If we want to continue to distribute Linux to our existing customers, we can do that because we own the copyrights on that Unix software."
I think he's wrong, but I get his point, which is consistent with SCOX's stance:
1. SCOX owns Unix.
2. SCOX owns all works derivative of Unix.
3. Linux is a Unix derivative.
4. Therefore, SCOX owns Linux and can distribute/charge for it at will.
That you have copyrighted a contribution to Linux doesn't matter, since it is a derivative work. SCOX truly believes that all your base are belong to them and, as someone else has pointed out, IBM's explicit injection of copyright issues into the countersuit forces SCOX to put/shut up in court, rather than on PRNewswire.
In a sense, SCOX must do this for the sake of credibility with their installed base and the stock market. I predict we'll see more outrages like these in the future, maybe along the lines of "revoking" other distros' "licenses" to distribute Linux.
I would imagine that companies with large workforces that don't actually go anywhere near a computer would lose out on a deal like this.
No problem. Companies in your scenario would opt to use traditional pricing instead. Sun is making a statement about its desired role in the IT food chain (as an integrator), without relinquishing its position as a parts supplier.
I can see how headcount pricing would encourage a company to move everyone onto the platform. As long as you're paying for it, why not have everyone use it and bring down the per-seat cost as close to $100 as possible? And the price point presumably undercuts Microsoft's bundle. So, IT wins by reducing the cost of infrastructure and Sun wins by increasing revenue and market share.
Anyway, that's Sun's story. It's true, as someone else noted, that a Linux integrator can offer the same stack for $100 per seat less than Sun. I imagine Sun's response would be that (1) they're stack is better integrated than the comparable Linux stack and (2) they don't have an ulterior motive in trying to sell you consulting services for support. (Those of you who deal with Sun can tell me if the latter point is accurate.)
O' how I long for the day when VoIP is so far developed that I could Slashdot their phoneline by clicking a link. Perhaps a link that started up a modem that dialed their number and played a recording.
You're telling me that with all the spare programmer MIPS we've got on/. someone can't whip up something similar? Who needs a recording? Isn't there some robotic voice emulation software we can script?
The requirements are that the app accept an arbitrary string of text from some e-mail-connected input, which it then feeds into the robo-voice app and dials the appropriate phone number. When the remote answers, robo-voice plays the screed. Once you've built this thing, you publish the address here and become an instant geek legend.
The beauty of this is that you're not just calling and hanging up--which is probably illegal--you're just using modern technology to express your opinion. You just don't have to bother saying it, someone does that for you. In a sense, it's just like representative democracy, except more immediate and direct. What patriotic, Constitution-loving telemarketer could object to that?
Don't get your knickers in a twist. I was at work and couldn't be as precise as I would have wanted to be.
Of course the U.S. didn't win WW2 by itself. No serious student of history would claim otherwise. But I stand by my point about economic factors being decisive in both cases, with the clarification that it was the combined economic might of the Allies that did the Axis in. Hitler waged a two-front campaign because he saw the economic resources of the Caucasus and the Ukraine fulfilling his dream of autarky for Germany, even though the lessons of recent history and his own writings militated against just such a campaign. As good as the German military was (and its army was, pound for pound, the best fighting force ever assembled), Hitler knew that if he didn't grow his resource base he couldn't hope to win the war.
Sure, luck played a big part: if Britain had surrendered, if Stalin had capitulated, if the Wehrmacht hadn't been distracted in the Balkans in the spring of 1941, we might be discussing a very different post-war world.
But the main point of this digression is that communism, like fascism, was doomed from the start, hoist by its own petard. The inexorable logic of history, human nature, and the market saw to that. All the non-communist countries had to do was resist long enough and totalitarian socialism was bound to collapse of its own ponderousness. Baldly put, the millions of people dying was a delaying tactic. Absent an outright military assault on Moscow and Beijing, this was the only way the Cold War could be won. By electing not to push its tanks toward the Fulda Gap, the Soviet Union's leaders chose a slow, ignominious death in the factory, rather than a quick, glorious death on the battlefield.
