Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Slashback: Kororaa GPL, ICANN .XXX, BellSouth NSA

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the filled-with-dissapointment dept.

216

Slashback tonight brings some corrections, clarifications, and updates to previous Slashdot stories including an update to the Kororaa GPL accusations, BellSouth demands a retraction to NSA story, South Korea rejects Microsft antitrust appeal, Tim Berners Lee continues net neutrality fight, ICANN possibly pressured to nix .XXX domain, another side to Vista Beta2 reviews, and the worst tech IPO in 2 years -- Read on for details.

Kororaa denies GPL violations. AlanS2002 writes "Chris Smart, of the Kororaa Project, has written an update about the accusation that the Kororaa XGL LiveCD is in violation of the GPL. According to Chris, he has been shown no evidence that the nVidia/ATI drivers are derived from any code in the Linux Kernel or that the drivers link to the Kernel. From the best information he has it appears that the drivers make system calls to public interfaces of the Kernel, in the same way that a web browser makes calls to public interfaces of a web server but are not considered to be linked to the web server (they do not link to private functions of the web server). However the Kororaa project has decided to let end users download and install the drivers themselves if need be, which defeats the purpose of continuing to develop their Live CD. As such their will be no Kororaa XGL LiveCD 0.3, however they will continue to make Kororaa XGL LiveCD 0.2 available."

BellSouth demands retraction to NSA story. An anonymous reader writes "CNN reports that BellSouth has moved from strongly denying participation in providing the NSA with calling records to requesting a retraction of the article from USA Today." From the article: "The telecommunications giant sent a letter to USA Today on Thursday asking it to retract last week's story that BellSouth and two other companies helped the NSA compile a massive database of records on domestic phone calls."

South Korea rejects Microsft antitrust appeal. mikesd81 writes "According to MSNBC, the Korean Fair Trade Commission has turned down Microsoft's appeal to separate it's Window's OS and it's media service. The February ruling also included a 34 million dollar fine. Apparently, The commission began investigating Microsoft after a local Internet portal, Daum Communications Corp., filed a complaint with the commission in 2001."

Tim Berners Lee continues net neutrality fight. Kortec writes "As reported by The BCC, Sir Tim Berners Lee has spoken out against the current US bias towards the destruction of network neutrality at the Edinburgh WWW2006 conference. The man behind it all is quoted as saying the two tier system proposed recently on the floor of Congress is not 'part of the internet model,' and that 'the web should remain neutral and resist attempts to fragment it in to different services.'"

ICANN possibly pressured to nix .XXX domain. mobiux writes "Fox News reporting that the US Government allegedly pressured ICANN into denying the .XXX domain, despite orders not to do so. ICM Registry says the e-mails show how the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce, was subjected to intense pressure to intervene on behalf of the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family, two socially conservative lobbying organizations."

Another side to Vista Beta2 reviews. lordgreg writes to tell us that while Slashdot already talked about Vista Beta 2 Major Problems, which Gary Krakow addressed in his review. DotProject claims to have the other side of Vista Beta2's Major Problems, the users themselves.

Vonage IPO shaping up to be the worst tech IPO in 2 years. fistfullast33l writes "Vonage went public to great fanfare and poor results today, with it's stock price falling 11% by closing time. Analysts have cited the fact that Vonage has yet to post a profit and increasing competition for the lack of interest. 'It's a wildly unprofitable company still selling at a very high valuation,' said Tom Taulli of Newport Coast, California, an IPO analyst. BusinessWeek also discusses growth barriers listed in Vonage's filings, including 'finding enough customer-support staffers and long delays in getting traditional phone companies to let customers take their existing phone numbers [to Vonage].'"

cancel ×

216 comments

Uh huh (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15398339)

Of course, the alleged actions that Bell South is denying they performed-- and demanding USA Today retract their reporting of-- is... the same stuff Bell South is currently being sued for [cnn.com] . Maybe if we all just close our eyes real hard and think about other things the lawsuits will go away?

In Kororaa, only old people... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15398440)

... use Macintoshes.

Since when can anyone "pressure" ICANN? (4, Interesting)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398356)

ICM Registry says the e-mails show how the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce, was subjected to intense pressure to intervene on behalf of the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family, two socially conservative lobbying organizations.

"Intense pressure?" Big guys named Guido and Luigi showed up at the reception desk and asked politely that they pressure ICANN? Concerned mothers sent them very sternly worded letters with comments like "I would send you to bed without dinner"?

The US Government does whatever the hell it wants to, generally. Especially branches nobody's ever heard about, unless someone threatens their budget. We generally term that "extortion", and that's certainly not very family-friendly. Nevermind that it seems absurd that some goofy little branch of the department of Commerce holds -any- sway over ICANN whatsoever; they're also fantastically good at ignoring people and doing whatever the hell they please.

Re:Since when can anyone "pressure" ICANN? (3, Insightful)

NutscrapeSucks (446616) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398586)

Since the GOP controls Congress and the Executive, it would be quite easy for them to get together and "reform" ICANN out of existence, dump all the graybeards, and create a new Internet committee loaded with the usual party hacks. I think if the ICANN members have half a brain, they take GOP opinions on Internet governance very seriously.

The entire .XXX issue was basically an internal GOP division -- some conservative groups wanted it, others didn't. The fact that ICANN was even considering it was an example of political influence, and if the conservatives were unified behind it, we'd most likely have it by now.

Re:Since when can anyone "pressure" ICANN? (1)

AoT (107216) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398844)

So can we use the RICO statutes against the government yet?

Pretty please?

Re:Since when can anyone "pressure" ICANN? (1, Interesting)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398790)

Fox News reporting that the US Government allegedly pressured ICANN into denying the .XXX domain, despite orders not to do so.

Wow, according to the liberals of Slashdot, Fox News was in bed with the government and would never report this. Guess they were wrong.

Actually, every single liberal who has ever said Fox News' hard news reporting was biased has never, ever cited an actual example. And over 80% of journalists report themselves as Democrats...yet it's Fox News that's supposed to be biased. Sigh.

Re:Since when can anyone "pressure" ICANN? (-1, Flamebait)

AoT (107216) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398860)

So, what exactly "hard reporting" about the Fox News response to the lead up to the Iraq War?

Was it the announcement that it would be a cakewalk?

Or was it the fact that they have only now begun to really criticize Bush?

Not that the other channels are really better, but Fox did set the example.

