|
Authored by wol on May 27, 2016 14:02:52 GMT
It's on lwn. I posted there that judges don't like overruling juries.
My guess is that no appeals court will take it. The court originally ruled that APIs were not copyrightable. The jury has now ruled that using APIs is "fair use" (unfortunately weaker than "not copyrightable").
If it does go to the Supremes, expect Google to argue that the Federal Circuit got 9th Circuit law wrong when they overturned the judge. It was pointed out that the appeal ruling only holds in the 9th circuit, and then only so long as it doesn't go to the 9th's appeals court. The problem here, of course, is because Oracle played the patent card, it went to the Federal appeals court not the 9th's.
Cheers, Wol
|
|
|
Authored by wol on Apr 26, 2016 16:54:01 GMT
However many businesses will never consider Apple due to the high cost, and lack of suitable application software. If the FOSS developers of stuff like FEA, CAD, SPICE simulation, DTP, etc could find the time to polish up their user interfaces and make them more acceptable, a large market awaits. (Yes, I know time is precious and there are never enough good developers...) The underlying code is generally good, the user interfaces are very variable. Take the Gimp for instance, a massive learning curve. Surely some simplification is possible? Arty types are catered for by the excellent Xara, which is also good for simple block diagrams and anything in between. Commercial software is viable, sometimes. Things like FPGA tools (some costing upwards of 100k) run faster on Linux than on Windoze. I'm not so sure. When you compare Apples to Apples (similar specs in other words) Apple is usually less expensive. As to software, a lot of business software is 'in house' software, so the problem is more likely a lack of programmers to convert it to OSX. For basic business software (Office Suite, Accounting) there's nothing wrong with OSX. And they are cheaper to run, since Macs require very little maintenance. That's how I see it too - as soon as you take an Apple spec, and try to match it, you end up with a similar price. You can't get a Rolls Royce for the price of a BMW (Actually, you can, but it's called a Bentley and will set you back the same or more) We are ever so close to not needing Windoze at all, but not quite there yet. I can't help but think that Mr. Nadella is well aware of the situation, so M$ are probably hard at work porting Office etc to Linux. I don't think that will go anywhere, as at this point in time anyone who knows Linux already runs LibreOffice (apart from the dozen die-hards who run OpenOffice...). There's nothing wrong with OpenOffice. And I've heard that the two projects do collaborate, which improves both. The one thing you are leaving out is Microsoft's enormous cash stash. Problem is, a lot of it is overseas, and Microsoft won't bring it home unless they get a tax amnesty. LibreOffice and OpenOffice don't collaborate. Two problems - the licence, and Rob Weir. Thing is, while LO can take advantage of code added to OO, the same does not hold true the other way, and the bulk of the code churn is in LO. So the two code bases are drifting apart at a steadily-accelerating rate, and code flow from OO to LO is getting harder and harder. I think somebody's knocked some sense into Rob, he's disappeared, but he made a lot of enemies and these things don't heal quickly. Oh - and cash stash? That won't save MS! Ever heard of the Wolves of Wall Street? If the investors think MS is bleeding cash, some Vulture Capitalist will sort out a bid, strip out the cash, and abandon the carcass. So what is M$ left with? Windoze 10, giving it away free at the moment. A database? Oracle would like to eliminate them from that area and there are plenty of high quality free alternatives, which again just need some polish as far as the UI goes. Active directory? Not the best ever concept, and Samba can emulate it. X-Box 360, just recently discontinued, so hopefully fewer house fires in the future. Visio, an utter abomination, neither a CAD package nor a sketching program. Office, for now... Office is Microsoft't major cash cow. They won't port it to Linux, not enough need. They are pushing it on the IOS and Android devices. I have no idea how well it has caught on, but I did check it out and the pricing is prohibitive, or at least is is on IOS. I have to wonder what they are doing that will provide their future income... They could always apply to Judge Cahn to be closed down in an orderly manner. Cash stash, remember? They won't die for a long time. It will be interesting seeing what they do try and come up with though. Wayne I'd be interested to see what they come up with. They're giving SQL-Server away free now ... imho, they have two real assets - port Windows Explorer to linux and have "Windows on Linux" - their UI experience really isn't all that bad. And, of all things, Access!!! When used properly (ie NOT as a database), it's actually a damn good tool. But it needs a proper