On 1/4/06, Alberto Moreira wrote:
> Hey, Bill,
>
> The whole of Linux has been built on the idea of free software,
> and it has benefited a lot of people.
Sure it has helped many people copy-paste code. Overall inux
has hampered code development and OS research as a whole. Out of the
100’s of people on KML of a handful few contribute to the kernel , so
research wise no major gains. On the contrary, beginners on OS get
into the easy habbit of looking up on LXR and RE-ENGINEERING stuff
(thats the way its done by a avg person who works on the linux kernel,
iam not talking about the biggies).
I feel, looking at any code implementation ONCE makes u r
efforts heavily biased towards it, (that particular implementation)
and indirectly kills the minuscle creative effort that would other
wise would have been put to use.
Iam ok with closed source, some people work on pieces of work
for half of thier lifes, and if keeping thier closed helps them earn
some importance they should do it, its thier perspective.
But for People being troubled with CLOSED - SOURCE code should
either
have the FIRE to say, “Bullshit, lets implement it on our own (why not
even the hardware)”, i mean to say what is it? Is the hardware and
ALIEN SPACESHIP or is the code to be written in Egyptian Undocumented
hierglyphics ?.
or
Study software engineering and discard the project in its
technical/financial feasibilty accessment. There is lots of GOOD work
to be done than cleaning up somebody else’s SIT :). Dont worry!
people USING the hardware will EVOLVE as we all did from APEs.
Why force a developer do a SCAVENGERS work. Most of
developers, usually find themseleves in such mess of re-engineering
and whatever stuff, just because some STUPID FIRM THINKS THAT IT HAS
INVETED (mostly discovered by happy realization) THE CODE OF LIFE (he
he). Put thier patent/invention back up thier a**.
Software patents, must be give a apt metaphors of CRAZY
partners/friends who refuse to co-operate. What do u do when they say
NO. Looks like we sit and cry / cribb over a mailing list 
No offence
Thanks and Regards
Faraz.
Also, patents rarely
> benefit the creator except very indirectly as a brownie point in
> one’s resume’. If patents were untransferable and belonged to
> the creator and not to the corporation, it would be a fair
> concept; as it is, it’s an aberration. I also like you, Bill,
> but personally, I will pass.
>
> Alberto.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: “Bill McKenzie”
> Newsgroups: ntdev
> To: “Windows System Software Devs Interest List”
>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 8:02 PM
> Subject: Re:[ntdev] Re:[OT] Disassembler recommendations?
>
>
> > Software patents seem somewhat specious to me, but then again
> > I don’t have any My take is that the patent lawyers don’t
> > have the tools to handle software patents very well.
> >
> > At my last company I saw a guy get a patent for technology
> > that was a.) blatently obvious, b.) already being used (the
> > EXACT technology) in shipping products for over 8 years, and
> > finally c.) covered in almost identical language in a
> > pre-existing patent. I would say that that patent is about as
> > useful as a roll of Charmin, and I would not hesitate to use
> > the technology from that patent in a product for one second.
> >
> > Also, it seems the precedent in software has gone against
> > patents for the most part.
> >
> > All of that said:
> >
> >>Meanwhile, I believe it’s our common interest to patent the
> >>least possible, and to make as much code as we possibly can
> >>publicly available for the benefit of the whole kernel dev
> >>community.
> >
> > I could not disagree with you more. Giving out free software
> > (primarily with source), aside from simple starter examples
> > and/or brief technology demonstrations, is about as
> > intelligent a move for a developer as building you a free
> > house. I like you Alberto, but personally, I will pass.
> >
> > Bill M.
> >
> > “Alberto Moreira” wrote in message
> > news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> >> You know, I don’t know much patented real stuff - as opposed
> >> to obvious stuff - that hasn’t been covered by some paper in
> >> some journal, and I am of the opinion that a pretty large
> >> amount of patents out there fall in the category I would call
> >> “obvious”, and hence they shouldn’t have been granted to
> >> begin with. But that’s just an opinion. As I see it, nothing
> >> should be patentable unless it passed a strict peer review of
> >> forefront researchers: if a top quality academic journal
> >> wouldn’t publish it, it shouldn’t deserve to be patented!
> >>
> >> And then, again, the half-life of patented stuff is jolly
> >> short. Much of the value of a patent, as I see it, is a
> >> brownie point jotted down against the psychological value of
> >> a company; they may be pretty nice for bean counters, but
> >> those of us on the front line of research and development
> >> shouldn’t need to sweat because of patents. Just do it
> >> differently, or go find that paper in that journal, which
> >> preempts the patent to begin with, and use it. And you know
> >> what ? Chances are that by the time you get your development
> >> done, the patent is obsolete anyway.
> >>
> >> Meanwhile, I believe it’s our common interest to patent the
> >> least possible, and to make as much code as we possibly can
> >> publicly available for the benefit of the whole kernel dev
> >> community.
> >>
> >>
> >> Alberto.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: “Don Burn”
> >> Newsgroups: ntdev
> >> To: “Windows System Software Devs Interest List”
> >>
> >> Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 11:53 AM
> >> Subject: Re:[ntdev] [OT] Disassembler recommendations?