Re:Since when can anyone "pressure" ICANN? (2, Insightful)

Firehed (942385) | more than 8 years ago | (#15399051)

Watch OutFoxed [imdb.com] . Biased in its own sense, as you could imagine, but it does cite numerous examples. As you could imagine, public mood indicates that even places as generally biased as Fox News says that they need to side with the people in the way that they present their information, and Bush's approval ratings aren't exactly stellar at the moment. That and Murdoch may have been a .xxx supporter.

How can we believe a single thing (4, Informative)

stox (131684) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398358)

said by a company that is involved with national security? They don't even need to tell the truth to the SEC, let alone mear mortal human beings:


The memo Bush signed on May 5, which was published seven days later in the Federal Register, had the unrevealing title "Assignment of Function Relating to Granting of Authority for Issuance of Certain Directives: Memorandum for the Director of National Intelligence." In the document, Bush addressed Negroponte, saying: "I hereby assign to you the function of the President under section 13(b)(3)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended."

A trip to the statute books showed that the amended version of the 1934 act states that "with respect to matters concerning the national security of the United States," the President or the head of an Executive Branch agency may exempt companies from certain critical legal obligations. These obligations include keeping accurate "books, records, and accounts" and maintaining "a system of internal accounting controls sufficient" to ensure the propriety of financial transactions and the preparation of financial statements in compliance with "generally accepted accounting principles."

Re:How can we believe a single thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15398523)

Fellow citizen, you should know that the role of the citizen is not to question but to obey. Given this, how can you wonder what supports our belief? We believe, therefore we believe.

When we are told nobody is spying on us, we believe. When we are told all of our phone calls are intercepted to protect us from terrorists, we believe. When we are told we can't verify this with our own eyes, as it would undermine national security, we believe.

There is no "how" to our belief. We don't know the truth, we don't deserve to know the truth, and we don't want to know the truth. The truth makes us uncomfortable. Wouldn't you rather "know" that you're being protected, rather than suspect that you're being fleeced?

A good citizen obediently believes, not because he thinks it's the truth, but because he is content in his ignorance. A good citizen leaves the ruling to the rulers, the questioning to the despised critics, and the blind belief to himself.

Re:How can we believe a single thing (1)

SomeRandomWag (933715) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398641)

How can we believe a single thing said by a company that is involved with national security?

You can't. If that doesn't worry you or the majority of American citizens it's a sad day indeed. Besides, who's to say the department issuing the retraction order would even be aware of the alleged co-operation (if true) in the first place?

Follow The Money (0)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398991)

How can we believe a single thing said by a company that is involved with national security?

Follow the money.

If this is a true story, and if the securities analysts pick up on it, expect a dumping of BellSouth stock because there is no money to be made on uncertainty.

Similar to the question, "how can we believe that rape exists in prisons?" The answer is simple: try to give blood.

XGL and the Java Trap (0, Offtopic)

Andrew Tanenbaum (896883) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398360)

XGL is free, but shackled. [gnu.org]

We all know that, to use XGL in GNU/Linux, you need to use non-free binary drivers from nVidia or ATI. That's why Kororaa included them. But, tautologically, these are not free, so XGL is completely useless to the free software community. Please see Richard's essay, which I've linked to above.

Re:XGL and the Java Trap (0, Flamebait)

geekoid (135745) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398389)

"Don't be fooled by the "fiction" disguise, the Da Vinci Code is a serious attack on the Lord Jesus Christ!"

so? he has every right to say that, just like you have the right to say that there are invisible people in the sky.

"..., so XGL is completely useless to the free software community. "

the free software community, as YOU out it, is a diverse group of people, many of whom know the license for XGL, and Java.

Mod parent up (1)

AoT (107216) | more than 8 years ago | (#15399098)

Really, who believes in unicorns anymore?

Re:XGL and the Java Trap (1)

Rob_Ogilvie (872621) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398398)

"Completely useless" is a bit of an overstatement. It can help by bringing new people to the plate. Realize a vast majority of the world is completely shackled to non-free and downright evil software. If we can give them a taste of what "free" software can do and slowly migrate them from completely closed software, then shouldn't we be happier than we were? It may not be ideal, but it's better than nothing.

Re:XGL and the Java Trap (4, Insightful)

murdocj (543661) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398475)

Realize a vast majority of the world is completely shackled to non-free and downright evil software.

I'd like to reserve the word "evil" for things that are, you know, evil. Like holding prisoners in secret prisons scattered around the world so you can torture them. Selling software without giving away source may not be the best way to produce and deliver software (or maybe it is, I don't know) but isn't "evil".

Re:XGL and the Java Trap (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398498)

'evil' has been used to describe bad software for 30+ years.

Re:XGL and the Java Trap (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398921)

It has?

I've always seen "evil" used to describe bad companies, who coincidentally produce bad software. The software is bad, the company is evil. Other companies, who do not produce software, can be evil and do evil things too. Like gassing thousands of Indians with their chemical plant.

Re:XGL and the Java Trap (3, Insightful)

crotherm (160925) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398429)

But, tautologically, these are not free, so XGL is completely useless to the free software community.

It lets me make use of better graphics on my linux box. Thus, it is useful to me. Now I may not be the free software community, but I like to consider myself a friendly neighbor. I use what works.

Re:XGL and the Java Trap (4, Informative)

Bronster (13157) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398459)

We all know that, to use XGL in GNU/Linux, you need to use non-free binary drivers from nVidia or ATI.

I call FUD. I have successfully tested XGL in kororaa with the Intel i810 chipset in my Dell Inspiron 510m laptop. I guess we don't "all know" after all.

Re:XGL and the Java Trap (0, Troll)

Seraphim_72 (622457) | more than 8 years ago | (#15399234)

....Of course you wrote this up. And of course you are willing to help newbies. Ah? No? Then it NEVER HAPPENED. Even if you saw it/made it happen. Welcome to the world of testable results. If you did this - post the results and methods for ALL of us to see.

Re:XGL and the Java Trap (2, Informative)

spuzzzzzzz (807185) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398461)

XGL runs very well on my Thinkpad with an ATI Mobility Radeon 7500 using the Free, open source drivers that X.org provides. I imagine the situation is similar for any Radeon cards up to and including the 9200. I also understand that the Free, open source drivers for Intel chips support 3D acceleration.

Re:XGL and the Java Trap (1)

Stemp (936330) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398658)

Absolutely, XGL work fine on a 9200 with the radeon driver

Speak for yourself (5, Insightful)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398479)

You != "the free software community".

