![Spam Spam](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/spam_64.png)
![Patents Patents](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/patents_64.png)
![Your Rights Online Your Rights Online](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/yro_64.png)
OSI And Microsoft Negotiating Over Sender ID 226
ValourX writes "Microsoft's Sender ID has already been rejected by both the Debian Project and the Apache Software Foundation, but Joe Barr of NewsForge today interviewed Larry Rosen of the Open Source Initiative and discovered that there are negotiations between the two entities with regard to Sender ID's licensing. Could Microsoft be considering an Open Source license for Sender ID? Slashdot has covered other aspects of this story in the past. NewsForge is part of OSTG, like Slashdot."
hm.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:hm.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:hm.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Not PGP, but something open (Score:5, Informative)
What really needs to happen is for an open counter proposal to come out, and that needs to be folded into the public code base for sendmail as managed by sendmail.org. Unfortunately sendmail.org is sponsered by Sendmail, Inc. (sendmail.com), a commercial company that has announced support for Microsofts version of Sender ID. This could be a source of conflict perhaps?
Cheers
Thad
DomanKeys (Score:3, Informative)
-russ
Nothing like PGP (Score:5, Informative)
As an aside, because invariably someone will mention this, TCP (on which SMTP is based) is connection based, so spoofing isn't an issue.
Re:Nothing like PGP (Score:5, Informative)
Nit-picking (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Nit-picking (Score:3, Insightful)
Out of honest curiousity, what are those additional features? I'm most certainly not a SenderID expert (or even informed layman), but I've browsed through the SenderID documents and the feature seems to be nothing more than listing outbound IPs in your DNS entries. What else does it offer?
Re:Nothing like PGP (Score:2)
Re:hm.. (Score:5, Informative)
Sender ID is to ensure that the envelope of the email (this is not the message body, but the envelope) is coming from a server of which where the owners of the domain say "this is our outbound mail gateway".
Envelope - Message header - Message body.
Three different things.
S/Mime is a better solution. (Score:3, Interesting)
Bah (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Bah (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe they are honestly trying to solve the spam problem and are willing to compromise for the good of users.
Re:Bah (Score:2, Insightful)
They COULD be but it's doubtful, they are such a large corporation you just KNOW that they're sticking their head into yet another thing to gain marketshare. They might start out by saying we'll negociate but once the next version or update rolls around they won't be so forgiving.
This is simply my take on it, I'm not sure if any of it really will happen or if I'm j
Re:Bah (Score:2, Insightful)
I thought that it was a reasonable assumption that M$ would benefit from a reduction in Spam, but apart from freeing up bandwidth on their own network, how would they benefit?
Re:Bah (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bah (Score:4, Insightful)
Like TCP/IP?
Re:Bah (Score:5, Informative)
Nope, sorry. They even manage to break that standard.
Not in really harmful ways, that must be admitted, but still, MS does not implement TCP/IP correctly. The example that comes to mind is the way they make sure all packets coming from an MS OS are high priority (I haven't got the technical docs right here, they're 50km away, but it has to do with marking them as coming from interactive sources), thus breaking one of TCP/IP built-in Quality-of-Service mechanisms.
So even something as basic as TCP/IP they manage to mess up. This is not very conducive to their trustworthiness.
MartRe:Bah (Score:3, Informative)
Different example to prove the same point. IIS does not handshake properly.
http://grotto11.com/blog/slash.html?+1039831658
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/01/05/202
Re:Bah (Score:5, Informative)
According to Unix Administration Handbook, 3rd ed.:
"Linux pays attention to the type-of-service (TOS) bits in IP packets and gives faster service to packets that are labeled as interactive (low latency). Jammin'! Unfortunately, brain damage on the part of Microsoft necessitates that you turn off this perfectly reasonable behavior."
"All packets originating on Windows 95, 98, NT, and 2000 are labeled as being interactive, no matter what their purpose.... If your Linux gateway serves a mixed network of UNIX and Windows systems, the Windows packets will consistently get preferential treatment. The performance hit for UNIX can be quite noticeable."
In other words, MS's TCP/IP just hogs the network unconditionally with highest priority, forcing others to do the same if they want any throughput. It makes sensible prioritizing of network traffic flow based on the TOS bits impossible, and essentially renders them useless. One could speculate they did this because they wanted to claim "improved performance" in a mixed Windows/Unix environment, or possibly it was just incompetence or laziness on the part of their programmers. On the other hand, it's not like they set them to a random priority, but instead chose "highest", which makes you think they were just being the bullies on the block to get what they wanted with complete disregard to others and certainly with no spirit of cooperation.
