Is the iToaster a Linux Box? Will there be Source? 193
I was given several different answers from different people. Here is a reply to an email asking about the code I sent to (sales@microworkz.com)
Mr. Malda,
Thank you for your interest in Microworkz.com. The iToaster operating system is a hybrid between BeOs and Linux and is licensed and patented by Microworkz.com, Inc. The source code is therefore proprietary and not available for download.
The Linux pure source code is however at www.linux.com.
If you have any other questions or if you would like to place an order, please give our Sales Team a call at (888) 306-2044 from 7am - 8pm Monday through Friday and 10am - 5pm Saturday and Sunday PST. Or simply check out our web sites at www.microworkz.com.
So I called them and asked more. I talked to a very nice gentleman who put me on hold for awhile while he found answers. According to him, the iToaster does not run Linux (although according to the email posted above from the sales department, it runs "A Hybrid between BeOS and Linux". This is sorta what the MSNBC article said ("The way it was explained to me, BeOS handles the file system, while Linux does just about everything else.")
So I guess there are 2 possibilities here:
- Microworkz messed up by using the word "Linux" when dealing with CNNfn and MSNBC, as their machine does not run Linux at all. This seems to be what I was told on the phone.
- Microworkz is violating the GPL by making modifications to the Linux kernel and not releasing them.
At this point there really isn't much we can do about it since the iToaster isn't really out so we can't do any pounding on it to determine if their is something questionable going on.
Thanks to the many of you who wrote in to give us the heads up on this. We'll keep you posted if we figure out more.
Ode to a Toaster (Score:1)
He's never to his toaster said:
"You are my friend; I see in you
An object sturdy, staunch, and true;
A fellow mettlesome and trim;
A brightness that the years can't dim."?
Then let us praise the brave appliance
In which we place this just reliance.
And offer it with each fresh slice
Such words of friendship and advice
As "How are things with you tonight?"
Or "Not too dark but not too light."
- Thomas M. Disch
(from The Brave Little Toaster)
It's a BeOS system... (Score:1)
For chrissakes!! (Score:1)
Really, some people really need to improve on their short-term memory skills.
You've figured it out! (Score:1)
Most of the original communist conspiracies were failures. The attempt to take over the movie industry in the 1950s was thwarted by congressional investigations. The attempt to contaminate the bodily fluids of Americans with flouridated drinking water failed. The effort to place communists in teaching roles in American universities is having mixed results -- they can't tell the infiltrators from regular political science professors.
Many members of the great communist conspiracy believe that the GPL is their last hope. They will take extraordinary measures to protect it. I suggest you check your home for bugs and your phone for taps. Make sure you are not being followed by their agents -- they can be identified by thier facial hair, sandals, tie-dyed t-shirts, and poor diets.
The itoaster is BEOS, I've seen it. (Score:1)
Buy this..bud... (Score:1)
Here is the link...
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/284751.asp
--->
ACCORDING TO COMPANY sources, the top management
team -- the chief operating officer, the chief financial officer, the
chief information officer and the comptroller -- resigned in the
past month. Latman confirmed the departure of CFO Brian
Lofquist, saying he was fired for causing some of Microworkz's
troubles.
Two top managers who departed the company but asked
not to named said they left because of ethical concerns with the
company's business practices -- specifically, the company's
inability to deliver its products as promised and its sluggishness in
refunding consumers.
The company has had well-publicized problems with its
product line. In March, Microworkz.com shook the PC world with
announcement of the $299 Webster Jr. PC -- the deal included
one free year of Net access from Earthlink. But Microworkz now
admits serious production troubles, and when the company
launched the product April 19, it wasn't able to fill many orders
for weeks, in some cases, months.
But despite the problems of fulfilling orders, the company
nonetheless charged its customers' credit cards. Not long after,
the Better Business Bureau of Western Washington and the
Washington State attorney general's office began receiving
complaints; about 100 in all, according to Latman. Janice Marich,
spokesperson for the attorney general's office, said the
complaints included outright failure to deliver PCs, failure to
refund money, and allegations that PCs were shipped with
inferior components.
'This company has
made our radar
screen,'
-- JANICE MARICH
Spokesperson for the attorney
general's office
"This company has made our radar screen," Marich said,
declining to say if an official investigation has been launched into
the company's practices.
The Better Business Bureau has received similar complaints,
and Microworkz "has an unsatisfactory business record," according
to a BBB report. Frustrated consumers also set up a Web site to
air complaints.
"We're only talking about 100 people," Latman said. "That's
not a huge amount." He said problems stemmed from inadequate
computer systems, which caused lag time before refunds could
be sent to consumers. Latman says he has put those problems
behind the company now, claiming PCs now ship within seven
days and all refund request complaints have been cleared up.
AOL in talks to enter PC biz
Microworkz iToaster: a $199 PC
The iToaster is set to launch July 15, and Latman says the
company is geared up to make the boxes on time this time --
with a production line that would be capable of perhaps 150,000
to 200,000 machines a month. A similar statement was included
in the company's April 19 press release about the Webzter: "The
company has the capability to produce 200,000 computers per
month," that release said. The company's well-publicized
problems began after that.
There have been other
sources of confusion,
too -- such as when
the company was
actually founded.
Latman contends things will be different this time around --
the company has said it will only take orders for 10,000 of the
boxes at first to ensure it can fill demand.
Still, some of the iToaster's features seem to be in flux.
Latman told an MSNBC reporter at the PC Expo trade show in
New York earlier this month that the operating system was a
mixture of Linux and BeOS. But he told CNBC on Friday that
objections from the Linux community changed his mind -- the
first iToasters will have Be and a proprietary "front end."
There have been other sources of confusion, too -- such as
when the company was actually founded. Its Web site says
Microworkz was founded in 1991 as an independent custom
software vendor. The company told the Better Business Bureau
it was founded in 1996, and employees tell MSNBC the actual
start date was early 1998. It was incorporated in November of
1998.
On June 6, the company's status as a legal corporation was
dissolved by the Washington Secretary of State's office. The
most likely reason, according to a spokesperson, was failure to file
an annual report.
The consequence: the company can still conduct retail
business, but it cannot conduct any corporate business. The CEO
shrugged it off as a technicality.
"It's a piece of paper that has to be filed once a year. Some
attorneys do it on time. I called the lawyers in and they waved it
off laughingly. They said they do it in November of every year,"
Latman said.
There are other legal troubles for the company as well -- it's
being sued by PC parts supplier Amptron International Inc. for
allegedly failing to pay $41,930 in bills, and bouncing two checks
in December of last year. The suit lashes out personally at
Latman:
"Latman has, and is still, utilizing Microworkz as his alter ego
by so dominating, controlling, and influencing Microworkz's assets
and activities for his own profit, by so failing to satisfy any
corporate formalities such as a proper maintenance of minutes,
director's meetings, etc., by so commingling his personal funds
with Microworkz, and by so failing to establish and/or maintain a
level of capitalization sufficient and/or necessary to conduct
business, as to create a unity of interest and destroy any
separatenesss between Latman
Former employees describe Latman as charismatic, inspiring
Microworkz employees by comparing the company to Dell
Computer Corp. But the former employees all said Latman often
promised more than he could deliver. And despite several
statements from the company that 50,000 Webzter PCs have
been ordered, several former employees contend the company
has received only between 2,000 and 3,000 orders.