I am a rabid supporter of Free Software, and have been for many years. But I have no problem with closed source device drivers. Never have, never will.

Why? Because by their very nature, device drivers are not free to begin with, because you have to have possesion of that device to use them in the first place. Thus, "Freedom 0" as defined by the FSF is impossible. I guess RMS doesn't read his own manifestos?

Not to mention the fact that for both of these vendors, it is legally impossible to open their drivers because they license code from other 3rd party companies.

Don't agree with me? Fine, don't buy the hardware from these vendors, or contribute to the relevant projects to replace them. But don't go pushing your views on everyone else in the community - for a lot of us, drivers are a different class of software that do not neccessarily have to be free to be useful.

Drivers = Software (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15398591)

Drivers isn't hardware. Drivers is as much software as any other program. They can be free or non-free.

Re:Drivers = Software (2, Insightful)

KarmaMB84 (743001) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398988)

You're not exactly going to be using a driver for an ATI Radon X1600 Uber-Dooper Edition on your nVidia GeForce 7900 Ultimate-WTF Edition, so what is the point?

Re:XGL and the Java Trap (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15398481)

XGL runs on both the GPL intel drivers as well as the GPL ati drivers (though not on all ati cards). So it is not a trap at all.

Also if you don't like the closed source drivers instead of being a luddite and trying to prevent progress, why don't you contribute to the development of the OSS 3d drivers?

Also the drivers aren't 'non-free', they are 'non-Free'. And it's rather disturbing that you're on a first name basis with RMS.

Re:XGL and the Java Trap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15398587)

How does it feel to have been responsible for the whole GNU and Linux revolution?

Oh wait, you weren't. Linus and Richard were.

Still trying to make yourself relevant, eh Andy?

You're mis-applying RMS's point (3, Insightful)

Morgaine (4316) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398645)

I've just read RMS's very well written essay about Java. It's not about Xgl, and you're mis-applying it to Xgl.

The authors of Sun Java have no (current) intention of making it free, so it's non-free by design and thus quite rightly gets RMS's ire. As RMS suggests, every enhancement that Sun makes to Java just makes matters worse.

In contrast, Xgl is currently tied to nVidia or ATI hardware only because the authors haven't yet made it work with anything else, but it could do so, so it's just a question of manpower and not a matter of non-free intent. It would probably work with Mesa anyway, but excruciatingly slowly.

Xgl is dependent on OpenGL, and you'd better not be complaining about that because it's the standard 3D API for free and open-source software. It just so happens that nVidia and ATI have the most efficient and widely used implementations of OpenGL for consumer PCs, that's all. The fact that the FOSS community hasn't yet fully implemented any competing 3D-accelerated version of OpenGL isn't Xgl's fault, nor is it OpenGL's fault --- there is no non-free OpenGL license blocking such implementations as there is with Java. (You might not be able to call it "OpenGL" unless it's validated, but that's peripheral.)

So, you're confusing the non-freeness of Java with nothing more evil than the early state of Xgl and the lack of 3D-accelerated non-proprietary implementations of OpenGL. Well, it may have escaped your attention, but a collosal proportion of all free programs are incomplete or still being worked on, and that doesn't make them non-free.

You need to use some commonsense here. By all means complain about ATI and nVidia, but not about OpenGL or Xgl. Xgl is free software, and OpenGL is an open standard. Xgl just needs some more work, as does our free OpenGL clone. Work in progress.

Re:You're mis-applying RMS's point (3, Insightful)

Andrew Tanenbaum (896883) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398783)

Wrong.

Java is just as open of a standard as OpenGL. Anyone can implement a version of it, if they have the resources. The issue, in BOTH cases, is that the free implementations are inadequate.

Fuck you. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15398703)

Do the drivers actually work?

If so, they are more usefull to the free software community than 90% of the garbage out there. And certainly more usefull than what you've contributed. (read: nothing)

FYI (5, Informative)

CrazyDuke (529195) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398363)

"...Family Research Council [wikipedia.org] and Focus on the Family [family.org] , two socially conservative lobbying organizations."

FYI, both organizations are founded/run by James Dobson. I would not necessarily refer to them as seperate entities rather than appendages of the same one. James Dobson, you know, the guy of Spongebob Squarepants is a conspiracy to turn kids gay fame.

Re:FYI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15398524)

the guy of Spongebob Squarepants is a conspiracy to turn kids gay fame

James Dobson did not say that Spongebob was a conspiracy to turn to kids gay. That was not the issue, as everyone has taken his words out of context.

The Family Research Council and Focus on the Family are two different organizations. Your post is a troll.

Re:FYI (1)

CODiNE (27417) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398595)

James Dobson, you know, the guy of Spongebob Squarepants is a conspiracy to turn kids gay fame.

Spongebob isn't... but Ren & Stimpy was. ;-)

Edit the wikipedia! (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398686)

Someone should edit the wikipedia and add the ICANN controversy to his
wikipedia entry. [wikipedia.org]

Re:FYI (2, Insightful)

jonadab (583620) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398695)

Dobson was a child psychologist (and, as near as I can determine, a pretty good one), but the popularity of his books (some of which *are* quite good) apparently went to his head, and he started to see himself as a religious leader (which was dangerous, because he doesn't have the proper training for that; his training is in psychology). Then in order to maintain his popularity and keep selling books and magazines and things, he at some point along the line abandoned all pretenses of discernment and started using his name to publish, basically, whatever sensational thing will get people excited enough to buy subscriptions. His magazines will print virtually anything that purports to be conservative, family-oriented, and Christian, even if it's baldly incoherent nonsense. For instance, around the time LOTR:FOTR came out his magazine ran an article that attempted to claim that LOTR was Christian allegory. Even worse was the malarke they ran about Y2K. I was unaware of the particular stance you mention, but it fits the pattern.

I assume Dobson himself doesn't bother to proofread these articles before they get approved. Not that that excuses him from all responsibility. It doesn't, and he should be ashamed of what he has allowed his name to be used for. I guess what I'm saying is that his organizations do indeed seem to have become entities unto themselves at this point. I don't think everything they do is initiated by one man any more.

Re:FYI (1)

DavidTC (10147) | more than 8 years ago | (#15399183)

People get Dobson confused with many other 'religious leaders', but you're right, you've nailed the fundamental (ha) difference between him and others: The others started as peachers who got a lot of power and support, and he remains basically a very conservative psychologist who wrote a few too many books.

