Linus Torvalds was visiting the National Zoo and Aquarium in Australia, looking for something fun to associate with Linux, and was bitten by a Fairy Penguin. Linus ended up really liking the flightless bird. One good thing about penguins is that they are flightless birds that can't crash, which is always a good thing for computer languages. In 1996, Larry Ewing was looking online, and found a photograph of a penguin that he liked, and created what we now know as Tux. James Hughes came up with the name Tux for the mascot, saying that it stands for "Torvalds UniX", although a lot of people associate penguins with tuxedos.
The character Tux was actually entered into a Linux Logo contest, but never won. So it is not considered the official logo for Linux, but is still considered the mascot. Over the last few years, many renditions of Tux have been created and are around the internet. For example, you can find a Linux game called Tux Racer, where the user guides tux down a ski slope on his belly, trying to catch fish and play against time.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Net Neutrality
Net Neutrality is a principle that all users have equal rights to the internet, with no restrictions to sites, content, or the types of equipment that the user uses to access the internet. So if a user pays for a certain level of internet access, and another user pays for the same internet access, these 2 users should be able to connect to each other with the same amount of access to the internet. It states that internet companies should not be allowed to remove competition, block content, or degrade a network performance because one user is using a form of equipment, the company doesn't want to support.
In 2005, the FCC issued its Broadband Policy Statement, that states that as long as the user uses the internet in a lawful way, they should be able to access the internet with their own choice of equipment, use their own applications on the internet, as long as none of these things harm the network.
In 2008 the FCC auctioned off a 700 MHz block of wireless spectrum because of the DTV transitions for downloading files, with open services and networks to third parties (resellers).
In 2009, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski proposed 2 more rules to the 2005 policy stating that there shouldn't be any discrimination to what users of the internet use to access the internet and that wireless providers should have the same net neutrality as wireline providers.
In 2010, the US Court of Appeals ruled that the FCC does not have the authority to enforce 'net neutrality'. In 2007, customers realized that Comcast was slowing or stopping user to user network sharing (also known as "throttling"). Complaints were filed with the FCC, and the FCC told Comcast to "knock it off", and Comcast agreed, but saw ways to get around the original FCC ruling. Comcast is a cable company, and if users can access movies and shows for free, then they lose money. So, they want to manage their network, so they can decide at what speed users can download, and if Comcast is able to acquire NBC, then it will control at what speed users view anything on that channel.
I am personally in favor of net neutrality. If users pay for a certain service, then I do not believe that companies should have the right to put 'restriction' on a payed service. It should be put in clear text what you are paying for, and for how long your contract is good for. For a company to say that you cannot use your phone to access the internet, because they do not except that phone provider, but yet you pay to use their internet services, seems like a breach of contract and human rights. Telephone companies are not allowed to tell telephone user who they can or cannot call, or what they are allowed to say, so what is the difference with the usage of the internet. And if we allow companies to start to control what we see, say and do? When will it stop? When will we (the paying public) have no more rights to anything? If a company wants to charge to watch a movie, or show, fine, I understand the copyright issues, and making of money. But why is it okay, to slow down my communication, or even block access, because I want to go and view my cousins video website, that isn't supported by my 'service provider' that I pay for?
In 2005, the FCC issued its Broadband Policy Statement, that states that as long as the user uses the internet in a lawful way, they should be able to access the internet with their own choice of equipment, use their own applications on the internet, as long as none of these things harm the network.
In 2008 the FCC auctioned off a 700 MHz block of wireless spectrum because of the DTV transitions for downloading files, with open services and networks to third parties (resellers).
In 2009, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski proposed 2 more rules to the 2005 policy stating that there shouldn't be any discrimination to what users of the internet use to access the internet and that wireless providers should have the same net neutrality as wireline providers.
In 2010, the US Court of Appeals ruled that the FCC does not have the authority to enforce 'net neutrality'. In 2007, customers realized that Comcast was slowing or stopping user to user network sharing (also known as "throttling"). Complaints were filed with the FCC, and the FCC told Comcast to "knock it off", and Comcast agreed, but saw ways to get around the original FCC ruling. Comcast is a cable company, and if users can access movies and shows for free, then they lose money. So, they want to manage their network, so they can decide at what speed users can download, and if Comcast is able to acquire NBC, then it will control at what speed users view anything on that channel.
I am personally in favor of net neutrality. If users pay for a certain service, then I do not believe that companies should have the right to put 'restriction' on a payed service. It should be put in clear text what you are paying for, and for how long your contract is good for. For a company to say that you cannot use your phone to access the internet, because they do not except that phone provider, but yet you pay to use their internet services, seems like a breach of contract and human rights. Telephone companies are not allowed to tell telephone user who they can or cannot call, or what they are allowed to say, so what is the difference with the usage of the internet. And if we allow companies to start to control what we see, say and do? When will it stop? When will we (the paying public) have no more rights to anything? If a company wants to charge to watch a movie, or show, fine, I understand the copyright issues, and making of money. But why is it okay, to slow down my communication, or even block access, because I want to go and view my cousins video website, that isn't supported by my 'service provider' that I pay for?
