That may be the case, and I'm not disagreeing, but as a side comment I must say that any CIO of a non-software firm that thinks the GPL is dangerous needs to be punted back to kindergarten, because they clearly aren't very intelligent. Unless your planning on modifying and distributing GPL'd code, the benefits far outweigh the problems.
And they would have more control over StarOffice than they would over OpenOffice? How do you figure? You do understand the difference between proprietary and open source, do you? Are you trying to agree with me and you incorrectly used the word "but", or are you just talking for talking's sake?
I personally think it was a good idea to include StarOffice. I just think the whole "zOMG the GPL duck and cover!!!" reason that the original poster came up with is BS, that's all. Google and Sun both promote open source and have both released code under the GPL plenty of times in the past.
OK..now that I'm done reading that, I must ask what the whole point of your little tirade was. I was merely stating my observations about why people are doing certain things. I never said whether or not I agree with them.
The United States invaded Iraq in 2003 Statement of fact
The United States was wrong to invade Iraq in 2003 Statement of Opinion
I'm hoping they do (I would switch to StarOffice in an instant, even if I have to run it through Parallels). However, there have been other things in the past that have seemed blatantly obvious to me but that Google has either taken 3 years to do or else have never bothered doing, things that seem obvious to me...
(Group chat in gchat, web clip for igoogle vis-a-vis OS X Leopard [I actually wanted this BEFORE Apple even introduced it], desktop gmail application that provides identical functionality instead of having to use it through clients with crappy interfaces, Google calendar auto-syncing between mobile devices; pcs and the service itself, desktop client for Google notebook with support for offline use [Google gears support would be less than ideal, but would probably suffice]....and, well, the list goes on and on, so I'm not hedging any bets on what Google will do).
I wouldn't mind using OpenOffice again, but because I'm on a Mac (which, admittedly, with Microsoft taking so freakin long to release an Intel office suite for OS X, has a dismal choice of office suites for my Macbook) and the Mac has a shitty port of OpenOffice with NeoOffice and an even shittier official port, it's pretty much out of the question.
Because my needs are pretty basic, I'm going to be taking a look at iwork 08.
Exactly, I used to use StarOffice as a student free-of-charge. I switched to OpenOffice when I moved to a Mac though, and now I'm thinking of getting iWork 08.
The fact that you were modded down shows how out-of-touch with reality a lot of people on Slashdot really are. Every business person I've talked to says freedom takes a back seat to utility, price, ease of use and ease of migration any day of the week. Most companies aren't choosing Linux just because it is open source, that is merely icing on the cake (except for cases like Google perhaps, as they heavily customize Linux). They are choosing Linux for its cost, stability, etc etc.
Or perhaps they're planning on some future integration between Star Office and Google Docs (Star Office using Google Docs as a backend online storage option with on-the-go editing and collaboration features over and above Star Office's default set come to mind...).
When the government is a majority government, this happens extremely rarely (I'm a Canadian by the way). It's only when the ruling party is a minority that this can happen. Our conservatives (which aren't crazy like your right-wing nut case Republican Party btw), for instance, currently rule with a minority government, which means they can be ousted by their adversaries at any given time, which helps keep them in line. In this manner, the Canadian system is much better than the American system (as evidenced by the current mess you guys are stuck with vis a vis Bush, Cheney et al)
When we have a majority government, on the other hand, things are far worse than in the States. Canada has no separation of powers whatsoever. The Prime Minister also heads the Legislative Branch (which enables him to push through any legislation he pleases because of party solidarity which is much, much stronger than what is currently in the StateS) and can assign Supreme Court Judges with relative ease. The only potential check on power, the Senate, is an unelected joke. Half the senators don't bother showing up more than once a year, and they are nothing but a bunch of rubber-stamping leaches on our economy.
In-fact, the complete replacement of the Senate with a body that actually....well, does something, should be important to all Canadians.
Canada is sometimes referred to as the "friendly dictatorship" for this reason.