How can the americans say so lightly that cia organised a coup, and in the same breath ask why people around the world dislike them?
Because Americans do; we do not reflect. We consider everything through the prism of self-interest--is it good for the U.S. or bad for the U.S.? This is probably the secret of our national strength: we're so self-absorbed and so confident of success that we don't consider alternatives, but spend our energies moving around or through whatever obstacles are in our way.
It's telling that our national game is poker, while that of the Russians is chess. We didn't beat "communism" (meaning, really, totalitarian socialism) with guile or brains, we overwhelmed it with GDP, like we did the Fascists in WW2.
Americans are supremely pragmatic, which is why libertarianism hasn't taken as much hold as you would expect. The final arbiter seems to be whether it (the tactic du jour) gets the job done. In this light, our willingness to overthrow an ideologically-unfriendly--albeit democratically-elected--regime in Chile is easily understandable. We don't let our principles get in the way of our goals, which we assume are consistent with our principles. Can't stop to think about that now; gotta get shit done.
And yet it's the greatest country in the world. Every day I'm grateful my parents voted with their feet to come here.
I see it as more of a spirit-lifting exercise. As one of the most visible leaders of an embattled movement, he has a responsibility to keep the troops psyched. There are a number of powerful, well-heeled organizations arrayed against the OSS movement, commanding resources we just don't have. Linus can only counter that with an army of geeks who don't give a shit about The Suits, who only care about the code. The code is all. It's good if it works; it's great if it works elegantly. He knows his audience and, from what I've read about him and by him, he's in good command of what he says and how he says it. He evidently felt that we could all use a bit of an emotional lift and chose to be blunt.
Maybe I'm reading too much into it.
A concern I have, which I haven't seen addressed here, is that SCO may not be leading with their best punch. They don't need much to persuade their resellers that they have the goods, so they may not have shown their best cards in the slide presentation. I'm pretty sure they are smoking crack, but we shouldn't get too cocky.
There's something (slightly) similar for Windows called Snippets which uses Java, javascript, and XML to create windows on various kinds of data. When it first came out, it could snip pieces of Web pages and aggregate them into individual windows, and was much more focused on the end user. Now it's gone all corporate and dashboard-y: it's more of an info-centric technology and light on the eye-candy factor (you can't create virtual pets, for instance).
Boddington's, Taco? At least it's not swill. Here in Philadelphia we have Monk's Cafe, a freakin' temple to beer. A world-class selection of Belgian beers you've never heard of, tremendous food (the fries rock), and great atmosphere. Try a Rochefort 10--chewy, malt-heavy--it's liquid bread. Brewed by monks who undoubtedly figure that if you can't have sex, you can at least have strong beer. Manly beer, not the pablum the conglomerates brew.
As far as whether beer is healthy, I couldn't give a rat's ass whether it's healthy or not--they can have my Orval when they pry the bottle from my cold, dead fingers.
Because the dislike for Microsoft largely isn't irrational. I use Windows at work and at home, and generally like the product. I don't mind Microsoft trying to be all things to all people, but I do mind the way it tries to shut everyone else out of the market. There's a fine line between responsible and irresponsible competition and Microsoft straddles that line.
That's one of the reasons I'd like to see Linux succeed: to act as a brake on Microsoft's behavior. (Another is that I think Linux is kinda cool and I like the ethics surrounding its development.)
Do some here have a knee-jerk response to all things Microsoft? Sure, but it's mostly born of experience.
Fair enough. So how would a good libertarian deal with this monopolistic situation?
My point is that there are alternatives to signing with these record companies. Other distribution channels, such as mp3.com, exist. Even if the RIAA were to persuade Congress to pass laws against copying music so draconian they would make the Taliban stare in shocked admiration, that still wouldn't keep you from getting music legally--as long as these alternative channels aren't outlawed.
