artistic results. etc.
The GPL is not a design method it is license. How one actually develops the project might be the author's point. Closed shop development can produce a GPL'd product. Also, it might just be the notion of control of a project - is it rigid (hierarchical) or flexible (very flat).
I got the feeling that the author is pointing out how an INDIVIDUAL can produce a great product (like his textbooks) if he has access to royalty-free information that he can use in his own work.
Note how the author points out Raymond's use of the cathedral approach to write his popular book. Essentially that was Raymond ALONE producing a work. Likewise, Stallman with EMACS - on his own but using other's work as well.
Look at this quote:
"The failure of the bazaar model with free books might not seem surprising, since to most people it sounds like the silly party game where each person takes a turn adding more onto a story. We normally assume that an author has a unique voice, and that authorship can't be delegated."
I really think his point is that lots of people editing, revising, adding chapters, fixing, etc. doesn't apply as well to books...except in the case of technical documentation.
For example, an author who has a particular teaching method and writing style that he wants to consistently use across chapters will not (and should not) be open to others messing with his text outside of the purely technical side of things. The end result though can be something that is free for all to change, edit, etc.
I like the author's approach because creativity usually means the artist/author/etc. realizes his own ideas in the form of the project. Projects that are not purely technical may not be best done with bazaar like methods. Too many chefs spoil the broth
Basically, realize your own project goals and then allow others to benefit as they want from them.
www.blossoms.com
Enjoy!
A BSc in Comp. Sci. and some co-op experience sounds more than enough to get your foot in the door (entry-level). Are you sure you are applying for the appropriate job? Perhaps you'll need to start lower than you want due to the sluggish economy? Since you are willing to work at any job, I would make sure that you aren't overlooking some of the lower end work (for the time being anyway) -- sys admin hopefully requires more experience than you have :) Likewise, look for "junior" positions as well. Look at non-tech companies that have tech needs (banks and insurance and investment companies for example).
:) of demonstrating over time that they are keeping pace with current technologies.
I don't think certificates early in one's career are that beneficial since it starts looking like you are just too obviously trying to make up for lack of real-world experience by overloading your resume with these certificates. Certificates, in my opinion, are good ways for senior practicioners (i.e. those over 25
Also, some people may use certificates to help with transitioning from a different career into tech (since going back to school is not an option).
My opinion: don't worry about the certificate issue and start doing a broader search for entry level tech positions.
** Also, it is hard for anyone to know WHY you didn't get an interview if we don't know exactly what your resume and cover letter contain and for what position you applied. You may just have a goofy sounding cover letter or weak resume.
Worse comes to worse, you can always do tech sales (I guarantee you can get a job there) -- man that phone boy!!!
Time to look in the mirror and start applying more makeup as you are no longer passable...
Anyway, this has nothing to do with bait as most likely the Lindows people aren't enjoying spending time and other resources defending themselves. It is just MS trying to defend a trademark and seeing how far it can go. Also, there is the issue of whether it is "fair" to allow a company to ride the wave of someone else's work in building up a brand.
I think it is an important case. If MS wins then corporate lawyers everywhere will be licking their chops to go after anything that even remotely looks similar to an established corporate trademark...it will be another headache for small businesses.
Microsoft Windows (MS-Windows) is one thing; Linux Windows (Lindows) should certainly be another; Bindows (BeOS-Windows) could be another; etc. The "Windows" part is too generic alone to have exclusive right to use --- the identifier "Microsoft" _plus_ the generic though I think is fair to establish as one's own exclusive trademark.
I think you are going a bit far although political assassinations in Italy and Netherlands; no Presidential debate in France between the final two contenders; massive anti-semitism throughout Europe; etc. do make one wonder if the start of a "closed-minded" Europe is happening.
In this case though, my opinion, is that the tax just shows that politicians in Europe respond to local business interests that want every ounce of protection from foreign competition they can get. This happens in the US, Asia and everywhere else...it is basically a non-event. Pretty soon US Governors will be harping again about taxing cross-State-border internet sales and it isn't because the US is starting to be a closed-society just that local brick-and-mortar firms don't like competition (even with other _American_ firms) and State bureaucrats want fatter budgets.
Of course, as a business they do what they have to do but, NO, we don't have to limit who we get upset at...some of us in that "we" don't think _software_ patents should be permitted so any software patent is bad.
Do I misunderstand the whole issue? My take on it is as such: The problem with these patents is that they aren't against someone copying the EXACT, at the source code level, process but rather copying the idea. That would be like getting a patent for curing a particular disease (in general) rather than for the very specific process used to cure the disease....I was first to think up a cure for cancer, so no one else can do that even if they do it differently.
If I can't see the source code, there should not be anything stopping me from implementing the same idea...like 1-Click shopping; if they want to patent a particular non-obvious algorithm they used to implement it, at best that's fine but to stop everyone from implementing, in a different manner, the same idea is just stupid.
No fooling -- or at least disable searching -- a lot of embarassing things out there!
This is all tongue-in-cheek of course but it is funny to see how people have changed over time.
"Fewer than one percent" does not mean one percent so the number is LESS than your assumed 15,000. Anyway, I think that there hasn't been more publicity because it really isn't that much of an issue. A product with some defects; some bad customer service; things will get fixed though --- this is normal. Lots of products have had defects and get recalled/brought in and fixed. Sometimes software has bugs too.
My XBox has been working fine since I got it as a gift this Christmas. Likewise for my brother's XBox.
Sony tried Be's offering and it failed miserably. BeIA/BeOS/BeWHATEVER, despite all of its nice features, had problems which doomed it.