So what if they did? I'm not saying that they did...in-fact, I highly doubt it. But would it really matter? Consumers are getting a paid-for office suite for free. I don't care if Eric Schmidt and Jon Shwartz got together for a crazy orgy sex fest to put this deal in place, it still benefits consumers.
The funny thing is that most Americans aren't even paying attention to the debates anymore. There's only so many pre-primary pre-election debates a person can handle, listening to the same crap, lies and falsehoods coming from the people who are supposed to represent them.
In-fact, I'd be willing to wager a bet that a large number of Americans are only paying attention to the debates through shows like the Colbert Report and the Daily Show.
A solution to the problem would be to mandate that all of the networks spend a certain amount of time allowing free and unfettered access to airtime to Presidential Candidates (who have a certain amount of pre-existing support to prevent abuse) (I'm not talking about half-hour slots, but perhaps just time when they would normally air ads), and to make it illegal to spend such outrageous amounts on campaigns.
It's pretty sad when the state of politics in a "democracy" is so fucked up that the only practical solution to putting the government back in the hands of the people is a revolution (which I'm not advocating by the way). As a Canadian, I can say the situation is slightly better, but not much so, up here, so a lot of the same applies (except that we have the British style of government, so the ridiculous campaign frenzy doesn't exist up here).
What's funny is that part of the problem is that it costs that much because of the sad state of the US communication networks and the barrier to entry to get your message on said networks.
Youtube and its competitors are beginning to change this, and this is why network neutrality is necessary. Let's hope the democratic congress has the balls to stand up to the telcos and pass a network neutrality bill (although the democrats in Congress have shown their complete and utter lack of balls multiple times lately).
Canada wouldn't be to blame anyways, we have you guys beat in the broadband area, despite having less capital, a larger landmass, lower population density, etc etc. I have relatives in the US, and the wireless broadband my grandparents get out in the middle of nowhere is the same speed, both down and up, as people in downtown Chicago are able to get, while only costing my grandparents $10 more a month!
Although, on the flip-side, you guys have us completely thrashed in the mobile space thanks to the morons in the government that effectively allowed TELUS and Bell to combine their network and essentially stop competing, and allowed Rogers to acquire the only competing GSM network (Fido), creating a duopoly in the cell space. Our data rates are completely and utterly outrageous in comparison to what you guys enjoy (case in point, AT&T's iPhone plan that costs $60 would cost over $400 on Rogers...the only reason I plan on getting one is that I can skip Rogers and use WIFI).
To add onto that, Mac OS X Leopard has been certified as a Unix operating system, despite being based on BSD and their own (open source) kernel and (closed source) interface, none of which came from Unix.
SCO has an extremely skilled team of lawyers. In-fact, I would go so far as to say that they are BETTER than Novell's and IBM's lawyers. The fact that they managed to drag a case this weak out for over 4 years is a testament to their litigation skills.
SCO lost this motion because their claims are absurd, plain and simple.
Re:Never pick a fight with IBM...
on
SCO Loses
·
· Score: 1
well thats all nice and dandy.....except for the fact this ruling had nothing to do with the ibm case.
These judges have shown themselves to be highly competent in this area. You simply don't understand the legal system. By leaving the case run this long and giving SCO every last waking opportunity to prove their case, they have all but eliminated SCO's chances of mounting a successful appeal.
Not only that, but the Judge also granted partial summary judgment on Novell's fourth counterclaim, which sought a judgment establishing that Novell has the right to waive SCO's claims against IBM and that SCO is obligated to recognize those waivers.
Re:When appeals are exhausted . . .
on
SCO Loses
·
· Score: 1
Had you bothered to actually read the judgment, Kimball declined to impose the constructive trust and instead wants those claims to proceed to trial.
Re:How about SLOWPOKES!
on
SCO Loses
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
if sco actually had a leg to stand on, they would have actually pursued their case and tried to resolve it quickly to win their damages. The entire reason the case took this long is because SCO never had a leg to stand on.
OK? So they need to provide their modified source for Dosbox then. What does this have to do with them needing to offer source for the source code making up their games?