He's approaching the entire thing without any religous training at all. Basically, he's taken several rather controversial psychological positions, and pretended they actually are supported in the Bible.

Programmers Should Stick To Programming. (2, Interesting)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398393)

Leave the legal arguments to the lawyers already. If someone doesn't like you linking X component with Y component, the very first thing you should ask them is: are you the copyright holder of X component or Y component? If the answer is "no" then kindly ask them to go away. Only the copyright holder can sue you so why should you pay any attention to them. If you are so worried about someone suing you, just call up the only people who can sue you, the copyright holders, and ask them if what you are doing is ok. If they say yes, put that on your web site and tell the distractors to piss off.

Linux has more copyright owners (2, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398457)

If someone doesn't like you linking X component with Y component, the very first thing you should ask them is: are you the copyright holder of X component or Y component?

The Linux® brand kernel uses a distributed copyright ownership model, in stark contrast to the copyright-assignment practices that GNU® brand software follows. If I write a patch to Linux, and a kernel maintainer accepts it, then I am an owner of copyright in Linux. I would wager that even FSF, the owner of copyright in GNU software, owns at least some of the Linux copyright.

Re:Linux has more copyright owners (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398525)

Ya know what? I've asked about 20 different lawyers about the copyright on the Linux kernel. Half of them say that for the copyright on the Linux kernel to be successfully defended you would need only one copyright holder to sue. The other half say that no single copyright holder could sue, you'd need all of them. Who is right? Even the lawyers can't agree.

Re:Linux has more copyright owners (1)

KarmaMB84 (743001) | more than 8 years ago | (#15399028)

There's the middle ground where a person who has code in the part of the kernel that is being linked (if any) is having their copyright on that portion violated.

Re:Linux has more copyright owners (1)

DavidTC (10147) | more than 8 years ago | (#15399196)

The last half of lawyers are either lying or criminally incompetant. There is no logical legal way that you'd need everyone to sue.

Re:Programmers Should Stick To Programming. (2, Insightful)

bigpicture (939772) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398519)

This is the kind of thing that is a big problem for Open Source and Linux in particular. When I first read about Kororaa I downloaded it and of course the feature that I wanted to see (the 3D) didn't work, no ATI driver included. Then I read about a second version that included the drivers, so I downloaded that and walla the thing worked as expected, with all the bells and whistles.

Now SUSE 10.1 is supposed to have the same feature. I have it installed exclusively on one of the hard drives, and this feature does not work by default, nor will it work until I jump through hoops and try to find and install the driver. So what is the point of spinning this feature when it does not work?

No matter what version of Linux that I have installed and run, the printer has never worked. If Linux and Open Source want to get into the game they are going to have to come up with a solution for this. Today's consumer expectation is that you install software and it "Just Works", like the way Microsoft does, security bugs and all.

ATI nor Nividia, nor the printer companies are going to Open Source their drivers. Because if you know how the software works, it probably goes a long way to reverse engineering both the hardware and the drivers. There goes your trade secrets and competitive advantage. So Linux and the Open Source community is going to have to find a way to get along with this, and add some kind of driver operating layer that allows non infringing inclusion of propriety drivers on the install disk. If they cannot find a way to do this "just works" operation, then Linux will never be my primary desktop, and I imigine the same goes for millions of others.

Re:Programmers Should Stick To Programming. (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398538)

Ya know what? I agree that the Linux community needs to "do something" to get hardware to "just work". But I completely disagree with your suggestion. My suggestion is that what we need to do about it is actively reverse engineer the proprietary drivers they supply and write open source ones. More importantly, I intend to start doing this in the near future. I hope other people will join me.

Re:Programmers Should Stick To Programming. (1)

bigpicture (939772) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398710)

I'm not a programmer so I don't know that much about this stuff, and the finer points of how to tackle the problem. But some sort of coordinated united type effort is needed in the Linux community to solve this issue.

The propriety crowd will probably not cooperate that much with any kind of reverse engineering effort. I have heard of Windows drivers being used in some sort of Linux wrapper. I don't know if that direction is a viable solution. Is a Linux API or port specifically designed to allow raw Windows drivers to be used, a viable option? I have read that the KDE 4 community is putting in some sort of layer to make the driver development and installation thing easier.

Whatever the Linux community effort is to solve this, it should not be all over the board like it seems to be now, but pick some single better or best solution, and all effort be coordinated in this direction.

The other associated issue of course is interoperability of applications and drivers on the different Linux OSes. There needs to be some standards set for this, so the same applications or drivers can be installed on any Linus OS and work. These are just my pet beefs with Linux, because I keep hoping that the next version will be my main "all systems work" Desktop. I thought SUSE 10.1 might have been it.

Re:Programmers Should Stick To Programming. (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398933)

Dude, the problem is not "we don't have drivers", the problem is we don't have *free* drivers. As long as we are reliant on the hardware manufacturers to update their drivers and support the Linux community, we'll never have good hardware support. The Linux community has to support itself, and the only way we can do that is with free drivers.

BTW - if you reply to this post with "but no-one charges money for drivers" I will track you down and kill you ok?

Re:Programmers Should Stick To Programming. (1)

TheDugong (701481) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398958)

"I'm not a programmer so I don't know that much about this stuff, and the finer points of how to tackle the problem."

It is not a programming issue, but a philosophical issue.

One side says that if you maye it easy to insert non-Open Source drivers into the kernel, then there is no incentive for companies to open the drivers. The other side says essentially what you are saying, to paraphrase, if there are not enough people using their product then why would the company bother?

Personally, I only buy hardware which works with Linux, vendor supported or otherwise. Maybe I have to take a little pain and frustration every now and then, but expecting no inconvenience whilst taking a moral stand is a wee bit silly.

"Is a Linux API or port specifically designed to allow raw Windows drivers to be used, a viable option?"

There is ndiswrapper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ndiswrapper).

However, as Linux is available on many non-intel platforms this only helps for intel PCs. I cannot use this method on my iBook (PowerPC) for instance.

Vonage IPO far too late (4, Insightful)

mazphil57 (792004) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398414)

In the good old days, a new company (such as Vonage) would go public long before it was "discovered", allowing early investors to get rich (like Microsoft, for example). In today's world, major banks provide working capital and the objective is to delay the IPO as long as possible, so that only the banks and the founders make any real money. I'm predicting the disappointment seen today with Vonage is going to become the norm for technology IPO's.

Re:Vonage IPO far too late (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15398554)

MS went public in 1986, when they were already a well known tech company. However, they didn't use much if any VC, so the majority of the money went to the founders and early employees.