There are other troubles for Latman, too. He's being sued
by his co-investors in a Seattle-based porn Web site venture
called Dream Haus Inc. According to the Puget Sound Business
Journal, partners say Latman bounced $22,000 worth of checks,
and created a contest on their site. www.coolchicks.com, with a
grand prize of $50,000 without their consent -- and without
having the money.
This is not the first venture Latman has been involved in
which had trouble delivering merchandise. MSNBC has learned
that 19 small claims judgments were issued against a Beverly Hills
bridal shop run by his wife, Bettina Latman. Richard Latman is
personally cited on half of them. Several of those were initiated
by consumers who complained they left a deposit on a dress, but
never received the gown.
MSNBC research turned up another 26 judgments of one
kind or another against Latman or his wife, including three hefty
tax liens: he owes the IRS $225,000, and $47,000 in California
state taxes.
"I don't doubt that. But what does this have to do with
Microworkz?" Latman said when told of the judgments. He said
the liens still exist because the couple chose not to declare
bankruptcy.
"I wear that failure as a badge," he said, referring to the
failed boutique. "I was involved in counseling her [on the
business]. The reality is the business was poorly planned and
the business failed."
When asked to offer prior technology industry experience,
Latman declined.
Before founding Microworkz "I was going to write software
on a boat," he said. "I have written several dramatic plays. My
goal was to be a writer."
Got a tip about this story? Write to tipoff@msnbc.com
Re:iToaster!=Linux : confirmation from MW epmloyee (Score:1)
This was on www.nbcnews.com---->
Here is the link...
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/284751.asp
--->
ACCORDING TO COMPANY sources, the top management
team -- the chief operating officer, the chief financial officer, the
chief information officer and the comptroller -- resigned in the
past month. Latman confirmed the departure of CFO Brian
Lofquist, saying he was fired for causing some of Microworkz's
troubles.
Two top managers who departed the company but asked
not to named said they left because of ethical concerns with the
company's business practices -- specifically, the company's
inability to deliver its products as promised and its sluggishness in
refunding consumers.
The company has had well-publicized problems with its
product line. In March, Microworkz.com shook the PC world with
announcement of the $299 Webster Jr. PC -- the deal included
one free year of Net access from Earthlink. But Microworkz now
admits serious production troubles, and when the company
launched the product April 19, it wasn't able to fill many orders
for weeks, in some cases, months.
But despite the problems of fulfilling orders, the company
nonetheless charged its customers' credit cards. Not long after,
the Better Business Bureau of Western Washington and the
Washington State attorney general's office began receiving
complaints; about 100 in all, according to Latman. Janice Marich,
spokesperson for the attorney general's office, said the
complaints included outright failure to deliver PCs, failure to
refund money, and allegations that PCs were shipped with
inferior components.
'This company has
made our radar
screen,'
-- JANICE MARICH
Spokesperson for the attorney
general's office
"This company has made our radar screen," Marich said,
declining to say if an official investigation has been launched into
the company's practices.
The Better Business Bureau has received similar complaints,
and Microworkz "has an unsatisfactory business record," according
to a BBB report. Frustrated consumers also set up a Web site to
air complaints.
"We're only talking about 100 people," Latman said. "That's
not a huge amount." He said problems stemmed from inadequate
computer systems, which caused lag time before refunds could
be sent to consumers. Latman says he has put those problems
behind the company now, claiming PCs now ship within seven
days and all refund request complaints have been cleared up.
AOL in talks to enter PC biz
Microworkz iToaster: a $199 PC
The iToaster is set to launch July 15, and Latman says the
company is geared up to make the boxes on time this time --
with a production line that would be capable of perhaps 150,000
to 200,000 machines a month. A similar statement was included
in the company's April 19 press release about the Webzter: "The
company has the capability to produce 200,000 computers per
month," that release said. The company's well-publicized
problems began after that.
There have been other
sources of confusion,
too -- such as when
the company was
actually founded.
Latman contends things will be different this time around --
the company has said it will only take orders for 10,000 of the
boxes at first to ensure it can fill demand.
Still, some of the iToaster's features seem to be in flux.
Latman told an MSNBC reporter at the PC Expo trade show in
New York earlier this month that the operating system was a
mixture of Linux and BeOS. But he told CNBC on Friday that
objections from the Linux community changed his mind -- the
first iToasters will have Be and a proprietary "front end."
There have been other sources of confusion, too -- such as
when the company was actually founded. Its Web site says
Microworkz was founded in 1991 as an independent custom
software vendor. The company told the Better Business Bureau
it was founded in 1996, and employees tell MSNBC the actual
start date was early 1998. It was incorporated in November of
1998.
On June 6, the company's status as a legal corporation was
dissolved by the Washington Secretary of State's office. The
most likely reason, according to a spokesperson, was failure to file
an annual report.
The consequence: the company can still conduct retail
business, but it cannot conduct any corporate business. The CEO
shrugged it off as a technicality.
"It's a piece of paper that has to be filed once a year. Some
attorneys do it on time. I called the lawyers in and they waved it
off laughingly. They said they do it in November of every year,"
Latman said.
There are other legal troubles for the company as well -- it's
being sued by PC parts supplier Amptron International Inc. for
allegedly failing to pay $41,930 in bills, and bouncing two checks
in December of last year. The suit lashes out personally at
Latman:
"Latman has, and is still, utilizing Microworkz as his alter ego
by so dominating, controlling, and influencing Microworkz's assets
and activities for his own profit, by so failing to satisfy any
corporate formalities such as a proper maintenance of minutes,
director's meetings, etc., by so commingling his personal funds
with Microworkz, and by so failing to establish and/or maintain a
level of capitalization sufficient and/or necessary to conduct
business, as to create a unity of interest and destroy any
separatenesss between Latman
Former employees describe Latman as charismatic, inspiring
Microworkz employees by comparing the company to Dell
Computer Corp. But the former employees all said Latman often
promised more than he could deliver. And despite several
statements from the company that 50,000 Webzter PCs have
been ordered, several former employees contend the company
has received only between 2,000 and 3,000 orders.
There are other troubles for Latman, too. He's being sued
by his co-investors in a Seattle-based porn Web site venture
called Dream Haus Inc. According to the Puget Sound Business
Journal, partners say Latman bounced $22,000 worth of checks,
and created a contest on their site. www.coolchicks.com, with a
grand prize of $50,000 without their consent -- and without
having the money.