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> “Oliver Schneider” wrote in message
> >>> news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> >>>> That’s why we Europeans don’t like (pure) software patents
> >>>> :o) … it only
> >>>> benefits those really big companies that already have a
> >>>> truck-load of patent
> >>>> applications around the corner of the EU patent office.
> >>>>
> >>> I’m sure that OSR who has applied for a software patent
> >>> appreciates the “really big company” moniker, I know I and
> >>> my partner do as we apply for our third patent (now if we
> >>> only had some big firm money).
> >>>
> >>> The contention that software patents are all covered by
> >>> academic research is bullshit. If so then obviously all
> >>> Computer Science PHD programs should shut down, since there
> >>> is nothing new to invent or research for a students
> >>> doctorate!
> >>>
> >>> I remember explaining my first software patent to a couple
> >>> university professors, one got excited thinking is was
> >>> great. The other said it was obvious and there should be no
> >>> patent. So I started asking him where it was obvious or
> >>> prior art. Well the prior art was pretty far afield of the
> >>> way the patent did it, so we moved on to the obvious
> >>> comment, at which point he explained that no he had never
> >>> heard of this but “once you have explained how to do it, it
> >>> is obvious!”. If patents needed to clear this bar, there
> >>> would be few useful inventions.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> –
> >>> Don Burn (MVP, Windows DDK)
> >>> Windows 2k/XP/2k3 Filesystem and Driver Consulting
> >>> Remove StopSpam from the email to reply
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> —
> >>> Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
> >>> http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
> >>>
> >>> You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@ieee.org
> >>> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> >>> xxxxx@lists.osr.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > —
> > Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
> > http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
> >
> > You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@ieee.org
> > To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> > xxxxx@lists.osr.com
>
>
>
> —
> Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
> http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
>
> You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@gmail.com
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com
>
Faraz Ahmed wrote:
Sure it has helped many people copy-paste code. Overall *inux
has hampered code development and OS research as a whole.
That’s an incredible load of FUD. Linux has made operating system
internals accessible to thousands of developers who otherwise would not
have had the opportunity. By having the kernel available, universities
have been able to experiment with operating system algorithms and
techniques freely, without having to start over from scratch every
time. The incremental improvements in Linux over the years have been
quite substantial. The process scheduler has been redesigned several
times. The network stack has been rearchitected several times. The
innovations in file system techniques alone have been quite impressive.
You tend not to see this, because the improvements come out bit by bit,
rather than in a large bunch accompanied by press releases and clever
advertising jingles, but if you compare the Linux 2.6 kernel to even the
2.0 kernel, you cannot say that it has suffered from “hampered code
development”.
You’re allowed to dislike Linux, for whatever reasons, but don’t make
blanket statements without basis.
–
Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
You dont know what are you talking about. I didnt seen
in a long time a email full with bullshit, such as is yours.
Dan
----- Original Message -----
From: “Faraz Ahmed”
To: “Windows System Software Devs Interest List”
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 9:32 AM
Subject: Re:[ntdev] Disassembler recommendations?
On 1/4/06, Alberto Moreira wrote:
> Hey, Bill,
>
> The whole of Linux has been built on the idea of free software,
> and it has benefited a lot of people.
Sure it has helped many people copy-paste code. Overall inux
has hampered code development and OS research as a whole. Out of the
100’s of people on KML of a handful few contribute to the kernel , so
research wise no major gains. On the contrary, beginners on OS get
into the easy habbit of looking up on LXR and RE-ENGINEERING stuff
(thats the way its done by a avg person who works on the linux kernel,
iam not talking about the biggies).
I feel, looking at any code implementation ONCE makes u r
efforts heavily biased towards it, (that particular implementation)
and indirectly kills the minuscle creative effort that would other
wise would have been put to use.
Iam ok with closed source, some people work on pieces of work
for half of thier lifes, and if keeping thier closed helps them earn
some importance they should do it, its thier perspective.
But for People being troubled with CLOSED - SOURCE code should
either
have the FIRE to say, “Bullshit, lets implement it on our own (why not
even the hardware)”, i mean to say what is it? Is the hardware and
ALIEN SPACESHIP or is the code to be written in Egyptian Undocumented
hierglyphics ?.
or
Study software engineering and discard the project in its
technical/financial feasibilty accessment. There is lots of GOOD work
to be done than cleaning up somebody else’s SIT :). Dont worry!
people USING the hardware will EVOLVE as we all did from APEs.
Why force a developer do a SCAVENGERS work. Most of
developers, usually find themseleves in such mess of re-engineering
and whatever stuff, just because some STUPID FIRM THINKS THAT IT HAS
INVETED (mostly discovered by happy realization) THE CODE OF LIFE (he
he). Put thier patent/invention back up thier a**.
Software patents, must be give a apt metaphors of CRAZY
partners/friends who refuse to co-operate. What do u do when they say
NO. Looks like we sit and cry / cribb over a mailing list
No offence
Thanks and Regards
Faraz.
