Microsoft at one point was the #1 vendor of Unix software. They wrote the Unix for a Radio Shack system that was the #1 selling Unix system in the whole world at the time.
Apparently that was Xenix for the TRS-80 Model 16. I seem to remember Microsoft selling Xenix to SCO, with a lot of the code filtering into what became SCO OpenServer.
That's easy to remedy. MSYS from MinGW.org gives you Bash, GNU Coreutils, and more, with less fat than Cygwin.
Slashdot comment subjects are limited to 50 characters. Microsoft sells Visual Basic, which is the descendant of a language in which string variable names ended with a dollar sign: A$ or B$ or M$. Until these facts change, I'll keep referring to Microsoft as M$ in comment subjects. Think of it as variable interpolation analogous to "thank $DEITY".
Microsoft wants to see BSD succeed
The PlayStation 4 game console runs Orbis OS, which is based on FreeBSD. If *BSD wins, does Xbox lose?
Why would you have a robot that needs repair way up in there?
What happens when the prostate repair robot breaks down? Do you want to crawl up there and fix it?
Hi Ray, nice to see the NYCL moniker around here again. I have a few questions if you're willing. First, you indicate that a judge has denied discovery due to several factors, one being that an IP address does not identify any particular individual. Can you speak to the weight or breadth of this specific Court's opinion here, in layman's terms? I see references to the Eastern and Southern districts of New York, might this decision influence cases outside of those jurisdictions?
It's not binding on anyone. But Judge Hellerstein is a very well respected judge, so it will probably have a lot of 'persuasive authority'.
Second, this business of "if the Motion Picture is considered obscene, it may not be eligible for copyright protection." I've read about certain cases where the Court stated that obscenity has no rigid definition, but "I'll know it when I see it." Does that have any bearing on the Malibu case? Was this some kind of completely outrageous pornography, where any community standard would likely find it to be obscene, or was it just run-of-the-mill porn? Would it matter either way? Would the opinion have likely been the same if the case involved a blockbuster Hollywood film instead of a pornographic and potentially obscene film?
I haven't researched that question yet, and I may well be litigating that issue in the near future, since I have several cases against Malibu Media which are now in litigation mode... so all I can say is, stay tuned.
Lastly, I'm curious whether or not you've kept up with developments in the case regarding Prenda Law, and how you might compare this case to that one, if at all. I try to read Ken White's PopeHat blog every once in awhile to see how poorly the Prenda copyright trolls are faring. It doesn't look good for Prenda, and I wonder if you would put Malibu in the same proverbial boat.
The Prenda people are a bunch of strange people who, based on reports I've read, may well wind up doing jail time. I know nothing about the Malibu Media people. If I did find out something really bad about them in would probably wind up in my court papers if relevant to the case or to their credibility.
I should clarify: I didn't mean actual expansion of the law. What I meant in regard to item "F" was: since when does difficulty of enforcement, even if they did prove it, justify loosening the standards of evidence? I did not think that was allowable.
Well I knew exactly what you meant Jane, even before you 'clarified' it.
Hi, NYCL! I haven't noticed you around here much lately. Is item F even a thing? Since when does the difficulty of enforcing a law allow judicial expansion of the law? I thought that idea had been thoroughly buried a long time ago.
I have to agree with you Jane Q. For 10 years I've been trying to wake the courts up to the fact that they're not supposed to bend the law to help content owners just because the content owners don't know who committed the infringement. Glad to see them coming around.
I think that if this troll can prove they have a copyright on the material and the right to enforce it, they will have a good case to appeal this decision and it will likely be overturned.
You also have to prove that the person you're suing actually committed the infringement. It's not enough that they paid the bill for an internet service account that somebody used to commit an infringement.
Well, I have a few issues with the cloud hype, starting with the scarcity of evidence to support claims about cloud services being cheaper and/or more secure and/or more reliable than doing things yourself. Every major cloud provider has had serious downtime, and there is only so much you can attribute to being more visible at greater scale or to users not configuring HA tools properly. Far too many on-line services also run into significant security/privacy problems. And cost-wise going with the cloud rather than your own systems tends to be favourable at certain levels (other things being equal) but it can be outrageously expensive in other cases.
These myths aren't really the point here anyway. The point in this case is that no matter how fast your recovery time may be, whatever was happening on your hardware at the time it failed is lost, and in some cases you simply can't make that transparent to your users. Not everything in the world of programming is a distributed map-reduce where losing a hardware node means you just redistribute the 0.0001% of the job it was doing to another and no-one notices. Not everything in the world of networking can tolerate a multi-second failover process without an observable blip in connectivity. As for redundant/HA storage, the CAP theorem called and asked to speak with you about your database, but I think you were on with physics at the time so I just took a message.
It's not just about whether the wastage due to more frequent failures works out cheaper economically than paying a premium for better hardware. It's also about how much downtime you (or your customers) are willing to tolerate and what proportion of overall system time is spent just recovering from failures. If you've ever had the joy of watching the (N+1)-th drive fail in your RAID with N-way redundancy while it's still rebuilding from replacing the earlier failures, you'll know what I mean.
Until now I always assumed people would chose to run the installer designed for their operating system.
That's fine if an installer designed for your operating system exists. So let me rephrase: If someone releases a new native app for communication over the Internet, good luck installing a Windows
("pornogrpahic" s.b. "obscene")
Almost nothing qualifies as "pornographic" in the view of US law. On the other hand, in most of the United States, prostitution is illegal.
Yes, but Comcast knows which subscriber's credentials were used to connect and each device gets its own IP address. I'm sure Comcast keeps track of this (as well as the MAC address of the connecting device).
Funny that the same site, iFixit, that whines about "repairability" seems to always manage a COMPLETE teardown without having to bribe anyone for special tools, take a bandsaw to the product, etc., eh?
So basically you're saying they're in the perfect position to tell you just how difficult it is to get them open.
I've opened and repaired a few things that were _NOT_ designed to be user serviceable. Most of them are difficult to open without being broken, but none are impossible even when you require special tools. There's been a few times when I've had to MacGyver a few tools myself (I.E. a bifurcated screw involved taking an angle grinder to an ordinary flat head screw driver). Your "point" has only demonstrated your lack of ingenuity here.
That being said, there's a reason I prefer to buy things that are easy to work on. This is the main reason I bought a 200sx (Silvia S15) rather than a 300zx which was more powerful and cheaper. The twin turbo V6 in the 300zx takes up literally all of the engine bay making it a complete pain to work on if you dont have a hoist (its no walk in the park with a hoist either).
And it should be the law: If you use the word `paradigm' without knowing what the dictionary says it means, you go to jail. No exceptions. -- David Jones