This is not the first venture Latman has been involved in
which had trouble delivering merchandise. MSNBC has learned
that 19 small claims judgments were issued against a Beverly Hills
bridal shop run by his wife, Bettina Latman. Richard Latman is
personally cited on half of them. Several of those were initiated
by consumers who complained they left a deposit on a dress, but
never received the gown.
MSNBC research turned up another 26 judgments of one
kind or another against Latman or his wife, including three hefty
tax liens: he owes the IRS $225,000, and $47,000 in California
state taxes.
"I don't doubt that. But what does this have to do with
Microworkz?" Latman said when told of the judgments. He said
the liens still exist because the couple chose not to declare
bankruptcy.
"I wear that failure as a badge," he said, referring to the
failed boutique. "I was involved in counseling her [on the
business]. The reality is the business was poorly planned and
the business failed."
When asked to offer prior technology industry experience,
Latman declined.
Before founding Microworkz "I was going to write software
on a boat," he said. "I have written several dramatic plays. My
goal was to be a writer."
Got a tip about this story? Write to tipoff@msnbc.com
Re:Correct iToaster URL..No this is the right one (Score:1)
This was on www.nbcnews.com---->
Here is the link...
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/284751.asp
--->
ACCORDING TO COMPANY sources, the top management
team -- the chief operating officer, the chief financial officer, the
chief information officer and the comptroller -- resigned in the
past month. Latman confirmed the departure of CFO Brian
Lofquist, saying he was fired for causing some of Microworkz's
troubles.
Two top managers who departed the company but asked
not to named said they left because of ethical concerns with the
company's business practices -- specifically, the company's
inability to deliver its products as promised and its sluggishness in
refunding consumers.
The company has had well-publicized problems with its
product line. In March, Microworkz.com shook the PC world with
announcement of the $299 Webster Jr. PC -- the deal included
one free year of Net access from Earthlink. But Microworkz now
admits serious production troubles, and when the company
launched the product April 19, it wasn't able to fill many orders
for weeks, in some cases, months.
But despite the problems of fulfilling orders, the company
nonetheless charged its customers' credit cards. Not long after,
the Better Business Bureau of Western Washington and the
Washington State attorney general's office began receiving
complaints; about 100 in all, according to Latman. Janice Marich,
spokesperson for the attorney general's office, said the
complaints included outright failure to deliver PCs, failure to
refund money, and allegations that PCs were shipped with
inferior components.
'This company has
made our radar
screen,'
-- JANICE MARICH
Spokesperson for the attorney
general's office
"This company has made our radar screen," Marich said,
declining to say if an official investigation has been launched into
the company's practices.
The Better Business Bureau has received similar complaints,
and Microworkz "has an unsatisfactory business record," according
to a BBB report. Frustrated consumers also set up a Web site to
air complaints.
"We're only talking about 100 people," Latman said. "That's
not a huge amount." He said problems stemmed from inadequate
computer systems, which caused lag time before refunds could
be sent to consumers. Latman says he has put those problems
behind the company now, claiming PCs now ship within seven
days and all refund request complaints have been cleared up.
AOL in talks to enter PC biz
Microworkz iToaster: a $199 PC
The iToaster is set to launch July 15, and Latman says the
company is geared up to make the boxes on time this time --
with a production line that would be capable of perhaps 150,000
to 200,000 machines a month. A similar statement was included
in the company's April 19 press release about the Webzter: "The
company has the capability to produce 200,000 computers per
month," that release said. The company's well-publicized
problems began after that.
There have been other
sources of confusion,
too -- such as when
the company was
actually founded.
Latman contends things will be different this time around --
the company has said it will only take orders for 10,000 of the
boxes at first to ensure it can fill demand.
Still, some of the iToaster's features seem to be in flux.
Latman told an MSNBC reporter at the PC Expo trade show in
New York earlier this month that the operating system was a
mixture of Linux and BeOS. But he told CNBC on Friday that
objections from the Linux community changed his mind -- the
first iToasters will have Be and a proprietary "front end."
There have been other sources of confusion, too -- such as
when the company was actually founded. Its Web site says
Microworkz was founded in 1991 as an independent custom
software vendor. The company told the Better Business Bureau
it was founded in 1996, and employees tell MSNBC the actual
start date was early 1998. It was incorporated in November of
1998.
On June 6, the company's status as a legal corporation was
dissolved by the Washington Secretary of State's office. The
most likely reason, according to a spokesperson, was failure to file
an annual report.
The consequence: the company can still conduct retail
business, but it cannot conduct any corporate business. The CEO
shrugged it off as a technicality.
"It's a piece of paper that has to be filed once a year. Some
attorneys do it on time. I called the lawyers in and they waved it
off laughingly. They said they do it in November of every year,"
Latman said.
There are other legal troubles for the company as well -- it's
being sued by PC parts supplier Amptron International Inc. for
allegedly failing to pay $41,930 in bills, and bouncing two checks
in December of last year. The suit lashes out personally at
Latman:
"Latman has, and is still, utilizing Microworkz as his alter ego
by so dominating, controlling, and influencing Microworkz's assets
and activities for his own profit, by so failing to satisfy any
corporate formalities such as a proper maintenance of minutes,
director's meetings, etc., by so commingling his personal funds
with Microworkz, and by so failing to establish and/or maintain a
level of capitalization sufficient and/or necessary to conduct
business, as to create a unity of interest and destroy any
separatenesss between Latman
Former employees describe Latman as charismatic, inspiring
Microworkz employees by comparing the company to Dell
Computer Corp. But the former employees all said Latman often
promised more than he could deliver. And despite several
statements from the company that 50,000 Webzter PCs have
been ordered, several former employees contend the company
has received only between 2,000 and 3,000 orders.
There are other troubles for Latman, too. He's being sued
by his co-investors in a Seattle-based porn Web site venture
called Dream Haus Inc. According to the Puget Sound Business
Journal, partners say Latman bounced $22,000 worth of checks,
and created a contest on their site. www.coolchicks.com, with a
grand prize of $50,000 without their consent -- and without
having the money.
This is not the first venture Latman has been involved in
which had trouble delivering merchandise. MSNBC has learned
that 19 small claims judgments were issued against a Beverly Hills
bridal shop run by his wife, Bettina Latman. Richard Latman is
personally cited on half of them. Several of those were initiated
by consumers who complained they left a deposit on a dress, but
never received the gown.
MSNBC research turned up another 26 judgments of one
kind or another against Latman or his wife, including three hefty
tax liens: he owes the IRS $225,000, and $47,000 in California
state taxes.
"I don't doubt that. But what does this have to do with
Microworkz?" Latman said when told of the judgments. He said
the liens still exist because the couple chose not to declare
bankruptcy.
"I wear that failure as a badge," he said, referring to the
failed boutique. "I was involved in counseling her [on the
business]. The reality is the business was poorly planned and
the business failed."
When asked to offer prior technology industry experience,
Latman declined.