Re:Vonage IPO far too late (1)

InsaneGeek (175763) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398688)

Actually that's a bit wrong, unless if you are thinking the good old days were 5-7 years ago. Companies wouldn't go public unless they had a real reason to, many of them spending years prior to going public. Going public has so many difficulties that it's often the last thing a traditional company wants to do (i.e. old stogey companies, rather than dot-com). Often when they have reached a place where to grow the business to the next level and they need an injection of cash they do it, or more often when they grow to over 500 or so employees and have basically the same filing requirements and restrictions as a public company that they go and do it.

Ford went public in 1956 decades after putting out the model A,T, etc
Apple release the Apple II, ~3 years before going public

Check the wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_company [wikipedia.org]
The norm is for new companies, which are typically small, to be privately owned. After a number of years, if a company has grown significantly and is profitable, or has promising prospects, there is often an initial public offering and the company becomes public.

What more can be said... (0, Troll)

zerocool^ (112121) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398430)


I'm sure I'm not the only Windows Vista tester, that could say the core is improoving- ALOT!

1.) http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/improoving [m-w.com]
2.) misplaced and unneeded comma
3.) misuse of dash character
4.) http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/alot [m-w.com]

Regular users find Vista to be excellent, indeed. And I didn't even get past the first paragraph.

~Will

Re:What more can be said... (1)

zerocool^ (112121) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398452)


God, it only gets worse:

It really is odd that you flame Vista for your devices not working properly. As software architect, I would claim hardware developers for not taking care of drivers for upcoming operating systems. As it could be read from your article, you didn't had the time of your life downloading drivers from Lenovo's driver site. Then, reboot occur every 10 minutes, right?

1.) It really is - split infinitive
2.) claim - should be blame (proofreading, kthxbyebye)
3.) you didn't had? What the...? Is it supposed to be "you didn't have"?
4.) Then, good grammar occur when you type.

Journalism surrenders. How are we supposed to take this guy, who is criticizing an MSNBC writer, seriously? Even if his article is an excellent reflection of Vista's true potential, it's unreadable due to the spelling, grammer, and proofreading errors. I even think I saw a formatting error.

~Will

Re:What more can be said... (1)

zerocool^ (112121) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398469)


"It really is" actually may not be a split infinitive. Still, though. My high horse is an inch shorter, but my point remains the same.

Re:What more can be said... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15398511)

1.) Place gun in mouth.
2.) Pull trigger.

Re:What more can be said... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15398612)

3.) ???
4.) Profit!

Re:What more can be said... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15398628)

Grammer. GRAMMER? Oh, irony... it's so ironic!

Re:What more can be said... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15398500)

it's unreadable due to the spelling, grammer,

grammar. ;-) I couldn't help myself.

Re:What more can be said... (2, Insightful)

Petrushka (815171) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398604)

Why are you flaming someone for poor English when English is obviously [dotproject.org] not his native language? I respectfully suggest that until you write a decent tech article in Slovenian and submit it to this guy for him to tear to shreds (and, incidentally, learn what a split infinitive is), you should shut the hell up.

Re:What more can be said... (1)

complete loony (663508) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398640)

But seriously, a laptop will often have custom hardware, which requires custom drivers. Vista is a beta, stick with an OS that is supported by the manufacturor.

No one fucking cares. (-1, Flamebait)

fufubag (935599) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398693)

Douche.

Re:What more can be said... (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398946)

You forgot the use of "that" in place of "who."

Of the suggestions for "improoving," I definitely like "imbruting." :)

Vista Reviews (1, Offtopic)

ThePopeLayton (868042) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398433)

Gregors review of Vista, is not so much of a review as it is flaming. I wouldn't say that it presents the alternate viewpoint rather it points out errors in the original view. Just thought that should be clarified.

Some economist-geek explain it to me... (1)

pla (258480) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398488)

How exactly does an IPO fail?

First of all, as I understand it, most IPOs have a requirement that buyers not sell for anywhere up to 90 days. How does the stock price do anything worse than remain flat in that time?

Second - Conceptually, let's say I like Vonage and manage to get in on the IPO. I buy 100 shares, which initially dip. Now I've taken a small loss on something I expect to shoot way up within the next few days... Would I sell? Hell no! Now, at around a 10% dip I might get rather worried, but in order for that to happen, a ton of other buyers needed to already panic. What gives?

And finally, what business model does Vonage hope to capitalize on, anyway? They sell something that, in the end-game, doesn't require a third party!!!! It just requires a hardware handset and an IP address. Their business model, if it reached 100% succesfull, would kill itself as a result. We only need them until POTS goes the way of the dodo. Once everyone uses an internet-connected phone, the one valuable service VOIP providers currently offer (VOIP to POTS bridging) becomes irrelevant.

Re:Some economist-geek explain it to me... (2, Informative)

geekoid (135745) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398527)

Lets say a company goes public, and is expect to sell 100 shares at a price of 10 bucks per share.
Then they IPO, and only 50 shares are bought. There value would decrease because there is no interest.

  "Now I've taken a small loss on something I expect to shoot way up within the next few days... Would I sell? Hell no! "
you might if there was no interest.
Now if all 100 shares were sold, you would expect the price to go up do to heavy interest, but if an IPO doesn't sparl a lot of interest, there isn't much the company can do.
My examples where very gross, and in the stock world the difference between a hot stoc and a cold one may only a small percentage of sells.

Re:Some economist-geek explain it to me... (2, Informative)

paulthomas (685756) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398543)

There are generally not restrictions on selling the stock after the IPO. You might be thinking of some SEC rules regarding changes to the ownership immediately prior to the IPO (whether such rules exist, I'm unsure).

Not only would you not see a fall, you wouldn't see any movement in the stock for 90 days if trading were suspended (buyers not being able to sell would result in no transactions). This is clearly not true if you look at any IPO. In fact, the possibility to have a run up in the stock price early on is part of the politics of traditional IPO underwriting. The investment bank that underwrites the issue essentially buys all of the stock that will be sold from the company, ensuring that the company receives some fixed amount. The underwriter then sells portions of the stock to major investing concerns at a price fixed higher than what was paid to the company. This spread is the compensation for "insuring" the issue. The stock is initially sold to a small and select group of buyers at this price who anticipate a run-up in the price from the general demand from unwary individual investors.

