Like the good old days
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| bigg Apr 06, 2010 4:07 PM EDT |
I don't have much knowledge about this project, so I can't add anything to the article, but it reminds me of the days when IBM was the evil 800-pound gorilla and Microsoft was one of the good guys. I don't buy into the arguments about how Microsoft won't fall, because the same thing was said for so long about IBM. Microsoft learned a lot about how to be nasty by watching IBM be nasty. |
| phsolide Apr 06, 2010 8:20 PM EDT |
Microsoft was *never* one of the good guys - they always put out second rate software compared to their peers, even in the late 80s/early 90s. Lots of companies got multi-tasking on hardware weaker than the PC. Look at OS-9 on the 6809-based computers, for example. And there's still lots of people who won't touch IBM with a 10 foot pole, and are grateful to DEC, Data General and PR1ME for blowing a hole in IBM's side. |
| tuxchick Apr 06, 2010 10:37 PM EDT |
IBM controls over 95% of the mainframe market. Now that is a monopoly. |
| gus3 Apr 06, 2010 10:50 PM EDT |
But is it an illegal monopoly? That is, do they use their market dominance to prevent others from competing? |
| tuxchick Apr 06, 2010 11:17 PM EDT |
Well gus3, I'm glad you asked that. It is a little-known but fascinating story, how IBM infiltrated HP and Sun with moles who pretended to be really smart executives, but were actually saboteurs. That's the explanation for Carly Fiorina, and the seemingly-endless string of weird circular business decisions by Sun that led to its demise. |
| gus3 Apr 07, 2010 1:50 AM EDT |
... /sarcasm |
| TxtEdMacs Apr 07, 2010 8:07 AM EDT |
gus, What tc wrote may not be the actual explanation, however, it is a good premise to test predictions. So if Carly, becomes the Boss in CA and really runs the state totally in the ground we then can say we have a theory. YBT P.S. Even if it's NOT true, I will forever adhere to tc's assertions. Why? It's the better story and the better story gets the statistics. It has nothing to do with truth [and the American Way ... sorry getting my comics book reading mixed in]. Just look a Fox News, it works. |
| Rob_on Apr 07, 2010 10:41 AM EDT |
"IBM controls over 95% of the mainframe market. Now that is a monopoly." Most of that is to Government and Enterprise, US and beyond, it is the business IBM made before many got into it. Note, early in the 80's PCs were "IBM compat" because many of the standards at the time were those from IBM. Monopoly ?; IBM has had it's share of monopoly problems, being taken on by the US over it's business a number of times in past years. Now, Microsoft has had an equal if not larger share of the PC market, and the PC market has been larger then the mainframe for some years, yet the users of those PCs have done or will do little to change the market to be fair to others OSes that have never been the defacto on PCs because of how the market is and has been for years; I am one to believe these users don't care about a monopoly. Opensource people need to get their head around a simple idea; that noone has to hand over a thing to them just because they demand it. Monkey see monkey do ?; legal action has been and continues to be taken by opensource people over GPL code, that such legal action has nothing to do with the hardware, (patents or not), the GPL code is running on; it is the respect of the license. There is the word, respect, and to run over something that *you* have no business doing in the name of opensource, or not; makes you no better then those *you* take to task over their actions in the name of business. Opensource is the greatest change, to trash it by the lack of respect for others and do the same as they do to protect opensource, looks bad an says little about those that demand respect when in court. |
| bigg Apr 07, 2010 10:52 AM EDT |
Guess this story brought out the astroturfers.Quoting:There is the word, respect, and to run over something that *you* have no business doing in the name of opensource, or not; makes you no better then those *you* take to task over their actions in the name of business. IBM made a promise to not sue open source projects for infringement of certain patents. Some are charging that IBM has broken that promise. Where is your source of confusion? Or does your boss just want you to spout random lies about FOSS whether or not they are relevant to the article? |
| Rob_on Apr 07, 2010 11:19 AM EDT |
Guess this story brought out the astroturfers.? True, I agree. Please, do show where the promise states that it includes all cases where IBM's business is part of it ?. Lies, as the one you tell on me, "lies about FOSS"; Bad attitudes is relevant to the article and beyond it, my opinion and not lies. Please provide all you have that serves to support your statements about me. |