Musicians sign with the big record companies because that's currently the only way they can get a sufficient amount of exposure to the public. That's the real barrier: you can't make a splash without selling your soul. The solution is to develop the visibility of the alternative channels to the point where they become viable alternatives to the promotion machines of the bigs. I don't know how you do that, but I'm guessing that having a few big names announce they'll distribute exclusively on mp3.com (or whatever) wouldn't hurt.
What do you mean? Isn't the seller free to charge what the market will bear? If it costs a penny to create a CD and the point of equilibrium between the supply and demand curves is at $100 per unit, then why should the record companies do you a favor and sell for less?
If the service the record companies provide the artists is such a bum deal, why do the latter continue to sign on the bottom line? Unless they're all idiots or spectacularly ill advised and misinformed, there must be some reason all musicians doesn't just decide en masse to distribute their music on mp3.com.
The digerati are generally thought to be more libertarian than not, but you have to apply your philosophy across the board. If the market is the sole mechanism by which commodity prices are established, then let the market function without interference. If you don't like the prices, don't buy the product.
I don't normally write tributes to recently-deceased celebrities, but I'll make an exception in this case. Gould was about the closest thing I have to a hero. He fought the good fight for quality science education and against closed-minded superstition.
I remember he came to speak at the University of Pennsylvania years ago. This was at the height of the creationist nonsense. So great was the appeal of his topic that the lecture was moved twice—ending up in the largest lecture hall on campus—before he even had a chance to speak. At one point during his talk, which was primarily about his and Eldredge's take on the mode and tempo of evolution, he made a dismissive, off-hand remark about creationism that was rewarded with a sustained ovation. In the middle of the Reagan era, when it seemed that the forces of ignorance were unstoppable, it was beyond heartening to hear one of the world's most famous scientists say, in essence, that Jerry Falwell was full of crap.
Gould was also a prominent humanist and perhaps one of the best ways we can honor his life would be to give our support to organizations like the Council for Secular Humanism, as well as to those groups whose missions more closely mirror Gould's own.
Yoga has worked wonders for me. As a consultant, I spend a lot of time seated at my desk, slaving over a hot keyboard. This is particularly tough on my lower back. My wife had us start practicing yoga a few years ago and it's made all the difference in the world. What works well for me are the poses that twist and stretch my spine.
While my particular favorite is Bikram Yoga, almost any type of yoga that emphasizes spinal stretching, twisting, and extension will do.
Bikram is a set of 26 poses performed in a hot (100 F) room. The poses and the order in which they are performed doesn't vary. The heat keeps your muscles warm so you can concentrate on your practice.
Most people I've discussed it with have this misconception that yoga is only about stretching, which couldn't be further from the truth. While there's a lot of stretching involved, Bikram yoga is also an aerobic workout; some of the poses will leave your heart racing. And you require a surprising amount of strength to hold your body in some of the poses. If it doesn't build more muscle for you, it will at least tone what you've got. So not only does it help relieve the pain, but it's a pretty complete workout.
But you said yourself that most people don't want to see the command line or learn the directory structure. Why does that make them idiots? Most people see computers as a tool; that you can amuse yourself customizing the hell out of their appearance and operation is a by-product. This doesn't make them idiots, it means they're practical.
I use Windows at work and at home because in the former case that's what I learned oh-so-long-ago and because that's what the market I move in wants; in the latter case, I haven't got the time to budget for learning to use Linux. I want to use it eventually, but I have other, more pressing concerns right now. I hope that doesn't make me an idiot.
Actually, I meant plug-and-play in the colloquial sense, rather than the strictly technical Plug-And-PlayTM sense. My parents don't care that they're using Windows, they care that it's easy to use and they don't have to think about the underlying mechanics of its operation. They never see the command line and that's perfectly fine with them. That's what I mean by "plug-and-play."
I think the point he (the author) is making is that $1,000 is the price point at which profits will actually decrease due to a lack of incremental sales. He's assuming that Windows is sufficiently entrenched that people will continue to buy it (because they're used to it, in order to conform with the rest of the market, etc.) even though the price is going up.
