OK, thanks for your answer - quick tip for you. Verbosity != readability.
To go your point across, you could've just said:
To answer your question, brand recognition has no relevance in a trademark dispute - I was replying to someone who'd bought it up in a tangential discussion.
So this rant of one IBM executive is completely baseless and probably intended to promote IBM at Sun's expense.
Agreed - and of course it's intended to promote IBM at Sun's expense.
Isn't it crazy that IBM, who's contributions to F/OSS (whilst large & also warmly thanked for) are dwarfed by Sun's contributions are able to get away with this?
The reason I suspect is Sun's flip-floppiness & skittishness when it comes to F/OSS - they contribute much, but also help spread a litlle anti-F/OSS FUD, etc. IBM's stance hasn't changed for what? eight years now.
CDDL is part of that problem I think - as the article notes, linus had 10 times as many people contributing to linux in his first year than Sun - with all their resources - had contributing to opensolaris in its first year.... A pity.
You misunderstood me (understandably, because my original post was not clear).
I should have said:
I wish they'd just STFU about a product's forthcoming license opening until it actually happens.
I wasn't disputing Sun's contributions to Open Source, just saying perhaps they should hold off announcements until they're actually ready to like, you know open source something.
If IBM really cared about openness, they should open source AIX or OS/2 and shut up about Solaris.
IBMs donated some AIX features to linux and MS has some say in what happens to OS/2.
While I warmly thank Sun for their massive donations to free software, I wish they'd just STFU until they actually Open Source something. Most of the criticism they get is for flip-flopping on open source.
In the above post, you talk about the popularity of the line 6's pods in comparison to the ipod, in a post you wrote further down in this thread, you write:
but no: Line 6's products are NOWHERE NEAR anywhere as well known as "iPod"
I'm just failing to see the relevance of brand recognition in a trademark dispute - and was hoping you could enlighten me.
Uh, uh - you're thinking logically, try to think like a lawyer for a big company.
You want court cases where you've successfully defended your mark, so rather than go after a blatant case, you go after small, weak companies who are unlikely to afford a court defense. Bingo, another case won, to be used as proof that you've been vigorously defending your mark should you need to go up against a real competitor.
Its not exactly what I'd describe as ethical, but as most companies seem to do it, I'd say the solution lies in trademark law reform.
Apple's afraid that the term ipod will become generic (genericided?). Suing random '*pod' named businesses show's they're 'actively defending' their mark.
Problem is more with trademark law than apple methinks.
For a mild laugh, check out the tightpod website (one of the sued comapnies) - spandex clad notebooks (including tiger skin for the suitably inclined osx user)
Summary appears to be missing a qustion mark - should read:
Java to be Open Sourced in October?
FTFS:
There is still no word as to which license it will be released under.
Article is a fluff piece about J2ME disgusied as YAOSJ story. It'll be great when/if it happens, but it, like the '20xx - year of desktop linux' stories, is getting old & tired.
Are you sure? It a recognised brand for content uploaders, but they tend to be better informed as far as finding somewhere they can upload free video to.
As far as content consumers go, the vast majority of people who visit youtube do so (IMO) via a link from an email. They'll click on that link whether its to youtube or some other generic content hosting site.
I am reminded of iPod killing headlines.
iPod users are shackled to their hardware ipod via their collection of DRM protected mp4s. No such situation exists with youtube.
A better analogy would be altavista, jeeves, etc pre-google.
Absolutely correct - for more information about this (as well as some ludicrous & funny definitions of PC in the comments), please see my journal: Why is Apple afraid of being PC?
The thought that one of Apple's many chinese hardware subcontractors could possibly have made a boo boo in a small batch is utterly inconcievable!11!!!!
I say anyone who questions the quality of Apple's hardware is an M$ shill.
It doesn't have to be php, just a few people have suggested funny captions for a crusher 'despair' poster - I thought a poster generator ala the church sign generator would be amusing.
I didn't say OS X was useless, I said it was useless without source, for the OLPC project. Its a perfectly adequate system (apart from lack of portability) otherwise.