Re:Bah (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Bah (Score:2)
Re:Bah (Score:2)
Do you mean TCP or do you mean IP (Score:3, Funny)
TCP is just one of the protocols running under IP on a normal computer. The others are UDP and ICMP. So if you want to include that protocal layer in the name, "TCP+UDP+ICMP/IP" would be better. Or you could just say "IP".
To me, this is like calling all four wheels on a car "front wheels".
Re:Do you mean TCP or do you mean IP (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Bah (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bah (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bah (Score:3, Funny)
Sorry, this isn't Spider-man. This is a business. With great power does not necessarily come with great responsibility.
Re:Bah (Score:4, Funny)
But regardless of their comic book status, with great power comes great vulnerability.
If you go around acting like the proverbial 800lb gorilla (you know the one that can sit anywhere it likes, without caring whom it might squash in the process), sooner or later you are going to get bit in the ass. Or, to really mix metaphors, you'll wake up one day like Guilliver -- tied down by 1,000 lillputians who are now standing on your face with with their toothpick-sized swords ready to stick your eyeballs.
This is also something that Bush and his neocronies haven't seemed to figure out either, despite receiving a few bites in the ass already.
I guess I'm just not enough of a prick to agree (Score:3, Interesting)
Naa. I don't think so. While many *people* DO practice business this way (and they ARE people - PEOPLE screw you, the business doesn't act on it's own) there's also a great many that do not. Just because Microsoft is a very large company doesn't mean they are off the hook in the ethical department.
Re:Bah (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bah (Score:2)
Re:Bah (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically, the problem is MS went ahead and patented something which had been proposed, in writing, by a lot of people (and perhaps simultaneously by Microsoft people), and now they're trying to restrict its use. We're not asking for generosity here. Whatever the USPTO says, MS didn't really invent this stuff, so they have no moral right (even if they now have a legal right) to dictate terms. Not asking for handouts, just fair play.
Re:Bah (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I disagree (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft is a master at manipulating situations for it's own gain and to the severe detriment of everyone else. This fact should not be ignored when considering their products.
It has been this way since MITS, quite possibly since before you were even born.
divide and conquer (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:divide and conquer (Score:2)
Be happy that an open source implementation came out of them. You don't use Apache software because it's not GPL'd? That's a bit rough don't you think?
Re:divide and conquer (Score:4, Interesting)
i didn't say anything about relative merits of open source vs. free software - just that i suspect one of ms's eventual tactics is to isolate free software. they've indicated as much in past statements.
Re:divide and conquer (Score:2)
Re:divide and conquer (Score:4, Insightful)
have you used apache/bsd code in a proprietary product without releasing the source?
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
There are rumors of a massive cold front moving towards Hell. Forecasters are predicting temperatures may drop to below 32 degrees F. Stay tuned for more up to date info.
Re:In other news... (Score:2)
Actually, as I type this, the weather in Hell [storm.no] is a mild 10 degrees Celsius (50F), projected to rise to 16 degrees Celsius (61F) by Friday. About normal for this time of year.
Oh, and Hell (altitude: 58 metres above sea level) is a small village/town in Norway, not far from Trondheim.
Does it matter? (Score:5, Funny)
Personally, I'd love it if technology were judged on the content of its character rather than the character of its creator, but this is not a perfect world and fanatics on both sides of the aisle pass up good ideas that come from the "wrong" side all the time.
Re:Does it matter? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:MOD PARENT DOWN (Score:2, Informative)
IIS installs SMTPD
Exchange does NOT install SMTPD.
Hence, IIS does smtp email, not exchange. Exchange runs happily without that useless public standard, smtp.
Buncha useless whining fscking idiots.
Bleh. Quick, where's that URL for that study about how useless people always think they know more than other people?
THIS IS JUST THE THING (Score:2, Interesting)
Not to bash Microsoft but... (Score:3, Interesting)
What's the difference between SenderID and SPF? (Score:2)
MS - OS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:MS - OS (Score:3, Insightful)
But if it's open source then people will associate it with 'free', and Microsoft can't charge for 'free', and that doesn't go over well with the accountant.