| bigg Apr 07, 2010 12:01 PM EDT |
I've clearly stated what is going on. Someone charges that IBM has broken a promise. You went into a discussion about how open source lacks "respect" and runs over (something) "in the name of opensource". |
| herzeleid Apr 07, 2010 4:16 PM EDT |
IBM may have 95% of the mainframe market, but guess what? you don't need a mainframe. Cheap, commodity 64 bit x86 servers can do it all now. |
| bigg Apr 07, 2010 4:21 PM EDT |
FTA:Quoting:Despite the extremely high cost and the fact that some companies don't necessarily derive value from the hardware's unique characteristics, they continue buying IBM's mainframe solutions because doing so remains cheaper than rewriting all of their legacy applications. We explained this phenomenon several years ago when we looked at the reasons why IBM's mainframe business is still profitable despite the declining relevance of the technology. |
| tuxchick Apr 07, 2010 4:42 PM EDT |
Rob_on slams open source in the other thread too. I'm more interested in the whys and wherefores of this IBM/TurboHercules deal than yet another dumb anti-FOSS rant. |
| Rob_on Apr 07, 2010 9:55 PM EDT |
tuxchick: "in the whys and wherefores of this IBM/TurboHercules deal than yet another dumb anti-FOSS rant." Wow, I don't like some attitudes within the community ...deal with it !. And tuxchick ?, "slams open source in the other thread too", then delete it, delete it all, I couldn,t care less. Boy you,re over the top about IBM, and just puts me at odds with you because I don't join in and agree ?. Follow the path you feel you have found above, again I couldn.t care less. Follow shadows and be happy; if you should find out what you are thinking is not true ?, tell me please when you do I love a joke with a punchline I know what it is going to be. Enough, it is time to hand it over to you ...take it away !. |
| jdixon Apr 07, 2010 10:02 PM EDT |
> ......deal with it !. How about you deal with the attitudes you don't like. > ...then delete it... TC's not a moderator here. If you try posting this way on the sites where she is, I have no doubt you'll get you wish. There is some question as to whether IBM has broken the letter of their promise not to sue FOSS developers. I don't think there's too much question that they've broken the spirit of the promise. |
| Rob_on Apr 07, 2010 11:00 PM EDT |
jdixon: Please, I couldn't care less about who "tuxchick" is, where she does a damn thing. Cry all you please about a promise that I will bet means nothing more to you other then it contains the word "opensource". Provide a copy of the promise, find where in the promise IBM says it is their promise that opensource can takeaway business too !. It doesn't say anything of the kind, the patent promise was directed to IBM patents that were used in opensource developments between IBM and a given licensed user by IBM!. Noone in their right mind has ever made a promise to allow development using their patents or work, without some contract !. This kid BS ideas about it makes me sick, and so I ask you big shot, where is your copy from IBM of this promise to you and your work ?. Just give a date and a name from IBM on the paperwork so it can be checked if valid. Otherwise !, stop with the attacks on me over nothing that has nothing to do with you ...thank you very much !. |
| jdixon Apr 07, 2010 11:27 PM EDT |
> I couldn't care less about who "tuxchick" is, where she does a damn thing. Awfully mouthy for someone who "couldn't care less", aren't you? > Noone in their right mind has ever made a promise to allow development using their patents or work... Funny, as I recall it, that's exactly what IBM did. But then I can understand you not knowing that, since you don't appear to have ever read the agreement. You might want to take a look at it. > ...and so I ask you big shot, where is your copy from IBM of this promise to you and your work Per IBM, you can find it at http://www.ibm.com/ibm/licensing/patents/pledgedpatents.pdf Now, I haven't looked to see if any mainframe patents are in the agreement or not. If they're not, then IBM hasn't broken the letter of their word. However, if I were an open source developer, I'd now regard their pledge as almost worthless, since I couldn't know what other patents they might choose to sue me over. > ...stop with the attacks on me over nothing that has nothing to do with you... Why do you assume it has nothing to do with me? And I haven't attacked you. You've posted in an open forum effectively telling everyone here to "deal with it". I suggested that, as an alternative, you should deal with your issues instead. A reply in kind can only be considered an attack if the original was an attack. I've informed you that TC isn't a moderator here, but that she is at other places, and opined as to her likely course of action concerning your posts. If you consider either of these attacks, you have serious problems. |