Also, patents rarely
> benefit the creator except very indirectly as a brownie point in
> one’s resume’. If patents were untransferable and belonged to
> the creator and not to the corporation, it would be a fair
> concept; as it is, it’s an aberration. I also like you, Bill,
> but personally, I will pass.
>
> Alberto.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: “Bill McKenzie”
> Newsgroups: ntdev
> To: “Windows System Software Devs Interest List”
>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 8:02 PM
> Subject: Re:[ntdev] Re:[OT] Disassembler recommendations?
>
>
> > Software patents seem somewhat specious to me, but then again
> > I don’t have any My take is that the patent lawyers don’t
> > have the tools to handle software patents very well.
> >
> > At my last company I saw a guy get a patent for technology
> > that was a.) blatently obvious, b.) already being used (the
> > EXACT technology) in shipping products for over 8 years, and
> > finally c.) covered in almost identical language in a
> > pre-existing patent. I would say that that patent is about as
> > useful as a roll of Charmin, and I would not hesitate to use
> > the technology from that patent in a product for one second.
> >
> > Also, it seems the precedent in software has gone against
> > patents for the most part.
> >
> > All of that said:
> >
> >>Meanwhile, I believe it’s our common interest to patent the
> >>least possible, and to make as much code as we possibly can
> >>publicly available for the benefit of the whole kernel dev
> >>community.
> >
> > I could not disagree with you more. Giving out free software
> > (primarily with source), aside from simple starter examples
> > and/or brief technology demonstrations, is about as
> > intelligent a move for a developer as building you a free
> > house. I like you Alberto, but personally, I will pass.
> >
> > Bill M.
> >
> > “Alberto Moreira” wrote in message
> > news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> >> You know, I don’t know much patented real stuff - as opposed
> >> to obvious stuff - that hasn’t been covered by some paper in
> >> some journal, and I am of the opinion that a pretty large
> >> amount of patents out there fall in the category I would call
> >> “obvious”, and hence they shouldn’t have been granted to
> >> begin with. But that’s just an opinion. As I see it, nothing
> >> should be patentable unless it passed a strict peer review of
> >> forefront researchers: if a top quality academic journal
> >> wouldn’t publish it, it shouldn’t deserve to be patented!
> >>
> >> And then, again, the half-life of patented stuff is jolly
> >> short. Much of the value of a patent, as I see it, is a
> >> brownie point jotted down against the psychological value of
> >> a company; they may be pretty nice for bean counters, but
> >> those of us on the front line of research and development
> >> shouldn’t need to sweat because of patents. Just do it
> >> differently, or go find that paper in that journal, which
> >> preempts the patent to begin with, and use it. And you know
> >> what ? Chances are that by the time you get your development
> >> done, the patent is obsolete anyway.
> >>
> >> Meanwhile, I believe it’s our common interest to patent the
> >> least possible, and to make as much code as we possibly can
> >> publicly available for the benefit of the whole kernel dev
> >> community.
> >>
> >>
> >> Alberto.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: “Don Burn”
> >> Newsgroups: ntdev
> >> To: “Windows System Software Devs Interest List”
> >>
> >> Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 11:53 AM
> >> Subject: Re:[ntdev] [OT] Disassembler recommendations?
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> “Oliver Schneider” wrote in message
> >>> news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> >>>> That’s why we Europeans don’t like (pure) software patents
> >>>> :o) … it only
> >>>> benefits those really big companies that already have a
> >>>> truck-load of patent
> >>>> applications around the corner of the EU patent office.
> >>>>
> >>> I’m sure that OSR who has applied for a software patent
> >>> appreciates the “really big company” moniker, I know I and
> >>> my partner do as we apply for our third patent (now if we
> >>> only had some big firm money).
> >>>
> >>> The contention that software patents are all covered by
> >>> academic research is bullshit. If so then obviously all
> >>> Computer Science PHD programs should shut down, since there
> >>> is nothing new to invent or research for a students
> >>> doctorate!
> >>>
> >>> I remember explaining my first software patent to a couple
> >>> university professors, one got excited thinking is was
> >>> great. The other said it was obvious and there should be no
> >>> patent. So I started asking him where it was obvious or
> >>> prior art. Well the prior art was pretty far afield of the
> >>> way the patent did it, so we moved on to the obvious
> >>> comment, at which point he explained that no he had never
> >>> heard of this but “once you have explained how to do it, it
> >>> is obvious!”. If patents needed to clear this bar, there
> >>> would be few useful inventions.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> –
> >>> Don Burn (MVP, Windows DDK)
> >>> Windows 2k/XP/2k3 Filesystem and Driver Consulting
> >>> Remove StopSpam from the email to reply
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> —
> >>> Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
> >>> http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
> >>>
> >>> You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@ieee.org
> >>> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> >>> xxxxx@lists.osr.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > —
> > Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
> > http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
> >
> > You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@ieee.org
> > To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> > xxxxx@lists.osr.com
>
>
>
> —
> Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
> http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
>
> You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@gmail.com
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com
>
—
Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: unknown lmsubst tag argument: ‘’
To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com