Slashdot Mirror
That may be the case, and I'm not disagreeing, but as a side comment I must say that any CIO of a non-software firm that thinks the GPL is dangerous needs to be punted back to kindergarten, because they clearly aren't very intelligent. Unless your planning on modifying and distributing GPL'd code, the benefits far outweigh the problems.
And they would have more control over StarOffice than they would over OpenOffice? How do you figure? You do understand the difference between proprietary and open source, do you? Are you trying to agree with me and you incorrectly used the word "but", or are you just talking for talking's sake?
I personally think it was a good idea to include StarOffice. I just think the whole "zOMG the GPL duck and cover!!!" reason that the original poster came up with is BS, that's all. Google and Sun both promote open source and have both released code under the GPL plenty of times in the past.
OK..now that I'm done reading that, I must ask what the whole point of your little tirade was. I was merely stating my observations about why people are doing certain things. I never said whether or not I agree with them.
The United States invaded Iraq in 2003 Statement of fact
The United States was wrong to invade Iraq in 2003 Statement of Opinion
See the difference?
I'm hoping they do (I would switch to StarOffice in an instant, even if I have to run it through Parallels). However, there have been other things in the past that have seemed blatantly obvious to me but that Google has either taken 3 years to do or else have never bothered doing, things that seem obvious to me...
(Group chat in gchat, web clip for igoogle vis-a-vis OS X Leopard [I actually wanted this BEFORE Apple even introduced it], desktop gmail application that provides identical functionality instead of having to use it through clients with crappy interfaces, Google calendar auto-syncing between mobile devices; pcs and the service itself, desktop client for Google notebook with support for offline use [Google gears support would be less than ideal, but would probably suffice]....and, well, the list goes on and on, so I'm not hedging any bets on what Google will do).
Probably not, hence the complete and utter lack of balls comment.
I doubt it. Unlike Staroffice, Norton actually has significant sales.
Google distributes their own code under the GPL and other licenses all the time. Why would them distributing someone else's code be any different?
Can i have some of what you are smoking please?
I wouldn't mind using OpenOffice again, but because I'm on a Mac (which, admittedly, with Microsoft taking so freakin long to release an Intel office suite for OS X, has a dismal choice of office suites for my Macbook) and the Mac has a shitty port of OpenOffice with NeoOffice and an even shittier official port, it's pretty much out of the question.
Because my needs are pretty basic, I'm going to be taking a look at iwork 08.
Exactly, I used to use StarOffice as a student free-of-charge. I switched to OpenOffice when I moved to a Mac though, and now I'm thinking of getting iWork 08.
The fact that you were modded down shows how out-of-touch with reality a lot of people on Slashdot really are. Every business person I've talked to says freedom takes a back seat to utility, price, ease of use and ease of migration any day of the week. Most companies aren't choosing Linux just because it is open source, that is merely icing on the cake (except for cases like Google perhaps, as they heavily customize Linux). They are choosing Linux for its cost, stability, etc etc.
Or perhaps they're planning on some future integration between Star Office and Google Docs (Star Office using Google Docs as a backend online storage option with on-the-go editing and collaboration features over and above Star Office's default set come to mind...).
When the government is a majority government, this happens extremely rarely (I'm a Canadian by the way). It's only when the ruling party is a minority that this can happen. Our conservatives (which aren't crazy like your right-wing nut case Republican Party btw), for instance, currently rule with a minority government, which means they can be ousted by their adversaries at any given time, which helps keep them in line. In this manner, the Canadian system is much better than the American system (as evidenced by the current mess you guys are stuck with vis a vis Bush, Cheney et al)
When we have a majority government, on the other hand, things are far worse than in the States. Canada has no separation of powers whatsoever. The Prime Minister also heads the Legislative Branch (which enables him to push through any legislation he pleases because of party solidarity which is much, much stronger than what is currently in the StateS) and can assign Supreme Court Judges with relative ease. The only potential check on power, the Senate, is an unelected joke. Half the senators don't bother showing up more than once a year, and they are nothing but a bunch of rubber-stamping leaches on our economy.
In-fact, the complete replacement of the Senate with a body that actually....well, does something, should be important to all Canadians.