| tuxchick Apr 07, 2010 11:58 PM EDT |
My goodness, such an angry person. But still not on point. |
| Rob_on Apr 08, 2010 12:01 AM EDT |
jdixon I see you drop the ball on this, so I will end with this; the cutoff you made (maybe in error): > Noone in their right mind has ever made a promise to allow development using their patents or work...< is wrong no matter how it happen. "Noone in their right mind has ever made a promise to allow development using their patents or work, without some contract !. " you see, there is a comma before "without some contract !. ". Thats all. |
| Rob_on Apr 08, 2010 12:16 AM EDT |
tuxchick: An angry person ?, was it not you who first posted about my slam of opensource ?, when I said nothing to you ?. Were you angry about what I posted and are you angry enough about everything I have said that you continue not on point, but on a point about me ?. Don't change the subject to anger, I came here and made a few post and some folks didn't like it; and that is where the point is now tuxchick: !. You believe what you want, I will do the same. |
| moopst Apr 08, 2010 12:31 AM EDT |
@Rob_on: My impression on seeing the first post from you was that you appear to be a troll or astroturfer. The jist of all your posts seen to be "forget about IBM's promise, opensourcers are a rabid community that needs to look at their own actions". Allrighty then, lets do that shall we ?. (sic) OK, opensource code runs on a lot of hardware that IBM sells. It is because of that value proposition that IBM decided to offer protection to the FOSS community in their patent promise. Now IBM is asserting it's patents against an opensource company. So some in the FOSS community feels this might be a betrayal. Rob_on thinks this is unjustified and rather than come up with a good reason why it might be unjustified he asks others on this forem to do the research he doesn't want to do and insults those users who want to stay on the topic of IBM vs TurboHercules. That sounds like a troll to me. All your responses so far have been confirmation of that opinion. |
| Rob_on Apr 08, 2010 1:28 AM EDT |
moopst ?: ...not a problem for me. As for on-topic, it should have been, because I started with two postings that I would find hard to call someone a troll over when the truth is, what I said just some didn't like it. The off-topic subject is that I have an opinion about some attitudes in opensource, I state it the way I see it making no change to just save waves. We will have to see just what the result of the matter is going to be and not by any court on TV or forum. I came here talking about IBM in a business context, my mistake, when that was not the point or topic. As for doing the work, I read the promise when it first came out, in review as of news of this matter, so far, I see no mention going through the list of patents in the promise, anything about where and what patents the promise covers, in this case and the work is not complete. As I said before and I see as a factor in this case, the promise does not include IBM's business, the business is (in this case) mainframes. The patents covered in the promise, and those outside the promise that may be in question here, because again, all of IBM patents are not in the promise. Going outside the promise (if done) and include those patents is a matter far from the one at hand about a promise. Going outside the promise, (if done), does not clear those patents for use under the promise, does it ?. A legal action (that has not happen as I understand), that has to do with those patents outside the promise (if so), is not a broken promise. I do not make the judgement as to who did what, I see noone can no matter what side of this case they are on. Continue if you wish I have to finsh here. Too much time spent on it already. |
| Sander_Marechal Apr 08, 2010 2:59 AM EDT |
Quoting:Now, I haven't looked to see if any mainframe patents are in the agreement or not. If they're not, then IBM hasn't broken the letter of their word. The pledge is over 500 specific patents, not IBM patents in general. Unfortunately, we don't have the list of patents that IBM sent to TurboHercules so we can't cross-reference. Quoting:However, if I were an open source developer, I'd now regard their pledge as almost worthless, since I couldn't know what other patents they might choose to sue me over. IBM has tens of thousands of software patents. The 500 was always just a very small subset. The really innovative thing about IBM's patent pledge was the way that it was done. For the benefit of any and all open sourec software, for any use whatsoever. Not limited to specific projects or limited to specific use cases (as most patent pledges were before the IBM pledge) |