Before founding Microworkz "I was going to write software
on a boat," he said. "I have written several dramatic plays. My
goal was to be a writer."
Got a tip about this story? Write to tipoff@msnbc.com
Yeah,,,You pay ..Maybe they will ship it to me!!! (Score:1)
This was on www.nbcnews.com---->
Here is the link...
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/284751.asp
--->
ACCORDING TO COMPANY sources, the top management
team -- the chief operating officer, the chief financial officer, the
chief information officer and the comptroller -- resigned in the
past month. Latman confirmed the departure of CFO Brian
Lofquist, saying he was fired for causing some of Microworkz's
troubles.
Two top managers who departed the company but asked
not to named said they left because of ethical concerns with the
company's business practices -- specifically, the company's
inability to deliver its products as promised and its sluggishness in
refunding consumers.
The company has had well-publicized problems with its
product line. In March, Microworkz.com shook the PC world with
announcement of the $299 Webster Jr. PC -- the deal included
one free year of Net access from Earthlink. But Microworkz now
admits serious production troubles, and when the company
launched the product April 19, it wasn't able to fill many orders
for weeks, in some cases, months.
But despite the problems of fulfilling orders, the company
nonetheless charged its customers' credit cards. Not long after,
the Better Business Bureau of Western Washington and the
Washington State attorney general's office began receiving
complaints; about 100 in all, according to Latman. Janice Marich,
spokesperson for the attorney general's office, said the
complaints included outright failure to deliver PCs, failure to
refund money, and allegations that PCs were shipped with
inferior components.
'This company has
made our radar
screen,'
-- JANICE MARICH
Spokesperson for the attorney
general's office
"This company has made our radar screen," Marich said,
declining to say if an official investigation has been launched into
the company's practices.
The Better Business Bureau has received similar complaints,
and Microworkz "has an unsatisfactory business record," according
to a BBB report. Frustrated consumers also set up a Web site to
air complaints.
"We're only talking about 100 people," Latman said. "That's
not a huge amount." He said problems stemmed from inadequate
computer systems, which caused lag time before refunds could
be sent to consumers. Latman says he has put those problems
behind the company now, claiming PCs now ship within seven
days and all refund request complaints have been cleared up.
AOL in talks to enter PC biz
Microworkz iToaster: a $199 PC
The iToaster is set to launch July 15, and Latman says the
company is geared up to make the boxes on time this time --
with a production line that would be capable of perhaps 150,000
to 200,000 machines a month. A similar statement was included
in the company's April 19 press release about the Webzter: "The
company has the capability to produce 200,000 computers per
month," that release said. The company's well-publicized
problems began after that.
There have been other
sources of confusion,
too -- such as when
the company was
actually founded.
Latman contends things will be different this time around --
the company has said it will only take orders for 10,000 of the
boxes at first to ensure it can fill demand.
Still, some of the iToaster's features seem to be in flux.
Latman told an MSNBC reporter at the PC Expo trade show in
New York earlier this month that the operating system was a
mixture of Linux and BeOS. But he told CNBC on Friday that
objections from the Linux community changed his mind -- the
first iToasters will have Be and a proprietary "front end."
There have been other sources of confusion, too -- such as
when the company was actually founded. Its Web site says
Microworkz was founded in 1991 as an independent custom
software vendor. The company told the Better Business Bureau
it was founded in 1996, and employees tell MSNBC the actual
start date was early 1998. It was incorporated in November of
1998.
On June 6, the company's status as a legal corporation was
dissolved by the Washington Secretary of State's office. The
most likely reason, according to a spokesperson, was failure to file
an annual report.
The consequence: the company can still conduct retail
business, but it cannot conduct any corporate business. The CEO
shrugged it off as a technicality.
"It's a piece of paper that has to be filed once a year. Some
attorneys do it on time. I called the lawyers in and they waved it
off laughingly. They said they do it in November of every year,"
Latman said.
There are other legal troubles for the company as well -- it's
being sued by PC parts supplier Amptron International Inc. for
allegedly failing to pay $41,930 in bills, and bouncing two checks
in December of last year. The suit lashes out personally at
Latman:
"Latman has, and is still, utilizing Microworkz as his alter ego
by so dominating, controlling, and influencing Microworkz's assets
and activities for his own profit, by so failing to satisfy any
corporate formalities such as a proper maintenance of minutes,
director's meetings, etc., by so commingling his personal funds
with Microworkz, and by so failing to establish and/or maintain a
level of capitalization sufficient and/or necessary to conduct
business, as to create a unity of interest and destroy any
separatenesss between Latman
Former employees describe Latman as charismatic, inspiring
Microworkz employees by comparing the company to Dell
Computer Corp. But the former employees all said Latman often
promised more than he could deliver. And despite several
statements from the company that 50,000 Webzter PCs have
been ordered, several former employees contend the company
has received only between 2,000 and 3,000 orders.
There are other troubles for Latman, too. He's being sued
by his co-investors in a Seattle-based porn Web site venture
called Dream Haus Inc. According to the Puget Sound Business
Journal, partners say Latman bounced $22,000 worth of checks,
and created a contest on their site. www.coolchicks.com, with a
grand prize of $50,000 without their consent -- and without
having the money.
This is not the first venture Latman has been involved in
which had trouble delivering merchandise. MSNBC has learned
that 19 small claims judgments were issued against a Beverly Hills
bridal shop run by his wife, Bettina Latman. Richard Latman is
personally cited on half of them. Several of those were initiated
by consumers who complained they left a deposit on a dress, but
never received the gown.
MSNBC research turned up another 26 judgments of one
kind or another against Latman or his wife, including three hefty
tax liens: he owes the IRS $225,000, and $47,000 in California
state taxes.
"I don't doubt that. But what does this have to do with
Microworkz?" Latman said when told of the judgments. He said
the liens still exist because the couple chose not to declare
bankruptcy.
"I wear that failure as a badge," he said, referring to the
failed boutique. "I was involved in counseling her [on the
business]. The reality is the business was poorly planned and
the business failed."
When asked to offer prior technology industry experience,
Latman declined.
Before founding Microworkz "I was going to write software
on a boat," he said. "I have written several dramatic plays. My
goal was to be a writer."
Got a tip about this story? Write to tipoff@msnbc.com
There is legal infringement in -either- event. (Score:3)
It seems to me that the sales rep has described a situation difficult to wriggle out of:
1) If it is truly a linux/BeOS hybrid (which the rep appears to distinguish from "pure" linux) then there is a violation of the GPL. The sales rep needs an education in the term "derived work".
2) If what most people have been saying is true - i.e. that it is only BeOS, and they are just using the Linux moniker to be 'buzzword compliant', then what people seem to be missing is that this is a misrepresentation of their product, and an infringement of a registered trademark.
There is simply -no- way to interpret their marketing without this product, or the marketing thereof, being a legal infringement. It either violates the GPL, or violates Linus' trademark rights. There is no in-between.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. I am, however, a law student. Take the above with whatever dose of salt you deem appropriate.