Canada is sometimes referred to as the "friendly dictatorship" for this reason.
So what if they did? I'm not saying that they did...in-fact, I highly doubt it. But would it really matter? Consumers are getting a paid-for office suite for free. I don't care if Eric Schmidt and Jon Shwartz got together for a crazy orgy sex fest to put this deal in place, it still benefits consumers.
The funny thing is that most Americans aren't even paying attention to the debates anymore. There's only so many pre-primary pre-election debates a person can handle, listening to the same crap, lies and falsehoods coming from the people who are supposed to represent them.
In-fact, I'd be willing to wager a bet that a large number of Americans are only paying attention to the debates through shows like the Colbert Report and the Daily Show.
A solution to the problem would be to mandate that all of the networks spend a certain amount of time allowing free and unfettered access to airtime to Presidential Candidates (who have a certain amount of pre-existing support to prevent abuse) (I'm not talking about half-hour slots, but perhaps just time when they would normally air ads), and to make it illegal to spend such outrageous amounts on campaigns.
It's pretty sad when the state of politics in a "democracy" is so fucked up that the only practical solution to putting the government back in the hands of the people is a revolution (which I'm not advocating by the way). As a Canadian, I can say the situation is slightly better, but not much so, up here, so a lot of the same applies (except that we have the British style of government, so the ridiculous campaign frenzy doesn't exist up here).
What's funny is that part of the problem is that it costs that much because of the sad state of the US communication networks and the barrier to entry to get your message on said networks.
Youtube and its competitors are beginning to change this, and this is why network neutrality is necessary. Let's hope the democratic congress has the balls to stand up to the telcos and pass a network neutrality bill (although the democrats in Congress have shown their complete and utter lack of balls multiple times lately).
Canada wouldn't be to blame anyways, we have you guys beat in the broadband area, despite having less capital, a larger landmass, lower population density, etc etc. I have relatives in the US, and the wireless broadband my grandparents get out in the middle of nowhere is the same speed, both down and up, as people in downtown Chicago are able to get, while only costing my grandparents $10 more a month!
Although, on the flip-side, you guys have us completely thrashed in the mobile space thanks to the morons in the government that effectively allowed TELUS and Bell to combine their network and essentially stop competing, and allowed Rogers to acquire the only competing GSM network (Fido), creating a duopoly in the cell space. Our data rates are completely and utterly outrageous in comparison to what you guys enjoy (case in point, AT&T's iPhone plan that costs $60 would cost over $400 on Rogers...the only reason I plan on getting one is that I can skip Rogers and use WIFI).
To add onto that, Mac OS X Leopard has been certified as a Unix operating system, despite being based on BSD and their own (open source) kernel and (closed source) interface, none of which came from Unix.
i x.certified/
http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/08/02/leopard.un
SCO has an extremely skilled team of lawyers. In-fact, I would go so far as to say that they are BETTER than Novell's and IBM's lawyers. The fact that they managed to drag a case this weak out for over 4 years is a testament to their litigation skills.
SCO lost this motion because their claims are absurd, plain and simple.
well thats all nice and dandy.....except for the fact this ruling had nothing to do with the ibm case.
Being able to coerce defendants into arbitrating disputes when said defendants have never agreed to arbitration is a bad idea imho.
These judges have shown themselves to be highly competent in this area. You simply don't understand the legal system. By leaving the case run this long and giving SCO every last waking opportunity to prove their case, they have all but eliminated SCO's chances of mounting a successful appeal.
Not only that, but the Judge also granted partial summary judgment on Novell's fourth counterclaim, which sought a judgment establishing that Novell has the right to waive SCO's claims against IBM and that SCO is obligated to recognize those waivers.
Had you bothered to actually read the judgment, Kimball declined to impose the constructive trust and instead wants those claims to proceed to trial.
if sco actually had a leg to stand on, they would have actually pursued their case and tried to resolve it quickly to win their damages. The entire reason the case took this long is because SCO never had a leg to stand on.
OK? So they need to provide their modified source for Dosbox then. What does this have to do with them needing to offer source for the source code making up their games?