What I disagree with is the notion that $1,000 is that price point; I think it will be substantially lower.
In addition, I suspect that he assumes that AppSoft (Microsoft's applications half, post-split) won't port Office to Linux or other OSes, which is a bad assumption, IMHO. Releasing an Office/Linux might cause many users to adopt Linux in such numbers that the $1,000 figure becomes untenable.
Finally, what if AppSoft decided to release a graphical shell for Linux? You'd have the power of Linux with the familiarity of Windows for all those people who want plug-and-play operation. It could happen...
Slashdot Mirror
I think he's wrong, but I get his point, which is consistent with SCOX's stance:
1. SCOX owns Unix.
2. SCOX owns all works derivative of Unix.
3. Linux is a Unix derivative.
4. Therefore, SCOX owns Linux and can distribute/charge for it at will.
That you have copyrighted a contribution to Linux doesn't matter, since it is a derivative work. SCOX truly believes that all your base are belong to them and, as someone else has pointed out, IBM's explicit injection of copyright issues into the countersuit forces SCOX to put/shut up in court, rather than on PRNewswire.
In a sense, SCOX must do this for the sake of credibility with their installed base and the stock market. I predict we'll see more outrages like these in the future, maybe along the lines of "revoking" other distros' "licenses" to distribute Linux.
No problem. Companies in your scenario would opt to use traditional pricing instead. Sun is making a statement about its desired role in the IT food chain (as an integrator), without relinquishing its position as a parts supplier.
I can see how headcount pricing would encourage a company to move everyone onto the platform. As long as you're paying for it, why not have everyone use it and bring down the per-seat cost as close to $100 as possible? And the price point presumably undercuts Microsoft's bundle. So, IT wins by reducing the cost of infrastructure and Sun wins by increasing revenue and market share.
Anyway, that's Sun's story. It's true, as someone else noted, that a Linux integrator can offer the same stack for $100 per seat less than Sun. I imagine Sun's response would be that (1) they're stack is better integrated than the comparable Linux stack and (2) they don't have an ulterior motive in trying to sell you consulting services for support. (Those of you who deal with Sun can tell me if the latter point is accurate.)
Read the article more carefully:
Transmissions between a client machine and PGP can themselves be encrypted using SSL.
You're telling me that with all the spare programmer MIPS we've got on /. someone can't whip up something similar? Who needs a recording? Isn't there some robotic voice emulation software we can script?
The requirements are that the app accept an arbitrary string of text from some e-mail-connected input, which it then feeds into the robo-voice app and dials the appropriate phone number. When the remote answers, robo-voice plays the screed. Once you've built this thing, you publish the address here and become an instant geek legend.
The beauty of this is that you're not just calling and hanging up--which is probably illegal--you're just using modern technology to express your opinion. You just don't have to bother saying it, someone does that for you. In a sense, it's just like representative democracy, except more immediate and direct. What patriotic, Constitution-loving telemarketer could object to that?
Don't get your knickers in a twist. I was at work and couldn't be as precise as I would have wanted to be.
Of course the U.S. didn't win WW2 by itself. No serious student of history would claim otherwise. But I stand by my point about economic factors being decisive in both cases, with the clarification that it was the combined economic might of the Allies that did the Axis in. Hitler waged a two-front campaign because he saw the economic resources of the Caucasus and the Ukraine fulfilling his dream of autarky for Germany, even though the lessons of recent history and his own writings militated against just such a campaign. As good as the German military was (and its army was, pound for pound, the best fighting force ever assembled), Hitler knew that if he didn't grow his resource base he couldn't hope to win the war.
Sure, luck played a big part: if Britain had surrendered, if Stalin had capitulated, if the Wehrmacht hadn't been distracted in the Balkans in the spring of 1941, we might be discussing a very different post-war world.