Commerce Solutions with Technology! (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder if SenderID might require some old Exchange installs to be upgraded. When I tried searching Microsoft's web site for "SenderID Exchange 5.5", I got one link. Items I should consider when building "Commerce Solutions with Technology". So I am taking that as a yes. Cha-ching, Microsoft...Commerce Solutions with Technology at work!
Re:Commerce Solutions with Technology! (Score:2)
First, you yourself say that Sender ID will make Microsoft less money from support and services. Then why would they promote it?
(Actually it won't influence services spending at all - customers will reassign that money to other critical matters. There's never enough money to fix all IT problems, so it's not that they'll use that money to buy new carpet for the meeting room).
Second, customers who're still with Exchange 5.5 are more likely to change to Linux, so it's
Re: Good! Free market mechanics at work (Score:2)
I really like development of this whole MS initiative so far, being shot down by Apache, Debian, and now reconsidered for open sourcing?
It is pressure being applied to MS. And it's not pressure from Linux zealots, or from FSF supporters, but because it's necessary, and useful for this SenderID to work. In other words: free market pressure.
End users get what they need (nothing at all, or something open, that might even work), and this possible solutio
Lucy, Charlie Brown, and the Football (Score:5, Funny)
"But maybe they are serious this time!"
"MS isn't ALWAYS evil"
Battle Tactics (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, at the same time they will start more FUD sites touting the benifits of Sender ID and why it will ONLY run on their software.
Re:Battle Tactics (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know what the exact market numbers are, but fortunately, Microsoft is not in a position to do that. More importantly, they have to prove how SenderID will actually stop spam - it won't - spammers will use SenderID, and spammer-happy ISPs will gladly provide the service.
Also, keep in mind that SenderID is just a specification. We are talking about implementations of a specification. We are talking about licensing a specification on how to get a list of servers allowed to send mail!
The problem is that there are several software patents associated with SenderID (thank you USPTO!), and therefore it is nothing but a legally crippled piece of paper. Imagine if HTTP, SMTP, POP3, etc. were patented and held hostage by several companies who did not allow any open source implementations - where would they be today? Nowhere, probably replaced by different protocols that had non-crippled specifications.
You won't have to look far for that. Just look at the SenderID FAQ:
Look at them touting themselves for not requiring copyright notices for an implementation of a specification while open source licenses require those for actual programs. Just a piece of MS' usual FUD propaganda.
Prior art by Eric Raymond (Score:5, Informative)
Head on over and listen in [thelinuxshow.com].
Re:Prior art by Eric Raymond (Score:5, Funny)
*sigh*
Just when we thought ESR's ego couldn't get any bigger...
Soko
Patent Infringement Here (Score:3, Informative)
extracts of email sent to ESR (Score:4, Informative)
Not Open Systems Interconnection Reference Model (Score:4, Funny)
At least thats the first thing that came to mind here.
No matter how hard I try, I cant get to Kevin Bacon within 6 links from any random Wikipedia article.
There is no Negotiating (Score:5, Interesting)
Can you explain why they don't think they can do this now?
Now they have a huge patent base thats building up and they are going to use it to kill off the other options.
This stuff scares me because its their way of taking control. They were a major player in the Gossip email systems and they lost out to SMTP. Now they have a sneakly way to undo that.
I'll take spam and forged email over paying MSFT $.25 a message.
Re:There is no Negotiating (Score:2)
You might. Many of us in the business world certainly wouldn't. This stuff wastes us far more than $.25 a message. I don't care who gets the money -- if the problem was solved let the problem be solved.
Re:There is no Negotiating (Score:2)
Throwing a layer on to make billy more money isn't going to make spam go away, its just going to cost the spamers a bit more and everyone else lots more. Also the way most spam ops work is they find a sucker to pay them $1000 to $10,000 to send out messages so tacking on $.001 would up the top end to $20k
Re:There is no Negotiating (Score:3, Insightful)
Post is a national thing dealing with physical borders and old (often state owned) companies that have worked out deals for international post. You cannot translate this system to email, which stems naturally from the peer to peer character of the IP protocol and knows nothing about borders. Who would collect the tax, who would
what is ISC doing? (Score:4, Insightful)
SenderID is overhyped (Score:5, Funny)
Could Microsoft be considering an Open Source license for Sender ID?
