Yes, they licensed it from IBM in the 80's, then sublicensed it to SCO... then IBM turned from the dark side to the light side, but their past has come back to haunt them!
Exactly. I was skeptical about the movies to begin with, because my my rough calculations it would take at least 10 hours per book to include most of the detail of the books. So _any_ movie adaptation is going to disappoint those who loved the books. I'm suprised they've done as well as they have...
SCOX closed up only $0.25 today; obviously not the result they work looking for. I predict over they next few days SCO will supeona "anybody who has ever written code for Linux", followed by "anybody who has ever used Linux". Yeah, that'll send the stock price up... sure, that's the ticket!
As the Japanese Admiral said after Pearl Harbor: "I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant, and filled him with a terrible resolve." In fact, they angered that giant so much that it resorted to the only use of nuclear weapons in history on a civilian population. SCO has done something simular to IBM... will they meet a simular fate?
Random submissions are not by definition better. However, I beleive the peer revue process for GNU/Linux is an order of magnitude better than the peer revue process at Microsoft, and random, suspect patches are simply not accepted for most open source. From the stuff I've seen coming out of Redmond (e.g. a "fix" to MFC that broke most apps ability to print, which I has to work around be going back to the _previous_ version of MFC) I strongly doubt whether most changes at M$ are reviewed at all.
They needed the source code in order to write better viruses to infect the Taiwanese computers... any of your tinfoil-hatted compatriots could have told you that. Did they ever say they needed the source because they were planning on using Windows themselves? Unless they are allowed to compile the source for their own use, what guarantee do they have that the source they were given actually corresponds to the machine code they are running?
For non-technies that already know how to use Windows and nothing else, unfortunately Windows is the right tool for the job. Linux is kicking Windows' ass in the server and embedded markets, where retraining users isn't much of an issue. Unfortunately, Windows owns the desktop and will continue to own the desktop for the foreseeable future -- until either most current users are replaced with people that didn't learn Windows as their first OS, or until M$ changes Windows so much that it is easier to switch to Gnome than to learn their latest shell.
They might view finding and making public security holes in the competition as a more valuable and profitable exercise than securing their own OS and software.
If, through shear brute force search, they do manage to find bugs in GPL software, then so what? Any problems that are actual bugs will be immediately fixed, and the net result will be Microsoft contributing to improving their competition's software! Any problems that aren't actual bugs will just make them look desperate. If that's what they want to do, I say we welcome 'em with open arms.
It should be noted that this approach improves system responsiveness and reduces latency. However, it cannot guarantee true real-time latency characteristics, as the execution path is complex and prevents deterministic conclusions.
So, it is not a true real-time OS, but they're calling it one anyway?
It's about making you swallow a camel (is that even an US expression? anyway), they were just so generous to cut it in two for you.
Actually, the US expression is simular: It is "The camel has got his nose in the tent," which implies that if you don't do something about it, pretty soon the entire camel will be inside the tent!
My first rule of software design: "Anything backwards compatible with a kluge is, by definition, a kluge." A secure reimplementation of Windows would, by necessity, break most existing software. Microsoft developers are not stupid; they have many top-notch technical people. Unfortunately they are hindered by their legacy architecture, and product design driven by Marketing, not Engineering. I beleive most of the security holes can be traced to product misfeatures, not programming bugs.
Is it just Microsoft? I got virtually the same answer from AT&T: Me: "We've built software for our customer designed around a standard Unix IOCTL that's documented in the manual for the Unix box you sold us and it doesn't work." AT&T (after about an hour of automated phone system navigation.) "We're aware of the problem, and we have no plans to fix it. Ever." Novell was simularly arrogent: Me: "I've found a bug in your software, and I'd like to report it." Novell: "We charge $200/hour for consulting services. May I have your credit card number please?" Yeah, I'll bet that strategy kept their bug counts down!
Funny, my browser (Mozilla) considers French/Belgium, French/Canada, French/France, French/Luxembourg, French/Monaco, and French/Switzerland to all be separate languages. You're saying there's no difference between these dialecs?
Can't make up any facts? Just resort to personal attacks... and where in any of my posts did I state that I went to school in the US? Who exacly is talking out of their ass here?
Market forces work very well in situations where all players are infinitessimally small, and thus no one player or group of players can have an undue influence on the market. Market forces fail in the allocation of shared resources (Tragedy of the Commons), when some players have undue influence, or when some players can corrupt the government to unduly tilt the market in their favor -- the Quebec governemnt appears bent on encouraging this latter behaviour. Local businesses can't compete with internationals? Easy! Just require by law that all products sold be packaged in a language nobody else speaks!