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Should you buy an IPad?
With reading this article, it is hard for me to say whether you should buy it now or wait. In one aspect, I would say to wait to buy an IPad...unless of course you want to just say you have one. This article I believe states the basics of what technology is all about. The question is, who will be the first to come out with (enter application here). Then everyone else spends the rest of the year trying to out-do the first release.
The IPad, although cool and something different, you can't view flash, it still has the issues that the IPhone has with only being able to do one thing at a time, and it is expensive. But, its the first out there, so people will wait in line and buy it. But if you choose to wait on buying the IPad, you will be able to have a selection of different tablets, that will each have their own special 'advantages' over each other. Whether it be price, the programs it can run, how many programs it can run at once, contracts that might need to be signed, the list can be endless.
For a technology company to say that it will not compete with another technology release, is stupid. You wouldn't be in business very long as a technology company if you didn't get anything to the public that competed with other technology companies.
Otherwise, if you really want to buy the IPad now, and you know what the restrictions are on it, the price, and have done the research on what is possibly coming out within the next few months. And you still want the IPad, I say go for it. They might come out with upgrades in the future that you can download, who knows. Technology is something that is almost impossible to stay up-to-date with, there is always something bigger and better out there.
The IPad, although cool and something different, you can't view flash, it still has the issues that the IPhone has with only being able to do one thing at a time, and it is expensive. But, its the first out there, so people will wait in line and buy it. But if you choose to wait on buying the IPad, you will be able to have a selection of different tablets, that will each have their own special 'advantages' over each other. Whether it be price, the programs it can run, how many programs it can run at once, contracts that might need to be signed, the list can be endless.
For a technology company to say that it will not compete with another technology release, is stupid. You wouldn't be in business very long as a technology company if you didn't get anything to the public that competed with other technology companies.
Otherwise, if you really want to buy the IPad now, and you know what the restrictions are on it, the price, and have done the research on what is possibly coming out within the next few months. And you still want the IPad, I say go for it. They might come out with upgrades in the future that you can download, who knows. Technology is something that is almost impossible to stay up-to-date with, there is always something bigger and better out there.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
SCO vs. Novell Trial
In 2003, SCO Group wanted to get Linux users to pay license fees to SCO , saying that they were illegally using copy written 'property' that had been improperly included into Linux. The SCO group believes that they are the owners of UNIX. Novell, says that they are still the actual owners of UNIX, and even trademarked some key Unix products.
So in January 2004, a "Slander of title" lawsuit was file against Novell. Over the next year, both SCO and Novell went back and forth with the Federal Court system and the State court, filing petitions on who had the copyright ownership. In 2005 Novell went after SCO, because they stated that SCO was accepting monies from Microsoft and Sun Microsystems, and not giving any of it to Novell. If Novell won the motion, it would cause SCO to file bankruptcy. In 2006, it came out that years before when SCo was called Caldera, they had signed contracts with SuSe (who Novell now owns), that stated that each member would have licenses to distribute Linux products. Novell, filed suits against this allegation, and Novell also got some copies of licensing agreements between SCO and Microsoft and Sun. It was then determined that SCO had breached the APA, and Novell wanted the monies that they believed they owned the royalties to. In 2007 it was ruled that Novell was in fact the owner of the UNIX and InixWare Copyrights. There are still some outcomes of some of the matters that were addressed, that are still pending, and some that are not disposed. The amount of money that Novell was due was still in the process of being worked out. In 2008 $2.5 million was awarded to Novell. In 2009 the portion of the court summary where it states that Novell owned the copyright to Unix was reversed, but the monies was not reversed. SCO is now able to pursue its ownership of the UNIX copyright at trial. On March 30th, the jury decided that they were in favor of Novell.
So in January 2004, a "Slander of title" lawsuit was file against Novell. Over the next year, both SCO and Novell went back and forth with the Federal Court system and the State court, filing petitions on who had the copyright ownership. In 2005 Novell went after SCO, because they stated that SCO was accepting monies from Microsoft and Sun Microsystems, and not giving any of it to Novell. If Novell won the motion, it would cause SCO to file bankruptcy. In 2006, it came out that years before when SCo was called Caldera, they had signed contracts with SuSe (who Novell now owns), that stated that each member would have licenses to distribute Linux products. Novell, filed suits against this allegation, and Novell also got some copies of licensing agreements between SCO and Microsoft and Sun. It was then determined that SCO had breached the APA, and Novell wanted the monies that they believed they owned the royalties to. In 2007 it was ruled that Novell was in fact the owner of the UNIX and InixWare Copyrights. There are still some outcomes of some of the matters that were addressed, that are still pending, and some that are not disposed. The amount of money that Novell was due was still in the process of being worked out. In 2008 $2.5 million was awarded to Novell. In 2009 the portion of the court summary where it states that Novell owned the copyright to Unix was reversed, but the monies was not reversed. SCO is now able to pursue its ownership of the UNIX copyright at trial. On March 30th, the jury decided that they were in favor of Novell.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)