| jacog Apr 08, 2010 3:01 AM EDT |
Rob_on - this is going to bother me all day, but you don't have to use a full stop when your sentence already has an exclaimation mark. Just the latter will do fine. |
| tuxchick Apr 08, 2010 10:49 AM EDT |
There is a typical corporate rah-rah from Jim Zemlin (Linux Foundation) about this: http://www.linux.com/news/featured-blogs/158-jim-zemlin/2990... Quoting: IBM stands by this 2005 Non-Assertion Pledge today as strongly as it did then. IBM will not sue for the infringement of any of those 500 patents by any Open Source Software. Those 500 patents look more like a public relations move than any serious friendliness towards FOSS. According to the article, IBM was perfectly happy with TurboHercules, until TurboHercules found a way to dodge IBM's mainframe licensing, which locks customers in very tightly to both IBM's software and hardware, and gave customers an escape route from the iron clutches of Big Blue: Quoting: It's certainly possible to run modern versions of IBM's mainframe operating system with Hercules, but it can't really be officially supported or publicly condoned by the project's developers due to the licensing issues. Much like Hackintoshing, it is fairly trivial on a technical level but constitutes an unambiguous violation of the end-user license agreement. As such, Hercules never really posed a threat to IBM in the past... So it's nothing novel or mysterious...IBM sees their lock-in threatened, a lock-in enforced by the same old methods: restrictive EULAs and patents, and herds of attack lawyers. The threat to FOSS is described as Quoting: some of the patents cited by IBM cover fundamental functionality of virtualization and emulation. Those patents reach far beyond the scope of Hercules and could pose a threat to other open source software projects. Again, nothing new, same bogus patents on everything from 'Hello World' on, same corporate double-talk about how they love FOSS...until they feel threatened. |
| bigg Apr 08, 2010 11:29 AM EDT |
ROFLMAO!Quoting:To get to the bottom of things I contacted Dan Frye, VP of Open Systems Development at IBM and member of the Linux Foundations board of directors, to “say it wasn’t so.” Fortunately all of us can breathe easy - IBM remains true to their word. Here is the note I received from Dan which is very clear: Get the facts from one party in a legal dispute, they assure you that they are the good guys, and all is well. |
| Rob_on Apr 08, 2010 11:31 AM EDT |
tuxchick: Your input is funny at it's best, as you continue to make no case with any support for your point(s). The only point you have made clear time and time again, is that you don't like IBM, fine. You have taken a promise to mean that the gates are wide open, IBM has no say anymore and they are just in the way; oh, that by the way, IBM has been contacted by or has contacted those that know opensource and the law in these matters, I am sure of that from my knowledge of past handlings of issues as this one, and knowing it most of the time ends well, so as best I can tell you this issue you continue with is over !. I have updated my information and includes the information you have above as well. FYI: Government and Enterprise have all their ducks in a line, they deal (do business) with IBM because their ducks are in a line, understand ?. Noone needs this kind of action (here) over an issue that has been made larger then life, for no other reason then it's about IBM. I see when more detail of this matter comes out and the panic attack is over, some will have egg on there faces. I wished I was going to get along here, by it's my opinion thats never going to happen. |
| Rob_on Apr 08, 2010 11:43 AM EDT |
bigg: Man ROFLMAO! too- "good guys" ?, this is all about business, and is over some heads. A relationship that ends without legal action, makes noone good guys, just means doing the right thing is important. Don't know about you, but my opensource developments are base on my relationship with the users of them, and I would want the same ending between them and I as well. Be happy !. |
| tuxchick Apr 08, 2010 12:25 PM EDT |
Yes bigg, that put my mind at ease and brought much-needed clarity. Now it all makes sense. |
| jdixon Apr 08, 2010 3:54 PM EDT |