Re:GPL misunderstanding (Score:2)
Yes, but if you let anyone have the source code, can they not legally distribute it themselves for nothing? (ie. If the cow-orkers[moo-grunt!] got the source, then I'm sure one will run Linux and be smart enough to give it away...)
Of course they can. The sticking point was how far the distributor is required to go in distributing source; once it is distributed, it can be spread to the four winds.
It's moot anyway for the moment, since under the GPL they don't have to distribute a single line of source to anyone unless and until they distribute something with GPLed binary or object code.
Re:GPL Loophole? (Score:2)
Hmm. Suppose they never ship a binary. So when the customer recieves the box, you hit "install", and it says "Please wait", crunch, crunch "Done!". In the "crunch crunch" it compiled the modified GLP-ed components....
That's a tough one. If the place where the box gets the source is generally accessible, there's no problem at all, everyone's happy. If it is not, it violates the spirit of the GPL, but possibly does not violate the letter of the GPL.
The best argument against such a system is found in Section 3: The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. Therefore, if the transmission is not in a form that anyone can modify, it is not source code.
That's not quite right (Score:5)
Not quite... while you are correct about the download issue, source must be available to anyone for whom binaries are available, in the same medium. I.E., if [GPL] binaries are *publicly* available on CDs, [GPL] source must also be *publicly* available on CDs- not just to those who pay for binaries, but also to others in the general public. If binaries are only available to your co-workers or people within your corporation, then you need only make source available within your corporation.
The GPL [gnu.org] says no such thing. To summarize section 3, you can distribute binaries, provided you either:
* include source in the distribution
* include a written offer to send any third party the source in machine readable format for no more than the costs incurred in supplying the source
* pass on the above written offer from the person whom you got the GPL code from
It says later in the section that if you get the source by copying it from somewhere, you can "distribute" the source by giving them the same information and access to copy it that you have.
You do not need to make GPL source publically available, you can limit your distribution to just the people you do business with by shipping the source on the same CD as the binaries. If you do offer to ship source, you have to accept requests from anyone, but you don't need to tell everyone about it, merely the people you ship binaries to. Clearly the easiest way to comply is to make it publically available from a Web or FTP site, but it is by no means a requirement of the GPL.
Re:Advocacy / flaming (Score:1)
Advocacy / flaming (Score:5)
Don't flame these people, and read the Linux-Advocacy HOWTO.
14 seconds (Score:1)
Re:14 seconds- true (Score:1)
Actually, it boots in _thirteen_ seconds from switch to Finder, but I called it fourteen because thirteen was unlucky (you see? it _was_ unlucky! takes it a whole extra second now!)
My 9500 which is the _serious_ machine (and dualboots linuxppc, of course) takes much much longer to boot, over 30 seconds. So did my old performa 575. Classics are very special in some ways, and they boot up so fast it'd make your head spin- I think if you start giving them system 7 etc. then it slows down, but I'm sorry, I've timed it and you are flat wrong. It _is_ damn near an order of magnitude faster to boot than your G3. What's so wrong about that?
Re:There is legal infringement in -either- event. (Score:1)
Seen Perl's license? (Score:1)
There's nothing wrong with this (unless you view making the GPL virus optional wrong).
GPL details (Score:1)
I don't claim any sort of expert status on the GPL, but I once read a statement about the GPL that came with an old version of GCC explaining the intent, written by Richard Stallman.
GPL details (Score:1)
(Sorry about premature posting on the last one... damn tab button)
I don't claim any sort of expert status on the GPL, but I once read a statement about the GPL that came with an old version of GCC explaining the intent, written by Richard Stallman.
This document made it pretty clear that the intent was only to ensure that code, once GPLed, could not subsequently be removed from the public domain. That is, whatever code you got under GPL, you may not restrict distribution of in any way. This does not exclude (the document explicitly said so!) developing proprietary binaries that use the GPLed code, as long as you only restrict the parts you have added. Stallman explained that this allowed companies to use open source code in proprietary programs without needing to copyright and eat up the existing public domain code.
Seems to me that Microworkz is allowed to do what they're doing. Was this document wrong or spurious? Has the GPL been changed? Has anyone asked Richard Stallman?
Re:GPL details (Score:1)
Easy there firebreather, I made no claim that the GPL was wrong or spurious. My remark that the document (!= GPL) I had read might have been wrong or spurious was intended to prevent precisely the kind of knee-jerk flame that I got back.
Perhaps I should restate my question in historical terms. Wasn't the GPL written to address the need to make code publicly available without the risk that it would get eaten up and not be publicly available anyway? What is philosophically wrong with someone using open source code in conjunction with proprietary code, as long as they don't restrict what they got? As I (little old me) understand it, the idea of an open source copyright is to protect your freedom to distribute your code, not to prevent others from using it as they see fit, yesno? (Responses -= reflexive flames).
EE
Re:Advocacy / flaming (Score:1)
nope if you DISTRIBUTE bins
you have to DISTRIBUTE source
nothing about changing matters
Cmdr Taco you rule my friend... (Score:1)
Mwahahahaha!!!! WEINER!
Re:GNU/Linux (Score:1)
If they're referring to anything other than the kernel as Linux, then I think it's time to see if the Linux trademark is still enforcable. Or force them to make a public retraction of their statements about using Linux. (Which would admittedly be one form of enforcing the mark.)
Linux trademark? (Score:2)
Does anyone have a pointer to the status/licensing terms for the Linux trademark?
Buzzword Compliance (Score:1)
The next question is ARE THEY???
There's only one way to find out: The Buzz-Word Counter [sapien.net]
All BeOS. Or so I was told. (Score:5)
I tried the iToaster proto at their booth. It was REALLY, really nice. It DID boot in less than 20 seconds. I would say, the prototype set-top Be demo'ed next to it (kinda going a step beyond into delivery of all kinds of multimedia content channels) really blew me away.
-DougMan, CEO tomorrowsounds Inc.
www.tomorrowsounds.com
Re:GNU/Linux (Score:1)
If they use the GNU utils without modifications they aren't violating the license at all. And this has nothing to do with where the programs are available. They may still need to provide source if ask, but they maybe able to just direct people to somewhere the source is already available (I'm not sure about this though). If they actually had to modify the source to build it, then they do need to provide the modified source of GPL'ed code if asked.
Now if they actually used the linux kernel or parts of it and had to modify it. They do need to provide the source for that. Even if it is never incorperated into the main kernel. Sorry Microworkz(sp?) this is the nature of the GPL.
If they just used the GNU utilies, they are miss using the linux name. And me thinks I hear RMS starting up some GNU advocacy. Maybe iToaster/GNU. :)
Re:*Bzzzzzzzt* Wrong. :) (Score:1)
This is very unlikely to happen given the great number of Linux kernel contributors, but it's possible.