Everyone early in the chain gets some cut and it is your average joe who generally gets the shaft on the flotation of new issues. In this sense you are correct that IPOs generally don't fail -- the underwriter sets the prices that ensure capital for the firm going public and a profit for the underwriter.

With regard to the business model, who knows. I think this is part of why the IPO wasn't terribly successful (for the people who bought before the decline).

Re:Some economist-geek explain it to me... (1)

ClamIAm (926466) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398932)

Once everyone uses an internet-connected phone, the one valuable service VOIP providers currently offer (VOIP to POTS bridging) becomes irrelevant.

I don't think this is true. Community-run or even decentralized instant messaging is possible right now, but people happily use MSN or whatever because it "just works" and ties into features they use (Hotmail, etc). The same will probably be true for phone.

Re:Some economist-geek explain it to me... (1)

241comp (535228) | more than 8 years ago | (#15399160)

But in general they don't pay for it.

Kororaa GPL (3, Insightful)

Wannabe Code Monkey (638617) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398493)

However the Kororaa project has decided to let end users download and install the drivers themselves if need be, which defeats the purpose of continuing to develop their Live CD. As such their will be no Kororaa XGL LiveCD 0.3

This sentence was a little confusing the first seven times I read it. So I did what I hardly ever do, go to the source, read the article and gain a fuller understanding of the situation... instead of just posting here about how the summary was confusing.

My misunderstanding stemmed from my thinking that the Kororaa project was just the Live CD. So I was thinking: if they decided to script the downloading and compiling of the nvidia modules why would they then go and decide to cancel the Live CD development? The key here is that they also have a non-live CD version called Kororaa 2005, and soon to be 2006. They are still continuing this distribution, which will prompt the user to download the modules manually as other distros do.

The author's reasoning was kind of strange though, he leads us on a very logical path towards concluding that the Kororaa Live CD does *not* violate the GPL in its current form. He even says For me, with the information at hand, I cannot see how the drivers constitute a GPL violation. Yet he still decides to discontinue the live CD. He also makes a good case about why he doesn't want to have the user download and compile the drivers themselves on boot.

I can't blame him though. He's clearly a supporter of the GPL. He's striving to adhere to the letter and spirit of the license. Oh well, maybe I should check out the standard Kororaa distribution.

Re:Kororaa GPL (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398534)

"This sentence was a little confusing the first seven times I read it. So I did what I hardly ever do, go to the source, read the article and gain a fuller understanding of the situation... instead of just posting here about how the summary was confusing."

dear lord, please let this be the start of a trend.

Re:Kororaa GPL (1)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 8 years ago | (#15399038)

dear lord [...]

I didn't read any further, and thought I should complain that even if there was a God, It's not listening if your palms aren't pressed together (as that activates the transmitter).

Vonage Reliabitility and IPO (1)

mlmitton (610008) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398495)

It's odd to me that Vonage decided to go public right now. I received the notice that I was invited to the IPO, and there was a moment of excitement. But then I remembered that my service has been pretty poor over the last 6 weeks. Dropped calls, garbled calls, and the most mysterious problem: it won't stop calling me. That is, a friend calls, we talk, we hangup, and then I get ghost ringing from the friend for the next eight hours. Anyway, my point wasn't really to grouse about Vonage problems. My point is that a lot of customers have been having service problems over the last few weeks. That seems to make this a very bad time to go public.

Re:Vonage Reliabitility and IPO (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398509)

The onkly thing I can tell is that something very bad is happening at vonage, and they need money to fix it now.

Thats pure speculation, but it's the only reason I can think of..well that and coincidence.

Could Vonage be DDOS'd? If so, would that meen all there users systems could become useless during the DDOSing?

Re:Vonage Reliabitility and IPO (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398748)

It might have something to do with raising money ot sue traditional telcom and ISPs with competing offers. There has been stories released about Telcos degrading vonage service and certain ISPs doing the same.

Now, This isn't just unfair business practices once the company goes public. There are a host of other sec rules and laws to protect them. Also When stock holder finds that thier interests are being railroaded by competitors, It would be easy for one of them to launch a class action suite against say Time Warner Road runner or SBC for puposly degrading vonages service to give preferences to thier own. It might also force the government to automaticaly step in (FCC SEC and possibly other agencies) with some regulations helping them with service routing and maybe number portability.

I think this is more of a stratigic move then a "look at how good we're doing" move. It should open a new avenue for dealing with old issues.

All this talk of Vonage issues is weird to me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15398938)

my service has been, and still is, functioning absolutely fine. No issues with "ghost calls", no garbeled text, etc.

I live out at about the end of the cable loop that can provide boardband service. I have adelphia service at that.... and I haven't had a single issue with vonage to date, and I've had the service and use it daily as pretty much my only phone line (besides cell) and not once had a hick-up.

.XXX TLD (4, Informative)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398536)

Unlike many Slashdotters (as evidenced by previous reactions to the subject), I am very happy indeed that ICANN decided to reject the XXX domain, for the reasons given here [blogspot.com] :
In June 2005, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) approved the creation of an xxx top-level domain (TLD) for pornographic websites. This reverses their previous decision back in November 2000, when they decided against the creation of the xxx TLD. The Bush administration, responding to the recent decision by ICANN, is objecting to the creation of the new TLD. Meanwhile, many of the folks at Slashdot are objecting to Bush's objection to the xxx TLD.

While the Bush administration's decision is based more on opposition to pornography than on opposition to the xxx TLD, the arguments raised by Slashdot readers are rather problematic. The prevailing argument appears to be that the Bush administration should not interfere with the ICANN's decisions, and that an xxx TLD is a good idea because it could make it easier for parents and system-administrators to filter out pornographic content. The second part of this argument raises important free-speech concerns.

While the xxx domain is currently voluntary, could it eventually become mandatory? The government could require that pornographic content be hosted exclusively on xxx domains, the ICANN could change the rules for com, net and org domains to allow only non-pornographic content, and hosting providers could refuse to host pornographic websites not associated with an xxx domain. In short, there are many ways in which an xxx domain could be abused, all in the name of keeping smut away from impressionable eyes.

The xxx TLD could become a mechanism for the regulation of pornographic websites hosted on xxx domains. According to ZDNet, a "nonprofit organization called the International Foundation For Online Responsibility will be in charge of setting the rules for .xxx. It's intended to have a seven-person board of directors, including a child advocacy advocate, a free-expression aficionado and someone from the adult entertainment industry." What are the rules being set, and why do we need a "child advocacy advocate" to make decisions about adult-oriented domains? Would they require use of AVS (age-verification systems) by websites that use the xxx TLD?