> ...the cutoff you made (maybe in error) ... is wrong no matter how it happen. > ...without some contract !. " ... you see, there is a comma before "without some contract !. ". It's only wrong if it changes the result. It doesn't. There was no contract in place. An open pledge not to sue does not a contract make. > Continue if you wish I have to finsh here...Too much time spent on it already. Promises, promises. > I wished I was going to get along here, by it's my opinion thats never going to happen. You think. Maybe if your posts started making some coherent sense it would improve matters, but I agree that's never going to happen. |
| gus3 Apr 08, 2010 4:35 PM EDT |
Quoting:An open pledge not to sue does not a contract make.But there is an investment agreement in place with stockholders, whose stock values may be affected by such open pledges. |
| Rob_on Apr 08, 2010 5:10 PM EDT |
jdixon:: Oh now it's about being coherent; your arguments throughout have been about the promise: 1: "There is some question as to whether IBM has broken the letter of their promise not to sue FOSS developers. I don't think there's too much question that they've broken the spirit of the promise." 2: "Now, I haven't looked to see if any mainframe patents are in the agreement or not. If they're not, then IBM hasn't broken the letter of their word. However, if I were an open source developer, I'd now regard their pledge as almost worthless, since I couldn't know what other patents they might choose to sue me over." jdixon I wish you would give this up, the matter has been handled with tact, no legal action, nor will any be taken ...it's over and you just don't like IBM anyway ...fine !. I guess you will go on being unhappy and I wish you wouldn't, I am very happy with the result in this matter, even if you are not, and that is only a problem for you. |
| jdixon Apr 08, 2010 6:44 PM EDT |
> Oh now it's about being coherent If wish to be "get along" here, yes. Incoherent ramblings aren't conducive to good conversation. > ...your arguments throughout have been about the promise: Yes, they have. That usually tends to be the case in my discussions, though not always. You may have heard of that characteristic before: It's called being coherent. > ...the matter has been handled with tact, no legal action, nor will any be taken ... Most people consider a letter from a lawyer to be legal action. And all the state bars I know of agree. > ...it's over and you just don't like IBM anyway... Jump to conclusions much? I'm an IBM stockholder. > I am very happy with the result in this matter... Result? AFAIK the results are still pending. I haven't seen the news of any settlement of court judgment in the matter. Perhaps that coherent concept needs mentioned again. For those interested in the facts of the case rather than incoherent ramblings, this post: http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/04/08/is-ibm-splitting-hairs-... indicates two of the patents mentioned in the letter actually are included in the agreement. |
| jdixon Apr 08, 2010 6:54 PM EDT |
> But there is an investment agreement in place with stockholders, whose stock values may be affected by such open pledges. Yes, but the pledge probably is binding upon IBM in court, absent definite action on their part to renounce it. It's just not a contract, as the other side hasn't agreed to anything. Contracts require the active agreement of both parties. Dino would probably know more about such things than I do though, as I don't even play a lawyer on TV. |
| Rob_on Apr 08, 2010 8:40 PM EDT |
jdixon: You can give all the links you want, means nothing to those that deal in the real world. Child like crying over a promise claimed to be broken, oh mama !. When you can show something more then stories I will take your "coherent" to heart. For now I will wait to see just how many of those that are using these very same IBM patents in large project real world opensource developments and have large investments in them to call wolf too. They, unlike you and the stories, I take them to heart because it is my opinion you really are not at all aware of what those patents, in the way IBM made them available, are doing in the real world, do you ?, nor are you aware of the money that those projects people placed on those opensource developments paying programmers and more. I am sure when you read this you will make my point asking what projects ?,... so cry and point fingers because that is all that is comming from you I see and not much more at this time. Get ready !, nothing is going to happen, IBM will go on, with or without you as it and other large real world things do and have throughout history. Many are doing real things making money and going on with what is going to pave a clear road for opensource using and dealing with IBM ata higher level, you can ride on that road in the future crying out of a window as you pass seeing what has been produced ...as opensource !. |