Perhaps you intended to argue that users of software licensed under the GPL can not make proprietary the modifications to said software. This is true if, as you said, the changes are ever published.
Re:BeOS question (Score:1)
Mediafiles eat up drivespace real easy. Some of are already past our 2G of mp3s...
Publicity stunt (Score:1)
marketing.. (Score:1)
"Uses Linux structures" or
"Linux compatible"
or some such nonsense..
Re:Advocacy / flaming (Score:1)
Re:Advocacy / flaming (Score:1)
Re:Advocacy / flaming (Score:1)
No kernel involved (Score:3)
In that case... (Score:1)
Nothing useful (Score:1)
Sorry, bzzzzt right (Score:2)
I have already made a proprietary version of the Linux kernel. Period. It is currently running on a box at home. Period. The source is not and will not be made available for download. Period. I have not violated any feature of the GPL. Period.
Tact and dignity, not flame (Score:1)
Remember, it's not a violation until we know it's a violation. There may not even be any GPL'd code involved. As someone else pointed out, the people who claim "BeOS/Linx hybrid" are marketing people. Most of them don't know a phone jack from an ethernet port.
Jumping on this too quickly, and too harshly, could do more harm than good. Even if, when this does come out, a GPL violation is found, remember that it may be accidental -- and respond first with a tactful notice. If the programmers are typical, they will immediately take steps to correct the violation... if not, then legal action might be explored by the community.
Either way, the community as a whole will get a lot farther using dignity and tact than sending off flame. Think about it: how would you respond to a literal flame? Extinguish it... is that what we want? I thought not.
Please, please, read the Advocacy HOWTO [unc.edu].
Posted by the Proteus
Re:There is legal infringement in -either- event. (Score:2)
You don't know the full story, so your statement that there is no way that it can't be interpreted as some sort of infringement is not true. It can't be interpreted at all at this point in time. There is nowhere near enough technical information available for us to make an informed decision.
Possibilities (Score:5)
Give the iToaster people the benefit of the doubt. If it turns out that they are violating GPL then voice your righteous indignation, but do it politely. Remember that the Open Source community is trying to gain acceptance. If you're a member of the mob mentality you're just another anchor around the neck of Open Source.
It's a cheap machine, 300 bucks, I'll buy one. If I find any code derived from Open Source code I'll make it known. I'm sure others will do the same.
You have make it availble, don't need to ship it. (Score:1)
A better aproach is put it on an ftp, and offer to ship someone a cdrom upon request. There is a fair chance that no one ever request it, and if you handle the request right you come out looking like a good guy.
Besides if I'm going to work on the source I want the latest source not some stale cdrom.
As for diskless boxen you don't need to ship source with them. There is no code install on them. You'd need to provide source in some way for the server programs if you provide them.
The gpl is very loose on how you provide the source.
What about Tivo? (Score:1)
Re:GPL misunderstanding (Score:2)
GPL misunderstanding (Score:5)
The GPL does not require someone using GPLed code to make their changes available for download. The GPL only requires that someone who distributes binaries built from GPLed code to make the source code available to those who received the binaries, upon their request under reasonable terms (only a copying fee).
Thus, the only way to determine whether there is an actual violation of the GPL in this case is to buy the product and check whether it is accompanied by the source or an offer for the source.
Linux utilities. (Score:2)
Wasn't this thing supposed to run some kind of Linux utilities or something? I find it highly unlikely that they modified the linux kernel to run BeOS or BeOS components... besides being illegal if undistributed, that level of integration would be a waste of time. It probably just runs Be and some ported Linux apps.
All this is just idle speculation though.
Re:other issues -- tech view (Score:1)
My understanding is that it's not meant to be upgradeable at all. In addition to being misreported as a Linux box, it's really a misrepresentation to call the iToaster a normal PC--it's closer to a cross between WebTV and the Canon Cat [hurstad.com] (a really cool piece of hardware partially designed by Mac designer Jef Raskin [apple-history.com]). This is not aimed at the typical Slashdot crowd, or even pretend power users; it's aimed at people who want to be able to surf the net and do "computer-like things" like word processing and spreadsheets, without actually buying a computer.
As for what they might be taking from Linux, I doubt it's much of anything but buzzwords. Non-tech people know the name Linux and go "ooo" when it's mentioned; Be doesn't have that luxury. There'd be little point in porting X to BeOS for this kind of device.
Didn't BE use LILO? (Score:1)
Re:Advocacy / flaming (Score:3)
One other angle -- granted, based on everything else here, plus CNNfn's update, etc., the marketroids were probably mistaken about the extent of Linux' involvement. The toaster product may contain GNU utils in an unmodified state -- no reason not to use them, since POSIX compliance makes it easy to do, and GNU did such a thorough job. All that said, the OSS community in general and the Linux people in particular are on a cusp with commercial adoption, and embedded systems are one of the bigger niches we'd like to delve into. If we give the toaster manufacturer a hard time about violating the GPL before it's confirmed (and that's a long way off, when we can get one and take it apart), we run the risk of scaring off manufacturers, especially since this applies to their most crucial concern -- the GPL.
The GPL is a hard thing for the established corporations to figure out already; extensive /. flammage, whether factually warranted or not, could tip the (currently precarious) balance in adoption against us. Wait 'till the OSS community disassembles them to see if they've modified any GPL code; if so, we can politely request the code, and go through the proper motions.
Re:Big Brother (Score:1)
Hmph. If this is the case, consider acquiring a better better half! :-)
Great idea, but... (Score:3)
I don't know about you, but if I forget about my pop tarts one morning, I don't want my whole web server going down in flames.
It had better be secure out of the box, or we'll have a lot of newbies screaming "L3gg0 my 3gg0!"
Thanks, but no thanks. I think this stuff is getting a bit out of hand.
--
Re:Advocacy / flaming (Score:1)
Re:Advocacy / flaming (Score:1)
i wonder if they really mean gnu (Score:2)
if so, it would seem to lend weight to rms's gnu/linux complaint (though i still think it's a silly request).
Re:GPL misunderstanding (Score:1)
~luge
Re:Advocacy / flaming (Score:3)
However, it would still be nice if a) they released a complete list of GPL programs they use, and b) if they allowed some independent code auditor to assure they had not modified the code in any way. Microworkz has not been known for their wonderful management practices in the past, and this might be another example of their corner cutting. While I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, they should provide a mechanism by which we can check if that trust has been earned or not.
Second, what about Be? I can't imagine them letting these folks use any of their work without paying some nice licensing fees. This type of box is not going to help the high-end image Be wants to project, so I can't imagine them giving it away (as they promised/threatened to do in exchange for OEM share.) How, then, can Microworkz make it so cheap? Hmm...
my two cents-
~luge
Re:GPL misunderstanding (Score:1)
I cannot find anything in the GPL that makes it possible for me to conclude this. If you stick to your claim: Could you please provide some references? The ending paragraph of section 3 could possibly be misremembered as having that effect, but a careful reading show it as an alternative to the options in 3a/3b/3c. That's as close to finding justification as I've been able to come.