And as to why its useless, you don't have to believe me - go and have a read of the OLPC's OLPC on OSS page:
* Must include source code and allow modification so that our developers, the governments that are our customers and the children who use the laptop can look under the hood to change the software to fit an inconceivable and inconceivably diverse set of needs. Our software must also provide a self-hosting development platform.
* Must allow distribution of modified copies of software under the same license so that the freedoms that our developers depend upon for success remain available to the users and developers who define the next generation of the software. Our users and customers must be able to localize software into their language, fix the software to remove bugs, and repurpose the software to fit their needs.
* Must allow redistribution without permission -- either alone or as part of an aggregate distribution -- because we can not know and should not control how the tools we create will be re-purposed in the future. Our children outgrow our platform, our software should be able to grow with them.
* Must not require royalty payments or any other fee for redistribution or modification for obvious reasons of economy and pragmatism in the context of our project.
* Must not discriminate against persons, groups or against fields of endeavor. Our software's power will come through its ability to grow and change with the children and in a variety of contexts.
* Must not place restrictions on other software that may be distributed along side it. Software licenses must not bar either proprietary, or "copyleft" software from being distributed on the platform. A world of great software will be used to make this project succeed - both open and closed. We need to be able to choose from all of it.
* Must allow these rights to be passed on along with the software. This means that we must not provide a license specific to the $100 Laptop project or organization or its customers. While we are the developers of this platform today, the users of this platform are the developers of tomorrow and it is through them that the platform will succeed, be transformed, and be passed on. They need the same rights as we do.
* Must not be otherwise encumbered by software patents which restrict modification or use in the ways described above. All patents practiced by software should be sublicenseable and allow our users to make use or sell derivative versions that practice the patent in question.
* Must support and promote open and patent unencumbered data interchange and file formats.
* Must be able to be built using unencumbered tools (e.g., compilers) whose output is unencumbered and free to examine and reverse engineer.
Again, I say that Steve Job's is far too an intelligent man to not understand OLPC's goals, so I can only imagine publicity (waaaaaaaaah! Google and Redhat are looking like nicer companies than Apple!) prompted his 'offer'.
OS X ships with Xcode. Your strawman argument is officially on fire.
*sighs* If you give a man a fish, he's dependant on you for more fish. If you give a man an os, he is dependant on you for security updates, driver updates, etc etc etc.
Part of the goal of this program is to help end developing nation dependance on developed nation.
Try to at least understand the argument before accusing people of being a straw man.
And where is your data that a $100 laptop without source code would be "useless?" This is just Slashdot geek mindset run amock, thinking that ANYONE in a country poor enough to have to resort to a $100 laptop would:
I have no data, as I pointed out in the post you're replying to, no such data exists (please learn better comprehension)
1.) Give a shit that the source code isn't included.
Most won't. *shrugs*
2.) Want to waste hours trying to hack Linux into working properly
You think these things will come with a copy of Fedora on CD or something? Are you honestly that stupid? They will come preconfigured & working OOTB.
when they could get OS X and not only have the Darwin source code and free compiler suite that kicks the butt out of anything on Linux,
As you can't build darwin and replace the running OS X kernel, I consider that pretty useless.
but would also have access to a larger application base that includes Office and Photoshop as well as the OSS alternatives.
Riiiiiight. You think all those proprietary binaries are going to run on these things? They've only got a 500MB flash drive (photoshop and office wouldn't fit on them). In addition, the cost of those applications exceeds the cost of the laptop, and most likely the publisher of those titles would have to agree to release modified binaries.
(and I can't believe you used the discontinued Microsoft line as an example of the Mac's software superiority).
You're just an Apple-hater with a handful of tired, decimated arguments.
No, I like Apple, they make great products. What I don't like is irrational apple fanboys, who doesn't even really know what they're talking about.
Only if you believe that lack of source makes any difference.
You're obviously a "give a man a fish" type - rather than wanting to teach people how to fish. *shrug*
then show me the data that says these machines will help these people more if its operating system is open source rather than if its operating system is easy to use with a large application base.