I don't know about that but maybe they will release Clippy under an Open Source licence, just to show they care about the movement.Re:SenderID is overhyped (Score:2, Funny)
Open Source Clippy (Score:2)
User inserts Windows install disk and starts his computer.
The BIOS-integrated Tux-Clippy variant starts, detects that you inserted a Windows install disk:
It seems you want to install an operating system. Please click next if you want help.
The user clicks "next".
Looks like a Windows boot disk. Have you considered using Linux instead?
The user clicks "no".
I see you have a working network. It is possible to start a network install of Debian directly from the BIOS. If you don't like it
From what I can tell (Score:5, Insightful)
Alot of MS mail environments don't send mail like SPF envisions. Sender-ID basically makes life easier for MS customers. MS is coming to SPF people, saying, heh, can you modify your protocol to be a bit more friendly to our implementations?
And, since there are actually users behind those mail servers, SPF folks say, sure. Lets talk. Lets see how we can better adapt to your architecture.
Then MS turns around and says, oh, you want to adapt to us? You'll have to sign these forms.
At which point, SPF people walk away. They've already got a great way to tell eachother what they need to say, and while they're willing to work with MS, really, Sender-ID really helps MS more than it helps anyone else. A fate where exchange deployments need to either alter their topology or risk getting their mail dropped isn't one that's beneficial to the company.
Indeed, there are these people called customers that'll handle any intransigence on the part of their vendor. Which, uh, is about what's happening right now.
I'm not saying this is exactly what's going on. Neither side is monolithic. But this is, at least from the outside, what appears to be happening. Someone on the inside should feel free to correct me.
--Dan
It's all about $$$ (Score:5, Insightful)
Bryan
Re:It's all about $$$ (Score:4, Interesting)
No, it really is all about the $$$ -- MS already lost, but they still want a piece of the pie. They might make SenderID open source, but will it be Free? And what happens when they get additional patents for SenderID 2.0?
Relevant history (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.circleid.com/article/730_0_1_0_C/ [circleid.com]
http://www.circleid.com/article/732_0_1_0_C/ [circleid.com]
This could of course mean.... (Score:4, Funny)
"We'll give you a financial boost if you'll fast-track our application to be an OSI-Approved License. Just ignore the incompatibilities, and here's $100k for your trouble."
What's to negotiate? (Score:5, Insightful)
Patents != Copyright (Score:5, Informative)
Well, looks like a good time to clarify the difference between patents and copyright for the benefit of the new blood here on slashdot. They are very different things, and you must understand what the law says before you can develop educated opinions on the law. Copyright is a government issued monopoly on the distribution, and public performance of a specific work and derivatives of that work. Patents on the other hand are a government issued monopoly on the commercial application of an idea. A book is a specific creative act, and thus falls under copyright. A method of building a tractor is an idea, and is thus patentable. You can't have copyright on an idea, and you can't patent a specific work.
Now onto this specific situation.
When you talk about open source licenses, you are dealing with copyright. A copyright license grants you specific (often limited) rights to distribute, perform, or modify the authors work. Without a copyright license you do not have the right to do any of these things. Open source software gives people the right to redistribute the work, created derivative works, and redistribute those works (possibly with the restriction that the derivative work must also be open source). However, it requires that if a work is distributed it must be available in a useful form - the original source code.
Now Caller-ID is not a piece of software - it is a protocol, a standard, an idea, and thus falls into the realm of patent law. A patent license gives you permission to use an idea in your own works. Without a patent license you do not have a right to use the idea in your own work, even if you thought of it by yourself. Microsoft has patented some of the ideas in Caller-ID, so anyone who wants to create an implementation of Caller-ID must get a patent license from Microsoft. The patent license which Microsoft is currently offering for Caller-ID has several issues that make it impossible to use the patented ideas in Open Source software without violating one of the licenses.
By now you can see what was wrong with the text I quoted - Sender ID is not a piece of software - it is a patented idea, and so it is nonsensical to talk about releasing it under an Open Source (copyright) license. What the submitter should have asked is "Could Microsoft be considering an Open Source friendly patent license for Sender ID".
That said you can read this post [slashdot.org] if you want to know more about why the current patent license for Caller ID is incompatible with Open Source software.
Halloween Documents Anyone (Score:5, Interesting)
Obligatory Simpsons "Buy 'Em out Boys " (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!
MARGE
Homer, Bill Gates is here.
HOMER
Bill Gates?! Millionaire computer nerd Bill Gates! Oh my god. Oh my god. Get out of sight, Marge. I don't want this to look like a two-bit operation.