If binaries are only available to your co-workers or people within your corporation, then you need only make source available within your corporation. But - and this is a sticking point - you need to allow the people in your corporation to re-distribute the source all they want. Even bring it with them to their new employer, your competitor. Not useful for anything where you do any significant investment in the code for competitive advantage. Which is the drawback of the GPL - it stops business users from doing most of the thingsthat require an investment (and subsequent payback) with your source base, making all the 'protection' it gives you meaningless.
Eivind.
Re:GNU/Linux (Score:1)
As much as he's been fighting for the prefix "GNU/" whenever someone refers to an operating system with the Linux kernel and GNU components, I can just image the color of his face when someone uses "Linux" to refer to the GNU tools and not the kernel!
Christopher A. Bohn
Re:BeOS question (Score:1)
It really is a 'clean' OS - it'd be cleaner if they'd get rid of all that X86 cruft, though.
- Darchmare
- Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
Re:Why linux isn't in devices like this (yet) (Score:1)
Re:Open letter to Microworkz (Score:1)
Did you feel as though you had done the Linux/GNU/OSS community a service after writing that email?
Re:They should have used BSD (Score:1)
And in the current one, an asshole? I've had friends who've had to deal with him over code recently...
Linux may be great kids, but Communism is tired. To say the least.
Re:GPL Loophole? (Score:1)
Hmm. Suppose they never ship a binary. So when the customer recieves the box, you hit "install", and it says "Please wait", crunch, crunch "Done!". In the "crunch crunch" it compiled the modified GLP-ed components....
Roger.
Re:All BeOS. Or so I was told. (Score:1)
I can get full services started up in like 18-20 seconds, and get to the log in prompt (of course not using gnome desktop login thingy maginy (great technical language)).
Then again this machine takes like a minute and a half to boot the Mac OS 8.6, mainly because I have a hell of alot of extentions, and because this machine is like 2 years old.
Re:Possibilities (Score:1)
GNU is the set of basic tools that can work with any operating system, as long as you release the source of your tools if you make modifications.
Speaking of that, doesn't BeOS use some GNU tools with it's core distrobution? I believe GNU bash is included for example. And yes I know the source code of many sample BeOS apps is their, as is many of the headers to the BeOS (but obviously no source).
What I thought an iToast was (Score:1)
Well maybe it's just because I really haven't be paying to much attention to Microworkz, I'm just not in the market for something like it.
Re:There might not need to be source. (Score:1)
But this is all pretty academic anyway, since it looks like this iToaster doesn't run Linux.
Embedded contest (Score:1)
point after the rumor of talks between Microworkz.com and AOL. It may happens that AOL will distribute this device for
free in exchange to online subscription fees. The small iToaster can take this new market by storm. What else to say...
Do you know that BeOS is written on C++?
http://www.ecsl.cs.sunysb.edu/~andrew/awards/19
Re:*Bzzzzzzzt* Wrong. :) (Score:1)
copyrighted material under any other license you choose, conflicting
with the GPL or not."
THANK YOU!!! I got moderated down (and maybe flamed, I didn't check) for saying almost this.
I did make the mistake of saying "original author"
when I menat "copyright holder", but I wasn't wrong.
Go to PCExpo and ask!! (Score:1)
R4 and R4.5 come with the most all of the GNU Utils, and use GCC as the compiler. That is more likley the part that is "Linux"
Maybe that's what they want. (Score:1)
Come to think of it, iToaster also sounds a lot like the Video Toaster of NewTek fame.
How about iTV instead?
Jon Acheson
Not Linux at all (Score:1)
Re:Maybe that's what they want. (Score:1)
Having said which, this is the company who claimed that a trashcan was their symbol...
--
Great quote! (Score:1)
That aside, sounds to me a lot like the marketroids are just saying it uses Linux because that is The Next Big Thing(tm) and hoping people won't call them on it.
Even the CNN article now says it is Be (Score:1)
So basically some people in marketing thought that since Microworkz set this machine up to be stable and to network efficiently, and since Linux is known for stability and network efficiency, that they could say that the system was Linux based. A rather unwise thing to say when a community of supports is willing to pounce on anyone who tries to purloin GPLed code.
Please just let these people breath a bit... (Score:1)
Gotta buy one and find out (Score:1)
If it doesn't look usable, it might be simple enough to reformat the drive and load REAL Linux on it.
Whichever, it still looks like an interesting system. ("Interesting" in the meaning that Spock might use; I got beat up on this term a month or so ago.)
--
Be's role (Score:1)
Last time I looked, they were giving the OS away to any OEM who wanted to preload it on their PCs (thus the recent rash of announcements). I'm not sure if that extends to the iToaster or not, but I'm sure their fee is very reasonable.
D
----
There might not need to be source. (Score:1)
Why?
Because most likely they don't need to modify the kernel. Think about it - is their hardware not made from fairly standard PC components? Why would they need to modify the kernel?
D
----
Right, and you MUST start a flamewar then? (Score:1)
Re:GPL details (Score:1)
1) The GPL should be included with any piece of GPL'ed software. Go read it again.
2) Repeat step 1 a few times.
3) Richard Stallman wrote the GPL. Don't worry about asking him; I'm sure he'll let us know his opinion about this whole mess soon.
4) GPL'd code IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. Repeat this statement until it sinks in.
5) You seem to be misinterpreting the GPL with regard to distribution. Inhouse changes to GPL'd code do not need to be distributed, but if the binaries are available to anyone other than yourself ("yourself" in this case might refer to an entity such as a corporation), YOU MUST DISTRIBUTE YOUR CHANGES IN SOURCE FORM TO ANYONE WHO REQUESTS THEM. Clear enough?
6) The GPL is not wrong or spurious. You are wrong. Go back to step 1 again.
Nobody really knows what Microworkz has done yet; save your breath until we find out. It might have helped if you had bothered to read other people's comments before posting your own. Keep this in mind for future reference.
Re:GPL details (Score:1)
The point of the GPL is not to prevent use of GPL'd software with proprietary software, but to prevent CHANGES to GPL'd software being made proprietary. As I said, if you read earlier comments you would probably have been able to figure that out. If Microworkz made changes to GPL'd code to get it to work on the iToaster without making the changes available in source form, this is a breach of the GPL.
(Replies += clue)
Re:Problem with GPL (Score:1)
First off, if the binaries are identical, or have large stretches of identical bits then they almost certainly have the same source (or some of). At least it's likely enough you could start questioning people in the company under oath.
Second, if it has identical behavior, it's probably identical code. Especially Bugs. GNU ls had a buffer overflow and printed out all Q's when you did such-and-such, so does this program. again, not proof, but enough to get a judge thinking.
Certainly if it has 'most all the same features, and works in 'most 'zactly the same way, people will notice THAT and start looking. Hey... funny.... my linux binary just ran fine on AIX... and I'm using undocumented interfaces..