| azerthoth Apr 08, 2010 9:13 PM EDT |
So rob, your saying that IBM does not have the right to defind itself? As it was TurboHercules that initiated the actions agains IBM. |
| Rob_on Apr 08, 2010 9:27 PM EDT |
azerthoth: If that is what you get from it ?. not. |
| tuxchick Apr 08, 2010 9:36 PM EDT |
Rob_on: What are you talking about ?,...other than childish insults and trolling!. And having no point to make, nor anything sensible to say at all, you see nothing !. |
| Rob_on Apr 08, 2010 10:11 PM EDT |
tuxchick: No troll, because I don't hate IBM, that is the point here, I got that message the first day here. |
| jdixon Apr 08, 2010 10:21 PM EDT |
> When you can show something more then stories I will take your "coherent" to heart. And when anything you say makes any sense, I'll bother to pay attention. In the meantime, all it amounts to is boasting about how big and important IBM is and how small and unimportant OSS developers and users are. As if we haven't heard all that before dozens of times. I'm forced to wonder why anyone with so little time and so many important things to do wastes that time on such small and unimportant folks as us. |
| Rob_on Apr 08, 2010 10:43 PM EDT |
jdixon: whatever !, I can make a good guess you hate IBM and so you don't like me because I don't go along with the folks; keep the picki-sh** to yourself along with your pointless question !. Is it true then, that anyone that comes here and does not agree has nothing important to do ?. Sorry, I saw that comming when I first read it !. Maybe you that have also spent as much time on this as I have, have little important to do too ?. I will guess not, because you agree with the folks and when you agree, everything you say, that is always important right ?. |
| theboomboomcars Apr 08, 2010 11:15 PM EDT |
Rob_on I think one of the problems you are encountering is that you like to insult users of opensource software, and this being an opensource software news site, most, if not all of the posters are OSS users. When you try to start a discussion by insulting the people you want to discuss with, you don't get very far. Your poorly formatted posts don't help either. The discussion isn't about whether IBM is liked or not, but whether or not filling suit again Turbo Hercules breaks the promise that they made. This is a very relevant question because of all of the money, and the monopoly on the mainframe IBM has. When the little guys break their promises no one cares because their influence is small. |
| Rob_on Apr 09, 2010 12:09 AM EDT |
theboomboomcars Yes, I understand. Seems odd though, you find my insults, within my poorly formatted posts ?. If I couldn't read a post, I don't know how I would get any insults from it. On insults, why is it that I talk of IBM and I at the first are called names for it ?. bigg Apr 07, 2010 9:52 AM EST Guess this story brought out the astroturfers. The fact is, if you wish people to stay away from insults, then don't start with them, doing so because someone mentions IBM. Opensource is something I have been active in for over 15 years now, and my criticism of it though some may not like it, is just as important as the criticism here. If you can't accept criticism then I believe you have to question the claim that others must accept yours agreed ? My criticism of opensource is something i and others do, it is part of the process that a community of people keep the checks and balances of what is going on. It's not about one person or group, the whole community has an equal say. Not everyone is going to agree with me or you on this matter with IBM, but to handle criticism of opensource the way it is done here, you have a smaller community and a world of it's own here. Ok, let me have it !, you don't understand right !. Too bad !. |
| jdixon Apr 09, 2010 6:39 AM EDT |
> I can make a good guess you hate IBM... Like I said earlier in this very thread: Jump to conclusions much? I'm an IBM stockholder. > ... keep the picki-sh** to yourself along with your pointless question ! I didn't ask any questions in the particular post you're responding to. > Is it true then, that anyone that comes here and does not agree has nothing important to do ?. I never accused you of not having anything important to do. > ...you don't understand right !. I'd say you're the one who doesn't understand. |
| jacog Apr 09, 2010 6:42 AM EDT |
Argh!, the punctuation is driving me batty!. |