Marge groans and rolls her eyes. Bill Gates and two "associates" enter.
GATES
Mr. Simpson?
HOMER
You don't look so rich.
GATES
Don't let the haircut fool you, I am exceedingly wealthy.
HOMER
(quietly to Marge) Get a load of the bowl-job, Marge!
GATES
Your Internet ad was brought to my attention, but I can't figure out what, if anything, CompuGlobalHyperMegaNet does, so rather than risk competing with you, I've decided simply to buy you out.
Homer and Marge step aside to talk privately.
HOMER
This is it Marge. I've poured my heart and soul into this business and now it's finally paying off. (covering his mouth) We're rich! Richer than astronauts.
MARGE
Homer quiet. Acquire the deal.
HOMER
(to Gates) I reluctantly accept your proposal!
GATES
Well everyone always does. Buy 'em out, boys!
Bill Gates companions begin to trash the "office".
HOMER
Hey, what the hell's going on!
GATES
Oh, I didn't get rich by writing a lot of checks!
Bill Gates lets out a maniacal laugh. Homer and Marge cower in the corner as the room continues to be trashed.
-from www.simpsoncrazy.com
They should resolve it the way ISO does it... (Score:3, Funny)
pgp and domainkeys (Score:3, Interesting)
http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys [yahoo.com]
I picked up this link from here:
http://www.pgp.com/resources/ctocorner/cryptoands
This was a discussion about how pgp alone will not stop spam but how yahoo domain keys might. Due to domainkeys ability to actually verify the domain the e-mail is being sent from.
Re:pgp and domainkeys (Score:4, Insightful)
I have said this before - anyone (Yahoo, HotMail, gmail, MS*) who has large numbers of mail boxes that people want to reach can be billed. How? By Signing outgoing mail you are certifying that _you_ have sent that mail - all yahoo has to do is count the number of mails signed by domain example.com and then autoforward a weekly/monthly bill to the email address in the whois system for domain example.com
You say, never gonna happen, people won't pay, they won't get the billing email - it won't matter to Yahoo - they send bills, if they don't get paid they just blacklist that cert/domain.
The big email box herders would have no reason to do this if Yahoo!DomainKey (tm) is widely deployed. If you disargee please explain why they wouldn't do it.
I'll believe it when I see it. (Score:5, Informative)
Insight into the current situation can be found in a post by Matt Sergeant (Spamassassin/messagelabs):
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg040 45.html [imc.org]
MS record in DNS? (Score:2, Interesting)
How about introducing a new MS record (not Microsoft ;-)) to point to Mail Senders? MX server(s) can continue to be the mail recepient(s). This gives the control to more distributed DNS system rather than a single company.
Mail servers need to accept mails from a domain only if they are coming from the MS servers for that domain.
This is not a novel idea. Most mail sersvers have a configurable feature to accept mails only from MX servers for that domain anyway.
What if we just all go for SPF and ignore MS? (Score:2, Interesting)
What Microsoft is considering (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't tell you what the worker bees at Microsoft are considering, but I can tell you what the movers and shakers at the top are considering. They're considering what course of action will do the most harm to the Free Software community in general, and people's perception of the GPL in particular. When they think they've figured out what that course of action is, they'll tell the troops to do it.
"Pink" contracts are the source of spam. (Score:5, Interesting)
All this talk of various new(?) protocols and tags is pure FUD and bullshit.
spam can be eradicated (99%) in 48 hours, this was true years ago when I used to hang out on nanae and it is still true today, because 99% of spam originates from companies with "pink" (no AUP) connectivity / IP block contracts that typically pay the provider several times the market rate per IP / Gb of bandwidth.
I could go out today and buy a block of 255 IP addresses on an OC3 and stick 72U of servers behind it sending out spam 24/7, and NOT lose my connectivity....
Sure, it might suck if you have a close IP to mine and SPEWS lists the company that is providing connectivity to both you and me, but at the end of the day money talks.
And at the end of the day there is more money in marketing (globally) than even bill g can dream of.
_NOTHING_ short of an equivalent to the usenet death penalty (which is different because fuck all providers make 1 cent out of usenet, for 95% of them it is a loss making service bundled with http / smtp etc) SPEWS style will ever stop spam.
As far as OSS goes as far as I can see there is only one way to make this work, and that is to use an electronic analogy of what I do at home.