database behind it. I gather Office actually does run on linux. Okay, it's a skunk-works project, but it's there ready to launch if Windows implodes ... What I'd really like to see, however, doesn't leave much room for MS in its current form. WordPerfect for linux again (okay, that's not MS at all :-), and the PC makers going back to the Win3.1 days, except instead of tweaking doze for their hardware, they tweak linux. Dell Linux, HP Linux, Compaq Linux etc. An in-house distro that is guaranteed to work well on standard in-house hardware. Like they used to tweak Windows 3 until MS brought out 95 and forbad them. Even if they just paid for a few engineers to work on linux, kde, gnome etc, just think what that would do. And before you say "they wouldn't make a difference" or "but the projects wouldn't allow them", just remember the golden rule - "he who writes the code, makes the rules". It wouldn't take allocating many engineers, before they would have a major say, and even if other cut-price OEMs tried to take advantage of it, it always pays to have your own engineers guaranteeing things will work. "First to market" is a *mahoussive" advantage. Cheers, Wol
|
|
|
Authored by wol on Apr 22, 2016 23:20:13 GMT
|
|
|
Authored by wol on Mar 4, 2016 13:01:40 GMT
"... SCOG appeals and the Appeals Court doesn't take it ..." My understanding is that, unless something is procedurally wrong, the Appeals Court must take the case. What do you mean by "take the case"? If everybody did that, the appeals court would probably still be finishing off its case load from the century before last ... :-) The Judge can boot the case up to the Appeals Court if he thinks there is something the Court should hear. The Judge can give the loser permission to boot the case up to the Appeals Court - this tells the Appeals Court that the Judge thinks a second opinion might be useful. The Judge can decline permission to boot the case up to the Appeals Court, but the loser has the right to go to the Appeals Court directly, bypassing the Judge. This tells the Appeals Court that either the Judge thinks the case is hopeless, or the Judge is prejudiced. The Appeals Court then has to take the case onto its docket. Most cases never get that far. If the Appeals Court declines to hear the case (ie refuses to take it), then the loser can either take it on the chin or boot it up the next level, where it stands even less of a chance. Cheers, Wol
|
|
|
Authored by wol on Mar 2, 2016 23:42:41 GMT
What it all means imho - "All proceedings in this matter are stayed pending the disposition of SCO's appeal" ...
Is that the next step in the case is SCO's appeal. There is no point in doing anything else until the outcome of the appeal is known, therefore Judge Nuffer is not going to do anything until he knows.
There are three outcomes that are legally identical - (1) SCOG does nothing and the time limit expires, or (2) SCOG appeals and the Appeals Court doesn't take it, or (3) SCOG appeals, the Appeals Court takes the case, and then decides there is nothing there. At this point Judge Nuffer presumably just shuts everything down absent a "tear the veil" appeal from IBM.
IFF SCOG appeal, and win, then everything changes and Judge Nuffer will have to deal with the new circumstances. But I think that as far as he is concerned it's all over, so he just wants SCOG's appeal (if any) to fail as quickly as possible so he can put a stake through the heart of the case.
Cheers, Wol
|
|
|
Authored by wol on Feb 28, 2016 0:55:47 GMT
If I read that correctly, SCO lawyers are throwing in the towel? Don't think so. Judge Nuffer is saying "I have nothing more to say. If you want to appeal, get on with it". What everybody (apart from SCOG maybe) is thinking is "the quicker this is over the better". SCOG's lawyers can now (a) do nothing, and it will be all over, or (b) appeal, kick it upstairs, and hope the appeal judges take it. Judge Nuffer is banking on either (a) SCOG's lawyers doing nothing, or (b) the appeal judges ignoring it. Cheers, Wol
|
|
|
Authored by wol on Feb 19, 2016 18:20:02 GMT
> Oh, and by the way - does anyone know how to contact anyone at Groklaw?
Email PJ? I suspect she still reads and uses her pj@grtoklaw.net address. She's dropped off the public radar - doesn't mean she's dropped off the radar completely.
Cheers, Wol
|
|
|
Authored by wol on Feb 11, 2016 0:52:21 GMT
Although it's marked as another 1158, docket # 1160 is now up as well - Judge Nuffer's grant of summary judgement on 783. Page 36: "Microsoft's conduct suggested that it might not guarantee BayStar's investment in SCO as it had promised to Mr Goldfarb. ..." Now why am I not surprised :-) Cheers, Wol
|
|
|
Authored by wol on Jan 10, 2016 0:09:15 GMT
All this for a Judge who is coming into the case stone cold. Yes, this case has dragged on for far too long but I don't think there is anyway we can speed it up. Not stone cold. Iirc, he worked on the case many moons ago, as a magistrate Judge. So, he will certainly know *something* about it ...
