Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Why did everyone else pay? (Score 2) 332

by leoc (#38104340) Attached to: B&N Pummels Microsoft Patent Claims With Prior Art

Apple does not want Samsung to compromise by bending over, it wanted to kill Android and discourage others from sharing their bed swith Google.

Microsoft likely feels the same way, and this licensing scheme is just the first volley in a larger campaign against Android. What is interesting to me is that Android clearly represents a legitimately big threat to both Apple and Microsoft. It would not surprise me in the least to see them join forces at some point to squash Android (and perhaps all Linux based products).

Comment: are you a project manager by any chance? (Score 4, Insightful) 487

by leoc (#29286777) Attached to: Build Your Own $2.8M Petabyte Disk Array For $117k

I like how you dismiss a detailed real world design example based simply on a claimed feature without any further substantiation. Very classy. I'm not saying you are wrong, but would it kill you to go into a little more detail about why these folks need "luck" when they are clearly very successful with their existing design?

The Courts

Examining Software Liability In the Open Source Community 241

Posted by timothy
from the three-letters-starting-f-u-d dept.
snydeq writes "Guidelines from the American Law Institute that seek to hold vendors liable for 'knowingly' shipping buggy software could have dramatic impact on the open source community, as vague language around a 'free software' exemption could put open source developers at litigation risk. Meant to protect open source developers, the 'free software' exemption does not take into account the myriad ways in which vendors receive revenue from software products, according to a joint letter drafted by Microsoft and the Linux Foundation. As such, the guidelines — which, although not binding, are likely to prove influential on future lawsuits, according to attorneys on both sides of the issue — call into question the notion of liability in the open source community, where any number of coders may be responsible for any given defect."

Comment: Re:Cost (Score 1) 140

by leoc (#28213491) Attached to: Arrington's Web Tablet Nearly Ready For Launch?

I think it is hubris - the idea that "I'm smarter than everyone else in the industry, and I have ideas that none of them do".

Wow. Hubris? Really?

There is a long history of people doing stuff they personally find cool and interesting and succeeding wildly at it. Sure there are also a lot of failures, but you cannot succeed without taking risks, and it is pretty pathetic to see that your lame attitude is so prevalent these days.

This web tablet may fail terribly, or it might succeed wildly, but thank Dog there are still people willing to try.

Comment: Re:Option B: Android phone (Score 1) 296

by leoc (#27922901) Attached to: Apple Refusing Any BitTorrent Related Apps?

Hopefully, negative press/reviews/articles like this will encourage people to buy more open platforms

That's the kind of reaction one would hope people would have instead of this pathetic begging for Apple to change their minds. Unfortunately the Apple brand image is so strong right now that, like Microsoft and Sony before them, they are forgiven all sorts of behaviour that other companies would never get away with. Luckily, again like Microsoft and Sony before them, all this anti-consumer behaviour should eventually catch up to them.

I never cheated an honest man, only rascals. They wanted something for nothing. I gave them nothing for something. -- Joseph "Yellow Kid" Weil