Doesn't this conjure up an image of something developed by people that spend all their free time taking Ecstasy and dancing all night to techno music? Doesn't exactly instill confidence in the product, does it? Give me "Project Squaredance" or "Project Hoedown" any day!
How exactly do thought-controlled cybernetic limbs allow people to reproduce? Ok, that's a mental image I could have lived the rest of my life without...
So, if your thought-controlled cybernetic arm pinches your coworkers butt, are you still guilty of sexual harrassment? "But, your honor, I was only thinking about doing that!" Sounds like a whole new legal can of worms with regards to people being responsible for their actions...
He thinks in more dimensions than you've got limbs. You'd be toast in a minute.
Yes, but he's still laboring under the misconception that when you reach the end of the game, time reverses itself and the games plays backwards back to the beginning...
If it costs me $10,000 to translate the game and it only sells 100 copies, that is not good policy, it's stupidity. That's just like saying "All games should be ported to Linux, because then they would sell 1% more copies." Sometimes pleasing everyone just doesn't make economic sense.
I WAS a French Canadian, and I have left because I could speak english and pursue better opportunities.
Obviously, they are afraid that if all the intelligent people learn proper English, they will ALL get the hell out, leaving only those too stupid to be bi-lingual? (And no, I'm not predjudiced against French speakers, it's my wife fourth language. And when our housemates kids come over, I put on DVDs in French, as that's their first language. I recommend Spirit, it's watchable without understanding the language, but the speech, captions, and even the music vocals are all done in English, French, and Spanish.)
People in Quebec worry that French will disappear in a generation, making Quebec just another English speaking part of North America and losing (or at least muting) a distict culture.
And that would be a bad thing because?...
If the people themselves value their culture, they will expend the effort to preserve it themselves. If the do not value their culture, no amount of laws can force them to. I think the reason this is so upsetting is that it is yet another example of the "We're the government, so we know better than you do how you should live your own life" arrogance that government seems to assume. There is a reason why people always disagree and don't all do the same thing: diversity is a survival factor. A species that all thought exactly the same and all did exactly the same thing would prosper 99.99% of the time. But in that 1 in 10,000 situation where the obvious choice turned out to be the wrong choice, they would ALL die out! We have survived for so long precisely because we differ in opinion, not because we all think the same or speak the same.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, they licensed it from IBM in the 80's, then sublicensed it to SCO... then IBM turned from the dark side to the light side, but their past has come back to haunt them!
Exactly. I was skeptical about the movies to begin with, because my my rough calculations it would take at least 10 hours per book to include most of the detail of the books. So _any_ movie adaptation is going to disappoint those who loved the books. I'm suprised they've done as well as they have...
SCOX closed up only $0.25 today; obviously not the result they work looking for. I predict over they next few days SCO will supeona "anybody who has ever written code for Linux", followed by "anybody who has ever used Linux". Yeah, that'll send the stock price up... sure, that's the ticket!
As the Japanese Admiral said after Pearl Harbor: "I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant, and filled him with a terrible resolve." In fact, they angered that giant so much that it resorted to the only use of nuclear weapons in history on a civilian population. SCO has done something simular to IBM... will they meet a simular fate?
Why would IBM need that information, unless they intended to go after somebody for securities fraud?
Random submissions are not by definition better. However, I beleive the peer revue process for GNU/Linux is an order of magnitude better than the peer revue process at Microsoft, and random, suspect patches are simply not accepted for most open source. From the stuff I've seen coming out of Redmond (e.g. a "fix" to MFC that broke most apps ability to print, which I has to work around be going back to the _previous_ version of MFC) I strongly doubt whether most changes at M$ are reviewed at all.
They needed the source code in order to write better viruses to infect the Taiwanese computers... any of your tinfoil-hatted compatriots could have told you that. Did they ever say they needed the source because they were planning on using Windows themselves? Unless they are allowed to compile the source for their own use, what guarantee do they have that the source they were given actually corresponds to the machine code they are running?
For non-technies that already know how to use Windows and nothing else, unfortunately Windows is the right tool for the job. Linux is kicking Windows' ass in the server and embedded markets, where retraining users isn't much of an issue. Unfortunately, Windows owns the desktop and will continue to own the desktop for the foreseeable future -- until either most current users are replaced with people that didn't learn Windows as their first OS, or until M$ changes Windows so much that it is easier to switch to Gnome than to learn their latest shell.