According to an earlier statement by Stuart Lawley, whose company -- ICM Registry -- will administer the xxx TLD, "apart from child pornography, which is completely illegal, we're really not in the content-monitoring business". While this may seem reassuring, how will they decide what constitutes "child pornography"? Which country's definition of "child pornography" will they adopt? Shutting down child pornographers is the government's job, not the registrar's.

There's no good reason why pornographic content should be stuffed into the xxx TLD and isolated from the rest of the Internet's namespace. What is so terrible about pornography that it must be kept in its very own TLD? Who the hell knows. It's a silly decision grounded upon primitive moral codes.

Re:.XXX TLD (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 8 years ago | (#15399016)

A couple of points that are interesting:

The right to free speech is just that... a right to speak, not to be heard. Every other medium for distribution of pornography is subject to laws (in most countries) that help keep it out of the hands of minors unless their parents approve.

Why shouldn't pornography be censorable, say, by schools or libraries? Students and library patrons shouldn't really be looking up porn. Nor playing Flash games. Nor watching movies. A government saying porn (or almost anything else) is bad, you can't have it is bad but making it easier for parents to control what, how and when their children are exposed to things isn't. If you're arguing that porn needs to be diffused through the general Internet to prevent government censorship then you have a problem with your government, not a .xxx tld.

Pornographic material is segregated from other material in every other medium except the Internet. Why shouldn't it be? I'd suggest that the Internet's name spaces should all be more clearly enforced. .orgs should actually BE organizations with absolutely no profit motive. .coms should be global companies. We should have some sort of .personal for personal sites. Canada used to do this with their namespace. In order to register a .ca domain you had to show that your website represented a national organization. If you were local you got put in a .province.ca domain or a .city.province.ca domain.

Re:.XXX TLD (2, Insightful)

Eccles (932) | more than 8 years ago | (#15399093)

The internet is international. Sports Illustrated's swimsuit issue would be .xxx in Iran. Whose .xxx do you use?

Even if voluntary, .xxx is a bad idea. Wife demands ISP-level xxx filter. Husband complies, secretly goes to .com porn sites. Who would register as xxx voluntarily, it would be bad for business.

Re:.XXX TLD (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 8 years ago | (#15399171)

Which is why I think most true tlds are silly and we should be moving away from them. .xxx.us is a good idea. .xxx for the whole world isn't. There's also a LOT of stuff in .com that should be in .com.us. But that would emphasize the point that the Internet is international, and USians don't like that.

Agreed, nobody is going to move out of .com unless they have to -- at best they'll register .something-else in addition to .com. Which is why I think we need rules. Kick the porn out of .com along with companies who don't have reasonable international shipping.

Re:.XXX TLD (1)

gregmac (629064) | more than 8 years ago | (#15399191)

The internet is international. Sports Illustrated's swimsuit issue would be .xxx in Iran. Whose .xxx do you use?

Even if voluntary, .xxx is a bad idea. Wife demands ISP-level xxx filter. Husband complies, secretly goes to .com porn sites. Who would register as xxx voluntarily, it would be bad for business.


Both of these are good points. My argument against it has been that:

  * There will likely be a land-rush to register .xxx domains. Are you going to register yourcompany.xxx? Will you like it if someone else does?

  * If someone beats pornSite.com to pornSite.xxx, chances are pornSite.com will continue to use their .com domain, especially if they've put lots of effort into branding it.

  * (like you said) the internet is international. How do you enforce legislation globally? Even if you can do it in a few countries, there will always be sites that are not .xxx. Now the sites in the US that are forced to use .xxx, but are being filtered, have no way of competing with the .com's hosted offshore that are unfiltered. How long will it be before they just move their own sites offshore? If they do that, for example, legislation that prevents them from showing underage models is going to be much harder to enforce..

  * Who decides where the line is of what is porn and what is art? I didn't even consider the additional argument you brought up of how this will be different in different cultures..

Bottom line: dumb idea, too many issues.

Big Brother (3, Interesting)

graveyhead (210996) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398567)

I'm sure I'm not the only one here who has wondered why we haven't seen wider circulation of this story and why immigration laws are suddenly the thing to discuss. As one slashdotter pointed out a couple weeks ago, the NSA makes Nixon look like an amateur.

There was a protest today outside the SBC building on Folsom Street here in San Francisco, but it drew hardly any attention and there was no media around.

The building itself is pretty scary looking [google.com] . It's a huge brown rectangle with tinted windows that also somehow look brown. Compared with the nice architecture of the nearby buildings, it sure is an eyesore.

Anyhow, someone want to offer me any conspiracy theories on why nobody cares?

Re:Big Brother (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15398617)

I only heard of the protest a couple hours before it started, and when I walked by it, I just kept walking. You can't just hold a protest and hope everyone walking by will join in. Especially when you just tepidly hold up a few signs, with different messages on them (one was about net neutrality, another about spying, another had lettering too small to read).

I mean, was this coordinated with anyone?

Re:Big Brother (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15398689)

They obviously need a co-ordinating committee. Maybe a blog, too.

Re:Big Brother (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398746)

Anyhow, someone want to offer me any conspiracy theories on why nobody cares?

Well, gee, that's obvious. It's the Soma they put in the water supply.

What were we talking about again?

Re:Big Brother (3, Insightful)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398819)

I'm sure I'm not the only one here who has wondered why we haven't seen wider circulation of this story and why immigration laws are suddenly the thing to discuss.

Domestic wiretap abuse is ancient news. Been going on since there were wires to tap. Look at the COINTELPRO stuff from half a century back to see some real dirty tricks.

The immigration thing, on the other hand, got 'WAY big when congress decided a fair "compromise" solution would be to add maybe 60 million Mexicans to the 300 million population of the US over the next 20 years - giving them full citizenship (including the vote).

Adding one new voter for every five now present - when the two major parties are so evenly matched that the presidency gets decided by a few hundred votes - sounded to a lot of citizens like an invasion.

Then consider that the people in question grew up in a country where the government is totally corrupt and the laws deserving of contempt, most of them came here, stay here, and work in violation of OUR laws (while our own politicians refuse to enforce them and reward the immigrants for breaking them), and are being educated by a system that keeps them isolated from the general culture. So they started to worry about what will happen to respect for law over the next few decades.

They pushed the congress critters and got ignored. Then they got mad.