Believe you me; Sony, IBM, et al all had the opportunity to investigate and buy Be and save themselves 3+ years of development time --- obviously they didn't think Be was worth it.
I think the comma is left-out rather than misplaced since the comma after Linux is fine (I think). Add a comma after 'Unix operating system' and you get that they are focusing on Irix and Linux...rather than having Irix being a version of Linux !!
They have moved from NT but the problem for SGI is that they have also lost time and money with their misguided attempts at doing "other things." Hopefully, the new demand (and money) from government will give them an extra lease on life that can be properly used to build a solid profitable company.
Since the stock is so cheap, it would be nice for some heavy hitters to buy them and make it a private company and some time in the future, if ever, they can take the company public.
SGI needs to do a lot more R&D to ensure that it doesn't lose to others with deep pockets and they also need a clear strategy to determine the proper future of Irix vis a vis Linux.
Being private will take a lot of pressure off their shoulders and allow them to focus on building something sustainable. I wouldn't be surprised if their best bet is to become a smaller research focused software company and letting hardware be handled by others.
It is a nice operating system. You can get a free personal version from www.bebits.com or you can buy a more deluxe version from www.gobe.com -- oddly enough, I don't think you can get it from Palm.
They are abandoning their GNU values because they are now involved in proprietary software (original poster indicated the particular proprietary product they sell).
GNU is about accepting the fact that source code is nothing more than information. This has been gone over ad nauseum. Any, and I mean any god dammit, attempt to restrict access to source code is evil according to GNU Values. Ximian is now evil. That they are now working with the Devil then should come as no surprise.
Actually, it isn't possible to work with MS without selling your soul. By working with Microsoft you are explicitly telling the world that their licenses and policies and practicies should not be a reason to avoid doing business with MS. They are just another company and we need to be pragmatic about our values -- that's the message Ximian and you are sending.
I think Stallman would give you a pretty harsh answer to your issue about more collaboration with MS.
The GPL is NOT a libertarian document (or at least not by old-school standards). The GPL advocates the use of force against those who do not abide by its view of intellectual property.
The GPL REQUIRES that an author RELEASE SOURCE CODE. If a developer does not physically go through the procedures to do that then the GPL (working with copyright law) allows for legal action (force) to rectify the situation.
An old-school libertarian would not accept being forced to do anything of the sort if he or she did not want to.
Without Copyright law, the GPL is nothing. So Libertarians cannot be for the GPL and against copyright law. Using force (GPL) against the developer to "balance" the force (copyright law) used against the user is a joke. Libertarians should be against copyright law PERIOD. That means the GPL too.
That libertarians want to get into the homes of softare developers, put a gun to their head and force them to release source code is chilling and indicates how intellectually bankrupt the libertarians are.
Communists, radical islamists and libertarians are not all that different anymore it seems --- the use of force rather than debate is their tool. Losers always have to resort to force because no one is interested in the big ideas they have for everyone else.
"use" alone is permitted so I probably should have been more precise with respect to the license. The coders didn't just "use," they "modified" and the license covers that. So, the point remains, if Russian law allows enforcement of contracts/licenses then the coders would be required to follow the GPL otherwise they were violating it - according to Russian law.
Copyright law, I believe, gives the author the right to come up with such a contract as GPL. Whether Russia has such a copyright law is maybe what the original poster was commenting on.
I think it is a contract/license issue. I'm sure Russia has contract law. If you use the software you have agreed to the contract/license. Contracts put conditions on your actions that are not normally there under the law. So, unless it is legal to violate licenses/contracts in Russia they broke the law (maybe? perhaps? I really don't know but I don't think it is a property issue.).
You are right on the merits of the case but it was a bit ridiculous for the MPlayer people to overemphasize the "Russia" part - their tirade about this being bad for "Russian" Coders suggests their fiery was perhaps not entirely based on the license violation.
Actually, I don't think this has everything to do with Copyrights. If it were only copyrights then Stallman would have no problem with closed-source programs that were freely distributed.
Instead, he demands access to the source code. In other words, you have to PHYSICALLY go through the process of making source code available regardless of whether you want to or not. Essentially, he is saying that producing software OBLIGATES you to release source code. Making someone physically do something they don't want to do used to be considered bad.
So, it isn't entirely a copyright issue - it is all about Stallman's archaic view that the masses are being exploited by the producers and the only way to destroy large corporations is to take away their intellectual property.
My guess is that he is hoping that, now after a generation has passed, there will be a lot of young people who think that his "cause" is something new - when it is just a re-run of the rhetoric spewed out by the Soviet Union, Castro and Mao.
Stallman comes across as a lunatic with the "my way or you are evil" type mentality.
Stallman is a tried and true Marxist who puts value only on physical labor and does not believe that intellectual capital should be permitted to have any value. His rationalization about "power" is laughable but does make me feel _better_ about using Microsoft software. My reply to Stallbaby would be: JUST BECAUSE __YOU DECIDE__ TO USE MY SOFTWARE DOESN'T MEAN __I HAVE TO__ MOVE MY BIG FAT WHITE BUTT TO GIVE YOU THE SOURCE. YOU KNOW AHEAD OF TIME WHETHER YOU GET THE SOURCE OR NOT; IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT TOUGH.
Free software (if you want to make money then become a slave, err, consultant running down projects)! Free music (if you want to make money, go on a tour)! Free video (one paid showing and that's it -- actors - no more residuals for you)! Join the revolution now to FREE the masses!!! What a hoot!
The guys at Microsoft are probably laughing their asses off with that article.