I imagine saying "show me the data" makes you feel smart? Try showing me the data for the opposite, or any data concerning third world children & a mass cheap laptop initative. You can't 'cause that data does not exist.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, thanks for your answer - quick tip for you. Verbosity != readability.
To go your point across, you could've just said:
To answer your question, brand recognition has no relevance in a trademark dispute - I was replying to someone who'd bought it up in a tangential discussion.
Quick, to the point.
So this rant of one IBM executive is completely baseless and probably intended to promote IBM at Sun's expense.
Agreed - and of course it's intended to promote IBM at Sun's expense.
Isn't it crazy that IBM, who's contributions to F/OSS (whilst large & also warmly thanked for) are dwarfed by Sun's contributions are able to get away with this?
The reason I suspect is Sun's flip-floppiness & skittishness when it comes to F/OSS - they contribute much, but also help spread a litlle anti-F/OSS FUD, etc. IBM's stance hasn't changed for what? eight years now.
CDDL is part of that problem I think - as the article notes, linus had 10 times as many people contributing to linux in his first year than Sun - with all their resources - had contributing to opensolaris in its first year.... A pity.
When Google starts charging for all this free crap, and trust me they will,
/.
Sorry, I'd rather trust Google's established business model of targetted ads than some dvorak like tro^h^h^hpundit on
I should have said:
I wasn't disputing Sun's contributions to Open Source, just saying perhaps they should hold off announcements until they're actually ready to like, you know open source something.
If IBM really cared about openness, they should open source AIX or OS/2 and shut up about Solaris.
IBMs donated some AIX features to linux and MS has some say in what happens to OS/2.
While I warmly thank Sun for their massive donations to free software, I wish they'd just STFU until they actually Open Source something. Most of the criticism they get is for flip-flopping on open source.
In the above post, you talk about the popularity of the line 6's pods in comparison to the ipod, in a post you wrote further down in this thread, you write:
I'm just failing to see the relevance of brand recognition in a trademark dispute - and was hoping you could enlighten me.
were even remotely anywhere near the ballpark of being as well, universally, and ubiquitously known as "iPod"
What makes you think the brand recognition is important in a trademark dispute?
on even the most blatant cases
Uh, uh - you're thinking logically, try to think like a lawyer for a big company.
You want court cases where you've successfully defended your mark, so rather than go after a blatant case, you go after small, weak companies who are unlikely to afford a court defense. Bingo, another case won, to be used as proof that you've been vigorously defending your mark should you need to go up against a real competitor.
Its not exactly what I'd describe as ethical, but as most companies seem to do it, I'd say the solution lies in trademark law reform.
Apple's afraid that the term ipod will become generic (genericided?). Suing random '*pod' named businesses show's they're 'actively defending' their mark.
Problem is more with trademark law than apple methinks.
For a mild laugh, check out the tightpod website (one of the sued comapnies) - spandex clad notebooks (including tiger skin for the suitably inclined osx user)
It's not a major new feature. It's about damn time.
Do all the other distros have an installer that works across 11 arches? (Yes, it's the same back-end across all arches).
The Debian installer is pretty fine IMO - the graphical front end is pretty nice & counts as a major new feature in my book.
I haven't specifically tried what you're asking for - but I suggest trying the appropriate firefox plugin and swftools
Congratulations! That has to be the most redundant post I've ever read!
You asked me if I read the summary, then bolded the part of the summary I'd quoted (and/i? I prefaced it with ftfs [from the fine summary])
Java to be Open Sourced in October?
FTFS:
Article is a fluff piece about J2ME disgusied as YAOSJ story. It'll be great when/if it happens, but it, like the '20xx - year of desktop linux' stories, is getting old & tired.
If you think that iTunes Music Store files comprise even 20% of the audio files on all the iPods in the world, you're delusional.
I don't, but if ITMS songs comprised even 5% of my collection, I'd be buying another ipod.
but brand recognition is whats a winner here.
Are you sure? It a recognised brand for content uploaders, but they tend to be better informed as far as finding somewhere they can upload free video to.