| Rob_on Apr 09, 2010 7:51 AM EDT |
Argh!, the punctuation is driving me batty!. My, you allow the smallest things to get to you, please tell more about what you find wrong. Let me add something here, some time ago a study was done and found that the position of the letters of words can be changed, just allowing the first and last to remain in posistion, it was found that most people reading a paragraph with such words contained within read the words anyway. Without any punctuation marks within a paragraph, if someone knows how to read can read the paragraph. Believe me I know these things to be true because it works here. So, if you are having problems, they just may come from your over focus on punctuation and lack of natural reading skill. |
| jacog Apr 09, 2010 8:03 AM EDT |
Yeah, you should see how I get when people talk while I am watching a movie. Strongbad would be proud of me! |
| Rob_on Apr 09, 2010 8:15 AM EDT |
Jump to conclusions much? I'm an IBM stockholder. I'm not one to argue with Einstein, but my poor little mind tells me that a guess is not a conclusion. guess:: To predict (a result or an event) without sufficient information. Conclusion:: The close or last part; the end or finish. Gotta go now. |
| gus3 Apr 09, 2010 9:13 AM EDT |
Wow, every post robbon makes proves more and more what a troll he/she/it is.Quoting:Gotta go now.Seriously this time? Or is it as much a lie this time as it was before? |
| bigg Apr 09, 2010 9:15 AM EDT |
> The fact is, if you wish people to stay away from insults, then don't start with them, I wasn't going to waste more time on this, but... Fights don't start when the other guy hits you back. You posted a bunch of nonsense criticism of FOSS. I responded to you. |
| jdixon Apr 09, 2010 9:59 AM EDT |
> ...but my poor little mind,,,, You said it, not me. > ... tells me that a guess is not a conclusion. Then why post it (twice yet) as if it is. > Gotta go now. And, I repeat yet again: Promises, promises. > Wow, every post robbon makes proves more and more what a troll he/she/it is. Yeah, he's pretty much made that obvious, hasn't he. It's a shame. IBM probably has some valid points in this matter (TurboHercules' interpretation of the disaster recovery section of the license is questionable at best), but with advocates like this, no one will ever know what they are. |
| Rob_on Apr 09, 2010 10:58 AM EDT |
jdixon: Make up your mind about what you think or believe rather then this cut & paste of the information to just use it to create something, anything to say so to keep your pals here happy with you. "IBM probably has some valid points" ? really ? and that is regardless per your statement "However, if I were an open source developer, I'd now regard their pledge as almost worthless, since I couldn't know what other patents they might choose to sue me over.". So let me see, a "pledge as almost worthless" - "IBM probably has some valid points" with IBM as the pledge maker ? wow oh wow. *** Don't fear, you will find some way out of it. bigg: No fight to hit back for even if that is the way you deal with what I was saying about some in FOSS. Wow how wild is it here, I go off for a short time and SLAM !. |
| dinotrac Apr 09, 2010 11:23 AM EDT |
tuxchick - You need to go back to law school and study up on monopolies. Market share is not sufficient to find the presence of an illegal monopoly. The questions of definition and substitution come into play. Is the monopoly one of IBM-like mainframes or a matter of large-scale enterprise-class servers? Defined the second way, IBM has nothing close to a monopoly. Unix and Windows servers have been taking market from mainframes for years. |
| jdixon Apr 09, 2010 11:30 AM EDT |
> "pledge as almost worthless" ... "IBM probably has some valid points" And these two are in contradiction exactly how? Not that I expect a coherent answer, mind you. |
| tuxchick Apr 09, 2010 11:51 AM EDT |
dino, good point, I was thinking only of mainframes. I wasn't calling them an illegal monopoly, just a monopoly. |
| Rob_on Apr 09, 2010 12:29 PM EDT |