The immigration issue is a reboot of US politics on the banana repulic model. If you thought you've seen government corruption in the last couple decades you ain't seen NOTHING yet.

And if it continues in the same vein for even a couple more years it could, in the opinion of many, literally start an avalanche that will lead to the second civil war.

So, yes, it's significantly more "the in thing to discuss" than a little traffic analysis on phone calls by the NSA.

As one slashdotter pointed out a couple weeks ago, the NSA makes Nixon look like an amateur.

Compared to the NSA Nixon's plumbers WERE amateurs. Heck - compared to the NSA the KGB were a garage shop (and NOT the hi-tek startup kind, either.)

Re:Big Brother (1)

tehdaemon (753808) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398870)

"...solution would be to add maybe 60 million Mexicans to ... the US over the next 20 years..."


That is more than half the entire Mexican population. (reference) [wikipedia.org] If you are not simply exaggerating, (ie. FUDing) could you please back up your numbers?

Re:Big Brother (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 8 years ago | (#15399026)

That's the current estimate. It's based on two things:
  - The number allowed by the proposed legislation
  - The number of illegals estimated to be here now (about 12 million), assuming they bring in the same proportion of relatives that those legalized in the first amnesty did.

The US is estimated to have about 10% of the working-age population of Mexico and the same percentage of non-working dependents (which is what 12 million comes out to by that same set of Mexican population figures) already over here as illegals in the current round of illegal immigration. If they all bring in their brothers, wives, children (many of working age but NOT here), parents, grandparents, etc. you could easily end up with half of Mexico migrating to the US.

And why wouldn't they come, if their relative's lawbreaking and the US congress got them moved to the head of the line? Mexico is a corrupt hell-hole with a permanent depression and a standard of living so low that low-level white collar workers in the US can retire there and live like minor nobility. Why SHOULDN'T the serfs want to move here, where even taking the bottom tier jobs - or living on the social safety hammock - is a massive step up in quality of life?

Re:Big Brother (1)

LifeNLiberty (975116) | more than 8 years ago | (#15399107)

Of conspiracy theories, I have none, of suggestions, some, why don't we create a nationwide group to organize protests. Now that you mention it though, I do have a theory. My theory is that most people simply don't care as long as it doesn't affect their lives in an immediate context, i.e. if the FBI isn't busting down their doors, listening to stories about the NSA violating their rights is, as Al Gore would put it, an inconvenient truth.

Whew (4, Insightful)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398660)

I'm a Vonage customer, and got the notification that they were "rewarding" their customers by allowing them to get in on the IPO, up to 5,000 shares. I had a few hours of excited thoughts, thinking that maybe I should get in on it.

Then, fortunately, my brain kicked in. Why, if the Vonage IPO was going to be a blockbuster, would they give away so many shares to the unwashed masses?

Unless they needed the unwashed masses to drum up demand.

These finance guys aren't typically stupid. Yeah, sure, it was theoretically possible that they were giving out so many shares out of the goodness of their heart, but my experience in life is that there ain't no free lunch.

I'm glad my suspicians were borne out. I'd have been REALLY pissed if it shot up 10x or something. :D

Re:Whew (1)

tweek (18111) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398674)

I disagree that it was a tactic on face value. I was a part of the RedHat IPO because of some bug contributions but I didn't consider it a ploy.

Re:Whew (2, Insightful)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 8 years ago | (#15399034)

I disagree that it was a tactic on face value. I was a part of the RedHat IPO because of some bug contributions but I didn't consider it a ploy.

The Red Hat precedent did occur to me, but that was a bit of a different deal. First, the pool of people who were contributors is much smaller than the (almost) entire Vonage customer base. Second, I think it was limited to much smaller than 5,000 shares (like 100 shares or something?). Third, contributors to Red Hat seems a bit more honest than any customer that happens to have used the product.

Imagine if Red Hat offered 5,000 shares to anyone who had ever purchased Red Hat (not exactly the same; Red Hat's customer base is even much smaller than Vonage).

Re:Whew (1)

PornMaster (749461) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398937)

I actually had myself down for some shares but remembered to go cancel before the 19th. Sanity got the better of me. The cable companies are growing so much faster than Vonage, offer the simplicity of bundling, and if they decide not to pursue network neutrality, Vonage is done for.

I've been happy with the service, but the future doesn't look so bright.

Re:Whew (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 8 years ago | (#15399037)

Plus they don't have NEARLY as annoying commercials. I'll never be a Vonage customer because they

a) have REALLY annoying commercials and
b) telemarketed me.

Re:Whew (2, Informative)

Aardpig (622459) | more than 8 years ago | (#15399014)

Unless they needed the unwashed masses to drum up demand.

Well, it seems to have worked, despite the price drop. I signed up for 100 shares, but was allocated none; so it's not as if they had to dump loads of stock on the customers.

Do Not Compute (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398683)

Geeks should shut out the lawyers from our world at least as much as they extend the favor to us. Maybe require all their briefs, filings and opinions ot compile against the Constitution, for starters.

Taking their ball and going home? (1)

swbrown (584798) | more than 8 years ago | (#15398775)

So rather than include support in Kororaa for Free Software 3D drivers like for the Intel GMA chipsets instead of the non-free drivers at issue.. they're going to take their ball and go home? Nice..

Re:Taking their ball and going home? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15399144)

What's the point if you not going to use good drivers?

Re:Taking their ball and going home? (1)

flyneye (84093) | more than 8 years ago | (#15399194)

Man,sometimes all it takes is some sister-boy to start whining to make you want to give up all your hard work and go home.
Moral of the story: Next time you see some sub-worm whining about the dot on the i or the cross on the t; cuff him,just draw back and beat the teeth out of him.The world will be a lot better place without these self-righteous dweebs tattling to the world for well undeserved attention.At the very least,castrate them so the genes don't infect the pool of real humans.Always,gotta be some issue,they're frome every walk of life.Either daddy touched them too much or not enough.Whatever! Theres always gonna be some prick out there to point out that everything isn't perfect and their worthless life,just couldn't go on untill we're all miserable as they are.Yes,castration,I think!

Device drivers and the GPL (2, Interesting)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 8 years ago | (#15399137)

For user programs, the Linux kernel's license states:
NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work". Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the linux kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.

Should a similar exemption not apply to device drivers compiled as kernel modules?

.XXX domains (1)

SniperClops (776236) | more than 8 years ago | (#15399210)

Why don't they just create the .XXX domain already. It would be easier to block .XXX domains from children.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...