As far as content consumers go, the vast majority of people who visit youtube do so (IMO) via a link from an email. They'll click on that link whether its to youtube or some other generic content hosting site.
I am reminded of iPod killing headlines.
iPod users are shackled to their hardware ipod via their collection of DRM protected mp4s. No such situation exists with youtube.
A better analogy would be altavista, jeeves, etc pre-google.
Well, yes that's exactly what I'm after :-)
Cheers!
Absolutely correct - for more information about this (as well as some ludicrous & funny definitions of PC in the comments), please see my journal: Why is Apple afraid of being PC?
I couldn't agree with your post more!11!!!!11!!
The thought that one of Apple's many chinese hardware subcontractors could possibly have made a boo boo in a small batch is utterly inconcievable!11!!!!
I say anyone who questions the quality of Apple's hardware is an M$ shill.
It doesn't have to be php, just a few people have suggested funny captions for a crusher 'despair' poster - I thought a poster generator ala the church sign generator would be amusing.
Here you go! (ripping off tx's rather funny one from this post as a basis)
:-)
Now - someone (please?) really needs to do a php version
EXPENDABILITY
Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and Ensign Ricky are beaming down to the planet. Guess who's not coming back.
Funny, AND original! I've never heard the ensign-being-the-one-to-die joke before....
I have to say tho' - that I found this one pretty funny. Great frame! The eye contact is smouldering!
I didn't say OS X was useless, I said it was useless without source, for the OLPC project. Its a perfectly adequate system (apart from lack of portability) otherwise.
And as to why its useless, you don't have to believe me - go and have a read of the OLPC's OLPC on OSS page:
Again, I say that Steve Job's is far too an intelligent man to not understand OLPC's goals, so I can only imagine publicity (waaaaaaaaah! Google and Redhat are looking like nicer companies than Apple!) prompted his 'offer'.
OS X ships with Xcode. Your strawman argument is officially on fire.
*sighs* If you give a man a fish, he's dependant on you for more fish. If you give a man an os, he is dependant on you for security updates, driver updates, etc etc etc.
Part of the goal of this program is to help end developing nation dependance on developed nation.
Try to at least understand the argument before accusing people of being a straw man.
And where is your data that a $100 laptop without source code would be "useless?" This is just Slashdot geek mindset run amock, thinking that ANYONE in a country poor enough to have to resort to a $100 laptop would:
I have no data, as I pointed out in the post you're replying to, no such data exists (please learn better comprehension)
1.) Give a shit that the source code isn't included.
Most won't. *shrugs*
2.) Want to waste hours trying to hack Linux into working properly
You think these things will come with a copy of Fedora on CD or something? Are you honestly that stupid? They will come preconfigured & working OOTB.
when they could get OS X and not only have the Darwin source code and free compiler suite that kicks the butt out of anything on Linux,
As you can't build darwin and replace the running OS X kernel, I consider that pretty useless.
but would also have access to a larger application base that includes Office and Photoshop as well as the OSS alternatives.
Riiiiiight. You think all those proprietary binaries are going to run on these things? They've only got a 500MB flash drive (photoshop and office wouldn't fit on them). In addition, the cost of those applications exceeds the cost of the laptop, and most likely the publisher of those titles would have to agree to release modified binaries.
(and I can't believe you used the discontinued Microsoft line as an example of the Mac's software superiority).
You're just an Apple-hater with a handful of tired, decimated arguments.
No, I like Apple, they make great products. What I don't like is irrational apple fanboys, who doesn't even really know what they're talking about.
Only if you believe that lack of source makes any difference.
You're obviously a "give a man a fish" type - rather than wanting to teach people how to fish. *shrug*
then show me the data that says these machines will help these people more if its operating system is open source rather than if its operating system is easy to use with a large application base.
I imagine saying "show me the data" makes you feel smart? Try showing me the data for the opposite, or any data concerning third world children & a mass cheap laptop initative. You can't 'cause that data does not exist.
Afraid of honest debate?
*sighs* - what is slashdot coming to when people can anonymously bash other posters? Oh wait!