Slashdot Mirror

Yes, even though there is the "Safe Harbour" program for US-based companies to comply with the EU directive, it is unclear what laws are given priority.

On a side note, this might be why Canada decided to fully comply with the directive, presumably to encourage transatlantic businesses to locate data centers there. With strong privacy protection, a cold climate and plenty of renewable electricity, it is a wonder to me why there isn't a much stronger push for data centers...

Just because IBM and the ODF alliance (IBM's propaganda channel on ODF) say the rapport is inaccurate it does not have to be. The Burton group has responded to these allegations in several instances: http://ccsblog.burtongroup.com/collaboration_and_content/2008/02/burton-groups-r.html http://ccsblog.burtongroup.com/collaboration_and_content/2008/02/burton-groups-1.html http://ccsblog.burtongroup.com/collaboration_and_content/2008/02/burton-groups-2.html

Just because IBM and the ODF alliance (IBM's propaganda channel on ODF) say the rapport is inaccurate it does not have to be. The Burton group has responded to these allegations in several instances: http://ccsblog.burtongroup.com/collaboration_and_content/2008/02/burton-groups-r.html http://ccsblog.burtongroup.com/collaboration_and_content/2008/02/burton-groups-1.html http://ccsblog.burtongroup.com/collaboration_and_content/2008/02/burton-groups-2.html

Just because IBM and the ODF alliance (IBM's propaganda channel on ODF) say the rapport is inaccurate it does not have to be. The Burton group has responded to these allegations in several instances: http://ccsblog.burtongroup.com/collaboration_and_content/2008/02/burton-groups-r.html http://ccsblog.burtongroup.com/collaboration_and_content/2008/02/burton-groups-1.html http://ccsblog.burtongroup.com/collaboration_and_content/2008/02/burton-groups-2.html

Wow, a well reasoned comment that for the side I'm not on! :-)

You know, I'm repeatedly dismayed by the fact that some people on /. just can't seem to get their heads around the idea that I don't require everybody else to agree with me. In fact, it's when everybody on /. seems to be saying the same thing that I start to suspect that what they're saying might not be totally correct. ;-)

My first impulse is to figure out if they were paid to do it. My next impulse is to figure out if they have a strongly self-interested reason to do it. The latter appears to be the case. No matter how respected they might be, their bread and butter is threatened if Microsoft Office significantly diminishes in importance.

I'm not sure that's true. I'm not familiar with the names of these particular analysts, but at least in the past, the Burton Group was primarily concerned with stuff like identity management and privacy, Web services/SOA, network and telecom, network security, etc...areas where Microsoft is a player, sure, but not necessarily a prominent one. If anything, I'd say they're more likely to be in the pocket of Novell or Sun than of Microsoft...but they make a point of saying they're "vendor neutral," right on their homepage.

It's not a paid-for link. Burton Group does not do vendor-sponsored research. http://www.burtongroup.com/AboutUs/BurtonFaq.aspx#vendorpolicy Q: What is Burton Group's vendor-independence policy? A: We take pride in our vendor independence. More than 80 percent of our customers are enterprise organizations, and our uncompromising commitment to be an unbiased advocate for the enterprise customer guides all of our work. Since our founding in 1990, we have not published vendor-sponsored research of any kind. We cover relevant vendors and products without regard for vendors' subscription to our services. We maintain complete independence from vendor agendas, providing unbiased assessments of markets, vendors, and products. In keeping with our mission, we provide technically in-depth, independent research and advice for the enterprise technologist.

These won't be cheap, but you said business, not personal, so give these a try.

The Burton Group http://www.burtongroup.com/

Forrester Research http://www.forester.com/

Java is an open specification.

Wrong. Java is not a specification. Java is a Sun trademark, nothing more.

The only restriction is you can't claim to be API x compliant until you are. That's a real hardship, being required to actually support the feature set you claim to.

You use "real hardship" in a sarcastic sense, suggesting that it's not an imposition at all. If that's the case, then Sun could just forget about enforcing it, because we have laws against fraud already.

But they won't... because Java isn't really an open specification. It's a Sun trademark. It's their property.

If Sun decides tommorrow that Java(tm) can only run on Solaris, that's their choice to make. They can obliterate and re-write the specifications whenever they feel like it.

AT&T invented C++, but they never had an equivalent power to dictate terms to Microsft, Borland, or other vendors of C++ tools.