jdixon: Read from the top: There is a clue to what I was talking about ! "Make up your mind about what you think or believe" I said nothing about a damn contradiction !. You and your pet word coherent thinking said too different things, Do you think there is a coherent contradiction exactly and having second thoughts about it ?. I see you said the first because that sound right at the time, and the second was said because you wished to get at me NOT thinking how to tie the two statements together. Saying the same entity on one hand has a promise that you don't trust ?, then say the entity may have valid point(s) about a promise that you have stated they broke ?. " There is some question as to whether IBM has broken the letter of their promise not to sue FOSS developers. I don't think there's too much question that they've broken the spirit of the promise. " "spirit of the promise", what is the promise without the "spirit" ? ...If that is not two different things I wish for you to cover this mess. Sorry but you can't have all your way even when you have made a mistake that makes your claim to coherent weak. Come on, get out of it and please ditch the coherent defence that has been over used all over as a basis for most everything you have said. Complex ? |
| gus3 Apr 09, 2010 4:35 PM EDT |
Sure enough, I was hoping for the impossible. |
| tuxchick Apr 09, 2010 5:12 PM EDT |
Oh but gus3, your naive hopefulness is so refreshing! :) |
| jdixon Apr 09, 2010 7:08 PM EDT |
> ...You and your pet word coherent thinking said too different things, Two different things? You think so. Well, that makes one of us. > Saying the same entity on one hand has a promise that you don't trust ? Yep. > ... then say the entity may have valid point(s) about a promise that you have stated they broke ?. I said "I don't think there's too much question that they've broken the spirit of the promise". The I think makes it an opinion, not a fact. And, unlike you, I try to always keep in mind that I can be wrong. After all, I haven't heard IBM's side of the story yet. > ...what is the promise without the "spirit" ? Almost worthless, as I already noted. But again, that's a personal evaluation, not a fact. > If that is not two different things I wish for you to cover this mess. It's not. And "I wish for you to cover this mess" makes no sense in this context. But then you seem to have that problem a lot. > Sorry but you can't have all your way even when you have made a mistake that makes your claim to coherent weak. I haven't made any mistake of the type you seem to think. My opinions may be proven wrong, but that's not the same thing. Not that I expect you to understand the difference. > ...and please ditch the coherent defence that has been over used all over as a basis for most everything you have said. No. > I was hoping for the impossible. Like I said, gus3: Promises, promises. |
| Rob_on Apr 09, 2010 10:07 PM EDT |
Other then your cute twist on what I said, good job !. jdixon:: FYI: this is how it is stated above !. You: " There is some question as to whether IBM has broken the letter of their promise not to sue FOSS developers. I don't think there's too much question that they've broken the spirit of the promise. " Me: "spirit of the promise", what is the promise without the "spirit" ? ...If that is not two different things I wish for you to cover this mess. Sorry but you can't have all your way even when you have made a mistake that makes your claim to coherent weak. "I haven't made any mistake of the type you seem to think. My opinions may be proven wrong, but that's not the same thing. Not that I expect you to understand the difference." Oh I understand the difference, that someone's opinions just get cleared and all other are nailed. Your mistake was that you trash IBM on one hand, then, without a thought, say IBM may have valid points when btw, talking about the same thing the promise and the issue around it!. I asked you to make up your mind, and you jumped when you were thinking I was talking contradiction. Now that was funny even over a forum and I'm happy you found a way out ...good job. |
| azerthoth Apr 10, 2010 1:11 AM EDT |
ignoring the fact that even in the promise they withheld the right to defend themselves. |
| jdixon Apr 10, 2010 6:04 AM EDT |
> Your mistake was that you trash IBM on one hand, then, without a thought, say IBM may have valid points when btw, talking about the same thing the promise and the issue around it!. At no point in this discussion have I "trashed" IBM. But like I said, you have that problem a lot. What I have said is that if I were an open source developer, I would now consider their promise not to sue to be worthless. You may consider that "trashing: IBM. I consider it viewing them as just another corporation, like any other. |
| jdixon Apr 10, 2010 6:13 AM EDT |
> ignoring the fact that even in the promise they withheld the right to defend themselves. They withheld both the right to defend themselves and the right to revoke the promise for anyone who sued any open source software over patents or intellectual property. In other words, it was aimed at other companies such as Microsoft as much as at developers. I always considered that the more significant portion of the promise. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!