|
|
|
Authored by wol on Dec 31, 2015 13:33:21 GMT
|
|
|
Authored by wol on Dec 22, 2015 18:29:40 GMT
And a happy Hogmanay to you all a week later (well, we usually wish both together, at least ... :-)
Cheers, Wol
|
|
|
Authored by wol on Sept 24, 2015 18:50:43 GMT
everyone in the industry wondered how VW was meeting the emissions requirements without urea injection. They knew what they were doing, they knew that it broke the spirit of the law, and they did it anyway. Just heard it on the news - apparently they WERE using urea injection, and they did specifically detect a test-bench, and they only used it for that. So it seems I was misguided in blaming incompetence rather than malice ... NOT GOOD! Cheers, Wol
|
|
|
Authored by wol on Sept 24, 2015 15:43:50 GMT
In defence of Volkswagen, [...] ... WAS THERE ANY *DELIBERATE* INTENT TO DEFRAUD? [...] And it would not surprise me in the slightest if there was a profile meant for "boy racer revving the engine at the lights",[...] To my mind, the car was in all likelihood programmed to detect that the engine was not doing anything much, so it selected the highest eco profile it should. [...] I think that if Volkswagen's actions were innocent in the manner you propose, they would have defended it as such. I don't think they would have said "We lied" if they hadn't actually lied. That's basically my point about both the regulators and PHB's not understanding the tech. The car was designed to detect scenarios and load the appropriate profile. As an engineer, I would have no qualms whatsoever about detecting a situation where the car was stopped with the engine racing and loading a profile designed to minimise emissions. I *would* have a problem with "detecting a testbed and loading a profile to deceive". That's why I find it hard to believe the intent was to deceive. It could so easily be innocent - engine racing when stationary isn't unusual. But the car DID load a low-emissions profile. And it DID detect a test-bench environment. But, in the developer's mind, was it LOOKING for a test-bench environment. That I find hard to believe. But I also find it easy to believe that the regulators and PHBs could assume it was looking for it. Cheers, Wol
|
|
|
Authored by wol on Sept 24, 2015 15:37:17 GMT
My understanding was that SystemD comprised binary blobs for which the source was not available and that it also includes an increasing array of features like a mini-database function. Because it is not truely open, no-one can stick a fork in it (I think that's the expression) and dig out the superfluous functions. If it is open such that anyone (with the skills) can fork it, then I agree with you and would tell the anti-Lennart brigade to fork up or shut up. The old init system was written in bash shall etc - ie an interpreted language anyone could read. SystemD (to an extremely crude approximation) simply took all those bits of shell that got repeatedly cut-n-pasted from one init script to another and converted them into C helper progs (GPL'd). It did a few other things as well, admittedly. udev, for example, causes grief on gentoo (my system) because SystemD and udev are now one codebase. You can build udev without SystemD no problem, but because the source is so tightly intertwined they have to develop in lock-step. And the other stuff it's done is to standardise all those little "quirks" that distros have - like where the local host name is stored. That's put a lot of noses out of joint. Basically, think of SystemD as a collection of helper tools, all written in C. And a SystemD resource file is circa 10 lines telling the boot system which helper functions to call. As opposed to traditional SysVinit which is all those helper tools, written out longhand, hundreds of times, with unfixed bugs in many of the implementations, etc etc etc. The classic bug I came across was in a Bind shutdown script. Somebody reported it on lwn, but basically, the bind script would first kill the network, then loop until some service shut down. If for whatever reason, that service FAILED to shut down, your system was now in an infinite loop with no way of contacting it except by going to the console. And for the person in question, that console was 2000 miles away. Oh f***! SystemD, in its init program, simply has a timeout that will kill ANY and ALL processes to enable shutdown to complete. (Oh, and when he looked, he found the same bug in several other program init scripts ...) (And I think the service that failed to shut down was NFS, which should be shut down *before* the network, not after. Oh - and which is easy to get into an "infinite mount loop".) If you want to audit SystemD, go ahead. It's all Free/Libre code. The binary blobs you refer to are probably the same binary blobs that you find in the kernel - device drivers that must be loaded into hardware and without which the hardware won't function - and which you'll find in the equivalent SysVinit system too. Unless of course, those binary blobs are the product of the shell gurus moaning that they can't read object code and can't be bothered to learn C ... Oh - and SystemD IS growing Topsy-like and pulling loads of stuff into its orbit - because it makes sense. Like specifying a standard location for hostname. Like setting system time. Like taking over fstab. Like lots of sysadmin type stuff. Thing is, all those things are *modules*. That can be replaced if you are sufficiently motivated. Like most people can't be arsed - if it ain't broke don't fix it. That also annoys the "everything should be a shell-script we can tweak" brigade, but most of us are glad we don't have to. There have been repeated calls from the SystemD folk to the effect of "if you don't like it, do something about it, don't ****". Problem is, very few people have done anything about it, and SystemD has pretty much steam-rollered those who have. That's why my systems run OpenRC - someone did something about it. And frankly, I suspect I'd have been better off if they hadn't - my systems aren't complicated but some stuff is broken, and I expect it gets worse with more complicated setups ... Cheers, Wol
|
|
|
Authored by wol on Sept 24, 2015 8:40:17 GMT
SystemD and the VAG scam show me that we lose if we don't stick to the principles he advocates. What SystemD scam? To my mind, the fuss over SystemD is driven by a bunch of conspiracy theorists with a "we hate Lennart" agenda. The trouble with Lennart is he doesn't agree with the sendmail philosophy of "be liberal in what you accept, and strict in what you send". Quite the opposite, in fact - "if upstream is broke, don't band-aid about it. Get them to fix it!". That's ruffled far too many feathers in the past, and people are now out to get him. Obligatory disclaimer - my systems don't run SystemD, because it's not the distro default. They run OpenRC, and I'm not going to risk switching a production system. Oh - and yes SystemD is more complicated than init. But the SystemD boot setup is a lot simpler that an init boot setup. I wish they'd fix the niggles in OpenRC that are biting me - nfs and mysql (although the mysql thing is probably mysql, not nfs). Cheers, Wol
|
|