|| ||"Anthony W. Youngman" <Anthony.Youngman@ECA-International.com>|
|| ||"'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|| ||Closed betas ...|
|| ||Thu, 19 Sep 2002 12:24:22 +0100|
> That does not stop distributors from doing closed beta tests, however. Corel
> did it. Caldera (oops...SCO Group...) has done it. Lindows has done it. And
> UnitedLinux is doing it. The closed beta period ends on September 23, at
> which point the UnitedLinux beta, with source, will be available to all. In
> the mean time, however, one might wonder how the current closed beta is
> being kept closed.
The way I'd do it is simple. "United Linux" is a trademark. You sign up to
the beta, you do not damage the trademark by releasing any code that could
be associated with the trademark.
In other words, there's nothing stopping people releasing UL code, provided
they delete all references to UL that are in the code, and they don't
mention UL when they post it wherever. Seeing as deleting references and
acknowledgements is taboo, any reputable developer will then quite happily
keep UL itself closed.
And as someone mentioned in the comments, you simply have code there that is
your own copyright, so that it becomes a breach of copyright to just copy
the UL distro "as is".
(As for open betas being better than closed - no that's not necessarily the
case. Far better start with a closed beta and squash the obvious problems
first, then go open and get the more subtle problems later. There *is*
something known as "overload" :-) The whole *point* of a beta is to find
bugs, and having your bugzilla flooded with hundreds of reports of the same
bug can easily become counter-productive)
Comments (2 posted)
|| ||Leon Brooks <email@example.com>|
|| ||Vice President Gates|
|| ||Sun, 22 Sep 2002 09:11:30 +0800|
|| ||firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com|
At http://msnbc-cnet.com.com/2010-1071-958721.html you wrote:
> the image of Bill Gates getting his marching orders from President
> George [W] Bush just doesn't compute.
Before dealing with your main point, I don't think you understand how the
people dealing with *any* nation's security think, and your conclusions will
be invalid until you do.
William Henry "Trey" Gates III or one of his subordinates may or may not shut
down China's computers (hey, CodeRed4 may well do that anyway...), but you're
about to bet one and a half billion lives, including yours, on whether he
does or not. Does this impact your thinking? It would impact mine.
The question flips from "is it certain that Bill can pull our collective
plugs?" to "is it *possible* that Bill could pull our collective plugs?" -
and of course that flips the answer from "Ha, ha" to "Yes."
Now, as to whether Bill has the capability to actually do this, let's use
Microsoft's own words:
"The OS Product or OS Components contain components that enable and
facilitate the use of certain Internet-based services. You
acknowledge and agree that Microsoft may automatically check the
version of the OS Product and/or its components that you are
utilizing and may provide upgrades or fixes to the OS Product that
will be automatically downloaded to your computer."
[Text from the Windows 2000 SP3 EULA and Windows XP SP1 EULA]
The implication is that Microsoft can alter the software on your computer at
will, AND you agreed to let them do that when you installed it.
Wouldn't it be handy - but not for China - if a wartime update to Windows was
or included a TCP stack that stopped recognising Chinese IP addresses at a
specific date and propagated itself as hard as it could by fair means or foul
As to *how* Microsoft propose do that, well, why not just read the source code
yourself and find out? (-:
Finally, given that Microsoft seem to have both means and opportunity, how
about motive? Bush orders Gates, so-so, maybe. National Guard orders Gates at
gunpoint is quite a different scenario. CIA plant pushes button for Gates yet
another. Is a troublemaking cracker from Saint Petersburg unprecedented?
The possibilities are myriad. Just don't be dumb enough to say that it's
http://www.cyberknights.com.au/ Modern tools, traditional dedication
http://slpwa.linux.org.au/ Member, Linux Professionals West Aus
http://linux.conf.au/ THE Australian Linux Technical Conf:
22-25 January 2003, Perth: be there!
Comments (1 posted)
Page editor: Jonathan Corbet