But the main point of this digression is that communism, like fascism, was doomed from the start, hoist by its own petard. The inexorable logic of history, human nature, and the market saw to that. All the non-communist countries had to do was resist long enough and totalitarian socialism was bound to collapse of its own ponderousness. Baldly put, the millions of people dying was a delaying tactic. Absent an outright military assault on Moscow and Beijing, this was the only way the Cold War could be won. By electing not to push its tanks toward the Fulda Gap, the Soviet Union's leaders chose a slow, ignominious death in the factory, rather than a quick, glorious death on the battlefield.
Like the caption says: Check those URLs!
Because Americans do; we do not reflect. We consider everything through the prism of self-interest--is it good for the U.S. or bad for the U.S.? This is probably the secret of our national strength: we're so self-absorbed and so confident of success that we don't consider alternatives, but spend our energies moving around or through whatever obstacles are in our way.
It's telling that our national game is poker, while that of the Russians is chess. We didn't beat "communism" (meaning, really, totalitarian socialism) with guile or brains, we overwhelmed it with GDP, like we did the Fascists in WW2.
Americans are supremely pragmatic, which is why libertarianism hasn't taken as much hold as you would expect. The final arbiter seems to be whether it (the tactic du jour) gets the job done. In this light, our willingness to overthrow an ideologically-unfriendly--albeit democratically-elected--regime in Chile is easily understandable. We don't let our principles get in the way of our goals, which we assume are consistent with our principles. Can't stop to think about that now; gotta get shit done.
And yet it's the greatest country in the world. Every day I'm grateful my parents voted with their feet to come here.
Maybe I'm reading too much into it.
A concern I have, which I haven't seen addressed here, is that SCO may not be leading with their best punch. They don't need much to persuade their resellers that they have the goods, so they may not have shown their best cards in the slide presentation. I'm pretty sure they are smoking crack, but we shouldn't get too cocky.
...short SCOX now!
There's something (slightly) similar for Windows called Snippets which uses Java, javascript, and XML to create windows on various kinds of data. When it first came out, it could snip pieces of Web pages and aggregate them into individual windows, and was much more focused on the end user. Now it's gone all corporate and dashboard-y: it's more of an info-centric technology and light on the eye-candy factor (you can't create virtual pets, for instance).
Boddington's, Taco? At least it's not swill. Here in Philadelphia we have Monk's Cafe, a freakin' temple to beer. A world-class selection of Belgian beers you've never heard of, tremendous food (the fries rock), and great atmosphere. Try a Rochefort 10--chewy, malt-heavy--it's liquid bread. Brewed by monks who undoubtedly figure that if you can't have sex, you can at least have strong beer. Manly beer, not the pablum the conglomerates brew.
As far as whether beer is healthy, I couldn't give a rat's ass whether it's healthy or not--they can have my Orval when they pry the bottle from my cold, dead fingers.
Life is too short for bad beer.
(Yeah, it's a troll, but I'll answer anyway.)
Because the dislike for Microsoft largely isn't irrational. I use Windows at work and at home, and generally like the product. I don't mind Microsoft trying to be all things to all people, but I do mind the way it tries to shut everyone else out of the market. There's a fine line between responsible and irresponsible competition and Microsoft straddles that line.
That's one of the reasons I'd like to see Linux succeed: to act as a brake on Microsoft's behavior. (Another is that I think Linux is kinda cool and I like the ethics surrounding its development.)
Do some here have a knee-jerk response to all things Microsoft? Sure, but it's mostly born of experience.
Fair enough. So how would a good libertarian deal with this monopolistic situation?
My point is that there are alternatives to signing with these record companies. Other distribution channels, such as mp3.com, exist. Even if the RIAA were to persuade Congress to pass laws against copying music so draconian they would make the Taliban stare in shocked admiration, that still wouldn't keep you from getting music legally--as long as these alternative channels aren't outlawed.