If, through shear brute force search, they do manage to find bugs in GPL software, then so what? Any problems that are actual bugs will be immediately fixed, and the net result will be Microsoft contributing to improving their competition's software! Any problems that aren't actual bugs will just make them look desperate. If that's what they want to do, I say we welcome 'em with open arms.
So, it is not a true real-time OS, but they're calling it one anyway?
Actually, the US expression is simular: It is "The camel has got his nose in the tent," which implies that if you don't do something about it, pretty soon the entire camel will be inside the tent!
PC == Microsoft, where PC is defined as "Piece of Crap."
My first rule of software design: "Anything backwards compatible with a kluge is, by definition, a kluge." A secure reimplementation of Windows would, by necessity, break most existing software. Microsoft developers are not stupid; they have many top-notch technical people. Unfortunately they are hindered by their legacy architecture, and product design driven by Marketing, not Engineering. I beleive most of the security holes can be traced to product misfeatures, not programming bugs.
Is it just Microsoft? I got virtually the same answer from AT&T: Me: "We've built software for our customer designed around a standard Unix IOCTL that's documented in the manual for the Unix box you sold us and it doesn't work." AT&T (after about an hour of automated phone system navigation.) "We're aware of the problem, and we have no plans to fix it. Ever." Novell was simularly arrogent: Me: "I've found a bug in your software, and I'd like to report it." Novell: "We charge $200/hour for consulting services. May I have your credit card number please?" Yeah, I'll bet that strategy kept their bug counts down!
Don't Faustian bargains usually cost you your immortal soul?
Funny, my browser (Mozilla) considers French/Belgium, French/Canada, French/France, French/Luxembourg, French/Monaco, and French/Switzerland to all be separate languages. You're saying there's no difference between these dialecs?
Can't make up any facts? Just resort to personal attacks... and where in any of my posts did I state that I went to school in the US? Who exacly is talking out of their ass here?
How much will you pay me to not develop software for Linux? Let's talk!
Market forces work very well in situations where all players are infinitessimally small, and thus no one player or group of players can have an undue influence on the market. Market forces fail in the allocation of shared resources (Tragedy of the Commons), when some players have undue influence, or when some players can corrupt the government to unduly tilt the market in their favor -- the Quebec governemnt appears bent on encouraging this latter behaviour. Local businesses can't compete with internationals? Easy! Just require by law that all products sold be packaged in a language nobody else speaks!
Doesn't this conjure up an image of something developed by people that spend all their free time taking Ecstasy and dancing all night to techno music? Doesn't exactly instill confidence in the product, does it? Give me "Project Squaredance" or "Project Hoedown" any day!
How exactly do thought-controlled cybernetic limbs allow people to reproduce? Ok, that's a mental image I could have lived the rest of my life without...
So, if your thought-controlled cybernetic arm pinches your coworkers butt, are you still guilty of sexual harrassment? "But, your honor, I was only thinking about doing that!" Sounds like a whole new legal can of worms with regards to people being responsible for their actions...
Yes, but he's still laboring under the misconception that when you reach the end of the game, time reverses itself and the games plays backwards back to the beginning...
If it costs me $10,000 to translate the game and it only sells 100 copies, that is not good policy, it's stupidity. That's just like saying "All games should be ported to Linux, because then they would sell 1% more copies." Sometimes pleasing everyone just doesn't make economic sense.
Obviously, they are afraid that if all the intelligent people learn proper English, they will ALL get the hell out, leaving only those too stupid to be bi-lingual? (And no, I'm not predjudiced against French speakers, it's my wife fourth language. And when our housemates kids come over, I put on DVDs in French, as that's their first language. I recommend Spirit, it's watchable without understanding the language, but the speech, captions, and even the music vocals are all done in English, French, and Spanish.)
And that would be a bad thing because?...
If the people themselves value their culture, they will expend the effort to preserve it themselves. If the do not value their culture, no amount of laws can force them to. I think the reason this is so upsetting is that it is yet another example of the "We're the government, so we know better than you do how you should live your own life" arrogance that government seems to assume. There is a reason why people always disagree and don't all do the same thing: diversity is a survival factor. A species that all thought exactly the same and all did exactly the same thing would prosper 99.99% of the time. But in that 1 in 10,000 situation where the obvious choice turned out to be the wrong choice, they would ALL die out! We have survived for so long precisely because we differ in opinion, not because we all think the same or speak the same.