I get junk (snail) mail every day, lots of it comes with pre-paid return envelopes, most of it doesn't.
The stuff advertising local firms tends not to have pre-paid envelopes, that national stuff tends to have pre-paid envelopes. So I sort my junk mail into local and national, takes about 3 seconds.
The local stuff I just throw out into the street to blow around and litter the place, the residents get pissed off, the council gets pissed off, clear plastic bags containing samples of the litter get placed on council meeting tables and the companies whose names are on said bits of paper get a hard time from the council and everything from business rates increases to bills to clean up litter.
The national stuff I just stuff into the prepaid return envelopes, just not the right envelopes, so each company gets an envelope full of some other companies junk mail, and pays for the postage.
Result, I now get about 4 pieces of junk mail per week, it DOES work IF you work at it for a year or two.
I see a similar thing in the OSS community as being the only solution, it takes a little bit of care to eliminate the joe-jobbed return addresses, but all you need is a spam filter that directs spam back to other spammers addresses, and if they have no smtp ports open then try to send it to them on port 80 every second for 24 hours.
Yes I ___AM___ advocating DDoSing the cunts off the net, because when spam starts costing spammers money and denial of THEIR services they will stop, not before.
Re:"Pink" contracts are the source of spam. (Score:2)
Re:"Pink" contracts are the source of spam. (Score:2)
do NOT dance with this devil! (Score:3, Insightful)
We know spammers are already lined up and using SID, so the system is already polluted. "ya want validated spam with that?"
MS doesn't want OSS/Linux/etc. They have made that quite clear. Right now they need us to support this or the whole thing fails- or they start an apache war or something. MS has enough control already. IMHO they should have no say-so about my email.
Some persons at ms are getting *paid* to deploy this successfully & quickly and they will try very hard to do so. This includes convincing everyone else to support it. (for free?) Hold the ropes boys and girls.
Why would the OSS community care about supporting something that is IP encumbered by ms and in litigation, broken, basterdized, and infested with spammers already? err
So IIRC if they flick the switch on this thing hotmail and msn will be crippled and only work with SID friendly systems. Boo Hoo. maybe hotmail users will complain to ms since they won't be able to complain to me!
Look-- Every time ms does something like this eg: tcp/ip, kerberos, iis,ie,outlook, etc. it's a train wreck of decaying squid parts. Learn from the mistakes. If they need support for SID stall them:
Tell them you'll put it on an Action List or you'll do it as soon as 'counsel gives you the green light'. Tell them you use drugs and therefore cannot be trusted with such thigs until rehab! or Just lie! They'll never expect it! Better yet make them believe it will soon be supported!
Anyway I hereby claim my disgust and lack of support for sender id and beg all the developers working so hard on interesting things being bothered to support this to not waste their time and keep on inventing.
Thank you.
Re:MS Open Source Paradox (Score:5, Informative)
And I'm sure others can chime in on more as i'm not totally familiar with all the stuff they use. but they seem to have embraced open source fairly heavily.
Re:MS Open Source Paradox (Score:3, Informative)
The competitive advantage comes from having something thanks to Open Source where otherwise you would have nothing. It's hard to compete if you don't have anything to compete with. Apple have built their entire OS on top of Open Source, and they and NeXT before them have done so since the late 1980s!
iChat rocks for IM. Simple and powerful. If you want endless config dial
Re:MS Open Source Paradox (Score:2)
http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/10
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/21/commie_
http://www.zpok.demon.co.uk/ (about halfway down)
Re:MS Open Source Paradox (Score:2)
Re:Patents and Sender blocking.. Is not pure evil (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Patents and Sender blocking.. Is not pure evil (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah.
Exactly the same way that DVD-CCA's patent on CSS has empowered them to sue all non-conforming DVD player software out of existence.
Exactly the same way SCO's "copyrights" and "patents" on UNIX technology allowed them to sue all non-conforming UNIX and UNIX-like implementations out of existence.
Nice thought; won't work.
Schwab
Re:Patents and Sender blocking.. Is not pure evil (Score:2)
It didn't work, and at last count I got far more spam (50:1 ratio in fact) with the 'patented' poems than legitimate email.
Re:Open Comment to OSI: (Score:2, Insightful)
Negotiating with M$ reminds me of a line from the Godfather:
In ten seconds your signature or your brains will be on the paper.