Musicians sign with the big record companies because that's currently the only way they can get a sufficient amount of exposure to the public. That's the real barrier: you can't make a splash without selling your soul. The solution is to develop the visibility of the alternative channels to the point where they become viable alternatives to the promotion machines of the bigs. I don't know how you do that, but I'm guessing that having a few big names announce they'll distribute exclusively on mp3.com (or whatever) wouldn't hurt.
What do you mean? Isn't the seller free to charge what the market will bear? If it costs a penny to create a CD and the point of equilibrium between the supply and demand curves is at $100 per unit, then why should the record companies do you a favor and sell for less?
If the service the record companies provide the artists is such a bum deal, why do the latter continue to sign on the bottom line? Unless they're all idiots or spectacularly ill advised and misinformed, there must be some reason all musicians doesn't just decide en masse to distribute their music on mp3.com.
The digerati are generally thought to be more libertarian than not, but you have to apply your philosophy across the board. If the market is the sole mechanism by which commodity prices are established, then let the market function without interference. If you don't like the prices, don't buy the product.
I don't normally write tributes to recently-deceased celebrities, but I'll make an exception in this case. Gould was about the closest thing I have to a hero. He fought the good fight for quality science education and against closed-minded superstition.
I remember he came to speak at the University of Pennsylvania years ago. This was at the height of the creationist nonsense. So great was the appeal of his topic that the lecture was moved twice—ending up in the largest lecture hall on campus—before he even had a chance to speak. At one point during his talk, which was primarily about his and Eldredge's take on the mode and tempo of evolution, he made a dismissive, off-hand remark about creationism that was rewarded with a sustained ovation. In the middle of the Reagan era, when it seemed that the forces of ignorance were unstoppable, it was beyond heartening to hear one of the world's most famous scientists say, in essence, that Jerry Falwell was full of crap.
Gould was also a prominent humanist and perhaps one of the best ways we can honor his life would be to give our support to organizations like the Council for Secular Humanism, as well as to those groups whose missions more closely mirror Gould's own.
Yoga has worked wonders for me. As a consultant, I spend a lot of time seated at my desk, slaving over a hot keyboard. This is particularly tough on my lower back. My wife had us start practicing yoga a few years ago and it's made all the difference in the world. What works well for me are the poses that twist and stretch my spine.
While my particular favorite is Bikram Yoga, almost any type of yoga that emphasizes spinal stretching, twisting, and extension will do.
Bikram is a set of 26 poses performed in a hot (100 F) room. The poses and the order in which they are performed doesn't vary. The heat keeps your muscles warm so you can concentrate on your practice.
Most people I've discussed it with have this misconception that yoga is only about stretching, which couldn't be further from the truth. While there's a lot of stretching involved, Bikram yoga is also an aerobic workout; some of the poses will leave your heart racing. And you require a surprising amount of strength to hold your body in some of the poses. If it doesn't build more muscle for you, it will at least tone what you've got. So not only does it help relieve the pain, but it's a pretty complete workout.
I use Windows at work and at home because in the former case that's what I learned oh-so-long-ago and because that's what the market I move in wants; in the latter case, I haven't got the time to budget for learning to use Linux. I want to use it eventually, but I have other, more pressing concerns right now. I hope that doesn't make me an idiot.
Actually, I meant plug-and-play in the colloquial sense, rather than the strictly technical Plug-And-PlayTM sense. My parents don't care that they're using Windows, they care that it's easy to use and they don't have to think about the underlying mechanics of its operation. They never see the command line and that's perfectly fine with them. That's what I mean by "plug-and-play."
What I disagree with is the notion that $1,000 is that price point; I think it will be substantially lower.
In addition, I suspect that he assumes that AppSoft (Microsoft's applications half, post-split) won't port Office to Linux or other OSes, which is a bad assumption, IMHO. Releasing an Office/Linux might cause many users to adopt Linux in such numbers that the $1,000 figure becomes untenable.
Finally, what if AppSoft decided to release a graphical shell for Linux? You'd have the power of Linux with the familiarity of Windows for all those people who want plug-and-play operation. It could happen...
Keep the latest and greatest version, just in case.