You could... But is risky. Which will 'least discourage big companies from doing it.
Re:GNU/Linux (Score:1)
Well, they also need to state that the software is licensed under the GPL, and provide pointers to where the source is available.
Re:Sorry, bzzzzt right (Score:1)
Jim
typo. line 1: s/make/distribute/ (Score:1)
In a way, this is a good thing (Score:2)
If, as other posters have pointed out, Microworkz marketing made reference to Linux in the sense that "our product is really stable and has great networking capabilities", then that's great! It means that some really well-done Linux advocacy has been going on. Would you prefer them to say "combines the UI of Be with the unstoppable power of Windows NT"? I didn't think so.
I'll admit that they could have gone about their advertising a little better. It's confusing to say that the iToaster includes Linux but doesn't come with the source, and even worse when we find out that the product doesn't include Linux but uses the Linux(tm) trademark in their advertising anyway. Now if they had quoted a reviewer who said "it's solid just like Linux" then that would be OK. I guess their marketing department didn't run this by the legal department on its way out the door.
All in all, there are worst things that could happen than Linux becoming the generic term for small, stable, networkable operating systems.
Hmmm (Score:2)
Buzzword Compliance considered dangerous. (Score:2)
Somebody buys an iToaster because it's "Linux buzzword compliant", takes it home, sets it up, and discovers it doesn't run his Linux apps, because it isn't really Linux.
or worse:
Because of trademark dilution, anybody can call anything Linux. Microsoft releases their next version of NT as "Microsoft Linux". Linux gets a rep as a crashy OS because of this (plus the problems of brand confusion as above.)
If the iToaster really contains no Linux then Microjerkz should get a very nice letter from a law firm on the behalf of Linus (the trademark owner), to cease and desist and issue a retraction at least as prominently as the initial announcment. Maybe the marketdroids really didn't know that Linux was a trademark. But they need to be formally reminded that it is.
(If it does contain Linux, then they have the GPL problem.)
Why linux isn't in devices like this (yet) (Score:2)
More to the point, it would be really cool if we could get linux into this kind of box (yes, I know there's a small set-top company using it, but there are a million set tops that run everything, we'll see which one wins).
Linux has three key problems in this department. The first is boot time. Anybody know of projects to build an insta-boot linux for embedded devices?
The second, the lack of a journalled file system, has been beaten to death. Consumers just want to be able to flick it on and flick it off. We'll see how ext3 does, but I wouldn't be surprised if it took a splinter filesystem to work with small consumer devices. They have such different needs from enterprise servers that they shouldn't necessarily have the same features.
The final kicker is XF86. Great software in many ways, and everything I've heard about 4.0 sounds incredible, but it's not small. Anybody have an update on some of the attempts to create a micro-sized graphics system (GGI and Berlin? I can't really remember). . .
--JZ
Just BeOS (Score:2)
However, then I read this story on ars [ars-technica.com] which confirms what other people have been saying: it just runs Be.
Big Brother (Score:2)
I wonder if they mean they will set it up so you can view your browser history on your local machine or if they will make this gadget report to their servers about what you've been up to. In other words: No more porn for those of you with a better half
This kinda bothers me, I would personally hate to have all the websites I visited logged on a remote system which might be accessible to (Insert name of curious person here). My boss wouldn't be happy if he would get a report on how much time I spent on slashdot
Message on our company Intranet:
"You have a sticker in your private area"
Problem with GPL (Score:2)
What I mean is if I am a company, I could simply get linux code on the web alter it and then release my proprietary software. If I don't fall in the mistake of telling people I used linux in the first place how would people would know to file a law-suite?
And I used 'linux' in my example but it could be any program at all, just do "s/linux/xxxx/" and there you are.
And this could be happening right now, how can one be 100% shure that window, OS/2, AIX or any other OS don't have some part of the linux or other GPL code hidden inside it? We don't have access to source code of those system. And how about word, excel, word-perfect and etc...?
Right now many programs could be violating the GPL and we will never know that they are. It's near impossible, if not impossible, to discover that some program used some code within it, without the access to the code itself. And even if you have access to the code, this could be very hard as there are many forms of obscuring code (mainly C).
--
"take the red pill and you stay in wonderland and I'll show you how deep the rabitt hole goes"
Correct iToaster URL (Score:2)
http://Microworkz.com/Products/i Toaster/iToaster.cfm [microworkz.com]
iToaster Poetry (Score:2)
to share it around a little more. Someone posted the following poem by
Thomas Disch:
Lives there a man with soul so dead
He's never to his toaster said:
"You are my friend; I see in you
An object sturdy, staunch, and true;
A fellow mettlesome and trim;
A brightness that the years can't dim."?
Then let us praise the brave appliance
In which we place this just reliance.
And offer it with each fresh slice
Such words of friendship and advice
As "How are things with you tonight?"
Or "Not too dark but not too light."
it inspired me to create my own topical followup:
But now my friendly old appliance
Will not maintain his trusty silence.
Instead, although it makes me sad,
He showers me with banner ads.
His days of toasting bread are past;
He wants me to Make Money Fast.
He once was satisfied enough in
Browning up my english muffin
But now he fills my mail with spamsters!
He wants to show me dancing hamsters!
That is my tale, though it's depressin'.
To others let it be a lesson.
The dangers only now I see
Of Toaster TCP/IP.
Re:Advocacy / flaming (Score:2)
No auditor is needed. If they're using shipping GPL code in the toaster, and they're shipping the toaster, they have to ship the source (or let you know where to get it).
I once worked for a company that played with the concept of shipping diskless Linux boxen connected to a server. We figured we had to ship a Linux source CD with each box to meet GPL requirements. The fact that we expected our customer base to use them as coffee coasters was entirely beside the point...
Re:There is legal infringement in -either- event. (Score:3)
If the iToaster has no Linux within it, and they stated that it does, then we (and especially Linus) should write to their marketing (not legal) department, noting the problem and asking them to retract the word "Linux". A smart, professional marketing department will at least stop using the word "Linux", if not post an apology and a retraction. It saves them a lot of face to handle the situation that way, and marketing is all about face.
If this doesn't work, the next step is to send a similar message to their legal department. A smart, professional lawyer will realize that it is a lot cheaper to retract the statement then to go to court over it--corporate lawyers are hired to keep their clients out of court.
If these first two steps don't work, then you have to bring in the lawyers and sue for trademark infringement. This is the last resort, and the expensive solution. You likely won't get here, unless the company is being nonprofessional and deserves to be shown up in court anyhow.
Hoo-rah...That's the way to promote Linux (Score:2)
You on the other hand should probably read the Linux advocacy mini-HOWTO [datasync.com]. Then you should write a polite letter apologizing for your immature behavior. I suggest that the fellow Slashdot readers also write a short, carefully worded e-mail to to Microworkz and the misinformed news agencies.
Remember, it's easier to catch flies with honey than vinegar.